POSITIVE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS AND THE HUMAN BODY AT WORK
27
POSITIVE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS AND THE HUMAN BODY AT WORK: LINKING ORGANIZATIONS AND PHYSIOLOGY EMILY D. HEAPHY McGill University JANE E. DUTTON University of Michigan Human physiological systems are highly responsive to positive social interactions, but the organizational importance of this finding largely has been unexplored. After reviewing extant research, we illustrate how consideration of the physiology of positive social interactions at work opens new research questions about how positive social interactions affect human capacity and how organizational contexts affect employee health and physiological resourcefulness. We also address the practical implications of integrating physiological data into organizational research. Our paper invites a fuller consideration of how employees’ bodies are affected by everyday work interactions and, in so doing, encourages a stronger tie between human physiology and organizational research. For medical researchers, the importance of understanding human physiology is obvious. After all, medical researchers’ primary goal is to improve the health of patients through under- standing health and disease processes. For or- ganizational researchers, human physiology is a distant concern. We typically seek to under- stand social life in organizations using cogni- tive, affective, and behavioral explanations. To the extent that organizational researchers do focus on physiology, we tend to use physiologi- cal markers as indicators of job stress and strain (Cooper, Dewe, & O’Driscoll, 2001; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). In this paper we argue that human physiology deserves greater attention in organizational re- search. Our physiological systems are con- stantly shifting and adjusting to the social world, yet the organizational importance of this finding largely has been unexplored. We bring together unfamiliar physiological research and familiar organizational theories to propose a new agenda in organizational research. Positive social interactions provide the bridge between these two research areas. Specifically, we build on twenty years of research to show that posi- tive social interactions at work have beneficial physiological effects. We propose pathways through which the physiology of positive social interactions builds human capacity and path- ways through which organizations shape the physiology of employees by creating, facilitat- ing, or minimizing opportunities for positive so- cial interactions. This effort is consistent with organizational scholars who call for a focus on specific aspects of human physiological responses (Wright & Diamond, 2006), with researchers who want a more holistic treatment of leaders and employ- ees (Boyzatis, Smith, & Blase, 2006), with sociol- ogists who are trying to bring the biological body into the study of sociology (Fitzhugh & Leckie, 2001; Freund, 1988), and with economists who are trying to understand the micropro- cesses of decision making (Breiter, Aharon, Kahneman, Dale, & Shizgal, 2001; Platt & Glim- cher, 1999). All of these researchers see scholar- ship that does not take physiological processes We thank Rita Benn, Ruth Blatt, Marlys Christianson, Cedric de Leon, Adam Grant, Andy Molinsky, Ryan Quinn, and Scott Sonenshein for comments on earlier drafts of this paper, and Grace Chen for help in preparing the manuscript. We also thank Art Brief and three anonymous reviewers whose comments contributed to the quality of our argu- ments. In addition, we thank the Faculty Scholars Program in the Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of Michigan for its support. Amy Saunders and Cara Sand- elands provided assistance in many ways. We presented an earlier version of the paper at the 2003 annual meeting of the Academy of Management, in Seattle. Academy of Management Review 2008, Vol. 33, No. 1, 137–162. 137 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
Transcript of POSITIVE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS AND THE HUMAN BODY AT WORK
POSITIVE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS ANDTHE HUMAN BODY AT WORK:
LINKING ORGANIZATIONS AND PHYSIOLOGY
EMILY D. HEAPHYMcGill University
JANE E. DUTTONUniversity of Michigan
Human physiological systems are highly responsive to positive social interactions,but the organizational importance of this finding largely has been unexplored. Afterreviewing extant research, we illustrate how consideration of the physiology ofpositive social interactions at work opens new research questions about how positivesocial interactions affect human capacity and how organizational contexts affectemployee health and physiological resourcefulness. We also address the practicalimplications of integrating physiological data into organizational research. Our paperinvites a fuller consideration of how employees’ bodies are affected by everyday workinteractions and, in so doing, encourages a stronger tie between human physiologyand organizational research.
For medical researchers, the importance ofunderstanding human physiology is obvious.After all, medical researchers’ primary goal is toimprove the health of patients through under-standing health and disease processes. For or-ganizational researchers, human physiology isa distant concern. We typically seek to under-stand social life in organizations using cogni-tive, affective, and behavioral explanations. Tothe extent that organizational researchers dofocus on physiology, we tend to use physiologi-cal markers as indicators of job stress and strain(Cooper, Dewe, & O’Driscoll, 2001; Karasek &Theorell, 1990).
In this paper we argue that human physiologydeserves greater attention in organizational re-search. Our physiological systems are con-stantly shifting and adjusting to the social
world, yet the organizational importance of thisfinding largely has been unexplored. We bringtogether unfamiliar physiological research andfamiliar organizational theories to propose anew agenda in organizational research. Positivesocial interactions provide the bridge betweenthese two research areas. Specifically, we buildon twenty years of research to show that posi-tive social interactions at work have beneficialphysiological effects. We propose pathwaysthrough which the physiology of positive socialinteractions builds human capacity and path-ways through which organizations shape thephysiology of employees by creating, facilitat-ing, or minimizing opportunities for positive so-cial interactions.
This effort is consistent with organizationalscholars who call for a focus on specific aspectsof human physiological responses (Wright &Diamond, 2006), with researchers who want amore holistic treatment of leaders and employ-ees (Boyzatis, Smith, & Blase, 2006), with sociol-ogists who are trying to bring the biologicalbody into the study of sociology (Fitzhugh &Leckie, 2001; Freund, 1988), and with economistswho are trying to understand the micropro-cesses of decision making (Breiter, Aharon,Kahneman, Dale, & Shizgal, 2001; Platt & Glim-cher, 1999). All of these researchers see scholar-ship that does not take physiological processes
We thank Rita Benn, Ruth Blatt, Marlys Christianson,Cedric de Leon, Adam Grant, Andy Molinsky, Ryan Quinn,and Scott Sonenshein for comments on earlier drafts of thispaper, and Grace Chen for help in preparing the manuscript.We also thank Art Brief and three anonymous reviewerswhose comments contributed to the quality of our argu-ments. In addition, we thank the Faculty Scholars Programin the Center for Integrative Medicine at the University ofMichigan for its support. Amy Saunders and Cara Sand-elands provided assistance in many ways. We presented anearlier version of the paper at the 2003 annual meeting of theAcademy of Management, in Seattle.
� Academy of Management Review2008, Vol. 33, No. 1, 137–162.
137Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
into account as incomplete and see promise inbringing the body back into accounts of sociallife.
Our perspective builds on the established andrelatively simple linkage between individuals’experience of positive social interactions andsalutary physiological processes and estab-lishes its relevance to organizational contexts.This paper provides evidence that people’s sub-jective experience of their connections with oth-ers has immediate, enduring, and consequentialeffects on their bodies. This focus adds a criticalnew dimension to understanding why and howsocial interactions matter for individual and or-ganizational functioning. It documents and ex-plains the variety of ways that social interac-tions with others leave lasting imprints throughhow they affect the functioning of key bodilysystems. In this way, our focus on the body asphysiology affirms the fundamentally importanteffect of work contexts—for better or for worse.We see this depiction as a theoretical and prac-tical view that more completely recognizes em-ployees’ embodied existence as a complicatedand consequential bearer of the effects of orga-nizational systems and the social interactionsthey cultivate.
The paper is organized around four questionsgermane to organizational research. The first is“What do we know about the physiological ef-fects and correlates of positive social interac-tions at work?” The vast majority of physiologi-cal studies of social interactions focus onmarital relationships, caregivers of chronicallyill patients, and people recovering from a majorhealth event (such as a heart attack), or theytake place in lab settings (Uchino, Cacioppo, &Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996). Yet there are important dif-ferences between these contexts and social in-teractions at work. Workplace social interac-tions tend to be more instrumental, lessdiscretionary, and more short-lived than manyof the relationships studied by health research-ers (Duck, 2007). Thus, answering this question isa critical first step.
Second, we ask, “What do the findings aboutthe physiological correlates and effects of posi-tive social interactions contribute to organiza-tional research?” Medical researchers andhealth psychologists’ interests in these findingsare tied to their disciplinary focus on diseaseprevention and health promotion. In sociology,the study of physiological functioning is more
controversial (Freese, Li, & Wade, 2003). For or-ganizational scholars, the theoretical implica-tions are only beginning to be discussed outsideof the stress paradigm (e.g., White, Thornhill, &Hampson, 2006). We argue that a focus on thephysiology of social interactions provides theo-retical room for broader consideration of thebody. Most of our theories assume that workersare “bodiless” (Acker, 1990; Hassard, Holliday, &Wilmott, 2000) or that the body is under the con-trol of the mind (Joas, 1996). The result is that wedon’t know very much about how the body con-tributes to human action and capability. Con-ceptualizing the body as a physiological systemthat can create physiological resourcefulnessand physical health provides one way of theo-rizing the body not as a burden but as a valu-able resource and potential source of agency(Heaphy, 2007).
The third question is “How can organizationalscholars contribute to physiological research?”One limitation of the research so far is a lack ofattention to the social and cultural contexts inwhich social interactions occur (Uchino, 2004).Organizational scholars have a wealth of theo-ries that speak to how organizational contextsshape our relationship experiences. We build onresearch on organizational practices, culture,and leadership behavior to illustrate organiza-tional scholars’ potential contributions to thisinterdisciplinary conversation. The researchagenda we suggest stands in contrast to schol-ars who draw on evolutionary psychology. In-stead of conceptualizing physiological pro-cesses as shaped by the evolutionary past(Freese et al., 2003; Ilies, Arvey, & Bouchard,2006), we focus on the more local, social con-struction of physiological resources and physi-cal health.
Finally, we ask, “What are the practical andmethodological implications of integratingphysiological measures into our research?” Un-derstanding physiology and how to measure itis not typically part of organizational research-ers’ toolbox. We provide a brief overview ofsome general properties of physiology and sug-gest that organizational researchers begin bycollaborating with experts in other disciplinesto conduct this interdisciplinary research.
The principal contributions of this paper areto assemble and critically review organization-ally relevant empirical literature, to identifyhow organizational researchers can both learn
138 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review
from and contribute to research on the physiol-ogy of social interactions, and to introduce basicmeasurement principles involved in conductingphysiological research. Overall, this paper de-picts a novel view of organizational life as phys-iologically embodied. The model for our argu-ments is presented Figure 1.
THE PHYSIOLOGY OF POSITIVE SOCIALINTERACTIONS AT WORK
Key Assumptions
Our paper builds on the robust finding thatsocial relationships have significant effects onhuman health1 (Seeman & McEwen, 1996). Wefocus specifically on positive social interactionsat work because recent research has shown thatpositive and negative relationships functionthrough bivariate, not bipolar, processes. Posi-tive social interactions are appetitive, charac-terized by the pursuit of rewarding and desiredoutcomes, whereas negative ones are aversive,characterized by unwelcome and punishing out-comes (Reis & Gable, 2002). This means, for ex-ample, that the psychological experiences ofpositive social interactions, such as mutuality
and growth (Miller & Stiver, 1997), are not theopposite of the experiences of negative ones,such as jealousy and isolation (Cacioppo et al.,2002; Fleischmann, Spitzberg, Andersen, &Roesch, 2005). Instead, these psychological ex-periences of relationships are characterized bydifferent eliciting conditions, mechanisms, andoutcomes.2 Putting the appetitive and aversiveprocesses together, we assume that people viewtheir encounters at work as positive, negative,neutral, or ambivalent (Uchino et al., 2001).Within this framework, a focus on positive socialinteractions can obviously only tell one part ofthe story. Therefore, we see this paper as oneimportant first step.
Throughout the paper we use the terms con-nection and relationship to refer to specifictypes of social interactions. A connection is themicrounit of a relationship. It implies that twopeople have interacted and are mutually awareof the interaction (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Miller& Stiver, 1997).3 Connections vary in length, last-ing one moment or many, and they may be re-
1 Social relationships are an independent predictor of hu-man health, even when controlling for stressful events, de-pression, and health-related behaviors such as smoking,exercise, and diet (Seeman & McEwen, 1996; Uchino, Holt-Lunstad, Uno, & Flinders, 1996).
2 While we have illustrated this perspective with psycho-logical examples, there are physiological parallels (Gable,Reis, & Elliot, 2003).
3 We also use the word “connection” differently than JeanBaker Miller and colleagues, who define connections aspositive and growth fostering (Miller, 1988; Miller & Stiver,1997). This allows for the possibility that connections can begrowth fostering (life giving) or growth depleting (life deplet-ing).
FIGURE 1The Physiology of Positive Social Interactions at Work
2008 139Heaphy and Dutton
curring (Berscheid & Lopes, 1997). When connec-tions between two people recur, they are oftencalled relationships (e.g., Gutek, 1995). Thevalue of discussing connections as well as rela-tionships is that connections suggest that briefencounters with another person can be conse-quential moments of interpersonal contact. This,in turn, allows us to attend to the body’s “exquis-ite responsiveness” to positive connections (See-man, 2001: 204). In the studies we review, re-searchers assess both connections (e.g.,participants evaluate the quality of a particularinteraction with a work colleague) and relation-ships (e.g., employees rate the overall quality oftheir relationships with their supervisor).
Key Definitions and Distinctions
A key term in our argument is physiologicalresourcefulness, a form of positive health inwhich the body can build, maintain, and repairitself during times of rest and can more easilydeal with challenges when they occur (Epel,McEwen, & Ickovics, 1998). We argue that posi-tive social interactions build people’s physio-logical resourcefulness by fortifying the cardio-vascular, immune, and neuroendocrine systems.Over time, the physiological resourcefulnesscreated in positive social interactions contrib-utes to better physical health through individualphysiological pathways, as well as in combina-tion, since many diseases affect multiple sys-tems. This argument is related to but distinctfrom both existing physiological constructs andthe literature on social support.
Physiological constructs. Physiological re-sourcefulness builds on previous work on allo-static load (McEwen, 1988), physical thriving(Epel et al., 1998), and physiological toughness(Dienstbier, 1989). All four constructs documenthow people’s life experiences shape the capac-ity of key physiological systems, which, over thelong term, affect physical health. However, threeof the constructs (allostatic load, physical thriv-ing, and physiological toughness) focus on indi-viduals’ responses to stress, with a particularfocus on how particular types of stress (e.g.,acute versus chronic) or cognitive appraisals ofstress (e.g., challenge versus threat) lead tomore or less resilient physiological responses.In contrast, stress is not a necessary conditionfor physiological resourcefulness. It can be builtdirectly through exposure to positive social in-
teractions. Theoretically, this allows us to un-derstand a broad range of relational settings(e.g., mentoring, collaboration), which may ormay not be stressful.
Social support. Our argument is also distinctfrom the social support literature, which sug-gests two ways in which positive social interac-tions affect health. Proponents of the “main ef-fect” model argue that positive connectionsaffect health by prompting the exchange of re-sources or increases in healthy behaviors(Uchino, 2004). In contrast, our argument sug-gests that positive connections directly impactthe body’s physiological resourcefulness. Thismeans that physiological changes can be cre-ated in interactions, without prompting achange in access to external resources (e.g.,emotional or instrumental support) or a changein healthy behaviors (e.g., increases in exerciseor eating more nutritious meals).
Proponents of the second social support modelargue that having social support promoteshealth by protecting people from stress. Thereare two major mechanisms in this account. First,social support changes how individuals viewstressful stimuli (e.g., seeing a disease as achallenge as opposed to a threat), and, second, itprovides instrumental resources that allow aperson to cope with the stressful situation (Co-hen & Willis, 1985; Uchino, 2004). While the ar-gument we develop here does not rely on stressas a necessary condition for physiological re-sourcefulness, we suggest that the physiologi-cal strengthening that occurs in positive socialinteractions improves individuals’ responses toa stressor.
Scope of the Reviewed Studies
Study settings. To the best of our knowledge,this is the first paper to focus solely on the phys-iology of social interactions at work. As westated earlier, most studies focus on nonworkcontexts. To capture relevant findings, we se-lected studies measuring actual work connec-tions and, in three cases, lab settings approxi-mating them. We located these studies throughthe ancestry method, expert recommendations,and literature searches in psychological, busi-ness, and medical databases.
Physiological systems. To understand howpositive social interactions at work effect phys-iological functioning, we examine three major
140 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review
TABL
E1
Car
diov
ascu
lar
Stud
ies
wit
hR
elat
ions
hip
Mea
sure
san
dD
ayan
dEv
enin
gC
ardi
ovas
cula
rM
easu
res
Stud
yW
ork
Con
text
and
Part
icip
ants
Posi
tive
Rel
atio
nshi
pC
onst
ruct
and
Mea
sure
Phys
iolo
gyM
easu
reR
esul
ts
Un
den
,Ort
h-G
omer
,&E
lofs
son
(199
1)14
8m
emb
ers
of7
occu
pa
tion
al
gro
up
s(3
1w
omen
):p
hys
icia
ns,
tea
cher
s,m
usi
cia
ns,
pol
ice
offi
cers
,tra
inen
gin
eers
,pri
son
per
son
nel
,sa
wm
ill
wor
kers
5it
ems
inte
nd
edto
oper
ati
ona
lize
ath
ree-
pa
rtd
efin
itio
nof
SS
(hig
h-q
ua
lity
rela
tion
ship
sw
ith
cow
orke
rs,g
ood
wor
kin
gen
viro
nm
ent,
stro
ng
gro
up
coh
esio
n):
“Ih
ave
ag
ood
rela
tion
ship
wit
hsu
per
viso
r,”
Ia
mg
etti
ng
onw
ell
wit
hm
yco
wor
kers
,”“T
her
eis
ap
lea
san
ta
tmos
ph
ere
at
my
wor
kpla
ce,”
“Th
ere
isg
ood
gro
up
coh
esio
na
tm
yw
orkp
lace
,”“T
her
ea
reof
ten
con
flic
tsa
nd
arg
um
ents
at
wor
k”(n
oC
ron
ba
ch’s
�p
rovi
ded
)
SB
P,D
BP
,HR
mea
sure
dev
ery
5m
inu
tes
for
24-
hou
rp
erio
d,i
ncl
ud
ing
one
nor
ma
lw
orkd
ay
•H
igh
erp
erce
ived
SS
ass
ocia
ted
wit
hlo
wer
HR
du
rin
gw
ork,
leis
ure
,an
dsl
eep
;SB
Pn
ota
ssoc
iate
dw
ith
SS
•S
ub
ject
sw
ith
low
SS
ha
dh
igh
erS
BP
tha
nth
ose
wit
hh
igh
orm
idle
vels
ofsu
pp
ort
Itu
art
e,K
am
arc
k,T
hom
pso
n,&
Ba
can
u(1
994)
120
emp
loye
esof
un
iver
siti
es,
hos
pit
als
,cit
ya
nd
cou
nty
offi
ces,
an
dp
riva
tefi
rms
inth
eP
itts
bu
rgh
met
rop
olit
an
are
a(2
6b
lack
men
,30
wh
ite
men
,34
bla
ckw
omen
,30
wh
ite
wom
en)
6it
ems
for
cow
orke
ra
nd
wor
ksu
per
viso
rsu
pp
ort
wit
hS
Ssu
bsc
ale
ofJo
bC
onte
nt
Qu
esti
onn
air
e(K
ara
sek,
Gor
don
,Pie
trov
osky
,&F
rese
,19
85).
Item
sn
otsp
ecif
ied
(Cro
nb
ach
’s�
�.8
4);s
ourc
eof
sup
por
tn
otse
pa
rate
din
an
aly
sis
24-h
our
am
bu
lato
ryS
BP
,D
BP
,HR
onon
en
orm
al
wor
kda
y.D
epen
den
tva
ria
ble
:noc
turn
al
dip
pin
g,c
alc
ula
ted
by
sub
tra
ctin
gn
igh
ttim
eB
Pfr
omd
ayt
ime
BP
;hig
her
scor
esin
dic
ate
gre
ate
rd
ipp
ing
Inp
art
ial
corr
ela
tion
an
aly
sis,
gre
ate
rw
ork
SS
wa
ssi
gn
ific
an
tly
ass
ocia
ted
wit
hn
octu
rna
lsy
stol
icd
ipp
ing
;no
dif
fere
nce
inw
ork
SS
bet
wee
nb
lack
an
dw
hit
ep
art
icip
an
ts(r
esea
rch
ers’
inte
rest
wa
sin
raci
al
dif
fere
nce
s,so
no
furt
her
an
aly
sis
wa
sco
nd
uct
edon
wor
kS
S)
Lan
dsb
erg
is,S
chn
all
,Wa
rren
,P
icke
rin
g,&
Sch
wa
rtz
(199
4)26
2m
ena
t8
New
Yor
kC
ity
wor
ksi
tes
4it
ems
for
cow
orke
rsu
pp
ort
(com
pet
ent
cow
orke
rs,f
rien
dly
cow
orke
rs,c
owor
kers
hel
pfu
lin
get
tin
gth
ejo
bd
one,
cow
orke
rsta
kin
ga
per
son
al
inte
rest
inm
e)a
nd
4it
ems
for
sup
ervi
sor
sup
por
t(s
up
ervi
sor
get
tin
gp
eop
leto
wor
kto
get
her
,su
per
viso
rh
elp
ing
get
the
wor
kd
one,
sup
ervi
sor
pa
yin
ga
tten
tion
tow
ha
tI
am
sayi
ng
,su
per
viso
rco
nce
rned
ab
out
wel
fare
ofth
ose
un
der
him
orh
er).
Ba
sed
onm
odif
ied
Job
Con
ten
tQ
ues
tion
na
ire
(Ka
rase
ket
al.,
1985
).(C
ron
ba
ch’s
��
.70)
;sou
rce
ofsu
pp
ort
not
sep
ara
ted
ina
na
lysi
s
24-h
our
am
bu
lato
ryS
BP
an
dD
BP
onon
en
orm
al
wor
kda
y
•H
igh
SS
did
not
ha
vea
ma
inef
fect
onS
BP
orD
BP
;did
not
rep
ort
HR
•H
igh
SS
ha
dm
ild
bu
tin
con
sist
ent
effe
cts
un
der
hig
hjo
bst
rain
con
dit
ion
s
Eva
ns
&S
tep
toe
(200
1)61
nu
rses
an
d32
acc
oun
tan
ts(5
3w
omen
)R
epli
cati
onof
Un
den
eta
l.(1
991)
;se
esu
mm
ary
ab
ove
(Cro
nb
ach
’s�
�.7
6)
HR
,SB
P,a
nd
DB
Pm
easu
red
five
tim
esd
uri
ng
the
da
ya
nd
even
ing
wit
hse
lf-
mon
itor
ing
equ
ipm
ent,
onth
ree
nor
ma
lw
orkd
ays
an
dtw
ole
isu
red
ays
Hig
hS
Sa
ssoc
iate
dw
ith
low
erH
Rd
uri
ng
da
ya
nd
even
ing
ofw
orkd
ays
;not
rela
ted
toS
BP
an
dD
BP
Ra
u,G
eorg
iad
es,F
red
riks
on,
Lem
ne,
&d
eFa
ire
(200
1)75
wor
kin
gm
enw
ith
bor
der
lin
eh
yper
ten
sion
from
sma
llS
wed
ish
tow
n;7
4a
ge-
ma
tch
edh
ealt
hy
con
trol
s
4it
ems
reg
ard
ing
the
pos
sib
ilit
yof
inte
ract
ing
wit
hco
wor
kers
an
dh
ab
itof
seei
ng
coll
eag
ues
outs
ide
ofw
ork.
No
furt
her
info
rma
tion
pro
vid
ed(n
oC
ron
ba
ch’s
�p
rovi
ded
)
SB
P,D
BP
,HR
mea
sure
dev
ery
15m
inu
tes
for
24h
ours
onon
ew
orkd
ay
Hig
hS
Sre
late
dto
low
erH
Ra
tw
ork,
nig
ht,
an
dd
uri
ng
reco
very
at
nig
ht;
SB
Pa
nd
DB
Pn
otre
late
dto
SS
;eff
ects
did
not
dif
fer
by
hyp
erte
nsi
onst
atu
s
Not
e:S
S�
soci
al
sup
por
t;S
BP
�sy
stol
icb
lood
pre
ssu
re;D
BP
�d
iast
olic
blo
odp
ress
ure
;HR
�h
eart
rate
;BP
�b
lood
pre
ssu
re.
2008 141Heaphy and Dutton
physiological systems: cardiovascular, immune,and neuroendocrine. While physical health anddisease are likely created through multiplephysiological systems, these three are the mostfrequently studied. Each section begins with abrief overview of the system and then describeswhat existing research can tell us about thephysiological correlates and effects of positivesocial interactions at work.
Social interaction measures. The studies wereview measured social interactions in a varietyof ways, reflecting the diversity of the research-ers. We include every study measuring the phys-iological effects of the quality of social relation-ships and connections. Common measuresinclude individuals’ perceptions of emotionalsupport, social closeness, high-quality relation-ships, or positivity of the interaction (details canbe found in Tables 1 through 4). All of the studiescited used a definition that falls under the broaddefinition of positive connections subjectivelyperceived as rewarding or desirable in someway, and all of them focused on one person’sperception of the interaction.
The nine cardiovascular studies assessedwork relationships or connections in naturalisticsettings, whereas the two immune studies wereset in naturalistic contexts but measured onlywork relationships. In our review of the neuroen-docrine system, we report on three lab studiesthat modeled work contexts, and a fourth in anaturalistic context. All of the naturalistic stud-ies used self-report measures of social interac-tions, consistent with our emphasis on individ-uals’ experiences of connection quality. Incontrast, the three lab studies manipulated so-cial interaction quality. With the exception ofthe three lab studies, the reviewed research al-lows us to identify significant associations butdoes not support causal claims.
Protective Cardiovascular Effects During andAfter Work
Cardiovascular overview. The cardiovascularsystem’s major pump (the heart) and distributionsystem (e.g., veins, arteries, and lymphatics) areresponsible for distributing nutrients (i.e., oxy-gen) and removing waste (i.e., carbon dioxide)from every cell in the body. The studies we re-view in this section relied on three cardiovascu-lar measures: systolic blood pressure, diastolicblood pressure, and heart rate. Blood pressure
(BP) and its components, systolic and diastolicblood pressure (SBP and DBP, respectively), areof interest because they have been linked tocardiovascular disease (CVD), hypertension,and other cardiovascular illnesses. SBP is con-sidered a more reliable predictor of cardiovas-cular disease than DBP (Asmar, Darne, el As-saad, & Topouchian, 2001) because it isregulated by the sympathetic nervous system(SNS), which governs the body’s “fight or flight”response to stress. Heart rate (HR) is also com-monly measured, with elevated HR linked tocardiovascular health risks, such as plaques inthe carotid artery (Asmar et al., 2001). However,HR is a more difficult variable to interpret be-cause it is governed by both the SNS and theparasympathetic nervous systems (PNS). There-fore, the underlying causes and consequences ofHR are more difficult to determine.
Tables 1 through 3 reflect all the studies that,to our knowledge, measure positive social inter-actions and cardiovascular activity according tocurrent methodological standards. Ambulatoryblood pressure (ABP)—readings obtained at reg-ular intervals during everyday life—are partic-ularly strong predictors of future cardiovascularproblems (Uchino, 2004), in part because theyare more reliable than one-time measures. Bylooking at cardiovascular patterns over time, re-searchers can make stronger claims about thelinks between social interactions and the car-diovascular system. The studies in each tableare categorized by the duration of the measure-ment period (day only or day and night) andwhether relationships or connections were mea-sured. We excluded studies that had work-related samples but did not specifically mea-sure work interactions (e.g., Steptoe, 2000), aswell as six studies that used cardiovascularmeasures in ways not allowing for strong infer-ences (Fletcher & Jones, 1993; Houben, Diederiks,Kant, & Notermans, 1990; Kaufmann & Beehr,1986; Lercher, Hortnagel, & Kofler, 1993; Thomas& Ganster, 1995; Winnubst, Marcelissen, & Kle-ber, 1982).4
4 These six studies assessed cardiovascular measuresonly once and/or outside of the course of the normal work-day. Current psychophysiological methods advise againstthese practices, for two reasons. First, it is now known thatone-time cardiovascular measures are unreliable (Semmer,Grebner, & Elfering, 2004). Second, when they are takenoutside the context of one’s normal environment, they are
142 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review
Empirical evidence. Our review shows thatpositive social interactions at work have bothimmediate and enduring effects on the cardio-vascular system, in the form of lower HR and BP.The first group of studies reported the effects ofpositive work relationships on cardiovascularmeasures taken during the day and evening (Ta-ble 1). Researchers assessed cardiovascular pat-terns beyond the workday to see if work rela-tionships have lasting effects. Researchers hadtwo strategies for studying this. Some took fre-quent measures beyond the workday (e.g., everytwenty minutes for twenty-four hours), whereasothers focused on “nocturnal dipping” (Ituarte,Kamarck, Thompson, & Bacanu, 1994)—the dif-ference in BP during waking hours and sleep.Nondipping, or small differences, is associatedwith cardiovascular damage, because the car-diovascular system is working at more taxing,daytime levels for longer periods of time. It hasbeen associated with a number of cardiovascu-lar and circulatory problems, such as organdamage (Palatini et al., 1992; Staessen et al.,2001). Both approaches reveal the degree towhich the cardiovascular system is able to re-cover from the day’s exertions. While these re-searchers assessed participants’ experiences ofspecific relationships (e.g., manager, coworker),they created composite measures of positivework relationships for analysis.
Four of five studies utilized the first strategy—frequent measures during the day and intoevening hours. The three studies that reportedHR found that perceptions of positive work rela-tionships were significantly correlated withlower HR during the day and evening and, whenit was measured, during sleep (Evans & Steptoe,2001; Rau, Georgiades, Fredrikson, Lemne, &
deFaire, 2001; Unden, Orth-Gomer, & Elofsson,1991). None of the studies found a significantrelationship between perceptions of positivework relationships and SBP and DBP. The fifthstudy in this group measured nocturnal dippingand found that greater work social support wascorrelated with greater nocturnal dipping (Itu-arte et al., 1994).
Together, these studies provide some supportfor the hypothesis that when employees experi-ence their work relationships positively, the car-diovascular system is less taxed not only atwork but also into nonwork and resting times.These studies’ samples drew people from multi-ple occupations, suggesting that this pattern islikely to be found for employees in many set-tings. However, none of the studies found signif-icant results for BP. Physiologically, BP has anarrower homeostatic range than HR, meaningthat the body more tightly regulates BP com-pared to HR. To capture BP’s more subtle andfleeting changes, we may need more finelygrained measures of social interactions than thegeneral ones used in these studies. We couldalso be more confident of the health impact ofthese effects with studies that demonstrated re-sults for BP variables. The next sets of studiesaddress these issues.
The second group of cardiovascular studiesreports on the effect of positive work relation-ships on cardiovascular measures during theday only (Table 2). The studies differ from theprevious set in that their samples consist of onetype of employee in a single organization, in-stead of the multiple occupations and organiza-tions represented in the Table 1 studies. Theyalso analyze the effect of specific positive rela-tionships (e.g., coworker, immediate supervisor).
First, a study of New York City traffic agentsrevealed the relative effect of coworkers, imme-diate supervisors, and unit supervisors andfound that not all positive relationships havecardiovascular benefits (Karlin, Brondolo, &Schwartz, 2003). For women, immediate supervi-sor support was associated with lower averageSBP and DBP, but not HR. For men, coworkersupport was associated with lower average SBPlevel, but not DBP or HR. Under high-stress con-ditions, immediate supervisor support and co-worker support were associated with lower SBPfor both men and women. Relationships withunit supervisors never had cardiovascular ef-fects. Second, a study of health care assistants
especially vulnerable to “whitecoat hypertension,” or higherreadings that result from the stress of having one’s bloodpressure read in, for example, a medical context (Stern, Ray,& Quigley, 2001). More recent studies guard against thesetwo methodological weaknesses by taking an initial base-line measure as well as frequent measures over the courseof the time period of interest (Semmer et al., 2004). Becausethese six studies do not meet these criteria, we did notinclude them. It is important to note that Uchino et al. (1996:491) based their statement that work relationships may notbe related to blood pressure on four of the six studies weexcluded for methodological reasons. More recent studies,which we review here, have stronger research designs andprovide more valid and reliable evidence that workplacesocial interactions are consequential for cardiovascularfunctioning.
2008 143Heaphy and Dutton
TABL
E2
Car
diov
ascu
lar
Stud
ies
wit
hR
elat
ions
hip
Mea
sure
san
dFr
eque
ntD
ayti
me
Car
diov
ascu
lar
Mea
sure
s
Stud
yW
ork
Con
text
and
Part
icip
ants
Posi
tive
Rel
atio
nshi
pC
onst
ruct
and
Mea
sure
Phys
iolo
gyM
easu
reR
esul
ts
Ka
rlin
,Bro
nd
olo,
&S
chw
art
z(2
003)
70N
ewY
ork
Cit
ytr
aff
ica
gen
ts(3
6w
omen
)
Per
ceiv
edem
otio
na
lsu
pp
ort
from
(1)
cow
orke
rs(7
item
s;C
ron
ba
ch’s
��
.83)
,(2)
imm
edia
tesu
per
viso
rs(1
6it
ems;
Cro
nb
ach
’s�
�.7
7),(
3)u
nit
sup
ervi
sors
(7it
ems;
Cro
nb
ach
’s�
�.8
6);b
ase
don
mod
ifie
dJo
bC
onte
nt
Qu
esti
onn
air
e(K
ara
sek
eta
l.,19
85).
Item
sin
clu
ded
thos
eli
sted
inLa
nd
sber
gis
eta
l.(1
994)
,as
wel
la
s“M
yco
wor
kers
care
ab
out
me,
”“T
he
peo
ple
Iw
ork
wit
hen
cou
rag
eea
chot
her
tow
ork
tog
eth
er,”
“My
sup
ervi
sor
giv
esm
ecr
edit
for
thin
gs
Id
ow
ell,”
“My
sup
ervi
sor
care
sa
bou
tm
e,”
“My
sup
ervi
sor
ap
pre
cia
tes
me”
SB
P,D
BP
,HR
coll
ecte
dd
uri
ng
one
8-h
our
wor
kda
y;m
easu
red
ever
y15
min
ute
s
•F
orw
omen
,im
med
iate
sup
ervi
sor
sup
por
ta
ssoc
iate
dw
ith
low
erS
BP
an
dD
BP
(not
HR
)•
For
men
,cow
orke
rsu
pp
ort
ass
ocia
ted
wit
hlo
wer
SB
Ple
vel
(not
DB
Pa
nd
HR
)•
Un
der
hig
hst
ress
con
dit
ion
s,im
med
iate
sup
ervi
sor
an
dco
wor
ker
sup
por
tb
oth
ass
ocia
ted
wit
hlo
wer
SB
P
Wa
ger
,Fel
dm
an
,&
Hu
ssey
(200
3)28
fem
ale
hea
lth
care
ass
ista
nts
;13
wor
ked
for
two
div
erg
entl
yp
erce
ived
sup
ervi
sors
;15
wor
ked
for
sim
ila
rly
per
ceiv
edsu
per
viso
r
47-i
tem
sup
ervi
sor
inte
ract
ion
al
styl
e.It
ems
incl
ud
ed“M
ysu
per
viso
ren
cou
rag
esd
iscu
ssio
nb
efor
em
aki
ng
ad
ecis
ion
,”“I
am
trea
ted
fair
lyb
ym
ysu
per
viso
r”(C
ron
ba
ch’s
��
.98)
.Su
per
viso
rin
tera
ctio
na
lst
yle
def
ined
as
the
ma
nn
erin
wh
ich
info
rma
tion
,mea
nin
gs,
an
dfe
elin
gs
are
con
veye
dto
the
sub
ord
ina
teth
rou
gh
the
com
mu
nic
ati
onof
bot
hve
rba
la
nd
non
verb
al
mes
sag
es;f
our
fact
ors
ofth
ein
stru
men
t:co
nsi
der
ati
on,i
nte
rper
son
al
fair
nes
s,so
cia
lm
atu
rity
,em
pow
erm
ent
SB
Pa
nd
DB
Pm
easu
red
ever
y30
min
ute
sov
erth
ree
12-
hou
rp
erio
ds:
wor
kin
gw
ith
(1)
favo
rab
lyp
erce
ived
sup
ervi
sor,
(2)
less
favo
rab
lyp
erce
ived
sup
ervi
sor,
(3)
non
-wor
kda
y
Wit
hin
-gro
up
dif
fere
nce
:hig
her
SB
Pa
nd
DB
Pw
hen
wor
kin
gfo
rle
ssfa
vore
dsu
per
viso
rco
mp
are
dto
favo
red
sup
ervi
sor
Not
e:S
BP
�sy
stol
icb
lood
pre
ssu
re;D
BP
�d
iast
olic
blo
odp
ress
ure
;HR
�h
eart
rate
.
144 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review
(Wager, Feldman, & Hussey, 2003) found thataverage levels of SBP and DBP were lower whenthe assistants worked for a direct supervisorwhom they viewed positively compared to onethey viewed negatively. This study reinforcesthe importance of examining the quality of rela-tionships and not assuming that two people’sstructural positions within an organization aresufficient for understanding either beneficial orharmful cardiovascular effects.
The final group of cardiovascular studies pro-vides insight into the physiological effects ofconnections as opposed to relationships (Table3). In both studies participants rated the qualityof specific social interactions at work. Holt-Lunstad, Uchino, Smith, Olson-Cerny, andNealey-Moore (2003) used event-contingent sam-pling of social interactions over three days,where the event was any interaction over fiveminutes. Participants averaged 6.3 interactions
TABLE 3Cardiovascular Studies with Connection Measures
StudyWork Context andParticipants
Positive ConnectionConstruct andMeasure Physiology Measure Results
Brondolo et al. (2003) 104 employees orstudents at aNew York Citymedical centerand its affiliatedschool (65women); meanage � 30(SD � 7.70,range � 18–46)
• Positive interactions:participants’interaction exceededindividual’s averagepositive intensityscore (rating ofinteraction aspleasant, friendly,agreeable;Cronbach’s � � .94)
• Negativeinteractions: anger,discomfort, upset, ortension ininteraction(Cronbach’s � � .84)
BP and HR measuredevery 20 minutesthroughout oneworkday, withparticipantsrecordinginformation aboutsocial interactionsand activities atthe time of BP andHR readings(random samplingof socialinteractions)
• Participants averaged 16interactions (SD � 8.13,range � 2–36) with othersat time of cuff inflation
• Positive interactionsassociated with DBP only;negative interactionsassociated with DBP andSBP
Holt-Lunstad, Uchino,Smith, Olson-Cerny,& Nealey-Moore (2003)
102 participants(53 women); 86percent wereemployed,others were full-time students;includednontraditionalcollege students(working andattendingschool); meanage � 24(range � 18–46)
• Individuals’ generalfeelings of positivityand negativity aboutinteraction partner
• Perceptions ofinteraction: positiveaffect, negativeaffect, intimacy, self-disclosure
BP 5 minutes intosocial interactions,in which the twopeople weremutually engagedwith one another,on three days(approximately 12-hour days); datacollection occurredon two work/schooldays and one non-work/school day(event-contingentsampling of socialinteractions)
• Participants had anaverage of 6.3 interactions/day including 2.14 withcoworkers, .62 with boss,13 with client or customer
• Work relationships wereviewed more negativelythan interactions withnonwork relationships andwere associated withlower positive affect,greater negative affect,lower intimacy, and lowerself-disclosure
• There was no significantdifference between workand nonwork interactionsin predicting SBP, DBP, orHR
• Participants in ambivalentinteractions had higherSBP and DBP, but not HR,compared to all otherrelationship categories
Note: BP � blood pressure; HR � heart rate; SBP � systolic blood pressure; DBP � diastolic blood pressure.
2008 145Heaphy and Dutton
TABL
E4
Imm
une
and
Neu
roen
docr
ine
Stud
ies
Stud
yW
ork
Con
text
and
Part
icip
ants
Posi
tive
Con
nect
ion
Mea
sure
Phys
iolo
gyM
easu
reR
esul
ts
Levy
,Her
ber
ma
n,W
hit
esid
e,S
an
zo,L
ee,&
Kir
kwoo
d(1
990)
61b
rea
stca
nce
rp
ati
ents
(fro
ma
larg
ersa
mp
leof
120)
wh
ore
cen
tly
com
ple
ted
surg
ery
Per
ceiv
edem
otio
na
lsu
pp
ort
from
fam
ily
mem
ber
s,d
octo
rs,n
urs
es,a
nd
oth
ers.
Fiv
eso
urc
esof
sup
por
tco
nsi
der
ed:s
pou
seor
inti
ma
teot
her
,fa
mil
ym
emb
er,f
rien
d,n
urs
e,d
octo
r.M
easu
resp
ecif
ica
lly
des
ign
edfo
rsa
mp
leof
bre
ast
can
cer
pa
tien
ts(C
ron
ba
ch’s
��
.79
to.9
5)
NK
cell
act
ivit
yH
igh
erp
erce
ived
emot
ion
al
sup
por
tfr
omsp
ouse
an
dd
octo
ra
ssoc
iate
dw
ith
low
erN
Kce
llly
sis
inca
nce
rp
ati
ents
;p
erce
ived
emot
ion
al
sup
por
tfr
omn
urs
en
ota
ssoc
iate
dw
ith
NK
cell
lysi
sT
heo
rell
,Ort
h-G
omer
,&E
ner
oth
(199
0)49
sub
ject
s(1
0w
omen
)fr
omsi
xoc
cup
ati
ons
(mu
sici
an
,air
tra
ffic
con
trol
ler,
ph
ysic
ian
,fre
igh
th
an
dle
r,w
ait
er,m
ech
an
ic)
Ava
ila
bil
ity
an
da
deq
ua
cyof
SS
,in
clu
din
gb
ut
not
lim
ited
tow
ork
rela
tion
ship
s(m
easu
red
once
an
du
sed
as
aco
nst
an
t;a
na
lysi
sd
idn
otse
pa
rate
sou
rces
ofsu
pp
ort)
.Ba
sed
onm
easu
reb
yO
rth
-Gom
era
nd
Un
den
(198
7)
Mea
sure
sof
imm
un
oglo
bu
lin
Gm
easu
red
fou
rti
mes
over
the
cou
rse
ofon
eye
ar
(im
mu
nog
lob
uli
nG
cha
ng
esa
sa
resu
ltof
lon
g-l
ast
ing
stre
ssor
s,n
otsh
ort-
term
ones
)
Job
stra
in(p
sych
olog
ica
ld
ema
nd
sa
nd
dec
isio
nla
titu
de)
ass
ocia
ted
wit
hh
igh
erle
vels
ofim
mu
nog
lob
uli
nG
for
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
wit
hlo
wle
vels
ofS
Sb
ut
not
for
thos
ew
ith
inte
rmed
iate
orh
igh
leve
lsof
SS
Ad
am
&G
un
na
r(2
001)
70m
idd
lecl
ass
mot
her
sof
2-ye
ar-
old
chil
dre
nin
Min
nes
ota
Com
pos
ite
mea
sure
ba
sed
onfo
ur
rela
tion
ship
mea
sure
s:A
du
ltA
tta
chm
ent
Inte
rvie
w,S
ocia
lC
lose
nes
sS
cale
from
the
Mu
ltid
imen
sion
al
Per
son
ali
tyQ
ues
tion
na
ire,
Rel
ati
onsh
ipw
ith
Sp
ouse
Sca
leof
the
Pa
ren
tin
gS
tres
sIn
dex
;F
am
ily
Su
pp
orts
an
dS
tres
ses
Sca
le.C
omb
ined
con
stru
ctd
efin
eda
s“t
he
exte
nt
tow
hic
hth
ep
art
icip
an
tte
nd
sto
ha
vep
osit
ive
feel
ing
sa
bou
tre
lati
onsh
ips
an
def
fect
ivel
yu
ses
them
for
sup
por
ta
nd
com
fort
”(p
.194
)
Sa
liva
ryco
rtis
olm
easu
red
six
tim
esa
da
yfo
rtw
od
ays
(fro
mju
stb
efor
ew
ake
-up
toju
stb
efor
esl
eep
)
Mor
ep
osit
ive
rela
tion
al
fun
ctio
nin
gp
red
icts
hig
her
mor
nin
gco
rtis
olva
lues
an
dst
eep
erd
ecli
ne
inco
rtis
olva
lues
over
the
cou
rse
ofth
ed
ay
Hei
nri
chs,
Ba
um
ga
rtn
er,K
irsc
hb
au
m,&
Eh
lert
(200
3)37
hea
lth
ym
enin
lab
ora
tory
sett
ing
;Tri
erS
ocia
lS
tres
sT
est
(5-m
inu
tem
ock
job
inte
rvie
ww
ith
an
un
know
np
an
el,
foll
owed
by
5-m
inu
tep
ub
lic
men
tal
ari
thm
etic
task
)
Bes
tfr
ien
dp
rovi
din
gsu
pp
ort
inp
rep
ara
tion
for
task
,or
don
ea
lon
e;in
stru
ctio
ns
tofr
ien
dw
ere
tob
ea
sh
elp
ful
as
pos
sib
led
uri
ng
10-m
inu
tep
rep
ara
tion
for
spee
chta
ska
nd
toof
fer
bot
hin
stru
men
tal
an
dem
otio
na
lsu
pp
ort
Intr
an
asa
lO
T;s
ali
vary
cort
isol
mea
sure
da
tota
lof
eig
ht
tim
es,b
oth
bef
ore
an
da
fter
test
Com
bin
edS
Sa
nd
OT
con
dit
ion
ha
dlo
wes
tle
vels
ofco
rtis
old
uri
ng
an
da
fter
task
;no
SS
(alo
ne)
an
dn
oO
Th
ad
hig
hes
tle
vels
.Wh
enp
art
icip
an
tsh
ad
SS
an
dO
T(o
ne
orb
oth
),th
eysh
owed
incr
ease
dca
lmn
ess
an
dd
ecre
ase
da
nxi
ety
scor
esd
uri
ng
stre
ssp
roce
ss;
sub
ject
sw
ith
out
SS
an
dw
ith
pla
ceb
oex
per
ien
ced
dec
rea
sed
calm
nes
sa
nd
incr
ease
da
nxi
ety
Sch
nor
pfe
il,N
oll,
Sch
ulz
e,E
hle
rt,F
rey,
&F
isch
er(2
003)
324
emp
loye
esa
ta
Ger
ma
nm
an
ufa
ctu
rin
gp
lan
t(5
2w
omen
)S
Sb
yco
wor
ker
(4it
ems)
,su
pp
orti
vesu
per
viso
rb
eha
vior
(4it
ems)
sca
les
from
larg
er“s
alu
tog
enic
sub
ject
ive
wor
ka
na
lysi
s,”
orS
ALS
Aq
ues
tion
na
ire
(Rim
an
n&
Ud
ris,
1997
)
14it
ems
tom
easu
rea
llos
tati
clo
ad
,in
clu
din
gov
ern
igh
tu
rin
ary
cort
isol
excr
etio
n
Wor
kers
exp
erie
nci
ng
hig
hS
Sex
per
ien
ced
sig
nif
ica
ntl
ylo
wer
cort
isol
tha
nth
ose
wit
hlo
wS
S
Zak,
Ku
rzb
an
,&M
atz
ner
(200
4)82
ma
lea
nd
fem
ale
stu
den
ts●
Pos
itiv
eso
cia
lcu
e(t
rust
):In
vest
orco
nve
yed
tru
stto
pa
rtn
erb
ych
oosi
ng
am
oun
tof
mon
eyg
iven
toth
etr
ust
ee.P
resu
ma
bly
,th
etr
ust
eep
erce
ived
the
exh
an
ged
am
oun
ta
sa
sig
na
lof
inve
stor
’sg
ood
inte
nti
ons
●Im
per
son
al
cue
(con
trol
):A
mou
nt
exch
an
ged
wa
sp
ub
licl
ya
nd
ran
dom
lya
ssig
ned
.Th
etr
ust
eekn
ewth
at
the
exch
an
ge
invo
lved
no
ben
efic
ent
inte
nti
ons
OT
(pla
sma
);b
lood
dra
wn
aft
ersu
bje
cts
ma
de
thei
rd
ecis
ion
ing
am
e●
Tru
stee
’sO
Tle
vels
twic
ea
sh
igh
wh
enre
ceiv
edso
cia
lsi
gn
al
oftr
ust
com
pa
red
top
ure
lyex
cha
ng
e-b
ase
dre
lati
onsh
ipco
nd
itio
n●
Tru
stee
tra
nsf
erre
db
ack
toin
vest
or53
per
cen
tof
the
mon
eyre
ceiv
ed,c
omp
are
dto
no
mon
eyin
con
trol
con
dit
ion
Kos
feld
,Hei
nri
chs,
Zak,
Fis
chb
ach
er,&
Feh
r(2
005)
121
ma
lest
ud
ents
intr
ust
exp
erim
ent;
61m
ale
stu
den
tsin
risk
exp
erim
ent
●T
rust
exp
erim
ent:
Pa
rtic
ipa
nts
ass
ign
edto
role
of“i
nve
stor
”or
“tru
stee
.”B
oth
are
giv
enin
itia
la
mou
nt
of12
mon
eta
ryu
nit
s(M
Us)
.In
vest
ora
lloc
ate
s0,
4,8,
12M
Us
totr
ust
ee.T
rust
eea
lloc
ate
sa
mou
nt
ofre
turn
toin
vest
or.I
nve
stor
pa
yoff
isca
lcu
late
da
s[i
nit
ial
am
oun
ttr
an
sfer
totr
ust
ee�
am
oun
tre
ceiv
edfr
omtr
ust
ee].
Tru
stee
pa
yoff
isca
lcu
late
da
s[i
nit
ial
am
oun
t�
3(tr
an
sfer
from
inve
stor
)a
mou
nt
retu
rned
toin
vest
or]
●R
isk
exp
erim
ent:
“In
vest
or”
all
oca
tes
0,4,
8,12
MU
sto
a“p
roje
ct.”
Am
oun
tre
turn
edra
nd
omly
det
erm
ined
(not
by
an
oth
erp
erso
n).
Pa
yoff
dis
trib
uti
onsa
me
as
intr
ust
exp
erim
ent
●B
oth
:Ha
lfof
the
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
giv
enO
T,h
alf
giv
enp
lace
bo.
Rep
eate
dfo
ur
tim
es,a
lwa
ysw
ith
dif
fere
nt
“tru
stee
”or
“pro
ject
”
Intr
an
asa
lO
Tve
rsu
sin
tra
na
sal
pla
ceb
o(w
ith
sam
ein
act
ive
ing
red
ien
tsa
sO
T)
●O
Tsi
gn
ific
an
tly
incr
ease
dth
ea
mou
nt
inve
stor
str
an
sfer
red
intr
ust
exp
erim
ent
only
,not
inri
skex
per
imen
t●
OT
did
not
aff
ect
ba
cktr
an
sfer
am
oun
tof
tru
stee
(in
tru
stex
per
imen
t)●
Pa
rtic
ipa
nts
’op
tim
ism
ab
out
outc
ome
did
not
vary
acr
oss
con
dit
ion
s,so
OT
did
not
ap
pea
rto
aff
ect
peo
ple
’sb
elie
fsa
bou
tot
her
s
Not
e:N
K�
na
tura
lki
ller
;SS
�so
cia
lsu
pp
ort;
OT
�ox
ytoc
in.
146 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review
per day, which is similar to studies using time-based definitions of interactions (Tschan, Sem-mer, & Inversin, 2004). Eighteen percent of totalinteractions involved work relationships. Ana-lytically, the researchers were interested in find-ing if work and nonwork relationships affectedcardiovascular rates differently; they did not.Brondolo’s et al.’s (2003) study of social interac-tions of employees and students at a medicalcenter is more illuminating for our purposes.Their analysis was based on a random sam-pling of cardiovascular measures throughoutone workday, and participants averaged sixteeninteractions per day (at the time of cuff infla-tion). These researchers found that positive con-nections were associated with lower SBP andDBP, compared to negative ones.
Taken together, the cardiovascular studiesprovide evidence from a variety of contexts thatpositive relationships at work have both imme-diate (Table 2) and enduring (Table 1) effects onthe cardiovascular system. Research on the ef-fects of positive connections (Table 3) was lessclear, with one of two studies providing evi-dence that positive connections affect BP. Froma measurement perspective, it is important tonote that studies that assessed specific relation-ships were associated with BP, which is moreclearly linked to health outcomes than HR. Thissuggests that, in future work, measures of spe-cific interactions may capture more powerful ev-idence for the relationship between positive so-cial interactions on physiological resource-fulness and health.
Strengthening the Capacity of the ImmuneSystem
Immune overview. The immune system de-fends the body against such challenges as dis-ease and tissue damage (Cacioppo, Bernston,Sheridan, & McClintock, 2000). The study of thepsychological modulation of the immune systemis a field called psychoneuroimmunology (PNI).PNI researchers typically study health-relatedoutcomes, such as the rate of wound healing, orthe mechanisms underlying those outcomes,such as testing how specific immune cells, pro-teins, or functions respond to challenges likeexposure to a virus (Kiecolt-Glaser & Glaser,1995; Kiecolt-Glaser, McGuire, Robles, & Glaser,2002). One of the most robust findings of PNI isthat positive social relationships can strengthen
the immune system (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2002;Uchino et al., 1996).
Empirical evidence. Two studies5 focus on thelink between quality of work relationships andthe immune system (Table 4). Levy et al. (1990)found that breast cancer patients recoveringfrom surgery had healthier immune responseswhen they gave higher ratings of emotional sup-port to their doctor and their spouse, whereasthe ratings of nurses did not show significanteffects. While this is not a study of employees,doctors and nurses do have a form of workingrelationship with patients. Theorell, Orth-Gomer, and Eneroth (1990) found that workers’immune systems were buffered from the immu-nological effects of job strain when they viewedtheir social support as adequate, but not whenthey viewed their social support as inadequate.
Consistent with studies of nonwork relation-ships (Uchino et al., 1996), both studies suggestthat positive connections strengthen the im-mune system during periods of acute andchronic stress. But there are a number of unan-swered questions that future research can ad-dress. First, the two studies discussed here illus-trate only the buffering effects of positive socialinteractions, or how social interactions protectagainst the deleterious effects of significantstress on immune functioning. Future researchis needed to determine whether work relation-ships also have direct physiological effects (out-side the context of a challenge) on immune func-tioning. Second, because both studies measuredrelationships, not connections, they can only in-form us about the physiological effects of moreenduring positive relationships. However, theimmune system is responsive to short-termstressors of as little as five minutes (e.g., givinga speech in front of strangers; Segerstrom &Miller, 2004), so future research may be able tocapture immune strengthening of shorter posi-tive connections. Finally, like the cardiovascu-lar studies, the study of breast cancer patientsprovided additional evidence that not all workrelationships are associated with physiologicaloutcomes.
5 We excluded Jemmott and Magloire (1988) because ofquestions about the methodology previously identified byStone, Cox, Vladimarsdottir, and Neale (1987) and Herbertand Cohen (1993).
2008 147Heaphy and Dutton
Healthier Patterns of Neuroendocrine Response
Neuroendocrine overview. The neuroendo-crine system refers to the interactions betweenthe nervous system and the hormones of theendocrine system. Researchers in this area seekto understand the functions, distribution, andeffects of these biologically active agents(Snowdon & Ziegler, 2000). The neuroendocrinesystem helps activate a number of other physi-ological processes, including the immune andcardiovascular systems. Social scientists areparticularly interested in the neuroendocrinesystem because hormones are highly respon-sive to the quality of social relationships (See-man & McEwen, 1996) and have effects on be-havior (Lovallo & Thomas, 2000). The existingneuroendocrine research related to work rela-tionships focuses on oxytocin (OT) and cortisol.We do not address the other hormones that havebeen studied in relation to a broader set of hu-man relationships, such as marital relation-ships (Kiecolt-Glaser, Bane, Glaser, & Malarkey,2003; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001).
All hormones have multiple physiologicalfunctions. It is the patterns and proportionalityof their response that can have health-enhanc-ing or -damaging effects (Epel et al., 1998). Forexample, cortisol is released when people expe-rience certain types of psychological stress, andit then breaks down stored sugars (glucogen-esis) and suppresses some anabolic processes(e.g., growth and digestion). A healthy responseto stress includes both a spike in cortisol and areturn to baseline levels, a process governed byother hormones. Both cortisol under- and over-activity are associated with health outcomes(Adam & Gunnar, 2001; Dickerson & Kemeny,2004).
Researchers studying positive social interac-tions are particularly interested in the neuroen-docrine system because of recent research thatshows that the neuropeptide OT may be an im-portant physiological substrate of affiliation be-haviors (Carter, 1998), increasing social behav-iors and attenuating hormone responses (e.g.,cortisol) to stress (DeVries, Glasper, & Detillion,2003). OT has been featured in many prominentsocial and medical scientists’ theories of socialinteractions, including theories of love (Carter,1998; Porges, 1998), maternal and mate attach-ment (Bartels & Zeki, 2004; Insel, 2000), adult at-tachment and affiliation (Henry & Wang, 1998),
positive social interactions (Uvnas-Moberg,1998), and Taylor’s (2002) tend-and-befriendstress response theory. Although it was previ-ously thought of as a “women’s hormone” be-cause of its role in such female reproductiveprocesses as birth and lactation, it is found inboth men and women, and recent research hasshown that it is associated with a broad array ofsocial activities, including social elements oflearning and memory (Engelmann, Wotjak, Neu-mann, Ludwig, & Landgraf, 1996; Ferguson,Young, & Insel, 2002).
In spite of OT’s promise, we are only begin-ning to understand how to measure and studyOT in humans. No reliable salivary measure hasbeen developed thus far (Horvat-Gordon,Granger, Schwartz, Nelson, & Kivlighan, 2005),making expensive and intrusive blood samplinga necessity for measuring OT.6 As a result, mostof the studies to date have relied on animalsamples. Given these challenges, the only stud-ies of OT applicable to work connections havetaken place in lab settings. In addition, theoret-ical interest in neuroendocrine responses arosefrom studies of the human stress response, witha tendency to view social relationships as anevolutionary means for ensuring species sur-vival and reproduction. These theories focus onromantic, reproductive, or parental relation-ships. Therefore, importing these theories andtheir evolutionary logic into the study of rela-tionships at work should be done with caution(Newton, 2003).
Empirical evidence. Neuroendocrine studiesrelevant for positive social interactions focus onthe hormones OT and cortisol. We include threelab experiments because they modeled organi-zationally relevant social interactions. Twostudies used a paradigm from experimental eco-nomics designed to learn about trust and reci-procity in exchange relationships. In this para-digm, one person plays the role of “investor” andthe other the “trustee.” Both people are given aninitial sum of money. Only one exchange is
6 OT can be introduced intranasally, a technology thatwas developed to stimulate labor and induce lactation inwomen. Manufactured by Novartis, it is not available in theUnited States. It is rarely used to manipulate OT levels forresearch because of disagreement about whether intranasalOT functions in the same way as OT released naturally inthe brain (for a discussion of these issues, see Born et al.,2002; Carter & Altemus, 1997; Stockhorst & Pietrowsky, 2004).
148 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review
made in any investor-trustee dyad, with the in-vestor making the first move. Any money theinvestor allocates to the trustee will triple; thetrustee then has the choice of returning anyamount of money (including zero) to the investor.Each person then keeps any remaining money.(See Table 4 and Berg, Dickhaut, and McCabe[1995] for more details.)
Zak, Kurzban, and Matzner (2004) used thisparadigm to examine the effects of positive so-cial cues of trust on trustees’ OT levels. Theyfound that when trustees received a positivesocial cue from an investor, their OT levels weretwice as high as trustees who received an im-personal cue. Even though trustees in both thepositive and impersonal conditions received (onaverage) the same amount of money from theirinvestor partners, trustees in the positive socialcue/high OT group returned 53 percent of themoney they had received, whereas the imper-sonal cue group returned zero. This suggeststhat even momentary positive connections haveconsequential behavioral, as well as neuroen-docrine, effects.
Kosfeld, Heinrichs, Zak, Fischbacher, and Fehr(2005) used the same paradigm but made twoimportant modifications. First, investors allo-cated money either to a trustee (which theycalled the “trust” version) or to a “project” (the“risk” version). Both the trust and risk versionsprovided equal opportunity for profit, but in the“project” condition, the investor’s return on in-vestment was randomly determined. Second,these researchers manipulated OT levels, withhalf of the participants receiving intranasal OTand the other half receiving an intranasal pla-cebo. The results showed that OT significantlyincreased the amount investors transferred totrustees in the trust experiment, but not in therisk experiment. Participants in both conditionshad similar mood and calmness measures be-fore and after the administration of OT, whichsuggests that OT does not have general psycho-logical and behavioral effects but, instead, op-erates specifically in the context of social inter-actions.
It is important to note that Kosfeld and col-leagues found that intranasally administeredOT did not affect trustees’ behavior; in both theOT and placebo conditions, trustees returnedthe same amount of money to investors. Thus,these researchers claim that OT does not affectreciprocity. The most likely explanation for
these contradictory findings is that the research-ers did not take into account the natural in-crease in OT levels that we saw in Zak et al.’sstudy, in which trustees’ OT levels increasedsimply as a result of receiving an initial amountfrom the investor. If that is the case, then it is notsurprising that the experimentally induced OTwould fail to have an effect. In fact, all trustees’OT levels may have been saturated. However,replication and more detailed testing of mecha-nisms underlying these effects can resolve thesediscrepancies.
In a third experiment using a different para-digm, men were asked to give a mock job inter-view to a panel of unfamiliar interviewers (Hein-richs, Baumgartner, Kirschbaum, & Ehlert, 2003).This study was a 2 (alone versus emotional andinstrumental support from a best friend) � 2(intranasal OT versus placebo) design. The de-pendent variable was cortisol level, which is amarker of stress and SNS activation. The re-searchers found that both OT and social supportindependently decreased cortisol levels, in-creased calmness, and decreased anxiety.When OT and social support were combined, theeffects on cortisol were amplified, providingsupport for the argument that OT is a mecha-nism through which positive social interactionsbuild health by decreasing cortisol levels dur-ing stress.
Two studies have addressed the link betweenpositive social interactions and cortisol’s diur-nal patterns. Health outcomes are associatedwith the degree to which one’s cortisol levelsfollow the normal pattern (high before waking,low from evening to 2 to 3 a.m.; Adam, 2005;Antoni, 1987; Lovallo & Thomas, 2000). First,Adam and Gunnar (2001) looked at the effect ofrelationship functioning and home and work de-mands on the cortisol levels of seventy mothersof toddlers. They created a composite measureof general relationship functioning based onfour qualitative and quantitative measures.However, the measures did not focus explicitlyon work relationships, so this only has sugges-tive implications for the neuroendocrine effectsof work relationships. The researchers foundthat higher scores on positive relationship func-tioning, as well as lower numbers of childrenand fewer hours of work, were associated withhealthier cortisol rhythms. A second study ofGerman workers found that those workers expe-riencing high social support had healthier cor-
2008 149Heaphy and Dutton
tisol patterns compared to those with low socialsupport (Schnorpfeil et al., 2003).
Together, these five studies suggest that pos-itive social interactions have beneficial effectson neuroendocrine functioning, either throughthe release of OT or through contributing tohealthier diurnal cortisol response, and theseeffects, in turn, are associated with better phys-ical health. The OT findings also point towardintriguing physiological mechanisms of trustand reciprocity. While this research confirms thegeneral theories about the benefits of positivesocial interactions on neuroendocrine function-ing, future research will have to answer ques-tions about the relative contribution of work re-lationships and determine the mechanisms thatunderlie these effects.
Summary
Collectively, this review illustrates humans’exquisite physiological responsiveness (See-man, 2001) to positive social interactions atwork. The cardiovascular studies provide evi-dence that positive work relationships are asso-ciated with decreases in cardiovascular reactiv-ity at work and beyond. Over time, elevated HRand BP can have serious effects on cardiovascu-lar health (Uchino, 2004). Positive work relation-ships appear to strengthen the immune systemby bolstering components of immune response.Because the immune system is always alert forchallenges, such as viruses, the strength of theimmune system can have effects on short-(Kiecolt-Glaser, Garner, Speicher, Penn, & Gla-ser, 1984) and long-term health (Esterling,Kiecolt-Glaser, Bodnar, & Glaser, 1994; Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2002). The neuroendocrine studiessuggest that positive work relationships contrib-ute to healthier hormone patterns. Positive so-cial connections appear to prompt the release ofOT, which has been shown to have short-termeffects on attenuating hormonal reactions tostress and long-term effects on anabolic pro-cesses such as growth (Uvnas-Moberg, 1998).The cortisol findings suggest that positive rela-tionships contribute to more proportional re-sponses to stress and build long-term reservesof health. In the next sections we consider theimplications of these findings for organizationalresearch.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO ORGANIZATIONALRESEARCH
Our review reveals that experiences of posi-tive social interactions at work directly affectthe body’s physiological processes. The focus onthe physiology–social interaction link helps ussee health not as a gross outcome measured indays absent or health care costs (Danna & Grif-fin, 1999) but as momentary ebbs and flows thatcan be built up or whittled down through socialinteractions. This suggests that health can bestrengthened or weakened across multiple in-teractions and that this process occurs over time(Epel et al., 1998). Organizational research cur-rently lacks a way of capturing this form ofhealth.
To capture this more finely grained form ofhealth, we propose that positive social interac-tions build people’s physiological resourceful-ness by fortifying the cardiovascular, immune,and neuroendocrine systems through immedi-ate and enduring decreases in cardiovascularreactivity, strengthened immune responses, andhealthier hormonal patterns. As we arguedabove, these physiological responses increasethe body’s ability to build, maintain, and repairitself during times of rest and to deal more eas-ily with challenges when they occur. Over time,the physiological resourcefulness created inpositive social interactions contributes to betterphysical health through individual physiologi-cal pathways as well as in combination, sincemany diseases affect multiple systems. To illus-trate how physiological resourcefulness cancontribute to organizational research, we usethe examples of work recovery and engagement.
Work Recovery
Recent research has shown that relationshipsare one key pathway through which work andnonwork domains influence one another (e.g.,Greenhaus & Powell, 2003), yet organizationalresearchers have overlooked the physiologicalsubstrates of relationships. Considering thephysiological effects of work relationships pro-vides us with a new window into understandingwhy and how work and nonwork contexts affectone another. We can see this through researchon work recovery.
Recovery refers to the process by which anindividual’s functioning returns to its pre-
150 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review
stressor levels and the experience of strain isreduced (Sonnentag & Natter, 2004). Work recov-ery focuses specifically on employees’ recoveryfrom the workday during evening hours, and it isan important window into understanding how toprevent depletion from work (Rothbard, 2001;Sonnentag, 2001). Studies have shown that lackof work recovery results in more health com-plaints and absence due to sickness two yearslater (DeCroon, Sluiter, & Frings-Dresen, 2003;Elfering, Grebner, Semmer, & Gerber, 2002;Jansen, Kant, & van den Brandt, 2002; Sluiter,Van der Beek, & Frings-Dresen, 1999). One studyfound that cortisol levels during work recoverywere related to subsequent health care costs,while cortisol levels during work were not (Gan-ster, Schaubroeck, Sime, & Mayes, 1991), sug-gesting that the physiological factors contribut-ing to work recovery contribute to physicalhealth over the long term.
Workplace social interactions, and their phys-iological correlates, have not yet been studied inthis literature (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2006). How-ever, the studies reviewed here suggest thatpositive social interactions play an importantrole in the physiological basis of work recovery.First, the cardiovascular studies summarized inTable 1 suggest that when people experiencepositive social interactions at work, their cardio-vascular systems are more likely to return toresting levels after work. Second, the cortisolstudy of working mothers found that positiverelationship functioning is associated withhealthier cortisol rhythms, which includes therecovery time after work (Adam & Gunnar, 2001).This suggests that positive social interactions atwork leave a lasting physiological imprint, onethat affects people after they have left work.
Proposition 1: The physiological re-sourcefulness generated during posi-tive social interactions facilitates thework recovery process and, over time,contributes to better physical health.
Engagement
Engagement describes a form of intentionalparticipation and involvement in a work role(Adam, 2005; Benner, 1984, 2000; Kahn, 1990; Roth-bard, 2001). People experience moments of en-gagement or disengagement in their work rolesthroughout each day (Britt, Dickinson, Greene, &
McKibben, 2007; Kahn, 1990). Engagement re-quires effort (Nes, Segerstrom, & Sephton, 2005)or vigor (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). One anteced-ent of engagement is the availability of re-sources, including physical or bodily resources(Kahn, 1990; Loehr & Schwartz, 2003). Research-ers have considered how physical resources canbe depleted from working in a taxing environ-ment, such as under the hot sun (Kahn, 1990) orunder stressful conditions (Frankenhaeuser,1978), and can be replenished through exerciseregimens (Loehr & Schwartz, 2003; Sonnentag &Natter, 2004).
We propose that the physiological resource-fulness and physical health generated in posi-tive social interactions are an additional bodilysource of engagement at work. As the studieshave shown, positive social interactions haveboth immediate and enduring effects on physi-ological functioning. This physical strengthen-ing builds up a foundation for engagement, sup-porting the body’s ability to expend effort, adaptto changing circumstances, and utilize energyefficiently (Epel et al., 1998). The research re-viewed from all three physiological systemsalso suggests that positive social interactionscontribute to less physiologically taxing experi-ences of stress. This suggests, therefore, thatwhen people experience positive social interac-tions at work, they have a stronger physiologicalfoundation for the effort needed to engage intheir work role.
Proposition 2: The physiological re-sourcefulness generated in positivesocial interactions contributes tohigher levels of physiological re-sources for engagement in a workrole.
These two examples illustrate the potentialtheoretical contributions of considering thephysiological correlates and effects of positivesocial interactions at work. Physiology has pri-marily been incorporated into stress research, inwhich scholars view physiology primarily as adependent variable—one that is negatively af-fected by workplace experiences (Cooper et al.,2001). In contrast, we suggest that physiologicalvariables can measure the construct of physio-logical resourcefulness, which, in turn, functionsas an independent variable in explaining indi-vidual-level processes of work recovery and en-gagement.
2008 151Heaphy and Dutton
CONTEXTUALIZING EMBODIED POSITIVESOCIAL INTERACTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Research into the link between positive socialinteractions at work and physiology has the po-tential to contribute to the fields emerging at theintersection of the social and medical sciences.We suggest new ways of theorizing about howorganizational contexts shape employees’ bod-ies through experiences of positive social inter-actions at work. In particular, we build on re-searchers’ claims that organizational contexts(e.g., organizational practices, culture, and lead-ership) shape patterns of social networks (Baker,2000; Cross & Parker, 2004) and patterns of socialinteractions (Dutton, 2003), which, in turn, shapeemployee attitudes and behaviors.
However, our focus on the connection betweenpositive relationships and employee physiologydirects attention to the features of organization-al contexts that would be particularly potent inaffecting employees’ physiological resourceful-ness because of their capacity to foster thebuilding or sustaining of the experience of pos-itive social interactions. Below we develop aseries of research propositions illustrating howorganizational behavior can enrich the study ofhuman physiology by specifying how social (inthis case, organizational) conditions foster pro-cesses (social interactions) that directly affecthuman physiology.
Organizational Practices
Baker and Dutton (2007) have identified sevenclusters of practices that foster the building ofpositive connections in organizations. By “prac-tices,” they mean, drawing from Orlikowski(2002), recurrent, materially bounded, situatedactivities of a particular unit or organization.The seven sets of practices fall into two majorgroups: (1) human resource practices (selection,socialization, evaluation, rewards) and (2) every-day work practices (conduct of meetings, collab-orative technologies, practices of interpersonalhelping). They theorize that certain forms ofthese practices increase the experience of posi-tive interactions through how they shape themotivation to connect and the opportunity struc-tures for connection. We use two examples of anorganizational practice (e.g., socialization prac-tices and meeting practices) to illustrate how apositive social interaction–physiology link
encourages new theorizing about how organiza-tional contexts (in this case, patterns of prac-tices) affect employees’ physiological resource-fulness through positive social interactions.
Organizations vary considerably in the waysthat they help employees become members ofnew units, new projects, or the organization it-self. Although much of organizational researchhas focused on the sensemaking and interpre-tative side of socialization (e.g., Louis, 1980),there is a very important relational componentto socialization practices. By “relational,” wemean conducive to building positive connec-tions between people. In particular, organiza-tions vary in how easily and broadly they facil-itate employees’ connection with old and othernew members of the organization during thiscrucial onboarding process (Baker & Dutton,2007).
For example, some organizations routinely ro-tate people through multiple departments aspart of the socialization process (Cross & Parker,2004). If this is done in a way that allows peopleto meet each other in affirming ways, then theyare more likely to experience positive social in-teractions during this process. Some organiza-tions create specified roles, such as new mem-ber advocates or mentors, who help newcomerslearn about the organization and interact inways that are culturally appropriate, often in-creasing the chances positive social interac-tions will occur (Dutton, 2003; Rollag, Parise, &Cross, 2005).
Organizations also vary in their practices ofrewarding people for successfully locating andbringing on board new organizational members(e.g., Fernandez, Castilla, & Moore, 2000), which,in many situations, directly increases new em-ployees’ chances of having positive social inter-actions with others during their socializationprocess. When organizations reward employeesfor locating new members, “old-timers” are moreinvested in having people get integrated andexert greater effort in helping them meet othersand get up to speed more quickly. These morerelational socialization practices make it morelikely that new employees will be physiologi-cally strengthened and more resourceful duringthe socialization process because they havemore opportunities to engage in positive socialinteractions.
152 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review
Proposition 3: The greater the extent ofrelational socialization practices usedin an organization (or unit), thegreater the level of physiological re-sourcefulness of employees.
Virtual and face-to-face meetings are frequentforums for social connecting at work, and, thus,the meeting practices that typify organizationsor units shape patterns of social interacting. Weposit that meeting practices shape employees’physiological resourcefulness in several ways.First, as a critical conversational space, organi-zations can have practices that effectively pre-pare people at the meeting to understand andappreciate meeting members’ contributions toeach other. For example, Cohen and Prusak(2001) have suggested that UPS and Hewlett-Packard explicitly encourage and design phys-ical spaces that foster face-to-face meetings asan explicit means of fostering positive socialinteractions. Dutton (2003) has argued that meet-ings can affect the degree to which they encour-age respectful interactions, trust, and task en-abling, any one of which facilitates theexperience of positive social interactions. If acontext exhibits more relational meeting prac-tices (marked by the encouragement of listen-ing, supporting and equipping meeting mem-bers to contribute, more respectful engagement,task enabling, and trust), then we would expectto see increased physiological resourcefulness(Baker & Dutton, 2007).
Proposition 4: The greater the extent ofrelational meeting practices used inan organization (or unit), the greaterthe level of physiological resourceful-ness of employees.
Organizational Culture
An organization’s shared values, beliefs,norms, and artifacts (Schein, 2004) are distin-guishing and critical features of organizationalcontexts. Variance in shared values and beliefs,for example, is associated with different pat-terns of interrelating among organizationalmembers (Perlow, Gittell, & Katz, 2004). This as-sertion allows us to build illustrative proposi-tions about how organizational culture canshape employees’ physiological resourceful-ness through shaping patterns and perceptionsof positive social interactions.
For example, Brickson (2005, 2007) recently ar-gued that organizations vary systematically inwhat she calls “identity orientation,” which isthe shared assumptions about how an organiza-tion relates to stakeholders. One can conceptu-alize identity orientation as a form of sharedcultural belief. Brickson’s empirical researchsuggests that an organization’s identity orienta-tion toward outside stakeholders is empiricallyrelated to its identity orientation toward internalstakeholders (what she calls “internal identityorientation”; Brickson, 2005). Her research fur-ther suggests three distinct types of identity ori-entations. A relational identity orientation isone in which members define the organizationas a partner to its stakeholders, which, in turn, isoften associated with a motivation to care andtrust partners.
We posit that organizations that have a strongrelational identity orientation will have morefrequent positive social interactions, buildingthe physiological resourcefulness of members.This proposition aligns with Brickson’s (2007) ar-gument that organizations with a more rela-tional organizational identity will have strongerdyadic ties between members and internal andexternal stakeholders.
Proposition 5: The stronger the relationalidentity orientation of an organization,the greater the level of physiologicalresourcefulness of the organization’semployees.
Organizational Leadership
For as long as there have been organizationalresearchers, there has been an interest in theimpacts of organizational leadership. A physio-logical take on social interactions invites con-sideration of how leadership behaviors shapepatterns of positive social interactions and,thus, employee health and resourcefulness. Wedevelop two propositions that explore this pos-sibility as another way of seeing how studies oforganizational behavior and human physiologyenrich one another.
The assertion that leaders’ behaviors affectpatterns of social interactions is not surprising,given that many researchers construe leader-ship as fundamentally about relationships (e.g.,Fletcher, 2007; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Pearce &Conger, 2003). However, certain leadership be-
2008 153Heaphy and Dutton
haviors may be particularly powerful means ofencouraging and facilitating positive social in-teractions, and these, in turn, enable physiolog-ical resourcefulness of the persons in the inter-action. Relational attentiveness captures aleader’s capacity to perceive and respond toother people’s emotional state and has been ar-gued to be an important component of emotionalintelligence (Salovey, Mayer, & Caruso, 2002).Frost (2003) has argued that the relational atten-tiveness of leaders is particularly important forthe detection of and response to the emotionalpain of followers, which serves to foster positiveinteractions through activating processes of re-lational repair. Dutton has argued that rela-tional attentiveness fosters the creation of high-quality connections between people inorganizations, because leaders with thisstrength “can play a key role in sustaining andrepairing the connective tissue of a work group,department or organization” (2003: 164).
Proposition 6: The more a leader isrelationally attentive, the greater thelevel of employee physiological re-sourcefulness.
Leaders behave in ways that not only directlyshape social interaction patterns but also shapeinteractions by creating and galvanizing mean-ing. Podolny, Khurana, and Hill-Popper (2005)recently emphasized this path of leadership im-pact by articulating the different ways leadersshape organizational action through meaningmaking. We argue that when leaders propagatemeaning that evokes collaboration, cooperation,and interdependence between people—what wecall “relational images”—they motivate peopleto connect and ease connection possibilities.This, in turn, should increase physiological re-sourcefulness. For example, in studies of collab-oration among organizations with conflictingviews on environmental protection, Wondolleckand Yaffee (2000) showed that inclusive lan-guage and meaning that calls forth a commonidentity fosters positive social interactions be-tween previously warring groups. When leadersare able to foster a sense of shared fate, commonidentity, and interdependence, differences be-tween people become less extreme, and theground for positive interactions is tilled.
Proposition 7: The more leaders culti-vate and spread relational images,
the greater the level of physiologicalresourcefulness of employees.
In summary, we suggest that organizationalscholars can contribute to research on the phys-iology of social interactions by using organiza-tional research to understand how organiza-tions shape people’s opportunities to experiencepositive social interactions at work. Theoreti-cally, our perspective responds to the call for agreater understanding of the social and culturalembeddedness of the physiology of social inter-actions (Uchino, 2004). These propositions arenot exhaustive but are meant to illustrate theunique contributions that organizational schol-ars can offer to this vibrant research area. In theprocess, we recast organizations as consequen-tial vessels of physiological resourcefulnessand physical health.
IMPLICATIONS OF INTEGRATINGPHYSIOLOGICAL DATA INTO
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
The time is ripe to integrate physiology intoorganizational research because of technologi-cal innovations that make measures morewidely available, of higher quality, and less in-trusive for potential research participants. Inthis section we briefly review key issues for in-corporating physiological measures into organi-zational research.
First, it is important to remember that “physi-ological systems . . . follow their own basic lawsand are only loosely coupled with each otherand with other response systems such as psy-chological and behavioral reactions” (Semmeret al., 2004: 225). Thus, it is important to under-stand how a particular physiological measure isaffected by larger physiological systems. To il-lustrate, we can consider the example of thehormone cortisol. There are at least three waysof measuring cortisol. Cortisol is released undersome type of stress (a cortisol spike) and thenreturns to baseline levels. Cortisol also has astrong diurnal pattern, which is influenced byboth “trait” or stable factors and “state” or time-varying factors. One study found that between24 and 36 percent of variation in morning corti-sol levels was due to stable factors, about 62 to74 percent was due to state factors, and the restwas due to measurement error (Shirtcliff,Granger, Booth, & Johnson, 2005, as cited in
154 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review
Adam, 2005). All three ways of measuring corti-sol—cortisol spikes, return to baseline after aspike, and diurnal patterns—are associatedwith health outcomes, albeit different ones.
If one is interested in measuring cortisolspikes in reaction to stress (e.g., Fischer, Cal-ame, Dettling, Zeier, & Fanconi, 2000), it is im-portant to control for the time of day (the diurnalpattern). If one is interested in explaining thestate variation in diurnal patterns of cortisol(e.g., Adam, 2005), then it is important to takemultiple measures throughout the day, in orderto compare not just levels but changes in thelevels (or slopes). Ideally, one should measuremore than one day to see if the pattern is stable.Each of the issues mentioned here in relation tocortisol could be said about any physiologicalmeasure or construct, such as allostatic load.
Second, the relationships among social, psy-chological, physiological, and behavioral vari-ables are “loosely coupled.” Researchers havefound that the correlations among physiologicaldata, self-rated health, physician-rated health,subjective experiences of one’s body (e.g., symp-toms), and measures of subjective well-beingare generally quite low (Brief, Butcher, George,& Link, 1993; Pennebaker, 1983). They are notinterchangeable measures, even though theyare sometimes treated as such (Jex & Beehr,1991). In addition, in order to interpret physiolog-ical measures, it is important to couple themwith other kinds of data, such as self-report andobservation (Semmer et al., 2004). For researchon positive social interactions, self-report datathat capture peoples’ subjective views of thequality of connections and relationships are es-pecially important. Finally, there are often setsof standard control variables that are essentialto making sense of the data, including medica-tion and current health status, smoking and caf-feine intake, and physical activity, among oth-ers (Cacioppo, Tassinary, & Berntson, 2000;Kiecolt-Glaser & Glaser, 1988).
Third, some physiological measures are eas-ier to assess in naturalistic settings than others.Technology to measure the cardiovascular sys-tem is relatively portable and unintrusive. As-sessing the immune and neuroendocrine sys-tems typically requires collecting saliva orblood, so these data are more difficult to collectin the field (for examples, see Adam, 2005; Ma-rucha, Kiecolt-Glaser, & Favagehi, 1998;Schaubroeck & Ganster, 1993).
Stepping back from the specific consider-ations of measurement and research design, theresearch agenda that we have outlined requiresinterdisciplinary collaboration. This brief over-view of the practical considerations of usingphysiological data in research can only scratchthe surface of this complex topic. The wealth ofknowledge that has developed in the last twentyyears has occurred in large part through thecollaboration of experts from many fields (e.g.,Ohio State’s Institute for Behavioral MedicineResearch). In classic fish-scale fashion (Camp-bell, 1969), scientific innovation has occurredthrough the overlapping of fields. Our hope isthat this paper will provoke interest in a physi-ological perspective on social interactions in or-ganizations, prompting continuing innovationsacross fields.
DISCUSSION
This paper has suggested that positive socialinteractions at work are associated with imme-diate and enduring effects on the cardiovascu-lar, immune, and neuroendocrine systems. Aphysiological perspective invites considerationof the body as a source of human action andcapability, because positive social interactionsat work can build physiological resourcefulnessand physical health. We illustrate this possibil-ity with propositions about work recovery andengagement. Organizational scholars can makevaluable contributions to the extant literatureby bringing in our unique perspective on howorganizational contexts shape employees’ expe-riences of social interactions. We have begun todescribe the organizational embeddedness ofhuman physiology at work with propositionsabout organizational practices, culture, andleadership. Positive social interactions are onecore pathway through which human physiologyis embedded in organizations. This kind of re-search involves learning about a kind of dataunfamiliar to most organizational researchers,and collaboration with experts in other fieldsmay be the best way to start such a researchprogram.
Establishing the link between positive socialinteractions and physiology is an important firststep, and it provokes a number of questions andextensions for future research. While we havefocused on positive social interactions, futureresearch will have to address questions about
2008 155Heaphy and Dutton
people’s larger relational landscape. Employ-ees’ relational contexts are full of connectionsand relationships, some of which are positive,whereas others are undoubtedly neutral, harm-ful, or ambivalent (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2003). Re-search has suggested that negative interac-tions—for example, undermining behaviors—can be more potent in their impact on employeesthan positive relationships—for example, socialsupport (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002). Giventhe potent effect of negative interactions at work(e.g., Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001; Tep-per, 2000), it may be especially important to un-derstand how to remedy or nullify these effectsby creating occasions for positive interactionsthat are health building rather than health de-pleting. Researchers, for example, can examinehow protective or health enhancing positive re-lationships can be in the context of a toxic workenvironment (Frost, 2003; Kahn, 2001). Onestream of research suggests that examining theratio of positive to negative interactions overtime (e.g., over the course of a meeting) can be auseful strategy for understanding how negativeand positive interactions combine to shape out-comes (Gottman, 1993; Losada & Heaphy, 2004).
It is important to note that several cardiovas-cular and immune studies have shown thatsome but not all work relationships are associ-ated with physiological outcomes. This raisesimportant questions about which work relation-ships matter and why. These questions are onlybeginning to be addressed by researchers, whosuggest that people are physiologically reactiveto those relationships that are meaningful to theself, which, in turn, is shaped by social andcultural forces (Dressler, Balieiro, & Dos Santos,1997; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001).
By paying attention to physiological-levelchanges, we can begin to consider physicalhealth in more nuanced ways. Typically, it ismeasured as the absence of disease (Patrick &Begner, 1990). In organizational research this of-ten means using such coarse-grained measuresas days absent and health insurance costs(Danna & Griffin, 1999). Consistent with this fo-cus, most research on physical health has fo-cused on stress, which often has negative effectson physical health (Cooper et al., 2001). But re-cent critiques of this model have pushed fordefinitions of positive health, measures that cancapture it, and interventions that can build it(Bower & Segerstrom, 2004; Patrick & Begner,
1990; Ryff & Singer, 2000). We believe that ourpaper provides one such alternative. Physiolog-ical measures can help us capture more finelygrained measures of health, such as immunesystem strength, healthy cortisol patterns, andcardiovascular reactivity, and physiological re-sourcefulness is one of a number of ideas (e.g.,physical thriving; Epel et al., 1998) that can helpus see how physical health can be strengthened.Our paper suggests a series of organizationalpathways through which these measures of pos-itive health can be built.
A focus on how an organizational contextshapes the physiological resourcefulness of in-dividuals is part of a broader quest for organi-zational scholars to better understand endoge-nous resourcefulness—or the processes throughwhich resources are generated from within aperson, dyad, group, or organization (see Dutton& Ragins, 2007; Feldman, 2005; Rousseau & Ling,2007). Such a view assumes that resources arenot fixed assets but are valuable elements thatare created and changed by people in the waythat they behave. A focus on processes of endog-enous resourcefulness is consistent with posi-tive organizational scholarship’s goal of detail-ing conditions and processes that contribute tooptimal functioning in individuals, dyads,groups, and organizations (Cameron, Dutton, &Quinn, 2003; Dutton, Worline, Frost, & Lilius,2006). By linking features of an organizationalcontext to physiological resourcefulness, re-searchers and practitioners alike are drawn toconsider how organizational conditions contrib-ute to measures of optimal functioning (like en-gagement, health, etc.) through how they affectpositive social interactions and physiologicalprocesses.
This perspective on relationships as cultivarsof physiological resourcefulness is particularlyimportant to the study of work. Work is increas-ingly characterized by greater degrees of collab-oration, cooperation, and cross-boundary work,and the economy is increasingly based in ser-vice as opposed to manufacturing industries(National Research Council, 1999). It is not sur-prising, then, that social interactions often ac-count for the largest proportion of individuals’work time (Waldron, 2000). Accordingly, organi-zational scholars who wish to bring work backin to how we theorize and study employee andorganizational experiences (Barley & Kunda,2001) would do well to find ways to study how
156 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review
interactions shape work processes and workoutcomes. Our paper also invites researchers tobring the body back into the study of work, notas an instrument of physical labor but by seri-ously considering how social interactions leaveconsequential physiological imprints (Heaphy,2007). If scholars answer this invitation, we seenew possibilities for how organizational schol-arship can inform not only our own disciplinebut studies of human physiology as well.
CONCLUSION
This paper began with the acknowledgmentthat physiology is not typically considered to bewithin organizational researchers’ domain. So-cial interactions, however, are at the heart ofmany streams of organizational research (Dut-ton & Heaphy, 2003). We link physiology andsocial interactions together by establishing thatsocial interactions at work, whether brief con-nections or enduring relationships, have physi-ological correlates and effects. We can then seehow the physiological resourcefulness built inpositive social interactions shapes micro-organizational behavior, such as engagementand work recovery, and how organizationsshape employees’ bodies by providing (or fail-ing to provide) opportunities for these positivesocial interactions to occur. At a fundamentallevel, these arguments invite organizational re-searchers to add a bodily, physiological dimen-sion to their research on organizational life, andto offer organizational explanations to the ongo-ing interdisciplinary conversations about thephysiology of social relationships occurringthroughout the academy.
REFERENCES
Acker, J. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs and bodies: A theory of gen-dered organizations. Gender and Society, 42: 139–158.
Adam, E., & Gunnar, M. 2001. Relationship functioning andhome and work demands predict individual differencesin diurnal cortisol patterns in women. Psychoneuroen-docrinology, 26: 189–208.
Adam, E. K. 2005. Momentary emotions and physiologicalstress levels in the everyday lives of working parents. InB. Schneider & L. J. Waite (Eds.), Being together, workingapart: Dual-career families and the work-life balance:105–133. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Antoni, M. H. 1987. Neuroendocrine influences on psychoneu-roimmunology and neoplasia: A review. Psychology andHealth, 1: 3–24.
Asmar, R., Darne, B., el Assaad, M., & Topouchian, J. 2001.Assessment of outcomes other than systolic and dia-stolic blood pressure: Pulse pressure, arterial stiffnessand heart rate. Blood Pressure Monitoring, 6: 329–333.
Baker, W. 2000. Achieving success through social capital.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baker, W., & Dutton, J. E. 2007. Enabling positive social cap-ital. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring posi-tive relationships at work: Building a theoretical andresearch foundation: 325–345. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.
Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. 2001. Bringing work back in. Or-ganization Science, 12: 76–95.
Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. 2004. The neural correlates of maternaland romantic love. NeuroImage, 21: 1155–1166.
Benner, P. 1984. From novice to expert: Excellence and powerin clinical nursing practice. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Benner, P. 2000. The roles of embodiment, emotion and life-world for rationality and agency in nursing practice.Nursing Philosophy, 1: 5–19.
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. 1995. Trust, reciprocity andsocial history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10: 122–142.
Berscheid, E., & Lopes, J. 1997. A temporal model of relation-ship satisfaction and stability. In R. J. Sternberg &M. Hojjat (Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships: 129–159. New York: Guilford Press.
Born, J., Lange, T., Kern, W., McGregor, G. P., Bickel, U., &Fehm, H. L. 2002. Sniffing neuropeptides: A transnasalapproach to the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 5:514–516.
Bower, J. E., & Segerstrom, S. C. 2004. Stress management,finding benefit, and immune function: Positive mecha-nisms for intervention effects on physiology. Journal ofPsychosomatic Research, 56: 9–11.
Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Blaize, N. 2006. Developingsustainable leaders through coaching and compassion.Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5: 8–24.
Breiter, H. C., Aharon, A., Kahneman, D., Dale, A., & Shizgal,P. 2001. Functional imaging of neural responses to ex-pectancy and experience of monetary gains and losses.Neuron, 30: 619–639.
Brickson, S. L. 2005. Organizational identity orientation:Forging a link between organizational identity and or-ganizations’ relations with stakeholders. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 50: 576–609.
Brickson, S. L. 2007. Organizational identity orientation: Thegenesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of socialvalue. Academy of Management Review, 32: 864–888.
Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., George, J. M., & Link, K. E. 1993.Integrating bottom-up and top-down theories of subjec-tive well-being: The case of health. Personality and So-cial Psychology, 64: 646–653.
Britt, T. W., Dickinson, J. M., Greene, T. M., & McKibben, E. S.2007. Self engagement at work. In C. L. Cooper & D. Nel-son (Eds.), Positive organizational behavior: Accentuat-
2008 157Heaphy and Dutton
ing the positive at work: 143–158. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Brondolo, E., Rieppi, R., Erickson, S. A., Bagiella, E., Shapiro,P. A., McKinley, P., & Sloan, R. P. 2003. Hostility, inter-personal interactions, and ambulatory blood pressure.Psychosomatic Medicine, 65: 1003–1011.
Cacioppo, J. T., Bernston, G. G., Sheridan, J. F., & McClintock,M. K. 2000. Multilevel integrative analyses of humanbehavior: Social neuroscience and the complementingnature of social and biological approaches. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 126: 829–843.
Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Crawford, E., Ernst, J. M.,Burleson, M. H., Kowalewski, R. B., Malarkey, W. B., VanCauter, E., & Bernston, G. G. 2002. Loneliness and health:Potential mechanisms. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64: 407–417.
Cacioppo, J. T., Tassinary, L. G., & Berntson, G. B. 2000.Handbook of psychophysiology (2nd ed.). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, K. E., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. 2003. Foundationsof positive organizational scholarship. In K. E. Cameron,J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizationalscholarship: 3–13. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Campbell, D. T. 1969. Ethnocentrism and the fish-scalemodel of omniscience. In M. Sherif & C. W. Sherif (Eds.),Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences:328–348. Chicago: Aldine.
Carter, C. S. 1998. Neuroendocrine perspectives on socialattachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23:779–818.
Carter, C. S., & Altemus, M. 1997. Integrative functions oflactational hormones in social behavior and stress man-agement. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,807: 164–174.
Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. 2001. In good company: How socialcapital makes organizations work. Boston: Harvard Busi-ness School Press.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. 1985. Stress, social support, and thebuffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98: 310–357.
Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O’Driscoll, M. P. 2001. Organiza-tional stress: A review and critique of theory, research,and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross, R., & Parker, A. 2004. The hidden power of socialnetworks: Understanding how work really gets done inorganizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. 1999. Health and well-being in theworkplace: A review and synthesis of the literature.Journal of Management, 25: 357–384.
de Croon, E. M., Sluiter, J. K., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. 2003.Need for recovery after work predicts sickness absence:A 2-year prospective cohort study in truck drivers. Jour-nal of Psychosomatic Research, 55: 331–339.
DeVries, A. C., Glasper, E. R., & Detillion, C. E. 2003. Socialmodulation of stress responses. Physiology and Behav-ior, 79: 399–407.
Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. 2004. Acute stressors andcortisol responses: A theoretical integration and synthe-sis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin, 130:355–391.
Dienstbier, R. A. 1989. Arousal and physiological toughness:Implications for mental and physical health. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 96: 84–100.
Dressler, W. W., Balieiro, M. C., & Dos Santos, J. E. 1997. Thecultural construction of social support in Brazil: Associ-ations with health outcomes. Culture, Medicine, Psychi-atry, 21: 303–335.
Duck, S. 2007. Finding connections at the individual/dyadiclevel. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploringpositive relationships at work: Building a theoreticaland research foundation: 179–186. Mahwah, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. G., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social under-mining in the workplace. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 45: 431–451.
Dutton, J. E. 2003. Energize your workplace: How to create andsustain high-quality connections at work. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. 2003. The power of high qualityconnections at work. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, &R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:Foundations of a new discipline: 263–278. San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler.
Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. (Eds.). 2007. Exploring positiverelationships at work: Building a theoretical and re-search foundation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-sociates.
Dutton, J. E., Worline, M., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. 2006. Explain-ing compassion organizing. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 51: 59–96.
Elfering, A., Grebner, S., Semmer, N. K., & Gerber, H. 2002.Time control, catecholomines and back pain amongyoung nurses. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environ-ment and Health, 28: 386–393.
Engelmann, M., Wotjak, C. T., Neumann, I., Ludwig, M., &Landgraf, R. 1996. Behavioral consequences of intra-cerebral vasopressin and oxytocin: Focus on learningand memory. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,20: 341–358.
Epel, E., McEwen, B. S., & Ickovics, J. R. 1998. Embodyingpsychological thriving: Physical thriving in response tostress. Journal of Social Issues, 54: 301–322.
Esterling, B. A., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Bodnar, J., & Glaser, R.1994. Chronic stress, social support, and persistent al-terations in the natural killer cell response to cytokinesin older adults. Health Psychology, 13: 291–299.
Evans, O., & Steptoe, A. 2001. Social support at work, heartrate, and cortisol: A self-monitoring study. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 6: 361–370.
Feldman, M. 2005. Explaining endogeneity. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,Honolulu.
Ferguson, J. N., Young, L. J., & Insel, T. R. 2002. The neuroen-
158 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review
docrine basis of social recognition. Frontiers in Neuroen-docrinology, 23: 200–224.
Fernandez, R., Castilla, E., & Moore, P. 2000. Social capital atwork: Networks and employment at a phone center.American Journal of Sociology, 105: 1288–1356.
Fischer, J. E., Calame, A., Dettling, A. C., Zeier, H., & Fanconi,S. 2000. Experience and endocrine stress responses inneonatal and pediatric critical care nurses and physi-cians. Critical Care Medicine, 28: 3281–3288.
Fitzhugh, M. L., & Leckie, W. H. 2001. Agency, postmodernismand the causes of change. History and Theory, 40: 59–81.
Fleischmann, A. A., Spitzberg, B. H., Andersen, P. A., &Roesch, S. C. 2005. Tickling the monster: Jealousy induc-tion in relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Re-lationships, 22: 49–73.
Fletcher, B. C., & Jones, F. 1993. A refutation of Karasek’sdemand-discretion model of occupational stress with arange of dependent measures. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 14: 319–330.
Fletcher, J. 2007. Leadership, power and positive relation-ships. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploringpositive relationships at work: Building a theoreticaland research foundation: 347–371. Mahwah, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates.
Frankenhaeuser, M. 1979. Psychoneuroendocrine ap-proaches to the study of emotion as related to stress andcoping. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1978, 26:123–161.
Freese, J., Li, J. A., & Wade, L. D. 2003. The potential relevanceof biology to social inquiry. Annual Review of Sociology,29: 233–256.
Freund, P. E. S. 1988. Bringing society into the body: Under-standing socialized human nature. Theory and Society,17: 839–864.
Frost, P. J. 2003. Toxic emotions at work. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Business School Press.
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Elliot, A. J. 2003. Evidence forbivariate systems: An empirical test of appetition andaversion across domains. Journal of Research in Person-ality, 37: 349–372.
Ganster, D. C., Schaubroeck, J., Sime, W. E., & Mayes, B. T.1991. The nomological validity of the Type A personalityamong employed adults. Journal of Applied Psychology,76: 143–168.
Gottman, J. M. 1993. The roles of conflict engagement, esca-lation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitu-dinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 61: 6–15.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspec-tive. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219–247.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2003. When work and familycollide: Deciding between competing role demands. Or-ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,90: 291–304.
Gutek, B. A. 1995. The dynamics of service. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Hassard, J., Holliday, R., & Wilmott, H. 2000. Body and orga-nization. London: Sage.
Heaphy, E. 2007. Bodily insights: Three lenses for positiveorganizational relationships. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ra-gins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work:Building a theoretical and research foundation: 47–71.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heinrichs, M., Baumgartner, T., Kirschbaum, C., & Ehlert, U.2003. Social support and oxytocin interact to suppresscortisol and subjective responses to psychosocial stress.Biological Psychiatry, 54: 1389–1398.
Henry, J. P., & Wang, S. 1998. Effects of early stress on adultaffiliative behavior. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23: 863–875.
Herbert, T. B., & Cohen, S. 1993. Stress and immunity inhumans: A meta-analytic review. Psychosomatic Medi-cine, 55: 364–379.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Uchino, B. N., Smith, T. W., Olson-Cerny, C.,& Nealey-Moore, J. B. 2003. Social relationships and am-bulatory blood pressure: Structural and qualitative pre-dictors of cardiovascular function during everyday so-cial interactions. Health Psychology, 22: 388–397.
Horvat-Gordon, M., Granger, D. A., Schwartz, E. B., Nelson,V. J., & Kivlighan, K. T. 2005. Oxytocin is not a validbiomarker when measured in saliva by immunoassay.Physiology and Behavior, 84: 445–488.
Houben, G. J., Diederiks, J. P. M., Kant, Y., & Notermans,J. V. H. 1990. Rationalization in garages in the Nether-lands and its effects on occupational health. Work andStress, 4: 179–189.
Ilies, R., Arvey, R. D., & Bouchard, T. J. 2006. Darwinism,behavioral genetics, and organizational behavior: A re-view and agenda for future research. Journal of Organi-zational Behavior, 27: 121–141.
Insel, T. R. 2000. Toward a neurobiology of attachment. Re-view of General Psychology, 4: 176–185.
Ituarte, P. H. G., Kamarck, T. W., Thompson, H. S., & Bacanu,S. 1994. Psychosocial mediators of racial differences innighttime blood pressure dipping among normotensiveadults. Health Psychology, 18: 393–402.
Jansen, N. W. H., Kant, I., & van den Brandt, P. A. 2002. Needfor recovery in the working population: Description andassociations with fatigue and psychological distress.International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 9: 322–340.
Jemmott, J. B., & Magloire, K. 1988. Academic stress, socialsupport, and secretory immunoglobin A. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 55: 803–810.
Jex, S. M., & Beehr, T. A. 1991. Emerging theoretical andmethodological issues in the study of work-relatedstress. Research in Personnel and Human ResourcesManagement, 9: 311–365.
Joas, H. 1996. The creativity of action. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal en-
2008 159Heaphy and Dutton
gagement and disengagement at work. Academy ofManagement Journal, 33: 692–724.
Kahn, W. A. 2001. Holding environments at work. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 37: 260–279.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. 1990. Healthy work: Stress, produc-tivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York:Basic Books.
Karasek, R. A., Gordon, G., Pietrokovosky, C., & Frese, M.1985. Job Content Instrument: Questionnaire and user’sguide. Los Angeles: University of Southern California,Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering.
Karlin, W. A., Brondolo, E., & Schwartz, J. 2003. Workplacesocial support and ambulatory cardiovascular activityin New York City traffic agents. Psychosomatic Medi-cine, 65: 167–176.
Kaufmann, G. M., & Beehr, T. A. 1986. Interactions betweenjob stressors and social support: Some counterintuitiveresults. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 522–526.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Bane, C., Glaser, R., & Malarkey, W. B.2003. Love, marriage, and divorce: Newlyweds’ stresshormones foreshadow relationship changes. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 71: 176–188.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Garner, W., Speicher, C. E., Penn, G., &Glaser, R. 1984. Psychosocial modifiers of immunocom-petence in medical students. Psychosomatic Medicine,46: 7–14.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Glaser, L. 1988. Methodological issuesin behavioral immunology research with humans. Brain,Behavior and Immunity, 2: 67–68.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Glaser, L. 1995. Measurement of im-mune response. In S. Cohen, R. C. Kessler, & L. U. Gor-don (Eds.), Measuring stress: A guide for health andsocial scientists: 215–229. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., McGuire, L., Robles, T. F., & Glaser, R.2002. Psychoneuroimmunology: Psychological influ-ences on immune function and health. Journal of Con-sulting and Clinical Psychology, 70: 537–547.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. 2001. Marriage andhealth: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127: 472–503.
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr,E. 2005. Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435:673–676.
Landsbergis, P. A., Schnall, P. L., Warren, K., Pickering, T. G.,& Schwartz, J. E. 1994. Association between ambulatoryblood pressure and alternative formulations of jobstrain. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment andHealth, 20: 349–363.
Lercher, P., Hortnagel, J., & Kofler, W. W. 1993. Work noiseannoyance and blood pressure: Combined effects withstressful working conditions. International Archives ofOccupational and Environmental Health, 65: 23–28.
Levy, S. M., Herberman, R. B., Whiteside, T., Sanzo, K., Lee, J.,& Kirkwood, J. 1990. Perceived social support and tumorestrogen/progesterone receptor status as predictors of
natural killer cell activity in breast cancer patients. Psy-chosomatic Medicine, 52: 73–85.
Loehr, J., & Schwartz, T. 2003. Power of full engagement:Managing energy, not time, is the key to high perfor-mance and personal renewal. New York: Free Press Pa-perbacks.
Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. 2004. The role of positivity andconnectivity in the performance of business teams: Anonlinear dynamics model. American Behavioral Scien-tist, 47: 740–765.
Louis, M. 1980. Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomersexperience in entering unfamiliar organizational set-tings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 226–251.
Lovallo, W. R., & Thomas, T. L. 2000. Stress hormones inpsychophysiological research: Emotional, behavioraland cognitive implications. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassi-nary, & G. B. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysi-ology (2nd ed.): 342–367. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.
Marucha, P. T., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Favagehi, M. 1998.Mucosal wound healing is impaired by examinationstress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 60: 362–365.
McEwen, B. S. 1998. Protective and damaging effects of stressmediators. New England Journal of Medicine, 338: 171–179.
Miller, J. B. 1988. Connections, disconnections, and violations.Stone Center Working Paper Series, Work in ProgressNo. 33, Wellesley, MA.
Miller, J. B., & Stiver, I. P. 1997. The healing connection: Howwomen form relationships in therapy and in life. Boston:Beacon Press.
National Research Council. 1999. The changing nature ofwork: Implications for occupational analysis. Washing-ton, DC: National Academy Press.
Nes, L. S., Segerstrom, S. C., & Sephton, S. E. 2005. Engage-ment and arousal: Optimism’s effects during a briefstressor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31:111–120.
Newton, T. 2003. Truly embodied sociology: Marrying thesocial and the biological? Sociological Review, 51: 550–561.
Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in practice: Enacting a col-lective capability in distributed organizing. Organiza-tion Science, 13: 249–273.
Orth-Gomer, K., & Unden, A.-L. 1987. The measurement ofsocial support in population surveys. Social ScienceMedicine, 24: 83–94.
Palatini, P., Penzo, M., Racioppa, A., Zugno, E., Guzzardi, G.,Anaclerio, M., & Pessina, A. C. 1992. Clinical relevanceof nighttime blood pressure and of daytime blood pres-sure variability. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152: 1855–1860.
Patrick, D. L., & Begner, M. 1990. Measurement of healthstatus in the 1990s. Annual Review of Public Health, 11:165–183.
Pearce, C., & Conger, J. (Eds.). 2003. Shared leadership: Re-framing the hows and whys of leadership. London: Sage.
160 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review
Pearson, C., Anderrson, L., & Wegner, J. W. 2001. When work-ers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility.Human Relations, 54: 1387–1419.
Pennebaker, J. W. 1983. Physical symptoms and sensations:Psychological causes and correlates. In J. Cacioppo &R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: 543–564. NewYork: Guilford Press.
Perlow, L. A., Gittell, J. H., & Katz, N. 2004. Contextualizingpatterns of work group interaction: Toward a nestedtheory of structuration. Organization Science, 15: 520–536.
Platt, M. L., & Glimcher, P. W. 1999. Neural correlates ofdecision variables in the parietal cortex. Nature, 400:233–238.
Podolny, J., Khurana, R., & Hill-Popper, M. 2005. Revisiting themeaning of leadership. Research in Organizational Be-havior, 26: 1–36.
Porges, S. W. 1998. Love: An emergent property of the mam-malian autonomic nervous system. Psychoneuroendo-crinology, 23: 837–861.
Rau, R., Georgiades, A., Fredrikson, M., Lemne, C., & deFaire,U. 2001. Psychosocial work characteristics and per-ceived control in relation to cardiovascular rewind atnight. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6:171–181.
Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. 2002. Toward a positive psychologyof relationships. In C. L. M. Keyes, J. Haidt, & M. E. P.Seligman (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology andthe life well-lived: 129–160. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.
Rimann, M., & Udris, I. 1997. Subjektive arbeitsanalyse: DerFragebogen SALSA. In O. Ulizh & O. Strohm (Eds.), Un-ternehmen arbeitspsychologisch bewerten. Zurich: udfHochschulverlag.
Rollag, K., Parise, S., & Cross, R. 2005. A relational view ofrapid on-boarding: Getting newcomers connected andproductive quickly. Sloan Management Review, 46(2):35–41.
Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dynamicsof engagement in work and family roles. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 46: 655–684.
Rousseau, D. M., & Ling, K. 2007. Commentary: Following theresources in positive organizational relationships. InJ. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positiverelations at work: Building a theoretical and researchfoundation: 373–384. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-sociates.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. 2000. Interpersonal flourishing: Apositive human health agenda for the new millennium.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4: 30–44.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., & Caruso, D., 2002. The positivepsychology of emotional intelligence. In C. R. Snyder &S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology: 159–171. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schaubroeck, J., & Ganster, D. 1993. Chronic demands andresponsivity to challenge. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 78: 73–85.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. 2004. Job demands, jobresources, and their relationship with burnout and en-gagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 25: 293–315.
Schein, E. H. 2004. Organizational culture and leadership.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schnorpfeil, P., Noll, A., Schulze, R., Ehlert, V., Frey, K., &Fischer, J. 2003. Allostatic load and work conditions.Social Science and Medicine, 57: 647–656.
Seeman, T. 2001. How do others get under our skin?: Socialrelationships and health. In C. D. Ryff & B. Singer (Eds.),Emotion, social relationships and health: 189–210. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Seeman, T., & McEwen, B. S. 1996. Impact of social environ-ment characteristics on neuroendocrine regulation. Psy-chosomatic Medicine, 58: 459–471.
Segerstrom, S. C., & Miller, G. E. 2004. Psychological stressand the human immune system: A meta-analytic studyof 30 years of inquiry. Psychological Bulletin, 130: 601–630.
Semmer, N. K., Grebner, S., & Elfering, A. 2004. Beyond self-report: Using observational, physiological, and situa-tion-based measures in research on occupational stress.In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Emotional andphysiological processes and positive intervention strat-egies: Research in occupational stress and well-being,vol. 3: 205–263. Boston: JAI Press.
Shirtcliff, E. A., Granger, D. A., Booth, A., & Johnson, D. 2005.A latent-state trait model of salivary cortisol and atypi-cal social behavior in normally developing youth. De-velopment and Psychopathology, 17: 167–184.
Sluiter, J. K., Van der Beek, A. J., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W.1999. The influence of work characteristics on the needfor recovery and experienced health: A study on coachdrivers. Ergonomics, 42: 573–583.
Snowdon, C. T., & Ziegler, T. E. 2000. Reproductive hormones.In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. B. Berntson (Eds.),Handbook of psychophysiology (2nd ed.): 368–396. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sonnentag, S. 2001. Work, recovery activities, and individualwell-being: A diary study. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 6: 196–210.
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. 2006. Endocrinological processesassociated with job stress: Catecholamine and cortisolresponses to acute and chronic stressors. Employeehealth, coping and methodologies. Research in Occupa-tional Stress and Well Being, 5: 1–60.
Sonnentag, S., & Natter, E. 2004. Flight attendants’ dailyrecovery from work: Is there no place like home? Inter-national Journal of Stress Management, 11: 366–391.
Staessen, J. A., Asmar, R., DeBuyzere, M., Yutaka, I., Parati,G., Shimada, K., Stergiou, G., Redon, J., & Verdecchia, P.2001. Task Force II: Blood pressure measurement andcardiovascular outcomes. Blood Pressure Monitoring, 6:355–370.
Steptoe, A. 2000. Stress, social support and cardiovascularactivity over the working day. International Journal ofPsychophysiology, 37: 299–308.
2008 161Heaphy and Dutton
Stern, R. M., Ray, W. J., & Quigley, K. S. 2001. Psychophysio-logical recording (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Stockhorst, U., & Pietrowsky, R. 2004. Olfactory perception,communication, and the nose-to-brain pathway. Physi-ology and Behavior, 83: 3–11.
Stone, A. A., Cox, D. S., Vladimarsdottir, H., & Neale, J. M.1987. Secretory IgA as a measure of immunocompetence.Journal of Human Stress, 13: 136–140.
Taylor, S. E. 2002. The tending instinct: How nurturing isessential for who we are and how we live. New York:Time Books.
Tepper, B. J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision.Academy of Management Journal, 43: 178–190.
Theorell, T., Orth-Gomer, K., & Eneroth, P. 1990. Slow-reacting immunoglobin in relation to social support andchanges in job strain: A preliminary note. Psychoso-matic Medicine, 52: 511–516.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. 1995. Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict andstrain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 80: 6–15.
Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., & Inversin, L. 2004. Work relatedand “private” social interactions at work. Social Indica-tors Research, 67: 145–182.
Uchino, B. 2004. Social support and physical health: Under-standing the consequences of relationships. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.
Uchino, B., Cacioppo, J., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. 1996. The rela-tionship between social support and physiological pro-cesses: A review with emphasis on underlying mecha-nisms and implications for health. PsychologicalBulletin, 199: 488–531.
Uchino, B. N., Holt-Lunstad, J., Uno, D., & Flinders, J. B. 2001.Heterogeneity in the social networks of young and older
adults: Prediction of mental health and cardiovascularreactivity during acute stress. Journal of BehavioralMedicine, 24: 361–382.
Unden, A.-L., Orth-Gomer, K., & Elofsson, S. 1991. Cardiovas-cular effects of social support in the work place: Twenty-four-hour ECG monitoring of men and women. Psycho-somatic Medicine, 53: 50–60.
Uvnas-Moberg, K. 1998. Oxytocin may mediate the benefitsof positive social interaction and emotions. Psychoneu-roendocrinology, 23: 819–835.
Wager, N., Feldman, G., & Hussey, T. 2003. The effect onambulatory blood pressure of working under favourablyand unfavourably perceived supervisors. Occupationaland Environmental Medicine, 60: 468–474.
Waldron, V. R. 2000. Relational experiences and emotions atwork. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations: 64–82. London: Sage.
White, R. E., Thornhill, S., & Hampson, E. 2006. Entrepreneursand evolutionary biology: The relationship between tes-tosterone and new venture creation. Organizational Be-havior and Human Decision Processes, 100: 21–34.
Winnubst, J. A. M., Marcelissen, F. H. G., & Kleber, R. J. 1982.Effects of social support in the stressor-strain relation-ship: A Dutch sample. Social Science and Medicine, 16:475–482.
Wondolleck, J., & Yaffee, S. L. 2000. Making collaborationwork: Lessons for innovation in natural resource man-agement. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Wright, T. A., & Diamond, W. J. 2006. Getting the pulse of youremployees: The use of cardiovascular research in betterunderstanding behavior in organizations. Journal of Or-ganizational Behavior, 27: 395–401.
Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R., & Matzner, W. T. 2004. The neurobiol-ogy of trust. Annals of the New York Academy of Sci-ences, 358: 1737–1748.
Emily D. Heaphy ([email protected]) is an assistant professor at McGill Uni-versity, Desautels Faculty of Management. She received her Ph.D. in organizationalbehavior from the University of Michigan. Her research focuses on work relationshipsas a means of understanding the embodiment of work, agency, workplace conflict,and professional image.
Jane E. Dutton ([email protected]) is the Robert L. Kahn Distinguished UniversityProfessor of Business Administration and Psychology at the University of Michigan.She received her Ph.D. from Northwestern University. Her research focuses on thrivingand resilience at work, with a particular focus on high-quality relationships, theconstruction and impacts of positive identities, compassion at work, and job crafting.
162 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review
