Social Support in Couples: Visible versus Invisible Support Carolyn E. Cutrona Professor and Chair Department of Psychology Iowa State University Ames, Iowa U.S.A.

GoalS To provide an overview of one new line of research on social support in couples To apply insights from this research to work with couples and families

overview Definition of social support Issue: Social support is not always helpful Series of “daily diary” studies of stressed couples Experimental study Conclusions from the research Applications to practice

Definition of Social Support Assistance from others in times of stress to solve problems and diminish the adverse emotions engendered by problematic situations.

The Issue Although people’s perceptions that they have adequate social support are associated with good mental and physical health outcomes….

The Issue There is little empirical evidence that actually receiving social support has any impact on well-being!

The Issue Many questionnaire studies that ask people to report on the type and frequency of social support they have received in the past month find that receiving more support is associated with higher levels of depression!

New Research Niall Bolger and colleagues at New York University and Columbia University have conducted a series of intensive studies to understand the dynamics of giving and receiving social support in married and cohabiting couples.

New Research Bolger, Zuckerman, and Kessler, 2000 Purpose To determine whether receiving social support from one’s spouse helps relieve distress in the context of stress

New Research Bolger, Zuckerman, and Kessler, 2000 Participants 68 couples in which one partner was a recent graduate of law school who was preparing for the New York State Bar Exam 66% of the examinees were male Mean age of both partners was 29 years 66% married (average of 3 years)

New Research Bolger, Zuckerman, and Kessler, 2000 Procedure Both partners asked to complete a “daily diary” (brief questionnaire) for 30 days leading up to the bar exam Daily information obtained: Whether the individual received emotional support from his or her partner that day Whether the individual provided emotional support to his or her partner that day Depression Anxiety

New Research Bolger, Zuckerman, and Kessler, 2000 Emotional support questions on daily diary: “In the past 24 hours, did you listen to and comfort your partner?” Yes No “In the past 24 hours, did your partner listen to and comfort you?” Yes No

New Research Bolger, Zuckerman, and Kessler, 2000 Results Examinees who reported that they received social support from their partner on a given day felt MORE distressed the next day. VISIBLE SUPPORT Examinees whose partner reported providing him or her support on a given day felt LESS distressed the next day. INVISIBLE SUPPORT

New Research Bolger, Zuckerman, and Kessler, 2000 Results Examinees only benefitted from social support that they were not aware they had received!

New Research Bolger, Zuckerman, and Kessler, 2000 Possible explanations for failure of “visible support” Receipt of aid may harm self esteem, may challenge the person’s competence Increases distress by highlighting that the person’s distress and incompetence are visible to others Focuses the person’s attention on his or her distress, fostering rumination and further negative cognitions

New Research Bolger, Zuckerman, and Kessler, 2000 Possible explanations for success of “invisible support” Support may occur outside of recipient’s awareness (Spouse unobtrusively takes over recipient’s household responsibilities) Support may be provided with such skill that it is not recognized as support. May be indirect May not draw attention to the recipient’s neediness

Experimental study Bolger & Amarel, 2007, Study 1 Purpose To replicate findings from daily diary study under controlled conditions To determine whether “practical support” would show the same pattern of results as “emotional support”

Experimental study Bolger & Amarel, 2007, Study 1 Participants 35 female undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology class who received course credit for participation

Experimental study Bolger & Amarel, 2007, Study 1 Procedure Recruited for a study of “grading bias” Told they would be giving a speech that would be evaluated by a graduate student who had a large or a small amount of information about their prior grades Given 5 minutes to practice their speech with another “student” (a confederate) After practice, but before performance, the subject is given either visible or invisible support.

Experimental study Bolger & Amarel, 2007, Study 1 Social support manipulation: Experimenter re-enters the room and says to the confederate: “Do you have any questions for me before we move on?”

Experimental study Condition Confederate reply Visible support “Not really. But I would like to say something to (subject) if that’s all right. You know, to give a good talk it’s probably most important to summarize what you’re going to say at the beginning, and also to make a strong conclusion at the end.” Invisible support “Yes, I’ve got a question about what we’re supposed to be doing. I thought that for this kind of thing, it’s probably most important to summarize what you’re going to say at the beginning, and also to make a strong conclusion at the end?”

Experimental study Bolger & Amarel, 2007, Study 1 Results Replicated daily diary findings Visible practical support caused more distress than invisible practical support

Experimental support Bolger & Amarel, 2007, Study 2 Purpose To replicate emotional support findings from daily diary study under controlled conditions To compare visible and invisible support to a no support condition.

Experimental study Condition Confederate reply Visible support “Not really. But I would like to say something to (subject) if that’s all right. Look, you’ve got nothing to worry about, you’ll do fine. I’d understand if you were nervous, but I really think it’s going to be okay.” Invisible support “Yes, can you tell me more about what I’m doing? I mean, (subject) is going to do fine, she’s got nothing to worry about, but I still don’t know what I’m supposed to do?” No support “Not really. Unless you’re going to tell me more about what I’m supposed to do?”

Experimental support Bolger & Amarel, 2007, Study 2 Results Visible support caused greatest increase in distress – worse than no support Invisible support caused smallest increase in distress – better than no support

Experimental support Bolger & Amarel, 2007, Study 3 Purpose To determine whether “visibility” or implied inefficacy determines the impact of support.

Experimental study Condition Confederate reply Visible support- Implied inefficacy “Well, I can tell that you could use some help. I think it’s best to summarize what you’re going to say at the beginning of a speech and to end with a definite conclusion.” Visible support – No implied inefficacy “Well, I don’t think that you need any help. But, if I had to say something, I’ve heard that it’s best to summarize what you’re going to say at the beginning of a speech…” Invisible support – Provider implied inefficacy “Well, I don’t think she needs any help, but I could use some help. Should I structure my speech in a certain way? Like to summarize what I’m going to say…..” Invisible support – No provider inefficacy “Well, I don’t think she needs any help and I don’t either. I’ll just summarize what I’m going to say..” No support “No, not really.”

Experimental support Bolger & Amarel, 2007, Study 3 Results Implied inefficacy of the recipient is what causes the negative effects of social support, not visibility per se. Implied inefficacy of the provider is part of what causes the positive effects of social support! Recipient feels more efficacious than the provider : “downward comparison.”

equity and reciprocity in social support

Equity and reciprocity in social support Gleason, Bolger, & Shrout, (2003) Purpose To determine the effects of mutual vs. unilateral social support

Equity and reciprocity in social support Gleason, Bolger, & Shrout, (2003) Purpose To determine the effects of mutual vs. unilateral social support

Equity and reciprocity in social support Gleason, Bolger, & Shrout, (2003) Participants and procedure 218 couples in which one partner was a recent graduate of law school who was preparing for their State Bar Exam Same daily diary procedure for 31 days leading up to the Bar Exam as described previously

Equity and reciprocity in social support Gleason, Iida, Shrout & Bolger (2008) Results Highest level of distress on days when the individual only reported receiving social support Lowest level of distress on days when the individual reported both receiving and giving social support People do not mind receiving social support if it is a mutual exchange

Receiving support as a mixed blessing

Receiving support as a mixed blessing Relationship Enhancement Model of Social Support (Cutrona, et al., 2005) proposes that social support communicates responsiveness to another person’s needs and is a primary pathway to closeness and intimacy. How can this be reconciled with the adverse effects of received support?

Receiving support as a mixed blessing Gleason, Iida, Shrout, & Bolger, 2008 Purpose: To examine the impact of received support on feelings of closeness to partner To determine whether people differ on their reactions to received support.

Receiving support as a mixed blessing Gleason, Iida, Shrout, & Bolger, 2008 Participants and procedure 218 couples in which one partner was a recent graduate of law school who was preparing for their State Bar Exam Same daily diary procedure for 31 days leading up to the Bar Exam as described previously PLUS added daily assessments of feelings of closeness to spouse/partner: “Please rate how emotionally close you felt to your partner in the past 24 hours.”

Receiving support as a mixed blessing Gleason, Iida, Shrout, & Bolger, 2008 Results Received (visible) support increased emotional closeness to partner in most people Received (visible) support also increased negative mood in most people But only on days when support was not reciprocal For some people, received (visible) support was purely beneficial (increased closeness and decreased negative mood) For some people, received (visible) support was purely detrimental (decreased closeness and increased negative mood)

conclusions Social support can be harmful when it implies incompetence and draws attention to the stressed person’s distress. Social support can be provided in ways that do not imply incompetence, do not draw attention to “helper” and “help recipient” roles. Social support is most beneficial when it is a reciprocal process: both people give and receive. Social support can build closeness at the same time as it erodes self-esteem.

Implications for practice?

Thank you very much!

references Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible support and adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 953-961. Bolger, N., & Amarel, D. (2007). Effects of support visibility on adjustment to stress: Experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 458-475. Gleason, M.E.J., Iida, M., Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2008). Receiving support as a mixed blessing: Evidence for dual effects of support on psychological outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 824-838.

references Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D. W., & Gardner, K. A. (2005). The relationship enhancement model of social support. In T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 73-95). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.