The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social support, organizational characteristics, psychological well‐being, and group appraisal in three self‐help group populations
Abstract
This study examined the relationship of three social support and three organizational variables to two well-being and two group appraisal variables among 144 members of Compassionate Friends, Multiple Sclerosis, and Overeaters Anonymous self-help groups. An anonymous questionnaire was the major research instrument. Receiving social support was not significantly related to depression or anxiety but was positively related to perceived group benefits and group satisfaction. Providing social support and friendship were each positively related to one well-being and one group appraisal variable. Bidirectional supporters (i.e., individuals high on both receiving and providing support) reported more favorable well-being and group appraisal than Receivers, Providers, and Low Supporters. At the group level of analysis (n = 15 groups), groups with higher levels of role differentiation, greater order and organization, and in which leaders were perceived as more capable contained members who reported more positive well-being and group appraisal. The implications for future research and professional consultation to self-help groups are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 · Cited by 18,093
Resilience in the Face of Catastrophe: Optimism, Personality, and Coping in the Kosovo Crisis
Riolli, L., Savicki, V., & Cepani, A. (2002) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02765.x · Cited by 2,166
Cited by
Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness
Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6 · Cited by 5,476
Zimmerman, M. A. (2000) · Handbook of Community Psychology · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-4193-6_2 · Cited by 1,653
Hogan, B. E., Linden, W., & Najarian, B. (2002) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/s0272-7358(01)00102-7 · Cited by 788
Organizational characteristics of empowering community settings: A multiple case study approach
Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1007/bf02506985 · Cited by 414
Self-citationSocial support and coronary heart disease: epidemiologic evidence and implications for treatment
Lett, H. S., Blumenthal, J. A., Babyak, M. A., Strauman, T. J., Robins, C., & Sherwood, A. (2005) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000188393.73571.0a · Cited by 377
Metadata
- Authors
- Maton, K. I.
- Venue
- American Journal of Community Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1988-02
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-77
- ISSN
- 0091-0562 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2770
- OpenAlex
- W2021370262
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 27.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.