We propose a comprehensive explanation for gender differences in responses to supportive communication grounded in a dual-process theory of communication outcomes. Two studies confirmed consistent gender differences in responses by US college students to supportive communication and assessed the mediating effects of an ability factor (cognitive complexity) and two motivational factors (expressive and instrumental orientations) on situation elaboration and message evaluation. Study 1 focused on everyday comforting contexts (N=318), whereas Study 2 focused on bereavement (N=103). Both studies found that cognitive complexity mediated gender differences in situation elaboration and further found that cognitive complexity and expressive orientation collectively mediated gender differences in evaluative responses to supportive messages. Theoretical and pragmatic implications of the results are discussed.

Five studies examined a self-presentation explanation for comparative optimism. Experiments 1 and 2 laid the foundation for such an account by first showing that people associate a favorable identity-image with the conveyance of an optimistic outlook and that people recognize that an individual may be perceived in a negative light if his or her optimistic estimates are disconfirmed, hence raising the issue of potential accountability demands. Following the issue of accountability, the results across Experiments 3, 4, and 5 provided consistent evidence that people employ comparative optimism in their self-presentation efforts but only if the circumstances involve little risk of being held potentially accountable. Specifically, when self-presentational situations involved greater accountability demands, comparative optimism decreased (less optimistic), whereas, when these situations involved reduced accountability demands, comparative optimism increased (more optimistic). In short, the current experiments present compelling evidence demonstrating that comparative optimism may reflect an individual's goal to self-present a favorable identity-image, with the provision that such efforts are constrained by accountability pressures.

We report tests of hypotheses derived from a theory of supportive communication outcomes that maintains the effects of supportive messages are moderated by factors influencing the motivation and ability to process these messages. Participants in two studies completed a measure of cognitive complexity, which provided an assessment of processing ability, and reported their degree of upset with a problem situation, which was hypothesized to impact both motivation and ability; they subsequently evaluated the helpfulness of comforting messages that varied in person centeredness. Consistent with predictions, an index of message processing depth-the degree to which participants discriminated between the helpfulness of better and worse supportive messages-was associated with the factors additively in both studies and interactively in one study.

No abstract

To test a recently proposed dual-process theory of supportive communication outcomes, participants (N = 328) assumed they had experienced a mildly or moderately problematic situation. They then evaluated supportive messages varying in person centeredness, purportedly provided by either an acquaintance or a friend. Participants' perceived support availability (PSA) was also assessed. As predicted, the recipient factor (PSA) individually and in conjunction with the contextual factor (problem severity) moderated the effect of the message factor (message person centeredness) on helpfulness evaluations. Modest support was observed for the hypothesis that the source factor (friend vs. acquaintance) influences evaluations when messages are processed less extensively. Implications for the dual-process theory of supportive communication outcomes are discussed.