**3. Results**

#### *3.1. Preliminary Analyses*

Prior to conducting the main data analyses, we carried out a correlation inspection between the study variables (see Table 2). Further, MANOVAs were performed to assess the extent to which the scores on the investigated variables differed across genders. The results of MANOVAs showed that no significant statistical differences were estimated between men and women in any of the examined variables (Wilks Λ (12,352) = 0.971, *p* = 0.580, partial η<sup>2</sup> = 0.029), providing evidence that considering our sample as a whole for further analyses was appropriate. Table 3 depicts the scores obtained by men and women on each variable and the results of the univariate tests.

**Table 2.** Correlations between the study variables.


Note: SREIT: Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test; MSPSS = Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support; OSI = Occupational Stress Indicator; OSI\_PSY = Psychological; OSI PHY = Physical; OSI JF = Job Factor; OSI MF = Managerial Factor; OSI RF = Relational Factor; OSI CF = Career Factor; OSI IF = Work–Home Interface Factor; OSI SF = Organizational Structure Factor. \* *p* < 0.05; \*\* *p* < 0.01.


**Table 3.** Scores obtained by men and women on the study variables.


**Table 3.** *Cont.*

Note: M = males; F = females; SREIT: Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test; MSPSS = Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support; OSI = Occupational Stress Indicator; OSI PSY = Psychological; OSI PHY = Physical; OSI JF = Job Factor; OSI MF = Managerial Factor; OSI RF = Relational Factor; OSI CF = Career Factor; OSI IF = Work–Home Interface Factor; OSI SF = Organizational Structure Factor.

#### *3.2. Mediation Analyses*

The significant results for mediation analyses are described in the following section. Table 4 displays all the associations among the investigated variables. Figure 3 depicts the measurement model with only significant paths.

**Table 4.** Relationships between emotional intelligence (EI), social support, and occupational stress.



**Table 4.** *Cont.*

Note: SREIT: Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test; MSPSS = Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support; OSI = Occupational Stress Indicator; OSI PSY = Psychological; OSI PHY = Physical; OSI JF = Job Factor; OSI MF = Managerial Factor; OSI RF = Relational Factor; OSI CF = Career Factor; OSI IF = Work–Home Interface Factor; OSI SF = Organizational Structure Factor. CI = confidence intervals; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

EI showed a significant total (β = −0.22, *p* < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.283, −0.108]) and direct (β = −0.21, *p* = 0.002, 95% CI [−0.305, −0.070]) effect on psychological effects. This relationship also indicated significant effects by adding social support as a mediator. Specifically, support from family and friends functioned as significant mediators, though the magnitude of the association between EI and psychological effects decreased (β = −0.06, *p* = 0.036, 95% CI [−0.097, −0.003], β = −0.05, *p* = 0.027, 95% CI [0.005, 0.092], respectively).

A full mediation was found in the relationship between EI and physical effects (β = −0.17, *p* < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.233, −0.061], as a direct association was not estimated. Only support from family was a significant mediator (β = −0.06, *p* = 0.041, 95% CI [−0.094, −0.002]).

Support from friends mediated the relationship between EI and job factor (β = −0.05, *p* = 0.042, 95% CI [0.001, 0.056]), as well as between EI and relational factor (β = −0.06, *p* = 0.015, 95% CI [0.007, 0.069]), between EI and career factor (β = −0.05, *p* = 0.039, 95% CI [0.001, 0.059]), and between EI and home–work interface factor (β = −0.06, *p* = 0.026, 95% CI [0.004, 0.073]).

Finally, no direct or indirect effects were estimated between EI and managerial factor and between EI and organizational structure factor.

**Figure 3.** Measurement model testing the relationship between EI and occupational stress through social support. Only significant paths are shown. Direct effects are in parentheses. SREIT: Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test; MSPSS = Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support; OSI = Occupational Stress Indicator; OSI PSY = Psychological; OSI PHY = Physical; OSI JF = Job Factor; OSI RF = Relational Factor; OSI CF = Career Factor; OSI IF = Work–Home Interface Factor. \* *p* < 0.05, \*\* *p* < 0.01, \*\*\* *p* < 0.001.

#### **4. Discussion**

This study's main objective was to test the direct and indirect relationship between EI and occupational stress, taking into account different sources of social support as mediators. Specifically, we hypothesized that individuals with high EI were more inclined to search for social support and, in turn, tended to experience lower levels of occupational stress. Through the mediation analyses application, all the possible paths were examined, and the associations among the aforementioned variables were verified.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt addressed to evaluate this mediation model, and the first study in which EI, social support, and occupational stress are jointly examined during the pandemic.

In line with previous research [36,47], our results supported the existence of significant associations between EI and social support, providing evidence that individuals with higher EI tend to perceive greater social support from others. In fact, EI predicted all three sources of social support. This means that individuals able to understand their own and others' emotions are more likely surrounded by positive and good relationships that strengthen their social competence, and they more easily rely on other people when facing challenging events because they think others are attentive and responsive to their own needs. These findings emphasize how the two concepts are strictly related to each other.

In the current study, three sources of social support were taken into account: social support from family members, friends, and significant others. This can be considered as an innovative aspect of the existing literature on this topic, as the majority of studies on occupational stress mainly focus on the effects of social support from coworkers and supervisors. From this point of view, our findings emphasize that, although the concept of occupational stress is associated with the inability to cope with stress at work, external variables not strictly related to work conditions can also influence the degree of occupational stress. In truth, stress is both a general and complex phenomenon in which multiple variables interact and merge into each other. This suggests that researchers should not limit the investigation of context-dependent stressors, but rather should be aware that other external variables may function both as protective and risk factors. From this perspective, our results are in line with previous research in which not work-related social support positively affected occupational [42,43].

Likewise, occupational stress was assessed considering several aspects of it, i.e., examining the effects on psychological and physical health on the one hand, and on the other, job-related stressors, such as problematic relationships with coworkers and/or supervisors, difficulties in work–home balance, incompatibilities with organizational policies, and issues linked to lacking personal and career development. Specifically, eight facets of occupational stress were identified as outcome variables. Such a distinction allowed us to examine whether the three sources of social support have a diverse impact on the different occupational stress facets and, consequently, whether or not they functioned as a mediator.

In contrast with previous studies [28,29,31] and contrary to our expectations, EI did not report direct effects on occupational stress, except for considering psychological effects as a dependent variable. From this point of view, our results supported the conclusions suggested by some authors [32], according to whom EI is not directly related to stress at the workplace, suggesting that other variables—such as organizational support—-may better predict levels of occupational stress. Another plausible reason for the unexpected direct effects of EI on occupational stress dimensions may be owing to the specific critical period in which data were collected, characterized by the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Despite that EI is intended as a personality trait rather than a temporary state, participants were not adequately instructed to indicate their typical disposition toward understanding managing of their own and others' emotions. Participants' responses on some of SREIT items, such as "*I expect good things to happen*" or "*I motivate myself by imagining a good outcome to tasks I take on*", may be biased owing to the extensive negative emotions experienced during the pandemic.

Nevertheless, significant indirect effects were estimated for almost all occupational stress facets in which social support from family and friends were found to be significant mediators. These findings provide interesting insights for interpretation that may have useful theoretical and practical implications.

From a theoretical perspective, our results indicate the relevance of considering scores on multidimensional measures' subscales separately. Previous studies on this topic have used the MSPSS for evaluating social support, combining scores obtained in each subscale into a unique total score [37–39]. This procedure represents a misuse of multidimensional measures, and we recommend applying it only if a second-order factor analysis has been performed.

In addition, using a total and global score does not allow evaluating whether the different sources of social support have a different impact on occupational stress. Indeed, our analyses' findings showed that social support from both family and friends has a beneficial effect in minimizing the effects of occupational stress, but social support from significant others did not predict any facets of the outcome variable. These results suggest adopting programs aimed at promoting and reinforcing specific sources of social support, which strengthen social competence and, in turn, have a protective function against maladaptive outcomes.

Any sources of social support had a significant impact on OSI MF and on OSI SF. A viable explanation is that both subscales are strictly related to the specific features of the workplace: the former refers to how individuals perceive others' expectancies toward themselves, and the latter is the characteristics of the structural and climate organization. Presumably, these aforementioned subscales may be better predicted by a greater sense of social support from coworkers or supervisors, rather than other sources of social support. Future studies may explore this hypothesis.

Although research on occupational stress usually takes into account work-related sources of social support as potential factors affecting or offsetting stress at work, our findings are in line with previous studies outlining how the link between social support and occupational stress is inconsistent and unclear [11]. These inconsistencies may be mainly due to the type of supporters (i.e., source), to the different functions of social support (informational, emotional, and instrumental) considered, and to the specific indicators of occupational stress investigated. From this perspective, additional research is needed that aims at evaluating whether social support (both work- and not work-related social support) differently affect the facets of occupational stress by simultaneously examining the three different functions.

In addition, further studies are also needed to have a deeper understanding of the associations between the selected variables to better justify the proposed model.

As mentioned before, the results of the present study should be considered in light of the critical period in which data were gathered and should be taken with some caution, avoiding generalizations that go beyond the pandemic period. The spread of the COVID-19 virus and the rapid and unexpected changes of habits in daily life and at workplaces may have affected the individual scores on the investigated variables.
