



































Interpreter-Mediated Therapy for Refugees:


Graduate Student Journal of Psychology          Copyright 2011 by the Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology 

2011, Vol. 13               Teachers College, Columbia University 

30 

 

 

Social Support and Occupational Stress Among University Employees 
 

Saharay E. Cosio 
Old Dominion University 

 Lynn Olson and Joseph P. Francis 
Regent University 

 
The negative impact of occupational stress can be observed both at the micro- and the macro-level, 

affecting not only employee quality of life, but also the overall productivity of an organization.  

This study investigated the role of two protective factors, social support and religiosity, on 

occupational stress among employees at a private Christian university in the southeast. The sample 

consisted of 72 employees, primarily female (N = 53), Caucasian (81%), and married (72%), and 

with a mean age of 40.4 years.  Specifically, the study evaluated the relationship between work-

related social support (JCQ), nonwork-related social support (ISEL), and religious coping 

(RCOPE) on occupational stress (JCQ).  A significant inverse relationship was found between 

work-related social support and occupational stress.  The implications of these findings and the 

limitations of the study are discussed. 

 

   

Occupational stress is a concept that has been 

significantly researched in the past (Abdel-Halim, 1982; 

Buunk, Doosje, Jans, & Hopstaken, 1993; Cummins, 1989).  

The literature clearly indicates that both physical and mental 

health is impacted by occupational stress (Schirmer & Lopez, 

2001).  Several work-related factors that contribute to 

occupational stress include role overload, role conflict, and 

role ambiguity (Abdel-Halim, 1982; Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & 

Murray, 2000; Fenlason & Beehr, 1994).  These factors are 

considered by individuals as being subjective or objective 

(Curbow, Spratt, Ungaretti, McDonnell, & Breckler, 2000).  

According to Beehr and colleagues (2000), these occupational 

stressors lead to strain.  Most studies on occupational stress 

have focused on how occupational stress adversely impacts 

physical strain (Beehr et al., 2000), including coronary heart 

disease (Byrne & Espnes, 2008; Fitzgerald, Brown, Sonnega, 

& Ewart, 2005; Kristensen, 1996; Schnall, Landsbergis, & 

Baker, 1994; Theorell & Karasek, 1996), musculoskeletal 

disorder, diabetes, and cancer (Kristensen, 1996; Wright, 

2007). 

In contrast to evaluating physical and psychological 

consequences of occupational stress, other investigations have 

evaluated the effects of psychological, behavioral, and social 

strains on the level of occupational stress, such as 

depersonalization, job satisfaction, depression, emotional 

exhaustion, anxiety, boredom, and somatic complaints 

(Abdel-Halim, 1982; Beehr et al., 2000; Cooper & Marshall, 

1976; Cummins, 1989; Fenlason & Beehr, 1994; Schirmer & 

Lopez, 2001).  Behavioral problems, such as an increase in 

alcohol consumption and smoking, have also been found 

among highly stressed employees (Bacharach, Bamberger, & 

Doveh, 2008; Byrne & Espnes, 2008; Kristensen, 1996; 

Schnall et al.1994).   

                                                 
Saharay E. Cosio, Counseling Services, Old Dominion 

University; Lynn Olson, Regent University; Joseph P. Francis, 

School of Psychology and Counseling, Regent University.  

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to 

Saharay E. Cosio, Counseling Services, Old Dominion University, 

1526 Webb Center, Norfolk, VA 23529. Email: scosio@odu.edu. 

Occupational stress may reduce an individual’s 

effectiveness and work performance (La Rocco & Jones, 

1978).  According to Wright (2007), stress-related problems 

constitute approximately 75-90 percent of visits to primary 

care physicians.  Furthermore, stress-related problems such as 

“an array of new organizational structures and processes 

downsizing, lean production, flat management structures, 

long working hours and contingent employment,” may 

contribute to workplace injuries and/or serious health 

problems (Wright, 2007, p.279).  Importantly, stress-related 

problems tend to cause negative effects not only on the 

employees, but also on the overall productivity of an 

organization (Abdel-Halim, 1982).  For example, 

occupational stress contributes to an employee’s high 

absenteeism and turnover rates (Beehr et al., 2000; Cummins, 

1989).  Data collected from the U.S.  Bureau of Labor 

Statistics showed that employees who are highly stressed or 

anxious tend to take more time off (Wright, 2007).  This 

higher rate of absenteeism among highly stressed individuals 

may lead to lower rates of productivity for the overall 

organization.   

In addition to the higher rates of absenteeism, 

organizations may pay more for employees’ health care 

benefits (Wright, 2007).  This increased expenditure on health 

care utilization results in approximately a 10% profit 

reduction for organizations (Manning, Jackson, & Fusilier, 

1996).  Thus, the ramifications of occupational stress are 

visible at the microlevel (i.e., employees) and macrolevel 

(i.e., organizations).  Various approaches and models have 

been developed with the aim of addressing the negative 

consequences of occupational stress.  One such model is the 

Demand Control model (Karasek, 1979). 

 

Demand Control Model 

The Demand Control model (DC), also referred to as the 

job strain model, is a widely-used two-dimensional model of 

occupational stress (Karasek, 1979; Schnall et al., 1994).  Job 

demands and decision latitude are the two dimensions that 

comprise the DC model (Karaseck, 1979).  Job demands are 

mailto:scosio@odu.edu


COSIO, OLSON, & FRANCIS 
 

31 

 

defined as “the stressors existing in the work environment” 

(Martin, Salanova, & Peiro, 2007, p. 622).  Decision latitude 

is defined as “the primary measure of the concept of control 

and is defined as the combination of job decision-making 

authority and use of skills on the job” (Schnall et al., 1994, p. 

382).  According to this model, decision latitude buffers 

against the negative effects of job demands (Martin et al., 

2007).  Individuals who have low decision latitude (low 

control) tend to be unable to change the conditions of the 

environment surrounding them (Quick, Nelson, Quick, & 

Orman, 2001).  This lack of control may increase an 

individual’s vulnerability for occupational stress.  Numerous 

studies have used this model to measure an array of physical 

and psychological outcomes, such as mental strain, job 

satisfaction, and cardiovascular disease (Karasek, 1979; 

Karasek, Triantis, & Chaudhry, 1982; Kristensen, 1995; Van 

Der Doef & Maes, 1999).  These studies have generally 

supported the model and have shown an interaction between 

job demands and decision latitude.   

The DC model was later modified by Karasek and 

Theorell (1990) to include a third domain, work-related social 

support.  This dimension relates to the emotional and 

instrumental domains of social support as it pertains to 

employee’s co-workers and supervisor(s) (Rydstedt et al., 

2007).  According to a study conducted by Guillet, Hermand, 

and Mullet (2010), of the three domains briefly described 

above, social support was the main correlate of and inversely 

related to employee occupational stress.  

 

Protective Factors 

Various studies have been conducted in an attempt to 

find protective factors for occupational stress (Abdel-Halim, 

1982; Beehr et al., 2000; Schirmer & Lopez, 2001).  Several 

protective factors have been identified in the literature, such 

as locus of control (Brunborg, 2008; Cummins, 1989), self-

efficacy (Brunborg, 2008), attachment styles (Schirmer & 

Lopez, 2001), religion (Somech & Miassy-Maljak, 2003), and 

social support (Beehr et al., 1990; Brunborg, 2008; Cummins, 

1989; Schirmer & Lopez, 2001).  The present study looked at 

two of these protective factors: religion and social support.   

Religion.  Religion, specifically religious coping, has 

been found to be a protective factor against occupational 

stress (Beehr, Johnson, & Nieva, 1995; Safaria, Othman, & 

Wahab, 2010).  Safaria et al. (2010) define religious coping as 

“the extent to which persons use their religious beliefs and 

practices to facilitate problem solving to prevent or alleviate 

the negative emotional effects of stressful circumstances” (p. 

161).  Religious coping is a multifaceted construct that has 

been operationally defined in various ways.  One way it has 

been defined is through religious behaviors, such as 

frequency of prayer, church attendance and scripture reading 

(Frabricatore, Handal, Rubio, & Gilner, 2004).  Other 

religious coping methods that have been examined in the 

literature include forgiveness (Worthington, Witvliet, Pietrini, 

& Miller, 2007) and spiritual support (Krause, Ellison, Shaw, 

Marcum, & Boardman, 2001).   

The literature generally indicates that religion aids in 

how individuals appraise and process negative and stressful 

situations (Safaria et al., 2010; Somech & Miassy-Maljak, 

2003).  Religion helps people process information in a way 

that induces “meaning and solutions when faced with 

unfavorable circumstances” (Somech & Miassy-Maljak, 

2003, p. 82). This meaning making helps an individual create 

a sense of optimism and hope (Safaria et al., 2010).  

Moreover, an individual’s religious values helps in forming 

effective coping strategies and solutions to his or her job 

stress by helping to “interpret the meaning of potentially 

threatening events” (Somech & Miassy-Maljak, 2003, p. 85). 

According to a study conducted by Krause et al. (2001) 

“positive support [also helps] increases positive religious 

coping responses” (p. 653).  These positive religious coping 

responses have shown to decrease psychological distress 

(Pargament, Smith, Koenig, & Perez, 1998).  The literature 

also suggests that negative religious coping styles can 

negatively contribute to an individual’s emotional, 

psychological and physical well being (Pargament et al., 

1998).   

Overall, studies show that individuals who are able to 

make meaning out of their lives have better psychological 

well-being (Park, 2007).  Currently, few studies in the 

literature have examined work and occupational stress among 

those who work in religious settings.  This study looked at 

positive religious coping styles as a protective factor among 

individuals working in a religious setting.   

Social support.  There have been many inconsistencies 

within the literature regarding the relationship between social 

support and occupational stress and whether or not social 

support can be deemed a protective factor of occupational 

stress.  Part of these inconsistencies is due to the broad 

construct and the multifaceted factors of social support.  

Social support has been conceptualized in various ways (i.e., 

components, forms, or sources) (see Beehr et al., 1990).  For 

this particular study, social support was operationalized using 

the different sources of social support, such as co-worker 

social support, supervisory social-support, and general social 

support.  The two main sources that are widely investigated 

include co-worker social support and supervisory social 

support.  Cieslak and colleagues (2007) evidenced that 

supervisory social support tends to be more beneficial in 

buffering against occupational stress, corroborating a 

previous study conducted by Cummins (1989).  

 

Hypothesis 
Occupational stress continues to be a rising concern in 

today’s society as it significantly impacts individuals within 

the work setting (Wright, 2007).  In addition, macroeconomic 

changes affect employees’ levels of occupational stress as 

marketplace stressors may lead to changes in the organization 

(i.e., increased job demands, job insecurity, or less decision 

latitude among employees) and generate concerns for 

employees (Fenwick & Tausig, 1994).  According to Fenwick 

and Tausig (1994), for example, an employees’ perception of 

job insecurity may be altered by unemployment rates.  



SOCIAL SUPPORT AND OCCUPATIONAL STRESS 

 

32 

 

Because today’s economic downturn results in economic 

changes both within the organizational structure and 

employees’ work roles (Fenwick & Tausig, 1994), finding 

protective factors to help buffer occupational stress is 

imperative.  This is especially true because higher 

unemployment rates and employees’ inability to resist an 

organizational restructuring may increase employees’ level of 

job stress (Fenwick & Tausig, 1994).   

The aim of this study was to investigate how social 

support and religious coping relate to occupational stress 

among university employees.  Using the DC model as a 

framework, we hypothesized that occupational stress would 

be predicted by work-related social support, nonwork-related 

social support, and the religious coping styles of benevolent 

religious appraisal/spiritual support and religious focus.  

More specifically, we hypothesized that as the positive coping 

styles (work-related social support and nonwork-related 

social support) and religious coping styles increases, 

occupational stress would decrease.   

 

Method 

 

This study used archival data from a previous study.  The 

data set that was used came from survey packets completed 

by participants in a University Fitness for Life Program, 

directed by the Human Resource Department.  Of the 128 

survey packets returned, only the packets that were fully 

completed were included in the current study (N = 72).  The 

surveys that were used from this data set included the 

demographic questionnaire, the RCOPE, the Interpersonal 

Support Evaluation List (ISEL), and the Job Content 

Questionnaire (JCQ).  These measures have been used in 

previous studies that address the issue of occupational stress, 

social support and/or religious coping styles (Cohen & 

Hoberman, 1983; Karasek, 1985; Pargament et al., 2000).  

The RCOPE was used to assess positive religious coping 

styles, the ISEL was used to assess general social support and 

the JCQ was used in this study because it was constructed 

based on the DC model and served as the framework for this 

study.   

 

Participants 

Participants for this study were employees at a private 

Christian university in a major city in the state of Virginia.  

As indicated in Table 1, the mean age of the sample was 

40.40 years (SD = 12.01), with a range of 24 to 66 years.  Of 

the 72 participants, 53 were women, 18 were men, and one 

participant did not respond.  More than half of the participants 

reported being Caucasian (81%), the majority reported being 

married (72%), and the majority reported a graduate level 

education.  Fifty seven percent of the participants reported 

previously participating in the Fitness for Life Program.  

Furthermore, the majority of the participants reported being 

staff (81%).   

 

Measures 

Demographic information.  The demographic 

questionnaire consisted of items related to the participants’ 

general demographics.  Items included questions regarding 

the participants: age, gender, race, level of education, job 

title, and marital status.   

RCOPE.  The RCOPE (Pargament et al., 2000) is a 

theoretically based measure of five key functions that religion 

serves: meaning, control, comfort/spirituality, 

intimacy/spirituality, and life transformation.  The RCOPE is 

a 105-item questionnaire that is rated on a 4-point Likert scale 

ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (a great deal).  It provides 

scores for 17 distinct subscales: 10 subscales measure 

positive religious coping and 7 subscales negative. 

 In this study, we were interested in assessing the impact 

of religious beliefs and the use of spiritual cognitive 

reframing on occupational stress.  We, therefore, focused on 

two subscales: Benevolent Religious Reappraisal/Spiritual 

Support and Religious Focus.  The Benevolent Religious 

Reappraisal/Spiritual Support subscale assesses how 

individuals redefine the stressor through religion as 

benevolent and potentially beneficial.  An example of an item 

on this subscale is “Tried to see how God might be trying to 

strengthen me in this situation.”  The Religious Focus 

subscale assesses how individuals engage in religious 

activities to shift the focus from the stressor.  An example of 

an item on this subscale is “Focused on religion to stop worry 

about my problems.”  Internal consistency assessment yielded 

a Cronbach’s alpha of .8 for most subscales.  For this study, 

the Cronbach’s alpha for the total RCOPE was .94, for 

Benevolent Religious Reappraisal/Spiritual Support was .86, 

and for Religious Focus was .71.  Construct validity has been 

 

Table 1 

 

Demographics of Participants 

 

Characteristics 

 

N 

 

% 

Race (N = 71) 

African American 

Hispanic 

White  

Other 

 

3 

2 

59 

7 

 

4.2 

2.8 

81.0 

9.7 

Marital status (N = 71) 

Single 

Married 

Divorced 

Widowed 

 

14 

52 

3 

2 

 

19.4 

72.2 

4.2 

2.8 

Level of education (N = 70) 

High school 

Junior college 

College 

Graduate 

 

3 

9 

19 

39 

 

4.3 

12.9 

27.1 

55.7 

Job title (N = 72) 

Staff 

Faculty 

 

58 

14 

 

80.6 

19.4 



COSIO, OLSON, & FRANCIS 
 

33 

 

assessed across population samples (i.e., factor structure) and 

measures of general adjustment (i.e., incremental validity) 

with good results.   

Interpersonal Support Evaluation List.  The 

Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL; Cohen & 

Hoberman, 1983) provides a global measure of perceived 

social support across four subscales: tangible, appraisal, self-

esteem, and belonging.  The tangible subscale measures 

perceived availability of material aid, the appraisal subscale 

measures the perceived availability of someone to talk to 

about one’s problems, the self-esteem subscale measures the 

perceived availability of positive comparison when 

comparing ones’ self with others, and the belonging subscale 

measures the perceived availability of people one can do 

things with (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983).  The ISEL consists 

of 40 items that are counterbalanced and rated on a 4-point 

Likert scale.  Participants are asked to rate statements such as 

“When I feel lonely, there are several people I can talk to” 

using a format ranging from 0 (definitely false) to 3 (definitely 

true).  Retest reliability for the full measure has been reported 

as .87, and the retest reliability for the subscales ranges 

between .71 and .87 (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983).  For this 

study, the Cronbach’s alpha (α) for the ISEL was .99, which 

is considered excellent internal consistency.   

Job Content Questionnaire.  The Job Content 

Questionnaire (JCQ; Karasek, 1985) is a 49-item scale that 

measures the social and psychological characteristics of jobs 

across four scales: decision latitude, psychological demand, 

supervisor support, and coworker support.  In addition, the 

decision latitude scale comprises of two subscales; decision 

authority and skill discretion.  The JCQ is based on the 

demand control support model, the occupational stress model 

developed by Karasek and Theorell (1990).  Using a 4-point 

Likert type response format ranging from 1 (strongly 

disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), participants rate statements 

such as “My job requires a lot of physical effort.”  The alpha 

coefficient for this measure is acceptable (α =.74); in this 

study, the Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable for both 

supervisory support and coworker support scales (α =.78 and 

α =.80, respectively).   

 

Procedure  
The questionnaires from the data set were collected using 

self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaires.  The 

completed packet took approximately 45 to 60 minutes to 

complete.  Participation was voluntary and controlled for 

individuals who espouse Christian faiths and work for a 

Christian university, by only using completed packets from 

the participants that met these two criteria.  Each participant 

was given a coded packet that was counterbalanced to avoid 

ordering effects.   

The packets contained the following information: a one-

page cover letter, a one-page instruction form, a consent 

form, the RCOPE, the ISEL, and the JCQ.  The cover letter 

explained the purpose of the study and requested 

participation.  In the letter participants were assured of 

anonymity and were told that they could decline participation 

at any time without being penalized.  In addition, they were 

provided with the researchers contact information in case they 

had any questions after the study.   

To ensure anonymity, a list of the participants’ names 

managed by the department of Human Resources was 

separated from the de-identified completed coded packets that 

were collected by the researchers.  To further ensure the 

participants’ anonymity, they were not required to turn in 

their consent form.  The participants were given 2 weeks to 

complete the packet if they decided to participate.  The 

completed packet was turned into the Human Resources 

Department.   

 

Statistical Analysis 

Analysis of the participants’ demographic questionnaire 

was conducted to assess for any confounding variables that 

might impact the data.  These variables were then noted and 

discarded if deemed appropriate to the study.  To test the 

hypothesis that occupational stress would decrease as the 

positive coping styles (work-related and nonwork-related 

social support) and religious coping styles increase, we 

conducted two multiple regression analyses: work-related 

social support, nonwork-related social support, and religious 

coping styles were entered as the predictor variables and 

occupational stress as the dependent variable.  The first 

regression model included the global score of work-related 

social support; the second regression model included the two 

categories of work-related social support: supervisory social 

support and coworker support.  It was not possible to enter 

the work-related social support global scores and category 

scores in one regression model because it violated the 

assumption of multicollinearity in regression analysis.  This 

violation was indicated by the tolerance level being less than 

.20 (Garson, 2009).   

 

Results 

 

The first multiple regression analysis tested the 

hypothesis that occupational stress would be predicted by 

work-related social support (i.e., the global score), nonwork-

related social support, and two styles of religious coping 

(benevolent religious appraisal/spiritual support and religious 

focus).  The regression model was significant, F(4, 67) = 

3.62, p < .05, accounting for  more than 17% of the variance 

in occupational stress.  Employees’ work-related social 

support, nonwork-related social support, and benevolent 

religious appraisal/spiritual support and religious focus jointly 

and significantly predicted occupational stress (see Table 2).  

As indicated by the squared semipartial correlation, work-

related social support better predicted the outcome variable 

than nonwork-related social support and religious coping 

style.  Work-related social support accounted for 13% of 

unique variance in occupational stress.  The negative 

regression coefficient indicates that the likelihood of 

occupational stress decreases with an increase in work-related 

social support.   



SOCIAL SUPPORT AND OCCUPATIONAL STRESS 

 

34 

 

The second multiple regression analysis tested the 

hypothesis that occupational stress would be predicted by two 

categories of work-related social support (supervisory social 

support and coworker social support), nonwork-related social 

support, and two styles of religious coping (benevolent 

religious appraisal/spiritual support and religious focus).  The 

regression model was significant, F(5, 66) = 3.00, p < .05, 

accounting for more than 18% of the variance in occupational 

stress.  Employees’ supervisory social support, coworker 

social support, nonwork-related social support, benevolent 

religious appraisal/spiritual support, and religious focus 

jointly and significantly predicted occupational stress (see 

Table 3).  Supervisory social support was the only significant 

predictor and accounted for 8% of unique variance in 

occupational stress.  The negative regression coefficient 

indicates that the likelihood of occupational stress decreases 

with an increase in supervisory social support. 

 

Discussion 

 

The purpose of this study was to investigate the topic of 

occupational stress, work-related social support, nonwork-

related social support, and religious coping styles among 

university employees.  Occupational stress adversely affects 

an individual’s overall well-being (Schirmer & Lopez, 2001).  

Protective factors, such as social support and religious 

coping, have been shown to buffer occupational stress (Beehr 

et al., 1990; Brunborg, 2008; Cummins, 1989; Schirmer & 

Lopez, 2001; Somech & Miassy-Maljak, 2003).  This study 

examined whether there was a predictive relationship between 

social support, religious coping, and occupational stress.   

 It was hypothesized that occupational stress would be 

predicted by work-related social support, nonwork-related 

social support, and religious coping styles: benevolent 

religious appraisal/spiritual support and religious focus.  The 

results of this study indicated that work-related social support 

tends to contribute more to the decrease of occupational stress 

than nonwork-related social support.  These results replicate 

other findings suggesting that employees may benefit more 

from work-related support than they do from nonwork-related 

social support when it comes to decreasing occupational 

stress (Cummins, 1989).  This study is also corroborates the 

DC model.  The literature has shown that, within the DC 

model, work-related social support is seen as the primary 

buffer to an employee’s level of occupational stress compared 

to the other two dimensions.  Furthermore, within the work-

related social support variable, the results of this study 

indicated that supervisory social support tended to contribute 

more to the decrease of occupational stress when compared 

with coworker social support.  These results are consistent 

with findings from other studies (Cieslak et al., 2007; 

Cummins, 1989).  

A possible explanation for the results found in this study 

may be attributed to the type of social support that 

supervisors are using.  Studies have indicated that social 

support is made up of four components: 

emotional/psychological support, instrumental/active support, 

informational support, and appraisal support (Abdel-Halim, 

1982; Fenlason & Beehr, 1994; Wheeler & LaRocco, 2009).  

Wheeler and LaRocco (2009) suggest that co-worker social 

support tends to “provide emotional and informational 

support and that work supervisors most often provide 

instrumental and appraisal support” (p. 90).  According to a 

study conducted by Wong, Cheuk, and Rosen (2000) 

emotional support was not effective in alleviating 

occupational stress.  Alternatively, instrumental support was  

 

Table 2 

 

Multiple Regression of Global Work-Related Social Support, Nonwork-Related Social Support, and Religious Coping Styles on 

Occupational Stress 

Variables 

Occupational Stress (DV) 

Zero-Order Correlation 

Zero-Order Correlation 

B β sr² 1 2 3 4 

Work-related social support -.375*** - -.229 .020 .025 -.025** -.368 .13 

Nonwork-related social 

support 
.094 -.229 - -.277 -.235 .017 .047 .00 

Benevolent religious 

appraisal 
.028 .020 -.277 - .429 -.001 -.043 .00 

Religious focus .173 .025 -.235 .429 - .013 .211 .04 

Means 

(SD) 

.94 

(.19) 

27.21 

(2.80) 

1.36 

(.55) 

19.06 

(5.61) 

5.86 

(3.06) 

R² = .13 

Adjusted R² = .18 

R = .42 

Note. 1 = work-related social support; 2 = nonwork-related social support; 3 = benevolent religious appraisal; 4 = religious focus. R² = the 

proportion of the variance in occupational stress which is accounted for by the predictor variables; Adjusted R² = how much the model 

accounts for the variance in occupational stress; R = correlation between occupational stress and predictors variables. 

 **p < .01 *** p < .001. 



COSIO, OLSON, & FRANCIS 
 

35 

 

seen as effective in alleviating occupational stress (Wong et 

al., 2000).  

Although participants were obtained from a religious 

private institution, religious coping styles did not seem to 

provide a statistically significant buffer against occupational 

stress.  The two religious coping styles that were used in this 

study were benevolent religious reappraisal/spiritual support 

and religious focus.  The results suggest that employees may 

be using problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping 

(Beehr et al., 1995).  According to Beehr et al. (1995), 

problem-focused coping activities tend to be more effective.  

Thus, employees who are experiencing stress within the work 

place may gravitate towards a more problem-focused coping 

style.  In our investigation of religious coping styles, 

participants endorsed benevolent religious reappraisal at a 

slightly higher rate than religious focus.  Benevolent 

reappraisal tends to be more of a problem-focused coping 

style while religious focus is an emotion-focused coping 

style.  Hence, other problem-focused coping strategies may 

have been preferred by the participants that were more 

specific to the nature of their work-related stressors.  The type 

of coping style used by individuals tends to vary according to 

the stressor and the resources the individual brings to the 

situation (i.e., self-efficacy, locus of control, attachment 

style).  Although the participants were obtained from a 

private religious institution, religion is not the only coping 

style that individuals may use.  Furthermore, the two religious 

coping styles that were assessed in this study are not the only 

religious coping styles.  There are many different ways that 

individuals may use religion to cope.  In this study, only two 

of Pargament’s 17 religious coping styles were assessed; 

participants may prefer another style of religious coping that 

was not directly assessed by this study.  

In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that 

supervisory social support makes the strongest predictor of 

occupational stress when compared to coworker social 

support, nonwork-related social support, and the religious 

coping styles of benevolent religious appraisal and religious 

focus.  Thus, the likelihood of occupational stress decreases 

with an increase in supervisory social support.  

   

Implications 
Occupational stress has shown to affect an individual 

physically as well as psychologically.  However, protective 

factors such as social support and religious coping styles may 

help buffer occupational stress.  Hence, with the 

implementation of proper protective factors these negative 

outcomes of occupational stress will hopefully be moderated.   

Organizations may want to consider instituting 

preventative practices to assure that an individual’s physical 

and psychological well-being is not being negatively affected 

by occupational stress.  Preventative practices that 

organizations may want to consider include providing 

employees with educational trainings aimed at reducing the 

employees’ level of stress.  Topics that could be considered 

for training include: communication and listening skills, 

developing better self-care strategies, and effective problem-

solving skills (Wright, 2007).  This proactive approach from 

an organization may help relieve employees’ risk of 

occupational stress, which may in turn decrease absenteeism, 

Table 3 

 

Multiple Regression of Supervisory Social Support, Coworker Social Support, Nonwork-Related Social Support, and Religious 

Coping Styles on Occupational Stress 

Variables 

Occupational Stress (DV) 

Zero-Order Correlation 

Zero-Order Correlation 

B β sr² 1 2 3 4 5 

Supervisory 

support 
-.348*** - -.256 -.163 -.025 .059 -.033** -.310 .08 

Co-worker 

support 
-.256** .319 - -.212 .061 -.022 -.016 -.139 .01 

Nonwork-

related social 

support 

.094 -.163 -.212 - -.277 -.235 .018 .051 .00 

Benevolent 

religious 

appraisal 

.028 -.025 .061 -.277 - .429 -.002 -.053 .00 

Religious 

focus 
.173 .059 -.022 -.235 .429 - .014 .223 .02 

Means 

(SD) 

.93 

(.19) 

13.79 

(1.8) 

13.42 

(1.65) 

1.36 

(.55) 

19.06 

(5.61) 

5.86 

(3.06) 

R² = .12 

Adjusted R² = .19 

R = .43 
Note. 1 = supervisory support; 2 = co-worker support; 3 = Nonwork-related social support; 4 = benevolent religious appraisal; 5 = religious 

focus. R² = the proportion of the variance in occupational stress which is accounted for by the predictor variables; Adjusted R² = how much 

the model accounts for the variance in occupational stress; R = correlation between predictor variables and occupational stress. 

 **p < .01 *** p < .001. 

 



SOCIAL SUPPORT AND OCCUPATIONAL STRESS 

 

36 

 

turnover rates, and increase overall productivity.  Therefore, 

with a reduction of stress levels through the implementation 

of specific stress management interventions and more 

attentiveness to the needs of their employees, organizations 

will be able to reduce the cost of health insurance among 

employees. 

One specific intervention that organizations may want to 

consider is the relationship between employees and their 

supervisor.  Importantly, studies indicate that supervisory 

support tends to be a key contributor to decreasing 

occupational stress.  The literature on supervisory support has 

looked at the benefits that supervisory trainings can 

contribute to the overall well being of their employees.  For 

example, some studies have looked at the effect of active 

listening training for supervisors on employees’ level of 

stress.  Specifically, these studies have shown that active 

listening helps improve interpersonal relationships, enhances 

social support, and aids in reducing an employees’ level of 

stress (Kubota, Mishima, & Nagata, 20014).  Another, 

intervention that has been addressed in the literature has been 

that of coaching (Wright, 2007).  According to Wright (2007) 

coaching as an intervention can aid “…with better matches of 

employees and their jobs, with improving employee retention 

and productivity, with better transition times in organizational 

change, and can lead to decreased stress and morale” (p. 282).  

Hence, proper supervisory training may be warranted to 

ensure that employees are obtaining the proper supervisory 

support and help in reducing occupational stress.   

 

Limitations 

Due to the correlational nature of the study a causal 

relationship among the variables was not established. Other 

limitations of the study include methodological, sampling, 

operational, and measurement challenges. 

The issue of using a self-administered questionnaire is a 

limitation as it increases the chances of creating a 

nonresponse bias (Abdel-Halim, 1982).  Therefore, although 

self-administered questionnaires may help protect a 

participant’s anonymity it creates a disadvantage because 

individuals who return the questionnaires may be different 

from those who chose not to participate in the study, thus 

creating a bias sample.  Due to the nature of the design and 

the sample used in this study, results will have limited 

generalizeability.  Furthermore, the limited number of 

participants may have precluded the ability to identify an 

interaction effect among the two variables being analyzed: 

social support and occupational stress.   

Due to the complexity of the constructs involved, 

operational issues are another limitation.  The literature has 

been unable to clearly and accurately find an operational 

definition for the constructs of social support and 

occupational stress.  There are many different components 

that comprise the construct of social support.  Various 

researchers have used different components of the constructs 

in operationally defining social support, making it difficult to 

systematically compare and contrast the studies.  A final 

limitation was our utilization of global measures instead of 

measures specific to the occupation being studied.  Use of 

global versus specific measures of support may have diluted 

the potential impact of social support and coping on 

occupational stress.  

 

Future Directions 

As this topic continues to be of interest in the field of 

psychology as well as other diverse disciplines, various 

recommendations for future direction are suggested.  First, it 

is recommended that better measures or clearer definitions be 

developed for both social support and occupational stress; 

measures that will address some of the limitations mentioned 

previously.  Second, future research should consider using 

methods of gathering data other than self-report.  Finally, 

since many recent investigations have used nonexperimental 

designs; it is recommended that future studies consider 

conducting longitudinal and experimental designs.  The use of 

multiple methods may be beneficial in acquiring a better 

understanding of the relationship and/or interaction that may 

or may not exist between the constructs of social support and 

occupational stress.  In addition, future studies may want to 

consider implementing different constructs for religious 

coping styles. 

 

References 

 

Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1982). Social support and managerial 

affective responses to job stress. Journal of Occupational 

Behavior, 3, 281-295. doi: 10.1002/job.4030030403 

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., & Doveh, E. (2008). 

Firefighters, critical incidents, and drinking to cope: The 

adequacy of unit-level performance resources as a source 

of vulnerability and protection. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 93, 155-169. doi: 10.1037/0021-

9010.93.1.155 

Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. 

(2000). Work stressors and coworker support as 

predictors of individual strain and job performance. 

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 391-405. doi: 

10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200006)21:4<391::AID-

JOB15>3.0.CO;2-9 

Beehr, T. A., Johnson, L. B., & Nieva, R. (1995). 

Occupational stress: Coping of police and their spouses. 

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 3-25.doi: 

10.1002/job.4030160104 

Beehr, T. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Social 

support and occupational stress: Talking to supervisors. 

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 61-81. doi: 

10.1016/0001-8791(90)90015-T 

Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P. E. (2006). The social stressors-

counterproductive work behaviors link: Are conflicts 

with supervisors and coworkers the same? Journal of 

Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 145-156. doi: 

10.1037/1076-8998.11.2.145 

Brunborg, G. S. (2008). Core self-evaluations: A predictor 

variable for job stress. European Psychologist, 13, 96-

102. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.13.2.96 



COSIO, OLSON, & FRANCIS 
 

37 

 

Buunk, B. P., Doosje, B. J., Jans, L. G. M., & Hopstaken, L. 

E. M. (1993). Perceived reciprocity, social support, and 

stress at work: The role of exchange and communal 

orientation. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 65, 801-811. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.65.4.801 

Byrne, D. G., & Espnes, G. A. (2008). Occupational stress 

and cardiovascular disease. Stress and Health: Journal of 

International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 24, 

231-238. doi:10.1002/smi.1203. 

Cieslak, R., Knoll, N., & Luszczynska, A. (2007). Reciprocal 

relations among job demands, job control, and social 

support are moderated by neuroticism: A cross-lagged 

analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 84-96. doi: 

10.1016/j.jvb.2007.03.001 

Clarke, S. G., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). The risk management 

of occupational stress. Health, Risk & Society, 2, 173-

187. doi: 10.1080/713670158 

Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and 

social support as buffers of life change stress. Journal of 

Applied Social Psychology, 13, 99-125. doi: 

10.1111/j.1559-1816.1983.tb02325.x 

Cooper, C. L., & Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational sources of 

stress: A review of the literature relating to coronary 

heart disease and mental ill health. Journal of 

Occupational Psychology, 49, 11-28. 

Cummins, R. C. (1989). Locus of control and social support: 

Clarifiers of the relationship between job stress and job 

satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 

772-788. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb01258.x 

Curbow, B., Spratt, K., Ungaretti, A., McDonnell, K., & 

Breckler, S. (2000). Development of the Child Care 

Worker Job Stress Inventory. Early Childhood Research 

Quarterly, 15, 515-536. doi: 10.1016/S0885-

2006(01)00068-0 

Fabricatore, A. N., Handal, P. J., Rubio, D. M., & Gilner, F. 

H. (2004). Stress, religion, and mental health: Religious 

coping in mediating and moderating roles. The 

International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 

91-108.  

Fenlason, K. J., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Social support and 

occupational stress: Effects of talking to others. Journal 

of Organizational Behavior, 15, 157-175. doi: 

10.1002/job.4030150205 

Fenwick, R., & Tausig, M. (1994). The macroeconomic 

context of job stress. Journal of Health and Social 

Behavior, 35, 266-282. 

Fitzgerald, S. T., Brown, K. M., Sonnega, J. R., & Ewart, C. 

K. (2005). Early antecedents of adult work stress: Social-

Emotional competence and anger in adolescence. Journal 

of Behavioral Medicine, 28, 223-230. doi: 

10.1007/s10865-005-4658-x 

Garson, G. D. (2009). Multiple regression, from Statnotes: 

Topics in Multivariate Analysis. Retrieved from 

http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm. 

Guillet, L., Hermand, D., & Mullet, E. (2010). The 

importance of social support in workers' lay 

conceptualizations of stress. Swiss Journal of 

Psychology, 69, 65-69. 

Karasek, R. (1985). Job Content Questionnaire and user’s 

guide. Lowell: University of Massachusetts Lowell, 

Department of Work Environment.  

Karasek, R.A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and 

mental strain: Implications for job redesign. 

Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308. 

Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Health work: Stress, 

productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New 

York, NY: Basic Books.  

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 Occupational Behavior, 3, 181-200. 

Krause, N., Ellison, C. G.,Shaw, B. A., Marcum, J. R., & 

Boardman, J. D. (2001). Church-based social support and 

religious coping. Journal for the Scientific Study of 

Religion, 40, 637-656.  

Kristensen, T. S. (1996). Job stress and cardiovascular 

disease: A theoretical critical review. Journal of 

Occupational Health and Psychology, 1, 246-260. doi: 

10.1037/1076-8998.1.3.246 

Kubota, S., Mishima, N., & Nagata, S. (2004). A study of the 

effects of active listening on listening attitudes on middle 

managers. Journal of Occupational Health, 46, 60-67. 

La Rocco, J. M., & Jones, A. P. (1978). Co-worker and leader 

support as moderators of stress-strain relationships in 

work situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 629-

634. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.63.5.629 

Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the 

emotions: A history of changing outlooks. Annual 

Review of Psychology, 44, 1-21. doi: 

10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.000245 

Manning, M. R., Jackson, C. N., & Fusilier, M. R. (1996). 

Occupational stress, social support and the costs of health 

care. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 738-750. doi: 

10.2307/256662 

Martin, P., Salanova, M., & Peiro, J. M. (2007). Job demands, 

job resources and individual innovation at work: Going 

beyond Karasek’s model? Psicothema, 19, 621-626. 

Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (2000). The 

many methods of religious coping: Development and 

initial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical 

Psychology, 56, 519-543. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-

4679(200004)56:4<519::AID-JCLP6>3.0.CO;2-1 

Pargament, K. I, Smith, B. W., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. 

(1998). Patterns of positive and negative religious coping 

with major life stressors. Journal for the Scientific Study 

of Religion, 37, 710-724. 

Park, C. L. (2007). Religiousness/Spirituality and health: A 

meaning systems perspective. Journal of Behavioral 

Medicine, 30, 319-328. doi: 10.1007/s10865-007-9111-x 

Quick, J. C., Nelson, D. L., Quick, J. D., & Orman, D. K. 

(2001). An isomorphic theory of stress: The dynamics of 

person-environment fit. Stress and Health, 17, 147-157. 

doi: 10.1002/smi.893 



SOCIAL SUPPORT AND OCCUPATIONAL STRESS 

 

38 

 

Rahim, M. A. & Psenicka, C. (1996). A structural equations 

model of stress, locus of control, social support, 

psychiatric symptoms, and propensity to leave a job. The 

Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 69-84. 

Rydstedt, L. W., Devereux, J., & Sverke, M. (2007). 

Comparing and combining the demand-control-support 

model and the effort reward imbalance model to predict 

long term mental strain. European Journal of Work and 

Organizational Psychology, 16, 261-278. doi: 

10.1080/13594320601182311 

Safaria, T., Othman, A., Wahab, M.N.A. (2010). Religious 

coping, job insecurity and job stress among Javanese 

academic staff: A moderated regression analysis. 

International Journal of Psychological Studies, 2, 159-

169.  

Schirmer, L. L., & Lopez, F. G. (2001). Probing the social 

support and work strain relationship among adult 

workers: Contributions of adult attachment 

orientations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 17-

33. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2000.1777 

Schnall, P. L., Landsbergis, P. A., & Baker, D. (1994). Job  

strain and cardiovascular disease. Annual Review of 

Public Health, 15, 381-411. doi:10.1146/annurev. 

pu.15.050194.002121 

Somech, A., & Miassy-Maljak, N. (2003). The relationship 

between religiosity and burnout of principals: The 

meaning of educational work and role variables as 

mediators. Social Psychology of Education, 6,  61- 90. 

doi: 10.1023/A:1021772007127 

Theorell, T., & Karasek, R. A. (1996). Current issues relating 

to psychosocial job strain and cardiovascular disease 

research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 

1, 9-26. doi:10.103/1076-8998.1.1.9 

Van Der Doef, M., & Maes. S. (1999). The Job Demand-

Control (-Support) Model and psychological well-being: 

A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work & 

Stress, 13, 87-114. 

Wheeler, D. S., & LaRocco, D. J. (2009). Special education 

administrators: Who and what helps buffer job-related 

stress? Journal of Special Education Leadership, 22(2), 

85- 92. 

Wong, K. S., Cheuk, W. H., & Rosen, S. (2000). The 

influences of job stress and supervisor support on 

negative affects and job satisfaction in kindergarten 

principals. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 

15, 85-98. 

Worthington, E. L., Witvliet, C., Pietrini, P., & Miller, A. 

(2007). Forgiveness, health, and well-being: A review of 

evidence for emotional versus decisional forgiveness, 

dispositional forgiveness, and reduced unforgiveness. 

Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30, 291-302. 

Wright, J. (2007). Stress in the workplace: A coaching 

approach. Journal of Prevention, Assessment & 

Rehabilitation, 28, 279-284. 

 


