ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Sixty-one couples engaged in two video-recorded discussions in which one partner (the support recipient) discussed a personal goal with the other partner (the support provider). The support provider's visible and invisible support behaviors were coded by independent raters. Measures of perceived support, discussion success, and support recipients' distress during the discussion were gathered. Recipients also reported their goal achievement at 3-month intervals over the following year. Greater visible emotional support was associated with greater perceived support and discussion success for highly distressed recipients, but it was costly for nondistressed recipients who reported lower discussion success. In contrast, greater invisible emotional support was not associated with perceived support or discussion success, but it predicted greater goal achievement across time. These results advance our current understanding of support processes by indicating that the costs and benefits of visible support hinge on recipients' needs, whereas invisible support shapes recipients' long-term goal achievement.
1
Copyright © 2013 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
Reproduced with permission.
This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the final, authoritative
version of the article. The final article will be available, upon publication, via the citation and
DOI below:
Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., & Simpson, J. A. (2013). When Visibility Matters:
Short-term versus Long-term Costs and Benefits of Visible and Invisible Support.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1441-1454.
doi: 10.1177/0146167213497802
The use of SAGE Publishers information does not imply endorsement by SAGE Publishers.
No further reproduction or distribution is permitted without written permission from the
SAGE Publishers.
2
When Visibility Matters:
Short-term versus Long-term Costs and Benefits of Visible and Invisible Support
Yuthika U. Girme, University of Auckland
Nickola C. Overall, University of Auckland
Jeffry A. Simpson, University of Minnesota
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Kirstyn Turnbull, Antoinette Murray, and Joshua Bayliss for their
contribution to the development of the coding schedule and coding.
3
Abstract
Sixty-one couples engaged in two video-recorded discussions in which one partner (the
support recipient) discussed a personal goal with the other partner (the support provider). The
support provider’s visible and invisible support behavior was coded by independent raters.
Measures of perceived support, discussion success, and support recipients’ distress during the
discussion were gathered. Recipients also reported their goal achievement at 3-month
intervals over the following year. Greater visible emotional support was associated with
greater perceived support and discussion success for highly distressed recipients, but it was
costly for non-distressed recipients who reported lower discussion success. In contrast,
greater invisible emotional support was not associated with perceived support or discussion
success, but it predicted greater goal achievement across time. These results advance our
current understanding of support processes by indicating that the costs and benefits of visible
support hinge on the recipient’s needs, whereas invisible support shapes recipients’ long-term
goal achievement.
Keywords: visible support, invisible support, goal achievement, personal goals
4
When Visibility Matters:
Short-term versus Long-term Costs and Benefits of Visible and Invisible Support
Prior research has produced an inconsistent set of findings about the relative benefits
versus costs of support. On the one hand, greater observed support delivered by intimate
partners during couples support-relevant exchanges has been shown to build feelings of
closeness and support, boost positive mood and self-esteem, and foster greater goal
achievement and relationship quality across time (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2000; Feeney,
2004; Feeney & Collins, 2003; Overall, Fletcher & Simpson, 2010; Sullivan, Pasch, Johnson
& Bradbury, 2010). On the other hand, direct or visible support behaviors that are perceived
by support recipients during daily life have been associated with increased anxiety and
depressed mood (e.g., Bolger, Zuckerman, & Kessler, 2000; Gable, Gosnell, Maisel &
Strachman, 2012). Indeed, this latter body of work has provided good evidence that partner
support is most effective in improving mood when it is invisible or goes unnoticed by
recipients (e.g., Bolger et al., 2000; Howland & Simpson, 2010; Shrout, Herman & Bolger,
2006). However, no prior research has examined whether invisible support produces benefits
for recipients over time.
In the present research, we assessed both visible and invisible support observed during
couples’ video-recorded discussions of each other’s personal goals. Our aim was to reconcile
and extend prior research in two novel ways. First, we examined whether the immediate
benefits and costs of visible support depend on the contextual needs of support recipients. We
hypothesized that visible support would be beneficial when recipients were more distressed
and needed their partner’s comfort, but relatively costly when recipients were low in distress
and thus did not need direct forms of emotional reassurance. Second, we tracked recipients’
goal accomplishment across a 1-year period to provide the first test of whether invisible
support has long-term personal benefits by facilitating actual goal achievement.
5
Short-Term Contextual Costs and Benefits of Visible and Invisible Support
Research documenting the costs of visible support and the benefits of invisible support
has primarily focused on personal outcomes, such as recipients’ mood or perceived efficacy
(Bolger et al., 2000; Bolger & Amarel, 2007; Gleason, Iida, Shrout & Bolger, 2008; Shrout et
al., 2006). The first set of studies, for example, found that perceiving greater partner support
in the week leading up to an important exam or receiving overt support before delivering a
speech is associated with relative increases in anxiety and depressed mood (Bolger et al.,
2000; Bolger & Amarel, 2007). Such costs likely arise because visible support increases the
salience of impending stressors, conveys low confidence in recipients’ capability to cope or
achieve their goals (Bolger et al., 2000), and may disrupt recipients’ focus on the task at
hand. In contrast, support that is provided but not perceived by recipients support that is
invisible appears to aid recipients without undermining their perceived efficacy or ability to
deal with current challenges. Accordingly, invisible support has been linked with reductions
in anxiety and depressed mood (Bolger et al., 2000; Bolger & Amarel, 2007; Gleason et al.,
2008; Shrout et al., 2006).
More recently, Howland and Simpson (2010) have also shown that invisible support
within couples’ observed discussions about personal goals bolsters mood and self-efficacy.
They defined invisible support as adopting a subtle, conversational approach that blurs the
distinction between support recipient and provider roles, and using third-party examples to
draw the focus away from recipients and their distressing issue. As above, these behaviors
should minimize the salience of the recipients’ difficulties and reduce self-relevant threat that
might accompany more visible support behaviors (as typically assessed during observed
support discussions). Indeed, Howland and Simpson (2010) found that recipients felt less
anxious and more efficacious when their partner enacted invisible behaviors that were not
perceived as support than when delivering more direct and perceived visible support.
6
In contrast to the focus on personal outcomes, research demonstrating the benefits of
visible support has typically focused on interpersonal outcomes. By validating recipients’
feelings and conveying positive regard, for example, visible support should help recipients
feel cared for, understood, and supported, which in turn should alleviate distress and facilitate
coping. Accordingly, observed direct support during couples’ discussions of ongoing
stressors and goals has been repeatedly linked to greater felt support, closeness, and
relationship satisfaction (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Cutrona & Suhr, 1992; Feeney & Collins,
2003; Gleason et al., 2008; Overall et al., 2010; Pasch, Bradbury & Sullivan, 1997; Sullivan
et al., 2010; Verhofstadt, et al., 2008). Moreover, more visible support and, in particular, the
resulting feelings of support, have been linked with increases in positive mood, coping, and
self-esteem (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Conger, Rueter & Elder, 1999; Feeney, 2004), more
successful goal achievement (Feeney, 2004; Overall et al., 2010), and increases in
relationship quality and conflict resolution over time (Feeney & Collins, 2003; Overall et al.,
2010; Sullivan et al., 2010).
Prior research attempting to reconcile the costs and benefits of visible support has also
distinguished between personal versus interpersonal outcomes. Examining both outcomes,
Gleason and colleagues (2008) found that on days when participants received visible partner
support, they reported increases in relationship closeness (interpersonal benefits), but also
greater negative mood when they did not reciprocate support to their partner (personal costs).
This latter effect illustrates that the potential costs of visible support depend on the contextual
needs of participants; visible support had costs only when recipients did not reciprocate
support, which made their dependent position more salient. Moreover, perceiving the partner
as responsive and supportive may be paramount in many support interactions and trump or
override costs to personal mood or efficacy. Accordingly, Maisel and Gable (2009) found
that greater visible support accompanied by perceptions of the partners greater
7
understanding and validation did not generate more negative mood in support recipients;
instead, it produced greater relationship connectedness and security. In addition, intimates felt
more sadness and less connectedness on days when their partners provided more invisible
support, but were perceived to be less understanding and responsive.
These findings illustrate that the relative costs and benefits of visible support depend on
the needs of the recipient in the particular context in which the support transaction is
occurring (also see Cutrona, Shaffer, Wesner, & Gardner, 2007; Simpson, Winterheld,
Rholes, & Oriña, 2007). Within support-relevant discussions, when individuals are disclosing
their thoughts and feelings about ongoing personal goals and stressors, more direct and
visible support may be both needed and expected. Even in this context, however, recipients
are likely to vary in their need for visible support and reassurance. Recipients who are
experiencing high levels of distress probably need more direct care and comfort from their
partner, and therefore benefit from visible support. Indeed, the absence of visible reassurance
might be particularly costly when people are distressed and need comfort. In contrast, visible
support may be intrusive and costly for recipients who are not distressed and do not need or
want reassurance. In sum, we predicted that the benefits and costs of visible support provided
during couples’ support discussions would depend on recipients’ level of distress, and thus
their need for direct comfort, during the discussion.
We tested this contextual prediction by measuring the degree to which partners
exhibited visible (direct displays of care and reassurance) and invisible (subtle and indirect
forms of care) support behavior while couples were discussing important personal goals. We
focused on emotional support because it is most beneficial for relationships (Feeney &
Collins, 2003; Gleason et al., 2008; Overall et al., 2010; Sullivan et al., 2010) and the most
relevant response to recipients’ emotional distress (Cutrona, et al., 2007; Feeney, 2004). At
the end of each couple’s discussions, we asked recipients how much distress they experienced
8
during the discussion and gathered ratings of how supportive the partner had been during the
discussion and how successful the discussion was in facilitating the recipient’s goal progress.
Consistent with prior research, we predicted that visible emotional support would
provide interpersonal benefits, such that recipients would feel more supported by their
partners. Considering the contextual needs of the recipient, however, we expected that these
benefits would be particularly relevant to recipients who were distressed and needed care,
reassurance, and affection from their partner. Moreover, by acknowledging and being
responsive to recipient distress, we also predicted that greater visible emotional support
would benefit the personal outcomes of distressed recipients, who should report that the
discussion was more successful in facilitating their goal achievement. However, we also
thought that visible emotional support would result in personal costs for individuals who
were less distressed and did not need direct care and comfort, which should result in non-
distressed recipients viewing their discussions as less successful in helping them achieve their
goals.
In contrast to direct and visible displays, invisible emotional support is more subtle
and indirect. It is conveyed by adopting an equal and more conversational tone, disguising
affectionate contact, and indirectly reassuring recipients that they can cope by considering
how others’ have overcome similar challenges (Howland & Simpson, 2010). If these
behaviors constitute invisible support as originally conceptualized, the presence of these
behaviors should go unnoticed and should be unrelated to recipients’ perceptions of support,
regardless of their level of distress. Invisible support might also have little impact on
perceptions of goal progress following discussions because, unlike the boosts in mood and
efficacy linked to responsive invisible support, perceptions of discussion success depend on
recipients evaluating the discussion and their partner’s invisible behavior as being effective
with regard to their goal. However, as we discuss next, even though it may not be perceived
9
as supportive or helpful when it is delivered, invisible support may work ‘under the radar’ to
facilitate long-term goal achievement.
Long-Term Costs and Benefits of Visible and Invisible Emotional Support
Prior theoretical arguments indicate that, compared to visible support, invisible
support should be more effective at enhancing recipients’ efficacy and ability to achieve
personal goals by bypassing threats to their competence or capability (e.g., Bolger et al.,
2000; Bolger & Amarel, 2007; Shrout et al., 2006). Indeed, (visible) support that threatens
recipients self-esteem is associated with more negative self-evaluations in regard to the
stressor (Fisher, Nadler & Whitcher-Alagna, 1982), and low self-esteem individuals tend to
be more defensive when receiving (visible) support, probably because they lack confidence in
their abilities or feel indebted (Newsom & Schulz, 1998). In contrast, support
communications designed to avoid conveying the recipient is unable to complete challenging
tasks are most beneficial in reducing negative mood (Bolger & Amarel, 2007). In addition,
Bolger and Amarel (2007) found that invisible support buffered negative mood because it
was associated with more positive perceptions of the degree to which others’ evaluated the
self as competent and efficacious. Howland and Simpson (2010) also found that invisible
practical (but not emotional) support was associated with greater self-efficacy.
Although not providing solid evidence that emotional invisible support bolsters self-
efficacy, these prior findings and the theorized function of invisible support suggest that
invisible support should be less likely to interfere with recipients’ feelings of goal-related
competence. More positive beliefs in one’s ability motivate persistence when inevitable
setbacks and challenges occur, and the sustained goal strivings that result contributes to
greater goal success (Bandura, 1994; Bandura & Locke, 2003). Instead of building self-
efficacy, visible emotional support may reinforce the belief that help is required from the
partner. Knowing that others are there to help can also reduce goal-related efforts, perhaps
10
because recipients perceive less is needed to achieve their goals (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2011).
Invisible support, in contrast, might increase the degree to which individuals take
responsibility for their own goal achievement and for managing any goal-related distress or
challenges they encounter. We tested these possibilities by examining whether invisible
support delivered during couples’ goal-related discussions was more successful than visible
support in facilitating recipients’ achievement of that goal during the following year.
Current Research
The current research examined the short-term versus long-term effects of visible and
invisible support provided by partners during laboratory-based interactions in which support
recipients discussed with their partners an important personal self-improvement goal. We
assessed the type of emotional support provided by partners (support providers) when
individuals discussed their own personal goal (support recipients). Independent coders rated
visible (e.g., overt reassurance) and invisible (e.g., subtle, conversational forms of comfort)
forms of emotional support. Following each discussion, support recipients rated their levels
of distress during the discussion, their perceptions of support received from their partners,
and how successful the discussion was in helping them achieve their goals. Recipients also
reported their actual goal achievement at 3-month intervals over the following year.
Our first objective was to examine whether the immediate or short-term costs and
benefits of visible support depended on the contextual needs of the support recipient. For
highly distressed individuals who need more visible reassurance and comforting, we
predicted that greater visible emotional support would be beneficial, leading to more positive
post-discussion perceptions of support and success in propelling positive change in the
targeted goal. For support recipients low in distress and not in need of direct emotional
comfort, however, we expected that greater visible support would be costly, leading to lower
discussion success. Given the subtle and indirect nature of invisible support, along with the
11
fact that these behaviors should go unnoticed by recipients (i.e., be invisible), we also
expected that invisible support would have little or no impact on recipients’ immediate
perceptions of either support or discussion success.
Our second objective was to provide the first test of whether invisible support, despite
being unnoticed in the short-term, has long-term benefits. We reasoned that if invisible
support avoids threatening goal-related confidence and efficacy and it fosters greater
responsibility for recipients own goal attainment, invisible support might predict greater goal
achievement over time. Thus, we examined whether invisible and visible support delivered
during couples’ goal-related discussions predicted the degree to which recipients were
successful at achieving their goal over the following year.
Method
Participants
Sixty-one heterosexual couples responded to campus advertisements at a New
Zealand University and were paid NZ$40 for participating. Couples were relatively young (M
= 23.38, SD = 5.37), but were involved in long-term (M = 33.67 months, SD = 33.89) and
fairly serious relationships (30% serious, 49% cohabiting, 15% married). This sample was
used by Overall et al. (2010, Study 2), but the hypotheses, coding, and outcomes associated
with visible and invisible support tested here are completely novel and have never been
reported before.
Materials and Procedure
Partners first completed the Perceived Relationship Quality Components inventory
(PRQC; Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000). Items tapping satisfaction, commitment,
intimacy, trust, passion, love, and romance (e.g., “How satisfied are you with your
relationship?”; 1 = not at all, 7 = extremely) were averaged to provide an overall index of
perceived relationship quality (α = .84).
12
Participants then identified and ranked in order of importance three aspects of
themselves they wanted to change or improve, which they were told they might discuss with
their partner. After a short warm-up discussion, each couple engaged in two 5-minute video-
recorded discussions regarding the most important self-improvement goal of each partner.
The order of discussion (whether the female partner’s or the male partner’s goal was
discussed first versus second) was counterbalanced across couples. We refer to the person
whose goal was discussed as the support recipient, and their partner who could be
supportive as the support provider. Following each discussion, support recipients and
support providers reported their perceptions of the discussion.
Distress. Following each discussion, support recipients reported on how stressful (1 =
not at all stressful, 7 = extremely stressful) and upset they were during the discussion (1 = not
at all upset, 7 = extremely upset). These items were averaged (r = .60, p < .001) to index how
much recipients were distressed when discussing their goal with their partner.
Perceived Support. To index how much each recipient perceived that his or her
partner was supportive, support recipients also reported how much they felt supported (1 =
not at all supported, 7 = extremely supported) and helped (1 = did not help me at all, 7 =
helped me very much) by their partner, as well as how much they valued (1 = did not value at
all, 7 = valued partner very much) and appreciated (1 = did not appreciate at all, 7 =
appreciated partner very much) their partner’s input during the discussion (α = .91).
Reported Support. Analogous items were used to assess support providers
perceptions of how supportive they were to recipients (e.g., “To what extent did you feel you
supported your partner during their discussion”, 1 = did not support at all, 7 = extremely
supported). Items were averaged (α = .83) to index providers’ reported support provision.
Discussion Success. Finally, support recipients and providers both reported how
successful: (1) the discussion was, (2) he/she was, and (3) his/her partner was in bringing
13
about change (or intention to change) in the goal that was discussed (1 = not at all successful,
7 = extremely successful). Items were averaged to create separate indexes of discussion
success perceived by support recipients (α = .85) and providers (α = .85).
Coding Procedure
Integrating themes in Howland and Simpson’s (2010) coding procedure to assess
visible and invisible support, we identified three overarching principles that define the nature
of invisible support: (1) strategically providing support in subtle or indirect ways, (2) de-
emphasizing the roles of support provider and support recipient, and (3) reframing the locus
of the problem away from the support recipient. Table 1 provides detailed descriptions of
these principles and describes the role each plays in supporting recipients. As stated in Table
1, these principles specify that invisible support behaviors: (1) avoid making the support
recipient feel as if they are receiving support, (2) avoid creating feelings of indebtedness or
incompetence in the recipient, and (3) shift recipients’ focus away from their problem or
difficulty to a broader view of similar shared experiences, which reduce the salience of the
recipient’s difficulties and foster openness and insight by revealing how others have
successfully coped with and solved similar challenges. Visible support was conceptualized as
the opposite: (1) providing support in direct and overt ways, (2) providing support that
emphasizes or makes salient the roles of the support provider and the support recipient based
on how the discussion is guided and directed, and (3) focusing on the support recipient and
his or her problem, issue, or goal, thereby narrowing the recipients view and increasing the
salience of problems or distress they might be feeling.
These principles were then combined with prior definitions of emotional support and
associated behaviors (see Overall et al., 2010) to specify behaviors reflecting visible and
invisible emotional support. Visible Emotional Support was defined as support that was
motivated to make the support recipient feel better by overtly expressing care and affection
14
and providing reassurance and positive feedback, such as obvious displays of love and
affection, using humor to reduce tension, active listening, and providing reassurance,
feedback or reinterpretations of the issue while making references to the recipient’s
problem/issue/goal. Invisible Emotional Support was defined by more subtle behaviors that
deemphasized recipient versus provider roles and reduced the salience of the recipient’s
difficulties, such as providing affection by creating subtle physical contact (e.g., maintaining
open body posture, fixing the recipient’s hair or clothes), using off-topic humor, using
one’s own or another’s similar troubles and difficulties to provide reassurance, feedback, or
reinterpretations of the problem, and insights about alternative ways of coping with the issue.
(A detailed coding schedule, associated procedural information, and exemplar videos
demonstrating support behaviors are available from the corresponding authors).
Three coders were trained to understand the underlying principles and then given
examples of visible and invisible support behaviors using video exemplars from Howland and
Simpson (2010). Once coders were able to reliably identify visible versus invisible support
behaviors, they independently rated the videotaped interactions for visible and invisible
emotional support, taking into account the frequency, quality, and duration of support
behaviors displayed (1-2 = low, 3-5 = moderate, 6-7 = high). Coder ratings for visible (ICC =
.89) and invisible (ICC = .88) support were highly consistent and averaged across coders to
construct scores for each support type. Because this sample had already been coded by
Overall et al. (2010), we were able to validate that our visible support rating was strongly
associated with prior ratings of emotional (r = .35, p < .01) and esteem (r = .71, p < .01)
support provision. In contrast, invisible support was only weakly associated with prior
support codes (rs = .10 with emotional support, and .18 with esteem support), and the new
ratings of visible and invisible emotional support were also only weakly associated (see Table
3). These relations indicate that: (1) prior support taxonomies predominantly assess visible,
15
direct forms of support, and (2) the invisible support behaviors identified assess a unique set
of behaviors that are not strongly related to more direct forms of support.
Goal Achievement over the Following Year
Participants completed a telephone interview at three month intervals during the
following year. Participants were reminded of the specific personal goal they discussed with
their partner during the laboratory session. They were then asked to verbally rate the degree
to which they had discussed the topic with their partner in the past three months (1 = not
discussed at all, 7 = discussed a great deal), the extent to which they demonstrated change (1
= not changed at all, 7 = changed a lot), and how effective/successful they had been in
bringing about desired change (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely) in the aspect of themselves they
wanted to improve during the past three months. The latter two items were averaged (average
r = .83, p < .01) to index overall goal achievement.
Results
Short-Term Benefits and Costs of Visible and Invisible Support
We first examined the cross-sectional relations between visible and invisible
emotional support provision and immediate perceived support and discussion success. Table
2 displays descriptive statistics for all measures collected at the initial laboratory session.
Recipients’ reported low to moderate levels of distress. Consistently, support providers
provided moderate levels of visible emotional support, and lower levels of invisible
emotional support. Nonetheless, recipients perceived high levels of support, discussion
success, and relationship quality, and the support variables had good range and variability.
Table 3 displays the correlations across measures at the initial session. Consistent
with prior research showing the benefits of observed support in the laboratory, support
providers’ visible emotional support was associated with higher perceived support, whereas
invisible emotional support was not associated with any discussion outcomes. However, we
16
predicted that the benefits and costs of visible support should depend on how distressed and
therefore how in need of direct reassurance recipients were during the discussion. In
addition, the provision and perceptions of support were correlated across partners (see Table
3), indicating that support behavior and perceptions may, in part, reflect general positivity
within the relationship.
To test our predictions, and to account for the statistical dependence inherent in
dyadic data, we ran a series of Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) analyses using
the MIXED procedure in SPSS 19 (Kenny, Kashy & Cook, 2006). In particular, we regressed
recipients’ perceived support on their partners’ provision of visible emotional support,
recipients’ distress, and the interaction between partners’ visible emotional support and
recipients’ distress. We also controlled for the general positivity or supportiveness across the
dyad by simultaneously modeling the recipients’ provision of visible emotional support to
their partner1. All predictor variables were grand-mean centered prior to the analyses. We
pooled the effects across men and women, but included the main and interaction effects of
gender to test for differences across men and women. No gender differences were found.
Visible Emotional Support. The results of the analyses testing the impact of visible
emotional support on recipients’ perceptions of support are presented in the top left section of
Table 4. As predicted, the more partners provided visible support, the more recipients
perceived their partners were supportive during the discussion, but this effect was moderated
by how much distress recipients were experiencing. This interaction is shown in Figure 1.
Individuals low in distress (-1 SD) perceived their partners to be relatively supportive,
regardless of whether partners provided high (+1 SD) or low (-1 SD) levels of visible support
(slope = .10, SE = .12, t = -0.82, p = .41). However, individuals reporting high levels of
distress (+1 SD) felt more supported when their partners provided greater visible support
(slope = .45, SE = .17, t = 3.87, p < .001). Examining perceived support at low versus high
17
levels of support indicated that more distressed recipients felt much less supported when their
partners provided less visible support (slope = -.37, SE = .10, t = -3.64, p < .001), but felt just
as supported as low distress recipients when their partners provided high levels of visible
support (slope = -.05, SE = .12, t = -.38, p = .71). Thus, the benefits of visible supportand
the costs of the absence of supportprimarily occurred for recipients who were distressed and,
therefore, required more direct forms of emotional reassurance.
Analogous models were run predicting recipients’ perceptions of discussion success
in helping them achieve their goals (see top right of Table 4). Although the main effect of
visible emotional support was not significant, a significant interaction emerged as predicted.
Shown in Figure 2, greater visible support was associated with significant increases in
perceived success for individuals who were higher in distress (slope = .32, SE = .13, t = 2.44,
p = .02), but it was associated with significantly lower perceived success for individuals who
were lower in distress (slope = -.28, SE = .12, t = -2.26, p = .03). This pattern indicates that
the costs of visible support occur for people who are less distressed and, thus, do not need
direct, visible reassurance. In contrast, visible support had benefits in helping recipients feel
they could achieve their goals when they were more distressed and required direct
reassurance and comfort.
Although we statistically controlled for overall levels of support across each dyad, we
also wanted to ensure that the benefits of visible support for more distressed individuals were
not attributable to more global perceptions of positivity. When rerunning the analyses
controlling for relationship quality (assessed by the PRQC), the main and interaction effects
shown in Table 4 and described above remained significant.
Invisible Emotional Support. We next ran identical analyses to test whether invisible
emotional support has immediate benefits or costs for recipients. The results are presented in
the bottom of Table 4. In contrast to visible support, invisible support was not associated with
18
recipients’ perceived support or discussion success, regardless of recipients’ level of distress.
These effects were unaltered when controlling for relationship quality.
Support Providers’ Reported Support and Discussion Success. Our primary
objectives centered on testing the impact of visible versus invisible support provision on
support recipients’ outcomes. However, we also assessed support providers’ reports of the
degree to which they delivered support during each discussion and how successful they felt
the discussion was in helping recipients achieve their goals. This allowed us to test a key
tenet that invisible support represents intentional enacted support behaviors by support
providers that go unnoticed by support recipients (and thus are ‘invisible’).
APIM analyses revealed that support providers who were rated by coders as providing
greater visible support reported they provided more support to recipients (B = .19, se = .08, t
= 2.28, p < .05) and perceived that the discussion was more helpful in achieving recipients’
personal goals (B = .19, se = .09, t = 2.05, p < .05). More importantly, despite null
associations between observer-ratings of invisible support and perceived support and
discussion success for support recipients (Table 4), partners rated as providing greater
invisible support also reported providing more support to recipients (B = .23, se = .11, t =
2.12, p < .05) and that the discussion was more successful in helping the recipient achieve
his/her goal (B = .21, se = .12, t = 1.74, p = .08). These effects occurred regardless of how
much distress the recipient was experiencing (tests of moderation ps > .05). This pattern of
results indicates that the invisible support behaviors we coded do capture intentional
supportive acts by the support-providing partner that are not perceived or rated as supportive
by recipients. This provides direct evidence for the conceptualization of invisible support as
support provided by one partner, but not perceived by the recipient.
In sum, these findings reveal that the benefits of visible support depend on the degree
to which recipients are distressed. Visible support increased perceived support and success in
19
achieving future goals when recipients were more distressed and, hence, needed direct
comfort. In contrast, visible forms of support reduced perceived success in achieving goals
when recipients were less distressed and, thus, did not require direct reassurance. In contrast
to visible support, invisible support was not related to recipients’ immediate perceptions of
support and success, even though their partners reported being more supportive when
delivering invisible forms of support. Thus, any benefits of invisible support are working
under the radar of support recipients. We next tested whether invisible support helped
recipients achieve their goal over time.
Long-term Benefits and Potential Costs of Visible and Invisible Support
Our longitudinal analyses tested the degree to which partners’ visible and invisible
emotional support predicted recipients’ goal achievement during the following year. Table 5
shows descriptive statistics for goal achievement at each 3-month follow-up phase as well as
the number of couples assessed at each phase. Six couples ended their relationship before the
first follow-up phase, and eight more couples broke up during the next nine-months. The
multilevel analyses described below take into account sample attrition by weighting the
estimates according to the reliability of each couple (i.e., how many measurements were
available for each couple), meaning that we could include all couples on whom data was
collected during at least one follow-up (N = 55). There were no differences between the
couples that dissolved versus those that stayed together in levels of visible or invisible
support (ts = < 1.1, ps > .05).
Our data have a nested structure, with the repeated measures of goal achievement at
each 3-month measurement phase nested within each dyad. Thus, we tested our prediction
following Kenny et al.’s (2006) recommendations for analyzing repeated measures data.
Specifically, we regressed the multiple reports of goal achievement across the following year
(level 1) on the partner’s visible emotional support, the recipient’s distress, and the
20
interaction between these two measures (level 2).2 The results, displayed in the top half of
Table 6, revealed that visible emotional support, the recipient’s distress during the discussion,
and the interaction between partner’s visible emotional support and recipient’s distress did
not significantly predict goal achievement across the following year. However, analogue
analyses testing the long-term effects of invisible support (see the bottom section of Table 6)
revealed that greater invisible support predicted higher average levels of goal achievement by
the recipient over the subsequent year, regardless of the levels of distress that recipients
reported when initially receiving support.
We next ran analyses to rule out three alternative explanations. First, rerunning the
analyses statistically controlling for initial relationship quality did not reduce the long-term
benefits of invisible support (B = .35, se = .13, t = 2.73, p < .01), highlighting that the long-
term benefits of invisible support were not attributable to more global positivity. Although
the provision of invisible support was not associated with perceptions of support (see Table
4), we also wanted to determine whether the longitudinal effect of invisible support occurred
above and beyond the documented boost in goal achievement associated with post-discussion
perceptions of support (see Overall et al., 2010). Rerunning the analyses with support
recipients’ perceived support as an additional predictor revealed that perceptions of greater
support independently predicted more goal achievement over the subsequent year (B = .19, se
= .09, t = 2.08, p = .04). However, greater invisible support continued to predict greater goal
achievement across the year, independent of recipients’ perceived support (B = .34, se = .12, t
= 2.78, p < .01). These analyses suggest that invisible emotional support and perceptions of
support are unrelated support process, each of which operates independently to facilitate
recipients’ goal success. Finally, most recipients reported that they had ongoing discussions
with their partners about their personal goals over time (see Table 5). Recipients were more
successful at achieving their goal when couples continued to discuss their goal more over
21
time (B = .21, se = .04, p < .001). However, visible and invisible emotional support were not
associated with the degree to which couples discussed the targeted goals across time (B = -
.00, se = .10, p > .05; B = -.04, se = .12, p > .05 respectively), and rerunning the longitudinal
models controlling for the amount recipients discussed the topic over time with their partner
did not diminish the the degree to which invisible support predicted goal achievement over
the year (B = .39, se = .11, p = .001).
Discussion
This study investigated the short-term and long-term costs and benefits of receiving
visible and invisible support during romantic couples’ discussions of each partner’s personal
goal. We hypothesized that the short-term costs and benefits of receiving visible support on
recipients perceived support and goal progress would depend on support recipients level of
distress. As predicted, visible emotional support was associated with perceptions of greater
support and discussion success for recipients who felt greater distress during the discussion
and, thus, needed more direct reassurance. However, for recipients who experienced less
distress and, therefore, did not require direct emotional comfort, greater visible emotional
support had more personal costs, as indicated by perceptions that the discussions had been
less successful in helping recipients achieve their long-term goals.
In contrast, invisible emotional support was not associated with recipients’ post-
discussion perceptions of support or discussion success, despite the fact that partners who
provided more invisible support (as rated by coders) reported they were more supportive and
that the discussion facilitated goal progress. This pattern of results provides direct evidence
that the invisible support behaviors we assessed constitute invisible support as conceptualized
in the prior literature: intentional supportive acts by the support-providing partner that are not
perceived as supportive by recipients. More importantly, despite being invisible to recipients,
invisible (but not visible) emotional support predicted greater goal achievement across the
22
following year. This is the first demonstration that the provision of invisible support has long-
term benefits in relationships, which is a critical and novel test of the proposed benefits of
invisible support.
Viewed together, these results suggest that visible and invisible support serve
different functions. Visible support appears to be immediately beneficial by reassuring
recipients that they are in fact cared for, supported, and will have help to achieve their goals,
but these benefits accrue only for recipients who need this type of support (i.e., those who
feel distressed during support exchanges). In contrast, invisible support tends to go unnoticed
by support recipients, but it plays an important role in facilitating long-term success in
achieving recipients’ goals. We discuss potential underlying mechanisms for these effects
below.
Visible Support: Benefits and Costs Depend on the Needs of the Recipient
Consistent with prior research and theorizing, our results illustrate that the personal
and interpersonal benefits associated with receiving visible support hinge on the contextual
needs of the support recipient (e.g., Cutrona et al., 2007; Maisel & Gable, 2009; Simpson et
al., 2007). Visible support is important in communicating care and helping to regulate
recipients’ distress when they feel upset and need their partners direct support. Accordingly,
recipients who report high levels of distress when discussing their goal with their partner felt
more supported and perceived greater success in moving toward their goal when their
partners provided direct forms of reassurance. Moreover, the failure to deliver visible support
when recipients are distressed has interpersonal costs for recipients. Recipients who were
more distressed and received less visible support felt the least supported. The absence of
visible support may signal that the partner cannot be counted on to be responsive to one’s
needs, which should take a toll on relationships. For example, perceived lack of support and
responsiveness erodes relationship satisfaction over time (Overall et al., 2010; Reis, Clark &
23
Holmes, 2004; Sullivan et al., 2010), undermines security and goal strivings in those who
need support (Feeney, 2004; Overall et al., 2010), and can produce strong reactivity to
problematic relationship interactions (Murray, Holmes & Collins, 2006; Sullivan et al.,
2010).
The current findings suggest that the benefits of support may outweigh the potential
costs of visible support when recipients are distressed and need their partners. Visible
support should communicate care and regard, even when support recipients are not overly
distressed. Indeed, in our study, visible support was associated with greater perceived
support, even among less distressed recipients. However, consistent with the previously
documented costs of visible support, these interpersonal benefits were accompanied by
personal costs when recipients were less distressed and did not necessarily need overt
reassurance. In particular, greater visible support given to non-distressed recipients predicted
lower perceived discussion success in facilitating recipients’ ability to achieve their goals in
the future. As suggested by prior research (e.g., Bolger & Amarel, 2007; Howland &
Simpson, 2010), this probably occurred because the provision of visible support, in the
absence of distress, conveys a lack of confidence that recipients can achieve their goals on
their own. Extending that research, the current findings highlight that personal costs occur
mainly for recipients who do not need immediate reassurance or support from their partners.
Invisible Support: Unnoticed in the Short-term, but Promoting Goal Achievement in the
Long-term
The undermining effect of visible support on recipients’ perceived ability to cope and
achieve their goals (which we found for less distressed recipients) was the impetus for the
theoretical development of invisible support. The degree to which support providers delivered
invisible support was not associated with support recipients’ perceptions of support or their
immediate felt-success in achieving their personal goals, yet it was associated with
24
perceptions of greater support and discussion success reported by support providers. This
pattern validates the premise that invisible support behaviors are likely to be provided
strategically, but go ‘under the radar’ and unnoticed by most support recipients. However,
contrary to prior research showing that invisible support boosts self-efficacy and buffers
negative mood (e.g., Bolger et al., 2000; Bolger & Amarel, 2007; Howland & Simpson,
2010; Shrout et al., 2006), we found that invisible support provision was not associated with
immediate perceptions of success in facilitating goal progress. The reason for this, we
believe, is that perceptions of discussion success involve evaluating how both the self and the
partner contribute to goal success. Previously studied outcomes, such as mood and self-
efficacy, have not required recipients to evaluate how support interactions lead to these states.
Given that invisible support went unnoticed by most of our support recipients, it is not
surprising that an evaluation of how the discussion facilitated goal achievement remained
unaffected by these support behaviors.
However, consistent with the proposed functions of invisible support, the invisible
support behaviors that did go unnoticed by most recipients were precisely those that helped
them achieve their goals over time. The more support providers delivered invisible forms of
supportsuch as discussing how others have coped with similar issues, engaging in off-topic
or preemptive humor, and expressing subtle displays of affection the more support
recipients reported actual goal achievement across the following 12 months. This outcome is
consistent with the premise that invisible support bypasses threats to recipients’ confidence
and self-esteem (e.g., Bolger et al., 2000; Bolger & Amarel, 2007) and often bolsters feelings
of self-efficacy (Howland & Simpson, 2010), which is critical to sustaining goal strivings and
overcoming goal-relevant challenges (Bandura, 1994). Furthermore, the provision of invisible
support predicted greater goal achievement, over and above how supportive recipients
perceived their partners to be. This provides a powerful illustration that the invisible support
25
behaviors we coded during couples’ discussions work outside and independently of the
support recipients’ awareness.
To summarize, this study is the first one to demonstrate that invisible support
facilitates actual goal achievement across time. This novel finding provides a critical test of
the benefits of invisible support, and bolsters the argument that invisible support is integral to
building (or retaining) personal efficacy and competence. In contrast, the provision of visible
support was not directly associated with goal achievement across time. Based on prior theory
and research, we now discuss the potential psychological mechanisms through which
invisible (versus visible) support may operate to facilitate goal achievement.
Boosting Ownership over Personal Goals. By providing subtle forms of support that
go unnoticed by support recipients, invisible support may plant the seed for recipients to
attribute goal-related progress and coping to themselves rather than their partners. The extent
to which individuals perceive that they can cope with goal-related stressors, barriers, and
challenges and effectively pursue their goals is essential for managing goal-related anxiety
and increasing the likelihood that they will eventually achieve their goals (Bandura, 1994). In
the long-run, therefore, the provision of invisible emotional support may boost recipients’
ownership of their goals and goal-related successes, as well as their mastery over challenges,
barriers, and goal-related relapses. In contrast, despite alleviating distress and bolstering felt-
support in the short-term, the overt nature of visible emotional support may lead recipients to
attribute goal-related coping and achievement at least partly to the support provider,
promoting reliance on the support provider and undermining their intrinsic goal-related
motivation.
Aiding Emotion Regulation. Similarly, whereas visible emotional support (as we
measured it) helps to down-regulate recipients’ negative affect, invisible emotional support
may scaffold recipients’ own emotion regulation. Goal achievement should be augmented by
26
more effective coping or emotion regulation strategies on the part of recipients (e.g.,
Boekaerts, 2002), such as reappraising challenging situations (Gross & John, 2003). Instead
of directly soothing distress, the provision of invisible support might model effective emotion
regulation strategies by providing reappraisals of goal-related problems or strategies (e.g.,
acknowledging others’ shared experiences), which recipients can then chose to adopt as their
own. This, in turn, should leave recipients better prepared to cope with negative emotions that
may arise when they face new goal-related challenges or other stressors, permitting them to
make further progress toward their long-term goals.
Strengths, Caveats and Future Research Directions
A large body of research has examined invisible support by assessing discrepancies in
support recipients and support providers reports of support (e.g., Bolger et al., 2000; Maisel
& Gable, 2009; Shrout et al., 2006). In contrast, we examined specific invisible support
behaviors (rated by coders) during support-relevant discussions between romantic partners.
This observational approach captures how actual support behaviors influence recipients’
goal-related outcomes rather than relying only on partner-reported support provision, and it
extends the one other observational study of invisible support (Howland & Simpson, 2010)
by revealing what invisible support looks like during actual support interactions. Moreover,
the pattern arising from these observational data offer good support for the conceptualization
of invisible support as support provided by one partner but not perceived by the recipient in
that partners who were rated as exhibiting more invisible support perceived themselves as
providing more support, but recipients did not perceive greater support from these partners.
Thus, the behaviors we identified were indeed ‘invisible’ to recipients.
We focused on emotional forms of support because emotional support tends to be the
most beneficial for relationships, and it is the most relevant response to a partner’s distress in
the context of personal goal discussions. However, practical forms of support can also be
27
important and may at times be particularly relevant to other needs that support recipients
have. For example, practical support might be important for recipients who do not have the
skills or lack the knowledge to accomplish their personal goals. Like our arguments regarding
invisible emotional support, invisible practical support may impart goal-related knowledge
and strategies in a way that recipients adopt as their own, boosting their intrinsic motivation
and goal mastery. Future research should test the mechanisms through which invisible
support facilitates recipients’ goal achievement over time, and whether differences exist in
how emotional and practical invisible support operate.
Our findings demonstrate that the costs and benefits of support depend on the needs of
the recipient in the specific context in which the support is occurring. Visible emotional
support had benefits if recipients experienced distress while discussing their personal goals
a context of disclosure, reflection, and deliberation in which direct emotional support is
needed, expected, and appropriate. However, in other contexts, even when recipients are
experiencing high levels of distress, visible emotional support may not be needed or
appropriate, and the interpersonal benefits of support could be superseded by personal costs.
For example, Bolger and colleagues found that visible emotional support was damaging in
the week preceding a stressful exam (Bolger et al., 2000) and detrimental immediately prior
to giving an unrehearsed speech (Bolger & Amarel, 2007). In these contexts, the need to
minimize distress and quell self-doubts in order to complete the task at hand involves a
different set of acute needs that visible support could undermine; the need to feel understood
and comforted may be irrelevant until the critical task has been completed. Thus, the balance
of personal versus interpersonal need fulfillment, and the relative benefits and costs of visible
support, ought to vary across different contexts. Indeed, understanding when visible and
invisible support have costs and benefits is critical to enacting effective support provision,
28
and examining the contextual needs of recipients should be a primary component of future
investigations.
Considering the wider context is also important. Our sample was drawn from a
university community in a Western and relatively egalitarian country, so whether and how
these results generalize to other types of samples and social contexts remains unknown.
Indeed, the extent to which individuals express distress and respond to direct versus more
subtle forms of support is likely to differ across social and cultural contexts. For example,
individuals of Asian descent are less likely to seek support from close others when
experiencing stress or difficulties (Taylor et al., 2004), and they benefit more from indirect
forms of support that do not make references to personal stressors (Kim, Sherman, & Taylor,
2008). Asian participants, compared to their European counterparts, also experience
decreases in cortisol when asked to write a letter conveying indirect support strategies (e.g.,
write about a group that is close to you) compared to seeking support explicitly (e.g., asking
for help from a close group; Taylor, Welch, Kim, & Sherman, 2007). These effects most
likely arise because drawing attention to personal goals and stressors threatens cultural
expectations about forgoing personal interests for the sake of the collective (Taylor et al.,
2004). Thus, visible forms of support that directly focuses on the recipient and his/her
stressors may be detrimental for recipients who have collectivist cultural backgrounds, and
this may be particularly true when they are distressed. The benefits of invisible support might
also be enhanced in these contexts. This example highlights that the potential costs and
benefits of visible versus invisible support may vary across different cultural and social
contexts, and understanding these contexts should be a major consideration in future research.
Finally, our sample also consisted of relatively young couples involved in
relationships for an average of 3 years. Although 61% were cohabiting or married, roughly
20% broke up during the following year. These age and relationship demographics may limit
29
the degree to which our findings generalize to a wider range of ages and relationship length.
For example, given the difficulty of providing invisible support strategically (especially in a
laboratory context), invisible support may be most effectively used by individuals in longer
relationships who know more about how to best guide and aid their partner’s long-term goal-
related needs. The potential costs of visible support might also be dampened in more long-
term and established relationships because recipients’ knowledge of their partner’s
availability may render direct displays of emotional reassurance and affection less necessary.
Additional analyses of our data, however, revealed that the effects of invisible support were
not modified by individuals’ age, relationship length, or relationship status. Nonetheless,
given the costs and benefits of different types of support, identifying who needs more visible
support, who provides more effective invisible support, and in what contexts, is an important
direction for future research.
Conclusion
Prior research presents contradictory evidence regarding the costs and benefits of
visible forms of support (e.g., overt displays of care and reassurance), and recent models
suggest that invisible forms of support (e.g., subtle, conversational forms of comfort) might
produce more benefits for support recipients. The present research advances our current
understanding of support processes by illustrating that: (1) the costs of visible forms of
emotional support depend on the contextual needs of the recipient, and (2) invisible support
has long-term benefits. In our behavioral observation study of romantic couples, we found
that greater visible support provision was associated with greater perceived support and
discussion success when support recipients were highly distressed during the discussion, but
it was costly for less distressed support recipients, who reported lower discussion success. In
contrast, greater invisible emotional support was not associated with perceived support or
discussion success, but predicted greater goal achievement over time. Together, these results
30
suggest that visible support is most beneficial as an immediate strategy for distressed
individuals to feel supported and positive about their goals, whereas invisible support plays
an important role in shaping recipients goal pursuit and accomplishment over time.
31
References
Bandura, A. (1994). Regulative Function of Perceived Self-Efficacy. In M. G. Rumsey, C. B.
Walker, & J. H. Harris (Eds.), Personnel Selection and Classification (pp. 261-270).
United States of America: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87-99.
Boekaerts, M. (2002): Intensity of emotions, emotional regulation, and goal framing: How
are they related to adolescents' choice of coping strategies? Anxiety, Stress and Coping:
An International Journal, 15(4), 401-412
Bolger, N., & Amarel, D. (2007). Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress:
Experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 458-475.
Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible support and adjustment to
stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 953-961.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on
support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Interpersonal Relations and
Group Processes, 78(6), 1053-1073.
Conger, R. D., Rueter, M. A., & Elder, G. H. (1999). Couple resilience to economic pressure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 54-71.
Cutrona, C. E., & Suhr, J. A. (1992). Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction with
spouse support behaviors. Communication Research, 19(2), 154-174.
Cutrona, C., Shaffer, P. A., Wesner, K. A., & Gardner, K. A. (2007). Optimally matching
support and perceived spousal sensitivity. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 754-758.
Feeney, B. C., (2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and explorations
in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5),
631-648.
32
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2003). Motivations for caregiving in adult intimate
relationships: Influences on caregiving behavior and relationship functioning.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(8), 950-968.
Fisher, J. D., Nadler, A., Whitcher-Alagna, S. (1982). Recipient reactions to aid.
Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 27-54.
Fitzsimons, G. M. & Finkel, E.J. (2011). Outsourcing self-regulation. Psychological Science,
22, 369-375.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and evolutions
in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6),
933-940.
Gable, S. L., Gosnell, C. L., Maisel, N. C., & Strachman, A. (2012). Safely testing the alarm:
Close others' responses to personal positive events. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 103(6), 963-981.
Gleason, M. E. J., Iida, M., Shrout, P. E., Bolger, N. (2008). Receiving support as a mixed
blessing: Evidence for dual effects of support on psychological outcomes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 824-838.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:
Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85(2), 348-362.
Howland, M., & Simpson, J. A. (2010). Getting in under the radar: A dyadic view of invisible
support. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1878-1885.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic Data Analysis. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Culture and social support. American
Psychologist, 63(6), 518-526.
33
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2010). Helping each other grow:
Romantic partner support, self-improvement, and relationship quality. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 36 (11), 1496-1513.
Overall, N.C., Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Sibley, C.G. (2009). Regulating partners
in intimate relationships: The costs and benefits of different communication strategies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 620-639.
Maisel, N. C., & Gable, S. L. (2009). The paradox of received social support: The importance
of responsiveness. Psychological Science, 20(8), 928-932.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk
regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 641-666.
Newsom, J. T., & Schulz, R. (1998). Caregiving from the recipient’s perspective: Negative
reactions to being helped. Health Psychology, 17 (2), 172-181.
Pasch, L., Bradbury, T.N., & Sullivan, K.T. (1997). Social support in marriage: An analysis
of intraindividual and interpersonal components. In G.R. Pierce, B. Lakey & I.G.
Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook of Social Support and Personality (pp. 229-256). New
York: Plenum Press.
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. C. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an
organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek and A.
Aron (Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy (pp. 2012-226). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shrout, P. E., Herman, C. M., & Bolger, N. (2006). The costs and benefits of practical and
emotional support on adjustment: A daily diary study of couples experiencing acute
stress. Personal Relationships, 13, 115-134.
34
Simpson, J. A., Winterheld, H. A., Rholes, W. S., & Oriña, M. M. (2007). Working models of
attachment and reactions to different forms of caregiving from romantic
partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 466-477.
Sullivan, K. T., Pasch, L. A., Johnson, M.D., & Bradbury, T.N. (2010). Social support,
problem solving, and the longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 631-644.
Taylor, S.E., Sherman, D. K., Kim, H. S., Jarcho, J., Takagi, K., & Dunagan, M. S. (2004).
Culture and social support: Who seeks it and why? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87(3), 354-362.
Taylor, S. E., Welch, W. T., Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2007). Psychological Science,
18, 831-837.
Verhofstadt, L. L., Buysse, A., Ickes, W., Davis, M., Devoldre, I. (2008). Support provision
in marriage: The role of emotional similarity and empathic accuracy. Emotion, 8(6),
792-802.
35
Notes
1. We controlled for recipients’ own support behavior for three reasons: (1) the
provision of visible and invisible support between individuals and their partners was
correlated, (2) this association may capture a more general positive relationship environment,
and (3) support recipients own visible support provision was related to their perceived
support and discussion success. The results were nearly identical without this control.
2. Because we have repeated assessments of goal achievement, readers might wonder
why we did not assess trajectories of goal achievement across time (i.e., whether goal
progress increased, reduced, or remained the same at each time-point). We directly assessed
whether recipients had progressed at each assessment period (i.e., since the last three month
follow-up), but not since the initial phase. Thus, the analytic strategy presented directly
assesses the average amount of progress in the discussed personal goal over the course of the
yearthe pivotal measure of interest. In this case, a slope modeling time or rate of change
provides additional information regarding only the consistency of progress at each time-point,
taking into account overall amounts of progress. Recipients, on average, reported similar
levels of progress at each follow-up (B = .02, t = .39, p = .70), and visible and invisible
emotional support did not predict variance in consistency of progress across measurement
phases (also see Overall et al., 2009; 2010).
36
Table 1. Overarching Principles of Invisible Support
Principle of Invisible Support
Description of Principle
Role
Subtle and indirect nature of
support provision
Strategically providing support in subtle,
indirect, or round about ways
Avoids making the support recipient feel like they
are receiving support
Provider de-emphasizes the roles
of support provider and support
recipient
Shifting the focus of power and control off
the support provider by using more equal and
conversation-like interactions
Avoids creating feelings of incompetence and
indebtedness by empowering the support recipient in
their ability to cope with and overcome the stressor
(rather than the support provider’s ability to guide the
recipient)
Reframing the locus of the
problem away from the support
recipient
Shifting the support recipient’s focus away
from the difficulties they are experiencing to
a broader shared view of similar experiences
and how they can (and have been)
successfully coped with by other people
Supports recipient’s self-efficacy and sense of
control by illustrating how others have successfully
coped, overcome challenges, and achieved their
goals, thereby allowing the recipient to gain insight
into different solutions
37
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Cross-Sectional Measures
Range (1-7)
Support Provision
Visible Emotional Support
1 - 6.67
Invisible Emotional Support
1 - 5
Discussion Outcomes
Support Recipients Distress
1 - 7
Support Recipients Perceived Support
2.25 - 7
Support Recipients Discussion Success
1 - 7
Support Providers Reported Support
2.25 - 7
Support Providers Discussion Success
1 - 7
Relationship Quality (PRQC)
4.14 - 7
Note. There were no gender differences across measures (all ps > .05).
38
Table 3. Correlations for all Measures
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Support Provision
1. Support Providers Visible Emotional Support
.43**
2. Support Providers Invisible Emotional Support
.38**
.43**
3. Support Recipients Visible Emotional Support
.43**
.19*
.43**
4. Support Recipients Invisible Emotional Support
.19*
.40**
.38**
.43**
Discussion Outcomes
5. Support Recipients Distress
-.12
.10
-.14
.06
-.06
6. Support Recipients Perceived Support
.32**
.12
.30**
.04
-.32**
.31*
7. Support Recipients Discussion Success
.07
.12
.20*
.13
-.03
.53**
.34**
8. Support Providers Reported Support
.25**
.16
.13
.02
-.28**
.36**
.26**
.30*
9. Support Providers Discussion Success
.22*
.22*
.09*
-.13
-.12
.24**
.39**
.62**
.22
10. Relationship Quality (PRQC)
.22*
.10
.24**
.05
-.23*
.32**
.17
.34**
.16
.47**
Note. Correlations along the diagonal are associations between variables within partners. *p < .05. **p < .01.
39
Table 4. Partners’ Provision of Visible and Invisible Emotional Support on Recipients’ Perceptions of Support and Discussion Success
Perceived Support Received from
Support Provider
Discussion Success in Helping
Recipient Achieve Goals
B
SE
t
B
SE
t
Visible Emotional Support
Partners Visible Support
.22
.09
2.36*
.02
.09
.18
Recipients Distress
-.18
.08
-2.14*
.19
.09
2.21*
Partners Visible Support x Distress
.13
.06
2.10*
.22
.06
3.39**
Invisible Emotional Support
Partners Invisible Support
.17
.13
1.39
.07
.12
.53
Recipients Distress
-.26
.08
-3.21**
.09
.09
1.06
Partners Invisible Support x Distress
.13
.08
1.59
.16
.09
1.84
Note. Analyses controlled for recipients’ own levels of support provision. *p < .05. **p < .01.
40
Table 5. Means (and Standard Deviations) of Longitudinal Measures at each 3-Month
Follow-up Phase
3-month (N =
55)
6-month (N =
51)
9-month (N =
48)
12-month (N
= 48)
Discussed Goal
4.14 (1.60)
3.94 (1.81)
3.47 (1.62)
3.14 (1.48)
Goal Achievement
4.25 (1.33)
4.06 (1.42)
4.26 (1.46)
4.27 (1.52)
41
Table 6. Partners’ Provision of Visible and Invisible Emotional Support on Support
Recipients’ Goal Achievement across Time
Goal Achievement
B
SE
t
Visible Emotional Support
Partners’ Visible Support
.04
.10
.36
Recipients Distress
.05
.09
.55
Partners Visible Support x Distress
.08
.06
1.26
Invisible Emotional Support
Partners’ Invisible Support
.36
.13
2.81*
Recipients Distress
-.04
.08
-.53
Partners Invisible Support x Distress
-.00
.08
-.37
Note. Coefficients control for recipients own levels of support provision.*p < .01
42
Figures
Figure 1. Interaction between support recipients level of distress and visible emotional
support provided by their partners on support recipients perceptions of support received.
Figure 2. Interaction between support recipients’ level of distress and visible emotional
support provided by the partner on support recipients perceptions of discussion success.
... For example, emotion regulation research could assess prosocial outcomes such as physical and emotional intimacy, feelings of support, perceived partner responsiveness, and gratitude (e.g., Algoe, 2012;Cornelius et al., 2022;Feeney & Collins, 2015;Gleason et al., 2008;Girme et al., 2013;Reis et al., 2004;Rossignac-Milon et al., 2021;Visserman et al., 2018). Such outcomes have been long studied in relationship science, and their inclusion in future work would enable affective scientists to understand the rich and interconnected nature of affective and social outcomes resulting from emotion regulatory processes. ...
Article
The Future of Affective Science Special Issues illuminate where the field of Affective Science is headed in coming years, highlighting exciting new directions for research. Many of the articles in the issues emphasized the importance of studying emotion regulation, and specifically, social emotion regulation. This commentary draws on these articles to argue that future research needs to more concretely focus on the social aspects of social emotion regulation, which have been underexplored in affective science. Specifically, we discuss the importance of focusing on social goals, strategies and tactics, and outcomes relevant to social emotion regulation interactions, more closely considering these processes for all individuals involved. To do so, we draw on research from neighboring subdisciplines of psychology that have focused on the social aspects of interactions. Moreover, we underscore the need to better integrate components of the process model of social emotion regulation and approach empirical inquiry more holistically, in turn illuminating how piecemeal investigations of these processes might lead to an incomplete or incorrect understanding of social emotion regulation. We hope this commentary supplements the research in the special issues, further highlighting ways to advance the field.
... support-seekers are highly distressed (Girme et al., 2013)? For instance, Maisel and Gable (2009) found that responsive support, regardless of whether it was visible or invisible, was associated with positive affective and relational outcomes. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objectives: Black people seek racism-specific support (RSS)—social support in response to racism—from same-race (vs. cross-race) friends because they feel more understood by Black friends. The present study tested whether supportive and responsive (i.e., validating) RSS from Black or non-Black friends differentially influenced friendship dynamics and factors associated with Black support-seekers’ psychological well-being (e.g., affect). Method: Same-race (Black/Black; ndyad = 17) and cross-race (Black/non-Black; ndyad = 29) friendship dyads (Mage = 20.25, SD = 3.26) discussed an experience of racism. Both friends rated the supportiveness and responsiveness of RSS (or support) and completed pre- and postconversation measures (e.g., affect, emotional closeness). Results: Supportive and responsive RSS predicted increased closeness between same- and cross-race friends. Responsive RSS predicted increased postconversation positive affect for Black support-seekers talking to same-race (vs. cross-race) friends. Exploratory analyses revealed support-providers also perceived support-seekers as providing responsiveness during exchanges. Conclusions: Responsive and supportive RSS predicted positive cross-race friendship outcomes, and responsive RSS, especially among same-race friends, predicted improvement in Black support-seekers’ affective reactions associated with psychological well-being. Moreover, the role of seeking and providing support might be dynamic, particularly when Black friends talk about racism with other friends of color.
... However, only about 50% of the time, individuals accurately perceive that their partner has made a sacrifice for them [158]. In longitudinal studies using coded social support interaction tasks, invisible support, defined as support transactions that were more conversation-like, that subtly de-emphasize the role of the provider and recipient, and that deflect the attention away from the problem, was associated with greater goal progress over time [159,160]. Relatedly, a number of studies suggest that the most effective social control strategies are indirect in nature, such as modelling or changing the environment [75,161]. In daily diary studies, partner's self-regulatory effort to engage in physical activity as well as joint engagement in physical activity were associated with more physical activity for the other partners [104,162]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Epidemiological studies indicate that better marital quality is associated with less morbidity and premature mortality. A number of interpersonal processes related to marital quality are also associated with health-relevant surrogate biomarkers across different physiological systems. Despite these replicated correlational findings, few interventions have harnessed interpersonal processes as potential interventions to enhance health. Building on Dr. Janice Kiecolt-Glaser's model of relationships and health, we propose that couples-based health behavior change interventions may represent an effective way to decrease dysregulation across autonomic, endocrine and immune systems and, ultimately, improve dyadic health. Given that the cohabiting partner is an essential part of the social context in which the behavior change is being pursued, it is important to consider the relational issues triggered by dyadic interventions. Using a relationship science perspective, this article reviews the literature on couples' concordance in health behaviors and health outcomes, the potential pathways underlying this concordance, theories of the couple as a self-sustaining social system, dyadic adaptation of individual self-regulation strategies, effective and ineffective social support and social control in couple relationships, the integration of relationship-building and health behavior change strategies, and the consideration of key moderators related to the nature of the relationship and the context surrounding the relationship. These findings highlight the importance of adopting a relationship science perspective when designing and testing dyadic interventions to improve health outcomes. The data reviewed provide insights on how to optimize couples-based health behavior change interventions to reduce physiological dysregulation and improve dyadic health.
... 117). Other authors would disagree, as research on the impact of psychological support processes has indicated "that the costs and benefits of visible support hinge on recipients' needs, whereas invisible support shapes recipients' long-term goal achievement" (Girme et al., 2013(Girme et al., , p. 1441). Arendt's concept of goodness is pertinent here: ...
Article
Full-text available
University social responsibility (USR) is a fashionable concept that is often presented as a paradox, with the implication that it can help universities meet the social dimension of higher education, without questioning the hegemonic meanings of academic excellence and the university mission. We draw on data collected through a focus group of experts on USR to suggest that this concept has the potential to contribute to the transformation of higher education, particularly if its tensions and contradictions are addressed. Three tensions emerged from the data: real versus unreal change, institutional cooperation versus competition, and the right to privacy versus excessive transparency. We conclude that USR is neither a neutral nor a consensual concept; rather, it is eminently political, and HEIs and their leaders, teachers, staff, and students should confront, discuss, and take a stand on its tensions and contradictions.
... Undoubtedly, one of the most affected social categories was that of frontline health workers and, indirectly, their significant others. In times of distress, social support is much needed, especially with close partners and significant others (Bolger & Amarel, 2007;Girme et al., 2013). ...
Chapter
Shared reality, defined as the subjective experience of common inner states (i.e., feelings, beliefs, or attitudes) about something with others, is an exquisitely human and ubiquitous experience (Echterhoff & Higgins, 2021; Echterhoff, Higgins, & Levine, 2009). Shared reality is exemplified by the experience of the feeling of being "on the same page" or "thinking the same thing" as someone else. For example, when people meet a new person in a social setting (e.g., at work), they tend to share their impressions with other people they trust around them (e.g., co-workers), and they feel more confident in their impressions if others agree. In other words, people tend to co-construct reality and validate each other’s opinions. As argued elsewhere (Higgins, 2019), the research on the roots of human nature mostly focused on the superior intelligence of humans compared to other animals rather than on social motivation, even though the development of human cognition is tightly intertwined with the motivation to communicate with others (Higgins, 2016; Wolf & Tomasello, 2023). As we will elaborate, people can fulfill basic existential needs, especially needs for meaning and social connection, in the process of creating and maintaining shared realities with others. The concept of shared reality has been used and extended to touch on very different but interrelated fields, such as political, developmental, organizational, or comparative psychology, as exemplified by a special issue edited by Echterhoff and Higgins (2018). What these approaches have in common is the adoption of shared experiences to explain human cognition and behavior. Here, we focus on shared reality in interpersonal and intergroup relations and relevant recent studies rather than providing a comprehensive review of shared reality research (for which we refer to Echterhoff & Higgins, 2017, 2018, 2021; Higgins et al., 2021). The key motivational principle of shared reality theory resonates well with basic tenets of existential psychology. For example, two of the most discussed needs in existential research are (a) the fear of isolation, which arises from the conflict between people’s need to feel connected to others and the recognition of our own subjectivity, and (b) the need for meaning and understanding of issues and events in our world, especially those that are challenge our existing concepts, wishes, and aspirations (Koole et al., 2006; see also Chapters 29 and 31 in this volume). By and large, these two concerns map onto relational and epistemic needs that have figured prominently in shared reality theory. Indeed, shared reality has been proposed to be key avenue towards connecting with others, obtaining confident inner states about the world, and experiencing one’s life as meaningful (Cornwell et al., 2017; Hardin & Conley, 2001). In the following, we will illustrate how creating a shared reality with others on a given topic satisfies basic human epistemic and relational needs. We will then review experimental research on the behavioral markers of a generalized sense of shared reality in dyadic conversation. Additionally, we will summarize recent findings linking the experience of shared reality in dyads to quality of life. Finally, we will highlight potential avenues for future research.
... The above results raised an interesting inquire into the forms of support. Unlike visible support, which is direct and acknowledged by recipients, invisible support provided in a more indirect manner that recipients may not directly attribute to help has been shown to be more beneficial (Zee & Bolger, 2019) and lead to greater goal achievement for a longer time (Girme et al., 2013). Autonomy support, typically demonstrated as a form of invisible support, significantly influences fostering athletes' independence, especially within environments characterized by a robust grateful climate. ...
... For instance, if Partner 2 is experiencing a high level of minority stress and Partner 1 is adept at addressing this within the context of their romantic relationship, Partner 1 may also be acting in relationshipfacilitative ways. This interpretation is supported by prior findings that romantic support is most impactful for partners in distress [54], and present results suggest that this could feasibly extend to partners experiencing high minority stress. As an alternative interpretation that should be subject to further research, discordant minority stress (i.e., if one partner has a lot of minority stress and the other has very little) may facilitate overall dyadic cohesion to reduce individuals (Est=-0.84, ...
Article
Full-text available
Minority stressors have been linked to HIV risk behaviors among gay, bisexual, queer, and other men who have sex with men (MSM). Committed partnerships are a key context for new HIV infections and coping with minority stress among MSM, but very little work has tested the minority stress-HIV risk link among male couples, and little is known about how processes within one’s relationship may exacerbate or buffer this association. The present study examined links between minority stress (i.e., internalized stigma, microaggressions) and HIV transmission risk behaviors (i.e., condomless anal sex with outside partners, breaks in relationship agreements) among male couples, as well as relationship-based moderators (i.e., social support, dyadic coping) of these associations. An analytic sample of male couples from a large cohort study (analytic N = 410 individuals, 205 dyads) completed self-report measures of minority stress, relationship-based moderators, and HIV transmission risk behaviors which were submitted to moderated actor-partner interdependence models (APIMs). In many cases, coping with stress with one’s partner buffered the minority stress-HIV transmission link risk. However, findings also suggested situations in which partners may overburden one another with coping, thus exacerbating HIV-related risk behaviors.
Article
Full-text available
The world of work is the target of all job seekers or job seekers. With the increasing number of job seekers, the higher the unemployment rate. This research aims to find out how family support influences rumination among job seekers in Padang City. This research uses a quantitative approach. The research sample consisted of 149 job seekers who were selected using non-probability sampling techniques with purposive sampling type. Data collection uses a Likert scale which consists of two scales, namely the family support scale adopted from Febrina (2021) and modified by researchers and the rumination scale adopted from Dharmawan (2023). Data analysis uses simple linear regression techniques. The results of the research show that (1) the level of rumination among job seekers in Padang City is generally in the high categorization, (2) the level of family support for job seekers in Padang City is generally in the medium categorization, (3) there is a positive and significant influence between family support against rumination among job seekers in Padang City with a contribution value of 18.5%.
Chapter
Why do people fall in love? Does passion fade with time? What makes for a happy, healthy relationship? This introduction to relationship science follows the lifecycle of a relationship – from attraction and initiation, to the hard work of relationship maintenance, to dissolution and ways to strengthen a relationship. Designed for advanced undergraduates studying psychology, communication or family studies, this textbook presents a fresh, diversity-infused approach to relationship science. It includes real-world examples and critical-thinking questions, callout boxes that challenge students to make connections, and researcher interviews that showcase the many career paths of relationship scientists. Article Spotlights reveal cutting-edge methods, while Diversity and Inclusion boxes celebrate the variety found in human love and connection. Throughout the book, students see the application of theory and come to recognize universal themes in relationships as well as the nuances of many findings. Instructors can access lecture slides, an instructor manual, and test banks.
Article
Full-text available
Over 400 married couples participated in a 3-year prospective study of economic pressure and marital relations. The research (a) empirically evaluated the family stress model of economic stress influences on marital distress and (b) extended the model to include specific interactional characteristics of spouses hypothesized to protect against economic pressure. Findings provided support for the basic mediational model, which proposes that economic pressure increases risk for emotional distress, which, in turn, increases risk for marital conflict and subsequent marital distress. Regarding resilience to economic stress, high marital support reduced the association between economic pressure and emotional distress. In addition, effective couple problem solving reduced the adverse influence of marital conflict on marital distress. Overall, the findings provided substantial support for the extended family stress model.
Article
Full-text available
A theoretical framework is proposed for examining the interpersonal processes involved in the support of a relationship partner's goal strivings, personal growth, and exploratory behavior, and for examining consequences of receiving either responsive or unresponsive support in this domain. These processes were examined using both observational and experimental methods. In Phase 1, couples were videotaped as they discussed personal goals for the future. In Phase 2, support behavior was experimentally manipulated to examine immediate effects on the recipient. Results indicated that responsive (nonintrusive) support of a relationship partner's goal strivings and explorations have important implications for the recipient's happiness, self-esteem, and perceived likelihood of achieving specific goals. The importance of research examining this type of support is discussed.
Article
Full-text available
This study investigated predictors of negative reactions to assistance provided to a physically disabled spouse (n = 276, M age: 76.6 years) and the consequences that negative reactions may have for the mental health of the care recipient. Nearly 40% of recipients reported some emotional distress in response to help they received. Fatalistic attitudes, perceived control, and lower self-esteem predicted greater helping distress, whereas lower self-esteem, fatalistic beliefs, and marital conflict were especially likely to lead to helping distress for those who received higher levels of assistance. Helping distress was also found to predict depression as much as 1 year later, suggesting that there may be long-term consequences of negative reactions to assistance. These findings have important implications for the study of caregiving and the relationship between physical impairment and depression.
Article
Full-text available
Among married couples, the effect of the controllability of stressful events was tested as a predictor of the type of social support communications provided and preferred. Sixty married individuals disclosed stressful events to their spouse. Controllability of the stress was rated by observers. The Social Support Behavior Code was used to assess the frequency with which each of five types of social support was provided by the spouse. Action-promoting support (information) was provided most frequently when the stressed person had high control over the event. Of the five types of support communications assessed, only information was evaluated differently in high- and low-controllable situations. Both controllability by the support recipient and controllability by his or her spouse were relevant to support evaluations. Results provide limited support for the optimal matching model proposed by Cutrona and Russell (Cutrona, 1990; Cutrona & Russell, 1990).
Article
Full-text available
Presents a comprehensive review of research and theory on reactions to help, organized in terms of 4 conceptual orientations (equity, attribution, reactance, and threat to self-esteem). For each orientation, the basic assumptions and predictions are discussed, supportive and nonsupportive data are reviewed, and an overall appraisal is offered. Threat to self-esteem is proposed as an organizing construct for research on reactions to help, and a model based on this construct is presented. It is argued that a formalized threat-to-self-esteem model is more comprehensive and parsimonious for predicting reactions to help than are equity, attribution, or reactance models. (111 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Full-text available
Previous research has shown that receiving social support in the face of negative events (i.e., enacted support) is sometimes correlated with positive outcomes, sometimes unrelated to outcomes, and sometimes associated with negative outcomes. However, people's perception that they have high-quality support available to them when they have a stressor (i.e., perceived support) is consistently and strongly associated with better health, well-being, and relationship functioning. However, both enacted and perceived support available in response to positive event disclosures are consistently associated with positive outcomes. In 2 studies, we examined why enacted support for negative events has such a spotty record and compared it with enacted support for positive events; a third study examined how support for positive events may be a major contributor to perceived availability of effective support for negative events. The results showed that providing responsive support to negative events is particularly difficult; received support for negative events disclosures (but not positive event disclosures) involves substantial drawbacks and risks, especially when that support is not responsive to the recipient's needs; and that enacted support for positive events was a better predictor of later perceptions of the quality of available support for stressors than enacted support for negative events. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for the social support literature and how positive relationship processes influence health and well-being, not only directly but also indirectly by providing critical information regarding the availability of others if a problem occurs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
Book
The work of 47 contributors from the U.S., Canada, and Israel, the Sourcebook gives special attention to the complexity of the social support construct, expanding the field's theoretical base by seriously reappraising social support research in the context of findings from other fields of psychology and related disciplines. Personality processes are specified to account for observed associations between social support and physical well-being. Several new studies are included which illustrate empirical approaches to exploring these processes. And key contributions highlight the great strides made in understanding the links among personal dispositions, situational contexts, and potentially supportive transactions.
Chapter
Consider the following interactions in which a spouse talks with his or her partner about feeling irritable due to pressures at work.
Article
This article examined adolescents' reports of how they cope with a specific social stressor: authority conflict with parents. This situation was presented to 626 adolescents as part of a larger study on coping with stress. Students were requested to report on the intensity of the stress experienced, intensity of emotions, emotion regulation, perceived availability of social support, goal framing, and coping strategies used. Coping strategies split up factor-analytically into two coping patterns, namely fighting the stressor and coming to terms with the stressor. The relations between these two coping modes and various aspects of the students' mental representation of the stressor were examined. It was predicted that the way students frame the coping goal would affect their choice of coping strategies. Direct effects of coping strategy, emotion regulation and social support on intensity of stress were tested as well as moderating effects of the type of coping mode used on the relationship between emotion regulation and experienced stress. It is suggested that some youngsters consider an authority conflict with their parents as a normal aspect of daily functioning, whereas other view it as a developmental challenge.