Visible and Invisible Social Support: How, Why, and When

Abstract

Social relationships can be a vital source of help in difficult times. However, attempts to provide social support that is visible—direct and recognized by recipients as help—can sometimes have unintended negative effects. By contrast, invisible support—provided indirectly such that recipients do not interpret the behavior as help—can circumvent potential negative effects. In this article, we synthesize empirical evidence on support visibility using three organizing questions: How do support attempts differ in visibility? Why is invisible support often more beneficial than visible support? When is invisible support, as opposed to visible support, needed? The answers to these questions can illuminate mechanisms of effective support generally, help explain known variability in support outcomes, and stimulate further research.

Partner Support

“…For example, while a replication of the original invisible support study confirmed the costs of visible support, it did not find evidence for the expected benefits of invisible support (Shrout et al 2010). To address these inconsistencies, it has been recently proposed that the specific motivational needs of the support recipient may explain when visible vs invisible support can be beneficial (Zee and Bolger 2019). In particular, invisible support may be necessary when recipients are concerned about being evaluated (assessment motivation), while, when recipients want to take action (locomotion motivation) to overcome their current difficult situation, visible support may be required.…”

“…Along this line, instances of support provided that are actually perceived by the recipient as help are referred to as visible support, while support that is provided indirectly and not perceived as such by the recipient is called invisible support (Bolger et al 2000). As compared to visible support, invisible support has been found to have positive effects on several individual and relational outcomes (see Zee and Bolger 2019). Invisible support, in fact, may not emphasize the recipient's difficulties or may help him/her to focus on adaptive stress and coping appraisals, without activating concerns about the equity of the support exchange.…”

“…Among the few recent contributions, we can find Zee and Bolger's model of the temporal process of a stressful event (2019) and Feeney and Collins' (2015) model of thriving through relationships. Zee and Bolger's (2019) model focused on the timing of support provision, by distinguishing earlier phases of a demanding situation, when one might not have realized that help is needed from later ones occurring when the support recipient has actually realized that help is needed and asked for support. In each phase different types of support are required.…”

Couples Adjusting to Multimorbidity: A Dyadic Study on Disclosure and Adjustment Disorder Symptoms

“…RRT would suggest that it offers a social regulation resource and has less risk for difficult situations as they have been reported in the context of social support. In the literature, it could be shown that being the support receiver has downsides that might be explained with threats to autonomy and self-esteem (Bolger and Amarel, 2007; Maisel and Gable, 2009; Zee and Bolger, 2019).…”

The Dyadic Health Influence Model

“…On the other, receiving too much support might have negative consequences by making targets experience negative affect or feel indebted to agents, resulting in lower self-efficacy and reduced relationship satisfaction (e.g., Brock & Lawrence, 2009;Gleason et al, 2003). For this reason, some researchers have suggested that receiving more indirect forms of support may, under certain circumstances, yield better outcomes for targets (e.g., Bolger et al, 2000;Zee & Bolger, 2019). attitudes towards health-promoting behaviors, the self-efficacy to change their behaviors, and even the intentions to do so (Ferrini et al, 1994).…”