Most prior research on culture and the dynamics of social support has focused on the emotional outcomes for social support recipients. Though an existing body of research has identified cross-cultural differences in the emotional correlates of receiving different types of social support, researchers have seldom examined possible cultural differences in the experience of social support providers . This study used the Day Reconstruction Method to examine cultural differences in the emotional correlates of the provision of solicited and unsolicited and emotional and informational social support in the daily lives of Singaporean (n = 79) and American (n = 88) participants. Singaporean participants reported providing more social support overall. Regardless of culture, participants reported more positive emotion (affection, happiness) and less negative emotion (anger, anxiety) when they provided emotional social support. Also, multilevel modeling analyses revealed a 3-way interaction between culture, social support provision, and social support solicitation, indicating cultural differences in negative emotional responses to providing solicited social support. Specifically, results suggest that attempts to provide more solicited social support were associated with more negative emotions in the U.S. In contrast, provider negative emotions were highest in Singapore when the provider did not meet the recipient’s request for support. Patterns of cultural differences in social support provision are dissimilar to—rather than simply mirroring—those found in published research on social support receipt, highlighting the importance of studying social support provision as a distinct phenomenon.

No abstract

This chapter addresses how cross-cultural comparisons can magnify response biases, and it provides guidelines for selecting a survey methodology which minimizes these confounds. The tendency for response biases to be compounded by cross-cultural comparison is discussed in terms of research methodology (the collection of momentary versus retrospective reports) and research subject (episodic versus semantic knowledge). An overview of three methodologies is provided: global self-report measures (including those sourced from existing archival datasets), experience sampling methodologies (ESM), and the day reconstruction method; the logistical and theoretical strengths and weaknesses of each method are compared. The intention of this chapter is to (a) illustrate how culture can interact with response biases, resulting in interactions which—if mishandled—can threaten the validity of comparative studies, and (b) assist researchers in minimizing this risk via the selection of an appropriate research methodology according to their own theoretical interests and logistical limitations.