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.