“We almost had the whole block's phone number on the wall”: A mixed methods investigation of informal helping in a predominantly rural sample

Abstract

Community psychologists have noted the limitations of professional models of mental health treatment, demonstrating that people are more likely to use informal familial or community support during adversity. However, relatively little is known about the forms and functions of informal help seeking and provision. Semistructured interviews (N = 170), in which a sample of predominantly rural‐dwelling adolescents and adults described significant life experiences, were coded for instances of receiving help. Codes thematically categorized the type of adversity, role of the helper, and nature of the help received. Most participants (67.64%) reported the presence of at least one informal helper; only 8.82% of participants discussed receiving professional help. Chi‐square analyses suggested that the nature of the help received varied by the types of helper and adversity being experienced and that different helpers were more likely to aid with particular adversities. The presence of a nonfamilial, nonprofessional helper was associated with higher posttraumatic growth, generativity, and perceived social support.

New measures to assess the social ecology of youth: A mixed‐methods study

“…The coach who mentioned that he deals not only with issues related to football or even to schoolwork, but also helps them handle all kinds of family issues, accidents, and other problems, captured something important about what helps youth. In hindsight, adults reflecting on their childhood are more likely to mention the influence of "natural helpers" who will assist them in any issue, than they are to note the importance of a particular prevention program or course of therapy, or even other adults with more limited roles in their lives (Hagler, Hamby, Banyard, & Grych, 2018). Indeed, through that lens, it is somewhat surprising that past work on the social ecology has not done more to incorporate assessment of the quality of salient relationships, whether they be adult mentors, teammates, or others, and their impact on youth.…”

Race and gender: Perception and reception of support from family and friends.

“…Received support refers to the quantity of received supportive behaviors (Haber et al, 2007), whereas perceived support refers to perception of available quality support (Sarason et al, 1990). Although Hagler et al (2019) noted an overlap between perceived and received support, prior research suggested mixed support for the overlap (Haber et al, 2007). A meta-analysis found that perceived and received social support have a moderate correlation (r = .35), yet Haber et al (2007) suggested that several other factors (e.g., culture, gender) may impact the relationship between perceived and received support.…”

“…Networks of friends, family, romantic partners, and others make up the pool of possible social support. Adult participants from small communities reported receiving social support from different individuals in their network (e.g., family member, friend) based on the current stressor as well as different types of support for differing types of adversity (Hagler et al, 2019). Family members, peers, and romantic partners were more likely to provide emotional support than informational or instrumental support.…”

“…Family members, peers, and romantic partners were more likely to provide emotional support than informational or instrumental support. Perceiving available nonfamilial support was associated with higher overall well-being for adolescents and adults as compared to perceiving lack of support (Hagler et al, 2019). Support outside the family may be perceived as extra supportive since family members may be coping with similar stressors to the individual, thus making them less able to provide quality support.…”

“…Keywords: social support, gender, race, emerging adulthood, parent-child Social support plays an important role in protecting against mental health problems (Hagler et al, 2019;Wadsworth et al, 2005), promoting selfesteem (Causey et al, 2015), and improving self-efficacy (Budescu & Silverman, 2016). Social support breaks down into separate domains including emotional (e.g., love or empathy), instrumental (e.g., money, tangible aid, services), and informational (e.g., advice, suggestions, or information; Jacobson, 1986).…”