Social Support at Work: An Integrative Review

Phillip Jolly
Assistant Professor
School of Hospitality Management
The Pennsylvania State University

Dejun Tony Kong

Associate Professor
Muma College of Business
University of South Florida

Kyoung Yong Kim

Assistant Professor
Department of Management
College of Business
City University of Hong Kong

Published in Journal of Organizational Behavior. This is not the final version of record. Please
refer to the final, published work:

Jolly, P. M., Kong, D. T., & Kim, K. Y. (2021). Social support at work: An integrative review.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(2), 229-251.

https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2485

1
 Social Support at Work: An Integrative Review

Abstract

Social support can have a range of positive outcomes for both employees and organizations.

Social support can lead to higher quality relationships, positive affective reactions, increased

individual performance, and can buffer the negative effects of stressful demands. The power of

social support has led to exponential growth in its investigation as a construct of interest in the

workplace. However, this growth has come with several issues, which are the focus of this

review. First, the literature is fragmented, with multiple conceptual frameworks employed to

predict how social support may function in the workplace. Second, many studies are vague when

defining social support, leading to diminished conceptual clarity. Third, there is no generally

accepted measure of social support, and we describe problems with the structure and/or use of

several commonly used measures. Finally, findings regarding the moderating effect of social

support are decidedly mixed, calling into question why this might be so. Based on an extensive

review of social support at work research, we highlight these issues, discuss how they can

impede the advancement of understanding regarding social support in organizational settings,

and propose an integrative framework to guide the field forward. Finally, we identify multiple

areas for future investigation.

Keywords: social support, social exchange, resources, demands, need satisfaction, supervisor,

coworker

2
 Introduction

Humans are social beings who need resources from others for their psychological and

social functioning (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002), and social support in the workplace, which broadly

refers to interpersonal1 support from other individuals at work, is an important source of these

resources. While definitions of social support vary widely (see below for further detail), in

general, social support refers to psychological or material resources that are provided to a focal

individual by partners in some form of social relationship. These resources may have direct

positive effects on important outcomes, such as the development of, or improvement in the

quality of, social exchange relationships and job attitudes (Holland, Cooper, & Sheehan, 2017;

Kim, Eisenberger, & Baik, 2016), or they may serve a buffering role between environmental

stressors and an individual’s appraisal of stress and/or experience of strain (Viswesvaran,

Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999).

Indeed, the varying nature and wide-ranging impacts of social support have made it one

of the most popular constructs in organizational and psychological research (French, Dumani,

Allen, & Shockley, 2018). However, while many researchers recognize the importance of social

support in the workplace (e.g., Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Dawson, O’Brien, & Beehr, 2016;

French et al., 2018; Halbesleben, 2006; Viswesvaran et al., 1999) and continue contributing to a

large and still rapidly growing literature, we have observed four primary limitations which

motivated us to conduct a review of social support research in organizational settings: 1) the use

of multiple theories in isolation which has led to fragmented conceptual development, 2) a lack

of clarity and agreement in defining social support, 3) widespread within-study mismatch

between the conceptualization and operationalization of social support, and 4) inconsistent

1
We use the generic term “social support” throughout this paper to refer to general interpersonal social support. We
exclude support from non-person sources such as the organization (e.g., perceived organizational support;
Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986).

3
results with respect to the moderating effects of social support. Each of these issues in isolation

would be problematic, but their co-existence in many studies we reviewed has the potential to

create significant issues for the field of social support moving forward.

We seek to highlight the above-mentioned limitations and move social support research

forward with this review article. After describing the methodology of our review, we then

describe each of the four primary issues we mentioned earlier in more depth. First, we review the

differences in the ways that four primary conceptual frameworks in social support research view

the construct. Second, we compare and contrast the many extant conceptualizations/definitions

of social support, and propose recommendations for defining social support specific to the

context of any study. Third, we consider and critique the most popular measures used to

operationalize social support in organizational settings. Fourth, we present an overview of

empirical findings, with a focus on how issues of theory selection, definition, and measurement

may be to blame for some of the conflicting findings regarding social support as a moderator.

Following our review of existing limitations in the social support literature, and in an

attempt to provide some clarity regarding the problems at hand, we propose an integrative

“conceptual map,” based on four prominent theoretical frameworks. This conceptual map

considers the nuances of social support in terms of its sources and (content) types, highlights the

need for specificity in matching specific types of support with specific demands, and articulates

the intra- and interpersonal processes that link social support and work-related outcomes. Finally,

we highlight what we believe are some important directions for future research on social support

in organizational settings.

Social Support at Work: A Review of the Literature

Review Search Process

4
 In order to identify relevant published work, we conducted a systematic search of the

organizational literature up to April, 2018. We used title, keyword, and abstract searches to query

a wide range of relevant databases (Web of Science, Business Source Complete, PsycArticles,

Wiley Online) using combinations of social support-related terms (“social support,” “coworker

support,” “supervisor support,” “leader support,” “managerial support,” “peer support,”

“colleague support,” and “team-member support”). In addition we used search terms

(“organization,” “work,” “workplace,” “business,” “employer,” “job,” and “firm”) to limit our

search results to a work context.

The initial search yielded 1,286 published studies. Following the initial search, the first

author reviewed the abstract of each article to determine whether it was relevant to the current

review. Articles were excluded if they did not examine a form of social support in a

work/organizational context, meaning we excluded experimental studies or studies using a non-

working population (e.g., undergraduates). We also excluded qualitative or conceptual papers.

This process identified 273 articles that were relevant to our review of social support in

organizational settings. Finally, we excluded articles that were published in non-organizational

or I/O psychology outlets. The final number of articles included was 193. A complete table of

articles included in the review is included in the supplemental material, and a diagram of the

systematic review process (PRISMA Diagram) can be found in Appendix A. After the final

sample of 193 articles were identified, each article was reviewed and coded by research

assistants for primary theoretical framework and source(s) of support. In addition, we tried to

extract2 the conceptual definition of social support used in each paper, and these definitions were

2
We use the word “tried” because in many papers (see Table 1) there was not a clear, succinct definition of social
support that was used in conceptualizing the research.

5
coded by the authors in terms of the clarity of type, form, and source of support. Sample statistics

and characteristics (theory usage, definition characteristics) are reported in Tables 1 and 2.

Issue 1: Fragmented Conceptual Development

Our review indicates that scholars have employed many theoretical frameworks to study

social support in organizations. However, we identified four prominent frameworks have been

employed in the majority of social support at work research. The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R;

k = 36) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014) and its

predecessor the demand-control-support model (Karasek, 1979), focus on how job resources

(including social support), jointly with job demands, determine work engagement, burnout, and

ultimately job performance. Conservation of Resources (COR; k = 27) theory (Halbesleben,

Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014; Hobfoll, 1989) and its sub-theory social support

resource theory (Hobfoll, Freedy, Lane, & Geller, 1990) focus on how individuals use social

support, as a job resource, to regulate their personal resources (e.g., Xanthopoulou, Bakker,

Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009) and work behaviors. Social exchange (SET; k = 24) theory (Blau,

1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) focuses on how individuals regulate the flow (reciprocity)

of social support (resources) with others. Finally, basic needs (BNT; k = 4) theory (Ryan & Deci,

2000, 2002; Van den Broeck, Ferris, Chang, & Rosen, 2016) focuses on how social support can

satisfy individuals’ basic needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness and enable their

effective psychological and social functioning.

These four frameworks have different foci on the role of social support and are often used

independently, yet they have inherent connections with one another (cf., Aryee, Walumbwa,

Mondejar, & Chu, 2015). We argue that the parallel development of these frameworks (without

consideration of integration between them) has hindered a broader understanding of social

6
support at work (cf., Kim, Ployhart, & Gibson, 2018). More fully integrating these four main

theories can provide a more comprehensive and useful view on social support at work. To

provide a basis for comparison, we briefly review the way in which social support is

conceptualized in each of these four theories.

Job Demands-Resources Model (JD-R)

The JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2014) proposes two general

categories of job characteristics: job demands and job resources. Job demands refer to “those

physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained

physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) efforts or skills and are therefore

associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs” (Bakker et al., 2007, p. 312).

Job resources refer to physical, social, psychological, and organizational resources that are

conducive for accomplishing work goals and objectives and/or potentially reduce the negative

influence of job demands (Bakker et al., 2007, 2014).

The JD-R model suggests two different processes of job demands and job resources.

Specifically, while job demands increase employee strain, job resources improve employee

motivation. Consistent with the demand-control model (Karasek, 1979), the JD-R model also

posits that job resources can buffer against job demands and job demands can amplify the

motivational potential of job resources. Because social support can be viewed as an important

job resource, the JD-R model is prevalent in the social support literature. For example, Turner

and colleagues (2010) examined the relationship between job demands and hazardous work

events. With a sample of 334 trackside workers, they found that while job demands were

positively associated with hazardous work events, support from senior managers, supervisors,

and coworkers were negatively related to these hazardous events. They also found that among

7
the three sources of support, coworker support was especially important in attenuating the

negative consequences of high job demand situations. Sarti (2014), in examining the antecedents

of work engagement, found that supervisor support and coworker support, along with learning

opportunity and decision authority, constitute job resources that facilitated employee work

engagement.

Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory

COR theory explains individuals’ behaviors in stressful situations, with the assumption

that individuals seek to acquire, retain, and protect their resources (Halbesleben et al., 2014;

Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). According to COR theory, resources are defined as “objects, personal

characteristics, conditions or energies that are valued in their own right or that are valued

because they act as conduits to the achievement or protection of valued resources” (Hobfoll,

2001, p. 339). Individuals experience stress when encountering a threat from the actual or

potential loss of resources or a lack of expected gain ensuing from a resource investment, and

they may utilize their resources to buffer against the loss of resources or improve their existing

resources (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). In the social support literature, COR theory is especially useful

for explaining how social support reduces employee stress and burnout (Halbesleben, 2006) as

well as withdrawal (e.g., Halbesleben, Wheeler, & Rossi, 2012) because social support helps

individuals expand and improve their existing resource base (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). For example,

using COR theory, Toker, Laurence, and Fried (2015) found that while fear of terror increased

employee burnout through insomnia, coworker support could mute the indirect effect of fear of

terror on employee burnout.

Social Exchange Theory (SET)

8
 Social exchange is defined as “favors that create diffuse future obligations, not precisely

specified ones, and the nature of the return cannot be bargained about but must be left to the

discretion of the one who makes it” (Blau, 1964, p. 93). An important concept in social exchange

theory is the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), which suggests that individuals who receive

benefits from another party develop felt obligation to reciprocate the benefits. Due to its focus on

support in the workplace, organizational support theory (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2005;

Eisenberger et al., 1986), which is an offshoot theory of SET, is widely used along with SET.

Organizational support theory is concerned with antecedents and consequences of employees’

perceptions of support in the organization (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Based on SET,

organizational support theory predicts that when an individual is treated well by others, he or she

is motivated to return the favorable treatment because the treatment induces felt obligation and

meets employees’ socioemotional needs (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger,

2002). Thus, support in an SET context is often viewed through the lens of its direct effects.

For example, based on SET and organizational support theory, Eisenberger and

colleagues (2002) found that when subordinates received support from their supervisors, they felt

valued in the organization, and thus, they were likely to remain in the organization longer. They

also found that the relationship was strengthened by supervisors’ status. Similarly, Shanock and

Eisenberger (2006) found that when supervisors perceived that their well-being was cared for in

the workplace, they were motivated to behave in a supportive manner toward their subordinates

in return. Thus, subordinates received a high level of support from their supervisors and

consequently, they performed better in terms of both in- and extra-role performance.

Basic Needs Theory (BNT)

9
 Although BNT has not been as commonly used in social support research, we found

several studies which employed this framework (e.g., Williams et al., 2014). According to BNT

(Ryan & Deci, 2000; Van den Broeck et al., 2016), a sub-theory of self-determination theory

(SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000), individuals have three fundamental needs which

“provide the basis for categorizing aspects of the environment as supportive versus antagonistic

to integrated and vital human functioning” (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 6): competence, relatedness,

and autonomy. When these needs are fulfilled, intrinsic motivation is likely to increase (Deci &

Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In the social support literature, scholars have used BNT to

examine how social support can meet the three basic needs and thus facilitate psychological and

social functioning. For example, in a study of among 287 Norwegian workers, Williams et al.

(2014) found negative effects of supervisor need support on employee emotional exhaustion,

turnover intention, and somatic symptom burden through the mediating effect of intrinsic

motivation.

Additional Theoretical Lenses

We highlight the above four theories and focus our review on them in particular because

they represent the conceptual bases for the majority of articles that we reviewed. However, we

do not intend to suggest that they are the only four theories that have been (or should be) used to

investigate social support. A large number of articles (k = 22) relied on theories other than the

four outlined above, yet each used theories that appeared in social support research only

sporadically. For example, Beehr, Bowling, & Bennett (2010) relied on social information

processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), theory of stress as offense to self (Semmer,

McGrath, & Beehr, 2005), and person-environment fit theory (Edwards, Caplan, & Van

Harrison, 1998) to explain when social support might have a strengthening effect on a stressor-

10
strain relationship. As a particularly interesting example, Wu and Parker (2017) based their

investigation of leader support on attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982), specifically grounding

their definition within the notion of secure-base support. Given its varied nature and wide

interest in a range of fields and sub-fields, the number of theories that could be employed to

investigate social support at work is significant. Interestingly, 85 studies in our review did not

clearly employ a theory-based conceptual framework for their investigation of social support.

Issue 2: Lack of Definitional Clarity

Many definitions of social support “have been used in the literature, differing in

objectivity, dimensionality, and meaning” (Ganster, Fusilier, & Mayes, 1986, p. 103) and these

conceptualizations are “inconsistent, diverse, vague, and even contradictory” (Beehr, 1995, p.

183). This conceptual inconsistency or contradiction can be a barrier to theoretical development

in the area of social support. Given the varied nature of different kinds of social support

(described below), without a clear, consistent definition of the social support construct being

investigated in a particular study it becomes difficult to compare findings across studies and

provide a broader overview of the state of knowledge in the social support field.

Support can vary in terms of form, type, and source. First, the form of social support can

be conceptualized as either actual behaviors or individual perceptions, thus capturing either the

actual provision or use of social support or the perceived availability or receipt of social support.

This distinction is important, given that some findings demonstrate the differential effects of

employees’ actual use of support versus their perceptions of support availability (e.g., Butts,

Casper, & Yang, 2013). However, we note that others have found null effects regarding forms of

support (French et al., 2018).

11
 Second, social support varies in terms of its (content) type (Cohen & McKay, 1984).

House’s (1981) conceptualization of social support identified four main categories: (a) emotional

support (the provision of psychosocial support such as empathy and caring), (b) instrumental

support (the provision of instrumental resources that help an individual in need to directly

address a demand), (c) informational support (the provision of general information that may help

an individual address a demand), and (d) appraisal support (the provision of information that

helps an individual in need to evaluate themselves). Each type of social support involves a

specific type of resource that may or may not address the immediate demand an individual

encounters.

Finally, social support can come from various sources such as supervisors, coworkers,

family members, community members, etc. (French et al., 2018). However, the effects of social

support may differ depending upon the source (e.g., Tews, Michel, & Stafford, 2020; Toker et

al., 2015). Unfortunately, as we highlight below, a lack of careful consideration of the form,

type, and source of social support when considering the definition of social support has led to a

fragmented understanding of the construct that has impeded our further understanding of social

support at work.

Table 2 provides an analysis of the characteristics of social support definitions included

in our review; it demonstrates the wide variation in conceptualizations of social support.

Interestingly, nearly half of all studies (k = 83) reviewed did not provide a clear, explicit

definition of social support. Of the studies reviewed, 110 provided some sort of explicit

definition of social support. However, many of these were vague with respect to the form (k =

34), source (k = 19), or type (k = 64) of support3. Below, we discuss the ways in which social

3
Numbers throughout may not sum to the total number of studies due to some studies’ inclusion of multiple support
constructs (e.g., supervisor support and coworker support).

12
support was defined within each of the four prominent theories discussed earlier, and related

issues.

JD-R

Significant variation in the definitions exists among social support studies employing the

JD-R model. Notably, this group of studies had the highest number of papers in which we were

unable to locate a clear, specific definition of social support (k = 18; e.g., Cieslak, Knoll, &

Luszczynska, 2007; Thomas & Lankau, 2009). With respect to the form of social support, no

study explicitly defined this construct as a combination of behaviors and perceptions. Eight

studies defined social support as behaviors (e.g., Daniels, Boocock, Glover, Hartley & Holland,

2009; Rousseau, Salek, Aubè, & Morin, 2009; Van Yperen & Hagedoorn, 2003), and fewer (k =

4) defined social support in terms of perceptions (e.g., Biron & Bamberger, 2012; Turner,

Chmiel, Hershcovis, & Walls, 2010). Finally, four studies were vague in delineating the nature

of social support (e.g., Sarti, 2014; Tadic, Bakker, Oerlemans, & Wido, 2015).

Only a few studies were clear about the source of social support: a supervisor (k = 5: e.g.,

Beattie & Griffin, 2014; Buch, Dysvik, Kuvaas, & Nerstad, 2015) or coworkers (k = 5: e.g.,

Turner et al., 2010; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Heuven, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2008). More

frequently, the source of social support was defined vaguely as “others” or “other people” (k = 8:

e.g., Daniels et al., 2009; Van Yperen & Hagedoorn, 2003). With respect to the type of social

support, four studies referred to both instrumental and emotional support (e.g., Sargent & Terry,

2000; Tucker, Jimmieson, & Bordia, 2018), while fewer focused on emotional (k = 4; e.g.,

Hammer, Kossek, Anger, Bodner, & Zimmerman, 2011; Schaubroeck & Fink, 1998) or

instrumental support (k = 2; Daniels et al., 2009; Van Yperen & Hagedoorn, 2003) only. Finally,

six studies provided definitions such that it was difficult for us to determine the type of social

13
support under investigation (e.g., Li, Zhang, Song, & Arvey, 2016; Pekkarinen et al., 2013). The

JD-R model is clearer than COR theory (discussed next) with respect to defining resources as

aspects of the job that are functional in achieving work goals and/or reducing demands and the

costs of demands (Demerouti et al., 2001). However, it appears that many of the studies using a

JD-R framework to investigate social support have not drawn upon this definition to help situate

their definition of social support with respect to the form, type, and source of support.

COR

Social support studies employing a COR lens have offered a wide range of definitions

that vary with respect to the form, type, and source of social support. With respect to the

(behavioral vs. perceptual) form of social support, one study explicitly defined social support as

a combination of behaviors and perceptions (Halbesleben, Zellars, Carlson, Perrewe, & Rotondo,

2010), and an equal number defined social support in terms of behaviors (k = 6: e.g., da Costa,

Zhou, & Ferreira, 2018; Quade, Perry, & Hunter, 2017) or perceptions (k = 6: Halbesleben et al.,

2012; Garcia, Ng, Capezio, Restubog, & Tang, 2017). Six studies were vague in delineating the

nature of social support (e.g., Campbell, Liao, Chuang, Zhou, & Dong, 2017; Stoverink,

Chiaburu, Li, & Zheng, 2018).

Regarding the source of social support, only a few studies clearly indicated that support

was provided by a supervisor (k = 5: e.g., Hammer, Kossek, Bodner, & Crain, 2013; Munc,

Eschleman, & Donnelly, 2017), a team (k = 1: Stoverink et al., 2018), or coworkers (k = 1: da

Costa et al., 2018). Seven studies (e.g., Halbesleben et al., 2012; Owens, Baker, Sumpter, &

Cameron, 2016) vaguely used “others” or “other people” without direct reference to the roles

occupied by those others (e.g., supervisors, upper managers, coworkers, friends, family

members, etc.). Five studies did not specify the source of social support (e.g., Lim & Lee, 2011;

14
Quade et al., 2017). With respect to the type of social support, many studies refer to both

instrumental and emotional support (k = 5: e.g., Lawrence, Halbesleben, & Paustian-Underdahl,

2013; Munc et al., 2017). Fewer focus specifically on emotional (k = 2: Hammer et al., 2011; da

Costa et al., 2018) or instrumental support (k = 3: Halbesleben et al., 2010, 2012; Lim & Lee,

2011). However, six studies were not particularly clear about the type of social support; instead,

many of them simply defined social support as “an important resource” (Toker et al., 2015) or

“the experience of supportive social relationships” (Owens et al., 2016). Three studies used

definitions that encompassed emotional, instrumental, appraisal, and/or informational support

(Schreurs, Van Emmerik, Gunter, & Germeys, 2012; Stoverink et al., 2018; ten Brummelhuis,

Oosterwaal, & Bakker, 2012). Finally, many studies (k = 8: e.g., Hoppe, Toker, Schachler, &

Ziegler, 2016; Tucker & Jimmieson, 2017) did not offer a clear definition of social support.

Overall, the definitions of social support provided in COR-based studies were similar to

those provided in JD-R-based studies in that they were much more varied with respect to their

nature than those in the SDT-focused studies reviewed next. This is not entirely surprising,

considering the continuing debate in the broader COR literature regarding what constitutes a

resource, and how to define resources more generally (Halbesleben et al., 2014). When resources

are defined in a COR context as anything of value to an individual (Hobfoll, 1989), this provides

fairly little guidance with respect to how and when to consider differential combinations of form,

type, and source of support. As we highlight further below, this lack of conceptual clarity has

resulted in a number of conflicting findings in the COR-based social support literature.

SET

While studies examining social support from a SET perspective have varied somewhat

with respect to their conceptualizations of the form, type, and source of social support, there is a

15
consistent focus on perceptions of supervisor emotional support. With respect to the form of

support, a majority of studies defined social support in terms of perceptions (k = 11: Guchait &

Back, 2016; Hayton, Carnabuci, & Eisenberger, 2012) versus actual behaviors (k = 5: Kim et al.,

2016; Nahum-Shani, & Bamberger, 2011). One study defined social support as a mixture of both

behaviors and perceptions (Bowling et al., 2004), and the definition provided by one study

(Bader, 2015) was so vague that we cannot determine whether social support was theorized as

behaviors or perceptions.

The source of social support most often identified within a SET framework is a

supervisor (k = 13: e.g., He, Lai, & Lu, 2011; Cole, Bruch, & Vogel, 2006), followed by “others”

in general (i.e., with no direct reference to the roles occupied by those others; k = 4: e.g.,

Bowling et al., 2004; Nahum-Shani & Bamberger, 2011), and finally coworkers (k = 2: Hayton

et al., 2012; Liaw, Chi, & Chuang, 2010). Finally, most SET studies define the type of social

support as emotional support (k = 9: e.g., Casper, Harris, Taylor-Bianco, & Wayne, 2011;

Gonzalez-Morales, Kernan, Becker, & Eisenberger, 2018), with a small group defining it as both

emotional and instrumental (k = 4: e.g., Biron & Bamberger, 2012; Munc et al., 2017), and a

single study defining social support as emotional, instrumental, appraisal, and informational

support (ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012). Several studies (k = 4) provided definitions that were

imprecise about the focal type of social support (Liaw et al., 2010; Nahum-Shani & Bamberger,

2011). Finally, six SET-based studies did not provide a clear definition of social support (e.g.,

Bacharach, Bamberger, & Biron, 2010; Holland et al., 2017).

The relative consistency (save some clear exceptions) with which studies employing an

SET framework have identified the form, type, and/or source of social support in their definitions

may be attributable to the significant number of studies that have drawn on the related construct

16
of perceived organizational support (POS; Eisenberger et al., 1986) for both their definition and

measurement items. The definition of POS as an employee’s perception of the degree to which

an organization values his or her contribution and cares about his or her well-being has been

widely adapted to a supervisory support context by simply replacing the word “organization” in

this definition with “supervisor.” This definition clearly defines the form of support as a

perception (i.e., perceived supervisor support, or PSS), clearly defines the source of support, and

captures emotional support, leading to more consistency in the definitions of social support

within an SET framework than is found within other theoretical frameworks of social support.

BNT

Studies employing a BNT lens to investigate social support showed some variability in

definitions with respect to the form, type, and source. Two studies conceptualized social support

in terms of perceptions (Park, Rhokeun, Jang, Soo, & Jung, 2017; Yu & Frenkel, 2013) and one

in terms of behaviors (Gillet, Fouquereau, Forest, Brunault, & Colombat, 2012). More studies

defined support as emotional support alone (k = 2: Gillet et al., 2012; Yu & Frenkel, 2013) than

as both emotional and instrumental support together (k = 1: Park et al., 2017). In terms of the

source of social support, all studies that provided a definition examined social support from

supervisors (k = 3). We identified one study that employed a BNT framework but did not

provide an explicit definition of social support (Williams et al., 2014).

Social Support Definitions: Summary

We do not intend to suggest that there should be one “correct” definition of social support

in all instances. Clearly, the conceptualization of social support is a complex issue. However, our

review does suggest that researchers should carefully consider their research questions,

theoretical foundations, and research designs as they craft their particular definition of social

17
support. We observe that researchers tended to assume that “everyone knows what social support

is”; thus, a significant number of studies (k = 83) failed to clearly define social support in their

specific contexts4. Yet social support may have different meanings to different people, so every

study should delineate what social support is (and is not) in its specific research context.

Our results suggest that a definition of social support should be explicit about the

characteristics (form, type, and source) of social support. Social support must be defined as

either behaviors or perceptions. In addition, researchers should specify the source of social

support. Multiple meta-analyses have shown the independent and often differential effects of

social support from various sources (e.g., Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; French et al., 2018; Ng &

Sorensen, 2008). These findings, and the suggestions of these authors to consider the source of

social support, have gone largely unheeded. Finally, we suggest that researchers clarify the type

of social support under investigation. Is a study focused on instrumental support, emotional

support, informational support, appraisal support, or some combination of these types? Given the

importance of matching demands to types of support (Cohen & Wills, 1985), failure to carefully

consider support type may lead to inappropriate conclusions driven by incorrect

conceptualization or measurement. As the following sections demonstrate, empirical findings

diverge due to the heterogeneous nature of social support investigated in different studies, even

though each of these constructs is referred to as social support.

A lack of clarity regarding the nature, types, and sources of social support in various

studies also makes it difficult to compare findings across studies. This may explain the mixed

effects of social support that have often been noted in previous reviews (e.g., Beehr, Farmer,

Glazer, Gudanowski, & Nair, 2003; Viswesvaran et al., 1999). We deem it important for

4
We provide our full coding sheet in the online supplemental materials so that any interested reader can more
deeply explore the definitions and coding for all papers included in our review.

18
researchers to carefully consider the characteristics of social support in their specific contexts

and communicate such information clearly in their papers. Such efforts may (a) facilitate a more

nuanced and accurate understanding regarding the effects of social support in various contexts,

(b) reveal that “conflicting” findings do not in fact necessarily conflict, and (c) prevent

researchers from over-generalizing or misinterpreting their findings.

Issue 3: Mismatches Between Conceptualization and Operationalization

A lack of conceptual clarity extends beyond the definition to the operationalization of

social support in much empirical research. For example, Halbesleben (2006) reported 39 distinct

measures of social support in the 122 samples included in his meta-analysis. The lack of

consistent measurement can lead to confounding results, particularly when measures do not

capture the characteristics of support that may be integral to the relationships between variables

of interest. Once social support is defined, it is vital that researchers employ a measure that

provides an “accurate indication of the respondent’s standing on the construct (i.e., construct

validity)” (Heggestad et al., 2019, p. 2598). Use of a measure that captures a construct other than

the construct of conceptual interest, or that fails to capture the entire domain of a construct, leads

to questionable validity of research findings.

As we discuss below, our findings are in line with other reviews that have noted a lack of

clear agreement on survey measures for capturing social support (Halbesleben, 2006). Many

researchers have used self-developed items, shortened existing scales, or adapted existing

measures for specific contexts. All 193 papers we included in our review were empirical studies

that measured social support with scale items. If each self-developed, explicitly modified, or

archival measure in our review is counted as a different measure, these studies cited the use of

112 different measures of social support.

19
 In an attempt to catalog the diversity in measurement, for each paper in our review, we

coded the measure cited, the measure actually used (if somehow different from the original, cited

measure), whether the measure was adapted in some way (if noted by the authors), the reported

reliability, and the items used (when available). There is certainly a large amount of overlap in

many of these measures, but there are also many small and/or large differences between them

that could introduce noise into results. Because so many measures were used, we chose not to

review each individual scale here, but instead refer interested readers to the supplemental

materials for more information. However, an analysis of several commonly used scales provides

insights into the challenges that exist in measuring social support and the pitfalls that exist when

measurement is not carefully considered (or carefully matched to theory).

Caplan et al. (1975)

The most widely used scale was Caplan et al.’s measure (1975), which was used in 27 of

the studies in our sample, with seven studies somehow adapting the measure’s items or length.

The Caplan measure consists of four stem questions: (1) How much does each of these people go

out of their way to do things to make your work life easier for you? (2) How easy is it to talk

with each of the following people? (3) How much can each of these people be relied on when

things get tough at work? And (4) how much is each of the following people willing to listen to

your personal problems? Each of these four stem questions is associated with the three referents:

(a) your immediate supervisor, (b) other people at work, and (c) your spouse5, friends, and

relatives.

The Caplan measure fails to clearly capture some of the characteristics (form, type, and

source) of social support. First, the items are unclear as to the type of social support; Item 1

pertains to instrumental support, Items 2 and 4 emotional support, and Item 3 does not specify a
5
The original (1975) version refers to “wife” instead of “spouse” in item 4

20
type of social support. We note that Beehr, Bowling, and Bennett (2010) argued that these four

stem items would reflect two types of social support—instrumental support (Items 1 and 3) and

emotional support (Items 2 and 4), but we argue that these items are vague. For example, Item 3

does not specify how others could be relied on – for instrumental resources to deal with heavy

workloads (one way to construe “…things get tough at work”) or for emotional support due to

strained relationships at work (another way to construe “…things get tough at work”).

Furthermore, it is not clear whether the scale captures the perceived availability of social support

(Items 2, 3, and 4), behaviors (Items 1, 2, and 4), or both.

One particular source of concern with this scale is how it captures the source of social

support. This is not necessarily an inherent shortcoming of the scale, but instead pertains to how

it has been applied in empirical research. For example, while some studies used this scale

appropriately to assess social support from specific sources (e.g., supervisor: Brough,

Drummond, & Biggs, 2018; supervisor, coworker, friends and family: Fenlason & Beehr, 1994),

others combined multiple sources into a single overall support measure (e.g., supervisor and

others at work into “work” support: Ho et al., 2013; Lim, 1996). This aggregation confounds the

source of social support received at work. At times, the full 12-item scale was combined into a

general measure of overall social support (e.g., Linnabery, Stuhlmacher, & Towler, 2014; Mor

Barak & Levin, 2002), which confounds the source of social support by including both work and

non-work sources.

Survey of Perceived Support

The second most-used scale identified in our review is the Survey of Perceived

Organizational Support (SPOS; Eisenberger et al., 1986) adapted to an interpersonal context

(e.g., perceived supervisor support). Some form of this measure was employed in 25 of the

21
articles that we reviewed, and in 13 studies the measure was adapted in some way. An analysis

of the more widely-used 8-item short form of the POS scale reveals that the measure is closely

matched with organizational support theory’s (Eisenberger et al., 1986) focus on emotional

support from the referent other. Example items include “My supervisor really cares about my

well-being” and “My supervisor takes pride in my accomplishments at work.” This scale is used

almost exclusively within papers examining support from an SET framework. However, we

should note that several items from the long-form 36-item SPOS do appear to tap instrumental

support. For example, “my supervisor is willing to extend him/herself in order to help me

perform my job to the best of my ability” and “my supervisor would grant a reasonable request

for a change in my working conditions” could be construed as capturing instrumental support.

Yet our review indicates that the 8-item short measure is used much more frequently than the full

measure, and the short measure captures only emotional support. Regardless, researchers

employing this measure should be clear as to what specific items from the original 36-item SPOS

scale are being used so that an evaluation of the types of support measured can be made.

Job Content Questionnaire

The third most commonly used scale (k = 12) is the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ;

Karasek, 1985; Karasek et al., 1998), of which 6 uses were adapted in some form. This scale taps

four facets: (a) coworker socioemotional support, (b) coworker instrumental support, (c)

supervisor socioemotional support, and (d) supervisor instrumental support. Sample items

include “my supervisor is concerned about me” and “my coworkers are helpful.” Compared to

the Caplan measure, this scale is clearer regarding the source and type of social support.

However, it is not clear regarding the (perceptual vs. behavioral) form of social support.

22
 Again, the use of the JCQ in practice presents the major source of concern. While the

initial design of the JCQ identified four facets varying by type and source (Karasek et al., 1998),

in practice these facets are often collapsed into different structures, for example, as an overall

measure of social support (e.g., Kitaoka-Higashiguchi et al., 2003; Moisan et al., 1999), which

confounds the nature, type, and source of social support. Other studies collapsed different types

of social support while being clear about the source (e.g., Haines, Patient, & Marchand, 2018; Li

et al., 2016; Sarti, 2014). Certainly, there are exceptions where the JCQ was used as intended to

assess the distinct facets of social support from distinct sources (e.g., Falkenberg, Nyfjall,

Hellgren, & Vingard, 2012), but many instances of the use of this measure are concerning.

Social Support Measurement: Summary

We do not intend to assert that any particular social support measure is the “right” one to

use or better than the others. We simply recommend that researchers carefully consider the form,

type, and source of social support that are relevant to their research question/s and carefully use a

measurement instrument of social support that fits their purpose. If a study focuses on the effects

of instrumental support provided by a supervisor on employee responses to high workload

demands, then the measure of social support used should contain items that only capture

instrumental support; using items that tap supervisor emotional support would lead to

inappropriate conclusions. For example, a supervisor can be adept at providing instrumental

support to a subordinate in the form of guidance, resources, and strategies to deal with the work

load, and yet be cold, aloof, and uninterested in a subordinate’s personal problems or emotional

well-being. In this instance, including items of supervisor emotional support would not help

researchers appropriately address the intended research questions and may lead to incorrect

conclusions.

23
 While our suggestion to carefully select measures seems somewhat elementary, our

review indicates that this is not something that is currently being done in much research on social

support at work. In order to facilitate a more careful consideration of measure selection by future

researchers, we refer readers to the spreadsheet in the supplemental online materials, which

provide more detailed information on social support measure use in all papers included in our

review6. In addition, we provide more specific guidance for measure selection in Section 4.3

below. There is clearly a strong need for improvement of measurement practices in the social

support literature.

Issue 4: Inconsistent Results When Investigating Social Support as a Moderator

Many researchers have noted the inconsistent or even contradictory results pertaining to

the moderating effect of social support in stress management processes (“buffering effect,” e.g.,

Beehr et al., 2003; Ganster et al., 1986; Viswesvaran et al., 1999). As we have already

demonstrated, there is a lack of clarity in both the conceptualization and operationalization of

social support. Our review included 80 studies that investigated at least one moderating effect of

social support, and 26 of these found either a lack of support for a moderating effect or support

for an effect in an unexpected direction. While it is impossible to conclude with certainty why

these mixed results exist, we argue in the following sections (and provide examples to support

our argument) that a mismatch between theory and measurement is a likely cause of many

inconsistent findings related to the moderating effect of social support.

The “matching hypothesis” holds that the type of social support must match the type of a

stressor or demand under investigation (Viswesvaran et al., 1999). However, few researchers

take heed of the importance of matching social support with demands with respect to their types

(Cohen & Wills, 1985; Ganster et al., 1986; Halbesleben, 2006). This is not a new observation
6
We thank the associate editor for this suggestion

24
on our part, as many previous conceptualizations of social support highlighted the need to match

the demands targeted by social support to the sources of social support, its recipients, and its

(content) types (House, 1981; House, Umberson, & Landis, 1988; Cohen & Wills, 1985).

However, while significant effort has been invested toward better understanding the sources

(leaders and coworkers) and types of support (instrumental, socioemotional/affective, work-

family; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Halbesleben, 2006; Kossek et al., 2011), we observe that

many studies still do not appropriately consider how to match demands and support either

conceptually, methodologically, or both. This highlights the need for the use of a strong

conceptual framework that can provide better guidance as to when and why certain types,

sources, and forms of social support may exhibit strong or weak moderating or main effects

given a particular context or particular set of demands.

This poor matching problem may be a result of a lack of clarity surrounding the different,

but related, roles that social support can play depending on the theoretical lens employed. For

example, some researchers focus on the effects of overall social support (Van den Broeck et al.,

2016) whereas others focus on the effects of specific types of social support such as instrumental

support, socioemotional (affective) support, and work-family support (Kossek, Pichler, Bodner,

& Hammer, 2011). Different types of social support appear to have different effects on different

outcomes (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008), presumably due to different intra- and interpersonal

processes. While we have some understanding regarding the effects of different types of social

support on work attitudes and behaviors (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008), we need to better

elucidate how different types of social support influence different types of work attitudes and

behaviors.

25
 We note that it may be that certain relationships are conceptually less likely to be

moderated by social support, providing an alternative explanation for the mixed results that exist.

However, although most moderation hypotheses we reviewed involved the moderating effect of

social support on the relationship between job demands (e.g., role overload, incivility, general

work stress, etc.) and outcomes such as physical (e.g., sleep quality, alcohol use, etc.) or

psychological strain (e.g., burnout, emotional exhaustion, etc.), job attitudes (e.g., organizational

commitment, job satisfaction), or workplace behaviors (job performance, citizenship behaviors),

there is no clear pattern in terms of what kinds of relationships might be more or less susceptible

to the moderating effect of social support. For example, there did not seem to be more support

for the buffering hypothesis with respect to job attitudes as outcomes versus physical strains as

outcomes; this is presumably because of a lack of matching among job demands, social support,

and outcomes of interest, and not necessarily a function of job demands and outcomes

themselves. Below we discuss examples that highlight how a lack of matching among theory,

definition, and/or measurement could cause unexpected results, and present these examples

within the context of the four main theoretical frameworks that we have identified. We note that

we do not wish to criticize these studies as particularly egregious examples (they are not), and

we emphasize that we selected these exemplar studies to illustrate widespread, systemic issues

identified in our review.

JD-R

The JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) and the related demand-control-support

model (Karasek, 1979) provide the conceptual basis for the buffering hypothesis, which states

that social support is expected to attenuate the negative effects of job demands. Thus, many

studies employing this conceptual framework have investigated how social support might play an

26
attenuating moderator role. However, there is a significant variation in findings. Many studies we

reviewed reported findings that supported the role of social support as a buffer against demands

in shaping employee outcomes (e.g., Beattie & Griffin, 2014; Brough et al., 2018; Daniels &

Guppy, 1994; Karasek, Triantis, & Chaudhry, 1982). Yet many others found only partial or no

support for the buffering role of social support in certain situations (e.g., Brown, Pitt-Catsouphes,

McNamara, & Besen, 2014; Lin, Wong, & Ho, 2014; Melamed, Kushnir, & Meir, 1991; Van

Yperen & Hagedoorn, 2003).

What, then, might help explain at least some of these conflicting findings? We again

point to a lack of agreement in theory, definition, and operationalization as one potential driving

force. Take Brown et al. (2014) as an example. Drawing on Job Demand Control Support model

(a relative of JD-R model), Brown et al. hypothesized that the negative relationship between job

demands and job satisfaction would be lower for employees who received higher social support.

They then operationalized job demands and social support using items adapted from the JCQ

(Karasek, 1985). The results of their analyses rendered no support for the buffering role of social

support for the negative relationship between job demands and job satisfaction.

An analysis of the items, however, reveals a mismatch in the types of demand and

support that may help explain the failure to find support for their hypotheses. The nine demand

items used (see Brown et al., 2014: Table 1, p. 3120) are oriented largely to task overload. For

example, demand items include “I have enough time to get the job done” and “During a typical

workweek, how often do you have to work on too many tasks at the same time?” Given these

types of demands (i.e., instrumental demands), it would be appropriate for the researchers to

focus on instrumental support that would directly address employee ability to complete assigned

tasks. However, the support items used (see Brown et al., 2014: Table 1, p. 3212) do not tap

27
instrumental support that would directly address the ability to deal with instrumental demands.

For example, support items include “My supervisor recognized when I do a good job” and “I feel

part of the group of people I work with.” This mismatch has the potential to drive the non-

findings reported by Brown et al. (2014).

COR

From a COR perspective, social support may directly affect outcomes given its nature as

an important and valued personal resource, or it may again serve a buffering effect when a

different valuable personal resource is threatened (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Social support may

operate as a stand-in or replacement resource for another threatened resource, or the existence of

high levels of social support may signal to the individual whose resource is threatened that they

can draw on a network of support to acquire further resources to replace any being threatened

(Hobfoll, 1998). However, the moderating role of social support is still unclear in COR-based

studies due to conflicting findings. Some studies we reviewed found that social support did

moderate the demand-outcome relationship, attenuating the negative effects of demands on

outcomes (e.g., da Costa, Zhou, & Ferreira, 2018; Garcia et al., 2017; Lawrence et al., 2013).

However, others found mixed or no support for the buffering role of social support (e.g., Lingard

& Francis, 2006; Schreurs et al., 2012; Toker et al., 2015). Finally, others found a reverse

buffering effect, wherein increasing levels of support actually strengthened the relationships

between stressors and outcomes (e.g., Kaufmann & Beehr, 1986; Mayo, Sanchez, Pastor, &

Rodriguez, 2012).

These conflicting findings again may be attributed to both conceptual mismatch between

demands and support (type, source) and measurement issues. For example, Schreurs et al. (2012)

investigated the role that coworker support and supervisor support might play as a buffer against

28
job insecurity in shaping in- and extra-role performance, in which they found support for only

one of their four hypotheses –supervisor social support moderated the effect of job insecurity on

in-role performance. Supervisor social support did not moderate the effect of job insecurity on

extra-role performance; nor did coworker support moderate the effect of job insecurity on either

in- or extra-role performance. Conceptually, these inconsistent findings may not be surprising,

given the mismatching of the demand – job insecurity – and social support. Supervisors, given

the nature of their control over resources, are likely to provide information (e.g., positive

performance appraisals) that can help employees attenuate their feelings of job insecurity.

Coworkers, on the other hand, do not necessarily have the ability to attenuate employees’

feelings of job insecurity, because coworkers do not have the decision-making authority or

resource-based power to deal with peers’ job insecurity7.

SET

Among the studies employing the SET framework, main effects of social support have

been the empirical focus and far less attention has focused on moderating effects. Considering

the nature of social exchange (with the norm of reciprocity or felt obligation as the underlying

mechanism driving reactions to resource exchanges), this main-effect focus makes conceptual

sense. That is, social exchange reactions do not provide a clear conceptual basis for explaining

how social support alleviates exogenous demands.

As an example, Sakurai and Jex (2012), in their SET study of the link between supervisor

support and employee reactions to coworker incivility, hypothesized that supervisor support

would moderate the relationship between negative emotions (caused by coworker incivility) and

employee work effort or counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). These arguments drew on
7
We note that Schreurs et al. (2012) provided similar reasoning in their discussion as to why they may have found
no support for the moderating effect of coworker support. We agree, and reiterate many of their points here as an
illustrative example of the importance of matching the nature of the demand with the nature of the support
hypothesized and measured.

29
the logic that if individuals felt obligated to reciprocate positive treatment from their supervisor,

then they would be less likely to decrease their work effort or increase CWB even when

coworker incivility caused negative emotions. These arguments were based on a definition of

social support that included both instrumental and emotional support and the authors used

Caplan et al.’s (1975) measure to operationalize social support.

Sakurai and Jex (2012) found support for the moderating effect of supervisor support on

the relationship between negative emotions and work effort, but did not find support for its

moderating effect on the relationship between negative emotions and CWB. The authors

speculated that the latter could be attributed to either (a) insufficient statistical power or (b) a true

lack of buffering effect of supervisor support against negative emotions evoked by coworker

incivility in shaping CWB. We would argue that a third possible explanation exists: a mismatch

between theory and measurement. First, the demand originates from coworkers (incivility, which

leads to negative emotions). However, SET views social support as creating feelings of felt

obligation toward the provider of support (in this case, the supervisor). It is unclear how feelings

of felt obligation toward a supervisor would attenuate the negative effects of coworker incivility

from an SET perspective.

Second, the Caplan measure that Sakurai and Jex (2012) used, as we noted earlier,

confounds the instrumental and emotional types of social support. Either emotional support or

instrumental support could help attenuate negative effects of incivility on negative emotions, if

the supervisor provides social support to deal with the coworker incivility. But when social

support is hypothesized to moderate the relationship between negative emotions and work

effort/CWB, the Caplan measure has several issues. First, instrumental support in general should

facilitate work effort. Second, emotional support should indeed lead to desirable reciprocal

30
responses to a supervisor in terms of enhanced work effort. This clear relationship between these

types of resources and work effort helps explain the interactive effect of negative emotions and

supervisor support on work effort. However, feelings of obligation to a supervisor based on

general measures of emotional and instrumental support do not seem to have a clear conceptual

link to the relationship between negative emotions evoked by coworker incivility and CWB.

Conceptually, CWB is less linked to the supervisor (particularly if they take the form of

interpersonal CWB directed at coworkers). Therefore, unless the measured type of supervisor

support is specifically directed at resources provided that help deal with coworker incivility, it is

not surprising that supervisor support played a null moderator role in buffering against negative

emotions evoked by coworker incivility.

BNT

Social support is addressed somewhat differently within a BNT framework, which

suggests that social support can play a direct role in meeting basic needs for autonomy,

competence, and relatedness, which can then lead to higher levels of intrinsic motivation and a

range of desirable work outcomes. For this reason, only one study we reviewed investigated

support as a moderator (Olafsen, Halvari, Forest, & Deci, 2015), reporting that perceived need

support moderated the relationship between distributive justice and basic need satisfaction.

Integrative Framework

While each of the four theories we have reviewed has been used to investigate social

support as an important phenomenon at work, we identified only five studies that explicitly

integrated at least two of these theories in order to build the conceptual basis for their work. Each

theory underlies a related, but fairly separate stream of research into the role of social support at

work, and the siloed nature of the social support literature intensifies when researchers do not

31
integrate the insights from multiple theories into their investigations. In order to move research

on social support at work forward, we propose an integrative framework (depicted in Figures 1-

3). This framework draws on Bakker and Demerouti’s JD-R model (2017, p. 275) as a starting

point and serves as a comprehensive “conceptual map” showing how (perceptual or behavioral)

social support, independently from and jointly with job demands, shapes work outcomes via

intra- and interpersonal processes.

This framework, largely built upon the integration of the four theoretical frameworks

outlined earlier, distinguishes different forms, types and sources of social support, considers the

matching between different types of social support and different types of job demands, outlines

the intra- and interpersonal processes, and connects these theoretical frameworks. Our integrative

framework describes the paths by which different types of social support, independently from

and jointly with different types of job demands, build personal resources and subsequently evoke

intrapersonal motivational and stress reactions that lead to work outcomes. Our framework also

delineates the paths by which social support from different sources or of different types shapes

different kinds of social exchange relationships and, through these interpersonal processes,

evokes intrapersonal motivational reactions and subsequent work outcomes. For the sake of

clarity, we will discuss opportunities for theoretical integration in three steps.

Opportunity for Integration between JD-R and BNT (Figure 1)

The JD-R model proposed by Bakker et al. (2014) suggests that job resources and job

demands trigger two processes, namely, a motivational process and a stress process. In terms of a

motivational process, social support serves as an important job resource, which evokes positive

intrapersonal motivational reactions (e.g., work engagement and autonomous motivation) and

subsequent work outcomes, through personal resources or otherwise. In terms of a stress process,

32
various kinds of job demands can evoke intrapersonal stress reactions (e.g., burnout and strain;

Bakker et al., 2014), which in turn impair intrapersonal motivational reactions (e.g., work

engagement and autonomous motivation) and work outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).

Earlier JD-R research did not examine personal resources, but recent research (see Bakker et al.,

2014) has begun exploring the intermediary role of different types of personal resources

including basic needs satisfaction (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008; also

see Van den Broeck et al.’s (2016) meta-analysis; i.e., integrating BNT), self-efficacy

(Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007), organization-based self-esteem

(Xanthopoulou et al., 2007), and optimism (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). This provides an

opportunity for integration between JD-R and BNT. Therefore, as depicted in Figure 1, within

our integrative framework we highlight how social support, independently from and jointly with

job demands, shapes basic needs satisfaction and other personal resources, which then influence

intrapersonal stress or motivational reactions and work outcomes.

Nuances in Theoretical Integration

Bakker et al.’s (2014) JD-R model is unclear about whether social support of different

forms, sources, and types has differential effects on (a) different types of personal resources, (b)

intrapersonal motivational reactions and (c) intrapersonal stress reactions, or whether social

support of different forms, sources, and types moderates the relationships between different types

of job demands and intrapersonal stress reactions. First, following previous research, we argue

that perceived social support should have a more proximate, stronger effect on various kinds of

personal resources (e.g., self-esteem) as well as intrapersonal motivational and stress reactions

than social support behaviors, given that social support behaviors shape perceived social support

33
(Uchino, 2009). In other words, perceived social support is a reflection of social support

behaviors (Barrera, 1986; French et al., 2018; House, Umberson, & Landis, 1988).

Second, according to previous research, social support from leaders tends to promote

employees’ personal resources and intrapersonal motivation reactions and reduce employees’

stress reactions to a larger extent than social support from coworkers (e.g., Karasek et al., 1982;

Ng & Sorensen, 2008). This is aligned with a number of meta-analytic and empirical studies

showing that leaders have a larger influence on various employee outcomes (perceptions,

attitudes, and behaviors/performance) than coworkers (e.g., Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Liaw,

Chi, & Chuang, 2010).

Third, instrumental support is likely to promote employees’ competence need

satisfaction, socioemotional/affective support is likely to promote employees’ relatedness need

satisfaction, and autonomy (e.g., work flexibility) support may promote employees’ autonomy

need satisfaction. Employees’ need for competence can be satisfied by instrumental support,

which facilitates their skill development and task completion (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Also from

the perspectives of Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory and Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy

theory, instrumental support, which involves the provision of tangible resources that are

instrumental to task accomplishments (Cohen & McKay, 1984; French et al., 2018), can promote

employees’ positive outcome expectancies and self-efficacy, with which employees likely feel

that they are able to accomplish or master specific tasks and thus have fulfilled the need for

competence. Employees’ need for relatedness can be satisfied by socioemotional/affective

support, which facilitates their attachment to and integration in social groups and receipt of

socioemotional benefits (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Socioemotional/affective support involves the

provision of resources such as care, trust, and respect, which make employees feel valued and

34
respected (Cohen & McKay, 1984; French et al., 2018) and fulfill their need to be connected to

and be loved and cared for by others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Employees’ need for autonomy can be fulfilled by autonomy (e.g., work flexibility) support that

provides employees a sense of choice and psychological freedom to act (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Social support for work flexibility allows employees to choose when, where, and how they work

(Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, 2013; Rau & Hyland, 2002), thus fulfilling their need for

autonomy.

Fourth, according to the “matching hypothesis” (i.e., the type of social support must

match the type of job demands; Viswesvaran et al., 1999) outlined earlier, we expect (a)

instrumental support to facilitate personal resources and intrapersonal motivational reactions and

reduce stress reactions to a larger extent when job demands are in the instrumental form versus in

other forms; (b) socioemotional/affective support to facilitate personal resources and

intrapersonal motivational reactions and reduce stress reactions to a larger extent when job

demands are in the socioemotional/affective form versus in other forms; and (c) autonomy

support to facilitate personal resources and intrapersonal motivational reactions and reduce stress

reactions to a larger extent when job demands are in the autonomy form versus in other forms.

Opportunity for Further Integration with COR (Figure 2)

COR theory helps explain the direct or indirect links between resources and stress or

motivational reactions. Specifically, Hobfoll (2002) noted that (a) a resource can transform into

another resource (e.g., social support transforming into personal resources), (b) a resource can

reduce individuals’ vulnerability to stress (e.g., social support reducing intrapersonal stress

reactions), and (c) a stressor can deplete personal resources and evoke individuals’ resource

conservation (e.g., job demands depleting personal resources and reducing work engagement).

35
This offers an opportunity for further integration between JD-R model and COR theory, depicted

in Figure 2. Specifically, we consider (a) both social support (as a job resource) and personal

resources (e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) to be negatively related to intrapersonal stress

reactions and (b) various kinds of job demands to be negatively related to personal resources and

subsequent intrapersonal motivational reactions.

Opportunity for Further Integration with SET (Figure 3)

Different from Bakker et al.’s (2014) JD-R model, SET focuses on interpersonal

reactions to social support, which, in the perceptual or behavioral form, serves as a currency of

social exchange (Cole, Schaninger, & Harris, 2002). Thus, we incorporate SET through a

connected, but somewhat independent process in Figure 3. As previous findings we reviewed

have shown, when receiving social support of various types from others, individuals will be

motivated to reciprocate such benefits and thus build high-quality social exchange relationships

(Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). When social support is provided by their

supervisors, employees will be motivated to develop and maintain high-quality exchange

relationships with the supervisors (e.g., Bagger & Li, 2014). When social support is provided by

their coworkers, employees will be motivated to develop and maintain high-quality coworker

exchange relationships (cf. Sherony & Green, 2002). Depending on the types of social support,

the quality of a social exchange relationship may also vary. For example,

socioemotional/affective social support may be more important to a high-quality social exchange

relationship than instrumental support that is necessary for job completion, as a high-quality

social exchange relationship differs from a low-quality one in terms of the exchange of

socioemotional/affective resources.

36
 Through their high-quality social exchange relationships, individuals can gain sufficient

and idiosyncratically tailored resources that ultimately facilitate their work effectiveness

(Cooper, Kong, & Crossley, 2018; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, &

Chen, 2005) via their satisfaction of basic psychological needs (Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2012)

and other personal resources and subsequent work engagement or autonomous motivation (Van

den Broeck et al., 2008).

Implications of the Integrative Framework

Our integrative conceptual map is not intended to be a theoretical model, but rather

outlines insights from extant research and suggests the opportunities for future research in the

area of social support. First, this “map” suggests that there are intra- and interpersonal processes

through which social support influences employees’ work outcomes, depending on the forms,

types, and sources of social support as well as other factors. This “system” of social support in

the workplace is rather complex and is not currently fully captured by any one theoretical lens.

We consider the consideration of these interwoven processes to be promising avenues for future

research on social support.

Second, our integrative conceptual map suggests the potential problem of omitted

variables in empirical studies that merely consider an intra- or interpersonal process linking

social support and employees’ work outcomes. We found that while job demands (k = 111),

intrapersonal stress reactions (k = 88), and work outcomes (k = 83) are well-represented in the

literature on social support at work, fewer studies have investigated the role of personal

resources (k = 40), intrapersonal motivational reactions (k = 15), and interpersonal processes

other than social support itself (k = 8; e.g. trust, etc.). It is important for researchers to account

37
for relevant intra- and interpersonal processes, as these two processes influence each other and

provide a range of valuable insights into the complex functioning of social support at work.

Third, we deem it important to test the “matching hypothesis” in predicting, personal

resources as well as resultant motivational and stress reactions. Such empirical efforts can help

unpack how the matching between different types of social support and of job demands operates

in predicting employees’ psychological reactions and work outcomes. Finally, due to the

complexity of the “system” of social support in the workplace, it is important for researchers to

explicitly test causality and account for endogeneity in their empirical research on social support.

Experimental approaches (laboratory and field experiments) may be very useful.

Opportunities and Directions for Future Research

Theoretical Integration

In reviewing the conceptual map developed in the last section, it becomes clear that there

exist significant opportunities for the integration of multiple theories when exploring social

support in the workplace. We believe that each theory provides important insights into social-

support related processes at work, but that none fully captures the totality of effects. For

example, research that is interested in interpersonal processes that alleviate stress may draw on

SET to investigate differences in the extent to which individuals possess high-quality social

exchange relationships. The existence of these high-quality relationships may then lead to

intrapersonal processes, such as the fulfillment of basic psychological needs in employees

(consistent with BNT), which may then reduce intrapersonal stress reactions.

This is but one of nearly unlimited examples of how the multiple theories that have been

traditionally used to conceptualize social support can be integrated in order to provide a clearer

understanding of social support processes at work. Some theories speak to different social

38
support-related intrapersonal processes, and other theories speak more directly to interpersonal

processes; however, both intra- and interpersonal processes play important roles in the system of

social support at work. If researchers wish to better understand this issue, it will be necessary to

employ/integrate multiple theories to elucidate how this important resource functions.

Matching Social Support and Job Demands

Our review reemphasizes what has long been argued in social support research (e.g.,

Cohen & Wills, 1985), that when the types of social support and job demands are matched, the

effects of social support on personal resources and subsequent intrapersonal motivational

processes seem stronger. We encourage researchers to make more refined arguments to justify

why they choose social support and job demands of specific types in their research, and to

explain how such social support and job demands are predictive of personal resources of interest

and subsequent engagement or motivation. This would improve upon the currently observed

practice of making general arguments that social support is important to personal resources

and/or work engagement/motivation, particularly in the presence of high job demands (e.g.,

Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007).

More specifically, these considerations regarding the definitions of social support and

matching should be taken in the context of the conceptual frameworks employed. For example,

we earlier highlighted that one reason for the disparate definitions used in COR-based social

support research may be that there is some disagreement over how to define resources in the

context of COR theory. We argue that beyond defining clearly what social support is in terms of

its form, type, and source, if a researcher plans to employ a resource-based view (and measure)

for social support research, then it is important for the researcher to understand exactly what a

resource is in a particular context. JD-R model identifies a resource as something that is valuable

39
for goal attainment or that lessens a particular stressor. Recent definitions of resources in COR

theory also focus on perceived value for goal attainment as the key defining feature of a resource

(Halbesleben et al., 2014). These definitions emphasize the importance of understanding

precisely what kinds of stressors and outcomes are being investigated (e.g., role conflict, work

overload, emotional exhaustion, work-life conflict, job satisfaction, work engagement) and how

these are related in a goal-oriented context. That is, there is value in specifically matching the

form, type, and source of support to these stressors and strains within the context of a particular

goal (or implied goal) on the part of the research participant.

For example, if a study looks at role overload as a stressor and is interested in job

satisfaction as an outcome, the assumption in a resource-based context would be that a higher

level of job satisfaction is the goal an employee wants to attain. In order to understand how

social support might play a part in this role overload-job satisfaction relationship, conceptual

arguments should be designed to better predict how social support could help alleviate role

overload’s hindrance of achieving this goal. First, is the demand/stressor that is faced generally

emotional or instrumental in nature? Could it be both? Is the outcome of interest primarily

affective or behavioral in nature? Once these questions are answered, the appropriate source,

type, and form of support must be identified. What type of social support might be most useful to

that employee, who in the employee’s network is best positioned to provide useful social

support, and is it more important that the employee actually receive support or simply perceive

that it is available when needed? Providing explicit answers to these questions can facilitate

research that more clearly aligns the nature of demands, support, and outcomes, and will allow

for more precise design of empirical tests of social support’s effects at work.

Measurement of Social Support

40
 Our review highlights the need for better-designed and comprehensively validated

measures of social support that are built around the nature, type, and source of social support.

One or more carefully constructed measures are needed as clear means to tap behavioral or

perceptual support, distinguish among emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal

support, and are oriented toward a specific source. Not only would such measures allow

researchers to more closely match their theory to study designs, but widespread use of validated,

high-quality measures would allow for better comparisons between studies. Currently, the wide

range of social support measures used, and the issues identified in this review with many of

them, impede the understanding of how social support functions in the workplace. However,

while recent work has attempted to develop more facet-specific and source-specific measures to

address these issues (e.g., Lawrence, Gardner, & Callan, 2007), these measures have not yet been

in wide use.

In light of these measurement issues, we offer several suggestions. First, researchers

should explicitly justify their choice of a specific measure of social support, focusing on why it is

appropriate for their particular conceptual question and empirical setting. We have provided a

more in-depth review of existing measures in the online supplemental material. This review

provides information on the source, reliability, and items (where available) of measures that are

in use so that future researchers can make more informed decisions when selecting measures for

research. If future researchers carefully consider the broader nature of social support (e.g., in a

resource-based context as we mentioned above), then it should be easier to determine which

measure would be the most appropriate fit for a given research context.

Second, our review found that a significant number of social support measures were

adapted from existing measures (k = 69) or self-developed for a particular study (k = 27).

41
However, few studies presented justification for adapting existing measures; some justification

seems necessary given the number of validated social support measures in existence. Thus, we

recommend that future researchers provide justification when adapting a measure, with reference

to its appropriateness for the particular empirical setting and the conceptual foundation of the

work. In particular, we recommend that researchers considering adapting existing measures

consult recent work that has developed recommendations and best-practices for scale adaptation

(Heggestad et al., 2019). Relatedly, if researchers wish to use a full measure that has not

previously been validated (or is self-developed), it is important to collect additional evidence

(beyond the primary studies) which establish the psychometric features of the measure, ideally

prior to its use in primary studies.

Additional Future Research Directions

In addition to the above recommendations that flow directly from our review and

conceptual map, we also identified several other promising directions for future research. The

first two directions—(1) the reverse buffering effect and (2) benefits and costs to support

providers—recognize the need to move beyond a dominant focus on positive effects for support

recipients. The next two directions we identified pertain to (3) broadening the scope of research

by considering other sources (e.g., off-the-job) of social support, and (4) examining cultural

differences. We believe that the promising research directions discussed below, though by no

means exhaustive, are instrumental to the advancement of social support theory and research as

well as better-informed managerial practice that improves the welfare of employees and others

around the globe.

Reverse Buffering Effect

42
 Regarding the buffering effect of social support on a stressor-strain relationship, in this

review, we mainly consider conceptual and methodological factors that may help explain

inconsistencies in the literature, specifically focusing on a significant (positive) vs. non-

significant buffering effect. However, as we mentioned earlier, some studies have found a

significant negative buffering effect, in other words, a reverse buffering effect, wherein social

support may actually strengthen the relationship between stressor and strain (e.g., Kaufmann &

Beehr, 1986; Kickul & Posig, 2001). Our review also helps better understand such a reverse

buffering effect. Though far fewer studies have investigated this phenomenon, a growing body of

research has established the existence of reverse buffering, particularly when there is

incongruence between the sources of a stressor and support (e.g., a supervisor who

simultaneously creates stressful situations and then provides some sort of support regarding those

situations; e.g., Mayo et al., 2012). More recently, research has focused on supervisory emotion

management as a factor which influences how the buffering effect of social support operates.

This research suggests that support from supervisors high in emotion regulation can indeed

buffer a stressor-strain relationship, while support from supervisors low in emotion regulation

may instead strengthen the relationship (Tucker et al., 2018).

Given the importance of matching the source and type of support to a particular stressor-

strain relationship when investigating the reverse buffering effect (Beehr et al., 2003; Mayo et

al., 2012), it is crucial that researchers properly define support and match the measurement of

support to its conceptual definition. When the type or source of support (or both) are

inappropriately specified or measured, it is difficult to determine when and where social support

may actually exacerbate the negative outcomes of a particular work stressor.

Investigating the Benefits and Costs for Social Support Providers

43
 Research on social support, thus far, has largely focused on how recipients react to social

support, yet providing social support may also have benefits and costs for the provider. However,

this issue has received scant attention. Koopman, Lanaj, and Scott (2016) found that engaging in

organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) could lead the provider to experience positive affect

but perceive interfered work goal progress, and that these positive and negative psychological

experiences in turn mediated the effect of the actor’s engagement in OCB on their daily well-

being. As engaging in OCB includes providing social support, Koopman et al.’s (2016) findings

suggest that providing social support at work may be concurrently beneficial and costly to the

provider, and yet the net benefit of doing so warrants more research.

One specific suggestion is that future social-support specific work should build upon

related findings from the OCB and interpersonal helping at work literatures that have found the

provision of help to be a resource-draining behavior for many employees (Gabriel, Koopman,

Rosen, & Johnson, 2018; Lanaj, Johnson & Wang, 2016). Employing a COR framework to

determine the costs and benefits to a provider of social support from a resource conservation and

acquisition perspective would help broaden our understanding of social support at work, in that it

is broadly seen as a positive in almost all contexts (Tilden & Gaylen, 1987). Mirroring our call

for a better understanding of how and when social support may actually be negative for

recipients (reverse buffering effect), we believe that a more systematic investigation of the

positive and negative implications for support providers is one of the most promising avenues for

research on social support at work.

Broadening the Scope of Social Support at Work Research

As our review shows, the vast research in this area focuses on social support from

supervisors and coworkers. Yet according to work-life balance research, individuals’ life outside

44
the workplace can facilitate or interfere with their work life. We encourage researchers to

broaden the scope of social support research, as we need to better understand how off-the-job

social support shapes individuals’ on-the-job experience. For example, Singh, Shaffer, and

Selvarajan (2018) found that perceived neighbor support was positively correlated with

organizational embeddedness and organizational psychological safety; these two organizational

factors can be important predictors of individuals’ work attitudes and behaviors, such as turnover

intentions (Kirk-Brown & Van Dijk, 2016; Peltokorpi, Allen, & Froese, 2015), social capital

development behaviors (Ng & Feldman, 2010), and voice behaviors (Detert & Burris, 2007; Ng

& Feldman, 2013). Notably, social support from the community can facilitate employees’

community embeddedness, which Ng and Feldman (2014) identified as a positive determinant of

employees’ work motivation, organizational identification, and networking behaviors via

organizational embeddedness.

One particularly promising path for expanding the scope of social support research would

be to investigate the role that social network use (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.) plays in

providing social support in a work context or to individuals seeking support for work issues. A

growing body of work in fields outside the organizational sciences (e.g., High & Buehler, 2019;

Nabi, Prestin, & So, 2013; Oh, Ozkaya, & LaRose, 2014) has demonstrated the importance of

social networking on individual perceptions of social support availability. Given the rising

number of younger employees in the workforce, and the tendency of members of recent

generations to rely on technology to facilitate interpersonal interaction (Bolton et al., 2013), it is

imperative that the social support literature take into account how changes in communication

technologies may be shifting the types and sources of social support. For example, given the

ability of social networking sites to connect individuals to larger networks of individuals with

45
relevant skills and experience, might social networks have the potential to increase the quality

and/or quantity of support available to individuals facing work-related stressors?

Cultural Differences in Relation to Social Support

Kim, Sherman, and Taylor (2008) noted cultural differences in social support seeking

behavior. Specifically, those in more individualistic cultures are more likely to seek social

support, likely because individualistic cultures emphasize individual responsibility to pursue

their own well-being and recognize that potential support-givers have free will to decide whether

or not to provide support. However, those in more collectivistic cultures are more cautious in

seeking social support “because they share the cultural assumption that individuals should not

burden their social networks and that others share the same sense of social obligation” (p. 519).

These findings from the general social support literature raise the question of whether there any

cultural differences in employees’ reactions to social support? While this question has not been

widely examined in work settings (see Pines, Ben-Ari, Utasi, & Larson, 2002 for an exception),

the answer is likely yes.

As Taylor and colleagues (2004) noted, the concept of partaking in a social system where

individuals regularly seek the assistance of others is potentially specific to Western culture.

Because much importance is placed in ensuring social unity, Asian culture demands that the

individual forego seeking external help that could potentially place a spotlight on the individual’s

issues or add a burden onto another individual and thus threaten a group’s unity. Indeed, research

has shown that Asians (more collectivistic) tend to have more concerns about relationship

maintenance and experience more psychological stress in reaction to social support (e.g., advice

and emotional solace) than European Americans (more individualistic) (Miller, Akiyama, &

Kapadia, 2017; Taylor et al., 2004; Taylor, Welch, Kim, & Sherman, 2007). Consequently,

46
Asians are less inclined to rely on social support for stress coping (Taylor et al., 2004). Thus,

there is a need for more cross-cultural research to extend our understanding of social support at

work beyond the widely-studied Western context.

Conclusion

We undertook this review because we believe that social support can be one of the most

important resources that individuals possess at work. Social support serves as a valuable resource

that drives behavior, influences affect, and can provide a buffer against stressful job demands.

Unfortunately, fragmented theoretical lenses, measurement problems, and a lack of conceptual

clarity regarding the different forms, types, and sources of social support likely hold back the

further advancement of this research area. Nearly all of these issues have been highlighted, to a

greater or lesser extent, throughout the development of the field of social support at work

research, and yet our review underscores the continuing need to address them. This review seeks

to draw attention these issues, provide guidance regarding the conceptualization and

operationalization of social support, and create an integrative conceptual map as a guide to

research on this important issue. Although we know a great deal about social support at work, we

still have much to learn.

47
 References*

Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). Work–family conflict

and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology, 66(2),

345-376. doi: 10.1111/peps.12012

Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Mondejar, R., & Chu, C. W. L. (2015). Accounting for the

influence of overall justice on job performance: Integrating self-determination and social

exchange theories. Journal of Management Studies, 52, 231-252.

*Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Biron, M. (2010). Alcohol consumption and workplace

absenteeism: the moderating effect of social support. Journal of Applied Psychology,

95(2), 334.

*Bader, B. (2015). The power of support in high-risk countries: Compensation and social support

as antecedents of expatriate work attitudes. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 26(13), 1712-1736.

Bagger, J., & Li, A. (2014). How does supervisory family support influence employees’ attitudes

and behaviors? A social exchange perspective. Journal of Management, 40, 1123-1150.

doi: 10.1177/0149206311413922

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The

JD-R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational

Behavior, 1, 389-411. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235

**
Articles marked with an asterisk were included in the present review.

48
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost

work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 99, 274-284. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Barrera Jr, M. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 14(4), 413-445.

*Beattie, L., & Griffin, B. (2014). Day-level fluctuations in stress and engagement in response to

workplace incivility: A diary study. Work & Stress, 28(2), 124-142.

Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. London: Routledge.

*Beehr, T. A., Bowling, N. A., & Bennett, M. M. (2010). Occupational stress and failures of

social support: When helping hurts. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 45-

59.

*Beehr, T. A., Farmer, S. J., Glazer, S., Gudanowski, D. M., & Nair, V. N. (2003). The enigma

of social support and occupational stress: Source congruence and gender role effects.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 220-231.

*Biron, M., & Bamberger, P. (2012). Aversive workplace conditions and absenteeism: Taking

referent group norms and supervisor support into account. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 97(4), 901-912.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T.,

Loureiro, Y., & Solnet, D. (2013). Understanding Generation Y and their use of social

media: A review and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 24, 245-267.

49
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: retrospect and prospect. American journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664-678.

*Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Johnson, A. L., Semmer, N. K., Hendricks, E. A., & Webster, H.

A. (2004). Explaining potential antecedents of workplace social support: Reciprocity or

attractiveness? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(4), 339-350.

*Brough, P., Drummond, S., & Biggs, A. (2018). Job support, coping, and control: Assessment

of simultaneous impacts within the occupational stress process. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 23, 188-197.

*Brown, M., Pitt-Catsouphes, M., McNamara, T. K., & Besen, E. (2014). Returning to the

workforce after retiring: A job demands, job control, social support perspective on job

satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 3113-3133.

Butts, M. M., Casper, W. J., & Yang, T. S. (2013). How important are work-family support

policies? A meta-analytic investigation of their effects on employee outcomes. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 98, 1-25.

*Campbell, E. M., Liao, H., Chuang, A., Zhou, J., & Dong, Y. (2017). Hot shots and cool

reception? An expanded view of social consequences for high performers. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 102(5), 845-866.

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R., Harrison, R. U., & Pinneau, S. R. (1975). Job demands

and work health. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Publication No.

75-160. Washington, DC: Institute for Social Research.

*Casper, W. J., Harris, C., Taylor-Bianco, A., & Wayne, J. H. (2011). Work–family conflict,

perceived supervisor support and organizational commitment among Brazilian

professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(3), 640-652.

50
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and

meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 9, 1082-1103.

Cohen, S., & McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress and the buffering hypothesis: A

theoretical analysis. In A. Baum, S. E. Taylor, & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of

Psychology and Health, (253-267). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.

Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.

*Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Emotion as mediators of the relations between

perceived supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 463-484.

Cole, M. S., Schaninger, W. S., & Harris, S. G. (2002). The workplace social exchange network:

A multilevel, conceptual examination. Group & Organization Management, 27, 142-167.

Cooper, C. D., Kong, D. T., & Crossley, C. D. (2018). Leader humor as an interpersonal

resource: Integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 61,

769-796. doi 10.5465/amj.2014.0358

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., & Conway, N. (2005). Exchange relationships: Examining psychological

contracts and perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 774-

781.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.

Journal of Management, 31, 874-900. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602

51
*da Costa, C. G., Zhou, Q., & Ferreira, A. I. (2018). The impact of anger on creative process

engagement: The role of social contexts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 495-

506.

*Daniels, K., Boocock, G., Glover, J., Hartley, R., & Holland, J. (2009). An experience sampling

study of learning, affect, and the demands control support model. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 94(4), 1003-1017.

*Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1994). Occupational stress, social support, job control, and

psychological well-being. Human Relations, 47, 1523-1544.

Dawson, K. M., O'Brien, K. E., & Beehr, T. A. (2016). The role of hindrance stressors in the job

demand–control–support model of occupational stress: A proposed theory revision.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 397-415.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and

the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319-338.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really

open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183

Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. C., & Van Harrison, R. (1998). Person-environment fit theory. In C.

L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28-67). Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.

52
*Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).

Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and

employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565-573.

*Falkenberg, A., Nyfjall, M., Hellgren, C., & Vingard, E. (2012). Social support at work and

leisure time and its association with self-rated health and sickness absence. Work, 43,

469-474.

*Fenlason, K. J., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Social support and occupational stress: Effects of

talking to others. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 157-175.

French, K. A., Dumani, S., Allen, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2018). A meta-analysis of work-

family conflict and social support. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 284-314.

Gabriel, A. S., Koopman, J., Rosen, C. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Helping others or helping

oneself? An episodic examination of the behavioral consequences of helping at work.

Personnel Psychology, 71, 85-107.

Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., & Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of social support in the experience

of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 102-110.

*Garcia, P. R. J. M., Ng, C. S., Capezio, A., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. (2017). Distressed

and drained: Consequences of intimate partner aggression and the buffering role of

supervisor support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103, 106-116.

*Gillet, N., Fouquereau, E., Forest, J., Brunault, P., & Colombat, P. (2012). The impact of

organizational factors on psychological needs and their relations with well-being.

Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 437-450.

53
*Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., Kernan, M. C., Becker, T. E., & Eisenberger, R. (2018). Defeating

abusive supervision: Training supervisors to support subordinates. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 23(2), 151-162.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 161-178.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development

of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-

level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247. doi: 10.1016/1048-

9843(95)90036-5

*Guchait, P., & Back, K. J. (2016). Three country study: impact of support on employee

attitudes. The Service Industries Journal, 36(7-8), 299-318.

Haines, V. Y., Patient, D. L., & Marchand, A. (2018). Systemic justice and burnout: A multilevel

model. Human Resource Management Journal, 28, 92-111.

Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the

conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1134-1145.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to

the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory.

Journal of Management, 40, 1334-1364.

*Halbesleben, J. R. B., Wheeler, A. R., & Rossi, A. M. (2012). The costs and benefits of

working with one’s spouse: A two-sample examination of spousal support, work-family

conflict, and emotional exhaustion in work-linked relationships. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 33, 597-615.

54
*Halbesleben, J. R., Zellars, K. L., Carlson, D. S., Perrewé, P. L., & Rotondo, D. (2010). The

moderating effect of work-linked couple relationships and work–family integration on the

spouse instrumental support-emotional exhaustion relationship. Journal of occupational

health psychology, 15(4), 371-387.

*Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Bodner, T., & Crain, T. (2013). Measurement development and

validation of the Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior Short-Form (FSSB-SF).

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(3), 285-296.

*Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Anger, W. K., Bodner, T., & Zimmerman, K. L. (2011).

Clarifying work–family intervention processes: The roles of work–family conflict and

family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 134-150.

*Hayton, J. C., Carnabuci, G., & Eisenberger, R. (2012). With a little help from my colleagues:

A social embeddedness approach to perceived organizational support. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 235-249.

*He, Y., Lai, K. K., & Lu, Y. (2011). Linking organizational support to employee commitment:

evidence from hotel industry of China. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 22(01), 197-217.

Heggestad, E. D., Scheaf, D. J., Banks, G. C., Hausfeld, M. M., Tonidandel, S., Williams, E. B.

(2019). Scale adaptation in organizational science research: A review and best-practice

recommendations. Journal of Management, 45, 2596-2627.

High, A. C., & Buehler, E. M. (2019). Receiving supportive communication from Facebook

friends: A model of social ties and supportive communication in social network sites.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 719-740.

55
*Ho, M. Y., Chen, X., Cheung, F. M., Liu, H., & Worthington, E. L. (2013). A dyadic model of

the work-family interface: A study of dual-earner couples in China. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 53-63.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44, 513-524.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress

process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50, 337-421.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General

Psychology, 6, 307-324.

Hobfoll, S. E., Freedy, J., Lane, C., & Geller, P. (1990). Conservation of social resources: Social

support resource theory. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 465-478.

*Holland, P., Cooper, B., & Sheehan, C. (2017). Employee voice, supervisor support, and

engagement: The mediating role of trust. Human Resource Management, 56, 915-929.

*Hoppe, A., Toker, S., Schachler, V., & Ziegler, M. (2017). The effect of change in supervisor

support and job control on change in vigor: differential relationships for immigrant and

native employees in Israel. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 391-414.

House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

House, J. S., Umberson, D., & Landis, K. R. (1988). Structures and processes of social support.

Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 293-318.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job

redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.

Karasek, R. A. (1985). Job content questionnaire and user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: University

of Southern California Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering.

56
Karasek, R. A., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The

Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative

assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 3, 322-355.

Karasek, R. A., Triantis, K. P., & Chaudhry, S. S. (1982). Coworker and supervisor support as

moderators of associations between task characteristics and mental strain. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 3, 181-200.

*Kaufmann, G. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1986). Interactions between job stressors and social support:

Some counterintuitive results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 522-526.

Kickul, J., & Posig, M. (2001). Supervisory emotional support and burnout: An explanation of

reverse buffering effects. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 328-344.

Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Culture and social support. American

Psychologist, 63, 518-526. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X

*Kim, K. Y., Eisenberger, R., & Baik, K. (2016). Perceived organizational support and affective

commitment: Moderating influence of perceived organizational competence. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 37, 558-583.

Kim, P. H., Ployhart, R. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2018). Editors’ comments: Is organizational

behavior overtheorized? Academy of Management Review, 43, 541-545. doi:

10.5465/amr.2018.0233

Kirk-Brown, A., & Van Dijk, P. (2016). An examination of the role of psychological safety in

the relationship between job resources, affective commitment and turnover intentions of

Australian employees with chronic illness. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 27, 1626-1641. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1053964

57
*Kitaoka-Higashiguchi, K., Nakagawa, H., Morikawa, Y., Ishizaki, M., Miura, K., Naruse, Y.,

Kido, T., & Sukigara, M. (2003). Social support and individual styles of coping in the

Japanese workplace: An occupational stress model by structural equation analysis. Stress

and Health, 19, 37-43.

Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. (2016). Investigating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A

daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management

Journal, 59, 414-435. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0262

Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support and

work-family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work-

family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64, 289-

313.

Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Wang, M. (2016). When lending a hand depletes the will: The daily

costs and benefits of helping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1097-1110.

*Lawrence, E. R., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Paustian-Underdahl, S. C. (2013). The influence of

workplace injuries on work-family conflict: Job and financial insecurity as mechanisms.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 371-383.

*Lawrence, S. A., Gardner, J., & Callan, V. J. (2007). The support appraisal for work stressors

inventory: Construction and initial validation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 172-

204.

*Li, W. D., Zhang, Z., Song, Z., & Arvey, R. D. (2016). It is also in our nature: Genetic

influences on work characteristics and in explaining their relationships with well-being.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 868-888.

58
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does taking the good with the bad make things

worse? How abusive supervision and leader-member exchange interact to impact need

satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 117, 41-52.

*Liaw, Y. J., Chi, N. W., & Chuang, A. (2010). Examining the mechanisms linking

transformational leadership, employee customer orientation, and service performance:

The mediating roles of perceived supervisor and coworker support. Journal of Business

and Psychology, 25(3), 477-492.

*Lim, V. K. (1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating effects of work-based and

nonwork-based social support. Human Relations, 49, 171-194.

*Lim, S., & Lee, A. (2011). Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: Does family

support help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 95-111.

Lin, J-H., Wong, J-Y., & Ho, C-H. (2014). Beyond the work-to-leisure conflict: A high road

through social support for tourism employees. International Journal of Tourism

Research, 16, 614-624.

*Lingard, H., & Francis, V. (2006). Does a supportive work environment moderate the

relationship between work-family conflict and burnout among construction

professionals? Construction Management and Economics, 24, 185-196.

*Linnabery, E., Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Towler, A. (2014). From whence cometh their strength:

Social support, coping, and well-being of black women professionals. Cultural Diversity

and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 541-549.

59
*Mayo, M., Sanchez, J. I., Pastor, J. C., & Rodriguez, A. (2012). Supervisor and coworker

support: A source congruence approach to buffering role conflict and physical stressors.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 3872-3889.

*Melamed, S., Kushnir, T., & Meir, E. I. (1991). Attenuating the impact of job demands:

Additive and interactive effects of perceived control and social support. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 39, 40-53.

Miller, J. G., Akiyama, H., & Kapadia, S. (2017). Cultural variation in communal versus

exchange norms: Implications for social support. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 113, 81-94. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000091

*Moisan, J., Bourbonnais, R., Brisson, C., Gaudet, M., Vezina, M., Vinet, A., & Regregoire, J-P.

(1999). Job strain and psychotropic drug use among white-collar workers. Work & Stress,

13, 289-298.

*Mor Barak, M. E., & Levin, A. (2002). Outside of the corporate mainstream and excluded from

the work community: A study of diversity, job satisfaction and well-being. Community,

Work & Family, 5, 133-157.

Nabi, R. L., Prestin, A., & So, J. (2013). Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring

social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being.

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 721-727.

*Nahum-Shani, I., & Bamberger, P. A. (2011). Explaining the variable effects of social support

on work-based stressor–strain relations: The role of perceived pattern of support

exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(1), 49-63.

60
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The effects of organizational embeddedness on

development of social capital and human capital. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95,

696-712. doi: 10.1037/a0019150

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Changes in perceived supervisor embeddedness: Effects

on employees’ embeddedness, organizational trust, and voice behavior. Personnel

Psychology, 66, 645-685. doi: 10.1111/peps.12025

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2014). Community embeddedness and work outcomes: The

mediating role of organizational embeddedness. Human Relations, 67, 71-103. doi:

10.1177%2F0018726713486946

Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships

between perceptions of support and work attitudes. Group & Organization Management,

33, 243-268.

Oh, H. J., Ozkaya, E., & LaRose, R. (2014). How does online social networking enhance life

satisfaction? The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived

social support, sense of community, and life satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior,

30, 69-78.

Olafsen, A. H., Halvari, H., Forest, J., & Deci, E. L. (2015). Show them the money? The role of

pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self-determination theory model of

intrinsic work motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56, 447-457.

*Owens, B. P., Baker, W. E., Sumpter, D. M., & Cameron, K. S. (2016). Relational energy at

work: Implications for job engagement and job performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 101(1), 35-49.

61
*Park, R., & Jang, S. J. (2017). Mediating role of perceived supervisor support in the relationship

between job autonomy and mental health: moderating role of value–means fit. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(5), 703-723.

*Pekkarinen, L., Elovainio, M., Sinervo, T., Heponiemi, T., Aalto, A. M., Noro, A., & Finne-

Soveri, H. (2013). Job demands and musculoskeletal symptoms among female geriatric

nurses: The moderating role of psychosocial resources. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 18(2), 211-219.

Peltokorpi, V., Allen, D. G., & Froese, F. (2015). Organizational embeddedness, turnover

intentions, and voluntary turnover: The moderating effects of employee demographic

characteristics and value orientations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 292-312.

doi: 10.1002/job.1981

Pines, A. M., Ben-Ari, A., Utasi, A., & Larson, D. (2002). A cross-cultural investigation of

social support and burnout. European Psychologist, 7, 256-264. doi: 10.1027//1016-

9040.7.4.256

*Quade, M. J., Perry, S. J., & Hunter, E. M. (2019). Boundary conditions of ethical leadership:

Exploring supervisor-induced and job hindrance stress as potential inhibitors. Journal of

Business Ethics, 158(4), 1165-1184.

Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. A. M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: The

effects on applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 111-136.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the

literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.

62
*Rousseau, V., Salek, S., Aubé, C., & Morin, E. M. (2009). Distributive justice, procedural

justice, and psychological distress: The moderating effect of coworker support and work

autonomy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(3), 305-317.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic

dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-

determination research: 3-33. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

*Sakurai, K., & Jex, S. M. (2012). Coworker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort and

counterproductive work behavior: The moderating role of supervisor social support.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 150-161.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes

and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.

*Sargent, L. D., & Terry, D. J. (2000). The moderating role of social support in Karasek's job

strain model. Work & Stress, 14(3), 245-261.

*Sarti, D. (2014). Job resources as antecedents of engagement at work: Evidence from a long-

term care setting. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 213-237.

*Schaubroeck, J., & Fink, L. S. (1998). Facilitating and inhibiting effects of job control and

social support on stress outcomes and role behavior: A contingency model. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 19(2), 167-195.

*Schreurs, B. H. J., Van Emmerik, H., Gunter, H., & Germeys, F. (2012). A weekly diary study

on the buffering role of social support in the relationship between job insecurity and

employee performance. Human Resource Management, 51, 259-280.

63
Semmer, N. K., McGrach, J. E., & Beehr, T. A. (2005). Conceptual issues in research on stress

and health. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook of stress medicine and health (2nd ed., pp. 1-

43). London, England: CRC Press.

Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with

subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689-695.

Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers,

leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 542-

548. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.542

Singh, B., Shaffer, M. A., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2018). Antecedents of organizational and

community embeddedness: The roles of support, psychological safety, and need to

belong. Journal of Organizational Behavior, in press. doi: 10.1002/job.2223

*Stoverink, A. C., Chiaburu, D. S., Li, N., & Zheng, X. (2018). Supporting team citizenship: The

influence of team social resources on team‐level affiliation‐oriented and challenge ‐

oriented behaviour. Human Resource Management Journal, 28(2), 201-215.

*Tadić, M., Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. G. (2015). Challenge versus hindrance job

demands and well‐being: A diary study on the moderating role of job resources. Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(4), 702-725.

Taylor, S. E., Sherman, D. K., Kim, H. S., Jarcho, J., Takagi, K., & Dunagan, M. S. (2004).

Culture and social support: Who seeks it and why? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 87, 354-362. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.354

64
Taylor, S. E., Welch, W. T., Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2007). Cultural differences in the

impact of social support on psychological and biological stress responses. Psychological

Science, 18, 831-837.

*ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Oosterwaal, A., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Managing family demands in

teams: The role of social support at work. Group & Organization Management, 37(3),

376-403.

Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Stafford, K. (2020). Social support and turnover among entry‐level

service employees: Differentiating type, source, and basis of attachment. Human

Resource Management, 59(3), 221-234.

*Thomas, C. H., & Lankau, M. J. (2009). Preventing burnout: The effects of LMX and

mentoring on socialization, role stress, and burnout. Human Resource Management,

48(3), 417-432.

Tilden, V. P., & Galyen, R. D. (1987). Cost and conflict: The darker side of social support.

Western Journal of Nursing Research, 9, 9-18.

*Toker, S., Laurence, G. A., & Fried, Y. (2015). Fear of terror and increased job burnout over

time: Examining the mediating role of insomnia and the moderating role of work support.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 272-291.

*Tucker, M. K., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2017). Supervisors’ ability to manage their own emotions

influences the effectiveness of their support-giving. Journal of Personnel Psychology,

16(4), 195-205.

*Tucker, M. K., Jimmieson, N. L., & Bordia, P. (2018). Supervisor support as a double-edged

sword: Supervisor emotion management acoucnts for the buffering and reverse-buffering

effects of supervisor support. International Journal of Stress Management, 25, 14-34.

65
*Turner, N., Chmiel, N., Hershcovis, M. S., & Walls, M. (2010). Life on the line: Job demands,

perceived co-worker support for safety, and hazardous work events. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 482-493.

Uchino, B. N. (2009). Understanding the links between social support and physical health: A

life-span perspective with emphasis on the separability of perceived and received support.

Perspectives on psychological science, 4(3), 236-255.

Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C. –H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-

determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42,

1195-1229. doi: 10.1177/0149206316632058

Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the

relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic

psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22, 277-294. doi:

10.1080/02678370802393672

*Van Yperen, N. W., & Hagedoorn, M. (2003). Do high job demands increase intrinsic

motivation or fatigue or both? The role of job control and job social support. Academy of

Management Journal, 46, 339-348.

Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of

work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314-334.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member

exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and

followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of management

Journal, 48(3), 420-432.

66
*Williams, G. C., Halvari, H., Niemiec, C. P., Sørebø, Ø., Olafsen, A. H., & Westbye, C. (2014).

Managerial support for basic psychological needs, somatic symptom burden and work-

related correlates: A self-determination theory perspective. Work & Stress, 28, 404-419.

*Wu, C. H., & Parker, S. K. (2017). The role of leader support in facilitating proactive work

behavior: A perspective from attachment theory. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1025-

1049.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of

personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress

Management, 14, 121-141. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal

relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 74, 235-244.

*Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008).

Working in the sky: a diary study on the role of job resources and personal resources.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 183-200.

*Yu, C., & Frenkel, S. J. (2013). Explaining task performance and creativity from perceived

organizational support theory: Which mechanisms are more important?. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 34(8), 1165-1181.

67
Table 1
Use of Theoretical Lenses in Social Support at Work Research
Theory Count Percentage
Social Exchange Theory (SET) 24 12.44
Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory 27 13.99
Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model 36 18.65
Basic Needs Theory (BNT) 4 2.07
Other theories 22 11.40
No clear theoretical lens 85 44.04
Notes. k = 193. The total of papers sums to 198 (102.59%), because five employed
more than one theoretical lens.

68
 Table 2
Characteristics of Social Support Definitions
Count Percentage (%)
Number of studies with a clear definition 110 56.99

Form
Behavior 40 36.36
Perception 29 26.36
Behavior and Perception 7 6.36
Vague 34 30.91

Source
Coworkers 14 12.73
Supervisor 33 30.00
“Others” 47 42.73
Vague 19 17.27

Type
Emotional 28 25.45
Instrumental 8 7.27
Informational 3 2.73
All/Combination 13 11.82
Vague 64 58.18

Number of studies without a clear

83 42.78
definition
Notes. k = 193. Some totals sum to >193 (>100%) because some studies included multiple sources, types, or forms of social support
in the definition employed.

69
 Appendix A
PRISMA Diagram

70