Introduction

Since March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has posed a challenge to the work-family interface, impacting both the professional and personal lives of workers. This is partially because there is a growing conflict between the work and family domains (de Araújo et al. 2022; Donato et al. 2023). Work-family conflict is defined as incompatibility between family and work roles (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). As both domains contend for an individual’s finite resources, such as time and expertise, or contextual resources, such as autonomy and social support, to manage everyday tasks at work and home, this incompatibility results in role strain or stress (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). During the pandemic, people’s jobs changed (e.g., working from home without proper equipment, Donato et al. 2023) and family life was drastically transformed (family members had to stay at home due to lockdown measures, which increased workers’ demands on their time (e.g., childcare and home-schooling, multiple household chores, Schnettler et al. 2023; Trógolo et al. 2022), negatively affecting family relationships and family life (Tan et al. 2022). Consequently, the literature indicates that although work-related stress increased (de Araújo et al. 2022; Reimann et al. 2022), stress related to family increased even more (Reimann et al. 2022), which harmed workers’ family satisfaction (the individual’s subjective, conscious assessment of their family life, Zabriskie & McCormick, 2003) as well as that of their family members (Orellana et al. 2023).

The conservation of resources theory (COR, Hobfoll, 1989) conceptualizes support as a resource that can meet demands and reduce conflict in the work-family interface (French et al. 2018; Kelley et al. 2021). Support can come from two main sources: workplace support (assistance provided by the working environment) and social support (assistance from sources outside the work environment, Kelley et al. 2021). Perceived workplace support is the employees’ perceptions and beliefs about their organization’s values regarding their members’ contributions and well-being (Pattnaik et al. 2020). This type of support can originate from various sources, such as the organization, supervisors, and co-workers (Yucel & Minnotte, 2017). Social support denotes the provision of psychological or material resources within the context of social relationships, serving to alleviate various forms of strain (French et al. 2018) and can also derive from different sources: general social support, partner or spousal support, and family support (Kelley et al. 2021). Both types of support can be emotional or instrumental (Zheng & Wu, 2018). In the present study, we focused on workplace support for families, a type of resource that seeks to decrease employees’ work-family conflict and thus has a positive impact on parenting roles (Matias et al. 2017), and on perceived socio-emotional family support (family support henceforth). Workplace support for families is connected to policies that make it easier for employees to balance their work and family responsibilities (Matias et al. 2017; Lo Presti et al. 2020). Family support is related to the family members’ interest in the worker’s job, that is, behaviors or attitudes displayed by family members with the purpose of providing encouragement, understanding, attention, and positive regard (King et al. 1995). Both family support and measures included in workplace support for families improve the employees’ well-being (Orellana et al. 2021a; Yucel & Fan, 2023).

There are two possible approaches to work-family conflict: the work-to-family direction (WtoFC), which looks at how work-related factors affect the family domain, and the family-to-work (FtoWC) direction, which concentrates on how family traits affect the workplace (Matias & Recharte, 2021). This approach is congruent with the domain specificity model proposed by Frone et al. (1992), which postulates that demands/resources originating in one domain affect the other domain. According to this approach, antecedents of WtoFC reside in the work domain, and their outcomes are in the family domain. In contrast, predictors of FtoWC reside in the family domain, and their consequences are found in the work domain (Shockley & Singla, 2011). By contrast, the source attribution perspective poses that the outcomes of demands/resources are primarily found in the domain where the demand/resource originates (Amstad et al. 2011; Kinnunen et al. 2006; Shockley & Singla, 2011). According to Shockley and Singla (2011), individuals experiencing WFC can lower their performance in the domain that receives the conflict, but they blame this performance on the source of the conflict, which decreases their satisfaction in this latter domain. Although empirical evidence supports both theoretical approaches, meta-analytic studies have determined that the evidence provides more support to the source attribution perspective (Amstad et al. 2011; Shockley & Singla, 2011). Furthermore, another meta-analytic study (French et al. 2018; Michel et al. 2011) challenged the predictors posed by the domain specificity model, showing that work-related and family-related variables may be predictors of FtoWC, such as family support and workplace support.

Nevertheless, although workers could access both types of resources during the pandemic, i.e., workplace support and family support, there is still little understanding about the influence of both kinds of support to prevent FtoWC and their effect on workers’ family satisfaction. Furthermore, most of the available evidence about these relationships has been analyzed at an individual level, neglecting that individuals’ strain (Orellana et al. 2023; Westman, 2001) and resources (Chen et al. 2015; ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012) not only affect the individual’s well-being (actor effect), they can also crossover (partner effect) from workers to their family members.

Earlier studies during the first year of the pandemic in Chile reported that FtoWC was negatively associated with family satisfaction in dual-earner couples (Orellana et al. 2023), while perceived workplace support for families provides resources to both parents to achieve a better diet quality for them and their adolescent children (Schnettler et al. 2022). In this study, we sought to provide new insights exploring the role of workplace support for families and family support in reducing parents’ FtoWC and their impact on parents’ and one adolescent child’s family satisfaction in the second year of the pandemic.

Therefore, drawing on the COR theory, the source attribution perspective, and the empirical evidence provided by French et al. (2018) and Michel et al. (2011), this study aimed to assess the actor and partner effects between perceived workplace support for families and family support, family-to-work conflict and family satisfaction in dual-earner parents with adolescents. Our analytic strategy is based on the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) framework (Kenny et al. 2006), which evaluates how actor and partner effects may be altered by the characteristics of the dyad and their relationships (Garcia et al. 2015). Families with teenagers were selected because, although they may require less attention from parents than younger children (Matias & Recharte, 2021), adolescents provide emotional support to their working parents (Orellana et al. 2021a). Given that theoretically, WtoFC and FtoWC mediate between work and family domains (Frone et al. 1992; Shockley & Singla, 2011), we also tested the mediating role of FtoWC between perceived workplace support for families and family satisfaction and between family support and family satisfaction at an interindividual (actor effect) and interindividual (partner effect) levels.

This study was conducted in Chile, a Latin American country with a high cost of living and where dual-earner families are common (Domínguez-Amorós & Aravena, 2021). During the COVID-19 pandemic, 59.4% of Chilean households reported a decrease in their total income; of this percentage, 44.6% estimated that their income had fallen by half or more of their pre-crisis level. Prior to the pandemic, 16.5% of households stated that their income was “not enough” to cover their expenses, and this percentage rose significantly during the pandemic to 48.8% of households. Regarding employment, 38.4% of households experienced a decrease in the number of employed individuals during the pandemic, which resulted in 27.4% of households having non-employed members, compared to 13.9% before the crisis. In addition to the loss of income and employment, 53.7% of households reduced their assets by selling these assets, using savings, and renting or selling property. Additionally, 40% of households went into debt, either through loans or credits from financial institutions, family, friends, neighbors, credit card withdrawals or lines of credit. The pandemic’s effects on the quality of life of households were significant. During the pandemic, 65.6% of households postponed health treatments, 19.4% faced food insecurity, and 21.4% of people experienced moderate or severe anxiety and/or depression (Ministerio de Desarrollo Social y Familia de Chile, 2020–2021).

Background and Hypotheses

The COR theory posits that individuals seek to acquire, preserve, and protect their resources, protecting them from stressors and accumulating more resources associated with well-being outcomes (see Hobfoll et al. 2018). Considering that organizations create policies and procedures that recognize and support their employees’ family and personal circumstances (Matias et al. 2017), workplace support for families provides resources (e.g., time flexibility, energy, moods, skills, behaviors) that help them manage work and family commitments more successfully (Bernhardt & Bünning, 2022; Kim et al. 2023). Access to childcare, job flexibility, supportive leave policies, and flexible schedules are a few of the initiatives that stem from workplace assistance for families (Lo Presti et al. 2020; Yucel & Fan, 2023) that can generate beneficial outcomes for the employees’ families (Pattnaik et al. 2020).

However, the evidence is mixed. Before the pandemic, Guedes et al. (2023) reported that family-friendly practices did not influence family satisfaction in a sample of Portuguese employees. Similarly, during the pandemic in Pakistan, Bashir et al. (2022) found that workplace support does not influence employee functioning in the family domain. By contrast, Drummond et al. (2017) found that support in the workplace is positively correlated with family satisfaction among female employees and those from China and Hong Kong. However, this correlation is not observed among employees from Australia and New Zealand. Recently, with samples of Chilean and Spanish workers, Ererdi et al. (2024) reported that workplace support is beneficial for the employees’ family outcomes because workplace support helps employees juggle home demands effectively (e.g., balancing the responsibilities of caregiving and household duties), in particular among working parents (Ererdi et al. 2024; Yucel & Minnotte, 2017). Other authors have found positive outcomes beyond the family domain. During the pandemic in Chile, Schnettler et al. (2022) found that fathers’ perception of workplace support for family-related matters demonstrated a positive correlation with the quality of their dietary intake in dual-earner families, which has been positively associated with family satisfaction (Schnettler et al. 2018a). Therefore, we posited the following hypothesis (Fig. 1):

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual model of the proposed actor and partner effects between Perceived Workplace Support for Families (PWSF), Perceived Family Support (PFS), Family-to-Work Conflict (FtoWC), and Family Satisfaction (SWFaL) in dual-earner parents with adolescent children. Em, Ec and Ef: residual errors on SWFaL for mothers, adolescent children, and fathers, respectively. The indirect effects of FtoWC (H11 and 12) were not shown in the conceptual path diagram to avoid cluttering the figure

Full size image

H1:

Perceived workplace support for families is positively related to each parent’s family satisfaction (actor effects).

Workplace resource gains may appear at the individual and dyad levels (Chen et al. 2015). According to some studies, an employee can transfer workplace resources to their partner in order to boost the partner’s resources, (i.e., energy, positive emotions, and greater commitment to their parental role), improve parental experiences, and strengthen marital and family bonds (Brady et al. 2021; Matias et al. 2017). Some research indicates that support in the workplace can extend to partners as well. Bernhardt and Bünning (2022) reported that fathers’ perception of an unsupportive work-family culture in their workplace crossed over to the mothers, negatively affecting their satisfaction with work-family balance. Schnettler et al. (2022) found that higher workplace support for families perceived by fathers was relayed healthier eating habits in their female partners (i.e., the mothers) and their adolescents during the first year of the pandemic in Chile. Therefore, our second hypothesis was (Fig. 1):

H2:

One parent’s perceived workplace support for families is positively related to (a) the other parent’s and (b) the adolescent’s family satisfaction (partner effects).

The COR theory argues that social support is a crucial contextual resource for meeting needs and preserving and safeguarding one’s resources (Hobfoll, 2009). According to Leung et al. (2020), family support by family members creates a gain spiral that feeds the employees a feeling of role accomplishment, improves their well-being (Orellana et al. 2021a), and reduces their strains. Family support allows the individual to gain and allocate resources in the family sphere and, thus, positively impacts the individual’s family satisfaction (Landolfi et al. 2021). In this regard, there is evidence that family support is positively related to family satisfaction in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (Drummond et al. 2017; Leung et al. 2020; Pattusamy & Jacob, 2017) and also to the employee functioning in the family domain (Bashir et al. 2022). Therefore, the following hypothesis was posited (Fig. 1):

H3:

Perceived family support is positively related to each parent’s family satisfaction (actor effects).

Concerning the transfer of resources between individuals in a dyad (Chen et al. 2015), the evidence involving family support and satisfaction is scant. However, Orellana et al. (2021a) found an asymmetric positive partner effect from fathers’ family support to the mothers’ work-life balance (i.e., how well employees believe they can handle various responsibilities in their lives, including but not limited to work and family roles, Haar, 2013). However, as Schnettler et al. (2020) reported that work-life balance positively crossed over from one partner to the other’s family satisfaction (symmetric partner effects) in Chilean dual-earner couples, we argue that family support may also cross over to family satisfaction between parents. Furthermore, Orellana et al. (2021b) distinguished family profiles according to both parents’ and one adolescent child’s family satisfaction and found that profiles in which family support was high in the three family members reported higher levels of family satisfaction. Based on these findings we argue that family support may be associated with family satisfaction at intraindividual and interindividual levels (crossover or partner effects). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis (Fig. 1):

H4:

One parent’s family support is positively related to (a) the other parent’s and (b) the adolescent’s family satisfaction (partner effects).

Social support has also been shown to safeguard a person’s well-being under stress or in unfavorable situations (French et al. 2018; Hobfoll, 2009). According to Hobfoll (1989), resource scarcity or threats cause stress. People who receive support from their family and organization can better acquire or retain these resources (Bajaba et al. 2022) and feel more secure and self-sufficient, which helps them manage the demands of work and home (Hobfoll, 1989).

Evidence indicates that an organization’s workplace flexibility culture reduces employees’ FtoWC (Bajaba et al. 2022; Rhee et al. 2019; Yucel & Fan, 2023). In China, Wattoo et al. (2018) found that organizational support is negatively associated with a work-family conflict measure that assesses WtoFC and FtoWC, showing that workers who receive high organizational support may transfer resources to benefit the family. Furthermore, Vaziri et al. (2020) examined transitions in employees’ work-family interface from the period preceding the advent of COVID-19 to the period following its onset in the United States. They found that transitions occurred for a significant portion, whereas people were more likely to go to positive transition if employees received emotional support from supervisors who engaged in family-supportive behaviors. However, there is also evidence showing a null association. In Malaysia, Ibrahim et al. (2020) found that perceived organizational support was not related to the employees’ work-family conflict. Thus, the following hypothesis was posited (Fig. 1):

H5:

Perceived workplace support for families is negatively related to each parent’s family-to-work conflict (actor effects).

Literature on the interindividual transmission of resources provided by organizational support is also scant and mixed in dual-earner couples. Garraio et al. (2022) found that organizational support helped to achieve a greater work-family conciliation in women and men (actor effects) in a Portuguese sample of dual-earner families with adolescent children; however, crossover effects between members of the couple were not found. By contrast, Booth-LeDoux et al. (2020) found that when employees perceive their organization as being supportive of family responsibilities, they experience less burnout, which allows them to provide more emotional support to their partners, reducing their FtoWC. We thus posed the following hypothesis (Fig. 1):

H6:

One parent’s perceived workplace support for families is negatively related to the other parent’s family-to-work conflict (partner effects).

Regarding family support, recent studies have reported a negative association between family support and FtoWC in the United States (Wayne et al. 2020), Saudi Arabia (Bajaba et al. 2022; Uddin et al. 2023), samples from 30 countries from different continents (Beham et al. 2023) and meta-analytic studies (Kelley et al. 2021; French et al. 2018). Thus, the following hypothesis was posited (Fig. 1):

H7:

Family support is negatively related to each parent’s family-to-work conflict (actor effects).

Li et al. (2024) conducted a longitudinal study in the United States during the period of transition around COVID-19. The study found that increased work-family conflicts can predict the perception of more unfairness in the division of household chores, particularly for different-gender dual-earner couples. The study also revealed that the perception of more unfairness in housework division can predict increased work-family conflicts. Furthermore, these authors found that husbands’ traditional gender attitudes heightened the link between increased work-family conflicts and the perception of unfairness, not wives’ attitudes. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, only one study has reported an asymmetrical partner effect regarding the intraindividual transmission of resources. With a sample of dual-earner couples in the United States, Minnotte and Minnotte (2018) reported that women’s family support was negatively associated with men’s FtoWC, but not vice versa. Therefore, we posed the following hypothesis (Fig. 1):

H8:

One parent’s perceived family support is negatively related to the other parent’s family-to-work conflict (partner effects).

According to Hobfoll (1989), COR theory is a stress model in which stress drains personal resources (such as vitality and a positive mindset), which may then cause various family members to become less satisfied with their lives as a family (Orellana et al. 2023). Research conducted before and during the pandemic supports the intraindividual negative relationship between FtoWC and family satisfaction (Amstad et al. 2011; Morr & Droser, 2020; Neto et al. 2021; Orellana et al. 2023; Reimann et al. 2022; Riquelme-Segura et al. 2023; Tan et al. 2022). We thus posed the following hypothesis (Fig. 1):

H9:

Family-to-work conflict is negatively associated with each parent’s family satisfaction (actor effects).

However, the employee’s stress from FtoWC can also cross over to their family members (Orellana et al. 2023; Westman, 2001). During the pandemic in Chile, Orellana et al. (2023) reported that fathers’ FtoWC negatively crossed over to the mothers’ family satisfaction, but not vice versa. Regarding parent-child dyads, studies show that adolescent and adult children perceive their parents’ strain derived from the work-family interface, negatively impacting children’s domain satisfaction (Matias & Recharte, 2021; Morr & Droser, 2020; Orellana et al. 2021c; Schnettler et al. 2021a). Furthermore, Leach et al. (2021) found that WtoFC and FtoWC helped shape the home environment that influences children’s well-being. Therefore, we posed the following hypothesis (Fig. 1):

H10:

One parent’s family-to-work conflict is negatively associated with (a) the other parent’s and (b) the adolescent’s family satisfaction (partner effects).

Lastly, following Frone et al. (1992) and Shockley and Singla (2011), we propose that FtoWC has a mediating role between workplace support for families and family satisfaction as well as between family support and family satisfaction. In this regard, at an intraindividual level, Drummond et al. (2017) reported that FtoWC mediates between family support and family satisfaction in employees of both genders and between workplace support and family satisfaction, although only in female employees. Regarding interindividual mediating variables, Schnettler et al. (2022) found that fathers’ work-to-family enrichment mediates between their workplace support for family and their adolescent children’s healthy dietary intake. We argue that comparable outcomes can be anticipated for workplace support for families, FtoWC, and family satisfaction and thus posited the two last hypotheses:

H11:

Family-to-work-conflict has a mediating role between mothers and fathers’ perceived workplace support for families and the three family members’ family satisfaction (actor and partner effects).

H12:

Family-to-work-conflict has a mediating role between mothers and fathers’ perceived family support and the three family members’ family satisfaction(actor and partner effects).

Although some authors suggest that a change in priorities has been evident, with more women giving high priority to their jobs and careers and more men involved in raising children in dual-income families (Tan et al. 2022), we also investigate whether the aforementioned interactions reveal distinct patterns in fathers and mothers for four reasons. First, traditional gender norms still hold sway in Latin America, with women primarily fulfilling family responsibilities and men serving as the home’s main earners; mothers are therefore expected to manage stressors that arise in the family sphere (Schnettler et al. 2021a, b). Second, during the pandemic, women in Chile, as in many other nations, were more in charge of childcare, education, and household chores than men (Orellana et al. 2023; Schnettler et al. 2022). By contrast, Shockley et al. (2021) show that when parents devised novel and egalitarian strategies, such as alternating workdays, their performance and well-being remained intact. Third, research has found that women are more likely than men to benefit from social support at home and work (Drummond et al. 2017). Fourth, there have been reports of gender disparities in how resources were transferred between members of dual-earner couples, as well as from mothers and fathers to their children (Minnotte & Minnotte 2018; Orellana et al. 2021a, 2023; Schnettler et al. 2022).

Method

Sample and Procedure

The sample was drawn using a non-probabilistic method and comprised 430 dual-earner families. Each family unit consisted of a mother, father (either married or cohabiting), and one adolescent child aged 10 to 16 (Table 1) living in the Metropolitan Region, Chile. The families were contacted through the educational institutions attended by the adolescents, encompassing a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Trained interviewers provided the parents with information about the study’s aims, questionnaire structure, and the confidential and anonymous nature of their responses. Mother-father-adolescent triads that agreed to participate in this study provided the e-mail address of one of the family members, most frequently the mother. The surveys for each family member were sent to this email address, and the interviewers reached out to the families by phone to provide information about the study and to oversee the completion of the questionnaires. Data collection was conducted between March and July 2021. The health measures implemented in Chile during the pandemic included quarantines, border closures, social distancing, and the use of masks. Chile’s 5-phase strategy, which comprised quarantine, transition, preparation, initial opening, and advanced opening, was gradually implemented based on the health situation of each commune. This strategy involved establishing restrictions on people’s activities, mobility, and interaction (Gobierno de Chile, 2020). The national vaccination plan against COVID-19 began in Chile in January 2021; thus, cities progressively left mandatory confinement. In June 2021, 80% of the population over 18 years of age had received the first dose of the vaccine. Nevertheless, the Metropolitan Region was in mandatory lockdown between March and June 2021. However, even if a commune was in lockdown, organizations could grant work permits to their workers, which led many to return to in-person work (MINSAL, 2022).

Table 1 Sample characteristics (n = 430)
Full size table

The online questionnaire for mothers and fathers displayed the consent form on its first page, while the questionnaire for adolescents displayed an informed assent form. All members of the family were asked to indicate their consent by checking a box to participate in this research. The surveys were stored on the QuestionPro platform (QuestionPro Inc) in distinct databases for each family member. Upon submission of the three completed questionnaires, the family received a 15 USD bank transfer as retribution for their participation.

A pilot test was carried out in another Chilean city involving fifty families, using the same recruitment method and data collection procedure. No changes were required to these procedures or the questionnaire. This study is part of a broader investigation on the associations between work, family, and food-related life within Chilean households. The [information removed for anonymous review] Ethics Committee approved this study (protocol number removed for review).

Measures

Mothers and fathers responded to these measures:

Perceived workplace support for families (PWSF) was measured by a three-item scale (Matias et al. 2017) addressing the degree of support that employees receive in the workplace to facilitate their fulfillment of parental duties (i.e., “Overall, at my workplace, there is a lot of understanding of my family demands”, “At my workplace there is flexibility in my daily working routine [e.g. in my work schedule, interruptions in work time, shifts, etc.]”, “At my workplace there are processes that are considerate of working parents’ needs [e.g. priority in scheduling holidays, allowing for attendance at medical appointments and school meetings, etc.]”). Participants answered using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1: never or rarely; 4: always). This study used the Spanish version validated with Chilean workers (Schnettler et al. 2022). Omega coefficients were of 0.89 for mothers and 0.90 for fathers, which showed good internal reliability. The standardized factor loadings were significant (p < .001) and higher than 0.8 (mothers’ range: 0.823 to 0.898, fathers’ range: 0.870 to 0.897). The average extracted variance (AVE) values are adequate. i.e., higher than 0.50 (mothers = 0.76, fathers = 0.78).

The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS, Zimet et al. 1988) was used to measure family support. The MSPSS measures participants’ subjective assessment of social support from family, friends, and significant other. This study used only the four-item Perceived Family Support subscale (i.e., “My family really tries to help me”, “I get the emotional help and support I need from my family”, “I can talk about my problems with my family”, “My family is willing to help me make decisions”). Respondents rated each item using a 5-point Likert scale (1: completely disagree; 5: completely agree). The validated Spanish version of the perceived family support (PFS) subscale was used (Mella et al. 2004). Omega coefficients were 0.93 for mothers and 0.96 for fathers. The standardized factor loadings were significant (p < .001) and higher than 0.8 (mothers’ range: 0.837 to 0.914, fathers’ range: 0.899 to 0.957). The AVE values were good (mothers = 0.79, fathers = 0.86).

The family-to-work conflict was assessed with four items adapted by Kinnunen et al. (2006), which inquired about the adverse impact of family responsibilities on work (i.e., “Your home life interferes with your responsibilities at work, such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks or working overtime?”, “The demands of your family or spouse/partner interfere with your work-related activities?”, “Your home life prevents you from spending the desired amount of time on job- or career-related activities?”, “Family related strain interferes with your ability to perform job-related duties?). Participants answered using a five-point scale (1: never; 5: very often). This study used the Spanish version validated with Chilean workers (Orellana et al. 2023). The Omega coefficients indicated good internal reliability of .93 for mothers and .94 for fathers. The standardized factor loadings were significant (p < .001) and higher than .8 (mothers’ range: .859 to .929, fathers’ range: .861 to .950). The AVE values were good (AVE mothers = .79, fathers = .80).

To control for the dependent variables in the APIM model (Fig. 1), mothers and fathers also answered a 4-item work-to-family conflict measure, adapted by Kinnunen et al. (2006). These items inquire about the adverse impact of work on family life (i.e., “Does your job or your career interfere with your responsibilities at home, such as cooking, shopping, child care, yard work and house repairs?”, “Do the demands of your job interfere with your private life?”, “Does your job or your career keep you from spending the time that you’d wish with your family?”, “Does your job produce strain that makes it difficult to fulfil your family duties?”). Participants answered using a five-point scale (1: never; 5: very often). This study used the Spanish version validated with Chilean workers (Orellana et al. 2021a). The Omega coefficients were 0.91 for mothers and 0.92 for fathers. The average score for mothers was 10.7 (SD = 4.4), and for fathers was 10.6 (SD = 4.4).

Mothers, fathers, and adolescents responded to the following scale:

Satisfaction with Family Life Scale (SWFaL, Zabriskie & Ward, 2013). This five-item scale was modified from the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al. 1985), by replacing the word “life” to “family life” in the five items (i.e., “In most ways my family life is close to my ideal”, “The conditions of my family life are excellent”, “I am satisfied with my family life”, “So far I have gotten the important things I want in family life”, “If I could live my family life over, I would change almost nothing”). This investigation employed the validated Spanish version of this measure, which has demonstrated robust internal consistency in cohorts of both Chilean adults and adolescents. (Orellana et al. 2021b, c, 2023; Schnettler et al. 2020, 2023). Participants answered using a six-point Likert scale (1: completely disagree; 6: completely agree). All the standardized factor loadings of this scale were statistically significant (p < .001) and higher than 0.7 (mothers’ range: 0.791 to 0.924, fathers range: 0.849 to 0.959, adolescents’ range: 0.758 to 932). The AVE values were higher than 0.50 (mothers’ AVE = 0.76, fathers’ AVE = 0.80, adolescents’ AVE = 0.75). A good level of reliability was obtained (mothers’ omega = 0.93; fathers’ omega = 0.92; adolescents’ omega = 0.93).

The questionnaires for the three family members included a question about their age; adolescents also were required to disclose their gender. Parents were inquired about their employment type, number of hours they work per week, and the place of work (remote or face-to-face). Mothers were asked about the number of family members and the number of children. The family socioeconomic status (SES) was determined based on the total household income and size. In Chile, SES is defined based on two factors: total household income and household size. Total household income is the primary determinant of socioeconomic status as it strongly influences a household’s access to goods and services. Conversely, the relationship between access to goods and services and household income is not as significant. Household size also impacts SES, as it affects the household’s purchasing power. An increase in household size without a corresponding increase in income results in higher basic expenses, but the rate of increase is less than proportionate due to economies of scale. SES is determined using a matrix that considers the range of household monthly income and the number of family members (AIM, 2023).

Data Analysis

The descriptive analyses were carried out using SPSS v.23. The APIM was examined utilizing Mplus 8.4 and applying structural equation modeling (SEM) as outlined by Kenny et al. (2006). In this study, actor effects pertain to the associations between variables for one family member, while partner effects refer to the associations between variables from one family member to another. Both fathers and mothers were regarded as actors and partners in the analysis, while adolescents were exclusively included as partners. The tested actor and partner effects encompassed both parents’ perceived workplace support for families (PWSF), perceived family support (PFS), family-to-work conflict (FtoWC), as well as the family members’ family satisfaction (SWFaL). These variables were included as latent variables in the model.

The APIM facilitates the management of interdependence among family members. To control the association of PWSF and Perceived Family Support PFS between the two parents, correlations were specified between each parent’s PWSF and PFS. Consistent with the approach outlined by Kenny et al. (2006), other forms of interdependence between partners were accounted for by establishing correlations between the residual errors of the dependent variable (SWFaL) for the three family members. Other variables that were controlled for were the three family members’ age, both parents’ type of employment, the number of working hours and the place of work (1: face-to-face, 2: remote), the family SES (1: low-medium SES, 2: medium-high SES) and the number of children. These variables directly affected the dependent variables of mothers and fathers (FtoWC) and the three family members (SWFaL). Considering studies reporting that FtoWC and work-to-family conflict are related and somewhat overlapped (Amstad et al. 2011; Goncalves et al. 2018), work-to-family conflict was also controlled for. This variable also directly affected the three family members’ SWFaL, while correlations were established with parents’ FtoWC. Full control was used.

The structural model parameters for the SEM were estimated using the weighted least square mean and variance adjusted (WLSMV). Given that the items were measured on an ordinal scale, the polychoric correlation matrix was employed for the SEM analysis. Model fit assessment was conducted using the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and the comparative fit index (CFI), with values above 0.95 indicating a good fit and values above 0.90 indicating an acceptable fit. Additionally, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was utilized, with values below 0.06 signifying a good fit and values below 0.08 indicating an acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

In order to assess the mediating role of FtoWC, a structural equation model (SEM) was employed, utilizing a bias-corrected (BC) bootstrap confidence interval with 1,000 samples, in line with the methodology outlined by Lau and Cheung (2012). A mediating role is signified by intervals that do not encompass zero.

Results

Sample Description

Table 1 displays the sample’s sociodemographic characteristics, comprising 430 families of mothers, fathers, and adolescents. The majority of households exhibited a middle SES and typically comprised an average of four family members, including two children. Most fathers and mothers were employed; over 70% of fathers and slightly over 50% of mothers worked full time. Most fathers and almost 50% of mothers worked face-to-face.

Table 2 shows the average scores and correlations for parents’ PWSF, PFS, FtoWC, and the three family members’ SWFaL. The majority of the correlations were statistically significant and aligned with the anticipated direction, except for those between mothers’ PWFS and fathers’ PWSF, PFS, and SWFaL. Also, between fathers’ PWFS and adolescents’ SWFaL, and lastly, between mothers’ FtoWC and fathers’ SWFaL. Mothers scored significantly higher than fathers in PWSF (t = 3.233, p = .020) and FtoWC (t = 5.004, p < .001), while fathers scored significantly higher than mothers in PFS (t = 5.004, p < .001). Mothers scored substantially lower than adolescents in SWFaL (F = 3.791, p = .003), whereas fathers did not differ from mothers and adolescents.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations for Perceived Workplace Support for Families (PWSF), Perceived Family Support (PFS), Family-to-Work Conflict (WtoFC), and Satisfaction with Family Life (SWFaL) in different-sex dual-earner parents with adolescent children (n = 430)
Full size table

APIM Results: Testing Actor-Partner Hypotheses

The findings from the estimation of the structural model are depicted in Fig. 2. The model examining the APIM association between the mother’s and father’s perceived workplace support for families (PWFS), perceived family support (PFS), and family-to-work conflict (FtoWC), and the three family members’ family satisfaction (SWFaL) had a good fit with the data (CFI = 0.989; TLI = 0.987; RMSEA = 0.033). Significant correlations (covariance) were found between the PWSF (r = .256, p < .001) and PFS (r = .436, p < .001) of mothers and fathers. Significant correlations were also found between the residual errors of mothers’ and fathers’ FtoWC (r = .436, p < .001), between mothers’ and fathers’ SWFaL (r = .176, p < .001), between mothers’ and adolescents’ SWFaL (r = .225, p < .001), and between fathers’ and adolescents’ SWFaL (r = .160, p = .001).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Actor-partner interdependence model of the effect of Perceived Workplace Support for Families (PWSF), Perceived Family Support (PFS), Family-to-Work Conflict (FtoWC), and Family Satisfaction (SWFaL) in dual-earner parents with adolescent children. Em, Ec, and Ef: residual errors on SWFaL for mothers, adolescents, and fathers, respectively. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. The control for the effects of the three family members’ age, both parents’ number of working hours, type of employment and work-to-family conflict, as well as the family SES, the number of children on the dependent variables of parents (FtoWC) and of the three family members’ family satisfaction (SWFaL) were not shown in the path diagram. The covariance between parents’ FtoWC was also not shown in the path diagram

Full size image

The control variables that affected the model significantly were the family SES, adolescents’ age, number of children, mothers’ place of work, and mothers’ and fathers’ work-to-family conflict. The family SES positively affected mothers’ (γ = 0.165, p < .001) and the fathers’ (γ = 0.127, p = .004) SWFaL. Adolescents’ age negatively affected their SWFaL (γ = − 0.126, p = .012). The number of children positively affected mothers’ FtoWC (γ = 0.133, p = .007). The place of work (remote) positively affected mothers’ FtoWC (γ = − 0.184, p < .001). Mothers’ work-to-family conflict negatively affected the fathers’ SWFaL (γ = − 0.148, p = .012). Furthermore, mothers’ work-to-family was positively related to their own (γ = 0.526, p < .001) and fathers’ (γ = 0.166, p < .001) FtoWC. Likewise, fathers’ work-to-family was positively related to their own (γ = 0.415, p < .001) and mothers’ (γ = 0.207, p < .001) FtoWC.

H1 sought actor effects. As shown in Fig. 2, the path coefficients (standardized) show that fathers’ PWSF was not significantly associated with their SWFaL (γ = 0.009 p = .875). Similarly, mothers’ PWSF was not significantly associated with their SWFaL (γ = 0.038, p = .448). These findings did not support H1. H2 sought partner effects. Neither fathers’ PWSF was significantly associated with the mothers’ SWFaL (γ = 0.028, p = .647) nor mothers’ PWSF was significantly associated with the fathers’ SWFaL (γ = 0.076, p = .139). Father’s (γ = − 0.011, p = .857) and mothers’ (γ = 0.056, p = .327) PWSF were not significantly associated with the adolescent’s SWFaL. Therefore, H2 was not supported.

H3 sought actor effects. Fathers’ (γ = 0.452 p < .001) and mothers’ (γ = 0.442, p < .001) PFS was positively associated with their own SWFaL; thus H3 was supported. H4 sought partner effects. Fathers’ PFS was positively associated with the mothers’ SWFaL (γ = 0.132, p = .012), and mothers’ PFS was positively associated with the fathers’ SWFaL (γ = 0.162, p = .001). Whereas fathers’ PFS was not significantly associated with the adolescent’s SWFaL (γ = 0.114, p = .069), mothers’ PFS was positively associated with the adolescent’s SWFaL (γ = 0.182, p = .002). These findings supported H4a, while they supported H4b only for mothers.

H5 tested actor effects. Fathers’ (γ = − 0.107, p = .046) and mothers’ (γ = − 0.136, p = .011) PWSF was negatively associated with their FtoWC. These findings supported H5. H6 tested partner effects. Results showed that neither the fathers’ PWSF was significantly associated with the mother’s FtoWC (γ = 0.022, p = .713) nor the mothers’ PWSF with the father’s FtoWC (γ = − 0.065, p = .262). These findings did not support H6.

H7 also tested actor effects. Fathers’ (γ = − 0.247, p < .001) and mothers’ (γ = − 0.296, p < .001) PFS was negatively associated with their own FtoWC, supporting H7. H8 assessed partner effects. Neither fathers’ PFS was significantly associated with mothers’ FtoWC (γ = − 0.061, p = .296), nor mothers’ PFS was significantly associated with fathers’ FtoWC (γ = − 0.069, p = .276). These findings did not support H8.

H9 tested actor effects. Fathers’ FtoWC was negatively associated with their own SWFaL (γ = − 0.154, p = .012), while mothers’ FtoWC was not significantly associated with their SWFaL (γ = − 0.067, p = .307). These findings supported H9 only for fathers. H10 tested partner effects. Fathers’ FtoWC was not statistically related to the mothers’ SWFaL (γ = − 0.079, p = .182). Likewise, the mothers’ FtoWC was not statistically associated with the fathers’ SWFaL (γ = 0.012, p = .864). Whereas fathers’ FtoWC was negatively associated with the adolescent’s SWFaL (γ = − 0.146, p = .029), the mother’s FtoWC was not significantly associated with the adolescent’s SWFaL (γ = − 0.061, p = .396). These findings did not support H10a, while they supported H10b only for fathers.

Testing the Mediating Role of the Family-to-Work-Conflict

Lastly, this study examined the mediating role of both parents’ FtoWC between both parents’ PWSF (H11) and PFS (H12) and the three family members’ SWFaL. The mediating role of the FtoWC was only examined for the significant relationships that were identified earlier. The role of the father’s FtoWC as a mediator in the relationship between their own PFS and SWFaL was supported by a significant indirect effect (standardized indirect effect = 0.038, 95% CI = 0.005, 0.071, p = .023). The role of fathers’ FtoWC as mediator in the relationship between their PFS and the adolescents’ SWFaL was also supported (standardized indirect effect = 0.036, 95% CI = 0.006, 0.072, p = .049). These findings did not support H11, while they partially supported H12.

Discussion

It is well known that FtoWC negatively affected family life satisfaction worldwide during the pandemic (Donato et al. 2023; Orellana et al. 2023; Reimann et al. 2022; Tan et al. 2022; Trógolo et al. 2022). However, less is known about the role that workplace support for families and family support had in preventing FtoWC and their influence on family life satisfaction in different-sex dual-earner parents with adolescents during the health crisis. Using APIM with data collected during the second year of the pandemic, we found that fathers’ and mothers’ workplace support for families reduced their own FtoWC (actor effects). However, both parents’ workplace support for families was not associated with their own and the adolescents’ family satisfaction. By contrast, there were actor and partner effects from both parents’ family support and the three family members’ family satisfaction. Furthermore, both parents’ family support reduced their own FtoWC. Only fathers’ FtoWC negatively influenced their own and the adolescents’ family satisfaction. Lastly, only fathers’ family support positively affected adolescents’ family satisfaction indirectly via their own FtoWC, while the same result was found for fathers at an intraindividual level. These findings are discussed below according to the source of the resource, whereas lastly, we discussed the mediating role of parents’ FtoWC.

Workplace Support for Families, Family Satisfaction, and Family-to-Work Conflict

According to the COR theory (Hobfoll et al. 2018), workplace support for families gives resources that help employees handle family demands more effectually (Bernhardt & Bünning, 2022; Drummond et al. 2017; Ererdi et al. 2024; Kim et al. 2023; Pattnaik et al. 2020; Schnettler et al. 2022). Therefore, we expected that perceived workplace support for families would be positively related to family satisfaction for each parent (H1). However, this hypothesis did not find support among mothers and fathers (actor effects). Our findings align with Bashir et al.’s results during the pandemic in Pakistan. Bashir et al. (2022) explained the null association between workplace support and employee functioning in the family domain based on a lack of organizational support during the health crisis, particularly in developing countries, due to organizations were forced to reduce or cut the investment in most areas, even in staff development and well-being. Although in Chile efforts have been made to implement family-friendly policies, such as the norm NCh3262-2012 that promotes the management of gender equality and conciliation of work, family, and personal life, the implementation of these measures is voluntary and depends on the decision of the companies (Fundación Chile Unido, 2018). Furthermore, the pandemic restrictions in Chile had a significant impact on social, economic, and labor aspects (Ministerio de Hacienda del Gobierno de Chile, 2023). Therefore, it is not surprising that during the pandemic, particularly during the second year, workplace support for families was scarce or non-existent, which would explain why it has had no direct impact on parents’ family satisfaction.

Our second hypothesis was also not supported, i.e., one parent’s perceived workplace support for families was not related to the other parent’s and the adolescent’s family satisfaction. Although these results contradict previous studies reporting crossover of resources and strains originated in the workplace support to the spouses and children (Bernhardt & Bünning, 2022; Brady et al. 2021; Matias et al. 2017; Schnettler et al. 2022), a possible explanation may be that if the impact of actor effects does not yield statistical significance, it is reasonable to infer that partner effects, as previously documented in literature, may not be present (e.g., Garcia et al. 2015; Schnettler et al. 2021a).

Also, based on the COR theory, which posits that social support is a resource that protects an individual’s well-being in the face of stress or under adverse circumstances (French et al. 2018; Hobfoll, 2009), we expected that perceived workplace support for families would be related to each parent’s FtoWC (actor effects). Hypothesis 5 was supported for mothers and fathers. That is, parents acquired resources from the workplace, helping them to cope with the demands of the family domain and reducing their FtoWC, which aligns with earlier studies (Bajaba et al. 2022; Garraio et al. 2022; Rhee et al. 2019; Yucel & Fan, 2023; Wattoo et al. 2018). In this regard, studies (Bajaba et al. 2022; French et al. 2018; Michel et al. 2011) have stressed that workplace support contributes to reducing work-related stress and stress from the family domain. Interestingly, mothers reported significantly higher perceived workplace support for families and FtoWC scores than fathers. It could be argued that the lower score of FtoWC in fathers is a result of the higher proportion of them working face-to-face in our sample, implying that they may require less support from the workplace to reduce their FtoWC.

Contrary to what was expected (Booth-LeDoux et al. 2020), one parent’s perceived workplace support for families of one parent was not significantly related to the other parent’s FtoWC (H6, partner effects). Regarding mothers, although they reported a higher perception of workplace support for families than fathers, they also experienced higher FtoWC during the pandemic, as has been reported in various nations (e.g., Kuśnierz et al. 2022). Therefore, it is possible to hypothesize that all resources available in the workplace were used by mothers to reduce their own FtoWC without having the potential for reallocating part of these resources to fathers. Similar results were obtained by Schnettler et al. (2022) in the first year of the pandemic in Chile, i.e., mothers acquired resources from their workplace that increased their diet quality, but no crossover effects to the fathers were found. However, these authors also found that resources acquired from work by fathers crossed over to the mothers’ improving their diet quality. Thus, the lack of crossover from fathers’ workplace support for families to the mothers’ FtoWC in this study may be related to the high proportion of fathers working outside the home in the second year of the pandemic compared to the first year, when a high proportion of workers were allowed to work from home throughout the year (Gobierno de Chile, 2020).

Family Support, Family Satisfaction, and Family-to-Work Conflict

Drawing on the COR theory, Leung et al. (2020) suggested that family emotional support creates a gain spiral that enhances the employee’s well-being. We hypothesized that family support would be positively related to family satisfaction for each parent (H3, actor effects). This hypothesis was supported for mothers and fathers, which aligns with previous evidence (Bashir et al. 2022; Drummond et al. 2017; Leung et al. 2020; Pattusamy & Jacob, 2017). Family support provides resources invested in the family domain, improving both mothers’ and fathers’ family satisfaction (Landolfi et al. 2021).

Drawing on the reciprocal transmission of resources among individuals within a dyadic relationship (Chen et al. 2015), we also proposed that the one parent’s family support would be positively related to the other parent’s (H4a) and the adolescents’ (H4b) family satisfaction (partner effects). Hypothesis 4a was supported for mothers and fathers, showing symmetrical partner effects. This finding expands on the knowledge regarding the direct exchange of resources between dual-earner parents (Chen et al. 2015; Orellana et al. 2021a; Schnettler et al. 2020). If one parent feels emotionally supported by their family members, s/he acquired resources that are invested in the family domain and transmitted to the other parent, improving their family satisfaction. This finding underscores the relevance of family support for family satisfaction in working parents during the pandemic.

By contrast, hypothesis 4b was supported only for mothers; i.e., only mothers’ family support crossed over to the adolescents, improving their family satisfaction. Previous studies have shown that adolescents’ perceived family support (from their mothers and fathers) positively influences their family satisfaction (e.g., Schnettler et al. 2018b). However, our finding shows that family support as a resource can be transferred from working mothers to increase their adolescent children’s own resources, such as positive emotions and good mood, improving family satisfaction. Although fathers scored higher in family support than mothers, the lack of a crossover effect from fathers’ family support to the adolescents’ family satisfaction may be due to the higher proportion of fathers that worked outside the home in our sample, which implies less time for sharing activities with their children. By contrast, an important proportion of mothers opted to continue working from home because children under 18 years had not been vaccinated, and most continued home-schooling (MINSAL, 2022). Thus, the likelihood of sharing activities with their children was higher.

Based on the COR theory, we expected that family support would be negatively associated with FtoWC for each parent (H7, actor effects). Our findings supported this hypothesis for mothers and fathers, which align with previous results in various countries (Bajaba et al. 2022; Beham et al. 2023; French et al. 2018; Kelley et al. 2021; Uddin et al. 2023; Wayne et al. 2020). These results mean that family support may directly reduce strains from the family domain due to the supply of psychological resources (French et al. 2018), such as listening to work and family problems and providing emotional support. These results support the source attribution perspective (Amstad et al. 2011; Kinnunen et al. 2006; Shockley & Singla, 2011) for both parents.

We also expected that one parent’s family support would be negatively related to the other parent’s FtoWC (H8, partner effects). This hypothesis was not supported; namely, neither mothers’ family support crossed over to fathers’ reduced FtoWC, nor fathers’ family support crossed over to mothers’ reduced FtoWC. This finding contradicts results obtained by Minnotte and Minnotte (2018) in a pre-pandemic study with a sample of dual-earner couples in the United States, which suggested that the asymmetric crossover from mothers’ family support to fathers’ FtoWC may be due to mothers’ efforts to maintain positive family relationships. However, our results suggest that during the pandemic emotional family support from one parent, as a resource, was not enough to reduce the FtoWC of the other parent. This finding may be due to mothers’ higher FtoWC, which might require instrumental rather than emotional support. Furthermore, where one partner faces work-family conflicts and decides to reduce their contribution towards household chores (i.e., most fathers working outside the home in this study), their partner is frequently expected to assume a larger portion of the housework to make up for the reduction (i.e., most mothers working remotely in this study). However, this expectation can lead to the other partner feeling that the division of household chores is becoming increasingly unfair (Shockley et al. 2021). During the pandemic, Li et al. (2024) revealed strong evidence suggesting that work-family conflict can lead to a perception of unfairness in the division of household chores, and vice versa. This process can escalate over time, especially when husbands have traditional gender attitudes. This finding is particularly concerning because such conflicts and perceptions of unfairness can trigger future struggles between partners (Li et al. 2024), particularly in Latin American nations, where conventional gender roles continue to hold significant influence. In such societies, women are often expected to prioritize family roles, while men are the primary breadwinners for the household (Schnettler et al. 2021b, 2023).

Family-to-Work Conflict and Family Satisfaction

Drawing on the COR theory and the source attribution perspective (Amstad et al. 2011; Kinnunen et al. 2006; Shockley & Singla, 2011), we expected that FtoWC would be negatively associated with each parent’s family satisfaction (H9, actor effects). However, this hypothesis was supported only for fathers. While results for fathers support findings obtained both in pre-pandemic (Amstad et al. 2011; Morr & Droser, 2020) and in studies carried out during the pandemic (Neto et al. 2021; Reimann et al. 2022; Riquelme-Segura et al. 2023; Tan et al. 2022), results for mothers contradict the same studies, in particular those finding reported by Orellana et al. (2023) during the first year of the pandemic. These authors found that FtoWC was negatively related to family satisfaction in mothers and fathers from dual-earner families. Following the source attribution perspective (Amstad et al. 2011; Kinnunen et al. 2006; Shockley & Singla, 2011), for fathers, this finding implies that the domain where the conflict first arises is where FtoWC has its greatest impact, i.e., conflict coming from family affect their work performance, and thus they have a negative emotional response to their family, which negatively affect their family satisfaction. This process was not significant for mothers, although they reported higher FtoWC than fathers. One potential reason could be linked to the enduring traditional gender roles in Chile, which were intensified during the pandemic (de Araújo et al. 2022). Thus, during the second year of the pandemic, it is feasible that mothers had acquired resources that allowed them to cope better with the conflict coming from the family domain (e.g., better organization of domestic and care work) because they had been going through the different stages of Chile’s 5-phase strategy for about a year. By contrast, as a more significant number of fathers worked in person in the second year of the pandemic, enjoying the freedom of moving with no substantial restrictions, when they arrived home and probably were required to carry out some domestic and care tasks, may cause a resource loss derived from FtoWC which translated into a decrease in family satisfaction (Hobfoll, 1989). Hence, our results further contribute to the existing body of knowledge, indicating disparities between genders in how mothers and fathers acquire/lose resources when they face family-related stress and the source attribution perspective in dual-earner parents, at least during the second year of the pandemic.

We also expected that one parent’ FtoWC would be negatively related to the other parent’s (H10a) and the adolescents’ (H10b) family satisfaction (partner effects). However, Hypothesis 10a was not supported for mothers and fathers, which in part contradicts findings reported by Orellana et al. (2023) during the first year of the pandemic in Chile. These authors reported that fathers’ FtoWC crossed over to the mothers’, negatively affecting their family satisfaction, but not vice versa. Therefore, it is feasible that fathers’ FtoWC did not cross over to the mothers’ family satisfaction because, in most households, both parents did not spend much time together during a day in the second year of the pandemic, given that most fathers worked outside the home. Hypothesis 10b was supported only for fathers. The significant finding for fathers is in line with evidence showing that children perceived their parents’ strain as negatively affecting their well-being (Leach et al. 2021; Matias & Recharte, 2021; Morr & Droser, 2020; Orellana et al. 2021c; Schnettler et al. 2021a). However, our findings also expand on the knowledge because most of the studies mentioned earlier only assessed the influence of work-to-family conflict on children’s well-being. However, an unexpected result that implies gender differences was the null association between mothers’ FtoWC and adolescents’ family satisfaction, considering that mothers experienced higher FtoWC than fathers and the majority of fathers had limited time to spend with their children compared to mothers. One potential rationale could be associated with the levels of integration between the work and family domains as per boundary theory (Ashforth et al. 2000). During the pandemic, Schnettler (2004) found that mothers appear to adopt a more segmented interaction between the family and work domain compared to fathers. Based on this observation, it’s possible to hypothesize that mothers may also tend to adopt a more segmented interaction between their family-related stress and their children. Consequently, the negative effects of mothers’ FtoWC may be less likely to affect their adolescent children’s family satisfaction.

The Mediating Role of Family-to-Work Conflict

As theoretically, FtoWC acts as a mediator between work and family domains (Frone et al. 1992; Shockley & Singla, 2011), the last two hypotheses examined the potential mediating role of FtoWC. Although, according to the domain specificity model, predictors of FtoWC are in the family domain, and their consequences are found in the work domain (Frone et al. 1992), in this study, we follow evidence provided by meta-analytic studies (French et al. 2018; Michel et al. 2011) that demonstrated that both work-related variables and family-related variables may be predictors of FtoWC. However, contrary to expectations (H11, Drummond et al. 2017; Schnettler et al. 2022), both parents’ FtoWC did not mediate between their perceived workplace support for families and the three family members’ family satisfaction. Although perceived workplace support for families was able to reduce FtoWC in mothers and fathers, our results are consistent with the lack of significant actor effects from both parents’ perceived workplace support for families to family satisfaction; they are also consistent with partner effects from both parents’ perceived workplace support for families to FtoWC and family satisfaction. These results contradict those reported by Drummond et al. (2017), who found workplace support is related to family satisfaction via FtoWC in female employees. Thus, our results may be associated with low perceived workplace support for families during the pandemic in Chile. Furthermore, we proposed an interindividual indirect effect between perceived workplace support for families and family satisfaction based on Schnettler et al.’s results, who reported that fathers’ work-to-family enrichment mediates between the fathers’ perceived workplace support for family and their adolescent children’s diet quality (Schnettler et al. 2022). As Shockley and Singla explain, for the domain specificity model, Frone et al. (1992) “argue that when one role interferes with another role, the individual will have difficulty meeting demands in the receiving role. Because of this struggle in meeting receiving role demands, the individual is likely to become overwhelmed and experience greater distress” (Shockley & Singla, 2011: 864). Therefore, according to Frone et al. (1992) the negative emotional response occurs in the receiving role, decreasing satisfaction in this domain, which may explain the results obtained by Schnettler et al. (2022) because they did not evaluate an effective response, only a performance response. Regardless of the above, our findings do not support the domain specificity model (Frone et al. 1992); i.e., resources that originated in the work domain did not affect the family domain via FtoWC.

We also expected that FtoWC would mediate between mothers’ and fathers’ family support and the three family members’ family satisfaction (H12, actor, and partner effects). This hypothesis was partially supported by two significant mediating roles, one of them intraindividual and the other interindividual. The first one shows that fathers’ family support indirectly and positively affected their family satisfaction via a reduction of their FtoWC. This result partially aligns with a pre-pandemic study that reported FtoWC mediates between family support and family satisfaction in employees of both genders (Drummond et al. 2017), which may be related to the fact that fathers scored higher in family support than mothers in our sample. Taken together results involving fathers and mothers, it should be highlighted that fathers experienced two positive direct effects on their family satisfaction (from their own and the mothers’ family support through crossover) and a positive indirect effect. By contrast, mothers experienced only two direct positive effects on their family satisfaction (from their own and the fathers’ family support through crossover). Regardless of the above, fathers and mothers did not differ in their family satisfaction scores; therefore, other variables not considered in this study may explain the lack of differences.

Adolescents were the receptors of the indirect interindividual effect of fathers’ family support. Fathers’ family support indirectly and positively affected the adolescents’ family satisfaction via fathers’ FtoWC. This result shows that only the fathers’ family support allows them to reduce their FtoWC, thereby positively affecting the adolescents’ family satisfaction. These results expand on the knowledge showing that the source attribution perspective (Amstad et al. 2011; Kinnunen et al. 2006; Shockley & Singla, 2011) may also occur from fathers to their children, i.e., fathers’ perceived family support may positively affect their parental performance, for instance, improving parent-child relationships. Thus, adolescents have a positive emotional response to their fathers, positively impacting their family satisfaction. All results involving the adolescents show that they received one positive direct effect on their family satisfaction from their mothers’ family support and one positive indirect effect from their fathers’ family support.

Therefore, these results contradict studies (e.g., Amstad et al. 2011; French et al. 2018; Drummond et al. 2017; Michel et al. 2011; Rhee et al. 2019; Shockley & Singla, 2011; Yucel & Fan, 2023) that have reported that both the domain specific effects and the resource attribution effects occur, but the latter have stronger effects. Indeed, in our study, no significant domain specific effects were found, i.e., FtoWC did not mediate between workplace support for families and family satisfaction. In contrast, intraindividual and interindividual resource attribution effects were found, i.e., FtoWC mediates between family support and family satisfaction.

Future research needs to address the limitations of this study. The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model’s so-called impacts are effects, not causality, which this study’s cross-sectional design makes it impossible to verify. Therefore, longitudinal, experimental, or quasi-experimental studies are required. The sample was not probabilistic, and the results lack generalizability to the population of dual-earner parents with adolescent children in Chile because only families with adolescents aged 10–16 were included in our sample. Therefore, future studies should have a probabilistic sample and assess how the resources included in this study influence older adolescents’ well-being. Furthermore, the present study included only one city in one developing country in Latin America, where the traditional family structure still prevails. French et al. (2018) highlighted that social support is more valued as a contextual resource for the work-family interface in developing countries. Therefore, cross-cultural studies are required, including countries or cultures with different degrees of gender equity and economic development. Furthermore, the data were collected in communes in Chile’s capital. Therefore, our results may differ from those obtained in communes in other regions. Furthermore, most of the data was collected during the lockdown, which may have affected the results compared to communes not in lockdown. Although the questionnaire asked for the place where mothers and fathers worked, we did not include either questions regarding working conditions or COVID-19-specific items for support from the workplace (e.g., providing high-speed internet and training to use remote working equipment). In addition, the questionnaire did not include questions about traditional gender attitudes. Given that Li et al. (2024) reported that husbands’ traditional gender attitudes moderated the link between work-family conflict and the perception of unfairness in different-sex dual-earner partners, future studies should include this variable.

Regardless of the limitations and even though the COVID-19 pandemic has ended, our findings hold significance for prospective public health crises and dual-earner parents with adolescents in the post-COVID era. Our findings provide new insights into the work-family interface literature, showing that the influence of workplace and family support on reducing FtoWC and enhancing family satisfaction were quite different during the pandemic. Although several studies concluded that workplace and family support are negatively related to FtoWC (e.g., Bajada et al. 2022; Drummond et al. 2017; French et al. 2018), our results showed that the influence of perceived workplace support for families was almost null. i.e., it only reduced FtoWC in both parents. By contrast, both parents’ family support reduced their FtoWC and directly improved their family satisfaction. One symmetrical crossover effect was found between parents; mothers’ family support improved fathers’ family satisfaction and vice versa, showing that each parent can transmit resources to the other. In parallel, only mothers’ family support crossed over to the adolescents, directly improving their family satisfaction. In this regard, our results also expand on the knowledge showing crossover effects from parents to their adolescent children, i.e., fathers’ FtoWC crossed over to the adolescents, decreasing their family satisfaction. Lastly, although theoretically, FtoWC acts as an intermediary between work and family domains (Frone et al. 1992; Shockley & Singla, 2011), our results only showed two significant mediating roles of FtoWC, one of them intraindividual (between fathers’ family support and family satisfaction) and the other interindividual (between fathers’ family support and the adolescents’ family satisfaction). Therefore, although our results suggest that family support is mainly transmitted directly intra and interindividual, they also support the source attribution perspective (Amstad et al. 2011; Kinnunen et al. 2006; Shockley & Singla, 2011).

This study highlights the significance of both mothers and fathers as support providers to their children through different mechanisms. The study presented here provides valuable insights into the gender differences between mothers and fathers from dual-earner couples in terms of how resources acquired in the family domain affect their adolescent children. The study’s research findings revealed that mothers’ family support had a direct positive impact on adolescents’ family satisfaction, while fathers’ family support indirectly improved adolescents’ family satisfaction by reducing FtoWC. These findings highlight the importance of understanding the various support mechanisms that can influence family dynamics and contribute to the overall well-being of adolescents. Overall, the study highlights the significance of parental support in enhancing adolescents’ family satisfaction.

These results have theoretical, research, and practical implications. Theoretically, our results underscore the relevance of family support during the second year of the pandemic, showing that family support did not only reduce the FtoWC and improve family satisfaction in those who received family support, but also in those who provide such support (i.e., the partner and adolescent children), suggesting a virtuous circle among family members.

Research implications underscore the need to assess whether different mechanisms through which mothers and fathers provide support to their adolescent children prevail post-pandemic. In this regard, it is relevant to study the dynamics assessed in the present study in families where both parents work outside the home in the post-pandemic era. Other sources of support, both emotional and instrumental, such as partner support in the family domain and social support from supervisors and co-workers in the work domain, should be assessed by comparing the strength of the relationships between each type of support, FtoWC, and family satisfaction. Furthermore, evaluating the influence of both kinds of support on job satisfaction may also provide new insights into the work-family interface. As per recent projections, it seems that location flexibility is going to be a significant part of workers’ lives. This may lead to situations in which couples may find themselves working remotely together (Shockley et al. 2021). Therefore, it is essential that future research in the work-family interface considers the employees’ place of work, to better understand and cater to the needs of such individuals beyond the pandemic. Furthermore, parents’ work-to-family conflict, mothers’ place of work, adolescents’ age, number of children and family SES affected the results as control variables; thus future studies should evaluate their potential moderating role to gain a deeper understanding of their impact on the study’s results. In this sense, the emphasis should be placed on evaluating the moderating role of work-to-family conflict when assessing FtoWC, given that in the present study work-to-family conflict shows a high-strength association with the mothers’ FtoWC and a medium-strength association with the fathers’ FtoWC at the intraindividual level, which is also correlated with the FtoWC of the other parent.

From a practical standpoint, it is important for parents to prioritize family support in their households, regardless of whether they work from home or outside the home. This is crucial for maintaining a healthy and positive family environment. However, it is important to consider the potential gender differences in how parental support impacts the well-being of their children. Considering these differences can lead to more effective and equitable family support strategies. It is also imperative that policymakers prioritize the promotion of family support. The value of family support should be instilled in children from a young age, both for boys and girls, and schools have a critical role to play in this. By fostering a culture of support and respect for families, researchers and decision-makers can help build stronger communities and healthier societies. Lastly, the almost null influence of perceived workplace support for families found in this study makes policymakers need to develop laws that force organizations to provide this type of support to their workers, regardless of gender. To create a family-friendly workplace, it is crucial to not only address work-family conflict but also to develop and implement strategies that enhance the family satisfaction of all family members. These strategies can contribute to a more positive work environment and lead to increased productivity and employee retention.