Perceived social support towards indian expatriates working in muscat, oman

International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology Vol.(14)Issue(2), pp.023-029 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21172/1.142.04 e-ISSN:2278-621X PERCEIVED SOCIAL SUPPORT TOWARDS EXPATRIATES WORKING IN MUSCAT, OMAN INDIAN A. Anbazhagan1, S. Gurumoorthy2 Abstract: In the presence of social support, one feel loved, valued, and cared for, and people have clarity about the resources available for them. Friends, relatives, lovers, roommates, co-workers, and spouse all can serve as sources of social support. This research aims to examine the level of social support perceived by Indian expatriates’ working in Muscat. A total of 328 questionnaires was distributed to Indian expatriates who are currently working in Muscat. A sample of 320 returnedquestionnaires was used for further analysis. The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA to investigate the relationship of selected demographic variables like nature of work, salary, and respondents’ accommodation status and perceived social support from their family, friends and significant others. Independent sample t-test used to ascertain the significant differences between gender, family, friends and significant others. Findings reveal that the Indian expatriates perceived less social support from their family, friends and significant others. The study implicates that greater attention is required to design work settings in organizations for providing an effective support system to increase the comfortability of the employees for their better life. Key Words: Perceived Social Support, Indian Expatriates, Muscat 1. INTRODUCTION The term "social support" often appears in discussions of relationships. (Thoits, P. A. 1995). Sarason et al., (1983). Social support means having friends and other people, including family, to turn to in times of need or crisis to give you a broader focus and positive self-image. Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983) Social support enhances the quality of life and provides a buffer against adverse life events. Social support is, now proven to a literal lifesaver. Myers D. G. (2000) People supported by close relationships with friends, family, or fellow members of work, or other support groups are less vulnerable to ill health and premature death and lead a peaceful life. Individuals afflicted with leukemia or heart disease have higher survival rates if they have extensive social support. Kraut R. et al., (1998) there is also a strong tie between social support and measures of wellbeing both physical and mental. Research shows that social support provides important benefits to our physical and emotional health. Sareen J et al., (2007) Stress is related to several health concerns, from mental health problems to chronic health problems like heart disease and migraines. However, social support can help protect people from the harmful effects of stress. When dealing with a stressful situation, people are less likely to report stress-related health problems when they feel like they have support from others. 2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Numerous studies indicate social support is essential for maintaining physical and psychological health (Riall, TS., et at., (2018); Soga, M., et al; Rankin, J. et al., (2016); Lovallo, W.R. (2015); Krishnan, R. N., & Ajaganandham, A. (2015); Prabhu, M. et al., (2019) & Ozbay, F., et al., (2007). The harmful consequences of poor social support and the protective effects of good social support of mental illness have well documented. Social support may moderate genetic and environmental vulnerabilities and confer resilience to stress; The National Study of Changing Workforce (NSCW) has reported that only 20% of US employees have the necessary workplace flexibility to manage their work and family roles (McMinimee, J. C., et al. 2008). As the majority of the studies on social support is concentrating, more on the perceived support people receive from their families and their impact on health. The support they receive from the workplace is not well addressed. The causes of social support need to be analyzed in details. The growth of Indian expatriate population in Muscat and their increasing presence in professional settings accentuate the need for this study. Hence, the researcher decided to research the topic "A study on Perceived Social Support towards Indian Expatriates working in Muscat, Oman". 3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Shumaker and Brownell (1984) defined social support as “an exchange of resources between at least two individuals perceived by the provider or the recipient to be intended to enhance the well-being of the recipient”. The National Cancer Institute (2009) defines social support as a network of family, friends, neighbors, and community members that is available in times of need to give psychological, physical, and financial help. According to Pender, (1996) “Social support is defined as a subjective feeling of belonging, being loved, esteemed, valued, and needed for oneself, not for what one can do for others”. 1 2 HR Faculty, Business Studies Department, Salalah College of Technology, Salalah, Oman Associate Professor, Department of Business Administration, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu, India Perceived Social Support Towards Indian Expatriates Working In Muscat, Oman 024 3.1 Importance of Social Support: According to Caplan el al. (1975) social support can be derived from sources at the workplace and outside the workplace. A number of studies found that support from family and friends can have positive effects on a wide range of psychological outcomes. Williams (2004) The role of social support has been most often linked to psychological and physiological consequences of stress, where it is theorized to facilitate coping and adapting and act as a moderator of life stress. Anbazhagan. A and Rajan LJS (2013) lack of social support results in a poor relationship with colleagues, superiors and subordinates, interpersonal conflict and intergroup conflict. Berkman et al., 1992) Lack of perceived social support, lack of available social support and low emotional support have been associated with mortality and other adverse outcomes in persons with cardiac disease. Lack of companionship (Sorkin, Rook &Lu, 2002), poor social ties (Evangelista, Berg & Dracup, 2001), and social isolation have been linked to increased cardiovascular risk (Friedman, Thomas, Liu, Morton, Chapa & Gottlieb, 2006; Murberg, 2004). Berkman et al., (1992) showed that lack of emotional higher levels of social support seems to have positive effects on quality of life, preventing cardiac events, reducing mortality and promoting good health behaviors. Anbazhagan. A and Gurumoorthy. S (2015) Negative Significant correlation observed between Work-life conflict and Social Support. Aminah (1997) studied the relationship between work family conflict and social support. It is also observed that women received social support from four resources namely supervisor, co-workers, husband and friends and relatives. Correlation between work family conflict and two sources of support namely, husband and supervisors were found to be negatively significant. 3.2 Benefits of Social Support: Research has shown that social support can make a huge difference among people in their lives during stressful times. Anbazhagan. A and Gurumoorthy. S (2015) People depend on their family members, friends, and significant others for their life satisfaction. Each one is associated have a significant influence on their satisfaction towards life and health. The support they receive from the people around them found to have a significant influence on their physical and psychological wellbeing. Spiegel. D et at., (1981) cancer patients with a strong support group not only felt less stressed and upset during treatment but also lived an average of 18 months longer. (Berkman et al., 2000) Social relationships have a great impact on health education and health behavior. Seeman, T. E. (1996) Social integration has been used to refer to the existence of social ties. Kautz et at., (1997). Social network refers to the web of social relationships around individuals. Cohen, S. (2004) Social support is one of the important functions of social relationships. Social networks are linkages between people that may provide social support and that may serve functions other than providing support. Lupón, M. (2018). Social support is now proven to be a literal lifesaver. Personal characteristics (e.g. bicultural identity) and belief systems (e.g., religious beliefs) strongly influence the appraisal process and perception of coping resources (Slavin et al., 1991). The transnational approach to occupational stress conceptualizes social support as a coping strategy. Thoits (1986) argued that social support facilitates coping by assisting the person to change the situation, the meaning of the situation, his or her emotional reaction to the situation, or all three. Thus, social support refers to the appraisal that, in stressful situations, others (family, friends, supervisors, or co-workers) can be relied on for information, empathic understanding, guidance, or material aid (Buunk et al., 1998). Anbazhagan et al. (2013); and Prabhu. M and Madan Mohan. G (2014) Employees look for support from co-workers in times of both happiness and sorrow. If they get this social support, they feel much better off. If such support is lacking for an individual/member, the same can also cause stress. People need and benefit from social support, developing social support; therefore, it is used as a strategy for reducing job stress too. Abundant empirical evidence suggests that support from superiors, co-workers, family, and friends helps to reduce life stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985) and occupational stress (Winnubst & Schabracq, 1996). Reduced stress and increased psychological well-being have been related to social support from family, spouse, friends, or co-workers (Amaro et al., 1987). 3.3 Support from Workplace: In the context of work, Zeidner. M & Matthews. G (2016) define social support as support that helps employees to carry out their job. They also postulate that work, social support may originate from both work and family domains with the latter being limited to support received from family members. Muse & Pichler (2011), Past studies have often found that familysupportive supervisors help in reducing work-family problems even when family-supportive policies were absent in the organization. According to House (2003), supervisor support is often seen as supervisors willing to provide at least four major supports to their employees: emotional support, appraisal support, informational support, and physical support. Hammer et al., (2011) Meta-analysis shows that supervisor support is more significantly related to work-family conflict compared to general support of organizations. Co-worker support, on the other hand, is often related to co-workers’ willingness to help each other through practicing positive behavior such as caring, friendly, warm relations, empathy, cooperation, no backbiting and gossiping, appreciation, respect and support (Beehr & McGrath, 1992; Fu & Shaffer, 2001). They are therefore better prepared (than other supporters) to provide the support needed for their peers to balance the conflicting demands of work and family. Ismail et al., (2013) support are divided into two specific dimensions, namely supervisor support and co-worker support. Applying such belief to the work-family relationship, when an employee receives support from his organization, he is bound to return the favor. When he gets support from his family members, he is obliged to meet their demands. The tug of war between work and family demands gives rise to work-family and family-work conflicts (Seiger & Wiese, 2009). A. Anbazhagan, S. Gurumoorthy 025 4. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY To find out the level of social support perceived by Indian expatriates’ working in Muscat, Oman. To ascertain the significant differences among the variables of gender, family, friends, and significant others with perceived social support. 5. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 5.1 Sample Size & Design: The sample size for this study consists of 320 Indian Expatriates working in Muscat represented different occupational groups namely General Labours, Construction field workers, Information Technology staff, Educational Field staff, and Health Care professionals. Respondents randomly chose from specific places where Indian expatriates working more in numbers, namely Al Khuwair, Rusayl, Shati Al-Qurm, Bousher, Al Seeb, Muttrah and Al-Ghubra. This work is based on descriptive research. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet & Farley, 1988) is used to collect the opinions of the respondents. The following null hypotheses framed based on the objective of the study: Ho: There is no significant relationship between the respondents’ nature of work and their social support from family, friends and significant others. Ho: There is no significant relationship between the respondents’ Salary and their social support from family, friends and significant others. Ho: There is no significant relationship between the respondents’ status of accommodation and their social support from family, friends and significant others. Ho: There is no significant difference between the gender, family, friends and significant others with social support. 6. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION The individual score for all variables were obtained according to the procedure. These scores were analyzed with the help of SPSS. One-way ANOVA applied to ascertain the relationship of selected demographic variables like nature of work, salary, and respondents’ status of accommodation and Independent sample t-test used to ascertain the significant differences between gender, family, friends and significant others. Table 1: Analysis of variance results for the respondents’ nature of work and their social support N Mean Std. Deviation F -value p- value Family Friends Significant others Labours 51 3.9412 0.67563 Constriction 33 3.8788 0.69631 Information Technology 82 3.9634 0.57618 Educational Field 92 3.9239 0.61544 Medical field 62 3.9032 0.64553 Total 320 3.9281 0.62685 Labors 51 3.7843 0.57667 Constriction 33 3.8182 0.72692 Information Technology 82 3.8415 0.59772 Educational Field 92 3.7391 0.62669 Medical field 62 3.8548 0.62323 Total 320 3.8031 0.61993 Labors 51 3.9608 0.45654 Constriction 33 3.9242 0.60430 Information Technology 82 3.9665 0.44663 Educational Field 92 3.9076 0.46803 Medical field 62 3.8911 0.43859 320 3.9297 0.46921 Total Source: Primary Data 0.146 0.965 0.445 0.776 0.336 0.854 4.1.1 Social Support from Family Members:The obtained 'F' value is 0.146 and it is not significant at 1% level. The value indicates that there is no significant influence of Family on Social Support. Further, the mean indicates that the employees in Perceived Social Support Towards Indian Expatriates Working In Muscat, Oman 026 the Information Technology field have scored a higher mean value of 3.9634 and the employees in the construction field scored the lowest mean value (3.8788). This shows that Information Technology field employees having more social support than the construction field. 4.1.2 Social Support from Friends:The obtained 'F' value is 0.445 and it is not significant at 1% level. The value indicates that there is no significant influence of Friends on Social Support. Further, the mean indicates that the employees having Medical field have scored a higher mean value of 3.8548 and the Education filed employees scored the lowest mean value (3.7391). This shows that Medical field employees having more social support than Education filed employees. 4.1.3 Social Support from Significant others: The obtained 'F' value is 0.336 and it is not significant at 1% level. The value indicates that there is no significant influence of Significant others on Social Support. Further, the mean indicates that the employees in the Information Technology field have scored a higher mean value of 3.9634 and the medical field employees scored the lowest mean value (3.8788). This shows that Information Technology field employees having more Social support than medical field employees. Table 2: Analysis of variance results for the respondents’ monthly salary in Omani rials and their social support. N Mean Std. Deviation F -value p-value Family Friends Significant others Below 599 67 3.9403 0.69371 600-1199 98 3.8163 0.66343 1200-2399 79 4.0759 0.54941 2400 and above 76 3.9079 0.56986 Total 320 3.9281 0.62685 Below 599 67 3.8209 0.67252 600-1199 98 3.7653 0.63896 1200-2399 79 3.8861 0.53078 2400 and above 76 3.7500 0.63509 Total 320 3.8031 0.61993 Below 599 67 3.9739 0.49836 600-1199 98 3.8508 0.51419 1200-2399 79 4.0190 0.38245 2400 and above 76 3.8997 0.45232 320 3.9297 0.46921 Total Source: Primary Data 2.576 0.054 0.796 0.497 2.205 0.087 4.2.1 Social Support from Family Members: The obtained 'F' value is 2.576 and it is not significant at 1% level. The value indicates that there is no significant influence of Family on Social Support. Further, the mean indicates that the employees are getting 1200-2399 salary have scored a higher mean value of 4.0759 and the lowest mean value was scored by the employees getting 600-1199 (3.8163). This shows that the employees are getting more salary having more social support than the employees are getting less salary. 4.2.2 Social Support from Friends: The obtained 'F' value is 0.796 and it is not significant at 1% level. The value indicates that there is no significant influence of Friends on Social Support. Further, the mean indicates that the employees are getting 12002399 salary have scored a higher mean value of 3.886 and the lowest mean value was scored by the employees getting more than 2400 as salary (3.7500). This shows that the employees are getting less salary than 2400 having higher social support. 4.2.3 Social Support from Significant others: The obtained 'F' value is 0.070 and it is not significant at 1% level. The value indicates that there is no significant influence of Significant others on Social Support. Further, the mean indicates that the employees are getting 1200-2399 salary have scored a higher mean value of 4.0190 and the lowest mean value was scored by the employees getting 600-1199 (3.850). This shows that the employees are getting more salary having more Social support than the employees are getting less salary. Table 3: Analysis of variance results for the respondents’ existing accommodation status and their social support Std. N Mean F-value p-value Deviation Family Bachelor 123 3.9268 0.62948 Forced bachelor 130 3.8846 0.65456 Staying with family 67 4.0149 0.56388 0.955 0.386 A. Anbazhagan, S. Gurumoorthy Friends Significant others Total 320 3.9281 0.62685 Bachelor 123 3.7805 0.59419 Forced bachelor 130 3.7923 0.65528 Staying with family 67 3.8657 0.60039 Total 320 3.8031 0.61993 Bachelor 123 3.9126 0.48092 Forced bachelor 130 3.9173 0.47657 Staying with family 67 3.9851 0.43439 320 3.9297 0.46921 Total Source: Primary Data 027 0.441 0.644 0.592 0.554 4.3.1 Social Support from Family Members: The obtained 'F' value is 0.955 and it is not significant at 1% level. The value indicates that there is no significant influence of Family on Social Support. Further, the mean indicates that the employees living with family in Muscat have scored a higher mean value of 4.0149 and the lowest mean value was scored by the employees are as forces bachelor (3.8846). This shows that employees with their family having more Social support than the employees as a forced bachelor who are working in Muscat. 4.3.2 Social Support from Friends: The obtained 'F' value is 0.441 and it is not significant at 1% level. The value indicates that there is no significant influence of Friends on Social Support. Further, the mean indicates that the employees with family have scored a higher mean value of 3.8657 and the bachelor employees scored the lowest mean value (3.7805). This shows that employees with family having more Social support than the bachelor employees who are working in Muscat. 4.3.3 Social Support from Significant others: The obtained 'F' value is 0.592 and it is not significant at 1% level. The value indicates that there is no significant influence of Significant others on Social Support. Further, the mean indicates that the employees with family have scored higher mean value 3.9851 and the bachelor employees scored the lowest mean value (3.9126). This shows that employees with family having more Social support than the bachelor employees who are working in Muscat. Table 4: Independent Sample t-test results for the Significance of Gender, Family, Friends and significant others Dimensions N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean t p-value Gender 320 1.22 0.418 0.023 52.395 0.000 Family 320 3.9281 .62685 0.03504 112.098 0.000 Friends 320 3.8031 .61993 0.03466 109.742 0.000 Significant others Source: Primary Data 320 3.9297 .46921 0.02623 149.819 0.000 To find out the significance of gender, family, friends and significant others with social support, the independent sample t-test was carried out. From the above table, t-value for the dimensions of gender, family, and friends and significant others are respectively 52.395, 112.098, 109.742, and 149.819 with respective p-values 0.000, 0.000, 0.000 and 0.000, which are less than 0.05. Hence, there are statistically significant differences available among the gender, family, friends and significant others with social support. 7. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 7.1 Nature of Work and Perceived Social Support There is no significant influence of Family on Social Support and Information Technology field employees having more social support than the construction field. There is no significant influence of Friends on Social Support and the Medical field employees having more social support than the Education filed employees. There is no significant influence of Significant others on Social Support and Information Technology field workers having more Social support than the medical field. 7.2 Salary of Workers and Perceived Social Support There is no significant influence of Family on Social Support. Further, the employees are getting more salary having more social support than the employees are getting less salary. There is no significant influence of Friends on Social Support. Further, the employees are getting less salary than 2400 having higher social support. There is no significant influence of Significant others on Social Support. Further, the employees are getting more salary having more Social support than the employees are getting less salary. Perceived Social Support Towards Indian Expatriates Working In Muscat, Oman 028 7.3 Accommodation of Workers and their Perceived Social Support There is no significant influence of Family on Social Support and the employees with family accommodation are having more social support than the forced bachelor does. There is no significant influence of Friends on Social Support and the employees with family accommodation are having more Social support than others. There is no significant influence of Significant others on Social Support and the employees with family having more Social support than the bachelor employees who are working in Muscat. There are statistically significant differences available among the gender, family, friends and significant others with social support. 8. CONCLUSION The results of the present study implicate that greater attention is required to design work settings in organizations for providing an effective support system to increase the comfortability of the employees for their better life. This study reveals that the Indian expatriates perceived very less social support from their family, friends and significant others. Anbazhagan. A and Rajan LJS (2013) Lack of social support results in a poor relationship with colleagues, superiors and subordinates, interpersonal conflict and intergroup conflict. Perceived support was a predictor of both increased life satisfaction and decreased negative affect, which is consistent with previous research (Newsom and Schulz (1996); Sarason et al. (1997). Perceived support may increase one’s coping competence by providing comfort that supporters are available to help if needed (Wethington and Kessler 1986). Hence, Organizations can readily take advantage of these findings to improve existing support system and ensure employees well-being. 9. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Amaro, H., & Russo, N. F. (1987). Hispanic women and mental health: An overview of contemporary issues in research and practice. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(4), 393-407. Aminah Ahmad, (1997), “ Work-Family Conflict and Social Support: A Study of Female Anbazhagan. A and Gurumoorthy. S (2015) "A Study on Influence of Demographic Factors on Social Support among Indian Employees in Muscat, Oman", Sankhya International Journal of Management and Technology, 4(2), pp.169-177. Anbazhagan. A and Gurumoorthy. S (2015) “Social Support and Role Conflict: What is the link?” M-Infinitive Journal of Management, 7(1), pp.193198. Anbazhagan. A, and L.J. Soudrarajan, (2013) “A Conceptual Framework of Occupational Stress and Coping Strategies”, ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research, 3(5), pp.154-172. Anbazhagan.A, L.J. Soudrarajan, and A. Ravichandran (2013), “Work Stress of Hotel Industry Employees in Puducherry”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review, 2(5), pp.85-101. Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social science & medicine, 51(6), 843-857. Berkman, L. F., Leo-Summers, L., & Horwitz, R. I. (1992). Emotional support and survival after myocardial infarction: a prospective, population-based study of the elderly. Annals of internal medicine, 117(12), 1003-1009. Buunk, B. P, Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Prins, K. S. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority members towards the adaptation of immigrants. European journal of social psychology, 28(6), 995-1013. Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Jr., van Harrison, R., & Pinneau, S. R., Jr. (1975). Job demands and worker health. Washington, DC: National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. American psychologist, 59(8), 676. Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 13(2), 99-125. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310. Friedmann, E., Thomas, S. A., Liu, F., Morton, P. G., Chapa, D., Gottlieb, S. S., & Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) Investigators. (2006). Relationship of depression, anxiety, and social isolation to chronic heart failure outpatient mortality. American heart journal, 152(5), 940-e1. Fu, C. K., & Shaffer, M. A. (2001). The tug of work and family: Direct and indirect domain-specific determinants of work-family conflict. Personnel Review, 30(5), 502-522. Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Anger, W. K., Bodner, T., & Zimmerman, K. L. (2011). Clarifying work-family intervention processes: The roles of work-family conflict and family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 134. Ismail, A., Nor, S. M., Yahya, Z., Zahar, U. A. U., Ismail, Y., & Ainon, J. A. S. (2013). Social support in job performance as an antecedent of work intrusion on family conflict: Empirical evidence. Management: journal of contemporary management issues, 18(2), 37-55. Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., Hao, Y., Xu, J., & Thun, M. J. (2009). Cancer statistics, 2009. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 59(4), 225-249. Kautz, H., Selman, B., & Shah, M. (1997). Referral Web: combining social networks and collaborative filtering. Communications of the ACM, 40(3), 63-65. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?. American psychologist, 53(9), 1017. Krishnan, R. N., & Ajaganandham, A. (2015). A Case Study on Perception Model of Human Resource Management Practices of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (With Reference to Bangalore Region). International Journal of Management and Development Studies, 4(1), 15-27. Lovallo, W. R. (2015). Stress and health: Biological and psychological interactions. Sage publications. Lupón, M., Armayones, M., & Cardona, G. (2018). Quality of life among parents of children with visual impairment: A literature review. Research in developmental disabilities, 83, 120-131. McMinimee, J. C., Lindsey, S., Hsiao, D., Tang, B. M., Huie, M. F., Baker, M., & Wadsworth, R. L. (2008). I-215; 4500 South Structure Project lessons learned. Utah DOT, Salt Lake City. Murberg, T. A., & Bru, E. (2004). School-related stress and psychosomatic symptoms among Norwegian adolescents. School psychology international, 25(3), 317-332. Muse, L. A., & Pichler, S. (2011). A comparison of types of support for lower-skill workers: Evidence for the importance of family-supportive supervisors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(3), 653-666.House, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556-578. A. Anbazhagan, S. Gurumoorthy 029 [26] Newsom JT, Schulz R (1996), Social support as a mediator in the relationship between functional status and quality of life in older adults. Psychology and Aging. 11(1) pp.34–44. [27] Ozbay, F., Johnson, D. C., Dimoulas, E., Morgan III, C. A., Charney, D., & Southwick, S. (2007). Social support and resilience to stress: from neurobiology to clinical practice. Psychiatry (Edgmont), 4(5), 35. [28] Pender, J. L. (1996). Discount rates and credit markets: Theory and evidence from rural India. Journal of Development Economics, 50(2), 257-296. [29] Prabhu M and Madan Mohan G. (2014) A study on stress among university students in India. International Journal of Business and Administration Research Review, 1(5), 21-33. [30] Prabhu, M. Nabaz Nawzad Abdullah and Madan Mohan G. (2019), An Empirical Study on the Satisfaction Level of National and International Tourists towards Natural Attractions in Kurdistan, African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, Volume 8 (2), 1-8. [31] Rankin, J., Matthews, L., Cobley, S., Han, A., Sanders, R., Wiltshire, H. D., & Baker, J. S. (2016). Psychological consequences of childhood obesity: psychiatric comorbidity and prevention. Adolescent health, medicine and therapeutics, 7, 125. [32] Riall, T. S., Teiman, J., Chang, M., Cole, D., Leighn, T., McClafferty, H., & Nfonsam, V. N. (2018). Maintaining the fire but avoiding burnout: implementation and evaluation of a resident well-being program. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 226(4), 369-379. [33] Sarason BR, Sarason IG, Gurung RAR (1997), Close personal relationships and health outcomes: A key to the role of social support. In: Duck S, editor. Handbook of personal relationships. 2. New York: Wiley, pp. 547–573 [34] Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing social support: The social support questionnaire. Journal of personality and social psychology, 44(1), 127. [35] Sareen, J., Cox, B. J., Stein, M. B., Afifi, T. O., Fleet, C., & Asmundson, G. J. (2007). Physical and mental comorbidity, disability, and suicidal behavior associated with posttraumatic stress disorder in a large community sample. Psychosomatic medicine, 69(3), 242-248. [36] Seeman, T. E. (1996). Social ties and health: The benefits of social integration. Annals of epidemiology, 6(5), 442-451. [37] Shumaker, S. A., & Brownell, A. (1984). Toward a theory of social support: Closing conceptual gaps. Journal of social issues, 40(4), 11-36. [38] Slavin, R. E. (1991). Are cooperative learning and untracking harmful to the gifted? Educational Leadership, 48(6), 68-71. [39] Soga, M., Cox, D., Yamaura, Y., Gaston, K., Kurisu, K., & Hanaki, K. (2017). Health benefits of urban allotment gardening: improved physical and psychological well-being and social integration. International journal of environmental research and public health, 14(1), 71. [40] Sorkin, D., Rook, K. S., & Lu, J. L. (2002). Loneliness, lack of emotional support, lack of companionship, and the likelihood of having a heart condition in an elderly sample. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24(4), 290-298. [41] Spiegel, D., Bloom, J. R., & Yalom, I. (1981). Group support for patients with metastatic cancer: A randomized prospective outcome study. Archives of general psychiatry, 38(5), 527-533. [42] Thoits, P. A. (1982). Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical problems in studying social support as a buffer against life stress. Journal of Health and Social behavior, 145-159. [43] Thoits, P. A. (1986). Social support as coping assistance. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 54(4), 416. [44] Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping, and social support processes: Where are we? What next?. Journal of health and social behavior, 53-79. [45] Wethington E, Kessler RC (1986), Perceived support, received support, and adjustment to stressful life events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, pp.78–89. [46] Williams, P., Barclay, L., & Schmied, V. (2004). Defining social support in context: A necessary step in improving research, intervention, and practice. Qualitative health research, 14(7), 942-960. [47] Winnubst, J. A. M., & Schabracq, M. J. (1996). Social support, stress, and organization: Towards optimal matching. Handbook of work and health psychology. Chichester: Wiley & Sons Ltd. [48] Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2016). Ability emotional intelligence and mental health: Social support as a mediator. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 196-199.