From Whom Do People Seek What Type of Support? A Regulatory Scope Perspective

被引:10
作者
Lee, David S. [1 ]
Fujita, Kentaro [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Buffalo State Univ New York, Dept Commun, 327 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14228 USA
[2] Ohio State Univ, Dept Psychol, Columbus, OH USA
关键词
social support; scope; construal level theory; social network; social distance; EFFECTIVE SOCIAL SUPPORT; PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE; EMOTION REGULATION; AUTONOMY SUPPORT; PARTNER SUPPORT; WEAK TIES; INTERDEPENDENCE; NETWORKS; STRESS; CORE;
D O I
10.1037/pspi0000405
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
From whom do people seek what type of support? Although people regularly seek support from close and distant others, little work has systematically investigated when and why people approach different people in their support network for different types of support. The present research introduces a novel distinction of social support and explores its relationship to the scope or range of support providers people would consider asking for support. Based on a recent extension of construal level theory (Trope et al., 2021), five experiments tested the bidirectional relation between levels of support and scope-the latter assessed by the social distance of potential support providers. Experiment 1 demonstrated that people can categorize supportive behaviors into low-level support (i.e., addressing the effect of a problem) and high-level support (i.e., addressing the cause of a problem). Experiments 2 and 4 showed that being prompted to seek low-level 4 (vs. high-level) support-oriented people toward support providers who are socially proximal (vs. distal). In Experiment 3, thinking about interacting with a socially proximal (vs. distal) support provider led to a greater focus on receiving low-level (vs. high-level) support. Testing the implication of the link between levels of support and scope, Experiment 5 demonstrated that support recipients reported they would feel more gratitude when they imagined receiving low-level (vs. high-level) support from socially proximal (vs. distal) support providers. Broader implications for social support, interpersonal relationships, and construal level theory research are discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:796 / 811
页数:16
相关论文
共 93 条
[1]   Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships [J].
Agnew, CR ;
Van Lange, PAM ;
Rusbult, CE ;
Langston, CA .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1998, 74 (04) :939-954
[2]  
Ainsworth M., 1991, Attachment across the lifecycle, P33, DOI DOI 10.4324/9780203132470
[3]   Depth and Breadth Tactics in Support Seeking [J].
Armstrong, Benjamin F., III ;
Kammrath, Lara K. .
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PERSONALITY SCIENCE, 2015, 6 (01) :39-46
[4]   Why Feasibility Matters More to Gift Receivers than to Givers: A Construal-Level Approach to Gift Giving [J].
Baskin, Ernest ;
Wakslak, Cheryl J. ;
Trope, Yaacov ;
Novemsky, Nathan .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 2014, 41 (01) :169-182
[5]   Using High-Level Construal and Perceptions of Changeability to Promote Self-Change Over Self-Protection Motives in Response to Negative Feedback [J].
Belding, Jennifer N. ;
Naufel, Karen Z. ;
Fujita, Kentaro .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 2015, 41 (06) :822-838
[6]   From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium [J].
Berkman, LF ;
Glass, T ;
Brissette, I ;
Seeman, TE .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2000, 51 (06) :843-857
[7]   Invisible support and adjustment to stress [J].
Bolger, N ;
Zuckerman, A ;
Kessler, RC .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 79 (06) :953-961
[8]   Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress experimental evidence [J].
Bolger, Niall ;
Amarel, David .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2007, 92 (03) :458-475
[9]  
Bowlby J., 1982, ATTACHMENT LOSS VOL, V1
[10]   SELF-EVALUATION EFFECTS OF INTERPERSONAL VERSUS INTERGROUP SOCIAL-COMPARISON [J].
BREWER, MB ;
WEBER, JG .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1994, 66 (02) :268-275