Invisible support

Last updated

In psychology, invisible support is a type of social support in which supportive exchanges are not visible to recipients.

Contents

There are two possible situations that can qualify as acts of invisible support. The first possibility entails a situation where "recipients are completely unaware of the supportive transaction between themselves and support-givers". [1] For example, a spouse may choose to spontaneously take care of housework without mentioning it to the other couple-member. Invisible support also occurs when "recipients are aware of an act that takes place but do not interpret the act as a supportive exchange". [1] In this case, a friend or family member may subtly provide advice in an indirect manner as a means to preserve the recipient's self-esteem or to defer his or her attention from a stressful situation. Invisible support can be viewed on both ends of an exchange, in which the recipient is unaware of the support received and the provider enacts support in a skillful, subtle way.

Background

It is known that perceptions of social support availability predict better adjustment to stressful life events; [2] [3] [4] it has been found that the perception of support availability is inherently comforting, and can serve as a psychological safety-net that motivates self-reliant coping efforts in the face of stress. [5] Although the perception of support availability is associated with better adjustment, the knowledge that one has been the recipient of specific supportive acts has often been unhelpful to effectively reduce stress. [6] [7] [8] The knowledge of receiving help may come at a cost with decreased feelings of self-esteem and self-efficacy, because it increases recipients' awareness towards their personal difficulties to manage stressors. [9] People's well-intentioned support attempts may also be miscarried, and their efforts could either fail or even worsen the situation for a person under stress. [10] Since supportive acts benefit recipients but their actual knowledge of receiving support is sometimes harmful, it has been theorized that the most effective support exchange would involve one in which the provider reports giving support but the recipient does not notice that support has occurred. From a cost-benefit point of view, invisible support would be optimal for the recipient because the benefits of provision are accrued while the costs of receipt are avoided. [1] Using the same idea, it also implies that the least effective type of support would be one in which the provider does not report providing support but the recipient reports receiving it. [1]

The first investigation of invisible support involved a couples study in which one member was preparing for the New York State Bar Exam. Support receipt and provision were measured by having both couple members complete daily diary entries. Over the course of one month, stressed individuals who reported low frequency of received support (but whose partner ranked his or her own actions as highly supportive) rated themselves low on anxiety and depression compared to other individuals who reported high frequency of received support. [1]

Compared to visible support

A substantial body of work has evidence to suggest that support is most effective when it is invisible or goes unnoticed by recipients. [1] [11] [12] While invisible support has been shown to benefit recipients over visibly supportive acts in some cases, there have also been instances where recipients have benefitted from visible support as well. For example, greater observed support enacted by intimate partners during couples' support-relevant exchanges have 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. [13] [14] It has been recently suggested that acts of invisible support and visible support may be beneficial or costly depending on different circumstances. To investigate this idea, a recent study in 2013 compared the short-term and long-term effects of visible and invisible support reception during romantic couples' discussions of each partner's personal goal. [15] It was found that either type of support was more beneficial depending on the emotional distress that recipients felt at the time. Visible emotional support (support through reassurance, encouragement, and understanding) was associated with perceptions of greater support and discussion success for recipients who felt greater distress during the discussion. In contrast, invisible emotional support was not associated with recipients' post-discussion perceptions of support or discussion success. For long-term support effects, it was found that only invisible emotional support predicted greater goal achievement across the following year. [15] When put together, these findings suggest that visible support and invisible support have unique functions for well-being. When people are under distress, visible support appears to be a short-term remedy to reassure recipients that they are cared for and supported. These benefits are only present when recipients are actually distressed during the time that the supportive act takes place. On the other hand, while invisible support tends to go unnoticed by recipients, it seems to play an integral role in the long-term success of goal-maintenance. [15] This increasingly complex view of the implications of support visibility is reinforced by a growing body of research suggesting the effects of invisible social support–as with visible support–are moderated by provider, recipient, and contextual factors such as recipients' perceptions of providers' responsiveness to their needs, [16] or the quality of the relationship between the support provider and recipient. [17]

Effects on support providers

The effects of invisible support on recipients have been extensively investigated, but the consequences of invisible support on providers are less known. One study in 2016 investigated the benefits and costs of invisible support on couple-members who enacted supportive behaviors by differentiating the processes of invisible emotional support (support through reassurance, encouragement, and understanding) from processes of invisible instrumental support (providing tangible aid such as sending money or childcare). [18] No costs of support-giving were found for providers when they demonstrated acts of invisible emotional support. The effects for invisible instrumental support told a different story, where providers who reported high relationship satisfaction were unaffected, but providers who reported low relationship satisfaction were negatively affected by their acts of invisible instrumental support with an increase in negative mood. [18] These findings suggest that emotional comfort may be a more central function to maintain close relationships than instrumental support. Therefore, providing invisible emotional support may lead to less perceptions of a costly inequity than providing invisible instrumental support on average. However, since invisible instrumental support did not incur costs for providers who reported high relationship satisfaction, it implies that high relationship satisfaction may buffer potential costs that would otherwise be felt by support-providers. [18] The differential results between invisible instrumental and emotional support indicate that a solid distinction between instrumental and emotional social support may be useful to take into account when investigating effects of invisible support as a whole. [18]

Related Research Articles

The concept of interpersonal relationship involves social associations, connections, or affiliations between two or more people. Interpersonal relationships vary in their degree of intimacy or self-disclosure, but also in their duration, in their reciprocity and in their power distribution, to name only a few dimensions. The context can vary from family or kinship relations, friendship, marriage, relations with associates, work, clubs, neighborhoods, and places of worship. Relationships may be regulated by law, custom, or mutual agreement, and form the basis of social groups and of society as a whole. Interpersonal relationships are created by people's interactions with one another in social situations.

Social group Two or more humans who interact with one another

In the social sciences, a social group can be defined as two or more people who interact with one another, share similar characteristics, and collectively have a sense of unity. Regardless, social groups come in a myriad of sizes and varieties. For example, a society can be viewed as a large social group. The system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group or between social groups is known as group dynamics.

Seduction Process of enticing a person to engage in sexual behaviour

Seduction has multiple meanings. Platonically, it can mean "to persuade to disobedience or disloyalty", or "to lead astray, usually by persuasion or false promises".

Amusement Positive emotion related to humor

Amusement is the state of experiencing humorous and entertaining events or situations while the person or animal actively maintains the experience, and is associated with enjoyment, happiness, laughter and pleasure. It is an emotion with positive valence and high physiological arousal.

Social support Perception and reality of support from others

Social support is the perception and actuality that one is cared for, has assistance available from other people, and most popularly, that one is part of a supportive social network. These supportive resources can be emotional, informational, or companionship ; tangible or intangible. Social support can be measured as the perception that one has assistance available, the actual received assistance, or the degree to which a person is integrated in a social network. Support can come from many sources, such as family, friends, pets, neighbors, coworkers, organizations, etc.

Confidence State of trusting that a belief or course of action is correct

Confidence is a state of being clear-headed either that a hypothesis or prediction is correct or that a chosen course of action is the best or most effective. Confidence comes from a Latin word 'fidere' which means "to trust"; therefore, having self-confidence is having trust in one's self. Arrogance or hubris, in comparison, is the state of having unmerited confidence—believing something or someone is correct or capable when evidence or reasons for this belief are lacking. Overconfidence or presumptuousness is excessive belief in someone succeeding, without any regard for failure. Confidence can be a self-fulfilling prophecy as those without it may fail or not try because they lack it and those with it may succeed because they have it rather than because of an innate ability.

Caring in intimate relationships is the practice of providing care and support to an intimate relationship partner. Caregiving behaviours are aimed at reducing the partner's distress and supporting his or her coping efforts in situations of either threat or challenge. Caregiving may include emotional support and/or instrumental support. Effective caregiving behaviour enhances the care-recipient's psychological well-being, as well as the quality of the relationship between the caregiver and the care-recipient. However, certain suboptimal caregiving strategies may be either ineffective or even detrimental to coping.

In the study of psychology, neuroticism has been considered a fundamental personality trait. For example, in the Big Five approach to personality trait theory, individuals with high scores for neuroticism are more likely than average to be moody and to experience such feelings as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness. Such people are thought to respond worse to stressors and are more likely to interpret ordinary situations, such as minor frustrations, as appearing hopelessly difficult. They are described as often being self-conscious and shy, and tending to have trouble controlling urges and delaying gratification.

Sibling abuse includes the physical, psychological, or sexual abuse of one sibling by another. More often than not, the younger sibling is abused by the older sibling. Sibling abuse is one of the most common of family violence, but the least reported.

Caregiver Person helping another with activities of daily living

A caregiver is a paid or unpaid member of a person's social network who helps them with activities of daily living. Since they have no specific professional training, they are often described as informal caregivers. Caregivers most commonly assist with impairments related to old age, disability, a disease, or a mental disorder.

The professional practice of behavior analysis is a domain of behavior analysis, the others being radical behaviorism, experimental analysis of behavior and applied behavior analysis. The practice of behavior analysis is the delivery of interventions to consumers that are guided by the principles of radical behaviorism and the research of both experimental and applied behavior analysis. Professional practice seeks to change specific behavior through the implementation of these principles. In many states, practicing behavior analysts hold a license, certificate, or registration. In other states, there are no laws governing their practice and, as such, the practice may be prohibited as falling under the practice definition of other mental health professionals. This is rapidly changing as behavior analysts are becoming more and more common.

Prosocial behavior, or intent to benefit others, is a social behavior that "benefit[s] other people or society as a whole", "such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering". Obeying the rules and conforming to socially accepted behaviors are also regarded as prosocial behaviors. These actions may be motivated by empathy and by concern about the welfare and rights of others, as well as for egoistic or practical concerns, such as one's social status or reputation, hope for direct or indirect reciprocity, or adherence to one's perceived system of fairness. It may also be motivated by altruism, though the existence of pure altruism is somewhat disputed, and some have argued that this falls into philosophical rather than psychological realm of debate. Evidence suggests that pro sociality is central to the well-being of social groups across a range of scales, including schools. Prosocial behavior in the classroom can have a significant impact on a student's motivation for learning and contributions to the classroom and larger community. In the workplace, prosocial behaviour can have a significant impact on team psychological safety, as well as positive indirect effects on employee's helping behaviors and task performance. Empathy is a strong motive in eliciting prosocial behavior, and has deep evolutionary roots.

Selective retention, in relating to the mind, is the process whereby people more accurately remember messages that are closer to their interests, values and beliefs, than those that are in contrast with their values and beliefs, selecting what to keep in the memory, narrowing the information flow.

Social undermining is the expression of negative emotions directed towards a particular person or negative evaluations of the person as a way to prevent the person from achieving their goals.

Wediko Childrens Services

Wediko Children's Services is a non-profit organization that provides therapeutic and educational services to children with serious emotional and behavioral problems and their families. It was founded in 1934.

Psychological hardiness, alternatively referred to as personality hardiness or cognitive hardiness in the literature, is a personality style first introduced by Suzanne C. Kobasa in 1979. Kobasa described a pattern of personality characteristics that distinguished managers and executives who remained healthy under life stress, as compared to those who developed health problems. In the following years, the concept of hardiness was further elaborated in a book and a series of research reports by Salvatore Maddi, Kobasa and their graduate students at the University of Chicago.

Stigma management is the process of concealing or disclosing aspects of one's identity to minimize social stigma.

Marriage and health are closely related. Married people experience lower morbidity and mortality across such diverse health threats as cancer, heart attacks, and surgery. There are gender differences in these effects which may be partially due to men's and women's relative status. Most research on marriage and health has focused on heterosexual couples, and more work is needed to clarify the health effects on same-sex marriage. Simply being married, as well as the quality of one's marriage, has been linked to diverse measures of health. Research has examined the social-cognitive, emotional, behavioral and biological processes involved in these links.

A functional account of emotions posits that emotions facilitate adaptive responses to environmental challenges. In other words, emotions are systems that respond to environmental input, such as a social or physical challenge, and produce adaptive output, such as a particular behavior. Under such accounts, emotions can manifest in maladaptive feelings and behaviors, but they are largely beneficial insofar as they inform and prepare individuals to respond to environmental challenges, and play a crucial role in structuring social interactions and relationships.

Relationship science is an interdisciplinary field dedicated to the scientific study of interpersonal relationship processes. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, relationship science is made-up of researchers of various professional backgrounds within psychology and outside of psychology, but most researchers who identify with the field are psychologists by training. Additionally, the field's emphasis has historically been close and intimate relationships, which includes predominantly dating & married couples, parent-child relationships, and friendships & social networks, but some also study less salient social relationships such as colleagues and acquaintances.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bolger, Zuckerman, & Kessler (2000). "Invisible Support and Adjustment to Stress". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 79 (6): 953–961. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.488.333 . doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.953. PMID   11138764.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. House, Landis, & Umberson (1988). "Social relationships and health". Science. 241 (4865): 540–545. Bibcode:1988Sci...241..540H. doi:10.1126/science.3399889. PMID   3399889.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. Cohen (1992). "Stress, social support, and disorder". The Meaning and Measurement of Social Support: 109–124.
  4. Gurung, R., Sarason, B., & Sarason, I (1997). Close personal relationships and health outcomes: A key to the role of social support. Chichester, UK: Handbook of personal relationships: theory, research and interventions (2nd ed). pp. 547–73 via Wiley.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1986). "Perceived support, received support, and adjustment to stressful life events". Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 27 (1): 78–89. doi:10.2307/2136504. JSTOR   2136504. PMID   3711634.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. Bolger, N., Foster, M., Vinokur, A. D., & Ng, R. (1996). "Close relationships and adjustments to a life crisis: The case of breast cancer". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70 (2): 283–294. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.283. PMID   8636883.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. Lieberman, M. A. (1986). "Social supports: The consequences of psychologizing: A commentary". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 54 (4): 461–465. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.54.4.461.
  8. Barrera Jr, M. (1986). "Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models". American Journal of Community Psychology. 14 (4): 413–445. doi:10.1007/bf00922627. S2CID   144597839.
  9. Fisher, J. D., Nadler, A., & Whitcher-Alagna, S. (1982). "Recipient reactions to aid". Psychological Bulletin. 91 (1): 27–54. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.27.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. Coyne, J. C., Wortman, C. B., & Lehman, D. R. (1988). "The other side of support: Emotional over-involvement and miscarried helping".{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. Howland, M., & Simpson, J. A. (2010). "Getting in under the radar a dyadic view of invisible support". Psychological Science. 21 (12): 1878–1885. doi:10.1177/0956797610388817. PMID   21097721. S2CID   7092642.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. 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 (1): 115–134. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00108.x.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). "Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: evidence from experimental and observational studies". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 87 (3): 363–383. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.363. PMID   15382986.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. 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 (4): 631–644. doi:10.1037/a0017578. PMID   20307134.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. 1 2 3 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 (11): 1441–1454. doi:10.1177/0146167213497802. PMID   23885036. S2CID   9426665.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  16. Maisel, N.C.; Gable, S.L. (2009). "The paradox of received social support: the importance of responsiveness". Psychological Science. 20 (8): 928–932. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02388.x. PMID   19549083. S2CID   5095380.
  17. Kent de Grey, R.G.; Berg, C.A.; Tracy, E.L.; Kelly, C.S.; Lee, J.; Lichtman, M.L.; Butner, J.; Munion, A.K.; Helgeson, V.S. (2021). "Can't you see I'm trying to help? Relationship satisfaction and the visibility and benefit of social support in type 1 diabetes". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 38 (3): 805–824. doi:10.1177/0265407520973762. S2CID   229503832.
  18. 1 2 3 4 König, C., Stadler, G., Knoll, N., Ochsner, S., Hornung, R., & Scholz, U. (2016). "Invisible Support: Effects on the Provider's Positive and Negative Affect". Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being. 8 (2): 172–91. doi:10.1111/aphw.12067. PMID   27122308.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)