Based on the job demands-resources model and role conflict theories, we developed and tested hypotheses to elucidate the consequences that work-to-life and life-to-work conflicts have on job satisfaction and how affective, normative, and continuance professional commitment moderate these relationships. Using data collected from German academics, our results confirmed theoretical assumptions that work-to-life conflict and continuance commitment act as stressors that reduce job satisfaction, while affective commitment serves as a resource, as it lowers job satisfaction directly and buffers the negative impact of a work-to-life conflict on job satisfaction. Neither life-to-work conflict nor normative commitment had a direct impact on job satisfaction, but their interaction had a positive effect on job satisfaction. A groupwise analysis of academics with temporary positions and academics with permanent positions revealed that affective commitment was a moderator only in association with work-to-life conflict among temporarily employed academics and that normative and continuance commitment were moderators in association with the life-to-work conflict among permanently employed academics. We discuss the implications of these results for theory and policy.