Online social network members provide more varied and impartial support within a reduced-risk environment; however, not all online observers react favorably when viewing a support-seeking message. Grounded in the attribution-emotion-action model, this study examines how responsibility for stigma, coping effort, and message visibility influence observers’ emotions and verbal person-centered responses when viewing a support-seeking message on Facebook. Results from an experiment (N = 798) indicated observers’ feelings of sympathy mediate the association between responsibility for stigma and verbal person-centered responses, but only when coping effort is high. Analyses also revealed effects related to message visibility, such that observers reported higher levels of sympathy when a seeker indicated lower responsibility for stigma and higher effort in a private message, which then elicited higher verbal person-centered responses. Results have implications for the attribution-emotion-action model and communication theory of visibility and offer practical insights for people seeking support for stigmatized health conditions.
AlhabashS.MaM. (2017). A tale of four platforms: Motivations and uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat among college students?Social Media + Society, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117691544
2.
AndalibiN.GarciaP. (2021). Sensemaking and coping after pregnancy loss: The seeking and disruption of emotional validation online. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449201
3.
BarbeeA. P.CunninghamM. R. (1995). An experimental approach to social support communications: Interactive coping in close relationships. In BurlesonB. R. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 381–413). Sage.
4.
BasingerE. D.FarrisM.DelaneyA. L. (2020). Investigating the experience of diabetes stigma in online forums. Southern Communication Journal, 85(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794x.2019.1655662
5.
BeamesJ. R.BlackM. J.VartanianL. R. (2016). Prejudice toward individuals with obesity: Evidence for a pro-effort bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 22(2), 184–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000079
6.
BrownJ. D.SiegelJ. M. (1988). Attributions for negative life events and depression: The role of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 316–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.316
7.
BuehlerE. M.YoungvorstL. J. (2022). Online support-seeking in the context of grief: How support-seeking message content and communication channels shape support providers’ impressions of the bereaved. Computers in Human Behavior, 137, 107428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107428
8.
BurlesonB. R. (1982). The development of comforting communication skills in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 53(6), 1578–1588. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130086
9.
BurlesonB. R. (2008). What counts as effective emotional support? Explorations of situational and individual differences. In MotleyM. T. (Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication (pp. 207–227). Sage.
10.
ChangP. F.BazarovaN. N. (2016). Managing stigma: Disclosure-response communication patterns in pro-anorexic websites. Health Communication, 31(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.946218
11.
ChaudoirS. R.FisherJ. D. (2010). The disclosure processes model: Understanding disclosure decision making and postdisclosure outcomes among people living with a concealable stigmatized identity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 236–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018193
12.
CrowleyJ. L.HighA. C.KotowskiM. R.McCartyD. N. (2023). Conflicting goals when seeking support for mental health concerns: Testing a stigma support activation model. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231213129
13.
CrowleyJ. L.JacklJ. A. (2023). Taking a closer look at disclosure recipients: How disclosure strategy and emotion influence communicative and relational responses to disclosures of transgender identity. Western Journal of Communication, 87(4), 601–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2022.2138525
14.
CrowleyJ. P.DenesA.BleakleyA.WebberK. T.GearyD.DelGrecoM.WhittJ.GuestC.HamlinE. (2023). The longitudinal influence of supportive messages on stress reactivity and general well-being for LGBTQ+ recipients of hate speech: Comparing the relative effects of verbal person-centered and autonomy support. Communication Monographs, 90(2), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2023.2171081
15.
ErreygersS.VandeboschH.VranjesI.BaillienE.De WitteH. (2017). Nice or naughty? The role of emotions and digital media use in explaining adolescents’ online prosocial and antisocial behavior. Media Psychology, 20(3), 374–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2016.1200990
16.
FoxJ.McEwanB. (2017). Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1332418
17.
FryarC. D.CarrollM. D.AffulJ. (2020). Prevalence of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity among adults aged 20 and over: United States, 1960–1962 through 2017–2018. NCHS Health E-Stats. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
18.
GoffmanE. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice Hall.
19.
GoldsmithD. J. (2004). Communicating social support. Cambridge University Press.
20.
Gong-GuyE.HammenC. (1980). Causal perceptions of stressful events in depressed and nondepressed outpatients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89(5), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.89.5.662
21.
GreitemeyerT.RudolphU.WeinerB. (2003). Whom would you rather help: An acquaintance not responsible for her plight or a responsible sibling?Journal of Social Psychology, 143(3), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540309598448
22.
HatzenbuehlerM. L.PhelanJ. C.LinkB. G. (2013). Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 813–821. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301069
23.
HayesA. F. (Ed.). (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
24.
HayesR. A.CarrC. T.WohnD. Y. (2016). It’s the audience: Differences in social support across social media. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116678894
25.
HighA. C.DillardJ. P. (2012). A review and meta-analysis of person-centered messages and social support outcomes. Communication Studies, 63(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2011.598208
Huh-YooJ.RaziA.NguyenD. N.RegmiS.WisniewskiP. J. (2023, April). “Help me:” Examining youth’s private pleas for support and the responses received from peers via Instagram direct messages [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.1–14). https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581233
28.
JonesS. M.BurlesonB. R. (1997). The impact of situational variables on helpers’ perceptions of comforting messages: An attributional analysis. Communication Research, 24(5), 530–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024005004
29.
KangD. S. (2024). The role of controllability, resources, and effort in reducing prejudice against “unmarried” mothers. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 30(1), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000504
30.
KarasawaK. (1991). The effects of onset and offset responsibility on affects and helping judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(6), 482–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00532.x
31.
KrämerN. C.SauerV.EllisonN. (2021). The strength of weak ties revisited: Further evidence of the role of strong ties in the provision of online social support. Social Media + Society, 7(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211024958
32.
KunkelA. W.BurlesonB. R. (1999). Assessing explanations for sex differences in emotional support: A test of the different cultures and skill specialization accounts. Human Communication Research, 25(3), 307–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1999.tb00448.x
33.
LiS.CodutoK. D.MorrL. (2019). Communicating social support online: The roles of emotional disclosures and gender cues in support provision. Telematics and Informatics, 39, 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.02.004
34.
LiuB.WeiL. (2018). Modeling social support on social media: Effect of publicness and the underlying mechanisms. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.006
35.
MacGeorgeE. L. (2001). Support providers’ interaction goals: The influence of attributions and emotions. Communication Monographs, 68(1), 72–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750128050
36.
MacGeorgeE. L.FengB.BurlesonB. R. (2011). Supportive communication. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 317–354). Sage.
37.
MakW. W. S.MoP. K. H.CheungR. Y. M.WooJ.CheungF. M.LeeD. (2006). Comparative stigma of HIV/AIDS, SARS, and tuberculosis in Hong Kong. Social Science & Medicine, 63(7), 1912–1922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.04.016
38.
MuschettoT.SiegelJ. T. (2019). Attribution theory and support for individuals with depression: The impact of controllability, stability, and interpersonal relationship. Stigma and Health, 4(2), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000131
39.
PescosolidoB. A.Halpern-MannersA.LuoL.PerryB. (2021). Trends in public stigma of mental illness in the US, 1996-2018. JAMA Network Open, 4(12), e2140202. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.40202
40.
PescosolidoB. A.ManagoB.MonahanJ. (2019). Evolving public views on the likelihood of violence from people with mental illness: Stigma and its consequences. Health Affairs, 38(10), 1735–1743. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00702
41.
RainsS. A.PetersonE. B.WrightK. B. (2015). Communicating social support in computer-mediated contexts: A meta-analytic review of content analyses examining support messages shared online among individuals coping with illness. Communication Monographs, 82(4), 403–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1019530
42.
RainsS. A.TsetsiE.AkersC.PavlichC. A.AppelbaumM. (2019). Factors influencing the quality of social support messages produced online: The role of responsibility for distress and others’ support attempts. Communication Research, 46(6), 866–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218796371
43.
RainsS. A.WrightK. B. (2016). Social support and computer-mediated communication: A state-of-the-art review and agenda for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 40, 175–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11735260
44.
ReynoldsR. M.HolmstromA. J.ShebibS. J.ClareD. D.EdwardsA. A. H.MazurA. P.PolandT. L.SummersM. E.RoyerH. R.ZhangL. (2024). The impact of effort attributions on the quality of esteem support messages produced. Communication Studies, 75(3), 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2023.2290297
45.
RuybalA. L.SiegelJ. T. (2017). Increasing social support for women with postpartum depression: An application of attribution theory. Stigma and Health, 2(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000047
46.
SchwarzerR.WeinerB. (1991). Stigma controllability and coping as predictors of emotions and social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(1), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407591081007
47.
ShulmanD. (2010). Accounts as social loopholes: Reconciling contradictions between culture and conduct. In McGloneM. S.KnappM. L. (Eds.), The interplay of truth and deception: New agendas in communication (pp. 120–135). Routledge.
48.
SilverR. C.WortmanC. B.CroftonC. (1990). The role of coping in support provision: The self-presentational dilemma of victims of life crises. In SarasonB. R.SarasonI. G.PierceG. R. (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 397–426). Wiley.
SmithR. A. (2014). Testing the model of stigma communication with a factorial experiment in an interpersonal context. Communication Studies, 65(2), 154–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.851095
51.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2022). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. PEP22-07-01-005, NSDUH Series H-57). https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2021-nsduh-annual-national-report
52.
TaniguchiE.GlowackiE. M. (2024). Reactions to depression disclosure on Facebook: Evaluating the effects of self-presentation style and peer comments. Stigma and Health, 9(1), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000309
53.
TreemJ. W.LeonardiP. M. (2013). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. In SalmonC. T. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 36, pp. 143–189). Routledge.
54.
TreemJ. W.LeonardiP. M.van Den HooffB. (2020). Computer-mediated communication in the age of communication visibility. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz024
55.
WangS. S.BrownellK. D.WaddenT. A. (2004). The influence of the stigma of obesity on overweight individuals. International Journal of Obesity, 28, 1333–1337. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0802730
56.
WeinerB. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.39.2.186
57.
WeinerB. (1993). On sin versus sickness: A theory of perceived responsibility and social motivation. American Psychologist, 48(9), 957–965. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.9.957
58.
WeinerB.PerryR. P.MagnussonJ. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 738–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738
YaoE.SiegelJ. T. (2025). Weiner’s attribution-emotion-action model: Uncovering the mediating role of self-blame and the moderating effect of the helper’s responsibility for the help recipient’s behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51(11), 2107–2134. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241238132
61.
YoungvorstL. J.BuehlerE. M. (2025). Contextual factors influencing online support providers’ motivations and message provision. Western Journal of Communication, 89(1), 207–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2024.2395323
62.
YoungvorstL. J.HighA. C. (2018). “Anyone free to chat?” Using technological features to elicit quality support online. Communication Monographs, 85(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1426871
63.
ZiegeleM.ReineckeL. (2017). No place for negative emotions? The effects of message valence, communication channel, and social distance on users’ willingness to respond to SNS status updates. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 704–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.016
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
