Evaluating the Scope and Theoretical Mechanisms of Person-Centered Social Support: The Case of the Comforting Computer Program

Abstract

Although the utility of verbal person-centeredness (VPC) as a feature of social support messages has been demonstrated in numerous studies, questions remain about the scope and theoretical mechanisms that explain VPC effects. Two experiments were conducted to evaluate whether the salutary effects of VPC extend to generic VPC messages and to explore the role of validation as a theoretical mechanism. Participants discussed a personal problem with a fictional computer program named “ListenerBot” that provided standardized responses containing high or low levels of VPC. Participants who received high VPC feedback from ListenerBot experienced a greater reduction in emotional distress than participants who received low VPC feedback. Path models consistently showed that high VPC feedback validated participants’ feelings, which led them to reappraise their situation and ultimately reduced their emotional distress. VPC, however, did not impact participants’ discussion of their thoughts and emotions.

Keywords

social support supportive communication person-centeredness emotional distress emotions theory of conversationally induced reappraisal

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Afifi

T. A.

Merrill

Davis

Denes

Coveleski

(2016). The impact of a need for closure and support quality on verbal and cognitive brooding. Communication Research. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650216644018

Batenburg

Das

. (2014). An experimental study on the effectiveness of disclosing stressful life events and support messages: When cognitive reappraisal support decreases emotional distress, and emotional support is like saying nothing at all. PLoS ONE, 9. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114169

Bodie

G. D.

(2011). The role of thinking in the comforting process: An empirical test of a dual-process framework. Communication Research, 40, 533-558. doi:10.1177/0093650211427030

Bodie

G. D.

Burleson

B. R.

(2008). Explaining variations in the effects of supportive messages: A dual-process framework. In Beck

(Ed.), Communication yearbook (32nd ed., pp. 355-398). New York, NY: Routledge.

Brave

Nass

Hutchinson

(2005). Computers that care: Investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62, 161-178. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.11.002

Burleson

B. R.

(1987). Cognitive complexity. In McCroskey

J. C.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 305-349). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Burleson

B. R.

(2008). What counts as effective emotional support? Explorations of situational and individual differences. In Motley

M. T.

(Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication (pp. 207-227). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Burleson

B. R.

Goldsmith

D. J.

(1998). How the comforting process works: Alleviating emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In Andersen

P. A.

Guerrero

L. K.

(Eds.), Communication and emotion (pp. 246-275). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Burleson

B. R.

Holmstrom

A. J.

Gilstrap

C. M.

(2005). “Guys can’t say that to guys”: Four experiments assessing the normative motivation account for deficiencies in the emotional support provided by men. Communication Monographs, 72, 468-501. doi:10.1080/03637750500322636

10.

Burleson

B. R.

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2002). Supportive communication. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 374-424). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

11.

Cohen

Underwood

Gottlieb

(2000). Social support measurement and interventions. New York, NY: Oxford University.

12.

Folkman

Lazarus

R. S.

(1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.150

13.

Goldsmith

D. J.

(2004). Communicating social support. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Hayes

A. F

. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

15.

High

A. C.

Dillard

J. P.

(2012). A review and meta-analysis of person-centered messages and social support outcomes. Communication Studies, 63, 99-118. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.598208

16.

High

A. C.

Solomon

D. H.

(2014). Communication channel, sex, and the immediate and longitudinal outcomes of verbal person-centered support. Communication Monographs, 81, 439-468. doi:10.1080/03637751.2014.933245

17.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

18.

Jones

S. M.

Guerrero

L. K.

(2001). The effects of nonverbal immediacy and verbal person centeredness in the emotional support process. Human Communication Research, 27, 567-596. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00793.x

19.

Jones

S. M.

Wirtz

J. G.

(2006). How does the comforting process work? An empirical test of an appraisal-based model of comforting. Human Communication Research, 32, 217-243. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00274.x

20.

Joseph

Afifi

T. A.

Denes

(2015). (Unmet) standards for emotional support and their short-and medium-term consequences. Communication Monographs, 83, 163-193. doi:10.1080/03637751.2015.1068432

21.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York, NY: Springer.

22.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

23.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Feng

Burleson

(2011). Supportive communication. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 317-354). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

24.

Nass

Moon

(2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81-103. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00153

25.

O’Keefe

D. J.

(2015). Message generalizations that support evidence-based persuasive message design: Specifying the evidentiary requirements. Health Communication, 30, 106-113. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.974123

26.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Boyd

R. L.

Jordan

Blackburn

(2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin: University of Texas at Austin.

27.

Rains

S. A.

Levine

T. R.

Weber

(2018). Sixty years of quantitative communication research summarized: Lessons from 149 meta-analyses. Annals of the International Communication Association, 42, 105-124. doi:10.1080/23808985.2018.1446350

28.

Rosseel

(2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02

29.

Samter

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2016). Coding comforting behavior for verbal person centeredness. In Canary

D. J.

VanLear

(Eds.), Researching communication interaction behavior: A sourcebook of methods and measures (pp. 107-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

30.

Shenk

C. E.

Fruzzetti

A. E.

(2011). The impact of validating and invalidating responses on emotional reactivity. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 30, 163-183. doi:10.1521/jscp.2011.30.2.163

31.

Uchino

B. N.

(2004). Social support and physical health: Understanding the health consequences of relationships. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

32.

Wright

K. B.

Miller

C. H.

(2010). A measure of weak tie/strong tie support network preference. Communication Monographs, 77, 502-520. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.502538