Does talking make a difference?

Tilburg University

Does talking make a difference?

Donkers, M.M.T.

Publication date:

2003

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Donkers, M. M. T. (2003). Does talking make a difference?. Dutch University Press.

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

.,'

'i

..

•:.O

UnVERSITEIT * 1 'Ip' * VAN TILBI Ki; |

-Does talking make a dif rence.

7

The

effect

ofsocial

interaction

on

_{anticipatory distress}

PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging vande graad van doctor aan deUniversiteitvanTilburg

op gezag van rectormagnificus, prof.dr. F.A. van der Duyn Schouten, inhet openbaarteverdedigenten overstaan van

een door het collegevoor promotiesaangewezencommissie in de aula vande Universiteitopdinsdag 25 juni 2003 Om I4.I5 uur

door

MAAIKE MARIATHEODORA VAN DER VELDEN-DONKERS

PROMOTORES:

Prof.dr. G.L. van Heck

Prof.dr.V. Hoorens

© M.M.T. vander Velden-Donkers, 2003

Graphicdesign&cover: Puntspatie,Amsterdam

DTP:_{Offsetdrukkerij} Havekabv,Alblasserdam All_rightsreserved. Save_{exceptions stated by}

the law, no part of this publication may be

reproduced,stored inaretrieval_{system of any}

nature,or_{transmitted in any form or by any} means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recordingor otherwise,includeda_{complete or}

partial transcription, withouttheprior written permissionofthepublishers, application for whichshouldbeaddressed to thepublishers:

DUTCH UNIVERSITY PRESS

Rozengracht I76A

IoI6NK Amsterdam,The Netherlands

Phone: + 3I (0) 20 6255429

Fax: + JI Co) 20 620 30 95 E-mail:_info@dup.nl

Dutch UniversityPressinassociation

with Purdue University Press. West Lafayette. Ind. U.S.A al Rozenberg Publishers, The Netherlands

ISBN 90 3I69 32I 4

Dankwoord

Dit proefschrift gaatoverpraten en sociale steunterwijl jeinafwachting bent van iets

waarietegenop ziet. Wanneer voel je je beter? Wanneer je kuntpraten met iemand anders

of

juistwanneer le all66n wacht? Met wie zou je zelf bijvoorbeeldeen

belang-rijk

examen

afwillen

wachten, ofdeuitslag vaneenmedische test, ofeenoperatie, Als je danmetiemandwiltpraten,waarover zou jedanwillenpraten?

Ruim zeven_{jaar geleden heb}ik_{gesolliciteerd op}de_{functie van AiO aan de (toen}

nog) KatholiekeUniversiteitBrabant. Wat heb ik toenzelfgedaanPGepraat met mijn toenmalige huisgenoten. Ongetwijfeld hebben we toen, bijeenkopjethee, adviezen uitgewisseld, het gehad over hoe ik me voelde en gewoon gesproken over alledaagse dingenzoals_{bijvoorbeeld wat we} 'savondszoudeneten.Voelde ikme daarnabeter?

Heeft_{het geholpen? Wie weet.}

Tijdens het sollicitatiegesprek werdmij gevraagdwaarom ikdacht dat het leuk zou zijn om vierjaar onderzoek te doen naar hetzelfdeonderwerp. Of ik toch niet bang was dat het saaizouworden. _{Mijnsinziens kun je het doenvan onderzoek goed} ver-gelijken met het invullen vaneenkruiswoordpuzzel. _Jebegint meteenheleboel vra-gen. Die kun jenietallemaal meteenbeantwoorden.Te kiesteenvraag uit en die pro-beer jetebeantwoorden. De_{letters die je dan}vindtkunnenjemogelijk helpen bij het beantwoorden vaneen_{andere vraag. Elke keer}vallener_{nieuwe letters op hunplaats} en daarmeeook_{aanwijzigingen}voorantwoorden_{op andere vragen.} Ik_{geloofdat dit}

proefschrifteenmooie_weergaveis _{geworden van}dit_{proces. Niet dat ik denk dat de}

puzzel af is. In tegendeel. Ik denk dathet eigen isaanwetenschappelijkonderzoek dat niet_{alle vragen van}de_{puzzel vooraf al vast staan maar datluist ook}de antwoor-den opeen vraag,nieuwe vragen oproepen waardoordepuzzeleigenlijk nooitafkomt. Daarom kan ik ookvol _{overtuiging zeggen dat ik}het zelfs nu, niet vier maar meer dan zeven_{jaar later, nog}steeds een boeiend _{onderwerp vind. Misschien zelfs nog} wel interessanter dan toenikbegon.

Wie hebben mij de_afgelopenjaren allemaal gesteund? Indeeerste_{plaats wil ik}

project en voorallesteun eninhoudelijkadviezen die ikde_{afgelopeniaren heb}

mo-gen ontvanmo-gen. Zegunde mede ruimteom dingen zelf uitte zoeken enhetproject

aante passen toen datnodig bleek te zijn. Op zijn tijd gaf ze me ookdenodige aan-sporing om een beslissingtenemen en door te gaan. Mogelijk als een van de wei-nigen heeft zij erookaltijdvertrouweningehad dat het wel afzoukomen. Bedankt voorde _{begeleiding en het vertrouwen dat je in megesteld hebt. Wim de Moor wil}

ik bedanken voor_{zijninbreng aan hetbegin en Guus van Heck voorzijninbreng en} ideeen aanheteinde van_{het project.}

TijdensmijnAiO-schap hebben een aantal collega-aio's voordenodige afwisse-ling gezorgd. Waar ikaandenk? Aan thee.Tijdensdethee-pauzeswerdener

natuur-lijk

ook_persoonlijke zaken_{uitgewisseld, maar vaak ging het}over_{wetenschappelijk} overwegingen die iedereen bij het doenvan onderzoektegenkomt. Soms

inhoude-lijk,somspraktisch._{Juist wanneer je op totaal andere gebieden}bezig bent is het inte-ressantenleerzaam om metelkaar discussiestevoeren. Onderhetmotto: 'kom we drinken nogeen_{kopje thee, danpromoveren we maar}een_{kwartiertje later', wil ik een} aantalmensen bedanken._Jeroennatuurlijk. Voorallekeren thee enzijnheerlijke, iet-wat pessimistische, kijkop zaken. Naast Veraongetwijfeld ook depersoon met wie

ik het meeste overdit project heb gediscussieerd, wat dekwaliteit alleen maar ten goedeis_{gekomen. Jeroen, ik kom de opbrengst van}deweddenschap een keerinnen. Marloes, voor haar eeuwigetwijfeloverkwaliteiten relevantie. Romke dieme heeft geleerd hoe leuk het isom'dingen tedoen'.Antje voorhaaronvoorwaardelijkesteun

in

tijdenwaarin het 'uitstekend' ging. Marc voor zijnsomsverhelderendeen verras-sende kijkop zaken. Ingrid,Monique, Ellie,Herman, Gerda en alle aio's die ik de af-gelopen jaren heb mogen ontmoeten: allemaal bedanktvoor jullie steun en gezel-ligheid. Rosemarie en Gerty hebben mij methun verhalen overhoe heerlijk het is

wanneerhet_eindelijkklaaris,extra_{gemotiveerd om het af}teronden. Ikzal binnen-kortlatenweten hoe ikhetervaar.

Naast _{collega's wil ik ook}

_mijn

_{vriend(inn)en bedanken voor} de_nodige vakan-ties, etentjes, thee, wandelingen en gezelligheid. Iemand die _mil vanafmijn studie psychologie van nabij heeft meegemaakt isSaskia. Mogelijkverbaast ze zich wel eens overmijn keuzes maarze herinnert meer gelukkig af en toe aanwatbelangrijk is en wat niet. Ik zal eenbeetjeop mezelfpassen. Margot en Coen dieop momenten datikoverliep van hetwerkbelden om tezeggen datzelangskwamen om voor ons

tekoken. Bedankt, hetwasheerlijk.

Mijn ouders hebben ook

mij

vanafhet begin gemotiveerd om te studeren en hebben ons _{hiervoor altijd}alle_{mogelijkhedengeboden.}

_Mijn

moederheeft een stel-ling aan demuurhangen:zonder opa's en oma'sstortde_{huidige economie}inelkaar. Dit is zonder meer waar. Zonder de flexibele oppas-mogelijkheden van de opa's en

oma's was het niet mogelijk geweest om dit proefschrift afte ronden. Mark_{vindt |} nikszointeressant als marnaachterhaar_{laptop. Ik}ben_{benieuwd wat hij er van zal}

het heel moeilijkzijn geweest om zich voorte stellen waar ikmee bezig was. Zeker toen ik er de_{afgelopen drie jaar ook nog eenseen groot gedeelte van mijn} schaarse

vrije tijdaanopofferde. Je vond het,vooral voormij persoonlijk, belangrijk dat ik het

afzoumaken. _{Daarin heb je}me_{altijdgesteund en daarmee heb je me ook door wat}

moeilijkeperiodes heen geholpen. Het is afl Bedankt.

En dan zijn er nogvelemensen die ik nieteensgenoemd heb. Studenten die ik heb begeleid bij hun onderzoek. 'gang _4'. huidigecollega's en de vele mensen die zichde_{afgelopen jaren}steeds_{geinteresseerd hebbengetoond inmijn}onderzoek. En dan zijn er nog mensen die beweren dathetAiO-schapeeneenzaam bestaan is.

ULVENHOUT, MEI 2003

Contents

Chapter 1 Chapter 6

Generalintroduction 11 Study 3and Study 4: Laytheories on the effects

of

social interactions

Chapter2 during anticipatory stress

Anticipatorystress situations: situations iii A theoretical framework and

an overviewofrelevant Chapter7

experiments ₁₅ Study_5: Affiliationpreferences

across _anticipatorystress

Chapter 3 _{situations 147} StudyI: Communicating with a

peerduring an anticipatory stress Chapter 8

situation ₃₃ Summary_{and Conclusions 165} Chapter4 References i75

A broaderliterature review on

support and social interaction: Appendices 18i Factorsinfluencingthesupport

process 69 Samenvatting 209

Chapters

Chapter 1

General introduction

1.1 INTRODUCTION

In everydaylife,there are many situationsinwhich people know that theyareabout to encounterastressful event. Imagine, forinstance,awaitingtheresultsofamedical test inadoctor's waiting room; or waiting atthedentist, waiting forthe onset of an important exam, andpreparinga _{public speech or a job interview.} Suchsituations are referred to asanticipatorystress situations. Peopleoften anticipatethese events

inthe company

of

others, mostly others who are in thesame situations, i.e.,peers. Thisiseitherbytheir ownchoiceorbecause theyareforced to do so by the

circum-stances. Do_{people feel better if they}are_awaitingsuch eventswith another_person? I f so, would theyprefer to wait inthe company ofafriend or would they prefer the

company ofastranger? What do they expect totalkaboutwhile waiting? Would they like todiscuss the situation athand, theirfeelings _{about it, or would} theyprefer to talkabout topicslike theirholidays?

Theories on social support are in line with the assumption that anticipating a stressor in the_companyofan_{other person}isbeneficial toan_{individual's well-being,} because it provides an opportunity for support. People are expected to feel better after waitingwithsomeone else_{than after awaiting}the stressor alone. There is,

how-ever, no clarity as to thedegree of this positive effect.A numberofstudies suggest that waitingand interactingwithsomeone else is relatedtopositivechangeseither in moodor performance _{(Kulik & Mahler, I987; Winstead &} Derlega, _{I985). Other} studies show no suchbeneficial_{effects (Costanza, Derlega.}&Winstead, 1988; Kulik, Mahler, & Earnest, _I994; Winstead & Derlega, I99I). Nor is there clarity on how

thesepotentially beneficialeffects

of

socialinteraction comeabout.

The primary aim ofthis thesis was togain insight in the supportprocesses that take placeinanticipatorystress situations. Basedontheories

of

social support (e.g., Albrecht, &Adelman,I987;Cohen,&_{Wills, I985,} Sarason, Sarason,&_{Pierce, I990),}

and social comparison (e.g.,Buunk,&Hoorens,I992; Schachter, I959;Taylor, Buunk,

12 DOESTALKING MAKEA DIFFERENCE?

expected

of

waiting with a peer ascompared towaitingalone. Furthermore, an ad-vantagewaspredictedofwaiting withafriendas_comparedto_{waiting with}a_stranger.

Moreover, itwas hypothesized that what people talk about influences the effect of supportonaffective responses. Itwas furtherexpectedthat friendswould talkabout

different topics than strangers and that these variations in conversational topics couldexplain possibledifferences intheeffectsofwaiting withafriendascompared

to withastranger. We examined the effectsofverbalsocialinteractionson changes in anticipatorydistress focusing on the nature ofthe relationshipbetween interaction

partners as well as the kind of conversations that take place during the waiting period. Furthermore,we_{examined its effects on people's}own_experienceofthe inter-action and perceptions regardingthe stressfulsituation.

The secondary aim was to compareactual effects

of

verbal socialinteraction on mood changeswithbeliefs andperceptions aboutits'supportiveness. In thiscontext,

itwasexaminedwhetherlaytheories on therelationshipbetween socialinteraction and_anticipatorydistressinfluence_{people'sperceptions}ofthebenefitsofthese

inter-actions.

1.2 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS

The theoretical background ofthethesis willbe presented in two separate chapters. First, relevant social support theories are reviewed in Chapter 2. The different ap-proaches to the study

of

social support, types and functions

of

support, and the ex-pected effect

of

conversational topics are discussed. The present research focuses primarily onthe effectofaffiliation_{on anticipatory}distress.This_{emphasisoriginated}

directly from experimental studies conducted by Winstead and her colleagues (Costanza et al., 1988; Winstead & Derlega, I985,

I99Ii

Winstead, Derlega, Lewis, Sanchez-Hucles,&Clarke,I992) Winstead and herco-workersconductedanumber

of

laboratory experiments in order to examine how friends support each other in

stressful situations. More specifically, they examined the consequences

of

inter-acting with friends versusstrangers and the effects

of

discussingspecific topics on negative affect and performance. Thesestudies andthe research questions raised by them arealsoreviewed in thischapter.

Second,abroaderliterature reviewon _supportand socialinteractionsis present-edinChapter 4.Theinconsistent results

of

studies ontheeffectofsocialinteractions

consider-ably fromits' actualeffect withtheformerbeingmorepositive thanthelatter. In the

final part ofthis chapter, it is argued that in some situations, perceptions may be influenced bylaytheories rather thanactual experiences.

The effect

of

verbal interaction on anticipatory distress and the importance of

one's relationship withthecompanion andthetopic beingdiscussedwas examined in a laboratory experiment and a field study. It washypothesized that waiting and talkingwithanotherperson, more specificallyafriend, wouldexertabeneficialeffect onanticipatorydistress. Study I,thelaboratory experiment, is reportedin Chapter 3.

The fieldstudy, Study 2, isreportedin Chapter 5

In Chaptir 6, two studies, Study 3 and Study 4, are reported that examine lay theories concerning the effect

of

social interaction on anticipatory distress. It was hypothesized thatthese laytheories are in line with theexpectationthatsocial inter-actionswith_{another person and more specifically with}afriend,isbeneficial to one's well-beingas_{compared towaiting}alone. _{Furthermore, it}was_hypothesizedthatthese lay theories could help explain the reporteddifferences between the direct

assess-mentofmoodchanges and the perceptionsofthesupportiveness

ofthe

interactions by theparticipantsin Study I and Study 2.

In Chapter 7, an exploratory study, Study 5, is reported whichexamines the im-portance ofthe nature ofthe anticipated stressor with respect to preferences for

Chapter 2

Anticipatory stress situations:

A theoretical framework and an overview of relevant experiments

2.1 DEFINING ANTICIPATORY STRESS SITUATIONS

In everyday life, many situations occurin which people know that theyareabout to experience stressfulevents. For_{instance, they may} be_{waiting in}a doctor's_waiting room, anticipating anexam,_preparinga_{publicspeech,or holding oneself in}readiness for a job interview. All these _{situations may} be characterized as _anticipatory stress situations, thatis, situationsinwhichpeople expect to experienceastressfulevent in thenearfuture.

Peopleoften anticipate these events, eitherby theirown choice orbecause they are forced to do so bycircumstances, inthe_{company ofothers.}These others are

usu-ally others who are in the same situation, i.e., peers. When interacting with each other, the topicsthatpeopletalkaboutdiffergreatly. For instance, some persons tend to discuss an upcoming _event, while others prefer to talk about their momentary feelings or unrelated topics likethe weather.Thescientific literatureon social inter-actions or affiliation is not clear regarding the degree in which these interactions affect people's feelingsduring anticipatorystress situations. Whereas some studies showthat waiting with a peerisrelated toapositive changeinexperiencedemotions (Kulik&Mahler, I987; Winstead &Derlega, _{I985), other investigations indicate that} there is nobenefit_{(Costanza, Derlega,}&Winstead, _I988; Kulik, Mahler, &Earnest, 1994;Winstead&Derlega, I991). Inaddition, there isnoclarity concerning the

pre-cise _{mechanisms through which potentially beneficial} effects

of

_waiting and inter-actingwith others come about.

The primary goal ofthe present series

of

studies is to contribute to our

under-standing ofhow talking to others in anticipatory stress situations affects people's affectivereactions to thembyexaminingtheimpact oftherelationshipbetween the interaction partners. Asecondary aim is toexaminethe effectofthecontentofthese conversations on the degree to which communication with a_{peer helps} orhinders copingwithanticipatorystresssituations.

will focus on typesofsocialsupport, hypotheses about howitaffectswell-being, the potential relevanceoffeatures of the individuals exchanging social support, person-alitycharacteristics, and aspects ofthecommunicationprocess_(seesection 2.2). Phy-siological reactions related toaffiliation andsupport willbediscussedin_{section 2.3·}

The research questions addressed here originated directly from experimental studiesbyWinstead_{and colleagues (Costanza et al.,I988;}Winstead&Derlega, I985·

I99I;

Winstead, Derlega, Lewis, Sanchez-Hucles,& Clarke, I992). Therefore, these experiments will be discussed in detail in section _2.4, followed by the research questions raised bythem. Other relevant studies willbediscussedinChapter 4.

2.2 SOCIAL SUPPORT

2.2.1 What issocial support?

Research_consistently showsthat _{social supportaffects psychological as well as} phy-siological health (e.g., Albrecht, Burleson, & Sarason, _I992; Burleson, Albrecht, Goldsmith, & Sarason, _I994; Sarason, Sarason, &Pierce. _{I990; Shumaker & Hill,} I99I). However,

in

spite ofan abundance

of

literature on social support, at present there exists no agreed upondefinition ofthis phenomenon. Instead, examinations

of

social_supportareoftenbasedondifferentconceptualizations,which maybedivided into three broad categories refectingthe social network approaches, psychological approaches andcommunicationalapproaches.

2.2.2 Different approaches tothe study

of

socialsupport

Historically,thefirstanalysesofsocialsupport stemmed froma_sociological

perspec-tive. Theyarereferred toassocialnetworkapproaches. Focalpointswere predominant-ly the size,density, multiplexity, and other features ofindividuals' networks of sup-portive tieswith otherpeople as well as the influence

of

thesecharacteristics on ge-neralhealth andwell-being_{(Burleson et al., I994; Sarason et al., I990). The}

descrip-tion

of

social _{support provided by Cobb (I976) underlies} these approaches. Cobb described social supportas information leading to one or more

of

three outcomes:

(i) the feeling

of

_{being cared for, (ii)} the belief that one is loved, esteemed, and valued. (iii) and the senseofbelonging toa reciprocalnetwork.

However, it was found that characteristics

of

social networks were only weakly associated with both the availability and adequacy

of

support, and health-related outcomes (Burleson et al., I994) Furthermore, the objectiveavailability

of

support (quantity)as_{measured by the}network_{approach, does}not correspondwithsubjective perceptions of the quality

of

support (Cutrona, Suhr, & MacFarlane, I990). In

addition, health-related outcomes are better predicted by the perceived quality and availability

of

social support than byobjective aspects

of

social support _{(Burleson et}

al., 1994; Cutrona et al., I 990; Eckenrode& Wethington, I990).

ANTICIPATORYSTRESS _{SITUATIONS 17}

regardingavailable support reflecting a 'sense

of

being supported', that is, aid that peoplebelieve willbeavailable to them if or when they needit_{(Burleson et al., I994;}

Sarason. Pierce, & Sarason, _I990). Research indicates thatthe sense ofbeing sup-ported is a _relatively stable _{personality characteristic thatmay} function as a buffer

againststressandhealth problems (seePierce, Sarason,&Sarason, I99O). However, these approaches do notconsider the role

of

actual instances ofinterpersonal help thatoccurduringsocial interactions. Instead, theyfocus on subjective perceptions of support (Burleson et al., I994)·

Recently, researchers have become interested in how support is actually ex-changed andhow support may help or, in someinstances, harmtheperson in need (Burleson et at.,

I994).The

interactional or communication approachesexamine the processes through which social support is solicited and enacted _{(Albrecht &} Adel-man, 19872; Burleson et al., I994). Thisperspectiveallows for adescription of

sup-portivebehavior as a_{dynamic interaction involving people}who mutually influence

each_{other concerning}theirattitudes,convictions, emotions,and/orbehaviors (Albrecht & Adelman, I987). AccordingtoAlbrecht and Adelman,the processofsocialsupport ... rders to verbal and nonverbal communication between recipients

and providers that reduces uncertainty about thesituation, the se(f: the other, ortherelationship, _andfinctionsto enhance a perception

ofpersonal control in one's lijE experience. (p. I9)

Burleson _(I994) advocated the latter approaches by stating that 'social support should be studied as communication because it is ultimately conveyed through messagesdirected by oneindividual toanother inthecontext ofarelationship that

is created and sustainedthrough interaction' (p._xviii).

Thepresent thesis focuses on socialinteractions thattake placewhileanticipating

astressful event. It aimsatgaining knowledge on howpeople supportoneanother underthosecircumstances. Therefore, thecornmunicationorinteractional_approaches seem most relevant. However, beforediscussingthecommunicationalaspects of so-cial supportprocesses, two general mechanisms through which supportmay affect healthand_{well-being will}bedescribed.

2.2.3 The direct effect and buffer hypotheses

of

social support

Central to contemporary health psychology is the assumption that social support

fromsignificantothers is

of

major importanceincopingwithlife-events. Itisassumed thatsocialsupportcanreduceoreliminatethe adverse consequences

of

theseevents upon health or well-being (Buunk& Hoorens, I992; Cohen& Wills, I985; Sarason et al., I990) However, as Cohen and Wills (I985)have pointedout, social support may exert its influenceon stress andhealth intwo differentways: either through a

direct main effect or through a buffer effect. Basically, the main _{effecthypothesis}

states that social support hasa generally protective function that is alsopresent in

function ofsocialsupportiseffective only inthe presence ofastressful event. TheMain Effectmodelpostulates agenerally positive relationshipbetween social supportandwell-being. Thus, itisassumedthatsocialsupport hasabeneficialeffect independently fromthe actual occurrence

of

stressful_{experiences (Cohen} &Wills, I985). Both the social network and the psychological approaches bear relevance to thisview. Statingthatsocialresources haveapositiveeffectonhealthandwell-being impliesthat socialsupport shouldbemeasuredintermsofthedegree

of

integration in asocialnetwork._{This integration may help preventnegative experiences and} pro-mote positive ones. It can givea _{person feelings}of_{stabilityand self-respect (Cohen}

& Wills, I985). It canalso affectthe degree towhichpeoplemanifest

health-threate-ningorprotective behaviors suchas_smoking,alcoholabuse,_{and seeking}ofmedical help (Cohen &_{Wills, I985). As far}aspsychological approaches to the study

of

social support emphasize the importance ofgeneral perceptions ofsocial support and satisfactionwith perceived availablesupport, theyalso imply a maineffect view.

According totheBuffermodel,the positive relationship thathasoftenbeenfound between social_supportand_well-beingis _specific for stressful _{situations. This} posi-tive link canbeattributed toasupport processthatprotects people against the possible aversive effects

of

stressful events. Asaconsequence,this modelpredictsthatsocial support and well-being will only be related when a _person is under stress. Thus, support buffers against the possible pathogenetic influence

of

stressfulevents but

does notenhance one'swell-being inthe absence

of

stressful experiences _{(Cohen &} Wills, I985).

There are two different points inthe causal chain between stress and illness at which social _{supportmay exert its effects. First, socialsupportmay affectappraisal}

reactions. It may lead to an interpretation ofthe situation as less stressful or not problematic atall. Supportiveinteractions mayeven_implyasolution ofthe_problem

athand_(Cohen& Wills, I985)· Second, onceasituation has beeninterpretedasbeing stressful, socialsupportmay reduceoreliminate stressreactions bydirectly influen-cingphysiological processes at the leveloftheneuroendocrinesystem orbyaffecting health-related behaviors (Cohen&_{Wills, I985). It}is clearthat interactional or com-municational approaches to socialsupportarerelated tothis buffereffect.

Empiricalevidence has been obtained for both_{models (cf Cohen}&_{Wills, I985).}

Since this thesis focuses on the effect

of

social interactions on stress and affect, specificallyinsituations where stressisanticipated, theBuffermodel is the most rele-vant framework forthe present research.

2.2. Types andfunctions ofsocial support

Although different researchers apply different labels to specify the functions that

in-ANTICIPATORYSTRESS _{SITUATIONS 19}

formational support. Esteemsupport consists ofthe exchange

of

information that a person is esteemed _{and accepted (Cohen & Wills, I985; Cutrona & Russell, I990;} Derlega et al., I9g)· Emotional supportrefers to actionsshowing thattheperson is being cared for and providing emotional comfort to him or her _{(Cutrona, I990)} Instrumental support isthe_provisionofrather_{practical aid,} forinstance, ofa

finan-cial or material nature, that may help to reduce stress by directly solving practical problems (e.g.,Cohen&_{Wills, I985; Cutrona &}Russell, _I990; Derlega et at., I993)· Finally, informational support helps in defining, understanding, and coping with

problematicevents. This may,for instance, take the form

of

adviceor guidance (e.g., Cohen&_{Wills, I985; Cutrona}& Russell, I990; Derlega et al., I993)·

Cutrona and Suhr_(I992)divided thesetypes

of

socialsupport intotwo broad cate-gories: action:facilitatingsupportandnurturantsupport.Action-facilitatingsupport (pro-blem-focused_aid)consistsofactions thatareaimedatproviding information or

instru-mental aid to helpsolveor reducea_{problem. Nurturant support(emotion-focused aid)} reflects caring andcomfortingactions that help peopletochangetheiremotional reac-tions to stressors or the ways they feelaboutthemselves. Incontrast to action-facili-tatingsupport,nurturant help isnotaimedatactually solving theproblem at hand.

Different forms

of

support may haveadifferentinfluence on howpeoplerespond to potentially stressful situations. However, as noted by Cohen and _{Wills (I985), a} reasonable matchbetween coping demands and the nature and degree

of

support thatisavailableis necessaryforeffective buffering effectstooccur. Severalauthors have suggested that an analysis ofhowpeople copewithstressfuleventsoffers a

fruitful

approach to explaining bufferingeffects

of

social support (see, e.g., Schreurs & De Ridder, I997)· Thus, thequestion ariseswhichtypes

of

support aremosthelpful in

whichcircumstances?

2.2.5 Social supportandcoping

Social support and coping are two research areas which have developed relatively independently fromeachother.

Whatis_coping?

Lazarusand_{Folkman (I984)} havedefined coping aspeople's

constantly changingcognitive and behavioral e#orts to manage the

specific external _and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxingorexceeding the resources of the person (p II4).

As a first step, asituationis appraisedasbeing threatening or not. This is called

primaryappraisal. Secondary appraisal is theevaluation ofone'scoping options and resources. People select aparticular coping strategy on the basis of the outcome of

theseappraisalprocesses. Parker and Endler_(I992)describetheimportanceofcoping

Two generalcoping strategies maybedistinguished:problem:focused and emotion-focusedcoping(Carver, Scheier.&Weintraub,I989; Lazarus&Folkman, _I984; Parker & Endler, I992). Problem-focusedcoping aims atchanging or solvingtheproblem

athand. Emotion-focused_{coping aims}at_{dealing with one's own emotional}reactions. Seeking socialsupportissometimesdescribed asathird_{copingstrategy(e.g.,}Carver et_al.,I989). Alternatively, itisregarded as acopingresource (e.g., Parker& Endler,

I992)

D #erencesbetweensocial support and coping

Leatham and Duck (I990) have clarifiedthe distinctionbetween socialsupport and coping by stating that social support consists

of

interpersonal resources that are mobilizedinorder to deal withthestraininherentin_living,whereas_copingconsists

of

the mobilization

of

personal _resources, both psychological and tangible, to deal

with life stresses. Therefore, allmaterial, psychological, or socialresources that are mobilized for_{dealing with life strain may} be classified as either social _{support or} coping. I

f

these resources aregoverned by theindividualunderstrain, they are part

of

the copingprocess. I f they aregoverned byanotherperson, then theyrefer to the social_{supportprocess.}

AccordingtoSchreurs andDeRidder_(I997), coping and socialsupportarerelated

in fourways.First,socialsupporthasquite oftenbeen considered asaparticularcoping

strategy. Second, it maybeviewed as acoping resource.Third, it may be seen as the consequence or the resultofcertain aspects of the copingprocess. Finally, it may be conceived of asanintrinsic_{aspect of thecopingprocess}withinasocial _system.

Social_{supportactions help}a_personto_{better cope with}astressful situation. What type

of

supportisprovided partlydepends onthe supportavailableandpartly on the support that is required todeal adequately witha given situation. Support canalter the primaryappraisalofthesituation. It canalso changecoping possibilities or per-ceived coping resources (secondary appraisal).Thus,_{social support can be seen as a} copingmechanism but also as a_coping resource.

2.2.6 Personal and relational characteristics and supportive interactions

The present sectionwill focus on factors thatmay influencethe social support

pro-cess, such asthe characteristicsofthe_{supportive interactions (i.e.,its content), or the}

support provider andthe receiver (e.g., gender, type

of

relationship, personality).

The 4pct ofgenderonsupportive interactions

When people enact supportive actions towards each other, gender may be an im-portantfactormoderatingtheeffect

of

certaintypes

of

socially supportivebehavior. For instance, female same-sex _{friendships are generally} based on _{sharing and} dis-closing personal feelings,whereasmalesame-sex_friendshipsare_{predominantly}based

ANTICIPATORYSTRESS SITUATIONS 21

have statedthatthese findings lead to the expectation that the gendercomposition

of

interactinggroupsinfluences the effectiveness

of

coping.

If copingis facilitated bythe exchange

of

emotional support, then female same-sex groups oropposite-sex groups

of

friends might be more successful in coping than comparable groups of strangers. In contrast, homogeneous male groups of

friends_{versus strangersmight}notdiffer fromeachother _(Derlega, Barbee, & Win-stead, I994). Theunderlying assumption is that thepresence ofatleast onefemale in a group

of

friends is more likelytofoster the exchange

of

emotional support. If, on the other hand, coping with stress benefits from problem-focused support or

from _{distracting interactions, then male-male} and male-female _{groups should be} more successfulthan homogeneous femalegroups. As the latter type

of

social sup-port does not involve emotionally intimate interactions, the nature ofthe relation-ship between the peopleinvolved may not beveryimportant. In thatcasefriends are not expected tobebetteratproviding support thanstrangers.

Although theoreticalanalyses suggest genderdifferences inthechoice

of

coping strategies and in the nature

of

socially supportive _{interactions (Barbee et at., I993;} Derlega et al.,_I994;Vingerhoets & Van Heck, _1990),empiricalresearch byWinstead

et al._(I992;describedindetailinsection 2.4) didnotsupport thisexpectation. Con-trary to expectations,their laboratory experiment on how interacting withafriend as opposed to interacting witha strangeraffectscoping inananticipatorystress situa-tion showed that the gendercomposition

of

interactingdyads did notaffect the time spenttalkingaboutproblem-solving or unrelatedtopics. Perhaps even more surpri-singly, female same-sexfriendswere leastlikely to talkabouttheir feelings.

However, research on everydayconversations (Duck, Rutt, Hurst,& Strejc, I99I) demonstrated that there are important differences in ratings of the quality of a

conversation: everydayconversations with a _{female partner} wererated as

qualitati-vely better bybothgendersthan conversations with amale partner. Inaddition, wo-men reported more mood changes as a result

of

verbal communication than men

did. Thesefindingssuggestthatgender may playasubstantial role intheperception

of

supportive interactions and possibly even in how these interactions affect a person. Unfortunately,however, systematic research on theeffect

of

_genderon social supportis lacking (Derlega et al., I994)·

Personality characteristicsandsocialsupport

Personality may affect the extent to which individuals seek social support, their

perceived receipt

of

socialsupport, andthe extent towhich theybenefitfrom social support (Nolen-Hoeksema &Davis, I999). Inanoverview byPierce, Lakey, Sarason,

Sarason, and Joseph _(I997),the importance

of

personality characteristics like per-ceived socialsupportand self-esteemisemphasizedinrelation tothe socialsupport process. Researchers have found that perceived social support plays an important

received social support does (e.g.,_{Cohen, Hettler, & Park,I997;}Cohen_{& Wills, I985)·} A studybySarasonandSarason_{(1986) showed}thatexperimentallyprovidedsupport was facilitative only forparticipants who were lowinperceivedsupport, not forthose

high in perceived support. Another example is a studyby Helgeson _{(I993), which} demonstrated thatperceived support hasa greaterimpact on adjustment toa first

cardiac eventthanreceivedsupport. Newcomband Keefe_{(I997) emphasize the} im-portance

of

self-esteemand suggestabi-directional relationbetween self-esteem and social support. Evidence for a relation between social _support and locus

of

control stemsfromresearch by Van derZee,Buunk,and_{Sanderman (I997).}Theyexamined the possibility thatlocus

of

controlmightberelated to theabilitytomobilize and use sources ofsupport and found that participants with an internal locus of support perceived more support than participants with an external locus of control. Moreover, theyfound thatlocus

of

controlmoderatestheeffect

of

socialsupport on psychologicalwell-being, especially among women. Peacock and Wong (I996) sug-gestthatlocusofcontrolaffectscoping throughitsimpactoncontrolappraisals. Ac-cording to this view,individuals withstrong internal control beliefswould be more likely to view a stressfulsituation aspersonally controllable. Consequently, this

ap-praisal would result

in

increasedproblem-focusedcoping efforts.

Relationship between dyad membersandsocialsupport

Winstead et at. CI985, I99I, I992; Seealso Costanza et al., I988) examined the role of interaction with a friend as _{compared with} a _{stranger duringanticipatory} stress situations using laboratory experiments _(described

in

detail in section 2.4). They obtained some inconclusive evidence of a more beneficial effect on one's mood of waiting withafriendas_comparedto_{waiting with}a_{stranger orwaiting}alone. On the one hand, they could demonstrate that depressive and hostile feelings decreased over thewaiting periodinparticipants who waited withafriend while anticipating a

stressful event, but not in participants who waited with a _{stranger (Winstead &}

Derlega, I985). Onthe other hand, theyfound nodifferences inself-reported nega-tive moodinparticipantswhowaited withafriendandeither talkedabout problem-solvingtopics, feelings orunrelatedtopics,as comparedto participantswhowaited alone (Costanza et al., I988). At the sametime, talkingaboutproblem-solving topics or_{unrelated topicsappeared}morebeneficial_{than talking}aboutone's_{feelingsor waiting}

alone. In another study, the same authors found no clear advantage

of

interacting

withafriend over_{interacting with} a_stranger

in

_{reducingnegative affect (Winstead}

et al., I992). The only significant finding was that interacting with an opposite-sex friend led tolowerdepression levelsthaninteracting with an opposite-sex stranger.

Otherevidence

of

differences betweenfriends _{and strangers} stems from a_study

on everyday talks by Duck et al.

_(I99I;

study I). Ratings ofthe quality of the com-munication_{process werehighest}forconversations between bestfriendsandlowest

ANTICIPATORY STRESS _{SITUATIONS 23}

2.2.7 Content

of

sociallysupportive communications

Generally,fourcategoriesofconversationaltopicsarebeing distinguished_(Costanza

et al., I988; Winstead et al., I 91). First, 'problem-focused talk'is directly related to the stressful situations at hand (e.g., 'What can be done with _{respect to the stressor?';} 'How would you handle this situation?1. Conversationtopics thatfall within this cate-gory focusdirectly onthe problem at handand reflect ways

of

solvingit. Discussing thesetopics may reduce stress bypreparingaperson todeal better withthe stressor (Winstead&Derlega, I99I). Forinstance, itmay enable people to selectcoping

strate-giesmoreeffectively due to amoreaccurate appraisalofthesituation. Consequently,

itcanrestoreasenseofcontrol(Taylor,Aspinwall, Giuliano,Dako£&_{Rearson, I993)·}

Second,'emotion-focusedtalk'emphasizesfeelings related toor associated with the stressful situation thatisbeinganticipated (e.g., 'How do

you»l

aboutthissituation?'; 'I amnotlookingjorward to it.). Here thefocus isonfeelings towards the stressor and ways ofdealingwiththesefeelings. Talkingaboutemotions canhave positive as well

as negative effects on the subjective experience

of

stress. On the one hand, it may

haveacathartic value bydissipatingundesirableemotions thatresultfromanticipating

a stressful situation (Derlega, Margulis, & _{Winstead, 1987; Pennebaker} & Beall, 1986; Winstead& Derlega, I99I). Onthe other hand, it mayalsofocusattention on these negative feelings (Archer, Hormuth, & Berg, I982; Winstead &

Derlega, I I).

Third,peoplemay discusstopics that arenot directlyrelated to thestressfulsituation but thatarelinkedtocomparable situations (e.g., 'I was once inasimilar_situation.1. The fourth category consists

of

'unrelated' topics that are in no way related to the stressor at hand (e.g., 'How was your weekend?'; 'WhatkindOf work do you do?1. The latter category may be supportive by distracting one's attention from the stressor (Winstead& Derlega, I99I).

Supportis_alwaysbeingtransacted_{through communication, both}verbal and non-verbal _(Albrecht&_{Adelman, I987)· According}to_{Leatham and Duck (I99O),} conver-sations with friends about an expected stressor can restructure beliefs about this stressor, their ability to cope with it, andone'sperception

of

oneself asaperson who

successfullycopeswith stressors,in general. Thepresentoverview willberestricted to the verbal communication

of

social support. For an authoritative review of the literature ofnonverbal communication of _{social support,} see Kulik, Mahler, and Moore _(I996)

Thus far, the most impressive demonstrations ofthe potential effects of com-municationaboutstressful events on _well-beingandhealthare_{providedby studies}

of Pennebaker andhiscolleagues(e.g., Pennebaker,_I995; Pennebaker&_{Beall, I986;}

Pennebaker& O'Heeron,I984)·Typically,thisresearchexamined the role

of

talking

aboutatraumatic experience. They askedparticipants towrite about the traumatic eventitself(focusingon facts), about theemotionsassociatedwithexperiencing the

trauma,aboutbothfactsandemotionslinked tothetraumaticevents, or, inacontrol condition,abouttrivial objects.Writingabout facts andemotions associated with a traumatic experience was related to more negative mood immediately after the

writing sessionas compared with the writingtasks in the control condition. How-ever, it wasalsorelated toalong-termdecreaseinhealth problems_{(measured as the} numberofvisitstohealthcenterssixmonths afterthewriting_{sessions). The studies}

mentionedabove are just two examplestaken from a wide variety

of

investigations thatshowbeneficialeffects

of

disclosure ofone'sfeelings andexperiences. However, these effects have typicallybeenfound in situations

in

which disclosure tookplace a#er thetraumaticeventhad taken place. Furthermore,thebenefits occurred mainly in the long term.

Costanza et al. (I988) andWinsteadandDerlega (I99I)have examined the effect of talking onone's self-reported mood before a stressfuleventhad taken place, that

is, duringtheanticipationofastressfulevent.Theselaboratory experiments that are discussed in detail in _{section 2.4, showed} a beneficial effect on people's mood of

problem-focusedconversations and conversations about irrelevant topics. They did not showabeneficialeffect

of

_talking about one's_feelings.

2.3 PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS

Research on the effects

of

social support on anticipatory stress has generally

in-cluded subjective self-reports of moodonly. Little attention has been paidto other and possibly more objective indicators

of

stress experiences, namely, physiological reactions. Itisimportanttomeasurephysiologicalreactions

in

additionto subjective reactionssince it hasbeenfound frequently thatthese measures do not necessarily correspond _{(Gerin, Pieper, Levy,} & Pickering, _I992; Kamarck, Annunziato, &

Amateau, _I995) Therefore, physiological reactions may be an additional source of

information onhowsocial _{supportproduces effects onwell-being}andhealth. Laboratoryexperiments regardingtheeffect

of

affiliationunder threaton physio-logicalarousal haveshowninconsistent findings.For instance, thereisevidence that

waiting withanotherperson hasabeneficialeffecton_{physiological}arousal. General-ly, stress is related to physiological arousal as shown by an increase in heart rate, blood pressure, electrodermal _{activity, and} cortisol _{responses. Kamarck,} Manuck, and Jennings_(I990) found thatforcertaintypes

of

laboratorystressorsthe presence of a friend, compared with a condition in which participants were alone, reduced

bloodpressure andheartrateactivity. Gerin et al. _{(I992) studied}the effects of a ver-bal attack. _{Participants in}a_{support condition}were_{defended by}a_{confederate. They}

ANTICIPATORYSTRESS _{SITUATIONS 25}

and mirror-tracing) inthe presence ofa_{stranger or}afriend, either with orwithout

physical touch,and being alone. Only participants in the Friend-Presentcondition

showed a decreased heart rate _{and systolic} blood _pressure reactivity as _compared

with participants intheAlone condition.Physical touch wasnotrelatedtoattenuated cardiovascular reactions to stress. Finally, _{Kamarck et al. (I995) showed that}

affi-liation with a familiar_companion reduced blood _{pressurereactivity (but not} heart

rate)tostandardized laboratorytasksunder conditions of highsocialthreat (perfor-ming inthe presenceofanevaluative,highstatusexperimenter).However, it had no effecton physiological activity under low-threat circumstances.Takentogether, these studies_provideevidencethatsocial_{support may}atleast_partlyaffecthealth and well-beingthrough psychophysiological mechanisms.

However, severalotherstudies showedno benefit

of

_waiting with someone else. Sheffield and _{Carroll (I994)} examined cardiovascular _{reactions (blood pressure,} heart rate)

in

response to cognitive laboratory stressors in three social conditions, namely, alone, witha friend, and with a _{stranger. Contrary}to expectations,

partici-pants tested with a _{partner (friend or} stranger) displayed cardiovascular reactions thatweresimilar to thereactions ofthose tested alone. Furthermore, Gerin, Pieper, and Pickering _(I994) found that blood pressure and heart rate patterns

of

partici-pants who anticipated a stressful task, i.e., during a _{baseline measurement}

prece-dingtheactualconfrontation with the task, didnotdiffer fromthe reactions

of

those who had been told that theexperiment would stop at the end ofthe baselineperiod.

In Study I of

this thesis (see Chapter 3), skin conductance (SC) and heart rate (HR) weremeasuredinordertoassessthephysiologicaleffects

of

socialsupport

du-ringtheanticipation ofastressful_{experience. What do these}physiologicalmeasures indicate? Sosnowski _(I988) examined SC and HR changes inananticipatorystress situation in which participants were confronted with the message that aversive stimulationmightbegiven. Heconcluded that SC and HRchanges may carry diffe-rentpsychological meanings. On the one hand,SC seems tobeconnected with pro-cessing information about the anticipated stimulus. On the other hand, HR in-creases_{appear to}beconnected_mostlywith involvementinmentaltask_{activity or in}

coping with the stressful situation. HR responses seem to be related to the ex-perience

of

uncertainty that is associated with the individual's perception of the

relation between his or her own abilities and thetaskdemands ofthe situation (see also Brener,I987; Schulz& Schdnpflug. I982). Accordingto Elliot (I969), among

the factors that are distinctively effective in controlling increases in palmar con-ductance arethe collative_{properties of the} stimulussituation such asitsnovelty, its complexity and its surprisingness, whilethefactors thataredistinctively effective in controlling HRincreasesare_primarilythe_{instigation, anticipation,}andinitiation of

2.4 RESEARCH ON SUPPORTIVE INTERACTIONS

The present research focuses primarily on the effect

of

affiliation on anticipatory stress. This emphasis originated directly from experimental studies conducted by Winstead and hercolleagues (see, e.g., Costanza et al., I988; Winstead & Derlega, I985, 199I;Winstead et al.,I992) Winstead andherco-workersconductedanumber

of

laboratory experiments in order to examine how friends support each other in

stressful situations. More specifically, they examined the consequences

of

inter-actingwithfriends versus strangers andthe effects ofdiscussing specific topics on negative affect and behavior.

The first _{study (Winstead} & Derlega, _I985) examined the effects

of

interacting

with asame-sexfriend ora same-sexstrangeron coping witha stressful event, that

is,thehandlingofanon-poisonoussnake. Theprediction was that,incontrast to the presence ofa _{stranger, the company of}a friend would _{reduce negative} emotions while awaitingastressful event. In_{this particularstudy,}each _participantwas asked

to signup together witha same-sex friend fora study

of

so-called 'participant

mo-deling'. At this point, the participants were unaware that the study involved the handlingofasnake. Foreachexperimental session, two pairs

of

friendswereinvited. Upon arrival, eachparticipantwas assignedtoeitheraconditionin which they

par-ticipated together with their same-sex friend, ora condition in which they

partici-pated together witha same-sexstrangertaken from the other pair

of

friends. The participants weretaken to a room

in

which they were told to wait

until

the experi-menter arrived. After four minutes, the experimenter arrived andexplained to the participants thattheywouldbe askedtohandlea non-poisonoussnakeafter watch-ing a model who would handle it in different ways. Theywere asked to imitate as many thingsthemodelshowed as theyfelt comfortable to do. In addition, they were told thatthey could choose to handle the snakeeither alone or together with their

assigned partner.Afterthese instructions.the participantsfilled outa modified

ver-sion ofaself-reportmood questionnaire (MAACL; Zuckerman&_{Lubin, I965). The}

following types

of

negative affect were assessed: depression, hostility, and anxiety. Then,the _{experimenter left the room, presumably}tocheck theequipment. The par-ticipants were left on their own for another four-minute period. Afterthis waiting period, theyweretaken to separaterooms to fill out the mood list forasecond time. Upon completion of this questionnaire, they were told that theexperiment was over and that they did not have tohandle the snake. A 2 _{(Friend versus} Stranger) by 2 (Femaleversus Male) by 2 (Time I versus Time2) mixeddesign analysisofvariance

was performed on the affect measures with time as a within-subjects factor. A

significant interactioneffect

of

Friendship by Timewasobtainedon_{depression and} hostility but noton anxiety. For dyadsoffriends,_{depression andhostility}scores were significantly lower at Time 2 than at Time I. Fordyads

of

strangers,the affectscores

ANTICIPATORY STRESS _{SITUATIONS 27}

thanmales.According totheauthors, this experiment supportedthehypothesis that interacting withafriend is more beneficialinterms

of

reducingnegativeaffect than interacting withastranger.However, this was only trueforindirectsignsofdistress, depression and hostility, but not for the specific emotion that was expected to be elicited bythesituation, namelyanxiety.

The authors'conclusion shouldbetreated withsomecaution. Forinstance, all ini-tialnegative affectscoreswerehigherfordyads

of

friends than fordyadsofstrangers. In addition, for two out ofthethreeaffect scoresthe post-interactionscores tended to be higherfor friends thanforstrangers.Although neitheroneofthese differences were significant. these outcomes suggest that initial differences between the two conditions mayhaveexisted. At thevery least, it can be said that at the end of the

waitingperiod friends did notfeelbetterthan strangers. Possibleexplanations may

be thatbeing witha strangermight

inhibit

reportingnegative affect orthatwaiting

withafriend mightenhancetheadmittance

of

negative affect. This isespecially im-portantsincethe participants were in the sameroomwhiletheyfilled outtheMAACL (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965) forthe first time, but in separate rooms at the second time. AsnoAloneconditionwasincluded, onequestion that could notbeanswered

is_{whether waiting in}the_{company ofanyperson}isbeneficialas_{compared towaiting}

alone. Furthermore, the study did not examine what actually happenedduring the

interaction. Therefore,itgives noinformation as to whythe company

of

friends may

be more beneficial thanthecompany

of

strangers.

In a secondexperiment _{(Costanza et al.,} I988; Winstead &Derlega, I991), the

impact ofthe type

of

interactionthatoccursbetweensame-sexfriendswasexamined in order to_{gaininsight in how friends help}eachotherin_{dealing with}astressful situ-ation. Specifically, the effect

of

_{conversational topics on copingwith anticipatory}stress

was studied. Itwaspredictedthatdifferenttypes

of

conversationsthatoccur between friendswhile anticipatingastressfulevent (theguiding ofatarantula spiderthrough a_{maze'), woulddifferentially}affect_negativemoodstatesand perhapswould

influ-ence howwellpeople actuallydealt withtheparticularevent.Morespecifically, it was expectedthat talking withafriend about_{one's feelings}would_producemore_negative

affectthandiscussingproblem-solving orexchangingthoughts onanunrelatedissue.

Another prediction was that interacting withafriend in any ofthe three conversation

conditions would result inalower_{degreeofnegative mood than waiting alone. In this}

study,three major conversationcategories weredistinguished: (i)disclosure of

feel-ings (talking about feelfeel-ings,fears,and anxieties) which mightincreasefeelings of

uncertaintyand anxiety bycalling attentionto_{negative feelings, (ii)} problem-solving

I. Winsteadand colleagues usedthisstressorbecauseformost peopleatarantula represents the

prototype of a big, dangerous andscaryspiden A tarantula is not in factaspider butaninsect. In contrast to the articles byWinsteadand colleagues, wewillrefer tothisstressor asatarantula

exchangeofthoughtsandideas(talkingabout how tosolvethe_{problem) whichmight} reduce negative feelings by providing a sense

of

_{control, and (iii) unrelated talk} (discussing topics unrelated to theproblem) whichmightreduce negative feelings by

offeringdistraction fromthe stressor.Again,participantswereasked to sign up with

a same-sexfriend fora study

of'participant

modeling'. At this point, they did not

know thattheexperiment involved approachingatarantula. Upon arrival,the exper-imenter told them thattheywouldbeaskedto guideatarantulathrough amazeafter watchingamodel. Then,theparticipantswereshowntheequipment andthe taran-tula andweregivenanexplanation

ofwhat

theywould have to do. Subsequently, all participantswereaskedwhetherthey agreed tocontinue, which they all did. Next, the participantsweretaken toseparateroomsinwhich theywereasked to fill out a modi-fied version ofthe_{MAACL (Zuckerman}&Lubin, I965). Then, they werelefttogether in the same room forthreeminuteswhiletheexperimenterwascheckingthe equip-ment. Beforethe experimenter left,the participantswereinstructed totalkabouttheir feelings concerning the task withthe_{tarantula (Disclosure}

of

Feelings_{condition), or} about howthey expected tohandle thetask_{(Problem-Solving condition), or}to

limit

theirconversationstotopicsunrelated to thetask_(UnrelatedTalk_{condition). In the} Alone condition,theparticipants waited alone forathree-minute period. During the

waitingperiodallparticipants' utterances were recorded on audiotape,usinga

micro-phone thatwas clearly visible. The participants werealso explicitly toldthattheir

conversationswouldbetapedtoensure that theyfollowedtheconversational instruc-tions. Next, they hadtohandle thetarantula. Thedistance betweenthetarantula and the participants' face was used asabehavioralmeasure of fear. The closer the partic-ipantsbroughtthe tarantulato_{their face, the lower}their fear forthetarantula was assumed tobe. Finally, theparticipantsweredebriefed and asked not totalkabout the studywithotherstudents.

The audio-tapedrecordings of the conversationswererated bytwojudges with respect to thefrequency

of

statements belonging to each of the threeconversational categories. Analysis ofthe frequency data showed that indeed participants talked about what they were instructed to do. The category 'unrelated talk' yielded the highest number

of

statements andthecategory'disclosure

of

feelings' showed the lowest number. Asignificantmaineffect

ofthe

conversation topicwasfound on an-xiety.Anxietyscoreswerehigher inthe Disclosure

of

Feelings andtheAlone condi-tions than intheProblem-Solving andtheUnrelatedTalkconditions.The effects on depression andhostility were not significant. A planned comparison on mood ratings adjusted for pretest ratings showed higher anxiety and depression scores in the Disclosure

of

Feelingsconditionascompared withthe Problem-Solving and Unre-lated Talkconditions.Theprediction thatwaiting withafriend wouldproducelower

partici-ANTICIPATORY STRESS _{SITUATIONS 29}

pants in the Alone condition did keepasignificantlygreater distance fromthe tarantula than the participantsbelonging toanyoftheconversational conditions. Concerning the numberof_{participants who reeled the tarantula}asclosetotheir faceas_possible,

partici-pants in the Problem-Solving and Unrelated Talk_{conditions did this significantly} more often than participants in the Disclosure

of

FeelingsorAlone conditions.

Costanza et al. _(I988) concludedthat talking about feelings andwaiting alone while anticipatingastressfulevent islessbeneficialthantalkingabout solutions to the problemand unrelated topics. There is noadvantageoftalkingabout feelings over waitingalone. Itwas_{speculatedthat problem-solving}and unrelatedtalkconversations

arebeneficialbecausetheformerincreasesone's_{confidence or competence}in_coping

withthe stressfulevent,whilethe latter distractsfrom thinkingabout the stressfulevent.

In athirdstudy, Winstead et al._(I992) examinedhow interacting withafriend as opposed to witha_{strangeraffects negative}moodstates_{and people's actual}

perform-ance in an anticipatorystress_{situation (waiting for one's turn to give an}

extempora-neous speech). Inaddition, the influence ofthe dyad's gender composition

(Same-Sex_{versus Opposite-Sex)}wasexamined.

Participants wereasked to sign up witha same-sexoropposite-sex friend for a

study

of

communications and the media. As in the earlierstudies byWinstead and her colleagues, two subject-pairs were asked toreport at the same time foran exper-imentalsession.Theparticipantswereeitherassigned to their same-oropposite-sex friend or to the same-oropposite-sexstranger fromthe other pair

of

friends. They were takento separatecubicles where they were told that they would have to give a

four-minute_speech,withoutan extensive_preparationandwithoutthe_{possibility of} using_{notes. They were told that the speech}wouldbe_{videotaped and used}as instruc-tion materialinfutureresearch. Furthermore, they were told thattheycouldchoose

one out oftwo topics. At this point, the_{MAACL (Zuckerman & Lubin, I965) was} administrated. Then, the pairs

of

friends orstrangers wereplaced in the same room where they received the instruction to wait while the experimenter checked the equipment. Duringthis four-minuteinteraction period,theparticipantswere video-taped. Thereafter, theyweretaken back tothe separate cubicles andagainfilled out

the questionnaire. Subsequently, participants actuallygavetheirspeech. At the end, they weredebriefedand asked not totalkabout theexperimentwithothers.

No significant maineffects were obtained for type

of

relationship _{(Friend versus} Stranger) or the participants' gender (Male versus Female).Tests

of

simple effects indicated that only for opposite-sex dyads thedepression scores weresignificantly

lower inthe Friendcondition than inthe Strangercondition. Inother words,

opposite-sexfriends reportedlessdepressionthanopposite-sex strangers. Analysisof

frequen-cyscores showed that the gendercomposition ofthe dyads did not affect the occur-rence

of

problem-solving or unrelatedtalk. Friendstalked about relatedtopics more often than_{strangers. Another, and perhaps}more surprising finding was thatfemale friendswereleastlikely to talkabouttheirfeelings whereas opposite-sex friends were

most likely to talk about their feelings. No significant relationships were found

between affectscoresandconversationtopicsalthough discussingrelated topics and disclosure

of

feelings tendedtoreduce negative affect (anxiety and depression).

One explanation forthenon-occurrenceofanadvantageoftalking withawoman over talking with a mancould bethatheterosexual anxietywasaroused inthe inter-actions with anopposite-sexstranger. As inthe second study (Costanza et al., I988),

it

remains unclear whatthe effectswould be

of

_{waiting with}another_personwithout talking to eachother.Theoretically, itispossible thatjust waitingtogether is more beneficial than_havingaconversation.To_{examine this possibility,}acontrolcondition

would beneeded _{in which waiting with} another person occurredwithout _actually

talking toeachother. Another unsolved questioniswhetherwaiting withafriend or

astrangerwould be more beneficial thanwaitingalone.

Winstead et al.'s researchischaracterized byanumberoflimitationsthatprohibit

unequivocal conclusions. Afirstproblem has to do withthe nature ofthe stressful event beinganticipated. Inthe firststudy (Winstead & Derlega, I985),the foresight

ofhandlingasnake was used to evokeanticipatorystress.Althoughnearly everybody

wouldagreethathandlingasnake isastressful event,participants were told that they had to deal withanonpoisonoussnake,thereby reducingthe stressfulnessofthe

situ-ation. The second study (Costanza et al., I988)dealtwithguidingatarantula through

a maze.This tarantula wasplaced in a cartwithopenings in the top and at the four

sides.Throughtheseopening, thetarantula couldextend its legsbutcould notescape.

So, there was no possibility forthe participant to come into direct physical contact

withthe tarantula, as the shortest distance between thetarantula andtheparticipant's face was 23cm. Again, this may have made the situationless stressful. Inthethird study (Winstead et al., I992), participants were told that they hadtodeliveran extem-poraneousspeech.However. they did not have to do soin front ofanactual audience. Instead, they had to givetheirspeechin front ofavideo camera. Moreover, they had achoice between two topics. Taken together, the stressfulness of the threesituations may have beenquite limited. Moreover, thestressful situations thatwereanticipated

in

thefirsttwostudies were not stressorsthat students arelikely tocome across in everyday life.

ANTICIPATORY STRESS _{SITUATIONS 31}

rendercomparisons between thedifferentstudies_{quite difficult. The I985 and I992} studies did not include control conditionsin_{which participants waited alone. In the}

study by Costanza etal. _(I988),theeffects ofthe conversational topicsdiscussed with a friend were examinedfordyadsofsame-sexfriendsbutneitherfor_dyads

of

_strangers

nor fordyadsofopposite-sex friends. However, Winstead et al._CI992)suggest that the gender_{composition ofthe dyad may be}animportantfactorindetermining the help-fulness ofaninteraction. The latter _{studycomprised bothsame-sex dyads and}

oppo-site-sex dyads. Itshowedasmall benefit for_{opposite-sexfriends, but not}forsame-sex

friends.

A thirdandfinal difficulty is that psychological self-report moodmeasuresoften donot correspondwithphysiological_{arousal measures (seesection 2.3).Abetter} in-sightinphysiologicalresponses todifferenttypes

of

affiliation whileanticipating a stressful event may help toclarify howsocial support affects generalhealth and well-being.

Therefore, the questionsthat arise fromthe studies byWinstead and her co-work-ers are: Is _waitingand_{communicating withanother personduring}an_anticipatory

stresssituation (intelligencetestwhichcanpredictacademic performance) beneficial as comparedtowaitingaloneP What arethe effectsofrelationshipand gender compo-sition of the dyad on affectlevels, behavior, andperformance? Can differences be-tweenwaiting withastranger orfriendandwaitingalonebeexplainedby conversa-tionaltopic(problemsolving,talkingabout feelings,talkingabout related topics, and

talkingabout unrelated topics)P Study I, Chapter 3,wasdesignedtoanswer_these

Chapter 3

Study 1: Communicating with a peer

during an anticipatory stress situation

3.1 INTRODUCTION

T'he first aim ofthepresent experiment wastoexaminewhetherduringan anticipa-torystresssituation itishelpful,interms

of

reducingself-reported negative affect, to

wait with someone in the same situation (a peer) as compared to waiting alone.

Second,the studywasdesigned to examine the effects onanticipatorydistressoftype of relationship (friendversus _{stranger) and of the gender composition of the dyad} (same-sex versus opposite-sex).A third goal wastoexamine possible linksbetween conversation topics and self-reported moodor_{changes in mood.}More_{specifically, the} effectswere examined ofsix_{conditions: Problem-focused (discussing the stressful} task at hand and howtosolve_it), Emotion-focused (discussingfeelings related to the stress ful task at_{hand), Problem-related (discussing topics related to the problem),} Situation-related (topics related to theexperimental situation), Unrelated(topics unre-lated to theexperiment orthe_{stressful situation),}and No-Talk (Silence).

Besidestheapplicationofadditionalaffiliation conditions,the present study distin-guishesitselffromthe studies conducted byWinstead and her_{collaborators}

(Costan-za et at.,I988;Winstead&Derlega, I985; Winstead et al., I992)withrespect to (i) the use of amore naturalistic_{stressor, (ii) theregistration ofphysiological}measurements

as stress_{indicators, (iii)} the_{employmentofperformance}measures and_personality

tests, and (iv) theexamination

of

participants' perception oftheexperimental

situa-tion and thewaitingperiod, andoftheircomparisons to theinteractional partnen Since it has beensuggested_(Kulik&_{Mahler, I990) that}the inconsistencyoffindings

on the supportivenessofaffiliation while anticipatingastressful event,mightbe attri-buted to the use

of

unrealisticstressors, itwasdecided to useastressor thatwas_highly

relevant forthe researchpopulation, that is,students. Winstead and hercolleagues

usedasnake(Winstead&Derlega, I985),a_{tarantula (Costanza et al., I988), and}aspeech