Depth and Breadth Tactics in Support Seeking

Abstract

Past support-seeking research has examined how much support people seek (strategic level) or the way they seek it (tactical level). However, there are questions that can only be answered by looking at both levels simultaneously. In this article, we investigated how the overall amount of support sought can be decomposed into two component tactics: the number of supporters one seeks (breadth) and the amount one seeks from each supporter (depth). In a 2-week diary study of support seeking, it was found that gender and attachment differences in overall support seeking were driven by the breadth rather than the depth of seeking. It was also found that breadth was associated with increases in perceived support availability, whereas both breadth and depth were associated with increases in self-esteem.

Assessing Egocentered Social Networks in formr: A Tutorial

“…Third, you will need to specify how many people your participants will be allowed to list as their network. For a first orientation, you may want to consult previous studies that have employed egocentered networks (e.g., Armstrong & Kammrath, 2015;Aschbrenner et al, 2018;Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998;Borschel et al, 2019;Greischel, Noack, & Neyer, 2016Marquez et al, 2018;Wyngaerden et al, 2019;Zimmermann & Neyer, 2013) for typical as well as maximum network sizes. Another way to approach this is to pilot your method of assessing your network of interest (including your name generators) in a small sample of face-to-face interviews.…”

“…Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998;Borschel et al, 2019;Greischel, Noack, & Neyer, 2016Zimmermann & Neyer, 2013). Previous research employing egocentered social networks includes investigations into the role of social networks for physical and mental health (e.g., Aschbrenner et al, 2018) and the investigation of specific network types such as social support networks (e.g., Armstrong & Kammrath, 2015), networks in organizations (e.g., Burt, 1992), or networks of potential romantic partners (e.g., Gerlach et al, 2015). The breadth of questions previously tackled by employing egocentered social networks demonstrates the value of this tool for different fields of psychology and relationship science in particular.…”

Are you my attachment figure? A (currently) unanswerable question

“…In their studies of support seeking over time within personal networks, Kammrath and colleagues have collected unsynthesized, enacted data on the safe haven function (Armstrong & Kammrath, ; Kammrath et al, in press). In this paper, we will use data from Kammrath and colleagues' (in press) study to illustrate the challenges of using enacted data to identify attachment figures.…”

“…In their studies of support seeking over time within personal networks, Kammrath and colleagues have collected unsynthesized, enacted data on the safe haven function (Armstrong & Kammrath, 2015;Kammrath et al, in press).…”

Why goal pursuers prefer to seek support from close friends: The roles of concerns for accessibility

“…In general, goal pursuers can identify many potential supporters from their social network (e.g., Cheung, Gardner, & Anderson, 2014;Orehek, Forest, & Wingrove, 2018). However, they typically select and approach only a few supporters when in need (Armstrong & Kammrath, 2015). The decision, namely supporter selection, has important downstream implications on psychological well-being and social relationships (Armstrong & Kammrath, 2015;Cheung et al, 2014;Finkel, Hui, Carswell, & Larson, 2014).…”