9/16: Social Support

The Intimacy Process Model

• Core idea: Communication of self-relevant feelings and information occurs within a dyad where A (the speaker) and B (the listener) have intertwined motives, needs, goals, fears, and interpretive filters.

  • A's side: motives, needs, goals, fears.

  • B's side: interpretive filter shaping how A's disclosure is read.

  • A discloses or expresses self-relevant feelings/information.

  • B responds with emotional and behavioral reactions.

  • A reacts to B's response (does it feel understood, validated, or cared for?).

• Key questions after B's response:

  • Does A feel understood?

  • Does A feel validated?

  • Does A feel cared for?

• Foundational sources: Reis & Patrick (1996); Reis & Shaver (1988).

• Visual flow (simplified):

  • A's motives/needs/goals/fears → B's interpretive filter → A's disclosure → B's emotional/behavioral response → A's reaction to B's response → perceived understanding/validation/care.

• Page reference: Page 3 of transcript.

Introversion/Extraversion and the Intimacy Process Model

• Prompt question posed: How might introversion vs. extraversion influence the dynamic?

• Consider how A's and B's motives, needs, goals, fears, and interpretive filters might be shaped by personality traits (introversion/extraversion) and how this affects disclosure and response.

• If needed, integrate with the basic model: personality can tilt A's willingness to disclose and B's interpretive bias, altering perceived care/understanding.

• Page reference: Page 4 of transcript.

FACS Example (Facial Action Coding System)

• Example provided to illustrate observable cues during social interaction:

  • Action codes present: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 20 (and 1C, 2C, 4B, 5D, 7B, 20B, 26B in extended labeling).

  • Mappings:

  • 1C: Inner brow raise

  • 2C: Outer brow raise

  • 4B: Brow lower

  • 5D: Upper lid raise

  • 7B: Lower lid tighten

  • 20B: Lip stretch

  • 26B: Jaw drop

• Purpose: to show how nonverbal cues accompany self-revelant disclosures and emotional expressions within the intimacy process.

• Source example: Page 6 of transcript.

Emotions, Vulnerability, and Relationships

• Expressing emotion is a vulnerable act with benefits and risks (Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006).

• Benefits:

  • Can strengthen relationships.

  • Opens the door to getting support (e.g., Graham et al., 2008).

• Risks:

  • Expressions can be ignored, exploited, or met with undesirable responses (Howes & Hokanson, 1979; Barasch et al., 2016).

• Takeaway: Emotional sharing is a mechanism for signaling needs/desires and inviting support, but responses vary in quality and can influence future disclosure.

• Source references: Murray et al. (2006); Graham et al. (2008); Howes & Hokanson (1979); Barasch et al. (2016).

• Page reference: Page 7.

Emotions as Signals of Care and Care-Seeking

• Central idea: Emotional expressions convey our needs/desires.

• Our willingness to express emotion is shaped by who we think cares for us.

• Implication: Perceived care from a partner modulates the likelihood and manner of emotional disclosure.

• Page reference: Page 8.

Communal vs. Exchange Norms (Clark & Mills)

• Communal norms (Clark & Mills, 1979; 1993):

  • Provide benefits in response to others’ needs and/or to demonstrate concern for the other’s well-being.

• Exchange norms (Clark & Mills, 1979; 1993):

  • Provide benefits with the expectation of receiving benefit in return (reciprocity).

• Important distinction: Norms are not the same as altruistic vs. selfish reasoning; they reflect motivational orientations in social exchange.

• Page references: Pages 9–10.

Emotional Disclosures and Perceived Responsiveness

• We express more emotion to partners we perceive as having greater communal strength toward us (Clark & Mills, 1979).

• We express more emotion to partners perceived as responsive (e.g., Ruan et al., 2020).

• Implication: Perceived partner responsiveness and communal orientation influence self-disclosure and emotional signaling.

• Page reference: Page 11.

What is Social Support?

• Core definition: Provision of aid/help for a need (illustration on Page 12).

• Types of support (definitions):

  • Emotional support: Affection, acceptance, reassurance.

  • Physical support: Affectionate touch (e.g., hugs, cuddling).

  • Advice support: Information and guidance.

  • Material support: Tangible assistance (money, goods, services).

• Page references: Pages 12–13.

Effects of Social Support on Well-Being

• All kinds of social support are linked to higher relationship satisfaction and greater personal well-being (Barry et al., 2009).

• Health and psychological benefits of social support: overview of importance (Overview and Page 16):

  • Lower risk of depression and anxiety when well-supported.

  • Cardiovascular health benefits (lower risk of cardiovascular disease, lower blood pressure).

  • Enhanced immune response to viruses.

  • Lower levels of stress hormones (catecholamines and cortisol).

  • Better adjustment to cancer.

  • Source: Uchino et al. (1999).

• Social support also functions as a signal of relationship health:

  • Happily married couples provide more support to each other than distressed couples (Verhofstadt et al., 2013).

  • Higher reciprocal support among newlyweds linked to lower divorce risk 10 years later (Sullivan et al., 2010).

• Page references: Pages 14, 16–17.

Perceived vs. Enacted Social Support

• Perceived support: judgments about the responsiveness or helpfulness of provided support.

• Enacted support: objective description of provided support.

• Lemay & Neal (2014): One of the week’s readings; mismatches between perception and enactment can occur.

• Important nuance: Attempts at support intended to be helpful may backfire; biased conclusions about partner’s supportiveness can arise.

• Page references: Pages 20.

Do Happy Couples “See” Helpful Partners?

• Concept: Instrumentality – providing aid to facilitate another person’s goals.

• Effects:

  • Bolsters closeness and relationship satisfaction.

  • Goal pursuit becomes less effortful.

• Current gaps: Limited knowledge about factors that influence perceptions of partner instrumentality (PPI).

• Empirical example: O’Brien & Forest (2024).

• Page references: Page 21.

Hypothetical Scenarios: Perceived Instrumentality

• Example 1 (Page 22):

  • A sunny Sunday; partner invites to run and helps plan social group exploration.

  • Breakfast and shopping for social groups; supportive gestures align with shared goals (meeting new people).

  • Subtle cues (wink about new running shoes) link care with upcoming birthday gift.

  • Source: O’Brien & Forest (2024).

• Example 2 (Page 23):

  • Similar setup with shopping instead of pancake—note the difference in partner’s response to support needs (to buy new shoes).

• Takeaway: Perceived instrumentality and responsive behavior shape relationship quality and future willingness to provide support.

• Page references: Pages 22–24.

How We Provide Support Matters

• Focus: The manner in which support is provided can influence its effectiveness and the recipient’s well-being.

• This theme connects to the broader idea that not only whether support is provided, but how it is given and perceived, affects relationship dynamics.

• Page reference: Page 25.

Invisible (Implicit) Support

• Definition: Support that is subtly provided and often goes unnoticed by the recipient.

• When useful: Particularly advantageous when visible support would be costly or create pressure for reciprocity or threaten self-esteem.

• Potential downside: Can affect self-efficacy or self-esteem if perceived as reliance on others.

• Key study: Bolger et al. (2000) – 68 couples involved in Bar exam preparation;

  • Daily reports of support received and anxiety/depression.

  • Daily reports of support provided by partners.

  • Findings: Depression and anxiety rose when received support was greater than provided; decreased when provided more than received.

• Page references: Pages 26–27.

What Ultimately Matters

• Central claim: What we think our partners do for us is crucial for relationship outcomes.

• A key emphasis on perception over objective support quantity.

• Page reference: Page 28.

Direct vs. Indirect Support Seeking

• Direct support seeking:

  • Overt, explicit communication about needs or preferred types of support.

• Indirect support seeking:

  • Subtle, passive, ambiguous cues that one needs support (e.g., sulking, whining).

• Tends to backfire: Indirect seeking is associated with lower relationship satisfaction months later (Don et al., 2013).

• Predictors of indirect seeking:

  • Low self-esteem (Don et al., 2019).

  • Sexual minority status (Williams et al., 2016).

• The way we seek support matters for the kind of support we get (Forest, Walsh, & Krueger, 2021).

• Page references: Pages 30–32.

Culture and Social Support

• Cultural norms shape whether people seek and access support, even with similar networks.

• Asians/Asian Americans vs European Americans:

  • Less likely to use social support to cope with stressors (Taylor et al., 2004; Chu et al., 2008).

  • Judgments of support seekers are less favorable among Asian Americans compared to European Americans (Taylor et al., 2004; Chu et al., 2008).

• Individualistic cultures (e.g., USA): self is independent; more likely to ask for support openly.

• Collectivist cultures (e.g., Eastern Asia): self is interdependent; may resist asking for support to avoid burden; prefer support that does not require explicit disclosure of distress/needs (Kim, Sherman, & Taylor, 2008).

• Page references: Pages 33–34.

Wrap-Up and Takeaways

• Social support operates as a process affecting emotional, physical, and relational health.

• Perceptions of support are shaped by accurate detection and biased interpretations.

• Individual differences (personality, attachment, etc.) and broader cultural norms influence support seeking preferences and norms.

• Page reference: Page 35.

Course Reminders

• QT due Wednesday at 8:00 PM.

• Guiding question: Is seeking support from a relationship partner beneficial?

• Page reference: Page 36.