No abstract

During times of stress, supportive communication can buffer individuals from experiencing negative outcomes. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has substantially altered the interactions people rely on for support, which may influence the supportive messages they desire and receive. When people receive quantities of support that differ from what they desire, they experience support gaps, which are often associated with negative outcomes. The present study examines: (a) support gaps in close relationships under shelter-in-place orders issued in response to the pandemic; (b) how support gaps may be moderated by recipient and provider sex; and (c) relationships between support gaps and loneliness, stress, and relational satisfaction. Data were collected in Spring 2020 from community members across the United States and students at a large Midwestern university ( N = 273). Participants reported on five types of support desired and received from their closest relational partner. Unexpectedly, participants generally reported receiving more support than desired, though this finding was qualified by their biological sex and the biological sex of their partner. As expected, support deficits were primarily associated with negative outcomes. Surplus esteem support was positively associated with relational satisfaction and negatively associated with perceived stress. Results are discussed in terms of theoretical implications for support gaps research and theory as well as pragmatic implications for individuals experiencing a global, shared stressor.

This experiment examines state shame and guilt responses to esteem support messages, testing predictions derived from the cognitive-emotional theory of esteem support messages (CETESM). Participants (N = 852) chose one of eight hypothetical scenarios designed to induce shame and/or guilt. Next, participants were directed to a randomization of emotion-focused (EF) and problem-focused (PF) esteem support messages and were asked to rate how the message would affect their feelings of state shame and state guilt. EF messages were expected to alleviate feelings of shame more so than guilt, but results indicated that they did not consistently do so. However, as expected, PF messages were rated as more likely to alleviate feelings of guilt (in five of eight scenarios) than shame. When comparing the messages to each other, EF messages were rated as better at alleviating both shame and guilt compared to PF messages. Theoretical and pragmatic implications are discussed.

No abstract

The cognitive–emotional theory of esteem support messages predicts that message style will affect the outcomes of esteem support interactions. However, little research has focused on the effects of message style; that is, how esteem support messages are delivered. The present experiment addresses this lacuna by manipulating message style in a laboratory study examining face-to-face esteem support interactions. Confederates were trained to provide emotion-focused esteem support to naïve participants (N = 173) in four styles along the assertive–inductive dimension, in addition to a listening-only control condition. We then assessed the effect of the interaction on participants’ state self-esteem. Results indicated that emotion-focused esteem support improved state self-esteem more than listening support; however, there was no significant effect of message style. Post-interaction state self-esteem improvement was positively associated with the quantity of emotion-focused esteem support content provided during the interaction.