This article was downloaded by:[University of Minnesota] [University of Minnesota] On: 1 March 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 768117857] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Communication Research Reports
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t714579429
Which Comforting Messages Really Work Best? A Different Perspective on Lemieux and Tighe's "Receiver Perspective"
Brant R. Burleson; Wendy Samter; Susanne M. Jones; Adrianne Kunkel; Amanda J. Holmstrom; Steven T. Mortenson; Erina L. MacGeorge To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/00036810500130422 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036810500130422
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. © Taylor and Francis 2007
Communication Research Reports Vol. 22, No. 2, June 2005, pp. 87 /100
Downloaded By: [University of Minnesota] At: 17:16 1 March 2007
Which Comforting Messages Really Work Best? A Different Perspective on Lemieux and Tighe’s ‘‘Receiver Perspective’’ Brant R. Burleson, Wendy Samter, Susanne M. Jones, Adrianne Kunkel, Amanda J. Holmstrom, Steven T. Mortenson, & Erina L. MacGeorge
This article responds critically to a recent article by Lemieux and Tighe (Communication Research Reports, 21, 144 153, 2004) in which the authors conclude that recipients of comforting efforts prefer messages that exhibit a moderate rather than high level of person centeredness. It is argued that an erroneous assumption made by Lemieux and Tighe about the status of ‘‘receiver perspective’’ research on the comforting process led to faulty interpretations of the data and unwarranted conclusions about recipient preferences regarding comforting messages. Alternative interpretations of Lemieux and Tighe’s data are presented; these are guided by the extensive previous research that has assessed evaluations and outcomes of comforting messages. /
Keywords: Comforting; Emotional Support; Message Effects; Person Centeredness
Brant R. Burleson (PhD, University of Illinois, 1982) is Professor in the Department of Communication at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Wendy Samter (PhD, Purdue Univeristy, 1989) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Bryant University, Smithfield, RI. Susanne M. Jones (PhD, Arizona State University, 2000) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Adrianne Kunkel (PhD, Purdue University, 2000) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. Amanda J. Holmstrom (MA, Purdue University, 2004) is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication, Purdue University. Steven T. Mortenson (PhD, Purdue University, 1999) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication, University of Delaware, Newark, DE. Erina L. MacGeorge (PhD, 1999, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication, Purdue University. Correspondence to: Brant R. Burleson, Department of Communication, Purdue University, 100 N. University Avenue, Beering Hall 2114, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2098, USA (Tel: /1-765-447-8942; Email:
[email protected]). ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/ISSN 1746-4099 (online) – 2005 National Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/00036810500130422
88
B. R. Burleson et al.
Introduction
Downloaded By: [University of Minnesota] At: 17:16 1 March 2007
It is always a pleasure to discover that one’s research has proved interesting and useful to professional colleagues. Thus, we were intrigued by an article recently published in this journal by Robert Lemieux and Rachel Tighe (2004) that sought to extend our research on outcomes of comforting messages (for reviews, see Burleson, 1984, 1994a, 2003a). Lemieux and Tighe (hereafter, L&T) reported an empirical investigation of participants’ evaluations of comforting messages from a receiver perspective (i.e., the viewpoint of the recipient of comforting messages). Specifically, L&T sought to determine recipients’ preferences for comforting approaches in an effort to identify those strategic forms that are more and less helpful when addressing the emotional upsets of others. L&T draw two conclusions based on their data and their reading of the literature on comforting. First, these researchers conclude that attachment styles (see Bowlby, 1969) influence recipients’ preferences for comforting messages. We believe this conclusion represents a potentially important addition to the growing body of research that has examined the contribution of attachment styles to comforting processes and outcomes (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2000; Herzberg et al., 1999; Larose, Moivin, & Doyle, 2001; Ognibene & Collins, 1998; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992; Weger & Polcar, 2002). Second, L&T conclude that most recipients of comforting efforts prefer messages that exhibit a moderate rather than a high level of the characteristic we refer to as person centeredness. In comforting contexts, person centeredness indexes the extent to which messages explicitly acknowledge, elaborate, legitimize, and contextualize the other’s feelings and perspective. Thus, according to L&T, emotionally distressed recipients of comforting messages prefer helping approaches that respond implicitly rather than explicitly to their feelings. This particular conclusion is unwarranted in light of currently available evidence regarding preferences for and outcomes of different comforting messages. In this short article, we initially summarize the study by L&T and the conclusion they ultimately draw about receiver preferences for comforting approaches. We then explain why this unwarranted conclusion matters to researchers and practitioners concerned with the comforting process. Next, we identify a problematic assumption made by L&T that leads to their unwarranted conclusion. Finally, we suggest alternative interpretations of L&T’s data that attempt to reconcile their findings with those obtained in a large number of other studies that have examined outcomes associated with comforting messages. A Synopsis of Lemieux and Tighe’s ‘‘Receiver Perspective’’ L&T (2004, p. 145) maintain that ‘‘with the exception of a few studies where subjects evaluate the skillfulness of a comforter (e.g., Bippus, 2001; Kunkel, 2002) virtually all comforting research is sender oriented’’ (i.e., concerned with factors that influence
Communication Research Reports 89
Downloaded By: [University of Minnesota] At: 17:16 1 March 2007
the production of comforting messages rather than the outcomes of such messages). For L&T, the issue is, ‘‘what level comforting response would suffice in alleviating a person’s emotional distress?’’ Thus, L&T’s study explored ‘‘comforting messages from a receiver’s perspective.’’ To investigate the type of comforting messages generally preferred by recipients, L&T drew from a hierarchical model that differentiates comforting messages in terms of the level of person centeredness they express (Applegate, 1980; Burleson, 1994a). In this scheme, messages low in person centeredness deny the other’s feelings and perspective by criticizing the other’s feelings, challenging the legitimacy of those feelings, or telling the other how he or she should act and feel. Messages that display a moderate degree of person centeredness afford an implicit recognition of the other’s feelings by distracting the other’s attention from the troubling situation, offering expressions of sympathy and condolence, or presenting non-feeling-centered explanations of the situation intended to reduce the receiver’s distress. Highly person-centered comforting messages explicitly recognize and legitimize the other’s feelings, help the other to articulate those feelings, elaborate reasons why those feelings might be experienced, and assist the other to see how those feelings fit in a broader context. To determine the type of comforting messages recipients prefer when distressed, L&T had their participants (110 female and 71 male undergraduates) assume they had just experienced one of two hypothetical events likely to produce either moderate distress (failing a midterm exam in a required class) or serious upset (learning that a well-known classmate was involved in a fatal automobile accident). For both scenarios, participants were asked to assume that as they were ‘‘walking across campus, you run into one of your best friends. . . . [Y]ou begin to tell your friend about the [failed exam/tragic accident]. After listening to your story, your friend attempts to make you feel better’’ (p. 148). Participants then read a list of five comforting messages varying in the level of person centeredness exhibited and circled the comforting response they believed they would most like to hear from their friend [1]. Participants also completed scales tapping how upset they would be in the situation, how likely they would be to seek support, and their attachment style (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). L&T’s data analysis indicated that participants, on average, preferred comforting messages that exhibited a moderate, rather than a high, level of person centeredness, and this was the case for both the ‘‘failed exam’’ and ‘‘fatal accident’’ situations. Thus, L&T concluded that: . . . individuals are satisfied with receiving mid-level strategies when seeking support from others, regardless of the situation. Further, the results are counter to previous research that suggests individuals who provide mid-level comforting responses are less adequate at providing comfort . . . the results implicitly imply that receivers perceive mid-level strategies as functionally more acceptable (and perhaps more superior) to higher-level strategies. This may be true in both daily and major event comforting situations. (p. 150)
90
B. R. Burleson et al.
Theoretical and Pragmatic Implications of Lemieux and Tighe’s Conclusion
Downloaded By: [University of Minnesota] At: 17:16 1 March 2007
The conclusion expressed by L&T is non-trivial; indeed, this conclusion has quite significant theoretical and pragmatic implications. Particularly weighty are the practical consequences that follow from L&T’s conclusion that distressed persons prefer comforting messages that exhibit moderate rather than high person centeredness. Based on considerable research that indicates that highly person-centered comforting messages do a better job of reducing distress than low or moderately person-centered messages (see subsequent section), a growing number of scholars have suggested that enhancing the use of highly person-centered messages may contribute to more effective emotional support in everyday life (Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002), as well as assist with the management of acute grief (Angell, 1998) and adjustment to the loss of loved others (Kunkel & Dennis, 2003). Elements of a curriculum intended to enhance emotional support skills and foster the use of highly person-centered comforting strategies have recently been outlined (see Burleson, 2003a). In addition, an increasing number of interpersonal communication textbooks (Trenholm & Jensen, 2004; Verderber & Verderber, 2004) advocate the development of skill in the use of highly person-centered comforting messages. Of course, these pedagogical and intervention efforts are premised on the assumption that highly person-centered comforting messages are generally the most sensitive and helpful means of responding to another’s emotional distress. L&T’s conclusion challenges this assumption and, further, suggests that pedagogy and intervention efforts should seek to enhance helper use of moderately rather than highly person-centered comforting messages. As L&T observe, ‘‘if, as this study suggests, receivers desire mid-level responses, then individuals who provide mid-level response may actually be providing appropriate comforting’’ (pp. 150 151). If L&T’s conclusion is mistaken, but is used as a basis for teaching, training, and other interventions, serious damage could result. An extensive (and still growing) literature documents that well-meaning, but less sensitive attempts to provide emotional support can be harmful to recipients, intensifying their emotional hurt, undermining their coping, and even damaging their health (e.g., Davis, Brickman, & Baker, 1991; Ingram, Jones, Fass, Neidig, & Song, 1999; Lehman & Hemphill, 1990). Thus, it is conceivable that acting on L&T’s conclusion about the type of comforting messages recipients prefer could harm the recipients of well-intended, but less-than-effective comforting efforts; harm the helpers that use such messages by leading message recipients to reject them; and harm the reputations and credibility of the teachers, trainers, and counselors who sincerely, but mistakenly, promote the use of less sensitive and effective means of providing support. The grave consequences that could follow from L&T’s conclusion about preferred comforting messages should motivate a careful examination of the warrant for this conclusion. L&T’s conclusion about the type of comforting messages recipients prefer also has noteworthy ramifications for theoretical analyses of communication skills and their /
Communication Research Reports 91
development. In particular, this conclusion represents a challenge to the theory of person-centered functional communication* a theory that maintains that highly person-centered messages should generally be more effective than messages exhibiting lower levels of person centeredness at achieving a variety of primary communicative goals (e.g., comforting, persuading, informing, regulating) and secondary communicative goals (e.g., self-presentation, identity management, relationship maintenance) (see Applegate & Delia, 1980; Burleson, 1987; Delia, 1987). L&T’s conclusion also represents a general challenge to the notion that highly person-centered communication constitutes a developmental achievement that emerges over the life span as a function of maturation and experience (e.g., O’Keefe & Delia, 1985), as well as a specific challenge to the claim that age-related changes in the person-centered quality of comforting behavior are a developmental achievement (e.g., Burleson, 1982; Clinton & Hancock, 1991; Hoffner & Haefner, 1997). Finally, L&T’s conclusion challenges the theoretical claim that the use of highly personcentered messages is a complex social skill undergirded by several psychological variables, including cognitive complexity, perspective taking, empathy, and selfefficacy (e.g., Burleson, 1983; MacGeorge, Clark, & Gillihan, 2002; Tamborini, Salomonson, & Bahk, 1993). Because of the significant theoretical and pragmatic implications that follow from L&T’s conclusion about recipient preferences for comforting messages, it is vital to assess whether this conclusion is warranted. Considerable data indicate this conclusion is not warranted. /
Downloaded By: [University of Minnesota] At: 17:16 1 March 2007
Why Lemieux and Tighe’s Conclusion about Recipient Preferences for Comforting Messages is Unwarranted L&T reach an unwarranted conclusion about recipient preferences for comforting messages because they make an erroneous assumption about research on comforting conducted from a receiver perspective. Specifically, L&T assume that their study is the first (or among the first) to take a receiver perspective in the investigation of comforting messages. This assumption is wrong and its falseness leads L&T to misinterpret the meaning and significance of their data. L&T assume, erroneously, that they ‘‘offer a new perspective in the area of comforting research’’ (p. 151) by studying recipient responses to comforting messages. In fact, research assessing outcomes of comforting messages that vary in level of person centeredness has been conducted for 20 years (Allen et al., 1992; Burleson, Holmstrom, & Gilstrap, 2003; Burleson & Mortenson, 2003; Burleson & Samter, 1985a, 1985b; Jones, 2004; Jones & Burleson, 1997, 2003; Jones & Guerrero, 2001; Kunkel, 2002; Kunkel & Burleson, 1999; MacGeorge, Graves, Feng, Gillihan, & Burleson, 2004, Study 3; Samter, Burleson, & Murphy, 1987; Samter, Whaley, Mortenson, & Burleson, 1997). Several reviews of this research have been published in the last decade (Burleson, 1994a, 1994b, Burleson, 2003a, 2003b; Burleson & Goldsmith, 1998) [2].
92
B. R. Burleson et al.
Downloaded By: [University of Minnesota] At: 17:16 1 March 2007
In these studies, a variety of methods have been used to present comforting messages to participants for their evaluation, including: (a) actual comforting episodes in which helpers (experimental confederates) were trained to use messages exhibiting specific levels of person centeredness in interactions with recipients who discussed a recent emotional upset (e.g., Jones & Guerrero, 2001), (b) videotapes of quasi-natural comforting interactions in which helpers sought to comfort a distressed peer (e.g., Burleson & Samter, 1985a, Study 1); (c) transcripts of interactions in which helpers use messages that exhibit specific levels of person centeredness (e.g., Samter et al., 1987); and (d) lists of comforting messages constructed by researchers to reflect different levels of person centeredness in specific hypothetical situations (e.g., Kunkel & Burleson, 1999). When researchers have had participants rate lists of comforting messages for qualities such as sensitivity, effectiveness, helpfulness, and appropriateness, they have often employed (a) multiple stimulus situations and message lists to improve measurement reliability (e.g., Burleson & Samter, 1985a, Study 2; Kunkel & Burleson, 1999), or (b) stimulus situations written to manipulate specific, theoretically relevant features of the comforting context, such as degree of recipient responsibility for the upsetting situation (e.g., Jones & Burleson, 1997). Across these studies it has been consistently found that highly person-centered comforting messages are evaluated most favorably and have the most desirable effects on recipients. Highly person-centered comforting messages have been more favorably evaluated than messages exhibiting low or moderate levels of person centeredness by diverse samples, including (a) men and women (e.g., Jones & Burleson, 1997; Kunkel & Burleson, 1999; MacGeorge et al., 2004, Study 3), (b) multiple ethnic groups in the United States (Samter et al., 1997), and (c) both Chinese and Americans (Burleson & Mortenson, 2003, research with other national groups is currently underway). Similarly, the preference for highly person-centered comforting messages has been found to hold across a range of individual-difference variables, including cognitive complexity, emotional empathy, communication apprehension, communication values, collectivism, individualism, and support goal orientation (Burleson & Mortenson, 2003; Burleson & Samter, 1985b; Kunkel, 2002). To be sure, the factors of gender, ethnicity, culture, personality, and situation have been found to influence evaluations of comforting messages. But in virtually all studies, differences in message evaluations owing to these factors exist within much stronger patterns of similarity attributable to the person centeredness of the messages. For example, several studies have found that although women evaluate highly personcentered comforting messages somewhat more favorably than do men, and men evaluate low-person-centered messages somewhat more favorably than do women, both men and women evaluate highly person-centered messages much more favorably than they do low-person-centered messages (e.g., Kunkel & Burleson, 1999; MacGeorge et al., 2004, Study 3). Similar patterns of ‘‘difference within similarity’’ have been found for evaluations of comforting messages by members of various ethnic groups (Samter et al., 1997) and national cultures (Burleson & Mortenson, 2003).
Communication Research Reports 93
Downloaded By: [University of Minnesota] At: 17:16 1 March 2007
In sum, contrary to the assumption made by L&T that theirs was the first study (or among the first) to take a receiver-based perspective on the study of comforting messages, a substantial group of studies over the past two decades has embraced a receiver perspective. Moreover, the findings of virtually all of these studies diverge from those reported by L&T in a very important respect: In general, these studies have found that participants prefer, more positively evaluate, or respond more favorably to comforting messages that exhibit a high level of person centeredness, not a moderate level of person centeredness as found by L&T [3]. How does the erroneous assumption by L&T that theirs was the first study to take a receiver perspective influence their interpretation of their results? Because L&T see their study as the first to take a receiver perspective on comforting, they view their results as establishing a baseline for the character of recipient preferences for comforting messages. For L&T, their findings imply ‘‘that individuals are satisfied with receiving mid-level strategies when seeking support from others, regardless of the situation’’ (p. 150). Thus, rather than seeing their results as an interesting anomaly to be explained in the context of extensive previous research that has found a consistent preference for highly person-centered messages, L&T interpret their results as indicating that distressed persons will generally prefer comforting efforts that exhibit moderate, and not high, levels of person centeredness. Some Alternative Interpretations of Lemieux and Tighe’s Findings What if L&T’s findings are viewed as anomalous results in the context of prior research documenting a preference for highly person-centered comforting messages? Can their results be explained? We believe so, and in ways that add to rather than detract from existing findings. First, L&T’s finding regarding preferences for comforting messages may be a function of peculiarities in the stimulus situations used by these researchers. Recall that participants in this study* the hypothetical distressed targets * were asked to imagine that they were ‘‘walking across campus’’ when they encounter a friend who tries to comfort them. Thus, participants were asked to envision a comforting episode that took place in an open, public environment in which both helper and receiver were on display, and while both helper and receiver were in the process of walking from some location to a presumed destination. This setting contrasts with those used in previous research, which have depicted (or had) helper and recipient talk in a private, secluded environment in which there were minimal distractions. How might this difference in setting influence preferences for comforting strategies? Highly person-centered comforting messages encourage the recipient to express his or her feelings fully and openly. In addition, highly person-centered comforting messages invite the recipient to engage in an extended exploration and elaboration of his or her feelings and perspective on the upsetting situation. The unrestrained expression of feelings, especially intense, negative feelings in open, public settings violates our culture’s display rules for affect expression, especially for men (Brody, 2000) [4]. /
/
94
B. R. Burleson et al.
Moreover, because of the extended nature of interactions characterized by highly person-centered comforting messages (see Burleson & Goldsmith, 1998), those messages might not be viewed as appropriate in brief, casual interactions* the sort of interactions that are typical when encountering a friend while walking across campus. Given the physical and social setting depicted in L&T’s hypothetical scenarios, it seems likely that most people would think brief expressions of sympathy, an encouraging word or two, and some statement of understanding (i.e., moderately person-centered messages) would be the appropriate and preferred form of support* in that setting . This does not mean, however, that these participants (or other participants) regard moderately person-centered messages as, in general, the most sensitive, effective, and helpful forms of emotional support, or would prefer these messages in settings that permit a more open, extended expression and exploration of feelings [5]. Second, the dependent variable assessed in L&T’s study differed in some important respects from those in previous research. Participants in L&T’s study were asked to indicate their preference for a single comforting message. In contrast, previous research has had participants rate messages they have read (or to which they been exposed) for qualities such as appropriateness, effectiveness, helpfulness, sensitivity, and supportiveness; participants also have reported how much better (or worse) they felt following exposure to specific comforting efforts. Message preference judgments, such as those obtained by L&T, are more relative (and hence, variable) in character than judgments about message sensitivity and supportiveness. That is, judgments about the specific message preferred in a particular situation appear to be inherently more situated than do judgments about message qualities or features. This means participants might report that they prefer to receive a particular message in a given situation that they view as less sensitive or supportive than alternatives, doing so because of constraints perceived to be operating in that situation (see preceding paragraph). Thus, the combination of the specific environmental setting used by L&T in their hypothetical scenarios and the specific dependent variable assessed in their research may have led to the particular results obtained in this study [6]. Several other aspects of research design employed by L&T may have contributed to the specific results they report. For example, there may have been some peculiar feature of the stimulus messages employed in this study that led to moderately person-centered messages being preferred over highly person-centered messages. Unfortunately, L&T do not report the specific messages used in their study, so this possibility cannot be evaluated. In addition, the potential for peculiarities of the stimulus messages used by L&T to exert undue influence on their results was heightened because only a single message was used to instantiate the selected levels of person centeredness they examined. This is analogous to using a single-item measure to assess some attribute; single-item measures are, of course, notoriously unreliable (DeVellis, 2003). In other studies (e.g., Burleson & Mortenson, 2003; Kunkel & Burleson, 1999) researchers have enhanced the reliability of assessments of message evaluations by having participants respond to multiple messages on multiple scales /
Downloaded By: [University of Minnesota] At: 17:16 1 March 2007
/
Communication Research Reports 95
Downloaded By: [University of Minnesota] At: 17:16 1 March 2007
for multiple stimulus situations; this procedure permits the calculation of an internal consistency coefficient for participants’ message ratings. Finally, it is possible that peculiar features of the sample employed by L&T may have contributed to the specific results they report. Previous research has found that evaluations for comforting messages vary as a function of several demographic factors, including sex (e.g., Kunkel & Burleson, 1999), ethnicity (e.g., Samter et al., 1997), and culture (e.g., Burleson & Mortenson, 2003), although no previous study has ever found that participants* regardless of their demographics* view moderately person-centered messages as ‘‘better’’ on some dimension than highly personcentered messages. In any case, it is difficult to determine whether aspects of L&T’s sample influenced their results since few details about this sample are reported. In sum, a variety of factors may have led to the specific results reported by L&T. One or more of these factors may explain these results, which are anomalous in the context of previous findings regarding the outcomes of more and less personcentered comforting messages. Consideration of these factors not only assists with interpreting the results of this specific study, it may also lead to an improved understanding of how certain theoretical processes affect comforting outcomes, as well as how certain methodological choices influence experimental outcomes. However, these factors will receive their due when evaluating a particular result only if it is recognized that previous findings establish an interpretive context for new findings. /
/
Conclusion Research emanating from a receiver perspective on comforting communication is important for both its theoretical implications and its practical applications. We need to understand the outcomes of various comforting messages, the features of messages that contribute to these outcomes, and the aspects of the source, receiver, and context that moderate the outcomes of different messages. Obviously, sound recommendations about how helpers should comfort others depend on research examining message outcomes (Burleson, 2003a). And our theoretical comprehension of comforting (and related social, emotional, and communication processes) depends on a clear understanding of how and why messages affect people in the ways they do (Burleson, 2003b). Thus, we are in full agreement with L&T that the ‘‘receiver perspective should be addressed in future comforting research’’ (p. 151). We would hasten to add, however, that the receiver perspective has been addressed (in one form or another) for the last 20 years in research examining the outcomes of personcentered comforting. The results of current and future studies will be most useful in advancing our understanding of comforting if scholars consider relevant previous research. If previous results are not considered, mistakes are likely when interpreting a new result; the context established by previous findings acts as an important guide for inference
96
B. R. Burleson et al.
and interpretation. The comforting process is too important not to consider every bit of relevant data that can be uncovered. Notes [1]
Downloaded By: [University of Minnesota] At: 17:16 1 March 2007
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Lemieux and Tighe state that ‘‘feedback from a focus group indicated that presenting all nine comforting responses [in the Applegate/Burleson hierarchical coding scheme for comforting messages] would be too lengthy’’ and thus ‘‘five of the nine comforting strategies would be used’’ (p. 148). This is surprising since participants in many other studies of message outcomes have successfully (and non-problematically) rated nine messages on multiple dependent variables for multiple situations; for example, see Burleson and Samter (1985a, Study 2) and Kunkel and Burleson (1999). The principal concern in this article is with research that examines responses to comforting messages that vary with respect to the specific characteristic of person centeredness. This represents a narrow focus; several other research traditions have taken a receiver focus on comforting communication in an effort to identify, from the perspective of recipients, more and less helpful forms of support. This includes work assessing recipient preferences for emotional support messages in (a) peer interpersonal contexts (e.g., Barbee, 1990; Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Clark & Delia, 1997; Clark et al., 1998; Reisman & Yamokoski, 1974), (b) telephone counseling (e.g., Libow & Doty, 1976; Russell, Slaikeu, Tapp, Tulkin, & Walfisch, 1978; Stein & Lambert, 1984), and (c) psychotherapy (Elliott, 1985; Murphy, Cramer, & Lillie, 1984). More broadly, extensive research by scholars concerned with social support processes has sought to identify the features of more and less effective messages intended to convey both instrumental and emotional support (for reviews of this literature see Burleson, 2003a; Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002; Dunkel-Schetter, Blasband, Feinstein, & Herbert, 1992). Other research indicates that the use of more vs . less person-centered comforting messages with distressed recipients has important consequences for (a) interpersonal liking and attraction (Burleson et al., 2003; Holmstrom & Burleson, 2004; Samter et al., 1987), (b) peer acceptance (Burleson et al., 1986; Burleson, Delia, & Applegate, 1992; Samter & Burleson, 1990), and (c) relationship satisfaction (Burleson, 1994c; Burleson & Samter, 1996). This may help explain the sex differences detected by L&T and other researchers (e.g., Kunkel & Burleson, 1999; MacGeorge et al., 2004) in studies of outcomes associated with personcentered comforting. For a detailed consideration of how social norms and display rules associated with the expression and management of affect may influence the provision and reception of emotional support, see Burleson, Holmstrom, and Gilstrap (2003; 2004). Broadly consistent with this reasoning, one recent study (Jones & Burleson, 2003) found that although emotionally distressed participants felt better following exposure to highly personcentered messages than they did following exposure to low or moderately person-centered messages, moderately person-centered messages were the most expected form of comforting behavior. For further discussion about the quality of the messages people expect to receive when emotionally distressed, see Jones and Guerrero (2001). It would have been useful had L&T reported frequency distributions for the message preference data rather than only reporting group means and standard deviations. For example, it would be helpful to know what distribution of message preference scores resulted in a sample mean message preference of approximately 6.0. Was this mean the result of half the sample preferring level 5 messages and half preferring level 7 messages, or to some other distribution? A one-sample chi-square test on the distribution of message preferences for the entire sample would provide additional insight, as would two-way chi-square tests for distributions grouped by sex and severity of the stimulus situation.
Communication Research Reports 97
References
Downloaded By: [University of Minnesota] At: 17:16 1 March 2007
Allen, M., Bregzel, K., Emmers, T., Leverenz, C., McNamara, B., Mitchell, A., Murray, B., Richardson, M. S., & Rowley, L. (1992, November). Comparing social, expert, and target ratings of comforting messages . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago. Angell, L. R. (1998). Communication comforting strategies and social bereavement: Verbal and nonverbal planning and appropriateness. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss , 3 , 271 / 283. Applegate, J. L. (1980). Adaptive communication in educational contexts: A study of teachers’ communicative strategies. Communication Education , 29 , 158 /170. Applegate, J. L., & Delia, J. G. (1980). Person-centered speech, psychological development, and the contexts of language usage. In R. S. Clair & H. Giles (Eds.), The social and psychological contexts of language usage (pp. 245 /282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Barbee, A. P. (1990). Interactive coping: The cheering-up process in close relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 46 /65). London: Sage. Barbee, A. P., & Cunningham, M. R. (1995). An experimental approach to social support communications: Interactive coping in close relationships. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 381 /413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bippus, A. M. (2001). Recipients’ criteria for evaluating the skillfulness of comforting communication and the outcomes of comforting interactions. Communication Monographs , 68 , 301 /313. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment . New York: Basic Books. Brody, L. R. (2000). The socialization of gender differences in emotional expression: Display rules, infant temperament, and differentiation. In A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 24 /47). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Burleson, B. R. (1982). The development of comforting communication skills in childhood and adolescence. Child Development , 53 , 1578 /1588. Burleson, B. R. (1983). Social cognition, empathic motivation, and adults’ comforting strategies. Human Communication Research , 10 , 295 /304. Burleson, B. R. (1984). Comforting communication. In H. E. Sypher & J. L. Applegate (Eds.), Communication by children and adults: Social cognitive and strategic processes (pp. 63 /104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Burleson, B. R. (1987). Cognitive complexity. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 305 /349). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Burleson, B. R. (1994a). Comforting messages: Features, functions, and outcomes. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 135 /161). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Burleson, B. R. (1994b). Comforting messages: Significance, approaches, and effects. In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community (pp. 3 /28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Burleson, B. R. (1994c). Friendship and similarities in social-cognitive and communication abilities: Social skill bases of interpersonal attraction in childhood. Personal Relationships , 1 , 371 /389. Burleson, B. R. (2003a). Emotional support skill. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 551 /594). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Burleson, B. R. (2003b). The experience and effects of emotional support: What the study of cultural and gender differences can tell us about close relationships, emotion, and interpersonal communication. Personal Relationships , 10 , 1 /23. Burleson, B. R., Applegate, J. L., Burke, J. A., Clark, R. A., Delia, J. G., & Kline, S. L. (1986). Communicative correlates of peer acceptance in childhood. Communication Education , 35 , 349 /361.
98
B. R. Burleson et al.
Downloaded By: [University of Minnesota] At: 17:16 1 March 2007
Burleson, B. R., & Goldsmith, D. J. (1998). How the comforting process works: Alleviating emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 245 /280). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Burleson, B. R., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2002). Supportive communication. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 374 /424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burleson, B. R., & Mortenson, S. R. (2003). Explaining cultural differences in evaluations of emotional support behaviors: Exploring the mediating influences of value systems and interaction goals. Communication Research , 30 , 113 /146. Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1985a). Consistencies in theoretical and naive evaluations of comforting messages. Communication Monographs , 52 , 103 /123. Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1985b). Individual differences in the perception of comforting messages: An exploratory investigation. Central States Speech Journal , 36 , 39 /50. Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1996). Similarity in the communication skills of young adults: Foundations of attraction, friendship, and relationship satisfaction. Communication Reports , 9 , 125 /139. Burleson, B. R., Delia, J. G., & Applegate, J. L. (1992). Effects of maternal communication and children’s social-cognitive and communication skills on children’s acceptance by the peer group. Family Relations , 41 , 264 /272. Burleson, B. R., Holmstrom, A. J., & Gilstrap, C. M. (2003, November). Are men unmotivated to use highly person-centered comforting messages? An evaluation of sex and gender differences in liking for highly person-centered helpers . Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, Miami Beach, FL. Burleson, B. R., Holmstrom, A. J., & Gilstrap, C. M. (2004, November). ‘‘Guys can’t say that to guys’’: Three studies assessing the normative motivation account for sex differences in the provision of emotional support . Paper presented at the National Communication Association convention, Chicago. Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1997). Individuals’ preferences for friends’ approaches to providing support in distressing situations. Communication Reports , 10 , 115 /122. Clark, R. A., Pierce, A. J., Finn, K., Hsu, K., Toosley, A., & Williams, L. (1998). The impact of alternative approaches to comforting, closeness of relationship, and gender on multiple measures of effectiveness. Communication Studies , 49 , 224 /239. Clinton, B. L., & Hancock, G. R. (1991). The development of an understanding of comforting messages. Communication Reports , 4 , 55 /63. Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on supportseeking and caregiving in adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 , 1053 /1073. Davis, R. C., Brickman, E., & Baker, T. (1991). Supportive and unsupportive responses of others to rape victims: Effects on concurrent victim adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19 , 443 /451. Delia, J. G. (1987). Interpersonal cognition, message goals, and organization of communication: Recent constructivist research. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and western perspectives (pp. 255 /273). San Diego: Academic Press. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dunkel-Schetter, C., Blasband, D., Feinstein, L., & Herbert, T. (1992). Elements of supportive interactions: When are attempts to help effective? In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Helping and being helped: Naturalistic studies (pp. 83 /114). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Elliott, R. (1985). Helpful and nonhelpful events in brief counseling interviews: An empirical taxonomy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32 , 307 /322.
Communication Research Reports 99
Downloaded By: [University of Minnesota] At: 17:16 1 March 2007
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 , 511 /525. Herzberg, D. S., Hammen, C., Burge, D., Daley, S. E., Davila, J., & Lindberg, N. (1999). Attachment cognitions predict perceived and enacted social support during late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research , 14 , 387 /404. Hoffner, C., & Haefner, M. J. (1997). Children’s comforting of frightened coviewers: Real and hypothetical television-viewing situations. Communication Research , 24 , 136 /152. Holmstrom, A. J., & Burleson, B. R. (2004, July). Use of insensitive comforting messages differentially affects women’s liking for male and female helpers: A further test of the normative motivation account for gender differences in emotional support . Paper presented at the International Conference on Personal Relationships, Madison, WI. Ingram, K. M., Jones, D. A., Fass, R. J., Neidig, J. L., & Song, Y. S. (1999). Social support and unsupportive social interactions: Their association with depression among people living with HIV. AIDS Care , 11 , 313 /330. Jones, S. M. (2004). Putting the person into person-centered and immediate emotional support: Emotional change and perceived helper competence as outcomes of comforting in helping situations. Communication Research , 31 , 338 /360. Jones, S. M., & Burleson, B. R. (1997). The impact of situational variables on helpers’ perceptions of comforting messages: An attributional analysis. Communication Research , 24 , 530 /555. Jones, S. M., & Burleson, B. R. (2003). Effects of helper and recipient sex on the experience and outcomes of comforting messages: An experimental investigation. Sex Roles , 48 , 1 /19. Jones, S. M., & Guerrero, L. A. (2001). The effects of nonverbal immediacy and verbal person centeredness in the emotional support process. Human Communication Research , 27 , 567 / 596. Kunkel, A. W. (2002). Explaining sex differences in the evaluation of comforting messages: The mediating role of interaction goals. Communication Reports , 15 , 29 /42. Kunkel, A. W., & Burleson, B. R. (1999). Assessing explanations for sex differences in emotional support: A test of the different cultures and skill specialization accounts. Human Communication Research , 25 , 307 /340. Kunkel, A. W., & Dennis, M. R. (2003). Grief consolation in eulogy rhetoric: An integrative framework. Death Studies , 27 , 1 /38. Larose, S., Moivin, M., & Doyle, A. B. (2001). Parental representations and attachment style as predictors of support-seeking behaviors and perceptions of support in an academic counseling relationship. Personal Relationships , 8 , 93 /113. Lehman, D. R., & Hemphill, K. J. (1990). Recipients’ perceptions of support attempts and attributions for support attempts that fail. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 7 , 563 /574. Lemieux, R., & Tighe, M. R. (2004). Attachment styles and the evaluation of comforting responses: A receiver perspective. Communication Research Reports , 21 , 144 /153. Libow, J. A., & Doty, D. W. (1976). An evaluation of empathic listening in telephone counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23 , 532 /537. MacGeorge, E. L., Clark, R. A., & Gillihan, S. J. (2002). Sex differences in the provision of skillful emotional support: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Communication Reports , 15 , 17 /28. MacGeorge, E. L., Graves, A. R., Feng, B., Gillihan, S. J., & Burleson, B. R. (2004). The myth of gender cultures: Similarities outweigh differences in men’s and women’s provision of and responses to supportive communication. Sex Roles , 50 , 143 /175. Murphy, P. M., Cramer, D., & Lillie, F. J. (1984). The relationship between curative factors perceived by patients in their psychotherapy and treatment outcome: An exploratory study. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 57 , 187 /192. Ognibene, T. C., & Collins, N. L. (1998). Adult attachment styles, perceived social support, and coping strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 15 , 323 /345.
100 B. R. Burleson et al.
Downloaded By: [University of Minnesota] At: 17:16 1 March 2007
O’Keefe, B. J., & Delia, J. G. (1985). Psychological and interactional dimensions of communicative development. In H. Giles & R. S. Clair (Eds.), Recent advances in language, communication, and social psychology (pp. 41 /85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Reisman, J. M., & Yamokoski, T. (1974). Psychotherapy and friendship: An analysis of the communications of friends. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21 , 269 /273. Russell, M., Slaikeu, K. A., Tapp, J. T., Tulkin, S. R., & Walfisch, S. (1978). The relationship between technical effectiveness and task-oriented work in telephone counseling. Crisis Intervention , 9 , 96 /101. Samter, W., & Burleson, B. R. (1990). The role of affectively oriented communication skills in the friendships of young adults: A sociometric study. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Dublin, Ireland. Samter, W., Burleson, B. R., & Murphy, L. B. (1987). Comforting conversations: Effects of strategy type on evaluations of messages and message producers. Southern Speech Communication Journal , 52 , 263 /284. Samter, W., Whaley, B. B., Mortenson, S. R., & Burleson, B. R. (1997). Ethnicity and emotional support in same-sex friendship: A comparison of Asian-Americans, African-Americans, and Euro-Americans. Personal Relationships , 4 , 413 /430. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 , 434 /446. Stein, D. M., & Lambert, M. J. (1984). Telephone counseling and crisis intervention: A review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12 , 101 /126. Tamborini, R., Salomonson, K., & Bahk, C. (1993). The relationship of empathy to comforting behavior following film exposure. Communication Research , 20 , 723 /738. Trenholm, S., & Jensen, A. (2004). Interpersonal communication (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Verderber, K. S., & Verderber, R. F. (2004). Inter-act: Interpersonal communication concepts, skills, and contexts (10th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Weger, H., & Polcar, L. E. (2002). Attachment style and person-centered comforting. Western Journal of Communication , 66 , 84 /103.
