General and Relationship-Based Ase Two Constructs Perceptions of Social Support: Better Than One? Gregory R, Pierce ‘Hamilton Irwin G. Sarason and Cottege Barbara R. Sarason University of Washington ‘Two hypotheses derived from a theory of perecived social support were vestigated: relation ship-based perceptions of social support are distinct fom general perceptions of support. and (b) ‘measures ofeach construct conribute uniquely 10 and 116 female undergraduates completed measu the prediedoa of loneliness. Niney-four male es of loveliness and general perceived social support and the Quality of Relationships laveatory anew instrument to assess relatioeship-based pefeeptions of social suppor. coadiet, and depth in specie relationships. General nd relation- ‘ip ased perceptions of socal support were found tobe related, but empirically distinet con structs Relaionship-based percepuoas of support 2nd condict ffom mothers and frends each added to the prediction of lonelinese ater considering the contnbution of general percened ocak suppor. Implications of these Badings for understanding the Perceived sOeial UppOr construct are discussed, [Athough statements that humans are basically social ani- ‘mals are cliché. an important theoreticad question conceras the ways in which people interpret and are influenced by their social interactions. Do social interactions produce a gesalt that 60. SaRhough not a primary issue in tis study, potential sex differ ences were evaluaied in two wave Fist, differences between coreie tions for Men and women were compares for each of the QRI, Pt. ‘SSQ, SPS, and Loneliness sales wnngan alpha leveh of 01 because of the large numberof comparsons Second, mean dilferraces bores” ‘mea and women foreach varable wee tested. Again. an alpha evelof (I was used to evaluate staustcal significance of the compansons. Because the number of comparisons reaching statistical ignsSeance ‘ras leas than expected by chance and because no apparent pstera Wa, ‘revealed by the few statubeally sigaiieamt comparsons, (E T=4IS (nll not be discussed further1932 Table! G. PIERCE, I. SARASON, AND 8, SARASON Factor Loadings for Three-Factor Solution Using Oblique Rotation of Quality of Relaxionskios Inventory (ORI, Social suppor. a on so QR sales Conict Dept ot Text To what extent can you count on tis pean to listen 10 you when you art Very angry at someone ese? ‘To what extent can You tur 1 this person for advice abow probiew? ‘To what extent ean you realy coust 08 tis person to distract you from Your worria when Vou fot Under ses? ‘To what extent could you count 08 this penon for help witha problem? {you wanted to go out and do something his evening. Ow condentaré you that this person would be ‘willing to do something wih you? ‘To what extent could you caunt o0 this person 1o help you if family member very close 1o You died? ‘Townat exieat can you count oo this perio o fre YOu honest feedback even if you might 00 want wo on cc hear? » How angry docs ths perion make you fee!” s How upset does this perso sometimes make you fel? 96 How often docs this person make you fee angry? or ‘Hiaw much do you ange with this penon? =o How often do ou tv ta work hard to avoid conflict with this person? =06 How much would you ike tis Denon to change? oF How much do you have to “give 10” in ths reatimstip? = How much does this person make you fel fully? = =03 -9 3 31 7 Hom signitican is this retasionship in your ife? = 05 How much do you depeod on this peri? 8 How close wll Your retationship be with this persom in 10 years? 2 How postive a role does tut peion play i your fe? ‘ow respanaible do you fel fortis person's well-being? How mach would you my his pene the two of you could mot see or alk with eachother fora month? Ufyou could have ony small number of sal ationshis, how much would you want your contact ‘wih this person to be among thers? How considerate s this perio of your needs? Note Factor correlations: Social Support x Confit r= ~ 40; Social Support x Depth = 61; Confit x Deptn = ~ 03. ‘Them was used inthe QR Soca Support subscale. © tem was ured in the QRI ConBict subscale." Iie was used inthe QRI Depth subscale (8) peoples perceptions of a specific relationship are distinct from their perceptions of other specific retationships, Quality of Past and Current Relationships ‘The correlations berween the QRI and PBI scales indicate a considerable amount of discriminant validity for the QRI scales as measures of distinct aspects of specific relationships (see Table 3). Forexample. compared with the QR father mea- sures. the QRI mother measures were more strongly related 10 the PBI mother messures (¢g,, mother support and raother care.r=.714, p< 001 vs. father support and mother care. r= 406, p <.001). Conversely the QRI father measures were more strongly related to the PBI father measures than were the QRI smother measures (¢4, father support and father care, r= 668, 2.<.001 vs. mother support and father eare,r= 380, p<.001). ‘The ORI friend measures were modestly and consistently re- lated to the PBI mother and father measures. The results also indicate a high degree of congruence be- ‘ween subjects’ retrospective perceptions of the quality af theif ‘early parental relationships with their current perceptions of these relationships based on QRI responses. Subjects who currently experienced high levels of depth and available social support and low levels of interpersonal conilict in each of thear parental relationshipa also reported these relationships to have ‘been caring and affectionate and not overprotective dung childhood. Relationships Between QRI and General Percetved Available Support Scales ‘Tue QRI Support sealé for each relationship category was consistently related to the general perceived available support scales. The average correlation between the QRI Support scales {for mother and father and the general percerved available sup- port measures (SSQ number and SPS total) was.291. The friend support scale showed the strongest relationship to the SSQ ‘Number scale and the SPS total score v= 384 and r= 441,GENERAL AND RELATIONSHIPBASED PERCEPTIONS 1033 Table 2 Descripive Statistics for the Quality of Relationships Inventory Suppor. Conflict. and Depth Scales Categoryisale MW SD__—_Skewness Range Mother Support 3220 0ST 092. 00-400 Contiet 210 Ose 068 109-373 Depth 132 068-12. 00400 Father ‘Support 22 om 08300-4009 Contlier 21s ss Dab 100-382 Dept 317 om 989004400 Friend Support 328056 094 129-400 Conthet, L035 064 1003.66 Depan 237063037. 00-400 Nowe. Subject’ scores for each scale were obtained by computing the ‘mean of thet responses across all tems in the scale All tema were ‘ated on a 4-point Likert seale, respectively p <.001). These results indicate that subjects who perceive a high level of general available social support also perceive high levels of available support within specific rela- tionships. However, the magnitude ofthese astociations which indicated that specific and general social support scales share only between 6.2% and 19.4% of their variance) is consistent with the hypothesis that relationship-specife perceptions of available support are distinct from general perceptions of avail+ able support. ‘Two hierarchical multiple regression equations were com puted to determine the extent to which the QRI Support eales Jointly predicted each of the general perceived available sup port scales. For each equation. a variable coded for subjecs'sex ‘was entered first into the regression equation. In the second step, mother support. father support. and friend support were ‘entered simultaneously into the regression equation. After con tolling for sex differences. the three QRJ Support scales jointly accounted for 19.4% and 24.4% of the vanance in SSQ number ‘and SPS total scores, respectively These results buttress the ‘univariate results by indicating that the QRISuppor scales are ‘ot strongly related to either of the general perceived available support measures. ‘The associations among the QRI Conflict and Depth scales and the general percerved available support measures indicate that general perceptions of available support are also modestly related to feelings of greater security and positivity and less imerpersonal confict within specific relationships. For exam- ple, mother depth was positively related to both SSQ number (= 300, p <.001)and SPS total scores v=.251, p <.001). In general, the QRI mother and friend measures were more strongly related to general perceptions of available support than were the Gather measures. For example, the associations berween SPS total score and friend conilict ¢ = ~ 271, p < (001) and berween SPS total score and mother conflict = '=.247, p <.001) were larger than the association between SPS total score and father conflict (= ~.173, p <.05). The analyses of the QRI and comparison with the two gen- eral support measures indicate three general findings. First, the QRI Support scales assess perceptions of social support related to specific relationships rather than to a general perce tion of social support. For example, the QR I Support scale fora specific retationship was much more strongly related to the Depth and Conflict scales for that relationship than it was 10 the QRI scales tor other relationships. Second, the results also indicate that perceptions of available support wuthin a speciic relationship are strongly related to feelings of security and posi- tivity and negatively to interpersonal conilict in that relation- ship. Finally the findings support the view that relationship- specific perceptions of available support may be distinct from ‘eneral perceptions of available support. The QRI Support scales shared onty moderate amounts (between 6.2% and19.4%) of variance with the general perceived available support mea- sures, Relationship-Specific and General Perceived ‘Available Support and Loneliness ‘The QRI scales and general perceived available support mea- sures were consistently correlated tothe loneliness measure see ‘Table 3), Subjects who perceived high levels of available support from their mother. father, and friend reported less loneliness than did other subjects. Among the QRI Support scales. per- ceptions of support from a friend were expecially strongly re- lated to loneliness (= ~.446, p< 001). This association was significantly larger (p < .001) than the correlation berween mother support and loneliness ¢ = ~230, p <.001) and the correlation between father support and loneliness r= ~ 193, <.05), Subjects who reported high levels of generally avai- able support described themseivesas ess lonely than other sub- jects. SPS total scores showed the strongest relationship (= 641, p<.001). Other aspects of specific relationships were also related ‘0 loneliness. The QRI Conflict and Depth scales for mother and. friend, but not for father. were related to loneliness scores. with subjects who reported high levels of conilict and low levels of epth in their maternal and friend relationships desenibing. themselves as more Joneix With the excepuon of the ORI mether Conflict scale, the QRI friend Conflict and friend Depth scales were more strongly related to loneliness scores, ‘than were the corresponding QRI mother and father scores, (p< 00). Perceived available support, measured either as a general perceptionor asa property of specific relationships, was related to loneliness, The relationship to loneliness was paruicularty strong for general perceptions of available support as measured by the SPS Total Score scale. Greater depth and less conilict in, relationships with mothers and friends were also associated with less loneliness. Predicting Loneliness Erom Perceived Available Support ‘A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses was con- ducted to evaluate the incremental contribuuon to the predic- tion of loneliness made by perceived available support from specific relationships after considering the contribution made by general percerved available support. In these analyses. the incremental contributions of ORI Depth and Conflict scates,1034 G. PIERCE. I. SARASON. AND B, SARASON for each celationship were also evaluated after considering the | contnbutions made by general percewved available support and perceptions of avaiable support from specific relationships, Loneliness scores were used as the dependent variable in 1 || both analyses. A variable coded for subjects’ sex was emtered first into both regression equations to control fot sex differ- ences. Inthe fist regression equation, SSQ number wasentered ‘ext to evaluate the contribution of general perceived available support. The QRI scores were then entered in the following ‘order: (a) mother support. (b) father suppor. (friend support, (d) mother conic. () father contlict. (f) friend conic. (¢) mother depth. (h) father depth, and (i) friend depth. In the second regression equation. SPS total scores were entered after the sex variable was ensered into the equation, The QRI scaies ‘were then tered in the equation in the same order that was used in the first equation. The results of these analyses are reported in Table 4. ‘The gender variable was not a significant predictor in either equation. When the SSQ Number scale was used ro evaluate the contribution made by general perceived available support 19 the prediction of loneliness. it accounted for 13.9% of the vari ance in loneliness scores. Perceptions of available support from mothers and friends made significant incremental contnibu- tions to the prediction of loneliness (1.7%, 9 <.05. and 10.3% P<.001, respectively). The father Support scale did not signif- cantly contribute to the prediction of loneliness scores after the contribution made by mother support scores was considered. When the QRI conflict scores were entered into the equation. ‘both mother conflict and friend condict significantly in creased the amount of variance predicted in loneliness scores (7% p <.05, and 4.5% p <.001. respectively. Neither the father Conflict seale nor any of the QRI Depth scales made an incremental contribution to the prediction of loneliness. The total amount of variance accounted for by all of the indepen- dent variables was 34.0% F(L1, 198) = 9.263, p <.001. ‘When SPS total scores were used to evaluate the contribution ‘made by general perceptions of avatlable support to the predic tion af loneliness after controlling tor sex ofthe subjects. thev accounted for 43.9% (p < 001) of the vanance in loneliness scores. Neither mother support nor father suppor significantly contrituted to the prediction of loneliness. However. friend support did make a significant incremental contribution (5.8%. 2 < O02), Of the QRI Conflic and QRI Depth scales, friend ‘condlict made a significant incremental contnibution to the t i vison Se, i é The model that guided these analyses suggests thatthe impact of one's mother vs pnmary because of her iongerm induence on hild- ‘aning experiences and her continued role as 2 source of support {hroughout adolescence. The role of the father. although pernaps ess central than the motber' beeause of histypcali lesser invowvertent in 1 ey 3 childcare actvities. i stl Tabatamuuah because of the lerath of tne it Eig Gung which the relationship has been maintained. The potential im- ae § Ep} | BL mmetveenuconateresa beret napentntof conto zi a2 ef tion made by parents because friendships for many late adolescents aut BPEETE| 2° SS Gite ie soca newer sabia ny te oueme et = ‘aE. se ixece| 72 ended family network» and reiest adolescems choices reanrgi® de- 50 ESsans) ‘sired relationship pariners. whereas familial refationships are largely aiaiel an zoe] ZS imherted (Procidano & Heller, 19831.GENERAL AND RELATIONSHIPBASED PERCEPTIONS Table 4 Two Hierarchical Multiple Regressions Evaluating Contribution of General and Relationship-Based Perceptions of available Support tothe Prediction of Loneliness Independent wanable H ae Sex 003 $0 number 89 QRE mother support ‘O17 RI father suppor 02 (QR frend suppor 103, QRI mother condit O16 QRI father conlet, 08 QR fiend condiet oss 13.5600 QRI mother denen 006 132 ORI fater depth 063 oor oa ORI friend sepia 067 02 063 Rag = 338 AIL, 198) = 9.26008 sex oso 003 073, SPS total ~'962 339 sto QRI mother suppor =023, ‘900 017 ORI ther suppor = 002 ‘000 0.00 ORI fread support 208 035 12g ORI mother contict 60 003 106 ORK father conic, = 083 00s 208 OR trend contiet 134 ‘20 aie ORE mother depen 070 02 037 ORI father depin ons ‘900 out RE friend depth 0st 02 ost Rha * S01, ALL, 198) = 28.0600" Nove. Dependent variable = onetiness. N= 210:Sex = varablecoded for students sex. with male = 0 and female = 1: QRI = Quality of Relationships inventory: SPS = Sacral Provisions Scale: SSQ = Social Sepport Questionnaie:3~ standaraized regression coetcieno vart- ble when entered into the equation: r=. =the percentage of vane dance accounted for by variable when i iwEmered into the Tegression {9URLON a TRALSED: Fug = Fale associated with the rane a Sep. Rig = the tral amount of variance predicted wunihy By all of ‘he incepengent vanables entered nto the Fezression equation, Vat ables were entered ito the equation is the following order: $ex.10) SQ Number or SPS total.) ORI mother support. 1d) ORI fiber Suppor. e) ORI friend suppor. f) ORK mother confit. (8) ORI fae ther conc cm) ORI friend condiet. 1) QRK mother depeh. ()) QRE father depth, and (k) ORI friend depth spe ds p<0l. p< 001, prediction of loneliness scores when SPS total scores were used ‘assess general perceptions of social support (2.0% p <.Ol). ‘These results indicate that the QRI scales make a consider- able contribution to the prediction of lonetiness after consider- ing the potential role of general percened available support measured in two different ways. In particular. these results sug> {gest that perceptions of available support and contlict from ‘mothers and friends may be especially important. Because the QRI friend measures were entered after the QRI ‘mother and QRI father measures, itis clear that the contnibu- ‘wons made by the QRI friend measures are additional to those made by the QRI mother and QRI father measures, However. because the QRI mother measures were entered before the QRI ‘ather measures. it was not possible to determine {rom these 1035 analyses whether the contribution made by the QRI mother measures rellects shared variance ie, 3 common racton with the QRI father measures. To determine whether the cortnbu- tion made by the QRI mother measures was additional to the contribution made by the QRI fauber measures. both of the ‘multiple regression analyses described above were repeated. reversing the order of entry for moxher and father variables. ‘When SSQ number scores were emered into the equation to evaluate the contribution of general perceived available sup- port, QRI father support scores did noc coutribute mgnificantly {0 the amount of variance predicted in loneliness scores. [a addition. the QRI mother support scores no longer predicted. ‘the loneliness scores when the QRI father support scores were ‘entered before the QRI mother support scores. Because the order of entry of the mother and father scores did not bave an impacton the evaluation of the cowgribution of the QRI friend Scores. the contribution of QRI friend scores remained the same. Friend support made a significant contnibution 10 the prediction of loneliness scores (10.3%, p <.O01). The mother conflict score still contributed significantly (1.3% p <.05) to the prediction of loneliness scores after father conilict twhici ddid not make a significant conmbusion was entered into the equation. As before. the friend eoattict meature continued 10 add to the prediction of lonelinesr scores 4.5%, p< JU). In the second equation, when the SPS Total scale was used as the dependent variable instead ofthe SSQ Number scale. none of the QRI mother scores made asignifeant contribution to the prediction of loneliness after the respective QRI father score was entered first into the equation. This result is not surprising. in the light of the fact that in the fist serves of hierarchical multiple regression analyses. the SPS Total scale appeared 10 ceount for the associations berween the QRI mother scores and the Loneliness scale. Because reversing the order of entry for the QRI mother and QRI father scores did not affect the order of entry for the QRI friend scores. friend suppeet and friend contlict continued 1o conmnbate to the predicnoaof lone- liness scores 5.8% p <.001, and 20% p <0. respectvely Two additional hierarchical mainpie regression equauons were computed to determine whecber the contribution made by the QRI Support scales redected varrance that was anique 10 ‘these scales or to variance shared berween these scales and the QRI Depth sezies In both equanoms.a variable coded for sub- {ects sex was entered fist into the equations to control for ex ‘differences. In one equation. SSQ mamber scores were entered in the second step In the other. SPS total scores were entered the second step. For both equations, the QRI measures were ‘hen entered in the following order. a) mother depth. (b) father depth, (9 friend depth. (d) mother condict,( father conflict, (0 ftiend conilic,(g) mother support. (h) father support, and (0 friend support. The results closely paralleled those reported above. with the QRI Support scales making stnkingly similar ‘contributions to those obtained when the QRI Support scales were entered before goth the QRI Coudict and ORI Depts scales. These results suggest that refauonship-specitic percep ‘ions of available support, and notsimply a general pereepuon ‘of specific relationships as postive. cosinibute tothe prediction of personal adjustment. ‘The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses strongly suggest that nercepuonsof available support trom spe-1036 cific relationships continue to add to the prediction of loneli- ness after accounting for the contnbutign made by general per- ceived available support. This finding was strengthened by ts ‘eplication with two diferent measures of general perceptions Of available suppor. In their relationship to the Loneliness scale. the QRI scales appear to share more variance in common wath the SPS Total seaie than with the SSQ Number scale. The contribution to the prediction of iontliness made by percep- ‘ions of condiet, but wot available support. from mothers ap. pears 10 be independent of the contribution made by fathers, when the SSQ Number scale is used to evaluate the association berween loneliness and general perceived available support. Wheo SPS total scores are used to evaluate the relationship berween loneliness and general perceived available support, neither perceptions of svailable support nor conflict from ei ther mother or from father significantly contribute 10 the pre- diction of loneliness. However, both QRI friend support and, friend conilict make 2 significant contribution, ‘ussion This study provided strong support for two hypotheses de- rived from the perceived social support model proposed by Pierce et al. (1990): (a) perceptions of available support from, specific relationships are distinet from general perceptions of available support and (b) these two aspects of perveived social support appear to have separate and distinct impacts on per- sonal adjustment, This conclusion rests on findings from two sources. First, cofrelations between each of the QRI Support scales and the general perceived available support measures were only moderate. indicaung that they do not rele strongly related constructs. Second, results from multiple regression analyses showed that general perceptions of available support and perceptions of available support from specific relation- ships each made a significant, unique contribution to the pre- diction of personal adjustment. Results from these analyses also showed that several specific relationships each made a "unique contribution tothe prediction of loneliness. asdid mult ple qualitaive features leg. perceived available support and interpersonal contlicd of each of these relationships. Perceived Social Support and Loneliness |A major finding of the present study concerns the indepen ent contnbutions made by each aspect of percerved available Support to the Prediction of a measure of loneliness. This find- ‘ng sas strengthened by the use af twa diferent measures of general perceptions of available support, In each of two analy- ‘ea, perceptions of available support from specific relationships independently predicted loneliness even after controlling for seneral perceptions of available support using either measure. This finding is particularly noteworthy given the high correla- tions berween each of the measures of general percerved avail- able support and the Loneliness scale. In this sample. the corre- lation between the SSQ and the Loneliness scale (r= ~ 37) was lower than in previous samples. which tvpically have been in the ~ 4 10 ~6 range (eg. see Pierce etal. 1988: B. R. Sarason et 1.1987), Among the QR scales stiend Support was the most consistent predictor of self-reported loneliness. a finding that G. PIERCE, |. SARASON, AND B. SARASON parallels results from Cutrona’ (1982) longnudinal study of loneliness among college studenss. ‘One reason for these substanual associations may reside in ‘the nature of the construct of loneliness. Several investigators, have hypothesized that loneliness may reflect 2 personality characteristic (Peplay & Perlman. 1982: Shaver. Furman, & Buhrmester. 1985: Young, 1982) and as such, sy be part of a coberent personality constellation that includes both feelings ‘hat one’s sacial ueeds have gane unmet and lack of confidence. sm the availabilty of others to meet these needs in the future. Another explanation might be that the measures of general perceptions of available support and loneliness focus on global Perceptions regarding the nature of the social environment. whereas the QR scales focus instead on perceptions related t0 specific social ties. The typically smaller corvelations between the QRI scales and the loneliness measure compared with the ‘general perceived available support scales, therefore. may re- fect differences in their emphasis on micro-versus macro-Ievel Perceptions of social relationships. Finally these results may ‘elect the nature of the instructions given 1 subjec in com~ pleting the QRIs. Subjects were asked to describe ther relation- ships with others that were deemed to be important. but not necessarily positive, to investigate the contribution of other qualitative features (eg, interpersonal conilicd of specific reta- ‘oaships, The contribution of the QRI scales might, therefore. hhave been greater had subjects been asked to complete QRIS ‘only for relationships that were evaluated as primarily sup- portive. kis interesting to note that the relative contribution of the QRI scales to the prediction of loneliness was less when the SPS ‘Total scale Was used as the measure of general perceived avail- able support than when the SSQ Number scale was used. This ‘may have occurred simply because there was less variance for the QRI scales to predict when the SPS total scores. compared with the SSQ number scores. were used in the regression equa tion, This Tesuh may aiso redest the greater similarity ta the response formats used by the QRI and SPS scales compared with the SSQ. For the QRI and SPS scales. respondents rate the degree 10 which either a specific person of their entire social network. respectively. is likely to provide a specified type of ‘support The only difference is in the specificity of the referent to which the judgments are made. In contrast, the SSQ requires respondents to list individuals to whom they could (urn for a specific type of support. Rather than beginning with a soctal referent and then making judgments about a specific type of support. as with the QRI and the SPS, subjects responding to the SSQ items begin with a type of social support and then ‘make judgments concerning specie social referems. ‘Regardless of the reason for differences in the magnitude of the observed associations, the fact that the QRI scales contin- ued 10 predict loneliness after paytialing out variance asso- ciated with general perecpmens of available supportemptasizes the robust, independent link berween relationship-based per- ceptions of available support and loneliness. These results sug- geat that previous studies establishing a link between either general or relationship-based perceptions of available support and personal adjustment probably have underestimated the po- tential contribution of percerved available support by failing toGENERAL AND RELATIONSHIPBASED PERCEPTIONS consider simultaneously the contribution of both aspects of per~ ceived available support. General and Relationship-Based Perceptions of Support Findings from ihe present study also emphasize that people's beliefs concerning the availability of support within specific ‘elationshipsare distinct from their general perceptionsofavail- able support. For example. the two general perceived available support measures were only moderately related to the relation- ship-based measures of perceived available support. The direc- tiom of causality cannot be determined with the preseat cross sectional data set. The associations probably reflect rourual, interactive effects and are consistent with several theoretical formulations emphasizing the role of working models in the development of current social ties (Bowiby, 1980: Horney, 1950). However. this does not mean that relationships inevita- bly develop (or fail to develop) exactly as people's general work- ing models might predict that they should. This point follows from the fact that one potential relationship parucipant’s gen- eral working models are not the sole operative factor in the development and maintenance of his or her relationship with another person (Kenny (988; Park & Waters. 1988). Instead. the other person's working models also contribute to ongoing interactions. The relationship that unfolds isa product of both ‘persons’ working models and the fit that exists between their ‘working models and their resulting social behavior. Given the ‘multidetermined nature of dyadic relationships, itis not sur- prising, then. that perceptions of available support within spe- ‘if relationshipsare distinct from general perceptions of avail- able support. ‘These findings are consistent with the view that an individ ual’ perceptions of support within a specific relationship re~ fect unique experiences with the other person that give rise 10 distincuve expectations regarding the likelihood of receiving support from that person see also Cutrona. 1989), Social inter- actions between the focal person and the other people with whom the individual interacts lead to heterogeneous relation- ships that differ in their supportiveness, In the present study, results from multiple regression analyses emphasized this point by demonstrating that percepuons of support within each of several specific relationships independently contributed t0 the prediction of loneliness, even when either of two general per- ceived available support measures was considered first 10 con- trol for this aspect of social support. Accumulating evidence buttresses the hypothesis that gen- eral perceptions of available support reflect a personality char- acteristic. or working model, which we call the sense of support (BR. Sarason, Pierce. & Sarason, 1990: B. R. Sarason et al. 1991: 1. G, Sarason. Sarason. & Pierce. 1990). The sense of sup- portencompasses the belief that one is loved, valued, and.cared for.and thatothers would gladly do what theycan tohelpregard- less of personal circumstances (I. G. Sarason. Sarason. & Pierce, 1990). Findings from the present study linking retro- ‘pectiveaccountsofearty parental relationships tocurrent work ing models concerning the nature of supportive relationships are consistent with Bowiby’s(1980) hypothesis that people who. as children, expenenced relationships with their parents that ‘were caring, affecuonate, and not overprotective developed 1037 working models of others as available t provide support. More studies. especialy those using longitudinal designs are needed to explore the developmental antecedents of working models related to social support. Directions for Future Research Results from this study point to several directions for re- search on social support. The present results establishing sepa~ rate links between general and relationship-mpecific percep- tions of available support. on the one hand, and loneliness. on the other, provided a conservative test of our hypothesis con- cerning their independent contributions. Further research is needed to extend these results to other aspects of personal ad- justment (eg, depression and somatic symptoms. ‘One practical implication of the present study concerns the ‘need to operationalize perceptions of available support both a8 a general attribute and as a property of specific relationships. Although several reliable measures are available to assess gen- eral perceptions of available support (eg, SSQ and SPS), less effort has been directed toward developing psychometrcally sound instruments to assess perceptions of available support from specific relationships. Results from the presrat study sug- feat that the QRI measures perceptions of available support, interpersonal confict. and depth stemming from specific reta- ‘tionships. For many research purposes the QRI may provide a ‘convenient method for quantifying thexe properties of specific relationships. The results from multiple regression analvses suggesting that the QRI Depth scales did not account for addi- tional variance in loneliness after the other QRI scales had been considered may indicate that this aspect of speci rela- tionships may need further conceptual and theoretical deveiop- ‘ment to establish its merit asa distinct feature of personal rela- tionships. ‘The present findings also call attention to the need to con- sider both positive and negative aspects of potenpally support- ive relationships. We found that interpersonal contlict was 2 Frequently occurring feature of potentially supporune reiation- ships, This finding is consistent with other observations indi ‘cating that negative aspects of relationships are distinc from positive features (Hirsch. 1979) and that interpersonal condlict ‘may play an especially important role in personal adjustment (Hobfoll & London. 1986; Pagel etal. 1987: Rook. 1984). These findings suggest that although two relationships may be equally supportive. they may differ substantually as sources of distress. ‘ person may be confident that he or she could turn toenther of, two friends for support. but might feel ambivalent about asking one friend for support because of anticipated feelings of in- debtedness or guilt, while feeling completely comiortable seek ing support from the other friend. These results make clear that ‘theories of social support must focus on relationships not only as sources of help and assistance but also on other important Features of these relationships (eg. interpersonal condlico) that influence the impact of giving and gertng support. ‘Theories of social support need to account both for the role ‘of personality characteristics and personal relationships in per- ceptions of available support. We also need to kaow more about he link between personality characteristics and personal rela- tionships and their impact on one another. Althougha primary1038 ‘im of this study was to demonstrate that general and relation- ship-specife perceptions of available support are distinct. we feel itis important not to lose sight of the fact that they show ‘moderate relations with one another and need to be considered as related aspects in a broader theory of social relationships. Further research is needed not only to explore the processes that shape the distincuveness of specific interpersonal relation- ships, but also to investigate the mechanisms by which both aspeet of perecned available suppor. may induenee ack other. Our findings also call attention to the need to explore the developmental antecedents of perceptions of available support. Results from this study and others suggest that one important, source of individual differences appeafs to be rooted in early social relationships, particularly with parents (Flaherty & Rich ‘man, 1986; BR. Sarason et al. 1990: . G. Sarason etal. 1986). Longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the nature of these associationsand the mutual induences exerted by the child and hisor her parentson the development oftheir relationships and. the childs personality Perhaps the most important implication of the present study is that general perceptions of available support and relation- ship-based attributions concerning support may impact loneli= ness, and perhaps other facets of personal adjustment, through dlifferem pathways. Comprehensive theories of social support are needed that specify causal pathways to account for these observed associations. In addition, experimental and observa tional studies are needed to clarify the nature of the causal cffeets and to determine the role of personality characteristics, ‘and specific relationships in promoting social support. References Bernstein. H. & Teng. G. (1989). Factoring tems and factoring scales aie different: Spuntousevidence for multidimensionality due totem categorizauon, richolorical Bulletin, 08. 467-77 Bowib. J 1990), uachment and Lose 5, Lost: Sadness and depres ‘Hon. New York: Baste Books. Brown. G. W. Bhrolchain, M. N. & Harms, T0975), Social class and. psychiatric disturbance among women inan urban population. Soc- ology 9. 225-254, (Cohen. 5. Mermelsei, R Kamarck. T. & Hoberman. H. (1985). ‘Measuring the functional components of social support. Ia. G. ‘Sarason dB R. Sarason (Ed), Social support: Theory research and ‘applications 1pp. 75-94). Dordrecht. The Netherlands: Martinus Nihot. Cutrona. C. E. (1982). Transitions wo college: Loneliness and the pro cessofsocialagjustment In LA. Pepiau & D, Periman (Eds), Lane lines: sourcebook of curren heory research and therapy pp. 291— 301), New York: Wiley CCutrona. C. E. (1989), Ratings of social support by adolescents and adult informanuc Degree of correspondence and prediction of de- presswe symptoms Journal of Pesonalitv and Social Prvcholony 57, 123-130, CCutrona.C. E_ & Russell. (1987). The provisions of social relation- ‘ships and adapeauon 0 stresa. In WH. Jones & D.Periman (Eda), Advances m personal relationships (Vol. |. pp. 37-67). Greenwich, CT IAL Pres. Flaherty, 1.A.§ Richman, J. (1986). Efe of childhood relation- ‘shipson the adults capaci to lorm socal supports American Jour- ral of Povchiary 143.851-855. G. PIERCE, |, SARASON, AND B. SARASON Henderson. S. Byrne. D.G. & Dunean-iones. P. (1981), Newous and ‘the socal environment. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Henderson 8. Byrne, OG. Duncaa-fones, PScott.R. & Adcock. S. (1980), Social eationships adverstyand neurons A study ofastoc- ations ina geoerl population sample. Bish Jounal of Psvehiira, 136, 574-583, Hirsch. B (1979). Prychological dimensionsofsocial neworks: A mule timethod analysis Amencan Journal of Community Prrchology 7. 263-277. Hobfoll. E. & London. P. (1986). The reationship of se-concent {34 social supporto emotional distress among women during vat, Journal of Social and Clinical PryehologX 12. 87-100. Horney K. (1950). Newosis and human growth: The siruggle wand selfrealizauon, New York: Noro. Howse, S.(1981). Work sires and social support. Reading, MA: Ad- ison Wesley, Huusaini, BA. Nef, 1. A. Newbrough, .R. & Moore, M. C. (1982), ‘The stres-buferng role of social support ane personal confidence among rural marned. Jounal of Community Psychology 10, 409= 6, Kenmy D.A. (1988). The analysis of data from two-person relation- ships. In §. Duck (Ed), Handbook of personal reatonships:Theora research. and inervenions (9p. $7-97). New York: Wiley. Main, M. Kaplan, N. & Cassidy J. (1985). Secury in infancy. child- ‘hood, and adulthood: A move tothe level of representation. ono- sraphs ofthe Society for Research in Child Development, $0, 66-104, Pagel, M.D. Endy WW. & Becker. 1. (1987), Social networks: We get ‘by with (and in spite of) alte help from our fiends. Journal of Personality and Social Prychology. 53. 793-804, Park, K. A. & Waters, E (1988), Traits and relationships in develop- ‘mental perspective nS. Duck (Ed), Handbook of prsonalrelauion- ‘hips: Theory research. and interventions (pp. 161176). New York Wile Parker. G_ Tupling, H. & Brown. L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. Britsh Journal of Medical Psyeholonx 52, 1-10. Paykel, ES Emms EM. Fletcher, 1. & Rassaby E. 5. (1980). Life ‘vents and social support in puerperal depression. British Journal ut Payeholony, 136, 339-386 Peplau. L.A.(1985). Loneliness researc: Basic conceotsand ndings tn 1G. Sarason d& BR, Sarason 14s), Socal supper: Theor re: search and applications (pp. 269-26). Dordrecht. The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhofl. Pepa. L.A. & Periman, 2 (Eds) (1982) Loneliness: sourcebook of ‘Curren theore research and therapy. New York: Wiley Pierce, GR, Sarason, B. R. & Sarason, |. (1990). Integrating social suppon perspectives: Working models personal relationships and, ‘stuabonal factors In S. Duck (Ed) with R.C. Silver Personal rela= ‘uonships and social supporttpp.173~189), Newbury Pak. CA: Sage. Pierce G R_Sarasoa, I. & Sarason, BR. (1988. August, Qualivof "mlatonships and socal Support as personality characienstcs. Paper presented atthe 6th Annual Convention of the American Psycho- logical Assocation. atlanta. GA. Procidana, M. E~ & Helle. K, (1983). Measures of perceived social ‘oport from friends and from family: Three validation studies, ‘Amancan Journal of Community Pryeholog 111-24. Rook. K.C. (1984). The nega side of social interacion: Impact on paycholovical well-being Journal of Personality and Social Psvchal- ok 46 1057-1108, Russell, D. Peoau, L.A. & Cutrona, C. E(1980). The revised UCLA ‘Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personaiey and Social Psvcholony, 9. 472180. Sarason. B. R Pierce. G. R. & Sarason 1 G. 1990), Socal suppor: The sense of acceptance and the role of relationships. In BR. Sara-GENERAL AND RELATIONSHIP2ASED PERCEPTIONS son. lG. Sarason. & G. R. Piere (Eds). Socal suppor dn interac nal ew tp. 97-128). New tack: Wile Sarason, 8. Piere. G, R.Shearin E.N_ Sarason. 1.G."Watd. A 4 Poppe. 1991). Perceived socal support and working models of selfand actual others, Journal of Perzanaity and Social PsychOlog 60, 273-287, Sarason. BR. Shearin, EN. Piereé.G.R. & Sarason, I, G. (1987) Inuerretaionships of social support measures Theoretical and prac- ical implications, Journal of Personality and Social Prycholoex 52. SB, Sarason, |G. Levine, H. M_Basharn.R. B_& Sarason. BR. (1983). ‘Assessing social support: The Social Support Quesuonnaine. Jour ‘al of Personality and Social Psychology. 44.127-139, Sarason. IG. Pietee.G.R. & Sarason. B.R(1990).Socialsupportand Smeractional processes: A triadic hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship. 7. 895-06, Sarason, |, G. Sarason, BL R_ & Pierce. GR. (1990). Socal support: ‘The search for theory. Journal of Socal and Clinical Prychoi9gx 9. nr, Sarason, j.G.Saruon, BR. Shearin, EN, (1986). Socialsuppor.as an individual diffrence variable: is stability ora, and relational aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Peychology. 50, 845-855. Sarason, IG. Sarason, BR. Shears. EN. & Pierce. GR. (1987). A brief measure of social support: Practical and theoretical implica- tions Joumat of Soci! and PervanalReianonshibs 4. 497-810. Shaver. Furman, W, & Buhrmester.D (1985). Transtions a coheye: 1039 Network changes social skills. and loneliness In: Duck & D fs ‘man (Eds), Understancine personal reauonsnips: A nerace- ary approach (pp 192-220). Newbury Park. CA: Sage Stephens. M.A. P, Kinney. M_ Noms, WK.& Ritebie S WAGET Social nerworks as assets and liabilities in recover from stroke Dy erat patients. Pyeholony and Aging, 2.125-129, Vaux, A. (1982). Measures of three levels of focal svlpor: Resource. Dehavor. ard felines Unpublished manuscript. Warheit. G1 (1979) Life evens copine, surest. and depres jem tomatology American Jounal of Prychiairy 136, 802-507. ‘Weeks D.G. Michela. L. Pepi. LA. & Bragg, M.E.(1980), The relation berween louelisess and depression: A fructura equation analysis Journal of Personaiy and Social Prychology 39. 1238 1244, ‘Weiss, R.S (1975). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Ran (EA), Doing uno others (pp. 17-26). Englewood Clif, NI: Presnee- Hal Young, J. E (1982). Loneliness, depression and copnitive checrpy: ‘Theory and applicanon. In L.A. Peplau cD Pertman (Eds), Lone ess: sourcebook of current theory esearch and therapy (pp. 379 405), New ore: Wiley. Received September 28. 1990 Revision received February 5.1991 ‘Accepted June 7.1991 = Call for Nominations for Psychology Public Policy and Law The Publications and Communications (P&C) Board has opened nominations for the editor- ship of Prychology, Public Policy and Law. a new journal in development by APA. The journal ‘wil include articles that integrate and critically evaluate existing areas of research and original large-scale empirical research with significant public policy and legal implications. r ‘Candidates must be members of APA and should be available to start receiving manuscripts in the late spring of 1992. Please none that the P&C Board encourages more participation by _members of underrepresented groups in the publication process and would particularly wel- come such nominees. To nominate candidates, prepare a statement of one page of less in ‘support of each candidate. Submit nominations t0 Howard E, Egeth Department of Psychology Johns Hopkins University Charles & 34th Streets Baltimore, Marviand 21218 ‘Other members ofthe search committee are Shari S. Diamond. J. Thomas Grisso, and Felice Levine. Fiewt review of nominations will begin December 15.1991.Quality of Relationships (QRI) Please use the scale below to describe your relationship with Notatall tite Quitea bit Very much A B e D - To what extent could you turn to this person for advice about problems? . How often do you need to work hard to avoid conflict with this person? To what extent could you count on this person for help with a problem? How upset does this person sometimes make you feel? To what extent can you count on this person to give you honest feedback, even if you might not want to hear it? How much does this person make you feel guilty? How much do you have to "give in” in this relationship? To what extent can you count on this person to help you if a family member very close to you died? How much does this person want you to change? 10. How positive a role does this person play in your life? 11, How significant is this relationship in your life? 12. How close will your relationship be with this person in 10 years? 13, How much would you miss this person if the two of you could not see or talk with each other for amonth? 14, How critical of you is this person? 15. If you wanted to go out and do something this evening, how confident are you that this person would be willing to do something with you? 16. How responsible do you feel for this person's well-being? 17. How much do you depend on this person? 18. To what extent can you count on this person to listen to you when you are very angry at someone else? 19. How much would you like this person to change? 20. How angry does this person make yeu feel? 21. How much do you argue with this person? 22. To what extent can you really count on this person to distract you from your worries when you feel under stress? 23. How often does this person make you feel angry? 24. How often does this person try to control or influence your life? 25, How much more do you give than you get frem this relationship?” ‘QRI SCORING INSTRUCTIONS Support Seale Items 1,3, 5,8, 15, 18, 22 Conflict Scale Items 2, 4, 6,7, 9, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24,25 Depth Scale Items 10, 11, 12, 13, 16,17 Scoring: ‘Not at all little Quite a bit Very much ‘Sum scores for each scale separately and divide score total by the number of items in the scale.