The Impact of Supervisor Support on Employees’ Psychological Wellbeing: A Parallel Mediation Analysis of Work-To-Family Conflict and Job Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tries to examine the influence of work-to-family conflict and job satisfaction on the relationship between supervisor support and the psychological wellbeing of 290 administrative workers at the University of Cape Coast, Ghana. The results of the parallel mediation analysis showed that supervisor support had a significant positive impact on employees’ psychological wellbeing and job satisfaction and also had a significant negative impact on employees’ work-to-family conflict. Moreover, the study found a direct positive effect of employees’ job satisfaction on their psychological wellbeing but did not find a direct negative effect of employees’ work-to-family conflict on their psychological wellbeing. In addition, job satisfaction mediated the association between supervisor support and the psychological wellbeing of employees. The study however found no evidence of the mediating influence of work-to-family conflict on the relationship between supervisor support and employees’ psychological wellbeing. Both theoretical and practical implications were further discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".