Effects of Provider Identity and Locus of Supportive Conversation on Coping With an Identity-Threatening Stressor

Abstract

Guided by theory that posits outcomes of supportive interactions are shaped by source and message factors, this study examines two relevant features of interactions: the social identity of a support provider and locus of a supportive conversation. This study extends research on supportive communication by examining three possible identities of a provider (in-group, moderate out-group, out-group) alongside provider- or receiver-focused conversations. Participants ( N = 200) coping with an identity-threatening stressor related to their college major engaged in an interaction with a confederate who manipulated their identity and locus of the conversation. Immediately following the supportive conversation, participants reported higher cognitive reappraisal when interacting with in-group and moderate out-group providers compared with out-group providers. Analyses revealed a disordinal interaction on internalized stigma, suggesting that the effects of provider- and receiver-focused messages depend on a provider’s identity. Interaction effects also persisted 3 weeks later.

The Role of Social Support in Disarming the Effects of Racial Microaggressions

“…Scholarship on the mediators of effective social support messages has found that cognitive reappraisal and reattribution each mediate the effects of support message quality on recipients’ emotional improvement (Crowley & High, 2019; Jones & Wirtz, 2006) and state self-esteem (Holmstrom & Kim, 2015). Jones and Wirtz (2006) tested the appraisal-based comforting model proposed by Burleson and Goldsmith (1998) and found that highly person-centered messages encouraged support seekers to verbalize their thoughts and emotions, which facilitated a cognitive reappraisal of the stressful event and led to emotional improvement.…”

Information practices of administrators for controlling information in an online community of new mothers in rural America

“…However, the decisions of administrators in different circumstances are seldom revealed and discussed by past research. It is important to address this gap since administrators' information-related choices can (a) decide who would benefit from the information in online communities and when, (b) influence the degree of utility of online communities in benefitting members, (c) affect the support gaps in online communities (Crowley & High, 2020), or (d) influence the "churns" of members out of online communities (Wang et al, 2021).…”

“…Millions of users worldwide, especially vulnerable populations (i.e., people who are at a disadvantage, suffer from, or need help; Potnis & Gala, 2020), increasingly rely on online health communities for informational, emotional, and social support (Chuang & Yang, 2014; Erfani et al 2017; Introne et al, 2020; Pluye et al, 2019; Wang et al, 2015; Westbrook, 2015; Xu et al, 2018). If such users are subjected to misinformation, hate speech, or information overload, it can lead to support gaps and enhance their vulnerabilities (Chi et al, 2020; Crowley & High, 2020; Cutrona et al, 2007).…”

Predicting users' continued engagement in online health communities from the quantity and quality of received support

“…A related approach to understanding the efficacy of supportive interactions focuses on support gaps, or the discrepancy between the amount of different types of support people desire or seek and what they receive in a particular interaction (High & Crowley, 2018; High & Steuber, 2014). A discrepancy between the support people desire and receive determines whether a gap exists, and the size of that gap shapes the outcomes of an interaction (Crowley & High, 2020). Support gaps exist between users and the responses they receive from online support groups, and support gaps often correspond with negative outcomes (Crowley & High, 2020; High & Steuber, 2014).…”

“…A discrepancy between the support people desire and receive determines whether a gap exists, and the size of that gap shapes the outcomes of an interaction (Crowley & High, 2020). Support gaps exist between users and the responses they receive from online support groups, and support gaps often correspond with negative outcomes (Crowley & High, 2020; High & Steuber, 2014). For instance, empirical studies have found that mismatched social support can lead to poor physical and mental health conditions among those who need support (Reynolds & Perrin, 2004; Siewert, Antoniw, Kubiak, & Weber, 2011).…”