Effects of Provider Identity and Locus of Supportive Conversation on Coping With an Identity-Threatening Stressor

Abstract

Guided by theory that posits outcomes of supportive interactions are shaped by source and message factors, this study examines two relevant features of interactions: the social identity of a support provider and locus of a supportive conversation. This study extends research on supportive communication by examining three possible identities of a provider (in-group, moderate out-group, out-group) alongside provider- or receiver-focused conversations. Participants (N = 200) coping with an identity-threatening stressor related to their college major engaged in an interaction with a confederate who manipulated their identity and locus of the conversation. Immediately following the supportive conversation, participants reported higher cognitive reappraisal when interacting with in-group and moderate out-group providers compared with out-group providers. Analyses revealed a disordinal interaction on internalized stigma, suggesting that the effects of provider- and receiver-focused messages depend on a provider’s identity. Interaction effects also persisted 3 weeks later.

Keywords

supportive communication identity-threatening stressors social identity stigma longitudinal effects

Social interactions are shaped by people’s fundamental need to maintain a positive self-image, which is partially derived from the social groups to which people belong (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). People’s group memberships (e.g., African American, college student) contribute to their social identity, or sense of self and belonging (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Group membership can be based on permanent or temporary affiliations, such as an ethnicity or college major, respectively, and the desire to preserve self-image can make stressors that threaten a person’s self-concept particularly severe (Thoits, 2013). An identity-threatening stressor is a personal or relational problem that damages a salient social identity (Thoits, 2013). Experiencing an identity-threatening stressor corresponds with increased feelings of devaluation along with internalized stigma (Mickelson, 2001). Based on these consequences, people experiencing an identity-threatening stressor might benefit from conversations that facilitate coping with their devalued status.

Supportive communication is an important means of coping with identity-threat, because social support can alleviate perceptions of devaluation (Mickelson, 2001). Effective supportive communication is associated with a host of positive outcomes, including increased well-being and decreased psychological distress (Ikeda & Kawachi, 2010). In certain instances, however, received social support is associated with detrimental outcomes (Bolger & Amarel, 2007). The outcomes people experience are often based on the type of message conveyed and source of support (Feng & MacGeorge, 2010). These conversational features then have implications for how people feel about themselves and how they appraise their stressors. Much research examines features of supportive interactions in relation to common personal problems, and comparatively less is known about the relevant factors of interactions, and their associated outcomes, when a person’s self-concept is at risk. Identity-threatening stressors are difficult to discuss (Crowley, 2017); therefore, people’s feelings of unease might be mitigated or exasperated depending upon with whom they interact and the messages exchanged during an interaction.

This study examines how variations in source and message factors during a supportive conversation influence coping with an identity-threatening stressor. Specifically, the project examines how support providers from more or less similar social identities impact outcomes of an interaction. The social identity of a provider might be relevant when coping with an identity-threatening stressor because providers who share a similar or different identity could foster feelings of acceptance or devaluation, respectively. Regarding message factors, this study examines the locus of a supportive conversation, or whether a conversation focuses on the support provider or receiver. We seek to expand variation in how people communicate effective support and establish bases for empathy, which are often necessary for eliciting beneficial outcomes when coping with identity-threat. We consider internalized stigma and cognitive reappraisal as two relevant outcomes in this context. These outcomes represent a person’s identity-related perceptions of self and perceptions of a problem, and, collectively, these outcomes provide insight into how to best assist someone coping with an identity-threatening stressor. Finally, the study tests whether the effects of identity and locus persist for some time after the interaction. Considering longitudinal outcomes elucidates how supportive interactions impact people’s well-being over time and has implications for support-based interventions.

Supportive Interactions in the Context of Identity-Threatening Stressors

Receiving supportive communication, or verbal and nonverbal behaviors intended to provide help or comfort to a person experiencing a problem (MacGeorge, Feng, & Burleson, 2011), can facilitate coping with identity-threatening stressors (Davis & High, 2019). This study considers one particular social identity, a student’s college major, as an identity that is central to young adults’ self-concept. For many, choosing a college major is a first step to transitioning to adulthood and developing a personal identity that is independent from one’s family (e.g., Galotti et al., 2006). Choice of college major also has implications for a person’s career prospects because college major is correlated with job salary, stability, and satisfaction (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). College major represents a social identity that is salient to a student’s conception of self; however, some majors might be perceived as more valuable than others. Students who choose science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) majors have clearer career paths and higher starting salaries than students who major in the humanities or liberal arts (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Based on these discrepancies, a student’s major represents a social identity for which they might experience devaluation, insecurity, and identity-threat.¹

Theories of supportive communication, including the dual-process theory of supportive communication outcomes (Bodie & Burleson, 2008), contend that outcomes of supportive interactions are shaped by multiple factors. In particular, source and message factors work in conjunction with influence how people feel about themselves and evaluate their stressors. Furthermore, interactions with the same basic content can elicit different outcomes based on the extent to which the elements of the conversation are systematically processed. We review below the literature on source and message factors in supportive interactions to consider how these factors might mitigate the experience of identity-threat related to a college major.

Source Factors in Supportive Interactions

Support providers comprise an important source of variability in the process of supportive communication (High & Crowley, 2018) and the dual-process theory of supportive communication outcomes (Bodie & Burleson, 2008) posits that source factors act as environmental cues that influence the outcomes of supportive interactions. For example, support receivers are more likely to act upon advice provided by sources perceived to be experts (Feng & MacGeorge, 2006) and empathetic (Burleson, 1994). One source characteristic that could impact the reception of support is the social identity of a provider. As Haslam, Reicher, and Levine (2011) noted, “the dynamics of support—i.e., giving, receiving, and interpreting help of various forms—are always structured by the identity-based relationships between those who give and receive it” (p. 159). When receiving support for an identity-threatening stressor, whether the provider belongs to the same social group (in-group provider) or a different group (out-group provider) could influence message processing. Regardless of what is said, people might appreciate support from an in-group member more than from an out-group member.

Social identity theory (SIT) proposes that people act more favorably toward in-group than out-group members and sometimes derogate out-group members to enhance their self-esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In supportive interactions, in-group biases might lead receivers to interpret messages as more appropriate when received from an in-group member compared with an out-group member (Haslam et al., 2011). Receivers could also be more forgiving of failed support attempts when a provider shares their identity (Haslam et al., 2011). Several studies have applied SIT to supportive contexts. People are more likely to help an injured stranger who displays signs of in-group rather than out-group membership (Levine, Prosser, Evans, & Reicher, 2005), and receivers report greater reductions in stress when viewing a recorded supportive message from an in-group rather than an out-group member (Haslam, Jetten, O’Brien, & Jacobs, 2004). Although we recognize that social identity is a complex construct that can encompass several social roles, we assert that a college major is a salient social identity for students. Given the structure of curricula and class schedules, students spend a great deal of time with their fellow majors (Porter & Umbach, 2006). It follows that people from the same major are part of an in-group that might influence the outcomes people experience from supportive interactions.

Out-group members have traditionally been defined as people who are not part of the in-group regarding a salient social identity, which bifurcates intergroup relations (Carr, Vitak, & McLaughlin, 2013). In reality, people can feel more connected to certain out-group members than others (Brannon & Walton, 2013). This study examines the impact of a moderate out-group support provider, or a provider who is perceived to be more similar to the receiver than other, more distant out-group members. For example, an international student might perceive a first-generation college student as a moderate out-group provider compared with other students, given that international and first-generation students both cope with limited knowledge of how to navigate institutions of higher education in the United States. Although out-group members remain distinct from in-group members on the basis of not having to cope with a given stressor, certain out-group members might be similar enough to result in limited perceptions of commonality. Some research has provided evidence for the concept of a moderate out-group. Carr et al. (2013) found significant differences in group affiliation between in-group, moderate out-group, and out-group members. Research also provides evidence for a semi-linear relationship between closeness with a provider and beneficial outcomes of receiving support (Feeney & Collins, 2015), and it may be that a similar relationship exists between social distance with a provider and outcomes of support. We expect that receivers will experience better outcomes when interacting with an in-group than a moderate out-group provider, and a moderate out-group than out-group provider.

This study focuses on two outcomes of supportive interactions that are relevant to identity-threatening stressors: cognitive reappraisal and internalized stigma. Cognitive reappraisal considers how supportive conversations contribute to more manageable perceptions of a stressor and is a mechanism by which people achieve emotional improvement (Bodie & Burleson, 2008). A main way people can improve their ability to cope with an identity-threatening stressor is by reappraising the applicability of the stressor and their feelings about it. People are able to explore negative feelings and reframe a stressor when a provider builds trust and legitimizes their feelings (Burleson & Goldsmith, 1998), and people place more trust in in-group than out-group members (Foddy, Platow, & Yamagishi, 2009). Messages from similar providers are better at facilitating adaptive coping than messages from less similar providers (Feng & MacGeorge, 2010). In contrast, messages from providers who lack comparable experiences are often perceived to be ineffective because they lack relevance (Rossetto, 2015). Therefore, cognitive reappraisal could be influenced by a provider’s identity. Internalized stigma represents the extent to which people adopt negative images into their sense of self (Vogel, Wade, & Haake, 2006). People who experience identity-threat may differ in the degree to which they internalize the negative attitudes of others, or public stigma (Vogel et al., 2006). Stigma is a relevant outcome in this study because it assesses whether supportive interactions mitigate the effects of identity-threat on more persistent perceptions surrounding a person’s identity. Effective supportive communication decreases perceptions of stigma (Crowley, High, & Thomas, 2018; Mickelson, 2001), and considering internalized stigma as an outcome of supportive interactions answers calls to study how stigma is a contextual perception that is created, maintained, and changed through communication (Smith, 2007). We propose,

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Support receivers report greater cognitive reappraisal and lower internalized stigma after receiving support from an (H1a) in-group provider than a moderate out-group or out-group provider, and a (H1b) moderate out-group provider than an out-group provider.

Message Factors in Supportive Interactions

Research commonly considers types of support (Cutrona & Russell, 1990) and the verbal person-centeredness of support (VPC; High & Dillard, 2012) as message features that impact supportive outcomes; however, some research and theory, including the dual-process theory of supportive communication outcomes, suggest that other features of messages influence how people process and respond to supportive interactions (Bodie & Burleson, 2008). This study examines an additional dimension of supportive messages that is distinct from types of support or VPC: the locus of a supportive conversation. There are a variety of ways people can communicate helpful supportive messages, and whether they are provider- or receiver-focused is one variation. This study conceptualizes a provider-focused interaction as one that focuses on the feelings and experiences of the provider, whereas a receiver-focused conversation comprises messages that focus on the affect and experiences of the receiver. Both provider- and receiver-focused conversations can convey helpful (or unhelpful) support of various types. That is, messages that focus on either a provider’s or receiver’s affect and experiences contain elements of both nurturant and action-facilitating support (Cutrona & Russell, 1990). They differ in the locus of the conversations, or the perspective that is emphasized in a provider’s messages.

There has been disagreement about the extent to which supportive messages should focus on a provider. Theory on VPC argues that messages that explicitly acknowledge a recipient’s feelings constitute high-quality emotional support, and messages with high levels of VPC contain more second-person pronouns (i.e., you) than messages with less VPC (Cannava, High, Jones, & Bodie, 2018). Tailoring a message to a receiver’s feelings is beneficial because these messages help receivers understand and make sense of their experiences (High & Dillard, 2012). In contrast, recent research suggests that the negative effects assumed to accompany content focused on a support provider are artifacts of studying discrete and isolated messages (MacGeorge et al., 2019). Along these lines, research on invisible support, or support that goes unnoticed by a receiver, suggests that focusing on a provider’s experiences can facilitate greater coping than offering messages that explicitly focus on the receiver (Bolger & Amarel, 2007). Maintaining focus on the provider can draw the receiver’s attention away from his or her own distress, thereby facilitating the emotional and cognitive distance needed to reappraise a stressor (Scott, Martin, Stone, & Brashers, 2011). Discussing personal problems can be a means of communicating empathy, and elaborating on a person’s own experience with a problem can enable a provider to communicate comfort without threatening the receiver’s face. One study found that conversations in which providers describe their own emotional experiences and how they handled a comparable situation correspond with support quality (MacGeorge et al., 2019). Providers might use their experiences in comparable situations to both establish empathy and provide comfort in a face-saving manner. Taken together, previous research suggests competing ideas on the value of provider- or receiver-focused support.

This study evaluates these competing lines of thinking by isolating the effects of the locus of a conversation. Although the research on invisible support suggests there are benefits to messages that focus on a provider, and research on VPC contends that high-quality supportive messages focus on a receiver, these two concepts are not de facto instantiations of provider- and receiver-focused messages. Whereas the level of VPC in a conversation broadly describes whether a recipient’s feelings are validated, the locus of a conversation is more a reflection of how that validation (or lack thereof) is accomplished. For example, providers can validate people’s affect by helpfully drawing comparisons to their own experiences or by sympathetically focusing on receivers. Invisible support reflects a receiver’s (lack of) awareness that a provider communicated support, and again the locus of a supportive conversation describes how those messages are framed. For instance, providers can offer invisible support by elaborating on how they handled a similar situation or by remaining focused on a receiver but skillfully constructing messages such that the face threat of receiving support is not activated (Howland & Simpson, 2010). The locus of a conversation is, thus, independent from its VPC, visibility, and type of support, and we expect that focusing on a provider’s or receiver’s affect and experiences has unique implications for how people cognitively frame a stressor and the stigma it involves.

In the context of an identity-threatening stressor, the focus of a supportive message may be especially pertinent. By describing similar feelings and experiences, a provider-focused message could reduce a receiver’s sense of otherness and worthlessness. Conversely, a receiver-focused message might be valuable when coping with identity-threat because these messages could legitimate a receiver’s feelings of marginalization. Because this study evaluates competing arguments about the value of support providers who share their experiences with a stressor versus concentrating on a support receiver, we ask,

Research Question 1 (RQ1): Are there differences in receivers’ cognitive reappraisal and internalized stigma following a provider-focused or receiver-focused supportive interaction?

Interactions Between Source and Message Characteristics

A growing body of research documents that the effects of supportive messages are contingent on a number of factors, including characteristics of the provider and situation (Bodie & Burleson, 2008). Several studies have found that the effect of supportive messages is stronger when messages are delivered from intimate or close sources, rather than more distant others (e.g., Frazier, Tix, & Barnett, 2003). These results suggest interaction effects between message and source characteristics. In this study, provider identity might moderate the relationship between the locus of a conversation and its outcomes. Although it is unclear whether provider- or receiver-focused messages produce better outcomes, certain messages are likely to be best employed by particular providers, especially when coping with an identity-threatening stressor.

As previously stated, provider-focused support can be a means of communicating empathy and understanding (Hodges, Kiel, Kramer, Veach, & Villanueva, 2009), and provider-focused messages from in-group members might be especially sincere or meaningful. When an in-group member shares a similar experience, it can normalize the experience and might result in more manageable impressions of a stressor (Rossetto, 2015). When an in-group provider remains strictly focused on a receiver, it could imply that he or she is not equally bothered by or has coped with the stressor more effectively. Receivers might appreciate provider-focused support from an in-group member more than receiver-focused support. Conversely, receivers might be more benefitted when out-group members are receiver-focused rather than provider-focused. When a provider who does not share an identity-threatening stressor attends to his or her own affect and experiences, it can reinforce the power and status differences between interaction partners (Giles, 1973) and increase feelings of stigma. Results from a qualitative study revealed that out-group support providers who offer comparisons to their own experiences are perceived as inconsiderate (Rossetto, 2015). If out-group members’ experiences are perceived as trivial, it could underscore a receiver’s own experience as stressful or burdensome. We predict,

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Support provider identity and locus of supportive conversation interact, such that receivers report greater cognitive reappraisal and lower internalized stigma when (H2a) in-group providers are provider-focused rather than receiver-focused and (H2b) out-group providers are receiver-focused rather than provider-focused.

Because this is the first study to consider the role of a moderate out-group support provider, it remains unknown what interaction effects might be present between moderate out-group support providers and message content. When a moderate out-group member shares his or her affect and experiences with a receiver, it could minimize threats to a receiver’s positive face. Alternatively, it could be that provider-focused support is perceived as a heedless comparison if offered by anyone other than an in-group member. We propose the research question,

Research Question 2 (RQ2): How, if at all, does a moderate out-group support provider moderate the effects of locus of supportive conversation on receivers’ cognitive reappraisal and internalized stigma?

Longitudinal Outcomes of Supportive Interactions

Supportive communication has lasting effects on the general health and well-being of individuals. Strong supportive networks are a protective factor against psychological distress (Holahan & Moos, 1981), and people who receive more emotional support have lower mortality rates (Penninx et al., 1997). Current research regarding the lasting effects of support, however, does less to examine the particular features of interactions that link support with over-time markers of well-being. More research is needed to understand what message or source factors are most likely to predict better or worse outcomes over time, which has implications for generating practical recommendations for social support-based interventions.

Limited research examining the longitudinal effects of supportive interactions suggests that individuals continue to feel the effects of supportive communication well after an interaction occurs. Joseph, Afifi, and Denes (2015) found that individuals who received emotional support inconsistent with their desires (i.e., a support gap) reported more brooding rumination regarding a partner’s support up to 7 days after an interaction. In addition, people who receive high or moderate VPC support report more positive outcomes over time than people who receive low VPC support (High & Solomon, 2014). Little research examines the lasting impact of interactions between source and message factors on outcomes of supportive conversations. High and Solomon (2014) found effects of VPC and provider sex on support quality and affect improvement that lasted over a period of 3 weeks. Thus, some evidence suggests provider and message effects persist up to several weeks following an interaction, and we extend this work by testing the separate and combined lasting effects of provider identity and locus of a conversation. To investigate whether the previously discussed effects of identity and locus persist or dissipate over time, we propose the final hypotheses and research questions:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Receivers report greater cognitive reappraisal and lower internalized stigma 3 weeks following a supportive interaction with (H3a) an in-group provider than a moderate out-group or out-group provider and (H3b) a moderate out-group provider than out-group provider.

Research Question 3 (RQ3): Do any main effects related to the locus of a supportive conversation on cognitive reappraisal or internalized stigma persist 3 weeks following a supportive interaction?

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Support provider identity and locus of a supportive conversation interact, such that receivers report greater cognitive reappraisal and lower internalized stigma 3 weeks following a (H4a) provider-focused conversation with an in-group provider compared with a receiver-focused conversation and (H4b) receiver-focused conversation with an out-group provider compared with a provider-focused conversation.

Research Question 4 (RQ4): Do any interaction effects related to a moderate out-group provider on cognitive reappraisal or internalized stigma persist 3 weeks following a supportive interaction?

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 200) were communication studies majors at a Midwestern university. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 26 (M = 20.51, SD = 1.29) and 84.5% of the sample was female. The majority of participants was White (81.0%), but participants also self-identified as multiracial (6.0%), Asian (6.0%), Hispanic or Latino (4.5%), and Black (2.5%).

Procedures

The study employs a 3 (support provider identity) × 2 (locus of supportive conversation) between-subjects design. The three types of provider are an in-group member (communication studies major), a moderate out-group member (English major), and an out-group member (engineering major). In the context of college major as an identity-threatening stressor, students may perceive individuals with similar majors (i.e., communication studies, English) as having a common superordinate identity (i.e., liberal arts majors) that remains distinct from other majors (i.e., applied sciences).² The two variations in locus of the conversations are whether the conversation focused primarily on the provider (provider-focused) or receiver (receiver-focused).

In all, 10 female confederates, trained over the course of 3 weeks, enacted the six different conditions. Confederates were students at the university where the study was conducted and largely similar in age and race to participants. People often value females as support providers more than men (Uno, Uchino, & Smith, 2002), and studies show that sex moderates the outcomes of supportive messages, such that messages provided by women are rated more favorably than messages from male providers (Bodie & Burleson, 2008). Using confederates of the same sex eliminated one potential source of unwanted variation.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions. Upon reporting to the lab, participants were joined by the confederate in the waiting room, who was ostensibly another participant in the study. Confederates entered the waiting room carrying an introductory level textbook that corresponded with the provider identity they were instructed to enact. Greater cues to social identity increase perceptions of group affiliation (Carr et al., 2013); therefore, carrying the textbook served as an additional cue to the social identity of the confederate. The researcher informed the dyad that the purpose of the study was to learn about how communication studies majors perceive and talk about their major with other students. The researcher notified the dyad that they would read an article about the communication studies major to serve as an impetus for the discussion. After obtaining consent, the dyad was told they were going to complete a series of pre-interaction tasks in separate rooms; however, only the participant completed the tasks.

Participants completed four tasks prior to the interaction. First, participants answered survey items that assessed personal qualities. Second, they completed a series of ranking tasks to prime English and engineering majors as similar or different from the communication studies major, respectively. These ranking tasks primed participants to think of students in different majors as belonging to distinct social groups, thereby making English and communication majors seem similar and engineering majors seem different based on the organization of the university. Participants then read a fabricated news article about the communication major, which suggested that communication majors are less motivated and intelligent than students of other majors. Although the article was based on existing articles that question the value of the communication studies major, we created our own article to control its content. Emphasizing negative qualities associated with communication majors helped ensure that participants would experience a threat to their identity. For the final task, they rated the severity of the stress they experienced from reading the article on a 100-point scale and reported experiencing moderate stress (M = 50.90, SD = 24.29). All participants read the same article; therefore, it was not meant to arouse stress in some people more than others. Rather, it was designed to prime college major as the focus of the conversations and make salient the corresponding identity-threat.

The dyad reconvened in the lab and was provided with questions to guide their conversation (e.g., “How does the article reflect your sense of self based on your major?”). Confederates emphasized their major throughout the interaction (e.g., “As a communication studies/English/engineering major . . .”) to make the provider’s identity salient. In the provider-focused condition, confederates attended to their own affect and experiences with their major. In the receiver-focused condition, confederates validated and elaborated on the participant’s feelings. Examples of provider- and receiver-focused messages can be found in Supplemental Appendix A. Confederates did not receive any instruction about the types of support to provide during the interaction; however, because the conversations emphasized either the provider’s or receiver’s affect and experiences, all conditions contained elements of nurturant and action-facilitating support (Cutrona & Russell, 1990). Confederates were instructed to be polite, cooperative, expressive, and interested in a receiver for all conditions. They only altered the locus of support. Even if a confederate focused on her own affect and experiences, she was not dismissive of a receiver’s feelings (e.g., “I get it. The article made me think about my own choice of college major too”). Conversations were recorded and lasted an average of 8.03 minutes (SD = 2.08).³

After the interactions, participants completed a post-interaction survey. The post-interaction survey assessed participants’ perceptions and outcomes of the interaction, including their perceptions of the supportiveness of confederates, cognitive reappraisal, internalized stigma, and realism. Although the study design included a follow-up survey, participants were debriefed after the post-interaction survey for ethical reasons. They were told the news article was fabricated and given an actual article discussing the merits of a communication studies major. Participants were also told the support provider was a confederate and trained to communicate particular supportive messages.

Three weeks after participation in the study, participants were contacted through e-mail regarding a follow-up survey assessing the lasting impact of the interaction. The 3-week time frame was chosen to be consistent with prior research on supportive communication and to ensure the participants could remember the conversations (High & Solomon, 2014). A total of 100 participants (50.0%) completed the additional survey.

Measures

All measures for the study were self-report measures scored on Likert-type scales (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Participants responded to items at three different time points: a pre-interaction survey completed at Time 1 (T1), a post-interaction survey completed at Time 2 (T2), and a follow-up survey completed 3 weeks after the interaction (Time 3; T3).

Perceived public stigma

Participants’ perceptions of how outsiders view the communication studies major, or perceived public stigma, were measured in the pre-interaction survey (T1) as a covariate. In consultation with prior research (Link, 1987), five items (e.g., “people will see a person in a less favorable way if they come to know that he/she is a communication studies major”) were created by the researchers. The items were averaged to produce a composite variable in which higher scores indicate higher perceived public stigma (M = 2.37, SD = 0.80, α = .78).

Supportiveness

Jones’s (2004) scale measured the extent to which participants perceived the confederate as supportive (T2). In total, 11 items (e.g., “She or he was a good listener”) were averaged such that higher scores reflect greater provider supportiveness (M = 4.48, SD = 0.50, α = .91).

Realism

Five items (e.g., “Our interaction was similar to others I’ve had with people”) measured participants’ perceived realism at T2. Participants reported the interactions to be highly typical of interactions that occur outside the lab (M = 4.03, SD = 0.76, α = .86).

Cognitive reappraisal

Participants assessed their cognitive reappraisal at T2 and T3 using Holmstrom and Kim’s (2015) 13-item scale (e.g., “Improve the way I think about this situation”). Participants reported similar levels of cognitive reappraisal at T2 (M = 3.79, SD = 0.74, α = .94) and T3 (M = 3.78, SD = 0.65, α = .94).

Internalized stigma

Participants’ perceptions of stigma related to their college major were assessed at T2 and again at T3. The 10-item instrument was adapted from scales that measure stigma in the contexts of HIV/AIDS (Berger, Ferrans, & Lashley, 2001), mental illness (Link, 1987), and counseling (Vogel et al., 2006). Items (e.g., “I feel ashamed because of my major”) were averaged such that higher scores reflect greater internalized stigma (T2: M = 2.14, SD = 0.72, α = .89; T3: M = 2.30, SD = 0.64, α = .80).

Manipulation Checks

Two trained research assistants evaluated the videotapes of the interactions. To verify whether the experimental conditions were successfully manipulated, the research assistants rated variations in a provider’s identity and locus of a supportive conversation. In addition, the raters assessed the explicitness of support to confirm consistency in supportive content across experimental conditions. All items were measured on 5-point Likert-type scales (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Raters were naïve to the conditions and goals of the study. Approximately 15% of the videotapes were reserved for training. Following training, each rater coded all videotapes independently, and they met several times to discuss their ratings.

Social identity of the support provider

Raters evaluated the identity manipulation by responding to a modified version of Tanis and Postmes’ (2005) group identification scale. Items (e.g., “The provider and receiver see themselves as members of the same group”) assessed the degree to which the provider and receiver identified with similar or different social groups during the conversation. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was .91, indicating satisfactory coding reliability. After computing the average score for each of the raters, we created a composite variable in which higher scores indicate a greater degree of identification between partners. Results of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed the manipulation was successful, F(2, 197) = 2,122.68, p = .000, η² = .96. Raters perceived conversations in which confederates were in-group members as exhibiting greater identification (M = 4.97, SD = 0.07) than conversations in which the confederate was a moderate out-group (M = 3.51, SD = 0.36) and an out-group (M = 1.83, SD = 0.31) member. Pairwise comparisons verified that perceptions of group identification were significantly different across all three conditions.

Locus of supportive conversation

Six items created by the researcher (e.g., “During the conversation, the support provider tended to focus on herself”) were used to code the locus of the conversations. The ICC was satisfactory (ρ = .90). We averaged the score for each rater and created a composite variable wherein higher scores reflect a more provider-focused conversation. Results of a t test confirmed that the manipulation was successful, t(181.13) = 36.27, p = .000. Raters evaluated confederates to be more focused on themselves in the provider-focused conditions (M = 3.87, SD = 0.47) than in the receiver-focused conditions (M = 1.77, SD = 0.34).

Explicitness of support

A modified version of Priem and Solomon’s (2011) explicitness of supportive messages scale was used to code the content of the interactions. Doing so assessed whether the nature of the interactions was consistent regardless of the experimental condition. Three items (e.g., “The confederate made directly supportive comments”) evaluated the extent to which confederates were clear and direct in their provision of support. A one-way ANOVA examining differences in message explicitness among experimental conditions was significant, F(5, 194) = 2.50, p = .03, η² = .06; however, no follow-up tests indicated significant differences between specific conditions. We take this as evidence that confederates were consistent in their provision of support across experimental conditions.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

We began by confirming that confederates were perceived as sensitive and empathetic providers. A one-sample t test using the midpoint of the supportiveness scale confirmed that participants perceived confederates to be highly supportive, t(199) = 42.20, p = .000. We also examined whether perceptions of supportiveness differed across the experimental conditions. A between-subjects ANOVA examining differences among the experimental conditions was not significant, F(5, 194) = 1.04, p = .394. We take this as evidence that the confederates remained sensitive to a receiver while providing support that differed in its locus.

We then evaluated whether participants who completed the follow-up survey significantly differed from those who did not. A chi-square test revealed that participants who completed the follow-up survey were not disproportionally enrolled in one experimental condition over another, χ² = 4.57, df = 5, p = .470. Furthermore, analyses of the demographic variables (i.e., participant sex, age, ethnicity) and T2 outcome measures (i.e., cognitive reappraisal, internalized stigma) showed that individuals who completed the follow-up survey were not significantly different from those who elected not to complete the survey, ps > .110.

Then, we examined whether participants’ outcomes differed depending on the confederate with whom they interacted. To conduct these analyses, we ran four one-way ANOVAs, one for each of the dependent variables included in the study. Only the ANOVA with T2 cognitive reappraisal as the dependent variable was significant, F(9, 190) = 1.99, p = .042. We take this as evidence that the confederates had minimal influence on the results of the study.

Substantive Analyses

Analyses of the hypotheses and research questions were conducted using two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models, with cognitive reappraisal and internalized stigma as the dependent variables. All of the hypotheses and research questions proposed specific comparisons between cells in our research design, and we only conducted these analyses when the ANCOVAs uncovered significant main or interaction effects on the dependent variables. Perceived public stigma was included as a covariate in the analyses. Controlling for perceived public stigma is valuable because it represents participants’ beliefs about how generalized others view the relevant social identity, which is germane to interactions with strangers. Furthermore, public stigma has been linked to willingness to seek support for an identity-threatening stressor (Vogel et al., 2006).

Main effects

H1 posited that receivers report better outcomes when interacting with (H1a) an in-group than a moderate out-group or out-group provider and (H1b) a moderate out-group versus out-group provider. We observed a significant effect of provider identity on receivers’ cognitive reappraisal, F(2, 192) = 3.15, p = .045, η² = .03. Receivers reported significantly higher cognitive reappraisal following interactions with an in-group (M = 3.89, SE = 0.09) rather than out-group (M = 3.62, SE = 0.09, p = .033, d = 0.37) provider. Receivers exhibited similar levels of reappraisal after interacting with in-group and moderate out-group (M = 3.90, SE = 0.09, p = .979) providers. The difference between moderate out-group and out-group providers was also significant (p = .031, d = 0.38). The main effect of provider identity on internalized stigma was not significant, F(2, 192) = 1.26, p = .979. Thus, H1a and H1b received partial support. Receivers experienced better outcomes when interacting with an in-group or a moderate out-group member compared with an out-group member.

RQ1 asked how the locus of a conversation is associated with supportive outcomes. The ANCOVAs did not detect any significant main effects of message type on participants’ cognitive reappraisal, F(1, 192) = 0.64, p = .427, or internalized stigma, F(1, 192) = 2.00, p = .159.

Moderating effects

H2 proposed an interaction between provider identity and locus of a conversation, such that people report better outcomes when (H2a) in-group members are provider-focused rather than receiver-focused and (H2b) out-group members are receiver-focused compared with provider-focused. The two-way interaction between source and message type was not significant for cognitive reappraisal, F(2, 192) = 0.80, p = .449. We uncovered a significant two-way interaction between provider identity and locus of a conversation on internalized stigma, F(2, 192) = 3.08, p = .048, η² = 0.03. Graphing this interaction revealed that the pattern of effects was consistent with the logic of H2a and H2b (see Supplemental Appendix B). However, the planned comparisons for in-group members (provider-focused: M = 1.95, SE = 0.12; receiver-focused: M = 2.17, SE = 0.12; p = .198) and out-group members (provider-focused: M = 2.33, SE = 0.11; receiver-focused: M = 2.15, SE = 0.12; p = .271) were not significant.

RQ2 sought to determine how, if at all, a moderate out-group provider moderates the effects of the locus of supportive conversations. Given the significant interaction effect on internalized stigma, we conducted a comparison to investigate interaction effects of a moderate out-group provider. Analyses revealed that participants reported significantly lower internalized stigma when moderate out-group providers were provider-focused (M = 1.93, SE = 0.12) rather than receiver-focused (M = 2.30, SE = 0.12, p = .033, d = 0.53). These results provide evidence of the moderating effect of provider identity on locus of supportive conversations.

Longitudinal effects

H3 proposed that main effects of provider identity persist 3 weeks following a supportive interaction, and H4 proposed that interaction effects of source and message type persist in over-time evaluations of supportive interactions. RQ3 asked if the locus of a supportive conversation exerts any longitudinal effects. RQ4 examined whether any effects related to a moderate out-group provider persist over the course of 3 weeks. To evaluate these hypotheses and research questions, we conducted two-way ANCOVAs with participants’ over-time evaluations of cognitive reappraisal and internalized stigma as the dependent variables. For clarity, we present the results of each ANCOVA model separately below.

The ANCOVA model focused on cognitive reappraisal did not produce any significant main effects of provider identity, F(2, 95) = 1.07, p = .347, or locus of a conversation, F(1, 95) = 0.06, p = .801. We observed a significant interaction between provider identity and locus of a conversation on participants’ over-time evaluations of cognitive reappraisal, F(2, 95) = 3.22, p = .044, η² = 0.06. The pattern of effects was consistent with H4 (see Supplemental Appendix B); however, follow-up analyses did not reveal a significant difference in participants’ reappraisal when in-group members were provider-focused (M = 3.86, SE = 0.15) or receiver-focused (M = 3.50, SE = 0.16, p = .113). The difference between provider-focused (M = 3.62, SE = 0.15) and receiver-focused (M = 3.95, SE = 0.14) support from out-group members was not significant, p = .116. Participants reported similar levels of reappraisal when moderate out-group members were receiver-focused (M = 3.97, SE = 0.18) or provider-focused (M = 3.80, SE = 0.16, p = .502).

For the analyses focused on internalized stigma, we did not observe a main effect of support provider identity, F(2, 94) = 0.41, p = .668, 3 weeks following a supportive interaction. Analyses revealed a significant main effect of the locus of the conversations on participants’ over-time evaluations of internalized stigma, F(1, 94) = 1.27, p = .048. Participants reported lower internalized stigma 3 weeks after a receiver-focused (M = 2.18, SE = 0.08) compared with a provider-focused (M = 2.41, SE = 0.08, p = .045, d = 0.40) conversation. This result was qualified by a significant interaction effect between provider identity and locus of conversation on internalized stigma, F(2, 94) = 3.10, p = .05, η² = 0.05 (see Supplemental Appendix B). An examination of the means revealed that participants reported similar levels of internalized stigma when in-group members were provider-focused (M = 2.20, SE = 0.13) rather than receiver-focused (M = 2.30, SE = 0.14, p = .607). Participants felt significantly less stigmatized 3 weeks following a receiver-focused interaction (M = 1.99, SE = 0.13) with an out-group member compared with a provider-focused interaction (M = 2.56, SE = 0.13, p = .004, d = 1.00). People also reported similar levels of internalized stigma when moderate out-group members were receiver-focused (M = 2.26, SE = 0.16) or provider-focused (M = 2.48, SE = 0.14, p = .308).

In sum, we did not detect any significant main effects of provider identity on over-time evaluations of cognitive appraisal and internalized stigma (H3). Although we did not detect a main effect of the locus of the supportive conversations immediately following a conversation, receivers reported significantly less stigma 3 weeks after a receiver-focused conversation compared with a provider-focused conversation (RQ3). Results suggest that interaction effects between provider identity and locus of supportive conversation persist 3 weeks following an interaction (H4). Finally, effects related to moderate out-group providers changed over the course of 3 weeks. Immediately following a supportive interaction, moderate out-group members produced outcomes more similar to in-group members; however, 3 weeks later, moderate out-group providers produced effects more comparable with out-group providers (RQ4).⁴

Discussion

Theories including the dual-process theory of supportive communication outcomes and advice response theory (Bodie & Burleson, 2008; Burleson, 2009; Feng & MacGeorge, 2010) suggest the need to consider source and message factors in determining outcomes of supportive interactions. This study focused on two features of interactions that are salient when coping with identity-threat: the social identity of a provider and locus of a supportive conversation. To understand the lasting impact of receiving supportive communication, we examined whether these features exert immediate and longitudinal effects. Results revealed a significant main effect of provider identity on cognitive reappraisal and an interaction effect between source and message factors on internalized stigma. Results also uncovered main and interaction effects 3 weeks following an interaction, although the nature of the effects changed over the course of 3 weeks. These results speak to identity-based stressors as a unique context for receiving support, because the identity-based relationship between a provider and receiver changed the effects of different types of messages. Both self-report assessments from participants and coded responses from third parties indicated that the quality of support was consistent across the experimental conditions, yet participants experienced distinct results in different conditions. In the logic of dual-process theories, these differences suggest that provider identity and locus of the conversation operate as heuristic cues that shape outcomes.

Implications of Immediate Effects of Supportive Interactions

A primary goal of this study was to investigate how social identities influence supportive interactions. SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) posits that groups define a person’s social status and serve as comparative others, and that a person experiences better outcomes when interacting with someone who shares a common identity. Receivers in this study experienced differential outcomes after receiving support depending upon the identity of a support provider, such that receivers experienced higher cognitive reappraisal after interacting with an in-group compared with an out-group provider. Scholars have called for increased attention to the role of communication in social identity phenomena (Hogg & Reid, 2006), and the results echo the utility of expanding the social identity approach to consider communicative aspects.

Much of the research on SIT has bifurcated group relations, such that out-group members are defined as anyone not part of the in-group (Carr et al., 2013). Results from the current study speak to the utility of considering additional nuance in the concept of social identity. Immediately following a supportive conversation, participants reported greater cognitive reappraisal when interacting with a moderate out-group compared with an out-group provider, and they reported similar levels of cognitive reappraisal when interacting with in-group and moderate out-group members. These results suggest that immediately following an interaction, people accrue the greatest benefits from interacting with either in-group or moderate out-group providers. Some research has suggested that advice and expressions of empathy from nonpeers can be perceived as problematic or inconsiderate (Rossetto, 2015). Perhaps, when socially distant providers share similar hardships, they become valued support providers. In other words, it might not be perceptions of similarity between a provider and receiver per se that contribute to beneficial outcomes, but rather similar hardships that foster feelings of social connection to others with similar disadvantaged identities (Brannon & Walton, 2013).

Scholars interested in supportive communication have disagreed about the extent to which a provider should attend to their own affect and experiences when offering help to others. Research on VPC contends that helpful supportive messages are highly tailored and elaborate on a receiver’s feelings (High & Dillard, 2012). In fact, research in this area warns of the consequences of focusing on a provider’s own troubles (Burleson & Goldsmith, 1998). Research on invisible support indicates that being provider-focused can be a means of subtly offering advice and comfort without threatening a receiver’s face (Bolger & Amarel, 2007). Although the research on VPC and invisible support offer competing perspectives on the value of provider-focused support, little research has directly examined the extent to which support focused on a provider or receiver is a meaningful dimension of supportive communication. This study evaluates these competing lines of thinking by examining the locus of a conversation as a distinct feature of supportive interactions.

The results provide evidence for the benefits of being provider-focused, at least for certain types of providers. Although we did not detect any main effects of locus of conversation on outcomes immediately following the interaction, people felt significantly less stigmatized immediately after a provider-focused conversation with a moderate out-group member compared with a receiver-focused conversation. When providers elaborate on their experiences and affect surrounding a similar social identity, it might convey empathy and understanding. Notably, however, we did not find this same effect for in-group providers. When moderate out-group providers share their experiences with a similar identity-threatening stressor, it implies that a stressor applies to similar social groups, which could normalize the stressor and ease feelings of stigma. Doing so allows receivers to make social comparisons that cast their stressors in a more positive light (Cohen & McKay, 1984), and moderate out-groups might entail an ideal amount of social distance to facilitate such comparison. High-quality supportive messages often assume an ability to empathize with someone, yet empathy can be difficult unless providers have relevant experience with a stressor. Provider-focused messages can be effective support when people use them as a basis for empathy that they might otherwise lack. People who share similar hardships can be valuable support providers, and it appears that these benefits are most effectively realized when moderate out-group members elaborate on their experiences with comparable stressors. In contrast to the research on VPC, this study finds that focusing on a provider can be more beneficial than focusing on a receiver, at least for certain types of providers.

Prior research has examined VPC and type of support as features of supportive messages; however, this study suggests that there are differences in how these messages are delivered. Scholars of communication are often interested in variations in supportive messages (MacGeorge et al., 2011), and the additional nuance captured in this study offers productive new dimensions to consider within supportive communication. Establishing the locus of a conversation as a distinct feature of supportive interactions opens new avenues for inquiry into the contexts in which provider- or receiver-focused messages may be more appropriately or empathetically employed. Advice response theory (Feng & MacGeorge, 2010) theorizes about source and message factors that influence outcomes of receiving advice, and research on invisible support (Bolger & Amarel, 2007) suggests that the locus of a conversation might influence the outcomes of receiving informational support. Scholars have also begun investigating how support gaps, or discrepancies between the support a person desires and receives, impact supportive outcomes (Crowley et al., 2018; Davis & High, 2019). Future research could investigate whether the locus of a conversation influences the size and nature of support gaps. Overall, future research can build upon the insights of this study to further investigate how provider- or receiver-focused messages impact the giving and receiving of supportive communication.

Implications of Lasting Effects of Supportive Interactions

The lasting effects we observed have implications for the dual-process theory of supportive communication outcomes (Bodie & Burleson, 2008; Burleson, 2009), which argues that the extensiveness with which people process elements of interactions affects the immediate and longitudinal outcomes they experience. Although we did not detect a significant main effect of locus of a conversation immediately following the interactions, people reported significantly lower feelings of stigma after engaging in receiver-focused conversations as opposed to provider-focused conversations 3 weeks later. In contrast, the main effect of provider identity that was observed immediately following these conversations did not persist over time. Some features of interactions are likely more impactful on long-term outcomes versus others. The dual-process theory of supportive communication outcomes argues that the most durable outcomes exist when message content is centrally processed, whereas source factors are often processed peripherally (Bodie & Burleson, 2008; Burleson, 2009). Participants interacted with strangers and were debriefed following the initial session in the lab, which might also account for the discrepancies in immediate- and long-term effects.

Immediately following a conversation, participants reported better outcomes when moderate out-group providers were provider-focused rather than receiver-focused; however, these effects dissipated over time. Participants might have processed provider-focused messages less elaborately than receiver-focused messages, which could explain the changes in the pattern of effects immediately following and 3 weeks after a supportive interaction. Provider-focused messages draw a receiver’s attention away from a stressor and could distract a person from his or her worries, which might discourage elaborate thinking on that stressor. Indeed, distraction support is thought to produce short-term benefits (Priem & Solomon, 2009). If provider-focused messages are processed less extensively, it could be that people initially benefitted from these messages because they act as a cue that a provider cares about or relates to a receiver, at least when communicated by certain providers. Over time, however, the benefits conferred by provider-focused messages dissipate because people have not processed these messages extensively. Participants also reported significantly lower internalized stigma 3 weeks after a receiver-focused conversation with an out-group member compared with a provider-focused conversation. If receiver-focused messages are processed extensively, then 3 weeks after an interaction, people might be left with favorable memories of distant out-group members attending to their affect and listening to their experiences. These results extend dual-process theory by considering how source and message factors interact and how the locus of message content might be related to processing modes, which, in turn, shape both immediate and longitudinal outcomes. Practically speaking, support providers can share similar experiences with an identity-threatening stressor to alleviate immediate feelings of otherness and build trust with a receiver; however, once trust is established, providers might also need to attend to a receiver’s negative feelings to encourage enduring emotional improvement surrounding a stressor.

The results of this study demonstrate that characteristics of interactions can mitigate or reinforce feelings of otherness and that these feelings last over time. Stigma is not a fixed mark or inherent to a person (Smith, 2007); rather, the experience of stigma is intersubjective. Theories of stigma communication (Smith, 2007) posit that stigma is socially constructed, maintained, and changed through communication. Despite the clear role of communication in the development of perceptions of stigma, little research examines perceptions of stigma as an outcome of interpersonal interactions. This study addresses this gap and highlights how supportive interactions shape people’s perceptions of stigma, which has practical implications for interventions aimed at alleviating stigma. Interestingly, the results suggest that out-group members could play a unique role in mitigating the experience of identity-threat and stigma. Interacting with empathetic out-group members who explicitly acknowledge the plight of marginalized group members might buffer the deleterious effects of identity-threatening situations on a person’s self-concept.

Limitations and Conclusion

Experimental designs confer many benefits, but these benefits are typically at the expense of ecological validity. The supportive conversations were experimentally manipulated and do not necessarily reflect how naturally occurring conversations unfold. Participants in this study were asked to engage in a supportive conversation with a stranger. Participants rated conversations as highly realistic; however, the conversations still maintained a degree of artificiality and might not reflect people’s inclinations for supportive communication. Only female confederates were used to control for variation. People prefer female support providers and view females to be more natural providers of high-quality messages (Kunkel & Burleson, 1999). It could be, then, that provider sex moderates the results of this study. Furthermore, people belong to multiple social groups (e.g., race, class, age), and it is possible that the interactions were influenced by other social identities not considered in this study.

Another set of limitations concerns the context of the study. Participants experienced a threat to one particular social identity (i.e., college major) after reading a fabricated news article that argued communication students are less intelligent, passionate, and motivated. Although participants reported moderate levels of stress after reading the article, the study lacked a formal manipulation check of the identity-threat induction. The fabricated news article was intended to prime communication majors to view their major as a source of identity-threat for the subsequent conversations. Because we encouraged feelings of identity-threat by derogating a student’s college major, we debriefed participants immediately following the in-lab session, which might have impacted their cognitive reappraisal and internalized stigma 3 weeks after the interactions. That we found effects in the follow-up data speak to the durable effects of both source and message factors. A person’s college major might be a relatively temporary stressor compared with other sources of identity-threat, and people enrolled in other majors or other universities might produce different results. The effects of supportive conversations might vary for more enduring identity-threatening stressors.

Experiencing an identity-threatening stressor harms a person’s self-concept and can hinder his or her ability to have carefree social interactions (Thoits, 2013). This research demonstrates that nuances within supportive interactions can have a lasting impact on how effectively a person copes with identity-threat. Although designing messages around the identity-based relationship between a provider and receiver is a complicated endeavor, provider- and receiver-focused messages might be valuable to alleviating feelings of otherness and damage to a person’s self-concept. This study illuminates how source and message factors combine in nuanced ways to produce immediate and lasting effects and affirms the key role supportive interactions can play in people’s cognitive and emotional well-being.

Supplemental Material

Appendix_A – Supplemental material for Effects of Provider Identity and Locus of Supportive Conversation on Coping With an Identity-Threatening Stressor

Supplemental material, Appendix_A for Effects of Provider Identity and Locus of Supportive Conversation on Coping With an Identity-Threatening Stressor by Jenny L. Crowley and Andrew C. High in Communication Research

Supplemental Material

Appendix_B – Supplemental material for Effects of Provider Identity and Locus of Supportive Conversation on Coping With an Identity-Threatening Stressor

Supplemental material, Appendix_B for Effects of Provider Identity and Locus of Supportive Conversation on Coping With an Identity-Threatening Stressor by Jenny L. Crowley and Andrew C. High in Communication Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

ORCID iD

Jenny L. Crowley

Author Biographies

Jenny L. Crowley (PhD, The University of Iowa) is an assistant professor in the School of Communication Studies at The University of Tennessee.

Andrew C. High (PhD, The Pennsylvania State University) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at Pennsylvania State University.

References

Berger

B. E.

Ferrans

C. E.

Lashley

F. R.

(2001). Measuring stigma in people with HIV: Psychometric assessment of the HIV stigma scale. Research in Nursing & Health, 24, 518-529. doi:10.1002/nur.10011

Bodie

G. D.

Burleson

B. R.

(2008). Explaining the variations in the effects of supportive messages: A dual-process framework. In Beck

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 32 (pp. 354-398). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bolger

Amarel

(2007). Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: Experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 458-475. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.458

Brannon

T. N.

Walton

G. M.

(2013). Enacting cultural interests how intergroup contact reduces prejudice by sparking interest in an out-group’s culture. Psychological Science, 24, 1947-1957. doi:10.1177/0956797613481607

Burleson

B. R.

(1994). Friendship and similarities in social-cognitive and communication abilities: Social skill bases of interpersonal attraction in childhood. Personal Relationships, 1, 371-389. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00071.x

Burleson

B. R.

(2009). Understanding the outcomes of supportive communication: A dual-process approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 21-38. doi:10.1177/0265407509105519

Burleson

B. R.

Goldsmith

D. J.

(1998). How the comforting process works: Alleviating emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In Andersen

P. A.

Guerrero

L. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotions: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 245-280). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Cannava

High

A. C.

Jones

Bodie

(2018). The stuff that verbal person-centered support is made of: Identifying linguistic markers of more and less supportive conversations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37, 656-679. doi:10.1177/0261927X18793683

Carr

C. T.

Vitak

McLaughlin

(2013). Strength of social cues in online impression formation: Expanding SIDE research. Communication Research, 40, 261-281. doi:10.1177/0093650211430687

10.

Cohen

McKay

(1984). Social support, stress, and the buffering hypothesis: A theoretical analysis. In Baum

Taylor

S. E.

Singer

J. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology and health (Vol. IV, pp. 253-267). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Crowley

J. L.

(2017). A framework of relational information control: A review and extension of information control research in interpersonal contexts. Communication Theory, 27, 202-222. doi:10.1111/comt.12115

12.

Crowley

J. L.

High

A. C.

Thomas

L. J.

(2018). Desired, expected, and received support: How support gaps impact affect improvement and perceived stigma in the context of unintended pregnancy. Health Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10410236.2018.1495162

13.

Cutrona

C. E.

Russell

D. W.

(1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching. In Sarason

B. R.

Sarason

I. G.

Pierce

G. R.

(Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 319-366). New York, NY: Wiley.

14.

Davis

S. M.

High

A. C.

(2019). Widening the gap: Support gaps in same race versus different race female friendship dyads. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 187-213. doi:10.1177/0265407517722245

15.

Feeney

B. C.

Collins

N. L.

(2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 113-147. doi:10.1177/1088868314544222

16.

Feng

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2006). Predicting receptiveness to advice: Characteristics of the problem, the advice-giver, and the recipient. Southern Communication Journal, 71, 67-85. doi:10.1080/10417940500503548

17.

Feng

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2010). The influences of message and source factors on advice outcomes. Communication Research, 37, 553-575. doi:10.1177/0093650210368258

18.

Frazier

P. A.

Tix

A. P.

Barnett

C. L

. (2003). The relational context of social support: Relationship satisfaction moderates the relations between enacted support and distress. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,1133-1146. doi:10.1177/0146167203254545

19.

Foddy

Platow

M. J.

Yamagishi

(2009). Group-based trust in strangers: The role of stereotypes and expectations. Psychological Science, 20, 419-422. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02312.x

20.

Galotti

K. M.

Ciner

Altenbaumer

H. E.

Geerts

H. J.

Rupp

Woulfe

(2006). Decision-making styles in a real-life decision: Choosing a college major. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 629-639. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.003

21.

Giles

(1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15, 87-105. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30029508

22.

Haslam

S. A.

Jetten

O’Brien

Jacobs

(2004). Social identity, social influence and reactions to potentially stressful tasks: Support for the self-categorization model of stress. Stress & Health, 20, 3-9. doi:10.1002/smi.995

23.

Haslam

S. A.

Reicher

S. D.

Levine

R. M.

(2011). When other people are heaven, when other people are hell: How social identity determines the nature and impact of social support. In Jetten

Haslam

S. A.

(Eds.), The social cure: Identity, health, and well-being (pp. 157-174). London, England: Psychology Press.

24.

High

A. C.

Crowley

J. L.

(2018). Gaps among desired, sought, and received support: Deficits and surpluses in support when coping with taboo marital stressors. Communication Research, 45, 319-338. doi:10.1177/0093650215626975

25.

High

A. C.

Dillard

J. P.

(2012). A review and meta-analysis of person-centered messages and social support outcomes. Communication Studies, 63, 99-118. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.598208

26.

High

A. C.

Solomon

D. H.

(2014). Communication channel, sex, and the immediate and longitudinal outcomes of verbal person-centered support. Communication Monographs, 81, 439-468. doi:10.1080/03637751.2014.933245

27.

Hodges

S. D.

Kiel

K. J.

Kramer

A. D. I.

Veach

Villanueva

B. R.

(2009). Giving birth to empathy: The effects of similar experience on empathic accuracy, empathic concern, and perceived empathy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 398-409. doi:10.1177/0146167209350326

28.

Hogg

M. A.

Reid

S. A.

(2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7-30. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x

29.

Holahan

C. J.

Moos

R. H.

(1981). Social support and psychological distress: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 365-370. doi:10.1037/0021-843x.90.4.365

30.

Holmstrom

A. J.

Kim

S. Y.

(2015). The mediating role of cognitive reattribution and reappraisal in the esteem support process. Communication Research, 42, 60-86. doi:10.1177/0093650212449015

31.

Howland

Simpson

J. A.

(2010). Getting in under the radar: A dyadic view of invisible support. Psychological Science, 21, 1878-1885. doi:10.1177/0956797610388817

32.

Ikeda

Kawachi

(2010). Social networks and health. In Steptoe

(Ed.), Handbook of behavioral medicine: Methods and applications (pp. 237-262). New York, NY: Springer.

33.

Jones

(2004). Putting the person into person-centered and immediate emotional support: Emotional change and perceived helper competence as outcomes of comforting in helping situations. Communication Research, 31, 338-360. doi:10.1177/0093650204263436

34.

Joseph

Afifi

T. D.

Denes

(2015). (Unmet) Standards for emotional support and their short- and medium-term consequences. Communication Monographs, 83, 163-193. doi:10.1080/03637751.2015.1068432

35.

Kunkel

A. W.

Burleson

B. R.

(1999). Assessing explanations for sex differences in emotional support: A test of different cultures and skill specialization accounts. Human Communication Research, 25, 307-340. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1999.tb00448.x

36.

Levine

Prosser

Evans

Reicher

(2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 443-453. doi:10.1177/0146167204271651

37.

Link

B. G.

(1987). Understanding labeling effects in the area of mental disorders: An assessment of the effects of expectations of rejection. American Sociological Review, 52, 96-112. doi:10.2307/2095395

38.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Branch

S. E.

Carlson-Hill

C. L.

Tian

Caldes

E. P.

Miskovsky

M. N.

. . .Brinker

D. L.

(2019). Verbal person centeredness in interaction: Connecting micro- and macro-level operationalization. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38, 149-169. doi:10.1177/0261927X18807508

39.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Feng

Burleson

B. R.

(2011). Supportive communication. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 317-354). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

40.

Mickelson

K. D.

(2001). Perceived stigma, social support, and depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1046-1056. doi:10.1177/0146167201278011

41.

Penninx

B. W. J. H.

van Tilburg

Kriegsman

D. M. W.

Deeg

D. J. H.

Boeke

A. J. P.

van Eijk

J. T. M.

(1997). Effects of social support and personal control resources on mortality in older age: The longitudinal aging study Amsterdam. American Journal of Epidemiology, 146, 510-519. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009305

42.

Porter

S. R.

Umbach

P. D.

(2006). College major choice: An analysis of person–environment fit. Research in Higher Education, 47, 429-449. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-9002-3

43.

Priem

J. S.

Solomon

D. H.

(2009). Comforting apprehensive communicators: The effects of reappraisal and distraction on cortisol levels among students in a public speaking class. Communication Quarterly, 57, 259-281. doi:10.1080/01463370903107253

44.

Priem

J. S.

Solomon

D. H.

(2011). Relational uncertainty and cortisol responses to hurtful and supportive messages from a dating partner. Personal Relationships, 18, 198-223. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01353.x

45.

Rossetto

K. R.

(2015). Evaluations of supportive and unsupportive responses during spousal deployment. Communication Monographs, 82, 291-314. doi:10.1080/03637751.2014.978344

46.

Scott

A. M.

Martin

S. C.

Stone

A. M.

Brashers

D. E.

(2011). Managing multiple goals in supportive interactions: Using a normative theoretical approach to explain social support as uncertainty management for organ transplant patients. Health Communication, 26, 393-403. doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.552479

47.

Smith

R. A.

(2007). Language of the lost: An explication of stigma communication. Communication Theory, 17, 462-485. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00307.x

48.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

(Ed.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

49.

Tanis

Postmes

(2005). A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, group membership and trusting behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 413-424. doi:10.1002/ejsp.256

50.

Thoits

P. A.

(2013). Self, identity, stress, and mental health. In Aneshensel

Phelan

Bierman

(Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health (2nd ed., pp. 357-377). Cham, The Netherlands: Springer.

51.

Uno

Uchino

B. N.

Smith

T. W.

(2002). Relationship quality moderates the effect of social support given by close friends on cardiovascular reactivity in women. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 9, 243-262. doi:10.1207/s15327558ijbm0903_06

52.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). From bachelor’s degree to work: Major field of study and employment outcomes of 1992–1993 bachelor’s degree recipients who did not enroll in graduate education by 1997 (NCES 2001–165). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

53.

Vogel

D. L.

Wade

N. G.

Haake

(2006). Measuring the self-stigma associated with seeking psychological help. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 325-337. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.325

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB

0.01 MB