Next Article in Journal
Children in the CYPSE—Their Views on Their Experiences: A Systematic Literature Review
Previous Article in Journal
Supervised Contact Between Children in Care and Their Parents—A Study of Professional Reflections
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/socsci14050317
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Social Support and Well-Being: The Survival Kit for the Work Jungle

by
Mariana Oliveira
1,
Ana Palma-Moreira
1,* and
Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira
2,3
1
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Europeia, Quinta do Bom Nome, Estr. da Correia 53, 1500-210 Lisboa, Portugal
2
Institute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science (INESC TEC), 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
3
Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism (DEGEIT), University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(5), 317; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14050317
Submission received: 24 March 2025 / Revised: 14 May 2025 / Accepted: 19 May 2025 / Published: 21 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Empowering Through Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to investigate the effect of perceived social support on perceived employability and whether this relationship is mediated by well-being. Another objective is to study the moderating effect of perceived self-efficacy on the relationship between well-being and perceived employability. The sample comprises 316 participants, all studying at universities in Portugal. The results show that social support is positively and significantly associated with perceived employability and well-being. Well-being has a positive and significant association with perceived employability. As for the mediating effect, well-being was found to have a total mediating effect on the relationship between social support and perceived employability. Perceived self-efficacy has a positive and significant association with perceived employability. Contrary to expectations, perceived self-efficacy does not moderate the relationship between well-being and perceived employability. These results allow us to conclude that social support and well-being are the survival kits for the jungle of work. As for the practical implications, it is recommended that universities take care of the social support given to students, increasing their well-being so that their perceived employability is high.

1. Introduction

In today’s environment of flexibility, freedom, uncertainty, and constant recompositing, market restructuring and job losses, among other things, force individuals to develop increasingly effective mechanisms for adaptation. This instability is noticeable on a psychological and professional level, so important skills are highlighted, such as the individual’s ability to proactively drive change. With all this, we can say that employability is an essential psychosocial construct for success and survival in today’s job market (Fugate et al. 2004).
The perception of employability and the social support of university students is a topic of great importance for academic study, as this age group presents a list of personal, social, identity and interpersonal challenges, among others, which social support can respond to and protect, being substantial in terms of aspects such as well-being, self-efficacy, and consequently, school satisfaction, expectations, academic results and emotional particularities (Fernandes et al. 2012; Gamboa et al. 2022; Mahanta and Aggarwal 2013; Monteiro et al. 2012).
Thus, studying these four variables is crucial to better understanding how university students can manage all the challenges they face and thus achieve greater success and satisfaction, whether in the personal or professional spheres (Fernandes et al. 2012; Gamboa et al. 2022; Mahanta and Aggarwal 2013; Monteiro et al. 2012).
Given this context, this study seeks to explore the interrelationship between perceived employability, social support, well-being, and self-efficacy in university students, with the aim of providing a deeper understanding of these concepts and their influence on their development.
The main aim of this study is to investigate the association between social support and perceived employability and whether this relationship is mediated by well-being. Another objective is to study whether perceived self-efficacy moderates the relationship between well-being and perceived employability.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Social Support

Brownell and Shumaker (1984) describe social support as a relationship between the provider and the beneficiary that aims to provide for the beneficiary’s well-being. According to Wills (1991), social support can also be characterized by the feeling and experience of being loved, cared for, respected, and valued by others. It comes from a social network of help and commitment, which can include family, friends, partners, work colleagues, and pets (Allen et al. 2002). Sometimes, the social relationships and resources provided may not only have a beneficial effect but also a negative one. Social support is undoubtedly a multifaceted construct which includes disaggregation and specificities between structural and functional dimensions (Mahanta and Aggarwal 2013).
As the literature has advanced, the need has arisen to distinguish perceived social support from received social support. Perceived social support refers to the individual’s perception that they are loved and have someone to turn to if needed (Carvalho et al. 2011). For example, the fact that the individual knows that they can ask for support and receive it is reassuring, as social support is not only based on an exchange relationship in which one individual receives benefits from another, but also on the perception of help and support that could potentially be available (Taylor 2011).
University students receive their social support from various sources, such as family, classmates and teachers, and social support from each of these sources is correlated with beneficial outcomes for students. They represent the young-adult phase of life, characterized by developmental crises, where they try to establish an identity, deal with their independence, establish intimate relationships and increase their friendship commitments. Therefore, it is important to explore young university students’ perceptions about the social support they feel they receive or have available (Mahanta and Aggarwal 2013).

2.2. Perceived Employability

Employability, which was initially defined based on parameters such as the number of jobs offers or employment status (being employed or not), has increasingly been analyzed from a processual perspective. This approach has highlighted individuals’ different career management strategies (Gamboa et al. 2022). In recent decades, individual employability has received increasing academic attention as it relates to changes in the relationship between employee and employer. More specifically, the responsibility for career development has been shifting from the employer to the individual. This is because employers can no longer guarantee a job for life due to increased competition (Vanhercke et al. 2016).
At the individual level, Rothwell (2015) highlights the concept of perceived employability, which refers to the individual’s perception of their skills and/or abilities to obtain and maintain a job, depending on their qualifications. Rothwell (2015) identifies perceived employability in two distinct dimensions: internal, which refers to the recognition of individual attributes relevant to professional performance and job search, such as self-confidence, and external, which reflects the benefits linked to the quality of learning or working environments, such as the demands of the job market. The focus on individuals’ perceptions and subjectivity, which places employability in the field of individual action, becomes relevant in a scenario where university students need special attention related to the transition to the labor market (Gamboa et al. 2022).
Perceived employability is a fundamental tool for university students and their career management (Gamboa et al. 2022): “(Graduate) Students need to define what type of jobs they want and what competencies these types of jobs they desire require in order to maximize their possibilities of attaining those jobs (...)” (Vanhercke et al. 2016, p. 11).

Social Support and Perceived Employability

According to the authors Tentama et al. (2019), individuals do not necessarily guarantee good employability without adequate social support, which is crucial to improving employability prospects: “(...) the more powerful an individual’s social support network, the stronger his or her employability” (Xia et al. 2020, p. 5).
An individual’s social relationships are one of the main sources of success in finding a job since social support provides information and motivation throughout the process. The size of the support network is also very important since “(...) individuals with more extensive social support networks are believed to have higher employability.” (Tentama et al. 2019, p. 240).
In the Conservation of Resources Theory (COR), developed by Hobfoll (1989), the author proposes that individuals are motivated to acquire, preserve and protect resources that they consider valuable to them (Barbosa De Oliveira and Neri 2021). In this context, social support is an essential resource that helps individuals develop, achieve their professional goals and increase their employability. Thus, social support gives individuals a greater capacity to face changes in their lives, generating feelings of security and confidence while promoting self-esteem and encouraging proactivity (Tentama et al. 2019).
In this way, and based on COR, it is possible to hypothesize a positive relationship between the level of social support an individual receives and their perception of employability, as both are based on the conservation and mobilization of essential resources for professional success (Barbosa De Oliveira and Neri 2021).
Hypothesis 1: 
Social support has a positive and significant association with perceived employability.

2.3. Well-Being

Although the term well-being is widely used, there is no agreed definition, and it is often used as a broad concept to describe people’s quality of life. Often, terms such as happiness and life satisfaction are used interchangeably to refer to well-being (Selwyn and Wood 2015).
Ereaut and Whiting (2008) state that well-being is nothing more than what a group or groups of people collectively consider to be a “good life”. They proposed a different approach, seeing well-being as a balance between resources and challenges. According to the authors, stable well-being occurs when individuals have the psychological, social and physical resources they need to face a given challenge, be it psychological, social or physical (Dodge et al. 2012).
However, in terms of assessment, psychological well-being helps to identify the individual’s satisfaction and happiness in specific psychological domains and the psychological resources they possess (Monteiro et al. 2012). Within psychological well-being, flourishing can be defined as an optimal state of dynamic psychosocial functioning (Monteiro et al. 2012). Keyes (2002) suggests that flourishing requires high emotional, psychological and social well-being indicators. He then presents the PERMA model, which states that flourishing is achieved through five pillars of well-being: positive emotion, involvement, relationships, meaning and fulfillment. Ten components of flourishing are then identified, including emotional stability, engagement, meaning, competence, optimism, positive emotions, healthy relationships, self-esteem, resilience and vitality (Butler and Kern 2016).
Different types of happiness contribute to an overall perception of subjective well-being, but they manifest differently depending on the person and the context. There is no single best model of well-being, as different approaches can be useful for transforming the abstract concept of well-being into concrete areas that can be measured, developed and ultimately sustained (Butler and Kern 2016).
The study of well-being in university students is of great importance due to the vulnerability of this group to issues such as “(...) physical health problems resulting from alcohol consumption (...) tobacco and illicit drugs (...) as well as involvement in risky sexual behavior (...)” (Monteiro et al. 2012, p. 63). Psychological issues such as anxiety, stress, low self-esteem and others are also common for this social group. All these factors affect the general well-being of university students, making it essential to understand their impact on their lives (Monteiro et al. 2012).

2.3.1. Social Support and Well-Being

According to Awang et al. (2014), several studies indicate a significant relationship between the perception of social support and the well-being of students, where greater social support, both from friends and family, is compatible with greater satisfaction with life.
According to Mahanta and Aggarwal (2013), university students with greater parental support are happier and less depressed than those with less support. The authors also point out that friends influence well-being more than family. This social support from friends is associated with less stress and greater satisfaction with life.
A support network can influence how an event is interpreted, turning a potential stressor into a challenge or reducing the scale of a problem, making it seem easier to manage (Brownell and Shumaker 1984).
According to Thomas and Gupta (2021), Social Capital Theory applies mainly to health and well-being. Although the concept of social capital has already been defined by authors such as Bourdieu, Coleman, and Putnam (Portela et al. 2013), we can now define social capital as the combination of real and tangible resources available and derived from an individual’s network of relationships (Thomas and Gupta 2021).
At an individual and collective level, social capital is positively related to well-being, happiness, and life satisfaction. This relationship is greatly stimulated by factors such as trust and the individual’s own participation in social networks. These are the most important components of social capital regarding well-being (Portela et al. 2013).
For university students, feeling loved, cared for and supported by friends, family, and others can have a significant impact on their general well-being, especially in aspects such as depression and anxiety (Mahanta and Aggarwal 2013).
Hypothesis 2: 
Social support has a positive and significant association with well-being.

2.3.2. Well-Being and Perceived Employability

According to Vanhercke et al. (2016), most authors argue that the perception of employability has a positive impact on well-being because this perception provides individuals with important resources.
Individuals who consider themselves to be employable feel that they can find work more easily and have more control over their employment situation. They also find it easier to negotiate better working conditions, change jobs in an adverse situation, and worry less about the consequences of not having a job. All these advantages ultimately contribute to individuals’ well-being and health protection (Berntson 2008; Vanhercke et al. 2016).
On the other hand, individuals who consider themselves less employable may fear the loss of professional resources that they value highly, such as professional development, autonomy, and social support, which can, in turn, lead to malaise (Vanhercke et al. 2016).
According to Berntson (2008), Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) theory of stress highlights that individuals can evaluate situations on two levels. Firstly, individuals tend to make an initial or primary evaluation to define whether the situation is stressful, positive or irrelevant. Then, a secondary appraisal is made to understand whether the individual has the necessary resources to deal with a given scenario or situation. If an individual feels employable, they are more likely to see situations as challenges rather than threats, reducing stress. On the other hand, even if the situation is assessed as stressful, the fact that the individual is employed can help them manage and cope with the situation.
We can also say that perceived employability can contribute to an improvement in well-being, and a good level of well-being can also reinforce perceived employability. This reciprocal interaction demonstrates that, based on a two-way relationship, both factors are interconnected and influence each other (Vanhercke et al. 2016).
Hypothesis 3: 
Well-being has a positive and significant association with perceived employability.

2.3.3. Social Support, Well-Being and Perceived Employability

According to Bakari and Hunjra (2018), perceived employability positively relates to individuals’ happiness and well-being. The authors state that greater perception of employability leads to a positive evaluation of one’s work situation and better health and well-being outcomes. It is also pointed out that, in the future, individuals who consider themselves employable are more likely to be happier and show greater mental health and well-being.
Employability is not a task exclusive to university students, as social support from parents, teachers, friends, and others contributes to the perception of employability and factors such as student well-being (Rothwell et al. 2009).
Bakari and Hunjra (2018) also point out that organizational and social support contributes to developing well-being and employability.
Hypothesis 4: 
Well-being has a mediating effect on the relationship between social support and perceived employability.

2.4. Perceived Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy can be described as individuals’ perception of their ability to organize and perform tasks in unpredictable and/or stressful situations (Fernandes et al. 2012).
According to Wood and Bandura (1989), self-efficacy encompasses an individual’s confidence in their abilities, which stimulates aspects such as cognitive resources or even the actions needed to exercise control in certain situations. Self-efficacy is also seen as a motivational variable (Fernandes et al. 2012).
According to Samssudin (2009), self-efficacy can be divided into three dimensions. The first is the magnitude related to confidence in efficacy beliefs, especially about challenging experiences. For example, individuals with low self-efficacy tend to avoid complex tasks, while those with high self-efficacy see these same tasks as challenges and remain committed to their goals, even when faced with failure. On the other hand, Generality refers to the range of situations in which the individual considers themselves effective, varying according to the characteristics of the activities, situations or people involved. Finally, the level refers to the number of actions the individual believes they can carry out or the difficulty of the tasks they feel capable of performing.
It should be noted that an increase in the belief of efficacy does not always lead to changes in behavior (Samssudin 2009) since self-efficacy is a specific concept that varies depending on the situation, and its assessment is more appropriate in specific domains than through general measures (Bandura 1986).
The study of self-efficacy among university students is of great importance. These students face various challenges, both personal and external. These challenges test their internal resources and their ability to deal with competition, ambiguity, and uncertainty (Fernandes et al. 2012).

2.4.1. Perceived Self-Efficacy and Perceived Employability

The literature shows both perceived employability and self-efficacy as key constructs of career management skills (Gomes et al. 2019). The degree to which students believe they can stand out and make a difference is extremely important, as self-efficacy and self-perception influence employability both directly and indirectly through skills development, understanding, and metacognition (Qenani et al. 2014).
According to the Sociocognitive Career Theory (Lent et al. 1994) and, in more detail, the Sociocognitive Model of Career Management (Lent and Brown 2013), the concept of perceived employability appears as a predictor of self-efficacy in university students, with an emphasis on the period of transition to work. This is because the skills acquired in higher education or the “experiential sources of self-efficacy” (Gomes et al. 2019, p. 87) will show a positive relationship with the confidence shown by students when facing obstacles in the transition to professional life (Gomes et al. 2019).
Gamboa et al.’s (2014) study of university students reinforced this relationship since the self-efficacy variable is positively associated with perceived employability, both in adults who are looking for a job and in university students (Gamboa et al. 2022).
Assessing the possibility of a relationship between self-efficacy and the perceived employability of university students is relevant because, if they have high self-efficacy, they may also have a greater perception that they have the necessary skills to get a job (Ryan 2023).
Hypothesis 5: 
Perceived self-efficacy is positively and significantly associated with perceived employability.

2.4.2. Moderating Effect of Perceived Self-Efficacy

According to Magaletta and Oliver (1999), self-efficacy and well-being are positively related. In other words, when individuals feel good, they are more likely to feel confident about their ability to get the job they want (Vanhercke et al. 2016).
The Broaden and Build Theory of Positive Emotions proves the above-mentioned relationship, as it states that an individual feels good and allows them to be more interactive in their actions and thoughts in their surroundings. Thus, it is assumed that individuals who feel good tend to perceive more employment possibilities. Moreover, individuals who feel this way also tend to feel more confident in approaching challenging situations and believing they will succeed (Vanhercke et al. 2016).
Consequently, this same interactive behavior stimulates opportunities that allow the individual to build lasting personal resources, such as employability. With a greater perception of employability, the individual will also have greater control over their work situation and, therefore, greater well-being (Vanhercke et al. 2016).
Hypothesis 6: 
Self-efficacy has a moderating effect on the relationship between well-being and perceived employability.
Figure 1 summarizes all the relationships between the variables and the hypotheses formulated in this study.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection Procedure

In total, 342 individuals participated in this study, but only 316 were considered valid because they met the condition of being students at Portuguese universities. The data collection procedure was non-probabilistic, intentional and snowball (Trochim 2000). The study is exploratory and cross-sectional, as the data were collected simultaneously.
The questionnaire was made available online via the Google Forms platform and shared via a link on tools such as Gmail, WhatsApp, LinkedIn and Instagram. The first part of the questionnaire included informed consent, in which participants were informed of the purpose of the data collection and the guarantee of confidentiality. Next, the participants had to answer a question about their willingness to participate voluntarily in this study. If they answered no, they were directed to submit the form. If they agreed to take part, they were sent the questionnaire.
The participants were asked about four scales: social support, perceived employability, well-being, and self-efficacy. They also filled in information about their sociodemographic characteristics so that it would be possible to characterize the sample. The questionnaire included the following sociodemographic questions: age, gender, area of the country, marital status, whether they are working students, the course they are taking, what year of university they are in, and, finally, whether the institution they are attending is public or private. The data were collected between November 2024 and January 2025.

3.2. Participants

This study’s sample consisted of 316 participants who collaborated voluntarily and were aged between 18 and 67, with an average of 25.99 years. Regarding gender, 72.8% of the participants were female, 26.9% male and 0.3% identified as another gender. In terms of area, 55.7% of the sample was in the Greater Lisbon area, 28.2% in the South, 12.7% in the Center, 1.3% in the North, as well as in the Autonomous Region of Madeira, and finally 0.9% in the Autonomous Region of the Azores. As for marital status, 80.7% are single, 17.4% are married/marital partnerships, and 1.9% are divorced/marital partnerships. The sample comprises 61.4% students and 38.6% workers/students. Regarding courses, 28.5% were studying Management, 23.4% were studying Psychology, 6.3% were studying Engineering, 5.4% were studying Humanities, 2.2% were studying Arts, 1.9% were studying Law, 0.9% were studying Medicine, 0.6% were studying Teaching and 30.7% were on another course. As for the year of schooling, 32.9% of the sample is in the 1st year of their bachelor’s degree, 19.9% in the 2nd year of their master’s degree, 16.8% in the 3rd year of their bachelor’s degree, 14.6% of the sample is in the 3rd year of their bachelor’s degree, 12.3% in the 2nd year of their bachelor’s degree, 2.2% in the 4th year of their bachelor’s degree, and 1.3% is studying for a PhD. About the educational institution sector, 59.5% of the sample studied in the private sector and 40.5% in the public sector.

3.3. Data Analysis Procedure

Once the data had been collected, they were imported into the SPSS Statistics 29 for Windows software. First, the metric qualities of the instruments used in this study were tested. Confirmatory factor analyses were carried out using the AMOS Graphics 29 software to test the validity of the instruments used in this study. The procedure was established according to a “model generation” logic (Jöreskog and Sörbom 1993), interactively considering the results obtained in the analysis of their adjustment. for the chi-square (χ2) ≤ 5; for the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) > 0.90; for the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) > 0.90; for the comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.90; for root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ 0.08 (McCallum et al. 1996); and for the root mean square residual (RMSR), where a smaller value corresponds to a better adjustment (Hu and Bentler 1999). We then tested the construct reliability for each scale’s dimensions, the value of which should be higher than 0.70. Convergent validity was tested by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE), which should be greater than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Reliability was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which ranges from 0 to 1, excluding negative values (Hill and Hill 2002). A value greater than 0.70 is considered the minimum acceptable value in organizational studies (Bryman and Cramer 2003). The median, minimum, maximum, asymmetry and kurtosis were calculated to test the items’ sensitivity. The items should not have the median leaning towards one of the extremes; they should have responses at all points, and their absolute values of skewness and kurtosis should be below 2 and 7, respectively (Finney and DiStefano 2013).
One-sample Student’s t-tests were used to perform descriptive statistics on the variables under study. Pearson’s correlations were used to test the association between the variables under study. Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were tested using simple and multiple linear regressions. To determine whether the mediating effect assumed in hypothesis 5 is statistically significant, the Sobel test, developed by Sobel and Elashoff (1975), was used to validate this hypothesis. As for hypothesis 6, since it is a moderating effect, it was tested using Macro Process 4.2 (Model1) developed by Hayes (2022).

3.4. Instruments

The questionnaire was made up of four instruments, various sociodemographic questions (age, gender, area of the country, marital status, whether they are a working student, the course they are taking, what year of university they are in and, finally, whether the institution they are attending is public or private) and the following instruments.
Social support was measured using the satisfaction with family, friendships, and social activities dimensions of the Social Support Satisfaction Scale (ESSS), developed by Ribeiro (1999). These items were assessed on a Likert-type scale with seven response options, ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree”. A three-factor analysis was carried out to check the validity of this instrument. The fit indices obtained were adequate (χ2/gl = 2.16; GFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.061; RMSR = 0.061) (Hu and Bentler 1999). All items had factor weights greater than 0.80, which is considered good (Hair et al. 2017). Composite reliability ranged from 0.92 (satisfaction with social activities) to 0.94 (satisfaction with family and satisfaction with friends). Concerning convergent validity, the AVE values range from 0.73 (satisfaction with social activities) to 0.79 (satisfaction with family and friends). As for internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha values range from 0.93 (satisfaction with family and satisfaction with social activities) to 0.95 (satisfaction with friends, with values that are well above 0.70, the minimum considered in organizational studies (Bryman and Cramer 2003).
Perceived employability was measured using the dimensions of perceived internal and external employability from the Portuguese version of the Self-Perceived Employability scale by Rothwell et al. (2009), adapted for the Portuguese population by Gamboa et al. (2022). These items were assessed on a Likert-type scale with five response options, ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree”. The validity of this instrument was tested by carrying out a two-factor confirmatory factor analysis. The adjustment indices obtained were adequate (χ2/gl = 2.32; GFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.065; RMSR = 0.075) (Hu and Bentler 1999). The internal employability perception dimension has a composite reliability of 0.85 and the internal employability perception dimension has a composite reliability of 0.84. Regarding convergent validity, the external employability perception dimension has an AVE of 0.42 and the internal employability dimension has an AVE of 0.64. Although the external employability perception dimension has an AVE value of less than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker 1981), as Cronbach’s alpha value is above 0.70, this value can be considered acceptable (Hair et al. 2011). As for internal consistency, the external employability dimension has a Cronbach alpha of 0.83 and the internal employability dimension has a Cronbach alpha of 0.84, values which are above 0.70, the minimum considered in organizational studies (Bryman and Cramer 2003).
Well-being was measured using 16 items from the Perma-Profile instrument, developed by Butler and Kern (2016) and adapted for the Portuguese population by Alves et al. (2023). These items were assessed on an 11-point rating scale (from 0 to 10). These items were assessed on a Likert-type scale with 11 response options, ranging from “absolutely nothing” to “totally”. The validity of this instrument was tested using a one-factor confirmatory factor analysis. The adjustment indices obtained were adequate (χ2/gl = 2.34; GFI = 0.92; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.065; RMSR = 0.121) (Hu and Bentler 1999). A composite reliability of 0.93 was obtained. Convergent validity has an AVE value of 0.44, less than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker 1981). However, Cronbach’s alpha value is above 0.70, so this value can be considered acceptable (Hair et al. 2011). As for internal consistency, it has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94, which is above 0.70, the minimum considered in organizational studies (Bryman and Cramer 2003).
Self-efficacy was measured using 10 items from the General Self-Efficacy Scale (EA-EG), originally developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1993) and Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995) and translated and adapted for the Portuguese population by Gomes (2007). The items were assessed on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from “Not at all true” to “Completely true”. The validity of this instrument was tested using a one-factor confirmatory factor analysis. The adjustment indices obtained were adequate (χ2/gl = 2.16; GFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.061; RMSR = 0.022) (Hu and Bentler 1999). A composite reliability of 0.89 was obtained. Convergent validity has an AVE value of 0.46, less than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker 1981). However, Cronbach alpha value is above 0.70, so this value can be considered acceptable (Hair et al. 2011). As for internal consistency, it has a Cronbach alpha of 0.90, above 0.70, which is the minimum considered in organizational studies (Bryman and Cramer 2003).
All the items have answers at all points, the median is not close to one of the extremes, and the absolute values of skewness and kurtosis are below 2 and 7, respectively, which indicates that they do not grossly violate normality (Finney and DiStefano 2013).

4. Results

Two models were tested, with one and seven factors. The one-factor model’s fit indices proved inadequate (χ2/gl = 6.69; GFI = 0.36; CFI = 0.42; TLI = 0.40; RMSEA = 0.134; RMSR = 0.24). In turn, the fit indices of the seven-factor model proved to be adequate or close to adequate (χ2/gl = 1.83; GFI = 0.81; CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.051; RMSR = 0.13). It can, therefore, be concluded that theoretical conceptualization, which determines seven variables, adequately represents the observed data. The correlations are consistent with the pattern of relationships theorized.

4.1. Descriptive Statistics of the Variables Under Study

To understand the position of the answers given by the participants in this study on the various variables, descriptive statistics were carried out on the variables under study. To this end, several one-sample Student T-tests were carried out.
Regarding social support dimensions that make up this scale, the participants’ responses were significantly above the scale’s central point (4) (Table 1).
The results indicate that the overall perception of employability dimensions that make up the scale are significantly above the scale’s central point (3) (Table 1).
The participants in this study also reported high levels of well-being, with an average significantly higher than the scale’s central point (5) (Table 1).
The average recorded for self-efficacy is also significantly higher than the scale’s central point (2.5) (Table 1).

4.2. Association Between the Variables Studied

Pearson’s correlations were used to test the association between the variables under study.
Satisfaction with family is positively and significantly correlated with perceived internal employability, perceived external employability, and well-being (Table 2). Satisfaction with friends and social activities was positively and significantly correlated with perceived internal employability, perceived external employability, well-being, and perceived self-efficacy (Table 2). Perceived internal and external employability positively and significantly correlated with well-being and perceived self-efficacy (Table 2). Well-being is positively and significantly correlated with perceived self-efficacy (Table 2).

4.3. Hypotheses

Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were tested using simple and multiple linear regressions.
Only satisfaction with social activities (β = 0.14, p = 0.041) has a positive and significant association with the perception of internal employability. The model explains 3% of the variability in internal employability and is statistically significant (F (3, 312) = 4.06, p = 0.008) (Table 3).
Only satisfaction with family (β = 0.15, p = 0.017) and friends (β = 0.21, p = 0.001) have a positive and significant association with perceived external employability. The model explains 7% of the variability in external employability and is statistically significant (F (3, 312) = 8.90, p < 0.001) (Table 3).
Hypothesis one was partially supported.
When analyzing the specific sources of social support, it was found that satisfaction with family showed a significant association with well-being (β = 0.25, p < 0.001), as did satisfaction with friends (β = 0.19, p < 0.001) and satisfaction with social activities (β = 0.33, p < 0.001) (Table 4). These results suggest that different forms of social support contribute to well-being with a significant overall impact. The model explained 38% of the variability in well-being and is statistically significant (F (3, 312) = 65.72, p < 0.001) (Table 4).
Hypothesis two was supported.
The results indicate that well-being has a positive and statistically significant association with internal employability (β = 0.44, p < 0.001), explaining 19% of the variability (R2a = 0.19, F (1, 314) = 73.12, p < 0.001) (Table 5). As for external employability, the relationship was also positive and significant (β = 0.27, p < 0.001), with an explanatory power of 7%, and the model is statistically significant (F (1, 314) = 25.36, p < 0.001) (Table 5).
Hypothesis three was supported.
Hypothesis 4 presupposes a mediating effect, so we followed the procedures according to Baron and Kenny (1986). We only tested the mediating effect of well-being on the relationship between satisfaction with social activities and the perception of internal employability and the mediating effect of well-being on the relationship between satisfaction with family and friends and the perception of external employability.
Well-being has a total mediating effect on the relationship between satisfaction with social activities and the perception of internal employability (β = 0.19, p < 0.001) (Table 6). The increase in variability explained by the model was significant (Δ R2a = 0.16, p < 0.001). Both models are statistically significant.
Sobel’s test confirmed the total mediation effect (Z = 3.13, p < 0.001).
Well-being has a total mediating effect on the relationship between satisfaction with family and the perception of external employability, and a partial mediating effect on the relationship between satisfaction with friends and the perception of external employability (β = 0.18, p < 0.001), because when the mediating variable was introduced into the regression equation, satisfaction with friends continued to have a significant effect on the dependent variable, but decreased in intensity (Table 6). The model explains 9% of the variability in external employability and is statistically significant. The increase in variability explained by the model was significant (Δ R2a = 0.02, p < 0.01).
Sobel’s test confirmed the total mediation effect of well-being on the relationship between satisfaction with family and well-being (Z = 3.44, p < 0.001). Sobel’s test also confirmed the partial mediation effect of well-being in the relationship between satisfaction with friends and perceived external employability (Z = 2.97, p = 0.001).
Hypothesis 4 was partially supported.
Perceived self-efficacy showed a positive and significant relationship with perceived internal employability (β = 0.43, p < 0.001), explaining 19% of the variability in perceived internal employability (Table 7). The model is statistically significant (F (1, 314) = 72.36, p < 0.001). In the case of external employability, the association was also positive and significant, although more modest (β = 0.16, p = 0.004), explaining 2% of the variability in the perception of external employability, and the model is statistically significant (F (1, 314) = 8.46, p = 0.004) (Table 7).
Hypothesis five was supported.
The results show that perceived self-efficacy has no moderating effect on the relationship between well-being and perceived internal employability (B = −0.01, p = 0.815) or on the relationship between well-being and perceived external employability (B = −0.01, p = 0.830) (Table 8). Hypothesis six was not supported.

5. Discussion

The main objective of this study was to examine the relationship between social support and perceived employability and whether this relationship was mediated by well-being. Another objective was to test whether perceived self-efficacy had a moderating effect on the relationship between well-being and perceived employability.
Firstly, hypothesis 1 was partially confirmed: the dimensions of satisfaction with family and friends were only positively and significantly associated with external perceived employability. The dimension of social support from others only has a positive and significant association with perceived internal employability. These results are in line with those in the literature. From the perspective of Tentama et al. (2019), individuals do not necessarily guarantee good employability without adequate social support, as this is crucial for improving the prospect of employability. Thus, based on the Conservation of Resources Theory (COR), it is possible to hypothesize a positive relationship between the level of social support an individual receives and their perception of employability, as both are based on the conservation and mobilization of essential resources for professional success (Barbosa De Oliveira and Neri 2021).
Next, hypothesis 2 was fully confirmed, as all the results were significant. The dimensions of satisfaction with family, friends and social activities showed positive and significant associations with well-being. These results align with what is described in the literature, reinforcing the importance of social support in promoting well-being. Awang et al. (2014) point to several studies that emphasize the significant relationship between the perception of social support and student well-being, where greater social support from friends and family is compatible with greater satisfaction with life. Thomas and Gupta (2021) state that Social Capital Theory applies mainly to health and well-being. Social capital at an individual and collective level is positively related to well-being, happiness and life satisfaction, and this relationship is greatly stimulated by factors such as trust and the individual’s participation in social networks. These are the most important components of social capital regarding well-being (Portela et al. 2013). For university students, feeling loved, cared for and supported by friends, family, and others can have a significant impact on their general well-being, especially in aspects such as depression and anxiety (Mahanta and Aggarwal 2013).
Hypothesis 3 was also fully confirmed, as all the results proved significant. Well-being has a positive and significant association with the dimensions of perceived employability. The relationship with internal employability was stronger, while the association with external employability, although significant, had a smaller effect. These results align with the literature, highlighting the role of well-being in individuals’ perceived employability. According to Vanhercke et al. (2016), it is widely held that the perception of employability positively impacts well-being because this same perception provides individuals with resources that are considered important. According to Berntson (2008), Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) theory on stress tells us that perceived employability can contribute to an improvement in well-being, and, on the other hand, a good level of well-being can also reinforce the perception of employability. This reciprocal interaction demonstrates that, based on a bidirectional relationship, both factors are interconnected and influence each other (Vanhercke et al. 2016).
Hypothesis 4 was also confirmed, where well-being mediates the relationship between social support and perceived employability, influencing its internal and external dimensions. Mediation was complete in the relationship between satisfaction with family and perceived external employability and between satisfaction with social activities and perceived internal employability. In the relationship between satisfaction with friends and perceived external employability, the mediating effect of well-being was partial. These results align with the literature since, according to Bakari and Hunjra (2018), organizational and social support contribute to developing well-being and employability.
Hypothesis 5 was also confirmed: self-efficacy is positively and significantly associated with perceived internal and external employability. The relationship with internal employability was stronger, while the association with external employability, although significant, had a smaller effect. These results align with the literature, highlighting the importance of self-efficacy in individuals’ perceived employability. According to Qenani et al. (2014), the degree to which students believe they can stand out and make a difference is significant since self-efficacy and self-perception influence employability, both directly and indirectly, through developing skills, understanding and metacognition. According to the Sociocognitive Career Theory (Lent et al. 1994) and, in more detail, the Sociocognitive Model of Career Management (Lent and Brown 2013), the concept of perceived employability emerges as a predictor of self-efficacy in university students, with an emphasis on the period of transition to work. This is because the skills acquired in higher education or the “experiential sources of self-efficacy” (Gomes et al. 2019, p. 87) will show a positive relationship with the confidence shown by students when facing obstacles in the transition to professional life (Gomes et al. 2019).
Hypothesis 6 was not confirmed, as the results indicate that self-efficacy does not moderate the relationship between well-being and perceived employability, either internally or externally. By not confirming the hypothesis, the results go against the literature since, according to Magaletta and Oliver (1999), self-efficacy and well-being are positively related. In other words, when an individual feels good, they are more likely to feel confident about their ability to get the job they want, a relationship confirmed by the Broaden and Build Theory of Positive Emotions (Vanhercke et al. 2016).
Regarding the descriptive statistics of the variables under study, in terms of social support, all dimensions are significantly above the midpoint, with satisfaction with social activities having the highest average. These results are based on the social identity theory developed by Erikson (1968), as adolescence is a stage in which interactions with peers play an important role in the formation of identity and development (Eccles et al. 2003). The perception of employability is also significantly above the midpoint, although the average perception of internal employability is higher than that of external employability. In Portugal, students undertake internships and, according to Hassouna and Zaazou (2024), internships positively impact students’ perception of employability and personal growth. According to Macedo et al. (2022), one of the motivations for students to undertake internships is that they consider this type of experience as a way to enter the labor market more quickly by acquiring the necessary skills. The well-being levels of Portuguese people are also significantly above the scale’s midpoint. These results align with those obtained in a study conducted by Velez et al. (2024) with a Portuguese population, where levels of well-being were also above the midpoint of the scale. Finally, students’ perception of self-efficacy is also above the scale’s midpoint. These results align with those obtained in a study by González Moreno et al. (2024).
It should be noted that Portugal is in a transition phase. Portugal was under a fascist and totalitarian regime until the Portuguese revolution, in 1974. Since then, during the democratic years that have followed, for half a century and until 2024, Portugal has gone bankrupt three times and has only survived due to economic aid provided externally (e.g., by the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission). Currently, especially with the youths in Portugal, the far-right political party (Chega) in Portugal is gaining strong support, much as in other European countries, and is considered to be a major concern for those in power in Europe. This is seen to be due to the general dissatisfaction felt by the Portuguese younger generation seeking to enter the employment market after graduating. Foreign countries are seemingly more welcoming; hence, the brain drain from Portuguese society is being felt (Macedo et al. 2022). Let it also be noted that previous political parties in power (both center–left and center–right) have not been able to solve the [un]employment problem amongst Portuguese youths and have even suggested to Portuguese youths that they emigrate in search of better and higher-paying jobs.

5.1. Limitations

This study has some limitations. The first limitation is related to the data collection procedure, which was non-probabilistic, intentional and snowball. The second limitation relates to the fact that it was a cross-sectional study, which did not allow causal relationships to be established between the variables. The third limitation concerns that self-report questionnaires were used, which may have biased the results. However, several methodological and statistical recommendations were followed to reduce the impact of common method variance (Podsakoff et al. 2003).
Another limitation may be related to the current economic context, which makes students’ perception of employability high. At present, the unemployment rate in Portugal is low, at 6.5% (INE 2025), despite the minimum wage (EUR 870) and average wage (EUR 1631.57) being lower than those in other European Union countries (PORDATA 2025). High levels of social support, well-being, and perceived self-efficacy may be related to Portugal being a democratic country with high levels of security, which can also be considered a limitation.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

The results of this study reinforce and expand the literature on perceived employability in university students, especially about the influence of psychosocial factors. The main contributions of this research include partial confirmation of the relationship between social support and perceived employability, validating the Conservation of Resources Theory (COR) by demonstrating that social resources can improve perceived employability, and demonstrating the importance of well-being in the relationship between social support and perceived employability, suggesting that well-being acts as an essential mechanism in the mobilization of resources for professional development; furthermore, it reinforces the Social Capital Theory by showing that social support not only improves well-being but also contributes to perceived employability.
This research also paves the way for new theoretical approaches, such as the interaction between social support, well-being and perceived employability, which in turn can be better understood in the light of the Sociocognitive Career Theory, which highlights the role of contextual and individual factors in the perception of employability, and also the non-confirmation of the moderating effect of self-efficacy between well-being and perceived employability, which challenges the theoretical assumptions of the Broaden and Build Theory of Positive Emotions, suggesting that other factors may influence this relationship.
Despite the theoretical contributions, this research has some limitations. The study was conducted within a specific context of university students, limiting the results’ generalizability. In addition, using a quantitative approach prevented a more in-depth understanding of the participants’ experiences.
The results of this study raise several questions that could be explored in future research, such as investigating other moderating factors, such as resilience or emotional intelligence, in the relationship between well-being and perceived employability; exploring the influence of different sources of social support on diverse groups of university students, considering variables such as socioeconomic status and cultural background; and also conducting longitudinal studies to examine whether perceived employability evolves throughout academic life and after entering the job market.

5.3. Practical Implications

The results of this study highlight the importance of social support in university students’ perceptions of employability, with well-being playing an important mediating role in this relationship.
In line with the literature, it is observed that individuals who perceive greater social support have higher levels of well-being, reinforcing confidence in their employability. The results of this study offer important practical implications and recommendations for universities, students, and employers.
Firstly, it highlights the need to strengthen the social support networks of those attending the academic environment further to strengthen aspects such as the perception of employability. In addition, considering the mediating role of well-being in the perception of employability, higher education institutions should invest in actions that promote students’ mental health and well-being, aiming to combat issues such as stress, depression, and anxiety, among others. Finally, the study suggests that although self-efficacy is associated with perceived employability, its moderating influence may be less intense but more complex than expected.
Still, on a recommendatory note, if the aim is to give due importance to strategies that promote social support and student well-being, the solutions will have to be structural since they create the possibility of transforming the educational and professional environment in an effective and lasting way. In this way, the obstacles to strengthening the perception of employability, such as professional success and life satisfaction, will no longer be dealt with superficially but will be resolved entirely, eliminating the need for palliative measures in the future.

6. Conclusions

The strength of this study was that it proved the central role of social support and well-being in perceived employability. It can be concluded that social support has a positive and significant association with perceived employability and well-being, with the latter also proving to be a relevant mediator in the relationship between social support and perceived employability. This is especially important in the current economic and work environment in Portugal, where there is a high unemployment rate amongst Portuguese youths and graduates and high emigration levels amongst this particular segment of society. This is due, in part, to the paternalistic culture present in Portugal (Van Dierendonck and Patterson 2010), which means that older people and workers prevail and have a bigger influence in work decisions and society in general. Hence, youths, even better prepared ones, with better qualifications, have less opportunities for progression and evolution in Portuguese firms. Foreign countries and firms are seen to offer much better career prospects than Portugal does, at present. Moreover, Portuguese culture is not seen to change in the short to medium term as certain researchers perceive cultural change to occur over 50–100 years, in normal circumstances (e.g., the absence of severe crises or wars) (Hofstede 2001).
In general, well-being was found to have a positive effect on perceived employability, and this effect was stronger for internal employability than external employability. In addition, self-efficacy showed a positive and significant relationship with perceived employability but did not moderate the relationship between well-being and employability. This may mean that inner satisfaction and intrinsic motivation (Amabile 1998) are necessary for getting a [satisfactory] job in Portugal. One has to feel good about oneself and not seek external rewards (e.g., a high salary or bonuses) to be employable. As Portugal is made up of a harmony-seeking environment and culture, this is in line with the literature on the subject.
Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were confirmed, validating the positive influence of social support, well-being and self-efficacy on perceived employability. The belief in oneself and one’s abilities (self-efficacy) is also important, our study shows. However, hypothesis 6 was not confirmed, as self-efficacy did not moderate the relationship between well-being and perceived employability; however, if one perceives that they deserve a very high salary and quick job progression, then emigrating will appeal to them as an attractive option.
These results lead us to conclude that social support and well-being play essential roles in the development of perceived employability, reinforcing the importance of strategies that promote social support and the psychological well-being of individuals, these being all the more important in the absence of other monetary and motivational conditions (the existence and prevalence of negative organizations) which may not exist in Portugal, for the reasons mentioned above (Graça and Au-Yong-Oliveira 2024).
In summary, this study shows that a supportive environment and well-being strengthens perceived employability and can be a crucial factor in professional success and life satisfaction—in Portugal—where the far right is gaining traction and scale as more and more youths are dissatisfied with the direction the country is going in.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.O., A.P.-M. and M.A.-Y.-O.; methodology, M.O. and A.P.-M.; software, M.O. and A.P.-M.; validation, M.O., A.P.-M. and M.A.-Y.-O.; formal analysis, M.O. and A.P.-M.; investigation, M.O. and A.P.-M.; resources, M.O., A.P.-M. and M.A.-Y.-O.; data curation, M.O. and A.P.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.O. and A.P.-M.; writing—review and editing, M.O., A.P.-M. and M.A.-Y.-O.; visualization, M.O., A.P.-M. and M.A.-Y.-O.; supervision, M.O., A.P.-M. and M.A.-Y.-O.; project administration, M.O. and A.P.-M.; funding acquisition, A.P.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study since all participants (before answering the questionnaire) needed to read the informed consent portion and agree to it. This was the only way they could complete the questionnaire. Participants were informed about the purpose of this study and that their responses would remain confidential.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data is not publicly available because the participants’ responses are confidential.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Allen, Karen, Jim Blascovich, and Wendy Berry Mendes. 2002. Cardiovascular reactivity and the presence of pets, friends, and spouses: The truth about cats and dogs. Psychosomatic Medicine 64: 727–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alves, Marcela Almeida, Stephen Palmer, and Maria João Gouveia. 2023. Psychometric Properties of the Portuguese Version of The PERMA-Profiler. Trends in Psychology 33: 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Amabile, Teresa M. 1998. How to Kill Creativity. New York: SAGE Publications Ltd., Harvard Business Review. September–October. [Google Scholar]
  4. Awang, Mohd Mahzan, Faridah Mydin Kutty, and Abdul Razaq Ahmad. 2014. Perceived social support and well being: First-year student experience in university. International Education Studies 7: 261–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bakari, Haroon, and Ahmed Imran Hunjra. 2018. Access to Higher Education: The Source of Graduate Employability and Wellbeing. Journal of Education and Educational Developement 5: 126–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bandura, Albert. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Hoboken: Prentice-Hall, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  7. Barbosa De Oliveira, Lúcia, and Angelo França Neri. 2021. Choque de Carreira sob a Perspectiva da Teoria de Conservação de Recursos: Um Estudo com Profissionais Demitidos de Organizações Privadas. Revista Horizontes Interdisciplinares da Gestão 5: 99–120. [Google Scholar]
  8. Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Berntson, Erik. 2008. Employability Perceptions Nature, Determinants, and Implications for Health and Well-Being. Doctoral dissertation, Psykologiska institutionen, Göteborg. [Google Scholar]
  10. Brownell, Arlene, and Sally Ann Shumaker. 1984. Social support: An introduction to a complex phenomenon. Journal of Social Issues 40: 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bryman, Alan, and Duncan Cramer. 2003. Análise de Dados em Ciências Sociais. Introdução às Técnicas Utilizando o SPSS Para Windows. Oeira: Celta. [Google Scholar]
  12. Butler, Julie, and Margaret L. Kern. 2016. The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing 6: 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Carvalho, Serafim, José Pinto-Gouveia, Paulo Pimentel, Dulce Maia, and Jorge Mota-Pereira. 2011. Características psicométricas da versão portuguesa da escala multidimensional de suporte social percebido (multidimensional scale of perceived social support-mspss). Psychologica 54: 331–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dodge, Rachel, Annette Daly, Jan Huyton, and Lalage Sanders. 2012. The challenge of defining wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing 2: 222–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Eccles, Jacquelinne S., Bonnie L. Barber, Margaret Stone, and James Hunt. 2003. Extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues 59: 865–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ereaut, Gill, and Rebecca Whiting. 2008. What Do We Mean by ‘Wellbeing’? And Why Might It Matter. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families. [Google Scholar]
  17. Erikson, Erik H. 1968. Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fernandes, Verónica, Isabel Silva, and Rui Meneses. 2012. Adaptação académica em estudantes universitários do 1o ciclo de estudos: O papel da auto-eficácia. Psicologia, Educação e Cultura 16: 100. [Google Scholar]
  19. Finney, Sara J., and Christine DiStefano. 2013. Non-Normal and Categorical Data in Structural Equation Modeling. In Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course, 2nd ed. Edited by Gregory R. Hancock and Ralph O. Mueller. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, pp. 439–92. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fugate, Mel, Angelo J. Kinicki, and Blake E. Ashforth. 2004. Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior 65: 14–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gamboa, Vitor, Andrew Rothwell, Maria Adélia Monarca, and João Gomes. 2022. Validation of Self-Perceived Employability Scale among Portuguese university students and its relevance to job-seeking behaviors. Revista de Estudios e Investigacion En Psicologia y Educacion 9: 97–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gamboa, Vitor, Olimpio Paixão, and Ana Isabel Palma. 2014. Adaptabilidade de Carreira e Autoeficácia na Transição para o Trabalho: O papel da Empregabilidade Percebida–Estudo com Estudantes do Ensino Superior. Revista Portuguesa de Pedagogia 48: 133–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gomes, A. Rui. 2007. Escala de Auto-Eficácia Geral (EA-EG) General Perceived Self-Efficacy (GPS-E). Braga: Escola de Psicologia, Universidade do Minho, Relatório técnico não publicado [Unpublished Technical Report]. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/1822/85440 (accessed on 14 December 2024).
  25. Gomes, João, Vitor Gamboa, and Olimpio Paixão. 2019. Job search intentions in higher education: Employability and self-efficacy. Revista Brasileira de Orientacao Profissional 20: 85–94. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2030/203079424009.pdf (accessed on 14 May 2025).
  26. González Moreno, Alba, Celeste Simões, Anabela C. Santos, and Maria del Mar Jurado. 2024. Creative Self-Efficacy and Social Skills in a Portuguese Sample of University Students: Links with Self-Esteem Molero Jurado, Academic Achievement and Life Satisfaction. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 14: 2966–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Graça, Beatriz, and Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira. 2024. Competitiveness Strategies for Negative Organisations–Challenging the Status Quo. Cham: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hair, Joseph Franklin, Christian M. Sarstedt Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19: 139–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hair, Joseph Franklin, G. Tomas M. Hult, and Christian M. Sarstedt Ringle. 2017. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hassouna, Marwa Muhammad, and Zeinab Abas Zaazou. 2024. The Impact of Undergraduate Internships on Employability-An Empirical Study. The Academic Journal of Contemporary Commercial Research 4: 24–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hayes, Andrew F. 2022. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press, vol. 3. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hill, Manuela, and Andrew Hill. 2002. Investigação por Questionário. Lisboa: Edições Sílabo. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hobfoll, Steven E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist 44: 513–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. INE (Instituto Nacional de Estatística, Statistics Portugal). 2025. Estimativas Mensais de Emprego e Desemprego. Available online: https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_destaques&DESTAQUESdest_boui=701630254&DESTAQUESmodo=2 (accessed on 8 May 2025).
  37. Jöreskog, Karl G., and Dag Sörbom. 1993. LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Scientific Software International; Lawrence. Mahwah: Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  38. Keyes, Corey L. M. 2002. The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 43: 207–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lazarus, Richard, and Susan Folkman. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lent, Robert W., and Steven D. Brown. 2013. Social cognitive model of career self-management: Toward a unifying view of adaptive career behavior across the life span. Journal of Counseling Psychology 60: 557–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lent, Robert W., Steven D. Brown, and Gail Hackett. 1994. Toward a Unifying Social Cognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interest, Choice, and Performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior 45: 79–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Macedo, Matilde, Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira, Cícero Eduardo Walter, and Ana Moreira. 2022. Internships with Portuguese Speakers: Leadership Moreira, Organisational Culture and the Current Brain Drain. Sustainability 14: 10776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Magaletta, Philipe R., and John M. Oliver. 1999. The hope construct, will, and ways: Their relations with self-efficacy, optimism, and general well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology 55: 539–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mahanta, Dimpy, and Megha Aggarwal. 2013. Effect of perceived social support on life satisfaction of university students. European Academic Research 1: 1083–94. [Google Scholar]
  45. McCallum, Robert, Michael Browne, and Hazuki Sugawara. 1996. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structural modelling. Psychological Methods 1: 130–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Monteiro, Sara, José Tavares, and Anabela Pereira. 2012. Adaptação portuguesa da escala de medida de manifestação de bem-estar psicológico com estudantes universitários. EMMBEP 13: 61–77. [Google Scholar]
  47. Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. PORDATA (Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos–Base de dados Portugal Contemporâneo). 2025. Salários e Pensões. Dados sobre o Salário Mínimo Nacional, o Salário Médio, Disparidade Salarial, Valor Mínimo e Despesas das Pensões e Muito Mais. Available online: https://www.pordata.pt/pt/estatisticas/salarios-e-pensoes (accessed on 8 May 2025).
  49. Portela, Marta, Isabel Neira, and Maria del Mar Salinas-Jiménez. 2013. Social Capital and Subjective Wellbeing in Europe: A New Approach on Social Capital. Social Indicators Research 114: 493–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Qenani, Elvis, Neal MacDougall, and Carol Sexton. 2014. An empirical study of self-perceived employability: Improving the prospects for student employment success in an uncertain environment. Active Learning in Higher Education 15: 199–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ribeiro, José Luís Pais. 1999. Escala de satisfação com o suporte social (ESSS). Análise Psicológica 17: 547–58. [Google Scholar]
  52. Rothwell, Andrew. 2015. Employability. In Handbook of Career Intervention. Edited by Paul J. Hartung, Mark L. Savickas and W. Bruce Walsh. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 337–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rothwell, Andrew, Steven Jewell, and Marie Hardie. 2009. Self-perceived employability: Investigating the responses of post-graduate students. Journal of Vocational Behavior 75: 152–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ryan, Michele. 2023. Ryan, Michele. 2023. Emotional Intelligence, Self-Efficacy, and the Perceived Employability of Traditional Undergraduate Business Students in a Private Midwest Educational Institution. Master’s thesis, George Fox University, Newberg. [Google Scholar]
  55. Samssudin, Sara. 2009. Relação Entre as Crenças de Auto-Eficácia e o Apoio Social na Transição Para o Trabalho em Estudantes Finalistas do Ensino Superior. Master’s thesis, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal. [Google Scholar]
  56. Schwarzer, Ralf, and Matthias Jerusalem. 1993. Measurement of Perceived Self-Efficacy: Psychometric Scales for Cross-Cultural Research. Berlin: Freie University. [Google Scholar]
  57. Schwarzer, Ralf, and Matthias Jerusalem. 1995. Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs. Edited by John Weinman, Stephan Wright and Marie Johnston. Windsor: NFER-NELSON, pp. 35–37. [Google Scholar]
  58. Selwyn, Julie, and M. Wood. 2015. Measuring Well-Being: A Literature Review. Bristol: University of Bristol. Available online: https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/41278115/Measuring_Wellbeing_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2025).
  59. Sobel, Milton, and Robert Marsha Elashoff. 1975. Group testing with a new goal, estimation. Biometrika 62: 181–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Taylor, Shelley E. 2011. Social support: A review. In The Oxford Handbook of Health Psychology. Edited by Howard S. Friedman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 189–214. [Google Scholar]
  61. Tentama, Fatwa, Subardjo Subardjo, and Muhamad Hasan Abdillah. 2019. Motivation to learn and social support determine employability among vocational high school students. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education 8: 237–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Thomas, Asha, and Vikas Gupta. 2021. Social capital theory, social exchange theory, social cognitive theory, financial literacy, and the role of knowledge sharing as a moderator in enhancing financial well-being: From bibliometric analysis to a conceptual framework model. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 664638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Trochim, William. 2000. The Research Method Knowledge Base, 2nd ed. Cincinnati: Atomic Dog Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  64. Van Dierendonck, Dirk, and Kathleen Patterson, eds. 2010. Servant Leadership-Developments in Theory and Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  65. Vanhercke, Dorian, Nele De Cuyper, and Hans De Witte. 2016. Perceived employability and well-being: An overview. Psihologia Resurselor Umane 14: 8–18. [Google Scholar]
  66. Velez, Maria João, Helena A. Marujo, Zaida Charepe, Ana Querido, and Carlos Laranjeira. 2024. Well-Being and Dispositional Hope in a Sample of Portuguese Citizens: The Mediating Role of Mental Health. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 14: 2101–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wills, Thomas A. 1991. Social support and interpersonal relationships. In Prosocial Behavior. Edited by Margaret S. Clark. New York: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 265–89. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wood, Robert, and Albert Bandura. 1989. Social cognitive theory of organizational mangement special issue: Theory development forum. Academy of Management Review 14: 361–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Xia, Tiansheng, Honglei Gu, Yamei Huang, Qian Zhu, and Yufang Cheng. 2020. The Relationship Between Career Social Support and Employability of College Students: A Moderated Mediation Model. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Socsci 14 00317 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Socsci 14 00317 g001
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the variables under study.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the variables under study.
VariabletdfpdMédiaDP
Family satisfaction21.46 ***315<0.0011.215.691.40
Friends satisfaction20.31 ***315<0.0011.145.611.41
Social activities satisfaction29.00 ***315<0.0011.636.121.30
Internal Employability19.03 ***315<0.0011.073.85.79
External Employability12.62 ***315<0.001.713.511.71
Well-being25.90 ***315<0.0011.467.511.38
Self-efficacy15.72 ***315<0.001.882.97.53
Note. *** p < 0.001.
Table 2. Association between the variables under study.
Table 2. Association between the variables under study.
1.11.21.32.12.234
1.1. Family satisfaction--
1.2. Friends satisfaction0.445 ***--
1.3. Social activities satisfaction0.475 ***0.474 ***--
2.1. Internal Employability0.141 *0.124 *0.182 **--
2.2. External Employability0.218 ***0.249 ***0.111 *0.427 **--
3. Well-being0.491 ***0.458 ***0.538 ***0.435 ***0.273 ***--
4. Self-efficacy0.0900.117 *0.129 *0.433 ***0.162 **0.453 ***--
Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. Results of the association between social support and perceived employability (H1).
Table 3. Results of the association between social support and perceived employability (H1).
Independent VariableDependent VariableFpR2aβp
Family satisfactionInternal Employability4.06 **0.0080.030.060.353
Friends satisfaction0.030.626
Social activities satisfaction0.14 *0.041
Family satisfactionExternal Employability8.90 ***< 0.0010.070.15 *0.017
Friends satisfaction0.21 **0.001
Social activities satisfaction0.060.351
Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; a—adjusted.
Table 4. Results of the association between social support and well-being (H2).
Table 4. Results of the association between social support and well-being (H2).
Independent VariableDependent VariableFpR2aβp
Family satisfactionWell-being65.72 ***<0.0010.380.25 ***<0.001
Friends satisfaction0.19 ***<0.001
Social activities satisfaction0.33 ***<0.001
Note. *** p < 0.001; a—adjusted.
Table 5. Results of the association between well-being and perceived employability (H3).
Table 5. Results of the association between well-being and perceived employability (H3).
Independent VariableDependent VariableFpR2aβp
Well-beingInternal Emplyability73.12 ***<0.0010.190.44 ***<0.001
External Emplyability25.36 ***<0.0010.070.27 ***<0.001
Note. *** p < 0.001; a—adjusted.
Table 6. Mediating effect results (H4).
Table 6. Mediating effect results (H4).
VariableInternal EmployabilityExternal Employability
β Step1β Step2β Step1β Step2
Family satisfaction 0.13 *0.07
Friends satisfaction 0.19 **0.14 *
Social activities satisfaction0.19 ***0.07
Well-being 0.47 *** 0.18 **
F10.71 ***37.36 ***12.19 ***11.24 ***
R2a0.030.190.070.09
ΔR2 a 0.16 *** 0.02 **
Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; a—adjusted.
Table 7. Results of the association between self-efficacy and perceived employability (H5).
Table 7. Results of the association between self-efficacy and perceived employability (H5).
Independent VariableDependent VariableFpR2aβp
Self-efficacyInternal Employability72.36 ***<0.0010.190.43 ***<0.001
External Employability8.46 ***0.0040.020.16 ***0.004
Note. *** p < 0.001; a—adjusted.
Table 8. Moderating effect results (H6).
Table 8. Moderating effect results (H6).
Variables BSEtp95% CI
Well-being → Internal Employability (R2 = 0.26; p < 0.001)
Constant3.85 ***0.0491.75 *** <0.001[3.76, 3.93]
Well-being0.17 ***0.035.44 *** <0.001[0.11, 0.24]
Self-efficacy0.44 *** 0.085.43 *** <0.001[0.28, 0.60]
WB × SE0.01 0.05 0.23 0.815[−0.09, 0.11]
Well-being → External Employability (R2 = 0.08; p < 0.001)
Constant 3.51 ***0.0483.54 ***<0.001[3.43, 3.59]
Well-being0.13 ***0.034.02 ***<0.001[0.07, 0.19]
Self-efficacy0.060.080.780.434[−0.10, 0.22]
WB × SE−0.010.05 −0.210.830[−0.11, 0.09]
Note. *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oliveira, M.; Palma-Moreira, A.; Au-Yong-Oliveira, M. Social Support and Well-Being: The Survival Kit for the Work Jungle. Soc. Sci. 2025, 14, 317. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14050317

AMA Style

Oliveira M, Palma-Moreira A, Au-Yong-Oliveira M. Social Support and Well-Being: The Survival Kit for the Work Jungle. Social Sciences. 2025; 14(5):317. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14050317

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oliveira, Mariana, Ana Palma-Moreira, and Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira. 2025. "Social Support and Well-Being: The Survival Kit for the Work Jungle" Social Sciences 14, no. 5: 317. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14050317

APA Style

Oliveira, M., Palma-Moreira, A., & Au-Yong-Oliveira, M. (2025). Social Support and Well-Being: The Survival Kit for the Work Jungle. Social Sciences, 14(5), 317. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14050317

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop