Regulatory effectiveness of social support.

Abstract

Receiving social support can entail both costs and benefits for recipients. Thus, theories of effective support have proposed that support should address recipients' needs to be beneficial. This paper proposes the importance of support that addresses recipients' self-regulatory needs. We present a novel construct-regulatory effectiveness of support (RES)-which posits that support that addresses recipients' needs to understand their situation (truth) and to feel capable of managing their situation (control) will engender support benefits. We hypothesized that receiving support higher on RES would predict beneficial support outcomes. We further hypothesized that these effects would be especially pronounced for self-regulation relevant outcomes, such as better mood and increased motivation, which, in turn, can be important for successful self-regulation. We established the construct validity of RES and then investigated its effects in daily life and in laboratory support discussions. In 8 studies and a meta-analysis pooling across studies, results showed that RES predicted self-regulation relevant support outcomes, and these effects of RES were stronger than the effects of perceived responsiveness, a construct that is known to enhance interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, RES was linked to self-regulatory success: Participants who received support higher on RES were more motivated to perform well on a stressful speech, which subsequently predicted better speech performance. These findings enhance knowledge of effective social support by underscoring the importance of addressing recipients' self-regulatory needs in the support process.

Facilitating and motivating support: How support‐seekers can affect the support they receive in times of distress

“…Regarding understanding, Reis and Shaver’s (1988) seminal model of intimacy development emphasizes how understanding disclosers’ needs is critical for partner responsiveness (see also Reis, 2017; Reis et al., 2004)—a quality that makes support beneficial (Maisel & Gable, 2009; Zee et al., 2020). Similarly, “matching” models of social support (e.g., Cutrona & Russell, 1990; Horowitz et al., 2001; Rini & Dunkel‐Schetter, 2010) highlight the role of provider understanding in effective support provision: Recipients benefit most from support when it matches their stressor‐induced needs, support‐seeking goals (e.g., to solve a problem, be comforted), and/or preferences (e.g., Cavallo et al., 2016; Cutrona et al., 2007; Zee et al., 2018; Zee et al., 2020). Providers must understand seekers’ support needs, goals, and preferences to deliver corresponding support.…”

Social networks in the non-profit sector: Social support practices

“…Social support is often associated to positive health outcomes, one explanation for these health benefits is that social support shields individuals against life stress, the presence of social support reminders reduce both psychological and physiological responses to threat (Hornstein & Eisenberger, 2017 ). In times of difficulty, social support may be granted trough interpersonal relationships in the form of hands-on or emotional support (Zee et al, 2020 ).…”

“…Receiving social support may result on costs and benefits for recipients (Zee et al, 2020 ), when an individual assists another and such action results on tangible or emotional benefits, and the beneficial outcomes are well described and documented, under some conditions providing social support confers the same benefits as receiving them (Taylor, 2011 ). In such environment, one should consider that social support only occurs when the potential recipient knows that the provider (i.e., the one giving support) can deliver adequate support, and when the receiver of support is willing to agree on its disclosure (Trepte et al, 2018 ).…”

“…Zee et al ( 2018 ), advocates that one form of bypassing these negative effects is to provide support in an ‘invisible’ way whereby recipients do not interpret the supportive act. Although the importance to provide the correct type of support, there is always the possibility that recipients have particular needs that may be addressed within multiple types of support in distinct environments (Zee et al, 2020 ).…”

The Dyadic Health Influence Model

“…The DHIM indicates how relational behaviors and beliefs, along with health behaviors and beliefs, jointly affect interpersonal processes that may alter one partner's health behavior, as well as the reciprocal associations between these experiences, beliefs, and processes over time. Each of these three paths to health behavior change have been discussed and examined by prior scholars (e.g., Berli et al, 2018a;Fitzsimons et al, 2015;Hohl et al, 2016;Lewis et al, 2006; Lewis & Butterfield, 2007;Loving & Slatcher, 2013;Lüscher et al, 2019;Martire et al, 2010;Novak, 2019;Pietromonaco et al, 2013;Slatcher & Selcuk, 2017;Skoyen et al, 2013;Zee et al, 2020), but prior work has not highlighted or drawn out the novel intersections of these paths simultaneously.…”