Supportive people evoke positive affect, but do not reduce negative affect, while supportive groups result from favorable dyadic, not group effects.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We addressed understudied questions in social support. Do providers, who recipients agree are more supportive than others (i.e., consensually supportive), evoke more favorable affect in recipients? Do groups differ in their supportiveness and do supportive groups evoke favorable affect in their members? Can any group differences be explained by dyadic relationships within groups? METHODS: We analyzed data from seven samples of well-acquainted groups and groups of strangers in which participants rated each other on supportiveness, and affect experienced when with each group member. RESULTS: Social Relations Model analyses indicated that consensually supportive providers evoked higher positive affect in recipients but not lower negative affect. Uniquely supportive relationships evoked higher positive and lower negative affect. Groups differed in their supportiveness and more supportive groups evoked higher positive and lower negative affect. Correlations between support and affect at the level of groups primarily reflected dyadic relationships within groups, rather than the groups themselves. Groups of strangers showed the same effects as well-acquainted groups. CONCLUSIONS: The findings for consensually supportive providers and low negative affect is inconsistent with most social support theory. Supportive groups' links to affect could be explained by dyadic relationships within groups, rather than the groups themselves.

When Forecasting Mutually Supportive Matches Will Be Practically Impossible.

Forecasting which dyads will develop mutually supportive relationships is an important applied and basic research question. Applying psychometric theory to the design of forecasting studies shows that agreement between dyad members about their relationship (relational reciprocity) sets an upper limit for forecasting accuracy by determining the reliability of measurement. To test this, we estimated relational reciprocity in Study 1. Participants in seven samples (six student and one military; N = 504; Ndyads = 766) rated each other on support-related constructs in round-robin designs. Relational reciprocity was very low, undermining reliability. Formulas from psychometric theory predicted that forecasting supportive dyads would be practically impossible. To test this, we had participants in Study 2 complete a measure for matching dyads derived from recent theory. As predicted, supportive matches could not be forecast with acceptable precision. Theoretically, this falsifies some predictions of recent social-support theory. Practically, it remains unclear how to translate basic social-support research into effective interventions.

Ordinary Social Interaction and the Main Effect Between Perceived Support and Affect.

Relational regulation theory hypothesizes that (a) the main effect between perceived support and mental health primarily reflects ordinary social interaction rather than conversations about stress and how to cope with it, and (b) the extent to which a provider regulates a recipient's mental health primarily reflects the recipient's personal taste (i.e., is relational), rather than the provider's objective supportiveness. In three round-robin studies, participants rated each other on supportiveness and the quality of ordinary social interaction, as well as their own affect when interacting with each other. Samples included marines about to deploy to Afghanistan (N = 100; 150 dyads), students sharing apartments (N = 64; 96 dyads), and strangers (N = 48; 72 dyads). Perceived support and ordinary social interaction were primarily relational, and most of perceived support's main effect on positive affect was redundant with ordinary social interaction. The main effect between perceived support and affect emerged among strangers after brief text conversations, and these links were partially verified by independent observers. Findings for negative affect were less consistent with theory. Ordinary social interaction appears to be able to explain much of the main effect between perceived support and positive affect.

Positive Psychology and Physical Health: Research and Applications.

Positive psychology is the scientific study of a healthy and flourishing life. The goal of positive psychology is to complement and extend the traditional problem-focused psychology that has proliferated in recent decades. Positive psychology is concerned with positive psychological states (eg, happiness), positive psychological traits (eg, talents, interests, strengths of character), positive relationships, and positive institutions. We describe evidences of how topics of positive psychology apply to physical health. Research has shown that psychological health assets (eg, positive emotions, life satisfaction, optimism, life purpose, social support) are prospectively associated with good health measured in a variety of ways. Not yet known is whether positive psychology interventions improve physical health. Future directions for the application of positive psychology to health are discussed. We conclude that the application of positive psychology to health is promising, although much work remains to be done.