Perceived Support
The most commonly used measures of social support are measures
of perceived support. In general these measures show consistent
and strong relations to mental health, and are often related
to many indices of physical health (Sarason,
Sarason & Gurung, 2001
xClose
Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2001).
Close personal relationships and health outcomes: A key to
the role of social support. In B. R. Sarason & S. Duck (Eds.)
Personal relationships: Implications for clinical and
community psychology (pp. 15-41). New York: Wiley.;
Uchino,
2004
xClose
Uchino, B. N. (2004). Social support and physical health
outcomes: Understanding the health consequences of our relationships.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.; Wills
& Filer, 2001
xClose
Wills, T. A., & Filer, M. (2001). Social networks and social
support. In A. Baum, T. A. Revenson, & J. E. Singer (Eds.),
Handbook of health psychology (pp. 209-234). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.). Among the most common measures are the
Interpersonal Support Evaluation List and
the Social Provisions Scale. Descriptions
of a wide range of other measures of perceived support can
be found in Wills and Shinar (2000).
The Interpersonal Support Evaluation List. The Interpersonal
Support Evaluation List (ISEL; Cohen
& Hoberman, 1983
xClose
Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social
supports as buffers of life change stress. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 13, 99-125.; Cohen,
Mermelstein, Kamarck, & Hoberman, 1985
xClose
Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Kamarck, T., & Hoberman, H. (1985).
Measuring the functional components of social support. In
I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.) Social support: theory
research and application (pp. 73-94). The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff.) has both college student (48 items) and general
population (40 items) versions, and provides four subscales:
Appraisal (e.g., "There are several people
that I trust to help solve my problems"); Belonging
(e.g., "I often meet or talk with family or friends"); Tangible
(e.g., "If I needed a ride to the airport very early in the
morning, I would have a hard time finding someone to take
me"[reverse scored]); and Self-esteem support
(e.g., "There is someone who takes pride in my accomplishments").
Items are rated on a four-point scale with anchors ranging
from "definitely true" to "definitely false." The ISEL has
excellent internal consistency and good test-retest reliability
(Cohen,
et al., 1985
xClose
Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Kamarck, T., & Hoberman, H. (1985).
Measuring the functional components of social support. In
I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.) Social support: theory
research and application (pp. 73-94). The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff.).
The Social Provisions Scale. The Social Provisions
Scale (SPS; Cutrona
& Russell, 1987
xClose
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1987). The provisions of
social relationships and adaptation to stress. Advances
in Personal Relationships, 1, 37-67.) is a 24-item
measure that provides six subscales, Reliable Alliance
(e.g., "There are people I can depend on to help me if I really
need it"); Attachment (e.g., "I feel a strong
emotional bond with at least one other person"); Guidance
(e.g., "There is a trustworthy person I could turn to for
advice if I were having problems"); Nurturance
(e.g., "There are people who depend on me for help"); Social
Integration (e.g., "There are people who enjoy the
same social activities I do"); and Reassurance of
Worth (e.g., "There are people who admire my talents
and abilities"). The original version of the scale uses a
Likert response format, although other formats are sometimes
used (e.g., Cutrona,
1986
xClose
Cutrona, C. E. (1986). Objective determinants of perceived
social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
50, 346-355.). There is also a 12-item short form,
and a form that refers to specific relationships (Cutrona,
1989
xClose
Cutrona, C. E. (1989). Ratings of social support by adolescents
and adult informants: Degree of correspondence and prediction
of depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 723-730.). The SPS has excellent
internal consistency and good test-retest reliability (Cutrona
& Russell, 1987
xClose
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1987). The provisions of
social relationships and adaptation to stress. Advances
in Personal Relationships, 1, 37-67.).
Construct validity. The construct validity of measures
of perceived support is extensive, as such measures correlate
with a wide range of other measures of relationship perceptions
(Lakey
& J. Cohen, in press
xClose
Lakey, B., & Cohen, J. L. (in press). Social support assessment.
To appear in S. Ayers, A. Baum, C. McManus, S. Newman, K.
Wallston, J. Weinman, & R. West (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook
of Psychology, Health, & Medicine (2nd Edition). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.). Indeed, measures
of perceived support are related to generic relationship satisfaction,
intimacy, low levels of conflict, and secure attachment styles
(Lakey
& J. Cohen, in press
xClose
Lakey, B., & Cohen, J. L. (in press). Social support assessment.
To appear in S. Ayers, A. Baum, C. McManus, S. Newman, K.
Wallston, J. Weinman, & R. West (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook
of Psychology, Health, & Medicine (2nd Edition). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.). In addition,
relationship partners show some agreement about the supportiveness
of their relationships -- there is moderate agreement among
dyads when rating the supportiveness of their relationships.
However, measures of perceived support are also related to
a number of constructs typically thought of as reflecting
individual differences. As already mentioned, perceived support
is positively related to mental health, but in addition is
related to self esteem, perception of personal control, extraversion,
positive affect and social skills, and negatively related
to dysfunctional attitudes (Lakey
& J. Cohen, in press
xClose
Lakey, B., & Cohen, J. L. (in press). Social support assessment.
To appear in S. Ayers, A. Baum, C. McManus, S. Newman, K.
Wallston, J. Weinman, & R. West (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook
of Psychology, Health, & Medicine (2nd Edition). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.). Thus, measures
of perceived support appear to reflect both the characteristics
of relationships and also the personal characteristics of
respondents. When respondents provide separate ratings for
each support provider, approximately 15% of the variance reflects
respondent personality, whereas about 55% represents actual
relationships (Branje,
van Aken & van Lieshout, 2002
xClose
Branje, S. J. T., van Aken, M. A. G., & van Lieshout, C. F.
M. (2002). Relational support in families with adolescents,
Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 351-362.;
Lakey,
McCabe, Fisicaro & Drew, 1996
xClose
Lakey, B., McCabe, K. M., Fisicaro, S. A., & Drew, J. B. (1996).
Environmental and personal determinants of support perceptions:
Three generalizability studies. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 1270-1280.). However,
this same research indicates that social support is largely
a matter of personal taste, and that there is little agreement
among observers about the supportiveness of the same providers.
Yet, according to the principles of reliability theory (Cronbach,
Gleser, Nanda & Rajaratnam, 1972
xClose
Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N.
(1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements:
Theory of generalizability of scores and profiles. New
York: John Wiley.), when respondents make global ratings
of their social networks, the measures come to be more highly
saturated with personality variance. That is, if respondents'
global ratings represent a weighted average of the supportiveness
of specific relationships (e.g., Global Perceived Support
= (.5) * Support from Relationship 1 + (.3) * Support from
Relationship 2 + (.2) * Support From Relationship 3), and
if perceptions of each relationship are partly influenced
by perceivers' personality, then computing the weighted average
magnifies the personality variance present in each relationship
when arriving at a global perception. Thus, to maximize the
extent to which perceived support measures reflect personal
relationships and not respondent personality, social support
should be assessed separately for each of the most important
relationships, and these scales should be treated separately
rather than summed across different relationship partners.
Enacted Support
Measures of enacted support typically ask respondents to estimate
the frequency with which respondents have received
specific supportive behaviors (or simply whether
or not they have received the behaviors). Descriptions of
a wide range of measures of enacted support can be found in
Wills
and Shinar (2000)
xClose
Wills, T. A. & Shinar, O. (2000). Measuring perceived and
received social support. In S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood, & B.
H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social support measurement and intervention
(pp. 86-135) New York: Oxford University Press. .
The most commonly used measure of this kind is the Inventory
of Socially Supportive Behaviors (ISSB; Barrera,
Sandler & Ramsey, 1981
xClose
Barrera, M., Sandler, I. N., & Ramsey, T. B. (1981). Preliminary
development of a scale of social support: Studies on college
students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9,
435-447.). The ISSB is a 40-item measure, using the
following response options: "not at all," "once or twice,"
"about once a week," "several times a week," or "about every
day." The ISSB provides four subscales (Finch,
Barrera, Okun, Bryant, Pool, & Snow-Turek, 1997
xClose
Finch, J. F., Barrera, M. Jr., Okun, M. A., Bryant, W. H.
M., Pool, G. J., & Snow-Turek, A. L. (1997). The factor structure
of received social support: Dimensionality and the prediction
of depression and life satisfaction. Journal of Social
& Clinical Psychology, 16), including Directive
Guidance (e.g., "suggested some action you should
take"), Nondirective Support (e.g., "Expressed
interest and concern in your well-being"), Positive
Social Exchange (e.g., "Talked with you about some
interests of yours") and Tangible Assistance
(e.g., "Gave you over $25"). The ISSB has excellent internal
consistency and good test-retest reliability (Barrera
et al., 1981
xClose
Barrera, M., Sandler, I. N., & Ramsey, T. B. (1981). Preliminary
development of a scale of social support: Studies on college
students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9,
435-447.).
Construct validity. The construct validity
of measures of enacted support is not as well established
as that for measures of perceived support. For example, measures
of enacted support appear to have less consistent and weaker
relations to both mental and physical health than do measures
of perceived support (Barrera,
1986
xClose
Barerra, M., Jr. (1986). Distinctions between social support
concepts, measures, and models. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 14, 413-445.; Uchino,
2004
xClose
Uchino, B. N. (2004). Social support and physical health
outcomes: Understanding the health consequences of our relationships.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.). Similarly,
enacted support has weaker links to self-esteem and other
aspects of cognition than does perceived support (Lakey
& J. Cohen, in press
xClose
Lakey, B., & Cohen, J. L. (in press). Social support assessment.
To appear in S. Ayers, A. Baum, C. McManus, S. Newman, K.
Wallston, J. Weinman, & R. West (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook
of Psychology, Health, & Medicine (2nd Edition). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.). Nonetheless,
people who report receiving high levels of enacted support
express more positive affect and extroversion than people
who report low levels (Lakey
& J. Cohen, in press
xClose
Lakey, B., & Cohen, J. L. (in press). Social support assessment.
To appear in S. Ayers, A. Baum, C. McManus, S. Newman, K.
Wallston, J. Weinman, & R. West (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook
of Psychology, Health, & Medicine (2nd Edition). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.). There is, however,
some evidence that researchers may not have discovered the
circumstances under which enacted support is related to health.
For example, Reynolds
and Perrin's (2004)
xClose
Reynolds, J. S., & Perrin, N. A. (2004). Mismatches in social
support and psychosocial adjustment to breast cancer. Health
Psychology, 23, 425-430. study of cancer
patients found that enacted support was linked to mental health
more strongly when the enacted support matched the desires
of the recipients. Similarly, Bolger,
Zuckerman and Kessler (2000)
xClose
Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible
support and adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality
& Social Psychology, 79, 953-961. reported
that enacted support was only related to good mental health
when the support went unnoticed by recipients. Other recent
evidence on inter-observer agreement also supports the validity
of the ISSB. Close relationship partners displayed higher
agreement regarding enacted support than they did for either
perceived support or personality (J.
Cohen, Lakey, Tiell & Neely, 2005
xClose
Cohen, J. L., Lakey, B., Tiell, K., & Neely, L. C. (2005).
Recipient--provider agreement on enacted support, perceived
support and provider personality. Psychological Assessment,
17, 375-378.). Thus, respondents appear to report
enacted support comparatively accurately, but enacted support
does not seem to be related as strongly or as consistently
to the same kinds of positive relationship and personal characteristics,
as is perceived support.
Social Integration
Measures of social integration typically count the total number
of relationships, the number of different types of relationships,
frequency of contact with relationship partners, or the number
of roles that respondents have, although some also assess
additional information such as the percentage of network members
who know each other or are related to the respondents (i.e.,
density). Descriptions of a number of social integration measures
can be found in Brissette,
Cohen and Seeman (2000)
xClose
Brissette, I., Cohen, S., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). Measuring
social integration and social networks. In S. Cohen, L. G.
Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social support measurement
and intervention (pp. 53-85). New York: Oxford University
Press..
Social Network Index. S. Cohen and colleagues' Social
Network Index (SNI; S.
Cohen, 1991
xClose
Cohen, S. (1991). Social supports and physical health: Symptoms,
health behaviors, and infectious diseases. In A. L. Greene,
E. M., Cummings, & K. H. Karraker (Eds.), Life-span developmental
psychology: Perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 213-234).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.; Cohen,
Doyle, Skoner, Rabin, & Gwaltnery, 1997
xClose
Cohen, S., Doyle, W. J., Skoner, D. P., Rabin, B. S., & Gwaltnery,
J. M. (1997). Social ties and suspectibility to the common
cold. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277,
1940-1944.) is a prototypical measure of social integration.
The SNI assesses the number of different types of relationships
in which respondents participate, with participation defined
as talking to the other person in the relationship (in person
or by phone), at least once every two weeks. The SNI lists
twelve different types of relationships (e.g., spouse, parents,
children, friends, and workmates) and each type of relationship
counts for one point. Thus, high scores reflect having a range
of different types of relationships, rather than a large number
of relationships.
Construct validity. Measures of social integration have an
impressive track record of forecasting poor health, particularly
mortality (Berkman
& Syme, 1979
xClose
Berkman, L. F., & Syme, S. L. (1979). Social networks, host
resistance, and mortality. American Journal of Epidemiology,
109, 186-204.; House,
Landis, & Umberson, 1988
xClose
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social
relationships and health. Science, 241, 540-545.;
Uchino,
2004
xClose
Uchino, B. N. (2004). Social support and physical health
outcomes: Understanding the health consequences of our relationships.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.). Beyond these
well-documented links, the construct validity of measures
of social integration is less well documented than for measures
of perceived support. For example, measures of social integration
are not closely linked to psychological distress in most samples
(Barrera,
1986
xClose
Barerra, M., Jr. (1986). Distinctions between social support
concepts, measures, and models. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 14, 413-445.). However, social integration
does appear to be related to extroversion, positive affect
and positive health practices (Lakey
& J. Cohen, in press
xClose
Lakey, B., & Cohen, J. L. (in press). Social support assessment.
To appear in S. Ayers, A. Baum, C. McManus, S. Newman, K.
Wallston, J. Weinman, & R. West (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook
of Psychology, Health, & Medicine (2nd Edition). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.; Uchino,
2004
xClose
Uchino, B. N. (2004). Social support and physical health
outcomes: Understanding the health consequences of our relationships.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.).
Other Types of Social Support Measures
Although researchers have occasionally noted the desirability
of assessing social support using behavioral observation,
only a small number of such measures have been developed (e.g.,
Cutrona,
Hessling & Suhr, 1997
xClose
Cutrona, C. E., Hessling, R. M., & Suhr, J. A. (1997). The
influence of husband and wife personality on marital social
support interactions. Personal Relationships, 4,
379-393.; Pasch,
Bradbury & Davila, 1997
xClose
Pasch, L. A., Bradbury, T. N., & Davila, J. (1997). Gender,
negative affectivity, and observed social support behavior
in marital interaction. Personal Relationships, 4,
361-378.). One promising observational assessment is
the Social Support Behavior Code (SSBC; Cutrona
et al., 1997
xClose
Cutrona, C. E., Hessling, R. M., & Suhr, J. A. (1997). The
influence of husband and wife personality on marital social
support interactions. Personal Relationships, 4,
379-393.). Trained observers count the frequency of
different kinds of supportive behaviors in specific conversations.
The specific types of supportive behavior assessed are informational
support (e.g., "suggests a course of action"), emotional
support (e.g., "expresses sorrow or regret for the
distress of [the support recipient]"), esteem support
(e.g., "gives positive feedback") and tangible support
(e.g., "offers to perform a task directly related to the stress").
The SSBC has good inter-rater agreement (Cutrona
et al., 1997
xClose
Cutrona, C. E., Hessling, R. M., & Suhr, J. A. (1997). The
influence of husband and wife personality on marital social
support interactions. Personal Relationships, 4,
379-393.), but it has not yet been used extensively
in research, and so there is comparatively little information
about its construct validity.
Finally, a variety of scholars have begun using diary
measures of social support, in which respondents
report support received on a daily basis (Bolger
et al., 2000
xClose
Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible
support and adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality
& Social Psychology, 79, 953-961.). Diary measures
offer the promise of substantially increasing the precision
by which day-by-day processes in social support can be measured.
|