Examining the Effect of Message Style in Esteem Support Interactions: A Laboratory Investigation*

Abstract

The cognitive–emotional theory of esteem support messages predicts that message style will affect the outcomes of esteem support interactions. However, little research has focused on the effects of message style; that is, how esteem support messages are delivered. The present experiment addresses this lacuna by manipulating message style in a laboratory study examining face-to-face esteem support interactions. Confederates were trained to provide emotion-focused esteem support to naïve participants (N = 173) in four styles along the assertive–inductive dimension, in addition to a listening-only control condition. We then assessed the effect of the interaction on participants’ state self-esteem. Results indicated that emotion-focused esteem support improved state self-esteem more than listening support; however, there was no significant effect of message style. Post-interaction state self-esteem improvement was positively associated with the quantity of emotion-focused esteem support content provided during the interaction.

Communicating about Sex Is Important in Generating Positive Perceptions about One’s Sexual and Romantic Life. The Last Decade Has Provided Insight into the Theoretical Applications on Sex Communication Research. While the Focus on Extant Research Focuses

“…Specifically, these studies directly tied a theory to guide their hypotheses and research questions. The theories that were referenced the most were (16.7%) the multiple goals theory (Cornaccione & Smith, 2017;Li et al, 2018;McManus & Lucas, 2018;Mongeau et al, 2004), (8.3%) cognitive-emotional theory of esteem-supportive messages (Holmstrom et al, 2021;Shebib et al, 2020), (8.3%) the theory of motivated information management (Afifi & Weiner, 2006;McManus, 2020), and (8.3%) dual-process theory of supportive communication (Burleson et al, 2011;Holmstrom et al, 2015).…”

“…The majority (29.2%) of the studies within this review examined social support (Brisini et al, 2022;Burleson et al, 2011;Cornaccione & Smith, 2017;High and Solomon, 2016;Holmstrom et al, 2015;Holmstrom et al, 2021;Shebib et al, 2020), sex/sexual behaviors (e.g., condom use) (Francis et al, 2021), sexual risk communication (Albrittion et al, 2021;Curran et al, 2016;Horan et al, 2018), safer sex communication (Mou et al, 2020), Information management (Kuang & Kettings, 2011;McManus, 2018), and language use/(un) scripted sex communication (Li et al, 2018). Additional studies focused on conceptualizations of sex and sexual health (Rubinsky & Cooke-Jackson, 2018), community-level perceptions regarding HPV vaccination (Nan et al, 2019), and longitudinal effects on relationship talk (Knobloch & Theiss, 2011).…”

“…Theoretical frameworks such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM; Chaiken, 1980) both specify that individuals devote cognitive effort towards messages that are highly persuasive than less persuasive resources. When individuals perceive that they have the cognitive resources (e.g., ability and motivation) to process certain messages they will thoroughly evaluate the positive or negative outcomes of the message (High & Solomon, 2016;Holmstrom et al, 2021;Liu et al, 2021). Most studies in this review relied on self-reported surveys, which could lead to participant bias and overestimation of cognitive, behavioral, and communicative assessments.…”

“…As discussed earlier, we included studies that applied a theory to understand how individuals' sex and sexuality influence how they communicate about difficult topics. In instances where studies focused on relational dynamics in interpersonal settings, the outcomes of interest centered around support quality (Brisini et al, 2022), first date goals (Mongeau et al, 2004), durable effects of relational talk (Knobloch & Theiss, 2011), receiving supportive messages about a sex uncertainty (McManus, 2020), and esteem-supportive messages from close others (Holmstrom et al, 2021). On the other hand, most of the studies focused on a sexual behavioral outcome (e.g., Albritton et al, 2014;Horan et al, 2018;Kuang & Gettings, 2011).…”