Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,284

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

WORKPLACE SOCIAL SUPPORT AND WORK–FAMILY CONFLICT: A META‐ANALYSIS CLARIFYING THE INFLUENCE OF GENERAL AND WORK–FAMILY‐SPECIFIC SUPERVISOR AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT

Open access
KOSSEK, ELLEN ERNST, PICHLER, SHAUN, BODNER, TODD, HAMMER, LESLIE B.·2011·Personnel Psychology

Abstract

This article uses meta‐analysis to develop a model integrating research on relationships between employee perceptions of general and work–family‐specific supervisor and organizational support and work–family conflict. Drawing on 115 samples from 85 studies comprising 72,507 employees, we compared the relative influence of 4 types of workplace social support to work–family conflict: perceived organizational support (POS); supervisor support; perceived organizational work–family support, also known as family‐supportive organizational perceptions (FSOP); and supervisor work–family support. Results show work–family‐specific constructs of supervisor support and organization support are more strongly related to work–family conflict than general supervisor support and organization support, respectively. We then test a mediation model assessing the effects of all measures at once and show positive perceptions of general and work–family‐specific supervisor indirectly relate to work–family conflict via organizational work–family support. These results demonstrate that work–family‐specific support plays a central role in individuals’ work–family conflict experiences.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01211.x

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 1,284

Metadata

Authors
KOSSEK, E. E., PICHLER, S., BODNER, T., & HAMMER, L. B.
Venue
Personnel Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-05-27
Volume
64
Issue
2
Pages
289-313
ISSN
  • 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-6570
OpenAlex
W2010783320
Cited by
1,284
References
11
FWCI
162.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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.