When Goal Sharing Produces Support That Is Not Caring

Kappes, Heather Barry; Shrout, Patrick E.

doi:10.1177/0146167211399926

Cited by 25 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, these two alternative explanations do not appear to account for the findings that support receipt comes with a cost, although they highlight the importance of constructing appropriate statistical models when testing hypotheses with nonexperimental, longitudinal data. The results from the simulation studies are complemented by experimental laboratory studies where participants are randomly assigned to different support conditions (Bolger & Amarel, 2006; Kappes & Shrout, ).…”

Section: How Does Receiving Support Incur Costs?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Costs of Support Transactions in Daily Life

McClure

Craw

et al. 2013

Journal of Personality

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The benefits of close relationships for mental and physical health are well documented. One of the mechanisms presumed to underlie these effects is social support, whereby close others provide practical and emotional assistance in times of need. Although there is no doubt that generalized perceptions of support availability are beneficial, research examining actual instances of support receipt has found unexpectedly mixed results. Receiving support sometimes has positive effects, but null or even negative effects are common. In this article, we review our multimethod program of research that seeks to understand and explain the costs of receiving social support. We focus on reductions in the recipient's sense of relationship equity and self-efficacy as mechanisms of this effect and examine a number of other moderating factors. Although we have found that receiving support incurs costs on average, there is considerable variability yet to be explained. Using diary data from 312 persons preparing to take a challenging exam, we examined the potential of individual differences in neuroticism, agreeableness, and attachment insecurity to explain variability in experienced support costs. We close with new questions about why received support may be beneficial or benign in some situations while being especially toxic in others.

show abstract

Section: How Does Receiving Support Incur Costs?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Costs of Support Transactions in Daily Life

McClure

Craw

et al. 2013

Journal of Personality

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One approach that clarifies when support is likely to be helpful and why it is sometimes detrimental is the concept of invisible support (Bolger & Amarel, 2007;Bolger, Kessler, & Zuckerman, 2000;Howland & Simpson, 2010). Individuals prefer to not receive support when they lack confidence in their ability to achieve a particular goal because receiving support may challenge their self-efficacy (Kappes & Shrout, 2011). Receiving support may also threaten the sense of equity or balance between partners within relationships (Gleason, Iida, Bolger, & Shrout, 2003).…”

Section: Types Of Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attachment orientations and reactivity to humor in a social support context

Howland

Simpson

2013

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this behavioral observation study, we tested how individuals' use of affiliative and aggressive humor (observer rated) impacted their romantic partners' mood in a social support context. We also examined whether the attachment orientations of the humorreceiving partners moderated the humor effects. As predicted, support providers' use of affiliative humor predicted pre-to post-discussion decreases in support recipients' negative mood. Providers' use of aggressive humor predicted increases in recipients' negative mood. The deleterious effects of more aggressive humor were exacerbated in recipients who were more anxiously attached. Providers who used more affiliative humor were also more empathically accurate, and providers involved with more avoidantly attached partners and who used more aggressive humor were less judgmental and more validating of their avoidant partner's behavior.

show abstract

“…Sometimes one may give too much, or give insensitively. Kappes and Shrout (2011) found that excessive unsolicited advice (rather than waiting to be asked for help by the speaker) produces decreases in task performance and relational quality. Likewise, Koestner et al, (2012) found that support from a listener that prioritizes the speaker's autonomy predicts both the speaker's goal progress and reported relational quality, while overly directive support predicts goal progress but not relational quality.…”

Section: Givingmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Integrative Contextual Behavioral Science Model of Intimate Relations

J¹,

Am²,

Manbeck³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intimate relationships matter to health and happiness, and the field of relationship science is vast. However, the scope of the field and the abundance of precise micro-theories has presented obstacles to the development of integrative theories with contextual-behavioral science foundations that are oriented towards application of findings in domains of public health significance. Derived from the well-validated Interpersonal Process Model, which described intimacy as a dyadic exchange in which Person A engages in a vulnerable self-disclosure, Person B enacts a response, and Person A perceives the response as responsive, we present an integrative, analytic-abstractive, contextual-behavioral science model of intimate relations. The model describes the intimacy process as a set of functional relations between the behavior of Person A and a response of Person B, languaged as middle-level terms to facilitate cross-disciplinary applications. Three primary relations of the model are non-verbal emotional expression (Person A) and safety (Person B), verbal self-disclosure (Person A) and validation (Person B), and asking (Person A) and giving (Person B). The model also emphasizes the importance of self- and other-awareness and expressions of closeness as additional terms. Future research directions and potential applications are discussed.

show abstract

When Goal Sharing Produces Support That Is Not Caring

Cited by 25 publications

References 36 publications

Understanding the Costs of Support Transactions in Daily Life

Understanding the Costs of Support Transactions in Daily Life

Attachment orientations and reactivity to humor in a social support context

An Integrative Contextual Behavioral Science Model of Intimate Relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About