Above and below baselines

Abstract

The current study tests an explanation inspired by social baseline theory (Beckes & Coan, 2011. Social baseline theory: The role of social proximity in emotion and economy of action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 976-988. doi:10.1111Compass, 5, 976-988. doi:10. /j.1751Compass, 5, 976-988. doi:10. -9004.2011.00400) for the mixed blessings associated with received emotional support from one's partner. We reason that the receipt of emotional support engenders benefits only up to individualized baseline points-that is, support effects will be nonmonotonic. In two dyadic daily-diary samples (N ¼ 38/80 couples, over 21/35 days, respectively), we used piecewise multilevel modeling, finding support for our hypotheses. Receiving emotional support exceeding one's baseline was associated with little affective change; receiving emotional support falling short of one's baseline was consistently associated with worsened moods and relationship feelings. This work highlights the importance of individuals' baseline levels as reference or comparison points for understanding support's effects.

Disappointment’s sting is greater than help’s balm: Quasi-signal detection of daily support matching.

“…One study (Rafaeli et al, 2008) showed hindrance (bad) to trump support (good). Another study (Bar-Kalifa & Rafaeli, 2013) showed nonmonotonic effects for emotional support, with low-level support exerting stronger effects than high-level support.…”

Daily dyadic coping during COVID-19 among Israeli couples.

“…This may be due to the evolutionary primacy of negative stimuli and their tendency to exert a stronger effect than positive stimuli across various domains, including relational ones. Indeed, daily relational negative behaviors tend to exert a stronger effect on partners’ mood than positive ones (e.g., Bar-Kalifa & Rafaeli, 2015; Rafaeli et al, 2008).…”

Can Expressing Positivity Elicit Support for Negative Events? A Process Model and Review

“…We define support as the amount of support (i.e., emotional support, instrumental/practical support, helping behaviors, responsiveness, or caregiving) that providers extend or intend to extend. Although receiving higher levels of support does not always produce favorable outcomes (e.g., Bolger & Amarel, 2007;Bolger et al, 2000;Gleason et al, 2003;Howland & Simpson, 2010), accumulating longitudinal and experimental evidence suggests that receiving support is beneficial when people want, need, or try to elicit support from a partner (Bar-Kalifa & Rafaeli, 2013Rafaeli, , 2015Crockett et al, 2017;Deelstra et al, 2003;Feinstein, 1988, as cited in Dunkel-Schetter et al, 1992Girme et al, 2013;Merluzzi et al, 2016;Siewert et al, 2011). For example, findings from daily diary studies indicate that receiving less support than one wants or needs is far more costly to an individual's wellbeing than is receiving too much support (Bar-Kalifa & Rafaeli, 2013Rafaeli, , 2015Siewert et al, 2011).…”

“…Although receiving higher levels of support does not always produce favorable outcomes (e.g., Bolger & Amarel, 2007;Bolger et al, 2000;Gleason et al, 2003;Howland & Simpson, 2010), accumulating longitudinal and experimental evidence suggests that receiving support is beneficial when people want, need, or try to elicit support from a partner (Bar-Kalifa & Rafaeli, 2013Rafaeli, , 2015Crockett et al, 2017;Deelstra et al, 2003;Feinstein, 1988, as cited in Dunkel-Schetter et al, 1992Girme et al, 2013;Merluzzi et al, 2016;Siewert et al, 2011). For example, findings from daily diary studies indicate that receiving less support than one wants or needs is far more costly to an individual's wellbeing than is receiving too much support (Bar-Kalifa & Rafaeli, 2013Rafaeli, , 2015Siewert et al, 2011). Seekers who receive more (vs. less) responsive support (according to coders) when discussing their personal problems experience more favorable changes immediately after the support interaction (e.g., increased positive affect, felt acceptance, and engagement in positive reframing; and decreased negative affect) and over time (e.g., increased engagement in constructive coping and self-efficacy), in part because of their accurate detection of the partner's responsive support (Lemay & Neal, 2014).…”