ArticlePDF Available

Co-Rumination in the Workplace: Adjustment Trade-offs for Men and Women Who Engage in Excessive Discussions of Workplace Problems

Springer Nature
Journal of Business and Psychology
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Purpose Developmental psychology research finds that when children and adolescents engage in excessive discussion of problems with friends, a phenomenon termed “co-rumination,” they experience trade-offs between negative adjustment outcomes (e.g., depression), but better friendship quality. This study examines the possibility that adults in the workplace engage in co-rumination about workplace problems, and that co-rumination, gender, and the presence of abusive supervision influence both positive and negative individual outcomes. Design/Methodology A sample of 147 adults ranging in age and occupation completed a questionnaire assessing co-rumination, abusive supervision, and workplace outcomes. Findings Results suggested that women engage in more co-rumination than men, and that abusive supervision exacerbates its negative effects for women. In contrast, for men experiencing high abusive supervision, co-rumination was associated with reduced negative effects. However, under low abusive supervision, co-rumination had no significant effect on any outcome variable for women, but was related to negative outcomes for men. Implications This study suggests that co-rumination is useful for understanding different types of social support in workplace contexts, and in particular, how men and women might differ in social support seeking. Co-rumination might prove useful for reconciling the somewhat mixed results regarding social support in helping individuals cope with workplace problems. Originality/Value This study is the first to examine co-rumination in working adults. It provides insight into how the interaction among co-rumination, gender, and exposure to stress (e.g., abusive supervision) influence both positive and negative individual outcomes.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Co-Rumination in the Workplace: Adjustment Trade-offs for Men
and Women Who Engage in Excessive Discussions of Workplace
Problems
Dana L. Haggard Christopher Robert
Amanda J. Rose
Published online: 24 February 2010
ÓSpringer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract
Purpose Developmental psychology research finds that
when children and adolescents engage in excessive dis-
cussion of problems with friends, a phenomenon termed
‘co-rumination,’ they experience trade-offs between neg-
ative adjustment outcomes (e.g., depression), but better
friendship quality. This study examines the possibility that
adults in the workplace engage in co-rumination about
workplace problems, and that co-rumination, gender, and
the presence of abusive supervision influence both positive
and negative individual outcomes.
Design/Methodology A sample of 147 adults ranging in
age and occupation completed a questionnaire assessing
co-rumination, abusive supervision, and workplace
outcomes.
Findings Results suggested that women engage in more
co-rumination than men, and that abusive supervision
exacerbates its negative effects for women. In contrast, for
men experiencing high abusive supervision, co-rumination
was associated with reduced negative effects. However,
under low abusive supervision, co-rumination had no sig-
nificant effect on any outcome variable for women, but was
related to negative outcomes for men.
Implications This study suggests that co-rumination is
useful for understanding different types of social support in
workplace contexts, and in particular, how men and women
might differ in social support seeking. Co-rumination
might prove useful for reconciling the somewhat mixed
results regarding social support in helping individuals cope
with workplace problems.
Originality/Value This study is the first to examine
co-rumination in working adults. It provides insight into
how the interaction among co-rumination, gender, and
exposure to stress (e.g., abusive supervision) influence both
positive and negative individual outcomes.
Keywords Co-rumination Abusive supervision
Social support Workplace adjustment
Emotional adjustment
Economic trends and technological advances have altered
the character of the workplace in many ways. However, the
workplace has always been characterized by complex webs
of social relationships, and it likely always will. Baron and
Pfeffer (1994) maintain that individuals are preoccupied
with social relationships at work, and Sandelands and
Boudens (2000, p. 50) observe that ‘when people talk
about work, they talk primarily about other people. They
talk about the intrigues, conflicts, gossips, and innuendoes
of group life.’
The importance of relationships is reflected in two major
themes in the organizational literature. First, researchers
have long recognized that workers turn to others for sup-
port in coping with work stressors (Cohen and Wills 1985).
Narayanan et al. (1999) found that talking to someone
about problems was listed by most study participants as a
coping mechanism. Second, researchers have demonstrated
D. L. Haggard (&)
Department of Management, Missouri State University,
901 South National Avenue, Springfield, MO 65897, USA
e-mail: DanaLHaggard@missouristate.edu
C. Robert
Department of Management, University of Missouri,
Columbia, MO, USA
A. J. Rose
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri,
Columbia, MO, USA
123
J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:27–40
DOI 10.1007/s10869-010-9169-2
that the behavior of coworkers and supervisors is a major
source of workplace stress, as captured by constructs
such as abusive supervision (e.g., Tepper 2000), toxic
workplaces (e.g., Frost 2004), and sexual harassment
(e.g., Bergman et al. 2002).
Although research has demonstrated that social support
can have positive effects (e.g., Beehr et al. 1990; Carlson
and Perrewe
´1999), the literature hints at the possibility
that talking about problems can sometimes have negative
effects (Fenlason and Beehr 1994; Kaufman and Beehr
1986). Social support has been described as an ‘‘enigma’
(Beehr et al. 2003) because of the complex set of variables
that influence whether social support is adaptive. These
mixed findings raise important questions about social
support. For example, does the manner in which people
discuss workplace problems matter? Can people focus too
intensely on their problems when they discuss them? More
generally, what are the potential cost/benefit trade-offs of
discussing workplace problems?
The goal of this study is to consider why social support
processes can sometimes increase, rather than decrease,
risk for adjustment problems. Toward this end, we adopt
the construct of ‘co-rumination,’ a new construct from the
developmental psychology literature developed to help
understand how excessive discussion of problems among
children and adolescents can result in both positive and
negative outcomes (Rose 2002). We examine whether
co-rumination between coworkers impacts adjustment
outcomes including the quality of their relationships,
emotional adjustment (depression), and workplace out-
comes. We also explore the potential moderating effects of
workplace stress (i.e., abusive supervision) and gender.
Co-Rumination at Work
Social support is conceptualized as the tangible help and/or
psychosocial empathy and sympathy individuals receive
from interpersonal relationships (Beehr et al. 1990; Zellars
and Perrewe
´2001). It typically includes having people to
talk with about problems and to provide instrumental aid
(Cohen and Wills 1985). Not surprisingly, social support
has been linked with positive adjustment outcomes (Beehr
et al. 1990), including workplace outcomes.
However, several studies suggest that talking about
workplace problems is not always adaptive (Beehr et al.
2000; Viswesvaran et al. 1999). For example, Zellars and
Perrewe
´(2001) found greater exhaustion and burnout when
the content of employees’ conversations with coworkers
was negative (e.g., about problems) rather than positive or
non-job-related. In addition, Elfering et al. (2002) found
that for employees who were experiencing lower back pain,
social support had beneficial effects when supplied by
one’s supervisor or colleagues (e.g., shorter pain duration
and less depression) but negative effects when supplied by
one’s closest colleague. In addition, the negative effects
were exacerbated when one’s supervisor provided low
support. In this research, we present a new theoretical lens
with which to view these unique findings. The construct of
co-rumination, first defined in developmental psychology,
provides a valuable framework for conceptualizing how
discussing workplace problems might result in trade-offs
between positive and negative outcomes.
Co-rumination is defined as excessively discussing
personal problems within a dyadic relationship, and is
characterized by frequently discussing problems, discuss-
ing the same problem repeatedly, mutual encouragement of
discussing problems, speculating about problems, and
focusing on negative feelings (Rose 2002; Rose et al.
2007). An example of co-rumination in youth might
involve friends repeatedly discussing a fight one girl had
with a boyfriend, including dissecting the exchange from
every angle, dwelling on the negative implications and
feelings triggered by the exchange, and actively encour-
aging one another to continue talking. Other examples
include rehashing, speculating, and dwelling on a per-
ceived slight from a peer, such as not being invited to a
party.
The developmental literature indicates that co-rumina-
tion has both beneficial and detrimental effects. Co-rumi-
nation between friends in youth is linked with friendship
closeness and perceptions of high relationship quality,
likely due to the social sharing inherent in co-rumination
(Rose 2002; Rose et al. 2007). However, co-rumination
also is linked with heightened internalizing symptoms
(Rose 2002; Rose et al. 2007), which is consistent with
substantial research indicating that ruminating, or dwelling
on one’s problems is linked with emotional problems,
including depression (Ciesla and Roberts 2007; Nolen-
Hoeksema and Morrow 1991). Notably, the developmental
literature also indicates that co-rumination is more com-
mon among girls than boys (Rose 2002; Rose et al. 2007),
which fits with the broader literature indicating that self-
disclosure is more common in friendships among girls than
boys (Rose and Rudolph 2006).
It should be stressed that the construct of co-rumination
is not redundant with the broader construct of social sup-
port. Social support includes a wide range of behaviors
including instrumental support (e.g., providing tangible
assistance), and emotional support such as distraction
(e.g., engaging in a fun activity) or expressions of sym-
pathy (Fenlason and Beehr 1994). In contrast, co-rumina-
tion is a much more focused construct, defined as a specific
way of talking about problems. Co-rumination also can be
differentiated from the related construct of more general or
normative disclosure about problems. Measures of social
28 J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:27–40
123
support typically include items relevant to disclosure about
problems (e.g., ‘I can talk about my problems with my
friends,’ Zimet et al. 1988). However, these items do not
specify how extreme the disclosure is, or address how the
problems are discussed. In contrast, co-rumination specif-
ically involves discussing problems in a manner that is
extreme, repetitive, and speculative (example scale items
include ‘If one of us has a problem, we will spend our time
together talking about it, no matter what else we could do
instead’ and ‘When we talk about a problem that one of us
has we talk a lot about all the different bad things that
might happen because of the problem’’; see Appendix).
Developmental research (Rose 2002; Waller and Rose in
press) provides support for discriminant validity in regards
to the constructs of co-rumination and more normative self-
disclosure (i.e., disclosure that is not extreme, repetitive, or
speculative). For example, whereas both co-rumination and
normative self-disclosure in friendships are related to
positive relationship quality, only co-rumination has
adjustment trade-offs in that it also is related to depression
and anxiety (Rose 2002).
This study extends the co-rumination construct by
examining it in adults and by examining outcomes relevant
to the workplace. In particular, we examine co-rumination
between workplace friends about work problems. An
example of workplace co-rumination might involve an
employee whose supervisor yells at her for missing a recent
deadline. The employee might speculate repeatedly and in
great detail with a coworker friend about what led to the
missed deadline, potential negative repercussions, and
other possible causes of the supervisor’s anger. Encouraged
by the friend, the employee might dwell on her negative
affect. The friends might continue to discuss the issue even
after agreeing to stop talking about it. Other examples
could involve coworkers dwelling excessively on an
embarrassing moment at a meeting or on a micromanaging
boss. The commonality in these examples is the repeated
and extensive focus on problem talk that is encouraged by
both conversation participants. In addition, research indi-
cates that women use emotional expression as a coping
strategy (Bekker et al. 2001), seek social support in times
of stress (Taylor et al. 2000), and talk to others in response
to stress (Narayanan et al. 1999) more than men. Therefore,
we expect women to co-ruminate with a workplace friend
more than men.
Co-Rumination and Adjustment Outcomes
First, we consider the potential positive effects of
co-rumination in the workplace. Because discussing prob-
lems is thought to increase intimacy, closeness, and satis-
faction with one’s relationship (Laurenceau et al. 1998), we
predict co-rumination with a friend at work will be asso-
ciated with greater relationship satisfaction. This is con-
sistent with developmental psychology findings that
co-rumination between friends in youth is associated with
friendship quality, despite the intense focus on problems
(Rose 2002; Rose et al. 2007).
Another predicted outcome of co-rumination, specific to
adults in the workplace, is increased job satisfaction.
Positive social relationships with coworkers are a critical
aspect of peoples’ judgments of work meaning and job
satisfaction (Sandelands and Boudens 2000; Wrzesniewski
et al. 2003). For example, Hackman and Lawler (1971)
observed that friendships at work satisfied employees’
social needs and that this likely contributed to overall job
satisfaction. Later work by Winstead et al. (1995) also
showed that the quality of friendships contributes to overall
job satisfaction. Co-rumination takes place within the
context of a close, personal relationship and the level and
depth of the discussions involved are expected to make
people feel closer and more positively about the co-rumi-
nation partner. Because the close friend is part of the work
environment, we predict that co-rumination has the
potential to influence job satisfaction by virtue of its
influence on one of its key components, the perception of
quality relationships with others in the workplace. This is
somewhat contrary to Beehr et al.’s (2003) study on
workplace communication which found that negative dis-
cussions about the workplace were positively related to job
dissatisfaction. However, their study did not examine the
nature of the relationship (i.e., close versus casual) between
the parties, which we believe to be an important aspect of
the relation between co-rumination and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1 Co-rumination about work problems with a
workplace friend will be positively related to relationship
satisfaction with that friend and to job satisfaction.
We shift now to co-rumination’s expected negative
effects. First, because co-rumination involves constantly
revisiting negative events and feelings, work problems
might become particularly salient and brought into sharper
focus. Consistent with previous developmental research
(Rose 2002; Rose et al. 2007), the inability to escape the
problem and its attendant negative emotions, is expected to
result in the depressive symptoms. This is a key finding in
the developmental research on co-rumination, and we
expect it to replicate in adults.
Hypothesis 2 Co-rumination about work problems with a
workplace friend will be related positively to depression.
A second predicted negative outcome of co-rumination
unique to adults is increased work-to-family conflict.
Work-to-family conflict is defined as, ‘a form of interrole
conflict in which the general demands of, time devoted to,
J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:27–40 29
123
and strain created by the job interfere with performing
family-related responsibilities’ (Netemeyer et al. 1996,
p. 401). Specifically, co-rumination is likely to result in
what Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) describe as ‘strain-
based conflict’ which involves strains caused by negative
characteristics of work or family roles. Consistent with this
conceptualization, Bartolome
´and Evans (1980) state that
what separates executives with successful private lives
from those without is the ability to prevent negative affect
spillover. One example of such negative spillover they
discuss is worrying, which may render the executive psy-
chologically unavailable for those in their private lives. By
bringing work problems into sharper focus and exacerbat-
ing negative feelings, co-rumination might cause the
wounds inflicted by workplace problems to stay open and
to fester after the work day is done, creating a strain which
could impinge on individuals’ ability to function in their
families.
Hypothesis 3 Co-rumination about work problems with a
workplace friend will be related positively to work-to-
family conflict.
Gender and Abusive Supervision as Moderators
of the Associations Between Co-Rumination
and Adjustment Outcomes
Although research indicates that workplace stress is related
to adjustment problems (Kahn and Byosiere 1992), we
know little about how stressors interact with coping styles,
or how these effects might differ by gender. This study
examines how the interaction of a specific workplace
stressor (abusive supervision) and a specific approach to
coping with stressors (co-ruminating) affects adjustment,
and how their interaction might be further moderated by
gender.
Research on stress at work has traditionally focused on
structural (e.g., shift work, Thierry and Meijman 1994; e.g.,
role conflict, role ambiguity, Viswesvaran et al. 1999)or
environmental stressors (e.g., noise, Sundstrom et al.
1994). However, research on dysfunctional behaviors
suggests that interpersonal interactions can be important
workplace stressors (Tepper 2000). In particular, research
on abusive supervision, defined as ‘subordinates’ percep-
tions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the
sustained display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behav-
iors, excluding physical contact’ (Tepper 2000, p. 178),
indicates that abusive supervision is related to negative
outcomes such as depression, anxiety, and decreased life
satisfaction as well as greater work-to-family conflict,
decreased job satisfaction, and lower organizational com-
mitment (Tepper et al. 2004).
We propose that both the positive and negative effects
of co-rumination will be amplified when the employee
experiences abusive supervision, particularly for women.
We suggest that under high levels of abusive supervision,
co-rumination will be especially strongly related to satis-
faction with the co-ruminating relationship, because the
intimacy elicited by co-rumination is likely especially
comforting in times of stress, and to job satisfaction,
because of the quality of this friendship within the work-
place. Research also indicates that women are especially
sensitive to interpersonal stress at work (Narayanan et al.
1999), and the stress of abusive supervision might have a
differential impact on the relationship between co-rumi-
nation and adjustment for men and women. This would be
consistent with previous research in which gender, stress,
and social support interacted to predict physical health
(Wohlgemuth and Betz 1991).
However, workers who co-ruminate and experience
abusive supervision might also be at especially high risk
for depression, and for work stress to spill over into other
life domains. Abusive supervision can be complicated,
ambiguous, and multi-faceted. As such, it can provide
considerable grist for the co-rumination mill. Abusive
supervision is a powerful interpersonal stressor, and when
workplace problems are severe, excessively rehashing the
details of those problems is likely to contribute to depres-
sion and to spillover to home. In contrast, co-ruminators
under less stress might focus on relatively trivial problems
that do not have the power to affect their well-being.
Moreover, the detrimental-combined effect of co-rumi-
nation and abusive supervision might be especially strong
for women. Longitudinal work with youth indicated that
for girls, but not boys, co-rumination predicted internaliz-
ing symptoms over time (Rose et al. 2007). This fits with
our prediction that, because women are more sensitive to
interpersonal stress at work, the strongest negative effects
on emotional adjustment and spillover would be expected
for women who co-ruminate with workplace friends and
have abusive supervisors.
Hypothesis 4 Gender and abusive supervision moderate
the relationships between co-rumination and the outcome
variables of interest such that the positive and negative
effects of co-rumination are exacerbated for women with
highly abusive supervisors.
Notably, in regard to our final hypothesis, we acknowl-
edge that our assessment of co-rumination involves workers
reporting the degree to which they co-ruminate with a
workplace friend about workplace problems in general, and
not about abusive supervision in particular. This means that
we cannot know that co-ruminators subjected to abusive
supervision are co-ruminating about the abusive supervi-
sion. However, given its salience, it is reasonable to suspect
30 J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:27–40
123
that workers who experience and report abusive supervision
and report co-ruminating about work problems focus at
least some on the abuse. Moreover, the co-rumination of
workers experiencing abusive supervision might be espe-
cially damaging even when they are co-ruminating about
other work problems. In particular, the deleterious effects of
co-rumination might be especially strong for individuals
who are under high levels of stress regardless of the topic of
co-rumination. This prediction fits with general adaptation
theory, which posits that exposure to stress lowers a per-
son’s ability to deal with adversity (Rowe 2006; Selye
1946).
Method
Participants and Procedure
Anonymous surveys were mailed to business school alumni
of a large Midwestern University who were at least 5 years
post-graduation. Respondents were offered a nominal gift
with a $5 value for participation. Follow-up postcards were
sent at 4 and 8 weeks.
Completed surveys were returned by 247 alumni
(approximate response rate of 10%). Although our
response rate was low, it is not surprising considering the
personal nature of some of the questions, the survey length,
the fact that we could not target employed alumni, incor-
rect addresses, and the likelihood that a significant number
of alumni were retired. Respondents who reported co-
ruminating with an individual from outside of work
(n=73) were not included in our analyses.
Analyses were conducted using participants with com-
plete data, and sample sizes for our analyses ranged from
146 to 148. Participants ranged in age from 27 to 78
(Mage =47.9, SD =8.78) were predominately white
(94.6%) and female (60%), and had work experience in a
wide variety of industries (manufacturing, services, retail,
banking, government, and education).
Measures
Participants completed a questionnaire assessing co-rumi-
nation, relationship, emotional, and work-related adjust-
ment, and a measure of abusive supervision. The survey
instructed participants to answer all friend-related ques-
tions with regard to the same close friend. In analyses, age
was included as a control variable. In the developmental
literature, age effects have been found for co-rumination
(Rose 2002; Rose et al. 2007). Although co-rumination has
not previously been examined in an adult sample with a
broad age range, age effects might be expected given that
age differences have been found for other types of coping
strategies in adulthood (Diehl et al. 1996). In addition, age
effects were possible for the adjustment variables consid-
ered (e.g., job satisfaction, Pond and Geyer 1991; depres-
sion, Trouillet and Gana 2008) as well as work-to-family
conflict (Matthews et al. in press). As such, the decision
was made to control for age when considering relations
among these variables.
Co-Rumination
Rose’s (2002) measure of co-rumination was revised for
this study. The original measure included 27 items with 3
items assessing each of 9 content areas: (a) frequently
discussing problems, (b) discussing problems instead of
engaging in other activities, (c) encouragement by the focal
individual of the friend discussing problems, (d) encour-
agement by the friend of the focal individual discussing
problems, (e) discussing the same problem repeatedly,
(f) speculation about problem causes, (g) speculation about
problem consequences, (h) speculation about parts of the
problem that are not understood, and (i) focusing on neg-
ative feelings. Factor analysis of the original 27-item scale
indicated a single factor (Rose 2002).
For this study, the item with the highest factor loading
from each content area was retained based on the factor
analysis conducted by Rose (2002), resulting in a 9-item
measure (see Appendix). The items were revised so that
they focused specifically on problems at work rather than
problems in general. Respondents were instructed to,
‘think of a particular person at work that you feel a close
friendship with. If you do not have a close friend at work,
think of a close friend with whom you discuss work.’’
Respondents were then asked to indicate whether the friend
was a coworker or friend outside of work. Data only
were used for participants who reported on a coworker.
A sample item is ‘When we talk about a problem that I
have at work we spend a long time talking about how sad
or mad I feel.’ Participants responded using a 5-point scale
to indicate how true each item was for them (1 =not at all
true, 5 =really true).
Relationship Satisfaction with Friend
Relationship satisfaction with a close friend was measured
by adapting Hendrick’s (1988) 7-item, general relationship
satisfaction scale. Participants rated each item on a 5-point
scale. A sample item is ‘‘How good is your relationship
compared to most?’ (1 =poor, 5 =excellent).’’
Depression
Depression was measured using the 20-item Center for
Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (Radloff 1977).
J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:27–40 31
123
Respondents were asked to indicate how often they have
felt specific depressive symptoms over the past week. Items
included, ‘I was bothered by things that usually do not
bother me,’ and ‘I did not enjoy life.’ Participants rated
each item on a 4-point scale (0 =rarely or none of the
time, \1 day, 3 =Most or all of the time, 5–7 days).
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured with a 16-item scale
developed by Spector (1997). A sample item is ‘I like
doing the things I do at work.’ Participants rated each item
on a 5-point scale (1 =strongly disagree, 5 =strongly
agree).
Work-to-Family Conflict
Work-to-family conflict was measured with a 5-item scale
developed by Netemeyer et al. (1996). A sample item is
‘The demands of my work interfere with my home and
family life.’ Participants rated each item on a 5-point scale
(1 =not at all true, 5 =really true).
Abusive Supervision
Abusive supervision was measured with Tepper’s (2000)
15-item scale. Participants rated each item on a 5-point
scale (1 =never, 5 =very often) regarding how fre-
quently their supervisors engaged in behaviors such as
‘ridicules me,’ and ‘is rude to me.’’
Results
Descriptive Statistics
For descriptive purposes, correlations among all study
variables and scale reliabilities are presented in Table 1.
Scale reliabilities were satisfactory (i.e., between
alpha =.85 and .93). Consistent with previous work on
co-rumination, the mean level of co-rumination reported by
women (n=88, m=2.90) was significantly higher
than that of reported by men (n=59, m=2.39, F(1, 145)
=13.47, p\.05).
Because this was the first study to examine co-rumina-
tion in the workplace, we briefly describe additional
descriptive statistics that help speak to the degree to which
participants reported co-ruminative behavior. The median
for co-rumination was 2.56 (on a 5-point scale). An
examination of the frequency distribution indicated that
10.2% of respondents had a mean of 4 or higher on the
scale describing how accurately each co-rumination item
described them (4 =‘mostly true’’), 36.7% of respondents
were at or above the mid-point of the scale (3 =‘some-
what true’’), and 78.9% were at or above 2 (2 =‘‘a little
true’’).
Measurement Model
Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) on the six scales used to
test our primary hypotheses (i.e., co-rumination, abusive
supervision, depression, work-to-family conflict, relation-
ship satisfaction with a friend, and job satisfaction) were
conducted to verify unidimensionality. Examination of
eigenvalues and scree plots demonstrated that all six scales
exhibited substantial unidimensionality. Of particular note,
EFA on the 9-item co-rumination scale adapted for this
study demonstrated strong unidimensionality as exhibited
by the classic elbow pattern in the scree plot, and with a
first eigenvalue accounting for 62% of the variance. In
addition, all items loaded strongly and uniformly on the
latent factor. A series of confirmatory factor analyses were
then conducted using LISREL 8 (Jo
¨reskog and So
¨rbom
1993) to test the measurement model. Models were fit after
first combining items into four multi-item parcels per
measure, in order to increase indicator reliability (Bagozzi
and Edwards 1998; Bandalos 2002). The proposed six-
factor model fit the data well (v
2
=486, df =237,
Table 1 Correlation matrix, descriptive statistics, and reliabilities
Variables nM SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Age 146 47.88 8.78
2. Gender (0 =male) 148 -.11
3. Co-rumination 147 2.69 .86 -.03 .29** (.91)
4. Relationship satisfaction 148 4.07 .58 .06 .22** .29** (.84)
5. Job satisfaction 147 4.16 .68 .01 .03 .01 .22** (.84)
6. Depression 148 .32 .35 -.02 -.01 .02 -.28** -.30** (.89)
7. Work-to-family conflict 148 2.43 .96 -.17* .00 .26** -.20* -.17* .19* (.93)
8. Abusive supervision 148 1.37 .58 -.00 .15 .15 -.06 -.47** .11 .09 (.92)
*pB.05; ** pB.01
32 J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:27–40
123
RMSEA =.082, CFI =.91, NNFI =.90), and signifi-
cantly better than both a single-factor model (v
2
=2313,
df =252, RMSEA =.27, CFI =.26, NNFI =.19), and a
four-factor model that combined relationship satisfaction
and job satisfaction into a single-factor, and depression and
work-to-family conflict into a single-factor (v
2
=1097,
df =246, RMSEA =.17, CFI =.69, NNFI =.66).
Correlation Patterns for Co-Rumination and Workplace
Outcomes
Hypotheses 1 and 2 addressed co-rumination’s expected
adjustment trade-offs. Hypothesis 1 proposed that
co-rumination would be positively related to relation-
ship satisfaction with a friend and to job satisfaction.
As predicted, co-rumination with friends about work
problems was related to higher satisfaction with the
friendship (r=.29, p\.05). However, the zero-order
correlation between co-rumination and job-satisfaction
was not significant. Hypothesis 2 stated that co-rumina-
tion would be related positively to depression, but the
correlation was not significant. Hypothesis 3, that
co-rumination would be related positively to work-
to-family conflict, was supported (r=.26, p\.05).
Three-Way Interactions: Gender, Abusive Supervision,
and Co-Rumination
Hypothesis 4 proposed that gender and abusive supervision
together moderate the associations between the co-rumi-
nation and the outcome variables such that the effects of
co-rumination are exacerbated for women with highly
abusive supervisors. Co-rumination and abusive supervi-
sion were entered and used in hierarchical regression
analyses for each outcome variable (see Table 2). In step
one, gender, co-rumination, and abusive supervision were
entered simultaneously, along with age (as a control vari-
able). In step two, all two-way interactions among gender,
co-rumination, and abusive supervision were entered.
In step three, the three-way interaction among gender,
co-rumination, and abusive supervision was entered.
The three-way interaction terms were significant for
three of the four dependent variables: job satisfaction,
F(1, 135) =9.24, depression, F(1, 136) =9.01, and work-
to-family conflict, F(1, 136) =3.95. Neither the interaction
term nor the overall equation for relationship satisfaction
was significant, F(1,136) =.27. Unlike the equations for
the remaining variables, the overall equation for depression
did not reach significance (p=.06). However, given that
the overall regression equation for depression approached
significance, and the pattern of results was consistent with
the patterns for other dependent variables, we further
examined the three-way interaction for depression.
We used simple slope analyses (Aiken and West 1991)
to examine the associations between co-rumination and
each outcome variable for men and women at high and
low levels of abusive supervision (±1 SD from the
mean). The interactions are presented graphically for job
satisfaction (Fig. 1), depression (Fig. 2), and work-to-
family conflict (Fig. 3). In each figure, the results for
women are presented in the top panel and results for men
in the bottom panel.
Table 2 Regressions results for
significant three-way interaction
of co-rumination, gender,
abusive supervision
*p\.05; ** p\.01,
p\.10
Relationship
satisfaction
Job
satisfaction
Depression Work-to-family
conflict
N=145 N=144 N=145 N=145
Step 1
Age .11 .00 -.05 -.18*
Co-rumination .22 .01 .04 .18
Gender (0 =male) .20 .16 -.10 -.12
Abusive supervision -.16 -.37** .20 -.04
R
2
.13** .23** .01 .10**
Step 2
Co-rumination 9gender .06 .06 -.06 .10
Co-rumination 9abusive supervision .15 .57** -.57** -.30
Abusive supervision 9gender .03 -.10 -.15 .08
DR
2
.01 .04 .03 .01
Step 3
Co-rumination 9abusive
supervision 9gender
-.09 -.50** .51** .34*
DR
2
.00 .05** .06** .03*
Equation R
2
.14 .32** .10
.13*
J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:27–40 33
123
Contrary to expectations, simple slope analyses indi-
cated that co-rumination did not predict job satisfaction for
women at either higher or lower levels of abusive super-
vision [job satisfaction, ?1 SD, B=.11, t(136) =1.40,
ns; -1 SD, B=.02, t(135) =.26, ns]. However, the
findings for men were consistent with the idea that expe-
riencing stress in the form of abusive supervision amplifies
the positive relationship between co-rumination and job
satisfaction. Among men who experienced higher levels of
abusive supervision, co-ruminating was related to greater
job satisfaction [B=.34, t(135) =3.10, p\.05]. On the
other hand, co-rumination was negatively related to job
satisfaction for men experiencing lower levels of abusive
supervision [B=-.33, t(135) =-2.89, p\.05].
The findings regarding depression were not consistent
with the hypothesis that the negative effects of co-rumi-
nation would be the strongest under higher levels of stress.
Simple slope analyses indicated that co-rumination did not
predict depression for women at either higher or lower
levels of abusive supervision [depression, ?1 SD, B=
-.01, t(135) =-.17, ns; -1 SD, B=-.03, t(135) =
-.46, ns]. For men, however, we found the opposite pat-
tern. Co-rumination was related to greater depression for
the men who experienced lower levels of abusive super-
vision [depression, B=.22, t(136) =2.62, p\.05]. For
men who experienced higher levels of abusive supervision,
co-rumination actually predicted lower levels of depression
[depression, B=-.19, t(136) =-2.32, p\.05].
The findings for work-to-family conflict for women
were consistent with our hypothesis that co-rumination
would be related most strongly to negative adjustment
outcomes under high levels of abusive supervision. Simple
slope analyses indicated that co-rumination was associated
with more work-to-family conflict for women under high
levels of abusive supervision [B=.44, t(136) =2.93,
p\.05], but not for women under low levels of abusive
supervision [B=.27, t(136) =1.60, ns]. Results for work-
to-family conflict also indicated that co-rumination was a
risk factor for men, but for those men experiencing lower
levels of abusive supervision. For these men, co-rumination
was related to greater work-to-family conflict [B=.50,
t(136) =2.24, p\.05]. Co-rumination was not related to
work-to-family conflict for men who experienced higher
levels of abusive supervision [B=-.09, t(136) =-.42,
ns].
Fig. 1 Three-way interaction of gender, abusive supervision, and co-
rumination on job satisfaction
Fig. 2 Three-way interaction of gender, abusive supervision, and co-
rumination on depression
Fig. 3 Three-way interaction of gender, abusive supervision, and
co-rumination on work-to-family conflict
34 J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:27–40
123
Table 3presents a schematic highlighting the contrast-
ing results for men and women under differing levels of
abusive supervision. For women experiencing high levels
of abusive supervision, co-rumination was associated
with greater work-to-family conflict. In contrast, for men
experiencing high abusive supervision, co-rumination was
associated with lower levels of depression and higher
job satisfaction. However, the most striking differences
between men and women were found under low abusive
supervision, where co-rumination had no significant effect
on any outcome variable for women, but had a significant
negative effect on every outcome variable for men. Taken
collectively these results provide little support for the
a priori predictions of Hypothesis 4. However, we consider
the significant but opposite findings for men particularly
intriguing and worthy of future research.
Discussion
Negative workplace events can have significant effects on
the well-being of employees and their families. The coping
literature suggests support from one’s coworkers might
mitigate such effects (e.g., Beehr et al. 2000). However, the
literature also suggests that talking about one’s problems as
a form of social support can be risky (e.g., Zellars and
Perrewe
´2001) especially if this type of social support is
provided by one’s closest colleague (Elfering et al. 2002).
This study took a novel approach to the study of social
support by exploring whether the construct of co-rumina-
tion, adopted from the developmental psychology literature
(Rose 2002; Rose et al. 2007), might provide useful theo-
retical guidance for understanding how intensive discus-
sion of workplace problems with a friend at work can have
both positive and negative effects on workers. In particular,
we tested whether co-rumination with a workplace friend
about workplace problems carried similar risks and benefits
as co-rumination between friends in childhood and
adolescence. Moreover, we tested possible trade-offs of
co-rumination unique to the workplace; namely, whether
co-rumination was associated with greater job satisfaction
as well as increased work-to-family conflict.
In addition, this study tested whether the impact of
co-rumination on adjustment was affected by the degree to
which workers experienced stress at work, namely, abusive
supervision. Given that co-rumination involves a focus on
problems, considering the degree to which the co-rumina-
tor is experiencing stress is important. We chose abusive
supervision as an important indicator of stress at work
because research indicates that experiencing such abuse is
quite stressful and has an impact on functioning in and out
of the workplace (Tepper 2000). In fact, the results indi-
cated that abusive supervision was a crucial moderator.
Had abusive supervision and gender not been included as
moderators, our understanding of the impact of co-rumi-
nation at work would have been severely limited.
Recall that our hypothesis was that the effects of
co-rumination would be magnified in response to high
levels of abusive supervision, particularly for women. That
is, when workers experience high levels of stress and,
presumably have very real troubles about which to
co-ruminate, they might have the most to gain in regards to
the hypothesized benefits of co-rumination (relationship
quality and job satisfaction). However, they also might
experience the greatest risk in terms of the hypothesized
costs of co-rumination (depression, work-to-family con-
flict). These effects were expected to be exaggerated for
women because they are more sensitive to interpersonal
stress at work and talk to others more in response to stress
(Narayanan et al. 1999).
For women experiencing high abusive supervision,
co-rumination was associated with greater work-to-family
conflict. Co-rumination is thought to make salient the
details and negative feelings associated with problems,
which could have an especially detrimental impact on well-
being and workplace adjustment when those problems are
severe. Also consistent with co-rumination theory, there
were positive adjustment outcomes for these women.
Co-rumination was related to high-quality relationship with
the friend with whom problems were discussed for the
entire sample. This relationship was not moderated by
abusive supervision or gender, meaning that these women
experienced the benefit of friendship satisfaction despite
the costs of co-rumination. In fact, it is plausible that
women find this positive relationship outcome quite rein-
forcing, thus solidifying their tendency to co-ruminate.
Interestingly, the effects of experiencing high levels of
abusive supervision for men were the exact opposite of our
expectations. For men experiencing high levels of abusive
supervision, co-rumination was related to lower depression
and greater job satisfaction. Although co-ruminating and
Table 3 Summary of results for relationships between outcome
variables of interest and co-rumination at varying level of abusive
supervision
Outcome variables of interest Level of abusive supervision
Women Men
Hi Lo Hi Lo
Job satisfaction hh?-
Depression hh-?
Work-to-family conflict 1hh1
?, relationship between co-rumination and outcome variable was
positive; -, relationship between co-rumination and outcome variable
was negative; h, no significant relationship between co-rumination
and outcome variable
J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:27–40 35
123
experiencing high abusive supervision was expected to
predict poor adjustment, the results reveal that men who
co-ruminated and experienced high levels of abusive
supervision were relatively well-adjusted compared to
other men. Moreover, given the bivariate link with rela-
tionship satisfaction, these men also experienced a positive
relationship with their friend.
A potential explanation for the differing effects between
men and women involves the content of co-ruminative
conversations, which was not assessed in this study. Fol-
lowing the definition of co-rumination, the measure of
co-rumination assessed the degree to which individuals talk
frequently about problems, speculate about problems, and
dwell on negative affect. What the measure does not assess
is the degree to which individuals focus on problem solv-
ing. Given men’s greater tendency to interpret statements
of problems as an invitation to solve them (Tannen 1994),
it is reasonable to suspect that men are more likely than
women to include a focus on solutions when they
co-ruminate, which could help them deal with problems
and help protect them from the negative effects of
co-rumination. Men might be especially likely to focus on
solutions when faced with serious problems, such as abu-
sive supervision. A related possibility is that men are more
likely to spend at least some time during co-ruminative
conversations re-framing problems in a constructive man-
ner. This would be consistent with the idea proposed by
LaRocco et al. (1980) that social support has positive
effects when friends convince us that problems might not
be as bad as they seem and negative effects when friends
convince us that the problems are even worse.
The effects of co-rumination also differed between
women and men experiencing low levels of abusive
supervision. We hypothesized that the effects of co-rumi-
nation would be weaker for workers experiencing low
levels of abusive supervision. In fact, for women who
experienced low abusive supervision, co-rumination about
work problems was not related to any emotional or work-
related adjustment problems. Individuals experiencing low
levels of abusive supervision might have a generally
positive work environment, so the work problems they
discuss might be relatively trivial. This could be important
in combination with the fact that, from childhood,
co-rumination is a relatively common female response to
problems. If women are accustomed to co-ruminating, they
might have developed an immunity of sorts to these per-
severative conversations.
However, this was not the case for men experiencing
low abusive supervision. For such men, co-rumination
predicted poorer emotional adjustment (depression) and
each workplace adjustment variable (work-to-family con-
flict, job satisfaction). In fact, inspection of the means in
the figures indicates that these men were characterized by
the poorest adjustment relative to other men in regards to
depression, and job satisfaction.
Why are men who co-ruminate at risk for adjustment
problems when they are experiencing low levels of abusive
supervision? The developmental trajectories of co-rumi-
nation again might provide an answer. Research with
children ranging from age 9 to 14 indicates that the dif-
ference in girls’ and boys’ tendency to co-ruminate
becomes stronger with age (Rose 2002; Rose et al. 2007).
Even in relatively early childhood, girls report greater
co-rumination than boys. Then, as youth move into ado-
lescence, girls’ co-rumination scores tend to increase,
whereas boys’ co-rumination scores decrease to very low
levels (Rose 2002). It is reasonable to suspect that, by
adulthood, men have very little experience with co-rumi-
nation. It might be, though, that some men do develop a
more co-ruminative style in adulthood either through their
experiences interacting with women or because their
interactions with men have become more conversation-
based and less activity-based with age.
Consider the possible effects of co-rumination on men if
they are less accustomed to co-ruminating and their prob-
lems are relatively minor. We hypothesized that men
experiencing high levels of abusive supervision might
have a lot to gain from the social support inherent in
co-rumination because they are grappling with significant
problems. In contrast, the social support associated with
co-rumination should be less beneficial to men who are
under less stress. However, there is a significant risk that
co-rumination about relatively small problems can make
them especially salient and magnify their impact. More-
over, this risk might be especially strong if men do not have
much experience with how co-ruminative conversations
unfold and the feelings they induce. In this regard, when
men are experiencing low levels of stress, co-rumination
might make ‘mountains out of molehills.’’ As a result, men
might find themselves distressed about problems that typi-
cally would not upset them. Nevertheless, recall that, even
for these men, co-rumination is related to satisfaction with
their friend with whom they co-ruminate. As noted, this
relationship benefit might reinforce a co-ruminative style
that, for these men, is generally maladaptive.
Limitations
Limitations of this study can be addressed in future
research. First, the study was based on self-reports, which
raises the possibility of inferential problems caused by a
mono-method bias. However, there are factors that mitigate
this concern. A mono-method bias implies that correlations
between variables would be artificially inflated, and would
be manifest in a pattern of artificially high positive
36 J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:27–40
123
correlations between all measured variables (Spector
2006), However, our correlation table (Table 1) reflects a
mix of positive, negative, and non-significant relationships,
and the fit of the measurement model provides some degree
of confidence that participants appeared to make clear
conceptual distinctions between the measures of our key
variables. Moreover, shared method variance tends to
attenuate one’s ability to detect true interactions rather than
create artificial interaction patterns (Evans 1985), sug-
gesting that the interactions patterns we observed are
robust. In addition, the size of our sample required the use
of a parceling strategy to test the measurement model, and
we note that such a strategy potentially obscures weak-
nesses in individual items. However, given that the scales
used in this study have been well-validated, we believe that
this represents only a minor threat.
Additionally, the cross-sectional design limits our abil-
ity to infer causality unambiguously. The hypotheses of the
study were driven by the idea that co-rumination and
abusive supervision (and their interplay) impact adjustment
outcomes. This is supported by previous longitudinal
research, indicating that co-rumination predicts changes in
adjustment outcomes over time (Rose et al. 2007) and that
abusive supervision affects job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment over time (Tepper et al. 2004). How-
ever, with regard to co-rumination, it is plausible that
having a high-quality friendship at work could lead to
greater co-rumination over time. Similarly, it is plausible
that adjustment problems might lead to co-rumination. The
issue calls for future longitudinal research in order to tease
out the temporal ordering of the variables. In addition, the
use of longitudinal research designs could examine both
the proximal effects of co-rumination (positive interper-
sonal relationships) as well as unfolding processes such as
co-rumination’s effect on work–family conflict, and the
subsequent effect of work–family conflict on other out-
comes such as depression and/or family dysfunction.
An additional set of concerns involves the small sample
and response rate. Although the response rate was low, the
exact rate is impossible to calculate due to the unknown
number of sampled individuals who were retired, self-
employed, had no supervisor, no longer lived at the given
address, or were not currently employed. Certainly, the fact
that limited compensation was given for completing the
lengthy survey accounts for some portion of non-
responders as well. In addition, given the focus on
co-rumination with a workplace friend, individuals who
reported co-ruminating with someone outside of work were
excluded. Future research might investigate how co-rumi-
nation about problems in the workplace with an outside
friend or spouse influences adjustment.
Another concern usually associated with low response
rates is self-selection of particular types of people into the
study. In this study, it is plausible that individuals who
were interested in workplace relationships were more
likely to complete the survey. However, if there was
selection bias in this study, this would have likely caused
restriction of range in the responses, making it more dif-
ficult to detect interaction patterns. Nevertheless, future
studies might benefit from taking steps to obtain higher
response rates not only to investigate new questions, but
also to replicate the current findings. Replication is
encouraged given the novelty of this construct to the
organizational literature.
Because the co-rumination literature is careful to define
co-rumination as narrow in focus, and because our purpose
was to examine its specific effects on individuals in the
workplace, we did not incorporate a broader social support
measure. However, including additional social support
measures in future studies could establish the incremental
contribution of co-rumination beyond other social support
constructs. In particular, we believe that co-rumination will
be particularly useful for predicting trade-offs between
good and bad outcomes.
Future Research
In addition to the future research opportunities already
mentioned, we think that studying individual antecedents
and situational antecedents of co-rumination would be
particularly interesting. With regard to individual ante-
cedents, it is possible that there are personality character-
istics that make individuals especially likely to co-ruminate
or to be especially vulnerable to its harmful effects. For
example, agreeableness, neuroticism, and affinity seeking
might predispose some individuals to engage in co-rumi-
nation, while positive core-self evaluations might mitigate
its harmful effects. In addition, life stage might influence
the topics and impact of co-ruminative conversations as the
sources and types of stress change over the course of a
lifetime.
An examination of the descriptive statistics of our
co-rumination measure also suggests that while relatively
few people might be engaging in substantial co-ruminative
behavior at any given time, when salient workplace prob-
lems arise, many individuals might engage in co-rumina-
tion. Perhaps as levels of anxiety and uncertainty increase
in response to environmental issues such as problems in the
economy and concerns about job security, people who
have tendencies toward co-rumination might engage in
co-ruminative behaviors more and more frequently.
Also in regards to future research, associations with
other processes could reveal additional trade-offs of
co-rumination. On the positive side, co-rumination may be
related to sensemaking in the workplace. Sensemaking
J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:27–40 37
123
involves attempts by organizational members to construct
meaning from the complex environments in which they
find themselves (Weick et al. 2005). The detailed conver-
sations that are inherent in co-rumination may help clarify
and integrate some of the nuances and complexities of the
workplace, which could be valuable and adaptive. In
addition, research focused on the sensemaking value of
co-rumination could also provide more information about
the topics that are the frequent focus of men’s and women’s
workplace co-rumination.
On the negative side, though, co-rumination may also
contribute to the contagion of negative emotions or inter-
nalizing symptoms across individuals. Previous research
on emotion contagion indicates that emotions can be
transmitted across individuals who interact (Hatfield et al.
1993). Recent research with adolescents indicates that
co-rumination helps to account for the contagion of
depressive and anxiety symptoms across friends (Sch-
wartz-Mette and Rose, under review). It may be that when
a distressed youth co-ruminates with a friend, that friend’s
distress increases as a result of engaging in repetitive,
negatively focused co-ruminative discussions. In future
research in the workplace, studies could consider the
adjustment outcomes not only for people who do co-
ruminate, but also for the friends who are drawn into these
conversations and for others in the workplace who are
exposed to the friends’ co-rumination.
This study represents an intriguing first step in the
application and examination of a new construct in the
workplace and provides a foundation for future study. As
such it not only answers questions, but also provokes them.
For example, does the severity of the problem being dis-
cussed influence the effects of co-rumination? Do men and
women differ in the topics about which they co-ruminate?
Do people have different motivations for co-rumination?
What personality characteristics might influence the topics
of co-rumination or the effects of co-rumination for indi-
viduals? While these questions cannot be addressed in a
single study, we suggest that our results clearly indicate
that co-rumination has significant potential as an explana-
tory construct for important organizational phenomena.
Conclusions
This study extended our knowledge regarding the impact of
social support at work by adapting a particularly nuanced
assessment of social support from the developmental psy-
chology literature. Previous studies might have produced
conflicting results about the effects of social support, in
part because social support can be assessed in many dif-
ferent ways. However, this study underscores the notion
that the type and quality of social support might contribute
substantially to individual outcomes. Moreover, our study
is the first to consider exposure to stress (experiencing
abusive supervision) as a moderator of the effects of
co-rumination, which proved to be critical. By assessing a
specific form of social support and considering both abu-
sive supervision and gender as moderators, our study pro-
vided an interesting picture of how the interplay among
social support, stress, and gender can affect well-being and
workplace adjustment. Hopefully, the current research will
stimulate interest in the study of co-rumination in the
workplace.
Appendix
Co-Rumination at Work Scale
1. When I have a problem at work, we talk to each other
about it for a long time.
2. If I have a problem at work, we will spend our time
together talking about it, no matter what else we could
do instead.
3. When my friend has a problem, I always try really hard
to keep my friend talking about it.
4. When I have a problem, my friend always tries to get
me to tell every detail about what happened.
5. When we talk about a problem that I have at work we
will talk about every part of the problem over and over.
6. When we talk about a problem that I have at work we
talk a lot about the problem in order to understand why
it happened.
7. When we talk about a problem that I have at work we
talk a lot about all the different bad things that might
happen because of the problem.
8. When we talk about a problem that I have at work, we
try to figure out everything about the problem, even if
there are parts that we might never understand.
9. When we talk about a problem that I have at work we
spend a long time talking about how sad or mad I feel.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for
representing constructs in organizational research. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 1, 45–87.
Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-
fit and parameter estimates bias in structural equation modeling.
Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 78–102.
Baron, J. N., & Pfeffer, J. (1994). The social psychology of
organizations and inequality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57,
190–209.
38 J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:27–40
123
Bartolome
´, F., & Evans, P. A. L. (1980). Must success cost so much?
Harvard Business Review, 58, 137–148.
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 Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 8, 220–231.
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.
Beehr, T. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Social support and
occupational stress: Talking to supervisors. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 36, 61–81.
Bekker, M. H. J., Nijssen, A., & Hens, G. (2001). Stress prevention
training: Sex differences in types of stressors, coping, and
training effects. Stress and Health, 17, 207–218.
Bergman, M. E., Langhout, R. D., Palmieri, P., Cortina, L. M., &
Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). The (un)reasonableness of reporting:
Antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual harassment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 230–242.
Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe
´, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in
the stressor-strain relationship: An examination of work-family
conflict. Journal of Management, 25, 513–540.
Ciesla, J. A., & Roberts, J. E. (2007). Rumination, negative cognition,
and their interactive effects on depressed mood. Emotion, 7,
555–565.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the
buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
Diehl, M., Coyle, N., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (1996). Age and sex
differences in strategies of coping and defense across the life
span. Psychology and Aging, 11, 127–139.
Elfering, A., Semmer, N. K., Schade, V., Grund, S., & Boos, N.
(2002). Supportive colleague, unsupportive supervisor: The role
of provider-specific constellations of social support at work in
the development of low back pain. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 7, 130–140.
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated
method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36,
305–323.
Fenlason, K. J., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Social support and
occupational stress: Effects of talking to others. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15, 157–175.
Frost, P. J. (2004). Handling toxic emotions: New challenges for
leaders and their organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 33,
111–127.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between
work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–
88.
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E, I. I. I. (1971). Employee reactions to
job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259–286.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotion
contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 96–99.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 93–98.
Jo
¨reskog, K., & So
¨rbom, D. (1993). LISERAL 8: Structural equation
modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (Eds.). (1992). Stress in organizations
(2nd ed., Vol. 3). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kaufman, G. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1986). Interactions between job
stressors and social support: Some counterintuitive results.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 522–526.
LaRocco, J. M., House, J. S., & French, J. R. P, Jr. (1980). Social
support, occupational stress, and health. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 21, 202–218.
Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998).
Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-
disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsive-
ness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 1238–1251.
Matthews, R. A., Bulger, C. A., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (in press).
Work social supports, role stressors, and work-family conflict:
The moderating effect of age. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.011.
Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). Stress in the
workplace: A comparison of gender and occupations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20, 63–73.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Develop-
ment and validation of work-family conflict and family-work
conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1991). A prospective study of
depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms after a natural
disaster: The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 61, 115–121.
Pond, S. B., & Geyer, P. D. (1991). Differences in the relation
between job satisfaction and perceived work alternatives among
older and younger blue-collar workers. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 39, 251–262.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self report depression scale
for research in the general population. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Rose, A. J. (2002). Co-rumination in the friendships of girls and boys.
Child Development, 73, 1830–1843.
Rose, A. J., Carlson, W., & Waller, E. M. (2007). Prospective
associations of co-rumination with friendship and emotional
adjustment: Considering the socioemotional trade-offs of co-
rumination. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1019–1031.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in
peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional
and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological
Bulletin, 132, 98–131.
Rowe, M. M. (2006). Four-year longitudinal study of behavioral
changes in coping with stress. American Journal of Health
Behavior, 30, 602–612.
Sandelands, L. E., & Boudens, C. J. (2000). Feeling at work. In S.
Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (pp. 46–63). London:
Sage.
Schwartz-Mette, R. A., & Rose, A. J. (under review). Co-rumination
mediates contagion of internalizing symptoms with youths’
friendships.
Selye, H. (1946). The general adaptation syndrome and the diseases
of adaptation. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology, 6(2), 117–
230.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment,
cause, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research:
Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2),
221–232.
Sundstrom, E., Town, J. P., Rice, R. W., & Osborn, D. P. (1994).
Office noise, satisfaction, and performance. Environment &
Behavior, 26, 195–222.
Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: How women’s and men’s
conversational styles affect who gets heard, who gets credit, and
what gets done at work. New York: William Morrow and
Company, Inc.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung,
R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to
stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psycho-
logical Review, 107, 411–429.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy
of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.
J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:27–40 39
123
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004).
Moderators of the relationship between coworkers’ organiza-
tional citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455–465.
Thierry, H., & Meijman, T. (1994). Time and behavior at work. In H.
C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp.
341–413). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Trouillet, R., & Gana, K. (2008). Age differences in temperament,
character and depressive mood: A cross-sectional study. Clinical
Psychology & Psychotherapy, 15, 266–275.
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. J., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social
support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314–334.
Waller, E. M., & Rose, A. J. (in press). Adjustment trade-offs of
co-rumination in mother-adolescent relationships. Journal of
Adolescence. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.06.002.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and
the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409–421.
Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., & Montgomery, M. J. (1995). The
quality of friendships at work and job satisfaction. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 199–215.
Wohlgemuth, E., & Betz, N. E. (1991). Gender as a moderator of
the relationship of stress and social support to physical health
in college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38,
367–374.
Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal
sensemaking and the meaning of work. In R. M. Kramer & B. M.
Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual
series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 25, pp. 93–
135). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Zellars, K. L., & Perrewe
´, P. L. (2001). Affective personality and the
content of emotional social support: Coping in organizations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 459–467.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988).
The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 52, 30–41.
40 J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:27–40
123
... Moreover, we introduce a constructive type of coworker support to the abusive-supervision literature. In contrast to other, more negatively framed types of support (e.g., corumination; Haggard et al., 2011), coworker reappraisal support could help subordinates reevaluate the supervisor's abusive behavior, and subsequently, abusive supervision might have less severe consequences for subordinates' recovery experiences. Therefore, we aim to shed light on contradictory empirical results on the role of coworker support in abusive-supervision research (Hobman et al., 2009;Wu & Hu, 2009). ...
... Talking to coworkers about abusive supervision can help them cognitively process the experience, which, in turn, is positively related to subordinates' psychological detachment. A former study by Haggard et al. (2011) found that engaging in corumination (i.e., long and excessive conversations about negative situations) enhances the adverse effects of abusive supervision because negative cognitions get reactivated. In contrast, our study showed that coworkers can have a positive impact by providing reappraisal support, suggesting that the content of coworker support matters: Constructive conversations with coworkers-as characterized by reappraisal support-are beneficial for subordinates' rumination, whereas excessive conversations that dwell on negative experiences can have downsides (Haggard et al., 2011). ...
... A former study by Haggard et al. (2011) found that engaging in corumination (i.e., long and excessive conversations about negative situations) enhances the adverse effects of abusive supervision because negative cognitions get reactivated. In contrast, our study showed that coworkers can have a positive impact by providing reappraisal support, suggesting that the content of coworker support matters: Constructive conversations with coworkers-as characterized by reappraisal support-are beneficial for subordinates' rumination, whereas excessive conversations that dwell on negative experiences can have downsides (Haggard et al., 2011). Our study, therefore, adds a new perspective to research on how talking to coworkers can help employees deal with abusive supervision. ...
Article
Full-text available
Recovery from work is highly relevant for employees, yet understanding the interpersonal antecedents of impaired recovery experiences remains unclear. Specifically, because former research neglected supervisor behaviors as a predictor of impaired recovery and abusive supervision is a core stressor, we examine daily abusive supervision as a predictor of subordinates’ recovery experiences (i.e., psychological detachment and relaxation). We draw on research on the recovery paradox and propose that psychological detachment and relaxation will be impaired on days with high abusive supervision, although recovery would have been highly important on those days. We suggest a cognitive mechanism (via rumination) and an affective mechanism (via anger) to explain this paradox. We test coworker reappraisal support as a moderator that buffers the adverse effects of abusive supervision on rumination and anger. In a daily diary study (171 subordinates, 786 days), we found an indirect effect of abusive supervision on psychological detachment via rumination and indirect effects of abusive supervision on psychological detachment and relaxation via anger. Coworker reappraisal support moderated the association of abusive supervision and rumination, such that the relationship was weaker when coworker support was high. Our results suggest that including negative supervisor behaviors, such as abusive supervision, in recovery research is highly relevant. Coworkers can help cognitively process abusive-supervision experiences by providing reappraisal support.
... Negative job attitudes predict subsequent burnout, withdrawal, and service-destroying behaviors [27][28][29][30]. Drawing on the goal progress theory [31], we argue that patient mistreatment interrupts the service achievement process, and the failure of achieving service goals triggers a constantly cognitive rumination process that could result in continuous emotional exhaustion [32][33][34]. Research has also shown that individuals who experience customer abuse in the workplace may transfer their negative emotions to family members [14]. This causes the harmful effects of customer mistreatment to spread throughout the area of employees' family life [35]. ...
... The social sharing of negative work events may be a maladaptive coping mechanism in stressful environments. It is a process of social cognitive rumination of service failure that challenges the self-concept of nurses and a typical manifestation of shared ruminative thinking that hinders the positive thinking at individual and/or team levels [34]. Our findings suggest that patient mistreatment, as a source of stress, produces a sufficiently long duration of negative emotions, which will be further amplified in the process of social sharing [40], eventually affecting the role conflict between work and family [43]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Nursing literature suggested that patient mistreatment has significant impacts on nurses’ emotions and job burnout. Yet, further research is needed to understand the underlying mechanism and the spillover effect on nurses’ families. Leveraging the goal progress theory, this study aimed to examine the association between patient mistreatment, nurses’ emotional exhaustion, and work-family conflict, as well as the mediating role of social sharing of negative work events and the moderating role of perceived organizational support. Methods During the COVID-19 pandemic in China, a cross-sectional study was conducted with a sample of 1627 nurses from the Hematology Specialist Alliance of Chongqing from October to November 2022. Questionnaires were administered to measure patient mistreatment, perceived organizational support, social sharing of negative work events, emotional exhaustion, and work-family conflict. Hierarchical linear regression and conditional processes were used for statistical analyses. Results Patient mistreatment was positively associated with emotional exhaustion (β = 0.354, p < 0.001) and work-family conflict (β = 0.314, p < 0.001). Social sharing of negative work events played a partial mediating role in the relationship between patient mistreatment and emotional exhaustion (effect = 0.067, SE = 0.013), and work-family conflict (effect = 0.077, SE = 0.014). Moderated mediation analysis found that the mediation effect was stronger when the perceived organizational support was high. Conclusion Our findings reveal the amplifying effect of social sharing of negative work events on nurses’ emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict. Perceived organizational support strengthens the positive effect of patient mistreatment on the social sharing of negative work events, thus resulting in increased emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict. We also discuss practical implications, limitations, and directions for future research.
... Secondary appraisal involves the individual's coping with stress, which is "the cognitive and behavioral efforts made to manage speci c external or internal demands" [30]. Combining the goal progression theory [31], patient mistreatment interrupts the service achievement process, and the failure of service goals triggers a cognitive rumination process [32][33][34]. It reinforces nurses' negative beliefs about the di culty of changing environmental conditions, making it arduous to adopt adaptive coping strategies [35,36]. ...
... The social sharing of negative work events is a maladaptive coping mechanism in stressful patient mistreatment environments. It is a process of social cognitive rumination and a typical manifestation of shared ruminative thinking [34]. We found that negative events, as a source of stress, produce a su ciently long duration of negative emotions, which will be further ampli ed in the process of social sharing [50], eventually affecting the role con ict between work and family [53]. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Background: Nursing literature suggested that patient mistreatment has significant effects on nurses’ personal emotions and job burnout. Yet, further research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying these associations and the spillover effects on nurses' families. This study combined the cognitive appraisal of stress and goal progress theory to explore the association between patient mistreatment, work-family conflict, and emotional exhaustion in nurses, as well as the mediating role of social sharing and the moderating role of perceived organizational support (POS). Methods: From October 9 to November 1, 2022, a cross-sectional study was conducted with 1627 nurses from the Hematology Specialist Alliance of Chongqing during the COVID-19. Questionnaires were administered to collect demographic data, patient mistreatment, perceived organizational support, social sharing of negative work events, work-family conflict, and emotional exhaustion. Hierarchical linear regression and conditional processes were used to analyze the data. Results: Patient mistreatment was positively associated with work-family conflict (β=.314, p<.001) and emotional exhaustion (β=.354, p<.001). Social sharing of negative work events played a partial mediating role in the relationship between patient mistreatment, work-family conflict (effect=.077, SE=.014) and emotional exhaustion (effect=.067, SE=.013). Moderated mediation analysis found that the mediation effect was stronger when the perceived organizational support was high. Conclusion: Our findings reveal the amplifying effect of social sharing of negative events on nurses' work-family conflict and emotional exhaustion. Perceived organizational support strengthens the positive effects of patient mistreatment on the social sharing of negative work events, thus resulting in increased work-family conflict and emotional exhaustion. We also discuss practical implications, limitations, and directions for future research.
... Engaging in these behaviours is significantly associated with cognitive traits related to anxiety [35], and while people do not immediately recover from their emotional experiences, they report more subjective benefits compared to people who do not engage in self-disclosing about negative emotions and events [36]. Furthermore, it has been shown that engaging in co-rumination is positively linked with friendship closeness, perceptions of relationship quality, and even greater job satisfaction [37]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Self-disclosure and the social sharing of emotions facilitate social relationships and can positively affect people's well-being. Nevertheless, individuals might refrain from engaging in these interpersonal communication behaviours with other people, due to socio-emotional barriers, such as shame and stigma. Social robots, free from these human-centric judgements, could encourage openness and overcome these barriers. Accordingly, this paper reviews the role of self-disclosure and social sharing of emotion in human-robot interactions (HRIs), particularly its implications for emotional well-being and the dynamics of social relationship building between humans and robots. We investigate the transition of self-disclosure dynamics from traditional human-to-human interactions to HRI, revealing the potential of social robots to bridge socio-emotional barriers and provide unique forms of emotional support. This review not only highlights the therapeutic potential of social robots but also raises critical ethical considerations and potential drawbacks of these interactions, emphasising the importance of a balanced approach to integrating robots into emotional support roles. The review underscores a complex but promising frontier at the intersection of technology and emotional well-being, advocating for careful consideration of ethical standards and the intrinsic human need for connection as we advance in the development and application of social robots.
... Contrary to the belief that talking about negative events assists in unburdening oneself and finding relief (Zech & Rimé, 2005), research on the consequences of social sharing indicates that sharing negative work experiences is linked to increased negative affect, exhaustion, burnout, depression, frustration, and workto-family conflict (Baranik et al., 2017;Beehr et al., 2000;Brown et al., 2005;Haggard et al., 2011;Zellars & Perrewé, 2001). Regarding evidence from daily diary studies, found that negative work-related conversations during off-job time, even if not necessarily with a partner, were related to negative affect, whereas Hicks and Diamond (2008) did not find that telling the partner about the most negative event of the day-whether work-related or notwas associated with increased negative affect. ...
Article
Full-text available
After work, employees often share their work experiences with their partners, yet the consequences of these work-related conversations remain poorly understood. In this study with dual-earner couples, we investigate the daily consequences of sharing positive and negative work events with a partner regarding both employees’ and their partners’ affect and work-related self-esteem. Throughout a workweek, 73 heterosexual dual-earner couples completed questionnaires after work and at bedtime. Dyadic multilevel analyses showed that sharing positive work events was positively associated with employees’ positive affect but not with partners’ positive affect. Sharing negative work events showed no significant association with the negative affect of either employees or partners. While sharing positive work events was not associated with employees’ self-esteem, it was negatively associated with partners’ self-esteem. Furthermore, sharing negative work events was negatively associated with partners’ self-esteem, but did not affect employees’ self-esteem. Our study extends existing research on work-related conversations, considering self-esteem as an outcome and adopting a dyadic perspective.
... Furthermore, excessive verbal rumination over a stressor is associated with decreased relationship satisfaction and closeness over time, unless the partner provides high-quality emotional support, in which case verbal rumination is associated with increased relationship satisfaction and closeness (Afifi et al., 2013(Afifi et al., , 2017. Additional work on co-rumination suggests that, while excessively discussing negative problems with someone is associated with increased stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms, co-rumination is also associated with higher friendship satisfaction and closeness (Byrd-Craven et al., 2008;Calmes & Roberts, 2008;Haggard et al., 2011;Rose, 2002;Smith & Rose, 2011;Starr & Davila, 2009). Thus, even if sharing a secret involves some verbal rumination, receiving high-quality support from the confidant may promote intimacy. ...
Article
Full-text available
Secrets are inherently social, for they are always kept from somebody else. Accordingly, keeping and sharing personal secrets not only has implications for one’s close relationships, but the individual experience of keeping and sharing secrets is also largely influenced by existing close relationship dynamics. Here, we extend prior discussions of secrecy by providing a theoretical discussion of the sociality of secrets and the potential mechanisms through which they could influence and be influenced by interpersonal relationships. We specifically focus on the mechanisms of shared reality, authenticity, trust, and rumination, and argue that keeping and sharing secrets can have considerable influence on close relationships, in ways that may be distinct from self‐disclosure. This paper integrates individual‐level concerns about keeping and sharing secrets with the dyadic implications of those decisions by considering both the secret‐keeper and target (i.e., the person from whom the secret is kept or shared with). In turn, we offer novel predictions for future research regarding the interpersonal consequences of secrecy.
Article
Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of supervisor bottom-line mentality on subordinates’ frustration and subsequent attitudes (turnover intention, affective commitment and job satisfaction) and the moderating role of coworker support. Design/methodology/approach The proposed model was tested using a sample of 194 full-time working executive MBA students in the United States of America through a two-time point-paired survey. Findings The moderated-mediation using PLS-SEM indicated that supervisor bottom-line mentality is positively associated with subordinate frustration, which in turn increases turnover intention and reduces affective commitment and job satisfaction. Taking a competing hypotheses approach for the moderating role of coworker support, findings indicated that coworker support exacerbated (i.e. worsened) the positive relationship between supervisor bottom-line mentality and subordinate frustration. Practical implications Managers should pay close attention to the potential negative consequences of supervisor bottom-line mentality, especially in a culture where coworker support is nurtured and valued. That is, coworker support can worsen employee frustration caused by supervisor bottom-line mentality. Originality/value This study is among the first to examine how employee frustration mediates the dysfunctional relationship between supervisor bottom-line mentality and the employee attitudes of turnover, affective commitment and job satisfaction. In addition, this study illuminates a potential darkside of coworker support as it can intensify the relationship between supervisor bottom-line mentality and employee frustration, thus enriching the literature in both bottom-line mentality and social support.
Article
The current study examined co-rumination among married men and women and its influence on their reports of marital quality and depressive symptoms. Data were collected online through social media from 78 married men and 78 married women resulting in a total sample of 156 individuals residing in urban centers in Pakistan. Each participant had been married for at least one year, was at least 18 years old, and lived with their marital partner at the time of the survey. Although the results from multiple regression analyses revealed an increase in co-rumination was related to a decrease in the levels of depression, the moderating effect of the sex of participants indicated that the negative relationship between co-rumination and depression was only significant for married women. Furthermore, co-rumination was positively associated with marital relationship satisfaction. The findings suggest that that co-rumination with one’s spouse has implications for improved mental health and marital satisfaction among married men and women in Pakistani families.
Article
Despite the extensive interest in abusive supervision, there remains conceptual ambiguity surrounding it, specifically concerning the overlap between leaders’ actions and subordinates’ perceptions. Drawing from leadership categorization theory, we propose that authoritarian leadership activates subordinates’ anti-prototype of leaders and perceptions of more abusive supervision. Moreover, such a relationship is moderated by subordinates’ ideal and typical leadership schema, with the former representing individual preference and the latter representing the social norm. Using an experiment ( N = 344) and a multi-wave field study ( N = 249), we found that subordinates holding high ideal leadership prototypicality (e.g., my ideal leader is sensitive) and low typical leadership anti-prototypicality (e.g., other leaders are domineering) perceive more leadership anti-prototypicality and more abusive supervision when faced with authoritarian leadership. Our research enriches the existing literature on leadership by providing a cognitive perspective that explains how subordinates’ implicit leadership schemas play a role in the leadership perception process.
Article
Full-text available
In a 5-year longitudinal study, social support was investigated as a predictor of low back pain (LBP) in 46 initially asymptomatic individuals. Distinguishing between colleagues in general and the colleague one feels closest to, the authors analyzed constellations of support from supervisor (which had positive effects) and closest colleague (which had detrimental effects). Configural frequency analysis yielded a type characterized by high support from one's closest colleague and low support from one's supervisor at Time 1 and more LBP and disability at Time 2. Controlling for negative affectivity did not change findings. Results are interpreted in terms of being dependent on that one source of support in an unsupportive environment, which creates feelings of dependence, incompetence, and reciprocity obligations.
Article
Full-text available
Age and sex differences in the use of coping and defense strategies were examined in a life-span sample of 381 individuals. Participants responded to 2 self-report measures assessing mechanisms of coping and defense and measures assessing their level of cognitive complexity. Older adults used a combination of coping and defense strategies indicative of greater impulse control and the tendency to positively appraise conflict situations. Adolescents and younger adults used strategies that were outwardly aggressive and psychologically undifferentiated, indicating lower levels of impulse control and self-awareness. Women used more internalizing defenses than men and used coping strategies that flexibly integrated intra- and interpersonal aspects of conflict situations. Taken together, findings provide evidence for the age- and sex-specific use of strategies of coping and defense, suggesting that men and women may face different developmental tasks in the process toward maturity in adulthood.
Article
Full-text available
This field study extended previous research by simultaneously examining the influence of affective personality on 4 dimensions of emotional social support and job burnout. Furthermore, the dimensions of emotional social support were examined as to their differential effects on the components of burnout. Results suggest that affective personality characteristics are associated with emotional social support as well as burnout dimensions. Results also indicate that some types of emotional social support appear to guard against burnout, whereas other types appear to contribute to the burnout experience. These findings suggest that types of emotional social support may have different personality antecedents and that distinct dimensions of social support have differential consequences in regard to burnout. Suggestions for future research are offered.
Article
Full-text available
An examination of the literature on conflict between work and family roles suggests that work-family conflict exists when: (a) time devoted to the requirements of one role makes it difficult to fulfill requirements of another; (b) strain from participation in one role makes it difficult to fulfill requirements of another; and (c) specific behaviors required by one role make it difficult to fulfill the requirements of another. A model of work-family conflict is proposed, and a series of research propositions is presented.
Article
The major purpose of the present study was to examine the degree to which gender moderates the relationship of stress and social support to strain. Subjects, 115 undergraduates, were administered a measure of stress, measures of functional and structural social support and satisfaction with social support, and a measure of physical symptomatology. Two testing sessions, 5 weeks apart, were included in the study so that the effects of stress and social support on subsequent strain could be evaluated. Results indicated that stress, social support, and their interaction accounted for 18% to 29% of the variance in physical symptomatology in women but accounted for nonsignificant amounts of variance in men. Gender differences in levels of support and differences in the predictive utility of different kinds of social support were also found.