CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 46Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorStress and Burnout ResearchWorkplace Health and Well-being

A Person‐Centred Perspective on Social Support in the Workplace

Open access
Caesens, Gaëtane, Gillet, Nicolas, Morin, Alexandre J.S., Houle, Simon A., Stinglhamber, Florence·2020·Applied Psychology
DOI 10.1111/apps.12196
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This research seeks to identify employees’ profiles characterised by distinct perceptions of three sources of social support at work (i.e., organisation, supervisor, and colleagues), and the extent to which these profiles generalise across two samples of workers ( N = 185 and 387). This research also investigates the associations between the profiles and a series of outcomes. Latent profile analysis revealed five identical profiles in both samples: (1) moderately supported; (2) isolated; (3) supervisor supported; (4) weakly supported; and (5) highly supported. The most desirable outcomes (job satisfaction, performance, and affective commitment) were associated with Profile 5 (highly supported), while the highest levels of emotional exhaustion were observed in Profile 2 (isolated).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/apps.12196

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The three sources of social support (organization, supervisor, and colleagues) tend to align with one another for most employees.

    “Interestingly, the three sources of social support (i.e., organization, supervisor, and colleagues) tend to aligned with one another for most employees (Caesens, Gillet, Morin, Houle, & Stinglhamber, 2019).”

    From A test of work motivation profile similarity across four distinct samples of employees (2020) · cites this paper as Caesens, Gillet, Morin, Houle, & Stinglhamber, 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Barrerra, M., Chassin, L., & Rogosch, F. (1993). Effects of social support and conflict on children of alcoholic and nonalcoholic fathers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 602-612.
  2. Berry, C.M., Lelchook, A.M., & Clark, M.A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the interrelationships between employee lateness, absenteeism, and turnover: Implications for models of withdrawal behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 678-699.
  3. Bowling, N.A., Khazon, S., Meyer, R.D., & Burrus, C.J. (2015). Situational strength as a moderator of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 89-104.
  4. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Leiter, M. (2014). Burnout and job performance: The moderating role of selection, optimization, and compensation strategies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 96-107.
  5. Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812-820.
  6. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565-573.
  7. Erickson, R.A., & Roloff, M.E. (2007). Reducing attrition after downsizing: Analyzing the effects of organizational support, supervisor support, and gender on organizational commitment. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 15, 35-55.
  8. Frear, K.A., Donsbach, J., Theilgard, N., & Shanock, L.R. (2017). Supported supervisors are more supportive, but why? Journal of Business and Psychology, 32, 1-15.
  9. Gong, Y., Law, K.S, Chang, S., & Xin, K.R. (2009). Human resource management and firm performance: The differential role of managerial affective and continuance commitment. Journal on workplace affective commitment: A latent profile/factor mixture analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 58-90.
  10. Newman, A., Thanacoody, R., & Hui, W. (2012). The effects of perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support and intra-organizational network resources on turnover intentions. Personnel Review, 41, 56-72.
  11. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.
  12. Schmid, J.A., Jarczok, M.N., Sonntag, D., Herr, R.M., Fischer, J.E., & Schmidt, B. (2017). Associations between supportive leadership behavior and the costs of absenteeism and presenteeism: An epidemiological and economic approach. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59, 141-147.
  13. Simosi, M. (2012). Disentangling organizational support construct: The role of different sources of support to newcomers' training transfer and organizational commitment. Personnel Review, 41, 301-320.
  14. Steffens, N.K., Yang, J., Jetten, J., Haslam, S.A., & Lipponen, J. (2018). The unfolding impact of leader identity entrepreneurship on burnout, work engagement, and turnover intentions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23, 373-387.
  15. Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Extension of the three-component model of commitment to five foci: Development of measures and substantive test. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 123-138.
  16. Yu, K., Lin, W., Wang, L., Ma, J., Wei, W., Wang, H., Guo, W., & Shi, J. (2016). The role of affective commitment and future work self salience in the abusive supervision-job performance relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89, 28-45. Table
  17. Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
  18. Marsh, H.W., Abduljabbar, A.S., Abu-Hilal, M., Morin, A.J.S., Abdelfattah, F., Leung, K.C., Xu, M.K., Nagengast, B., & Parker, P. (2013). Factor structure, discriminant and convergent validity of TIMSS math and science motivation measures: A comparison of USA and Saudi Arabia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 108-128.
  19. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J.J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275-340). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  20. McDonald, R. (1970). Theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 23, 1-21.
  21. Millsap, R. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
  22. Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003) Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 251-270. .953 .068 [.055; .081] M1 38.528 (14) -.007 -.003 +.003 M3. Strong invariance 200.566 (88)* .969 .954 .067 [.055; .079] M2 15.059 (8) -.002 +.001 -.001 M4. Strict invariance 320.869 (100)* .940 .921 .088 [.077; .099] M3 120.303 (12) -.029 -.033 +.021 M4'. Partial strict invariance 219.384 (97)* .967 .955 .066 [.055; .078] M3 18.818 (9) -.002 +.001 -.001 M5. Invariance of the CUs 227.766 (109)* .968 .961 .062 [.050; .073] M4' 8.382 (12) +.001 +.006 -.004 M6. Var-Cov invariance 245.447 (116)* .965 .960 .062 [.052; .073] M5 17.681 (7) -.003 -.001 .000 M7. Latent means invariance 266.946 (120)* .960 .956 .065 [.055; .076] M6 21.499 (4) -.005 -.004 +.003 Note. * p < .05; χ²: scaled chi-square test of exact fit; df: degrees of freedom; CFI: comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; 90% CI: 90% confidence interval; CUs: correlated uniquenesses; Var-Cov: variance-covariance; CM: comparison model; Δ: change in fit relative to the CM. .314 [.178; 450] -1.453 [-1.582; -1.325] -1.090 [-1.342; -.837] -.541 [-.813; -.269] 1.070 [.913; 1.227] .192 [.090; .294] Supervisor support .306 [.131; .481] -1.681 [-1.997; -1.365] .486 [.218; .755] -.659 [-.841; -.476] 1.023 [.953; 1.094] .148 [.071; .224] Colleagues support -.015 [-.160; .131] -.492 [-.799; -.185] .106 [-.410; .622] -.445 [-.633; -.258] .676 [.534; .818] .729 [.642; .815

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caesens, G., Gillet, N., Morin, A. J. S., Houle, S. A., & Stinglhamber, F.
Affiliations
  • UCLouvain (BE)
  • Université de Tours (FR)
  • Concordia University (CA)
Corresponding author
Caesens, Gaëtane
ORCID
Venue
Applied Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-05-16
Volume
69
Issue
3
Pages
686-714
ISSN
  • 0269-994X (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0597
DOI
10.1111/apps.12196
OpenAlex
W2924396506
Cited by
46
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3
FWCI
6.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DIAL (Catholic University of Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS (T.0177.16)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
social support at work, person-centered approach, supervisor support, coworker support, organizational support, job satisfaction, employee performance, affective commitment, emotional exhaustion, workplace isolation

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