Patterer et al.: Need for Relatedness, OCB, and Depersonalisation
Summary: Three-wave longitudinal study (N=1259→704→405) showing that coworker social support increases connectedness and decreases isolation, but the downstream effects on OCB and depersonalisation are more complex than expected: increases in connectedness unexpectedly decreased OCB, explained by the “needs-as-motives” hypothesis — once a need is satisfied, motivation to pursue it through helping behavior drops.
Sources: Raw/Parallel effects of the need for relatedness a three-wave panel study on how coworker social support contributes to OCB and depersonalisation.epub
Citation: Patterer, A. S., Kühnel, J., & Korunka, C. (2024). Parallel effects of the need for relatedness: a three-wave panel study on how coworker social support contributes to OCB and depersonalisation. Work & Stress, 38(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2023.2222367
Last updated: 2026-05-10
What the study did
Patterer, Kühnel, and Korunka (Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Work & Stress 2024) tested whether coworker social support affects OCB and depersonalisation via two parallel mechanisms rooted in self-determination theory: relatedness need satisfaction (connectedness) and relatedness need frustration (isolation).
The design was a three-wave online panel with two-month time lags: coworker social support measured at Time 1, mediators (connectedness, isolation) at Time 2, and outcomes (OCB, depersonalisation) at Time 3. Participants controlled for their own baseline scores at each wave (change-score approach). German sample recruited via an online panel provider, diverse in age, sector, and education; 52.1% men; mean age 44.58; mean tenure 12.82 years.
Theoretical framework
The study integrates two models:
JD-R (Job Demands-Resources): available coworker support is a job resource that activates a motivational pathway and buffers a strain pathway.
Self-determination theory (SDT): need satisfaction and need frustration are distinct constructs — not opposite ends of a continuum. Low satisfaction (“I don’t feel connected”) is not the same as frustration (“I feel isolated”). This distinction generates two independent psychological mechanisms:
- Connectedness (relatedness need satisfaction) → growth-oriented, prosocial behavior
- Isolation (relatedness need frustration) → defensive, withdrawn behavior
Hypotheses and what happened to them
| Hypothesis | Prediction | Result |
|---|---|---|
| H1a | Social support → increase in connectedness | Supported (β=0.231) |
| H1b | Social support → decrease in isolation | Supported (β=−0.142) |
| H2a | Increase in connectedness → increase in OCB | Reversed (β=−0.169) |
| H2b | Increase in isolation → increase in depersonalisation | Marginally supported (β=0.291; CI includes 0) |
| H3a | Indirect: support → connectedness → OCB | Not supported (direction reversed) |
| H3b | Indirect: support → isolation → depersonalisation | Not supported |
The unexpected connectedness–OCB reversal
The headline surprise: employees whose connectedness increased between T1 and T2 subsequently showed decreased OCB from T2 to T3. A follow-up repeated-measures ANOVA clarified the pattern:
- High-connectedness group (above median at T2): high OCB that remained stable.
- Low-connectedness group (below median at T2): lower OCB that increased over time.
The authors invoke the “needs-as-motives” hypothesis (Sheldon & Gunz, 2009): when a basic need is sufficiently satisfied, it loses its motivational pull. Highly connected employees no longer needed to boost their relationships through helping behavior, so OCB leveled off. Low-connectedness employees, still seeking connection, escalated their helping as a means to become more integrated. This is a compensation dynamic: OCB partly functions as need-seeking behavior, not just need-having behavior.
This finding directly extends berg-social-support-congruence-meetings, which found that low-low support-exchange teams paradoxically produced the most meeting citizenship behavior — a parallel compensation interpretation.
The isolation–depersonalisation path
The expected pathway (more isolation → more depersonalisation) was marginal when both mediators were modeled simultaneously. In an alternative model with isolation alone, the effect became significant. The authors interpret this cautiously: isolated employees may want to reconnect but recent social exclusion makes them reluctant to expose themselves, leading to temporary emotional distancing (depersonalisation) as a defensive response.
Measures
- Coworker social support: 12-item SAWS (Lawrence et al., 2007); α≈.97–.98
- Connectedness / Isolation: adapted R-UCLA Loneliness Scale (5 items each); α≈.87/.80
- OCB: 5-item scale toward individuals (Smith et al., 1983); α≈.85
- Depersonalisation: 3-item MBI (Maslach & Jackson, 1981); α≈.85–.87
Practical implications
- Managers should not assume that high social support automatically produces more helping behavior — the mechanism is more indirect and saturation effects are real.
- Employees who feel least connected may paradoxically be the most motivated to help, making low-connectedness a signal to watch rather than dismiss.
- Fostering psychological safety and regular communication opportunities targets isolation reduction more than connectedness building alone.
- The quality — not quantity — of social interactions matters; excessive or unwanted social participation can backfire.
Related pages
- patterer-self-leadership-remote-work — same first author; JD-R + self-regulation in remote work
- patterer-coworking-creativity — same research group; coworking and social resources
- berg-social-support-congruence-meetings — parallel compensation dynamic in meeting citizenship behavior
- schroeder-feeling-known — interpersonal closeness and perceived support
- work-engagement — OCB as engagement-adjacent construct
- han-workplace-digitization — JD-R model applied to changing work environments