The Task and Relational Dimensions of Online Social Support.

Online support groups are attractive to individuals suffering from various types of mental and physical illness due to their accessibility, convenience, and comfort level. Individuals coping with depression, in particular, may seek social support online to avoid the stigma that accompanies face-to-face support groups. We explored how task and relational messages created social support in online depression support groups using Cutrona and Suhr's social support coding scheme and Bales's Interaction Process Analysis coding scheme. A content analysis revealed emotional support as the most common type of social support within the group, although the majority of messages were task rather than relational. Informational support consisted primarily of task messages, whereas network and esteem support were primarily relational messages. Specific types of task and relational messages were associated with different support types. Results indicate task messages dominated online depression support groups, suggesting the individuals who participate in these groups are interested in solving problems but may also experience emotional support when their uncertainty is reduced via task messages.

Facilitating social support: member-leader communication in a breast cancer support group.

BACKGROUND: Early detection and treatment have resulted in more women surviving breast cancer; increased survivorship has also increased the need for breast cancer support groups (BCSG). The ostensible goal of such groups is to provide support for the physical and emotional stressors that cancer survivors face, as well as provide information on coping and treatment options. OBJECTIVE: Although scholars have examined the effects of support groups on their group members, the examination of group facilitator messages has been largely neglected. The goal of this study was to extend theory on group leader behavior, specifically investigating how member-leader messages create social support in support groups. METHODS: The transcribed conversations of weekly meetings of a BCSG were examined using Interaction Process Analysis to discover how the member-leader facilitated the group's enactment and management of social support. RESULTS: Across the meetings, task talk dominated (primarily statements of orientation or information). Furthermore, analysis of interaction sequences between the support group facilitator and other members revealed 2 broad categories of task-oriented facilitation techniques (changing the focus, clarification) and 1 category of socioemotional facilitation techniques (showing support). CONCLUSIONS: Support group facilitators need the ability to facilitate both task and relational aspects of social support. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Facilitator behaviors were highlighted as being instrumental to the creation of social support. The results from this study indicate that the ability to change the focus of interaction, to provide and require clarification on complex issues, and to show support through relational messages is needed in facilitator training.

Perspective: examining communication as macrocognition in STS.

OBJECTIVE: There are significant points of alignment between a macrocognitive frame of teamwork and a communication perspective. This commentary explores these touch points in regard to use of teams in sociotechnical systems (STS). BACKGROUND: The macrocognitive framework emphasizes a team's shared mental models whereas a communication frame emphasizes that shared meaning among team members is more frequently implicitly than explicitly recorded in their messages. Both acknowledge that communication (in macrocognition) or messages (in communication) serve as an index of team members' goal-directed behavior. The two approaches differ in the role of communication: as information exchange in macrocognition as compared with verbal and nonverbal symbols composing messages for which senders and receivers co-construct meaning. METHOD: This commentary uses relevant literature to explicate the communication position. RESULTS: From a communication perspective, individuals are simultaneously sending and receiving messages, communication is continual and processual, and meaning construction is dependent on relationship awareness and development among communication partners as well as the context. CONCLUSION: The authors posit that meaning cannot be constructed solely from messages, nor can meaning be constructed by one person. Furthermore, sharing information is not the same as communicating. APPLICATION: Architects and users of STS should be interested in designing systems that improve team communication-a goal that is interdependent with understanding how communication fails in the use of such systems. Drilling down to the fundamental properties of communication is essential to understanding how and why meaning is created among team members (and subsequent action).