Supportive Communication in Close Relationships: Similarities and Differences Across Cultures

1. Supportive Communication in Close Relationships: Similarities and Differences Across Cultures Brant R. Burleson, Ph.D. Purdue University, USA 1st Autumn ECREA Conference Tampere Finland, October 2009

2. To Our ECREA Conference Organizers & Sponsors: Dr. Pekka Isotalus, U of Tampere & Chair of the ECREA Section for Interpersonal Communication Dr. Teija Waaramaa, U of Tampere, Coordinator ECREA Section for Interpersonal Communication and Social Interaction Finnish Doctoral School of Communication Studies Department of Speech Communication and Voice Research, University of Tampere, Finland Kiitos paljon!

3. Acknowledgements The research discussed today has been conducted with two sets of former and current students The �communication & culture� group includes: Dr. Bo Feng, Dr. Susanne Jones, Dr. Meina Liu, Dr. Steve Mortenson, Dr. Wendy Samter, & Dr. Yan Xu The �dual-process� group includes: Dr. Graham Bodie, Lisa Hanasono, Dr. Amanda Holmstrom, Jennifer McCullough, Jessica Rack, & Jennie Gill Rosier Without the contributions of these outstanding scholars, I would have little to say

4. My Aims Today Sketch a rationale for the study of supportive communication grounded in the salutary effects of social support on well-being Describe both cross-cultural similarities and differences in supportive communication processes (especially responses to messages) Explain cultural differences through a new dual-process theory of supportive communication outcomes

5. What Is Social Support? Social support is �any process through which social relationships might promote health and well-being� (Cohen, Gottlieb, & Underwood, 2000, p.4) Two major sets of processes encompassed by term: �participation in one or more distinct social groups� �the provision or exchange of emotional, informational, or instrumental resources in response to perceptions that others are in need of such aid� � Our approach today

6. Social Support and Well-Being Perhaps the major reason motivating research on social support is the discovery that it positively affect several aspects of well-being Social support can positively affect: Physical well-being or health Psychological well-being or coping Social well-being or relationship quality Community well-being or social welfare

7. Physical and Health Outcomes Many see this as the most compelling justification for study of social support Social support can contribute to both physical and mental health It buffers the effects of various stressors It helps prevent some ailments, reduces the severity of others, and facilitates recovery from still others Through various mechanisms, it reduces morbidity and premature mortality (Uchino, 2004)

8. Psychological Well-Being:Short-Term Contributes to problem-solving actions Motivates management of the problem Fosters sense of social acceptance & belonging Assists in working through feelings

9. Psychological Well-Being:Long-Term Enhances psychological adjustment Improves self-concept Reduces loneliness Reduces depression Developing a secure attachment system Increases optimism & life satisfaction

10. Relationship Well-Being Supportive communication signals care, commitment, interest, compassion, even love It is relationally significant behavior Our voluntary relationships (friendships, romances) are often an outgrowth of support These relationships may be initiated, intensified, & maintained through the exchange of support Support plays critical role in the workplace, promoting amicable & productive relationships

11. Generality of Support Effects The positive effects of social support are quite general, and may be universal Effects of social support on psychological, relational, and physical well-being have been found in many cultures from all around the world

12. But, Not All Support Is Helpful! Many support efforts may not produce desirable outcomes, but rather result in harmful outcomes Substantial research documents: �support attempts that fail� �cold comfort� �miscarried helping� �unsupportive support�

13. Support �Misfires� Can Be Hurtful & Damaging Despite the good intentions of helpers, inept efforts to provide support can: exacerbate unpleasant affect states inhibit effective problem solving foster unhealthy dependencies heighten stress levels deepen depression undermine relationship satisfaction damage physical health These findings have motivated extensive research on factors that affect the outcomes of supportive communication

14. Factors that Influence Outcomes of Supportive Communication Structural analysis of communicative interaction (Fearing, 1953) suggests four categories of factors that affect recipient responses (outcomes) to support efforts Features of the supportive message Features of the helper (message source) Features of the interactional context Features of the recipient See review by Bodie & Burleson (2008)

15. Features of Supportive Message Content That Influence Outcomes Global focus of message (problem- vs. emotion-focus; Barbee & Cunningham, 1995) Use politeness strategies to mitigate face threats inherent in providing support (Goldsmith, 1994) Matching type of support offered to stressor demands (optimal matching model; Cutrona, 1990) Empathy, genuineness, & warmth (Rogers, 1957) Use of highly person-centered supportive messages (Burleson, 1994)

16. The Nature of Person-Centered Supportive Communication Message person centeredness: �the extent to which the feelings and perspective of the recipient are acknowledged, elaborated, explored, and legitimized.� Highly person-centered (HPC) messages are regularly experienced as more sensitive, helpful, and effective than low person-centered (LPC) messages.

17. High Person-Centered Message Highly person-centered messages acknowledge, elaborate, and legitimize the feelings of distressed others and encourage them to express and explore their feelings �Barb broke up with you? Oh man! I�m really sorry; I know you must be hurting right now. Do you want to talk about it? You were together a long time and were really involved with her, so you must have some real heartache. This just sucks; I�m really sorry, man. The same thing happened to me last year, and I remember how rotten it makes you feel. It�s especially tough when it�s sudden like that. It�s probably gonna take some time to work through it � after all, breaking up is a really hard thing. I know it may not mean very much right now, but keep in mind that you�ve got some good friends here � people who really care about you. I�m here whenever you want to talk about things.�

18. Low Person-Centered Message Low person-centered comforting messages challenge the legitimacy of the distressed other�s feelings and perspective (at least implicitly), often telling the other how he or she should feel about or act in the troubling situation �Ben broke up with you? He�s an idiot! But, this isn�t the end of the world, you know. I mean, it�s not the worst thing that could happen to you, and to be honest, I think you�ll be better off without Ben. Anyway, there are tons of cute guys on this campus, you know, lots of fish in the sea. You just gotta get out there and catch another one! Keep in mind that no guy is worth getting all worked up about. I mean, it�s just not that big a deal, not at this point in life. You can do a lot better than Ben. Just remember that Ben isn�t worth any heartache and you�ll stop being so depressed about the whole thing.�

19. Cross-Cultural Research on Supportive Messages We�ve conducted several studies to evaluate how culture moderates effects of supportive messages varying in person-centeredness These studies use several different research paradigms Message Perception: Participants read about a hypothetical stressor (or recall an actual past stressor) and evaluate helpfulness of different messages (written by researchers) Experimental: Participants discuss a current stressor with a confederate trained to used specific supportive messages; participant subsequently reports affect & coping

20. Summary of Results Across cultures (and other demographic variables like gender), highly person-centered (HPC) messages are evaluated more positively and produce better outcomes than low person-centered (LPC) messages But, within this broad pattern, there are cultural differences

24. Patterns of Cultural Differences Americans � especially European Americans (EAs) � discriminate more between HPC and LPC messages than do Chinese and U.S. ethnic groups such as Asian Americans and African Americans EA�s rate HPC messages as better and LPC messages as worse than other cultural groups This is especially true for EA women

26. Why Do These Cultural Differences Exist? Numerous culture-related psycho-social factors proposed as mediators of culture effect Individualism � Collectivism Self-construal (Independent � Interdependent) Relational Orientation (Concern for Self vs. Others) Expressive vs. Instrumental Orientation Low-context vs. High-context Communication But, how do these affect interpretation, evaluation, and response to supportive messages? Need to consider how supportive messages are processed

27. A Hypothesis Perhaps EAs focus more on the content of the message than do other cultural groups � which is why they discriminate more between LPC and HPC messages Perhaps Asians and other Collectivists focus more on the source of the message (the helper) and the relationship with the helper, giving less attention to message content

28. An Information Processing Approach to Explaining Cultural Differences We recently proposed a dual-process model of supportive communication outcomes to explain variable effects of comforting and other support messages (Bodie & Burleson, 2008; Burleson, 2009a, 2009b) Our model resembles the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and HSM (Chaiken, 1980) models of persuasive message processing, but is also different in important ways

29. Assumptions of Our Dual-Process Theory of Supportive Communication Outcomes People process information in support situations more or less extensively (elaborately, deeply) Different processing levels lead to features of messages and situations having different outcomes Variables can have multiple effects on outcomes through multiple mechanisms

30. Processing Modes (Levels) People assumed to process supportive messages on an elaboration continuum that ranges from highly extensive to highly superficial Elaboration refers to the amount or extensiveness of thinking with respect to the content of the message.

31. Extensive Processing When processing extensively (systematically), recipients carefully reflect on the content of the message and the information it contains. They thoughtfully consider this information in relation to prior ideas and viewpoints, and give close attention to the full content of a message.

32. Superficial Processing When processing superficially (e.g., heuristically), comparatively little attention given message content of the message Instead, outcomes may be more strongly influenced by environmental cues that activate associations, heuristics or other tacit decision rules which influence responses

33. Consequences of Processing Levels Outcomes of support messages are a joint function of message features and processing extent Message content (quality) has strongest effect when processed extensively, and less effect when processed superficially Environmental cues (e.g., helper characteristics such as gender, relationship status) have strongest effect when message content is processed less extensively, and smaller effects when messages are processed more extensively

34. Consequences of Processing Levels: Duration Changes in affect and coping can be large and enduring when a high quality message is extensively processed (and thereby fosters changes in, e.g., cognitive appraisals) Changes in affect and coping fostered by distraction or environmental cues (i.e., heuristics) may be large, but are likely to be short-lived since these do not act on the causes of upset (i.e., appraisals)

35. Processing Extent Is a Function of Recipient Ability and Motivation High ability & motivation = extensive processing; low ability & motivation = superficial processing Ability influenced by both individual differences (e.g., cognitive complexity) and situational factors (e.g., ringing cell phone) Motivation influenced by both individual differences (e.g., self-construals, expressive orientation) and situational factors (problem severity, degree of upset)

36. Our model (which can be found on page 2 of your handout) suggests that many of the variables found to moderate the outcomes of supportive messages do so either through (a) their influence on the recipient�s ability and/or motivation to systematically process these messages, or (b) serving as cues when individuals are engaged in low elaborative processing. The model depicted above is based on Petty & Cacioppo�s famous illustration of the ELM; however, our model does not necessary claim all of their baggage nor do we ignore intricacies from other dual-process theories such as the Heuristic-Systematic Model . What we are calling �the dual-process theory of supportive message outcomes� provides a detailed analysis of the processing modes that can be applied to supportive messages, the consequences that follow from particular processing modes for changes in affect and behavior, and determinants of the mode of processing employed by message recipients in particular contexts Processing Modes The first component of our model is that people process supportive messages on an elaboration continuum that ranges from the highly systematic to the strongly heuristic. when processing messages systematically, recipients carefully reflect on the content of the message and the information contained within it, thoughtfully consider this information in relation to prior ideas and viewpoint, and give close attention to the full content of a message. In contrast, when processing supportive messages heuristically, people pay comparatively little attention to the content of the message. Instead, outcomes are largely influenced by environmental cues (e.g., sex of the helper, status of the relationship with the helper). Outcomes/Consequences of Processing Mode The second component of our model is that although both the heuristic and the systematic modes of processing supportive messages can produce desirable outcomes (e.g., improved affect and coping), especially in the short term, the reasons for and the duration or stability of these outcomes differ. When processing through the systematic mode changes in affect should come about through a cognitive reappraisal of the problematic situation resulting in enduring change. Conversely, when processing through the heuristic mode changes in affect may be short-lived since the heuristics activated by environmental cues do not act on the problematic appraisals. Instead, most heuristic principles suggest to recipients (implicitly, of course) that they should feel better about things due to states of affairs in the environment (e.g., receiving support from a woman, a friend, an attractive person) and rules associated with these states (e.g., support from women, friends, and attractive people is helpful). Determinants of Processing Mode Finally, systematic processing of messages is most likely to occur (and occurs most extensively) when recipients are motivated to attend to the message and have the ability to consider its content thoughtfully. When either the motivation or ability to process supportive messages is low, responses to supportive behavior are likely to be determined by environmental cues that activate low-elaboration processes such as decisional heuristics. More specifically, heuristic processing depends on some feature of the message, source, or communication situation (i.e., a cue) to activate a heuristic principle � an interpretive or decisional rule that guides the recipient�s response to the message.Our model (which can be found on page 2 of your handout) suggests that many of the variables found to moderate the outcomes of supportive messages do so either through (a) their influence on the recipient�s ability and/or motivation to systematically process these messages, or (b) serving as cues when individuals are engaged in low elaborative processing. The model depicted above is based on Petty & Cacioppo�s famous illustration of the ELM; however, our model does not necessary claim all of their baggage nor do we ignore intricacies from other dual-process theories such as the Heuristic-Systematic Model . What we are calling �the dual-process theory of supportive message outcomes� provides a detailed analysis of the processing modes that can be applied to supportive messages, the consequences that follow from particular processing modes for changes in affect and behavior, and determinants of the mode of processing employed by message recipients in particular contexts Processing Modes The first component of our model is that people process supportive messages on an elaboration continuum that ranges from the highly systematic to the strongly heuristic. when processing messages systematically, recipients carefully reflect on the content of the message and the information contained within it, thoughtfully consider this information in relation to prior ideas and viewpoint, and give close attention to the full content of a message. In contrast, when processing supportive messages heuristically, people pay comparatively little attention to the content of the message. Instead, outcomes are largely influenced by environmental cues (e.g., sex of the helper, status of the relationship with the helper). Outcomes/Consequences of Processing Mode The second component of our model is that although both the heuristic and the systematic modes of processing supportive messages can produce desirable outcomes (e.g., improved affect and coping), especially in the short term, the reasons for and the duration or stability of these outcomes differ. When processing through the systematic mode changes in affect should come about through a cognitive reappraisal of the problematic situation resulting in enduring change. Conversely, when processing through the heuristic mode changes in affect may be short-lived since the heuristics activated by environmental cues do not act on the problematic appraisals. Instead, most heuristic principles suggest to recipients (implicitly, of course) that they should feel better about things due to states of affairs in the environment (e.g., receiving support from a woman, a friend, an attractive person) and rules associated with these states (e.g., support from women, friends, and attractive people is helpful). Determinants of Processing Mode Finally, systematic processing of messages is most likely to occur (and occurs most extensively) when recipients are motivated to attend to the message and have the ability to consider its content thoughtfully. When either the motivation or ability to process supportive messages is low, responses to supportive behavior are likely to be determined by environmental cues that activate low-elaboration processes such as decisional heuristics. More specifically, heuristic processing depends on some feature of the message, source, or communication situation (i.e., a cue) to activate a heuristic principle � an interpretive or decisional rule that guides the recipient�s response to the message.

37. Our Proposed Model Many of the proposed mediators of cultural differences in responses to supportive messages can be conceptualized as culturally-related individual differences in the motivation to extensively process supportive message content (Burleson & Hanasono, in press) _______________________________________ Culture ? Individual ? Processing ? Message Differences Extent Outcomes in Motivation to Process _______________________________________

38. Empirical Evidence? To date, no direct evidence supports our proposed model of cultural differences But, there is indirect evidence Burleson & Mortenson (2003) study 98 Americans and 105 Chinese sojourners Cultural differences in evaluations of supportive messages are mediated by individual differences in self-construal and communication values

39. Cultural ? Communication Membership Values ? Evaluations of (American ? Self-Construal Message Helpfulness vs. Chinese)

40. Explaining Gender Differences We do have direct evidence that supports a similar model of gender differences in responses to supportive messages (Sex Roles, 2009) We report two studies seeking to explain gender differences in (a) extent of processing support situations and (b) evaluations of message helpfulness Both studies find, as predicted that gender differences in the DVs were mediated by (i) cognitive complexity & (ii) expressive orientation

41. Extensions of the Theory Our dual process theory explains effects of receiver demographics (culture, gender) on message outcomes The theory explains effects of receiver personality variables (e.g., attachment style) and cognitive factors (e.g., cognitive complexity) The theory also explains effects of situational factors (e.g., sex of helper, problem severity, noise)

42. Needed Research Direct tests of dual-process analysis of cultural differences in response to supportive messages Extent of processing should mediate effects of culture and culture-related motivational factors Experimental manipulations of processing motivation should attenuate cultural differences Assess whether more extensive processing of HPC messages results in more stable changes in receiver affect, behavior, & cognition

43. Why Does All This Matter? Study of cultural differences can deepen our understanding of fundamental processes of communication, cognition, emotion, and relationships This knowledge may provide a basis for enhancing the use and impact of skillful supportive communication

44. Thank You!

45. References Barbee, A. P., & Cunningham, M. R. (1995). An experimental approach to social support communications: Interactive coping in close relationships. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 381-413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bodie, G. D., & Burleson, B. R. (2008). Explaining variations in the effects of supportive messages: A dual-process framework. In C. Beck (Ed.), Communication yearbook 32 (pp. 354-398). New York: Routledge. Burleson, B. R. (1994). Comforting messages: Features, functions, and outcomes. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 135-161). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Burleson, B. R. (2009). Explaining recipient responses to supportive messages: Development and tests of a dual-process theory. In S. W. Smith & S. R. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication (pp. 159-179). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Burleson, B. R. (2009). Understanding the outcomes of supportive communication: A dual-process approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 21-38. Burleson, B. R., & Mortenson, S. R. (2003). Explaining cultural differences in evaluations of emotional support behaviors: Exploring the mediating influences of value systems and interaction goals. Communication Research, 30, 113-146. Burleson, B. R., & Hanasono, L. K. (in press). Explaining cultural and sex differences in responses to supportive communication: A dual-process approach. In J. Davila & K. Sullivan (Eds.), Support processes in intimate relationships. New York: Oxford University Press. Burleson, B. R., Hanasono, L. K., Bodie, G. D., Holmstrom, A. J., Rack, J. J., Rosier, J. G., et al. (2009). Explaining gender differences in responses to supportive messages: Two tests of a dual-process approach. Sex Roles, 61, 265-280.

46. References (continued) Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766. Cohen, S., Gottlieb, B. H., & Underwood, L. G. (2000). Social relationships and health. In S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood & B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social support measurement and intervention (pp. 3-25). New York: Oxford University Press. Cutrona, C. E. (1990). Stress and social support: In search of optimal matching. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 3-14.` Fearing, F. (1953). Toward a psychological theory of human communication. Journal of Personality, 22, 71-78. Goldsmith, D. J. (1994). The role of facework in supportive communication. In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community (pp. 29-49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mortenson, S. T., Liu, M., Burleson, B. R., & Liu, Y. (2006). A fluency of feeling: Exploring cultural and individual differences (and similarities) related to skilled emotional support. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 37, 366-385. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer. Rack, J. J., Burleson, B. R., Bodie, G. D., Holmstrom, A. J., & Servaty-Seib, H. L. (2008). Bereaved adults' evaluations of grief management messages: Effects of message person centeredness, recipient individual differences, and contextual factors. Death Studies, 32, 399-427.

47. References (continued) Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95-103. Samter, W., Whaley, B. B., Mortenson, S. R., & Burleson, B. R. (1997). Ethnicity and emotional support in same-sex friendship: A comparison of Asian-Americans, African-Americans, and Euro-Americans. Personal Relationships, 4, 413-430. Uchino, B. N. (2004). Social support and physical health: Understanding the health consequences of relationships. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.