Contextual Determinants of the Perceived Supportiveness of Helping Behaviors

Abstract

We tested the effect of contextual variables on the perceived supportiveness of help-intended behaviors. These variables included relationship closeness, spontaneity of support behavior, degree of correspondence between type of support desired and type obtained and gender of the help-provider. Subjects read descriptions of help-intended interactions, in which the contextual variables were systematically varied, then rated their helpfulness and supportiveness. Results showed significant effects for all contextual variables except gender of the support provider. Results suggest that not only the content of support-intended behaviors, but the context in which they occur are important determinants of perceived supportiveness.

Sacrifice in a Supportive Marriage: Social Support as a Moderator Buffers the Negative Effects of Sacrifice in Marriage

“…Providing social support to a partner who has frequently made sacrifices in a marriage is, essentially, giving resources to someone who is truly in need. Studies have emphasized the importance of the receiver's needs and have coalesced around the notion that the benefits of social support increase when the amount matches the need (Cutrona et al 1990;Horowitz et al 2001). In addition, providing social support to close others increases the perception of being needed and valued, both of which are also associated with better well-being and dyadic adjustment (Deci 2006;Knoll et al 2007).…”

A Relational Schema Approach to Social Support

“…Following the notion of multiple models, however, it is also important to look more closely: Although people might have a general perception of the availability of support, they also have distinct expectations about what is available or helpful within particular relationships and situations (Cutrona, Cohen, & Igram, 1990;Dakof & Taylor, 1990;Procidano & Heller, 1983;Sarason et al, 1990cSarason et al, , 1994. Based on the idea that people have multiple self-and other schemas, and corresponding interpersonal scripts, we tend to agree with theoretical perspectives hypothesizing that people choose whom to turn to on the basis of relationship-specific expectations.…”

“…In contrast, if she unexpectedly becomes pregnant, she might expect her parents to be critical and judgmental, her best friend to be caring and supportive, her boyfriend distant and angry, and her acquaintances mildly anxious or indifferent. If the strategy is to optimize the likelihood of positive outcomes by seeking support from significant others who are expected to be the most helpful in meeting the needs of the moment and avoiding those who may be expected to exacerbate the problem, words of encouragement might be sought from a parent in one situation, and a helping hand from a friend might be sought in a different situation (e.g., Cutrona et al, 1990;Dakof & Taylor, 1990).…”

“…In and of itself, support seeking has an ironic twist: Because close relationship partners are expected to be responsive to one another's needs (Clark & Mills, 1979), if significant others are not instinctively responsive to a person's needs, and the person is forced to expressly request support, this may be interpreted as meaning that significant others are not really interested in providing support (e.g., Dunkel-Schetter et al, 1987). Indeed, support provided spontaneously is perceived as more helpful than support given in response to a direct request (Cutrona et al, 1990). Also, situations that entail the explicit expression ofthe need for support can expose weaknesses or problems in a relationship (Coyne & Bolger, 1990).…”

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

“…Rini & Dunkel Schetter, 2010). Thus, it may be more important to examine matching between the support provided and the recipient's subjective needs rather than the situation's objective characteristics (Cutrona, Cohen, & Igram, 1990).…”