This article was downloaded by: [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek]

On: 07 January 2014, At: 05:27

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

Basic and Applied Social

Psychology
Publication details, including instructions
for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbas20

Effects of Different
Sources of Social support
and Social Conflict on
Emotional Well-Being
Antonia Abbey , David J. Abramis & Robert
D. Caplan
Published online: 07 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Antonia Abbey , David J. Abramis & Robert D. Caplan
(1985) Effects of Different Sources of Social support and Social Conflict on
Emotional Well-Being, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6:2, 111-129

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0602_2

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of

all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content.
Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions
and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by
Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of
information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use
of the Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014
 BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1985,6 (2) 111-129
Copyright @ 1985, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Effects of Different Sources of Social

Support and Social Conflict on Emotional
Well-Being
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

Antonia Abbey
Pennsylvania State University

David J. Abramis
Robert D. Caplan
Institute for Social Research
University of Michigan

Three questions regarding social support and social conflict are examined in
this article: (a) Which sources of social support are most strongly related to
emotional well-being?, (b) What is the relationship between social support and
social conflict?, and (c) Which sources of social conflict are most strongly re-
lated to emotional well-being? Three versions of a questionnaire were devel-
oped and examined with data from 168 undergraduates. Each version was iden-
tical except for the source of social support and social conflict the respondent
was asked to describe. Respondents were asked how much support and conflict
they experienced with respect to either people in your personal life, some one
person, or the person closest to you. The theoretical implications of each of
these question formats are described. Results indicate that social support and
social conflict were not significantly correlated except when respondents were
referring to the person closest to them. Social support significantly correlated
with affect and quality of life when respondents referred to people in their lives.
Social conflict significantly correlated with the same outcome measures when
respondents referred to people and some one person. Social support buffered
the effects of social conflict on affect and life quality when respondents referred
to some one person. The theoretical and methodological implications of these
findings are discussed.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Antonia Abbey, Department of Psychology, Penn-
sylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.
 112 ABBEY, ABRAMIS, CAPLAN

A large number of researchers have described the beneficial effects of social

support (Caplan, 1979; Cobb, 1976; Lieberman, 1982; Sarason, Levine,
Basham, & Sarason, 1983; Williams, Ware, & Donald, 1981). Victims of a
variety of life crises, including job termination, physical disability, malig-
nant disease, bereavement, and rape appear to adjust better when they per-
ceive others as being supportive (Burgess & Holmstrom, 1978; Carey, 1974;
Cobb & Kasl, 1977; Dyk & Sutherland, 1956; Helmrath & Steinitz, 1978;
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

Jamison, Wellisch, & Pasnau, 1978; Kelman, Lowenthal, & Muller, 1966;
McCahill, Meyer, & Fischman, 1979; Weisman, 1976). Although this exten-
sive literature indicates the value of social support, many questions remain
unanswered about the specific aspects of social relations that produce posi-
tive or perhaps even negative effects. This study addresses three of these is-
sues: (a) Which sources of social support are most strongly related to emo-
tional well-being? (b) What is the relationship between social support and
social conflict? (c) Which sources of social conflict are most strongly related
to emotional well-being?
For the purposes of this study, Kahn and Antonucci's (1980) definition of
social support was used. They suggest that social support is composed of
three elements: affect, affirmation, and aid. Affect involves expressions of
respect or love. Affirmation is the acknowledgment of the appropriateness of
individuals' behaviors or attitudes. Aid involves direct assistance, such as
loaning people money or helping them with their work.

THE SOURCE OF SOCIAL SUPPORT

Social support can be provided to individuals by a variety of people, such as

a spouse, child, parent, friend, therapist, minister, or co-worker. To obtain a
thorough understanding of how much support individuals receive would re-
quire an assessment of how much affect, affirmation, and aid they obtained
from every person whom they perceived as supportive. This measurement ap-
proach has been used by several researchers (e.g., Kahn & Antonucci, 1980;
Veroff, Kulka, & Douvan, 1981; Wellman, 1981). Although this thorough
mapping of an individual's social network is valuable, it is clearly time
consuming. In many studies, the investigator may wish to assess respondents'
levels of social support, but may not be able to devote the time to measure-
ment that an exhaustive network approach requires. In these situations, on
what source or sources of support should the researcher focus? In this article,
three possible sources of support are considered: social support frompeople,
from some oneperson, and from the person closest to an individual. Each ap-
proach represents a different hypothesis about the relationship between so-
cial interactions and well-being.
 SOCIAL SUPPORT AND SOCIAL CONFLICT 1 13

Asking individuals how much support they receive overall from the people
in their lives represents what might be called "the total network hypothesis."
To predict emotional well-being, it may not be necessary to know who is pro-
viding the social support or how many people are providing the support, as
long as respondents' average level of social support is assessed. The critical
aspect of social support may be the total amount of support individuals re-
ceive; it may not be necessary to know which people are providing them with
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

how much support (Caplan, Robinson, French, Caldwell, & Shinn, 1976).
This conceptualization of support requires individuals to think about how
much support they receive from each important person in their lives and per-
form some mental arithmetic to arrive at an overall level.
Asking individuals how much support they receive from some one person
represents what might be called "the one person is enough hypothesis." It
may not matter how many people respect or listen to an individual as long as
at least one person does. This hypothesis has been suggested by other re-
searchers (Kahn & Antonucci, 1980; Lowenthal & Haven, 1968; Raphael,
1977). Krasner, Meyer, and Carroll (1978), who studied the adjustment of
rape victims, reported that as long as at least one person in the victim's social
life allowed her to vent her feelings, then she was able to cope more
successfully.
Asking individuals how much support they receive from the person closest
to them represents what might be called "the critical supporter hypothesis."
Many investigators have focused on support from a spouse only, presuming
that support or lack of support from this individual is most predictive of
strains such as anxiety or depression (Brown & Harris, 1978; Weissman &
Paykel, 1974). It may not help to have siblings or co-workers show respect
and love if one's spouse does not.
In order to determine if one source of social support is more beneficial than
others, the relationship between social support and mental health outcomes,
such as negative affect and quality of life, need to be examined. It is impor-
tant to examine both the main effects of social support on emotional well-
being and its moderating or buffering effects. Social support may directly in-
fluence affect and well-being by providing individuals with a sense of
self-worth and a valued social identity (Thoits, 1982). Social support may
moderate the effects of stress on affect and well-being by providing individu-
als with information that improves coping strategies, by providing encour-
agement to continue coping attempts, or by providing reassurances that re-
duce the sense of threat (Wortman, 1984). Although the buffering hypothesis
is popular, the evidence that exists thus far is conflicting (see Kessler &
McLeod, in press; LaRocco, House, & French, 1980; and Thoits, 1982, for
detailed discussions of this issue), at least partly because of a variety of meth-
odological and conceptual problems with this research including a failure by
 114 ABBEY, ABRAMIS, CAPLAN

some researchers to make distinctions between various types and sources of

support.

SOCIAL CONFLICT

If social support represents the potentially positive aspects of interpersonal

Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

relations, such as expressions of positive affect and affirmation, then social

conflict represents the potentially negative aspects of these relations, such as
expressions of negative affect and disconfirmation. How are individuals'
lives affected when their significant others argue with them, show they dislike
them, or disapprove of their actions and lifestyle? Many theories of social
support focus primarily on its beneficial effects (Caplan & Killilea, 1976; Lin,
Simeone, Ensel, & Kuo, 1979); much less attention has been paid to negative
aspects of social relations. Some researchers have noted that acts that are in-
tended to be supportive are not always perceived that way by recipients (Ab-
bey, Holland, & Wortman, 1980; Caplan, 1979; Coates & Wortman, 1980;
Suls, 1982). Friends' ideas about what may help individuals through crises
may not be at all accurate; for example, they may offer advice that is per-
ceived as manipulative rather than supportive. As Schaefer, Coyne, and Laz-
arus (1981) note, the "problems generated from significant social relation-
ships comprise a significant share of the stresses people experience in their
daily lives" (pp. 383-384). Significant others make demands that create new
problems, exert constraints over choices, model poor coping strategies, and
disappoint when they fail to help or provide inappropriate aid (Schaefer,
Coyne, & Lazarus, 1981; Suls, 1982). Heller (1979) describes how practicing
psychotherapists, who tend to see people with problems, focus on the nega-
tive aspects of social relations, whereas sociologists, who examine more di-
verse populations, focus more on the positive aspects of social relations.
Heller (1979) sums up this controversy by arguing: "It is apparent that inter-
personal relations can be either supportive or stressful. What is crucial is dis-
covering the conditions that can lead either to positive or negative outcomes"
(p. 356).
A few social support researchers have examined concepts similar to the
present study's social conflict measure. In their Family Relationships Index,
which is used as a measure of social support, Billings and Moos (1982) in-
cluded a Conflict subscale. Conflict was defined as "the extent to which the
open expression of anger and aggression and generally conflictual interac-
tions are characteristic of the family" (pp. 300-301). These items were re-
verse scored and combined with the positive components of family relations
(Cohesion and Expressiveness). Consequently, the unique effects of conflict
cannot be identified in most of their analyses. Henderson, Byrne, Duncan-
Jones, Scott, and Adcock (1980), in an examination of the point prevalence
 SOCIAL SUPPORT AND SOCIAL CONFLICT 115

of nonpsychotic disorders in Canberra, Australia, included a count of the

"number of close others with whom the respondent had recently been having
rows or arguments" (p. 576) as well as including measures of attachment and
social integration. They found that the number of conflicted relationships
correlated positively with neurosis and depression. Barrera (1981), in a study
of pregnant adolescents, included a measure of Conflicted Network Size,
which was a count of the "number of support networks who were also sources
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

of interpersonal conflict" (p. 76). He found that conflicted network size was
positively correlated with depression and anxiety for these women.
Finally, Rook (1984) asked elderly widows to indicate how many people
had caused them such problems as invading their privacy or provoking anger.
Her results indicated that the number of social problems these widows experi-
enced was negatively associated with well-being. Henderson et al.'s (1980),
Barrera's (1981), and Rook's (1984) measures examine the number of
conflictual relations rather than the quality of these relations; the social con-
flict index used in the current study measures quality rather than quantity.
The relationship between social support and social conflict needs to be de-
termined. Social conflict may be a distinct concept unrelated to social sup-
port or it may be the opposite end of a continuum; a relationship may be high
on both support and conflict, low on both, or high on one and low on the
other. It was our hypothesis that social support and social conflict would be
only modestly and negatively correlated when people or some one person
were the source. Individuals should be able to receive both social support and
social conflict simultaneously from different sources or from the same
source; for example, someone may provide useful information but do so in
an argumentative manner. The relationship between support and conflict
was expected to be stronger (and negative) when the closest person was the
source. Although people can receive support and conflict from the same per-
son, they seem less likely to feel closest to someone who consistently provides
social conflict along with support.
The impact of social conflict on well-being may depend on the source of
the conflict. For example, conflicts with the person closest to you may de-
crease well-being more than conflicts with some one person or conflicts with
people in general because the stake is an enduring commitment (Folkman,
1984). Alternatively, it may be the total amount of conflict a person experi-
ences that determines his or her well-being. Thus, the effects of the three
sources of social conflict previously described on emotional well-being and
the relationship of social conflict to social support were examined in this
study.
To examine the relative impact of these three different sources of social
support and social conflict, an experiment was conducted. Respondents were
asked about the social support and social conflict they had recently received
from one of the three aforementioned sources. They also completed mea-
 116 ABBEY, ABRAMIS, CAPLAN

sures of negative affect and life quality. It should be kept in mind that the ma-
jor aim of the study was to examine the sensitivity of the measures of social
support and social conflict from three sources (people, some one person, and
closest person) as correlates of well-being. The cross-sectional design pre-
cludes a specific investigation of the extent to which social support and social
conflict were antecedent or consequent to changes in well-being (e.g., Abbey,
1983; Abbey & Andrews, 1985, Billings & Moos, 1982).
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

METHOD

Subjects and Procedure

The three versions of the questionnaire were randomly distributed to 168

University of Michigan students in the library and in several dormitories.
Fixty-six respondents completed each version of the questionnaire. Partici-
pation was voluntary, anonymous, and without payment. Only a few stu-
dents, who said they were too busy, refused to cooperate. The average age of
these students was 20 years; 61% of the respondents were female.

Measures

Each version of the questionnaire asked respondents to rate how much so-
cial support and social conflict they had experienced during the prior 7 days.
One version of the questionnaire asked respondents how much people in your
personal life did these things, another version asked how much some one per-
son in your personal life did these things, and the third asked the same ques-
tions in terms of how much the person closest to you did these things. Each
respondent completed only one version of the questionnaire. Social support
and social conflict items were presented in a series and were intermixed.
Questions were developed to measure the affect, affirmation, and aid com-
ponents of social support. Respondents were asked, "In the last 7 days, how
much have (people in your personal life/some one persodthe person closest
to you)" (a) acted in ways that show they appreciate what you do; (b) treated
you with respect; (c) cared about you as a person; (d) given you useful infor-
mation and advice when you wanted it; (e) helped out when too many things
needed to get done; and (f) listened when you wanted to confide about things
that were important to you. To measure social conflict, respondents were
asked, "In the last 7 days, how much have (people in your personal life/some
one persodthe person closest to you)" (a) argued with you about something;
(b) got on your nerves; (c) misunderstood the way you thought and felt about
things; (d) done things that conflicted with your own sense of what should be
done; and (e) acted in an unpleasant or angry manner toward you. All of the
social support and social conflict items were rated on 5-point Likert-type
 SOCIAL SUPPORT AND SOCIAL CONFLICT 117

scales with options that ranged from not a t all to a great deal. Items
measuring the three components of social support correlated highly, so they
were combined into one index. The Cronbach alpha for the 6-item social sup-
port index averaged across the three versions of the questionnaire was .77.l
The average Cronbach alpha for the 5-item social conflict index was .72.
The remaining sections of the questionnaire assessed emotional well-being
during the prior 7 days and were identical for all respondents. They included
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

items from selected subscales of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist and mea-
sures of life quality. Only the Hopkins subscales that measure anxiety, de-
pression, and interpersonal sensitivity were included because of time con-
straints (Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, & Covi, 1974). These
subscales are frequently used for psychological assessment. These items were
rated on 4-point Likert-type scales with options that ranged from not at allto
extremely. The 4-item anxiety index had an average Cronbach alpha of .77.
The 7-item depression index had an average Cronbach alpha of .80.As in
previous research, anxiety and depression were highly related (average
r = .70). Interpersonal sensitivity includes feeling self-conscious or that
people dislike you. The average Cronbach alpha for this index was .65. Inter-
personal sensitivity correlated positively with anxiety and depression (aver-
age r's = .51, .54, respectively).
Quality of life was measured with items modeled after Andrews and
Withey (1974, 1976); they focused on respondents' enjoyment of their
friends, their social life, school, and their life as a whole. Some of these items
were rated on 7-point Likert-type scales with options that ranged from terri-
ble to delighted, whereas others were rated on 5-point Likert-type scales with
options ranging from never or hardly ever to always or almost a l w a y ~The .~
average Cronbach alpha for this index was .87. As expected, the relationship
between perceived quality of life and negative affect was negative and moder-
ately high (average r's = - .48, - .64, and - .41 for anxiety, depression,
and interpersonal sensitivity, respectively).

RESULTS

All analyses were computed separately for each phrasing of the social sup-
port and social conflict items. This allows determination of whether the na-
ture or magnitude of these relationships vary depending on the source of sup-
port and conflict focused on in the questions.

'Cronbach alphas were computed separately for each version of the questionnaire. For all in-
dices the reliabilities were comparable for the three versions of the questionnaire, so average
Cronbach alphas are presented.
ZQualityof life items were standardized before they were combined into indices because two
different response scales with different variances were used.
 1 18 ABBEY, ABRAMIS, CAPLAN

The Relationship Between Social Support and Social

Conflict
The correlation between social support and social conflict was examined for
each of the three sources. When respondents were asked about social support
and social conflict regarding people and some one person, social support and
social conflict were not significantly correlated (r = - .17, r = - .22, re-
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

spectively). Hence, they appear to represent fairly independent concepts.

When respondents were asked about "the person closest to you," however,
social support and social conflict were significantly and negatively correlated
(r = - .50, p < .0001); the greater the amount of social support this individ-
ual provided, the less social conflict occurred.
Further evidence for the distinctiveness of the "person closest to you"
phrasing comes from one-way analyses of variance. When social support and
social conflict were treated as dependent variables there was a marginally sig-
nificant effect of question phrasing on their mean levels ( F (2,165) = 2.50,
p < .08, F (2,165) = 2.45, p < .09, respectively). Pairwise comparisons indi-
cated that means for the phrasings "people" and "some one person" differed
from the mean for the phrasing "the person closest to you." Respondents re-
ported receiving more social support from "the person closest" to them than
from "people" or "some one person" (F = (2,165) = 3.35, p c . 0 7 ;
F (2,165) = 4.11, p < .04, respectively). Similarly, respondents reported re-
ceiving less social conflict from "the person closest" to them than from
"people" or "some one person" ( F (2,165) = 4.04, p < .04; F (2,165) = 3.26,
p < .07, respectively).

The Relationship Between Social Support and

Emotional Well-Being
Correlations were computed between social support and each of the indica-
tors of emotional well-being for each phrasing of the questionnaire. As can
be seen in Table 1, social support from "people" was significantly related to
each of the well-being measures. The greater the amount of social support re-
spondents received from "people" in their personal lives the less anxiety, de-
pression, and interpersonal sensitivity they experienced, and the more pleas-
ant the quality of their lives. For the phrasing "some one person," only
quality of life was significantly related to social support. The greater the
amount of social support respondents received from "some one person," the
more positive the quality of their lives. For the phrasing "the person closest to
you" social support was not significantly correlated with any of the outcome
measures.

3Becauseof modest differences in the sizes of the standard deviations of social support and so-
cial conflict for the three different phrasings of the questionnaire, betas as well as correlations
were computed for all relationships in Tables 1, 2, and 3 . Both forms of statistics exhibited the
same pattern of relationships, so betas are not presented.
 SOCIAL SUPPORT AND SOCIAL CONFLICT 119

TABLE 1
Main Effects of Social Support on Affect and Life Quality as a Function of
Question Phrasing

Source of Social Support

Indicator of People Some one person The person closest to you

well-being (N = 56) (N = 56) (N = 56)
-
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

Anxiety
Depression - .32* - .16
Interpersonal Sensitivity - .41** - .20
Quality of Life .36** .36**

The Relationship Between Social Conflict and

Emotional Well-Being

Comparable correlations between social conflict and indicators of emo-

tional well-being are presented in Table 2. For this variable, reference to
some one person produced the strongest significant relationships with the
various well-being measures. The greater the social conflict respondents re-
ported receiving from some one person in their personal lives, the greater was
their anxiety, depression, and interpersonal sensitivity, and the less pleasant
their quality of life. The relationship between social conflict from people and
the well-being measures was similar, but weaker. Social conflict with the per-
son closest to you was marginally related to anxiety, depression, and quality
of life. The greater the amount of social conflict respondents reported receiv-
ing from the person closest to them, the greater their anxiety and depression
and the lower their quality of life.

The Buffering Effects of Social Support on Emotional

Well-Being

To examine the hypothesis that social support buffers the relationship be-
tween stress and emotional well-being, respondents were divided into low so-
cial support and high social support subgroups based on a median split for
each phrasing of the q~estionnaire.~ The buffering hypothesis predicts that
for subjects low in social support, the greater the stress the individual is under
the greater the strain. For subjects with high social support, however, even
under high stress conditions, individuals should show little or no strain.

4Analyses using extreme splits produced findings comparable to the results using median
splits, so only the results using median splits are presented in this article.
 120 ABBEY, ABRAMIS, CAPLAN

TABLE 2
Main Effects of Social Conflict on Affect and Life Quality as a Function of
Question Phrasing

Source of Social Conflict

Indicator of People Some one person The person closest to you

well-being
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

Anxiety .40*** .34*** .25*

Depression .29** .38*** .25*
Interpersonal Sensitivity .22 .42*** .01
Quality of Life - .31** - .48*** - .23*

Some researchers have examined buffering effects using subgroup analy-

ses, whereas others have used multiple regression with a multiplicative inter-
action term (see Arnold, 1982; LaRocco, House, & French, 1980; and
Zedeck, 1971, for discussions of this issue). LaRocco, House, and French ar-
gue that subgroup analyses are preferable when the effects of the moderator
variable are discontinuous. As this was the case in this study, subgroup analy-
ses were c o n d u ~ t e d . ~
For these analyses, social conflict was treated as a stressor. Individuals
whose significant others argue with them and misunderstand them are likely
to perceive this conflict as stressful. For the phrasings "people" and "some
one person" social conflict and social support were not significantly corre-
lated, so in these cases treating social conflict as an independent stressor
seemed justifiable. However, for the phrasing "the person cIosest to you" so-
cial support and social conflict were strongly correlated. Therefore, an analy-
sis dividing individuals into subgroups based on their level of social support
and then examining the correlation between social conflict and the various
well-being measures for these subgroups would be misleading due to severely
restricted variance in social conflict. Consequently, the buffering hypothesis
was only examined for the phrasings "people" and "some one person."

5A3 (social support: low, medium, high) x 3 (social conflict: low, medium, high) analysis of
variance was run for each dependent variable to determine if potential moderator effects were
continuous or discontinuous. The results of these analyses indicate that the moderator effects
were discontinuous; the group of subjects that was simultaneously receiving the lowest level of
social support and the highest level of social conflict had significantly higher mean levels of anxi-
ety, depression and interpersonal sensitivity and lower life quality than any of the other groups
(almost all of the pairwise comparisons between this group and the others were significant at the
p < .05 level).
 SOCIAL SUPPORT AND SOCIAL CONFLICT 121

As can be seen in Table 3, the buffering hypothesis was supported for the
phrasing "some one person" but not the "people" p h r a ~ i n gFor
. ~ respondents
who reported receiving a low level of social support from "some one person,"
there was a strong, significant relationship between stress and well-being.
The greater the social conflict these individuals experienced, the greater their
anxiety, depression, and interpersonal sensitivity, and the lower their quality
of life. For respondents receiving a high level of social support, however, this
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

relationship between stress and well-being was not exhibited; social conflict
was virtually uncorrelated with affect and life quality. The differences be-
tween these correlations for the high and low social support subgroups were
statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

This study represents an initial attempt to understand the consequences of

focusing on different parts of people's social networks when studying social
support. It also represents an attempt to better understand the relationships
between social support and social conflict and the effects of social conflict on
well-being. Before discussing the implications of these findings, a few impor-
tant caveats should be considered. For theoretical reasons these results are in-
terpreted in terms of the hypotheses that social conflict causes a decrease in
emotional well-being and that social support causes an increase in emotional
well-being. Other causal pathways are possible and should be examined in
longitudinal designs or field interventions that can test the plausibility of
these rival hypotheses (e.g., expressions of negative affect may elicit social
support or social conflict; feedback loops may occur). This study, which
highlights the importance of considering the source of support and negative
aspects of social relations, hopefully provides some groundwork for such fu-
ture research.
A second caveat concerns the interpretation of our affect measures. Al-
though we have dealt with the constructs anxiety and depression, this study
has examined them as clusters of symptoms rather than disease entities. The
determinants of clinically diagnosed anxiety and depression may differ in
magnitude and nature from the determinants of variation in symptomatol-
ogy among a group of persons drawn from a population generally viewed as
normal.

6Althoughthe difference in the findings for the two phrasings is not statistically significant, it
may be noteworthy that for the source "people," the relationship between social conflict and de-
pression was the converse of what was expected. This may be an example of negative buffering
(cf. LaRocco, House, &French, 1980) or what Cobb (1979, personal communication) refers to
as "smothering."
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

TABLE 3
Social Support as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Social Conflict and Well-Being

People Some one person

Low High Low High

Social Support Social Support Social Support Social Support
Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup
(N = 28) (N = 28) (N = 26) (N = 30)
Indicator of
well-being:

Anxiety .43 .35 .61 .11*

Depression .09 .42 .73 .OO*
Interpersonal Sensitivity .27 .10 .62 .18*
Quality of Life - .27 - .28 - .72 - .14*

Note. Difference between correlations: *p < .05

 SOCIAL SUPPORT AND SOCIAL CONFLICT 123

A third caveat concerns the generalizability of these findings to other pop-

ulations. The three different sources of social support and social conflict may
have a different impact on individuals from other social groups or individu-
als at other life stages. For example, for the young adults examined in this
study, a same sex friend or parent may be the closest person to them, for
older adults, the person closest to them is likely to be a spouse; for the elderly,
it may be one of their children. The type of relationship between the sup-
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

porter and the supported individual may influence the effects of support on
well-being. For example, advice from one's child may be perceived as less
helpful than advice from a friend (cf. Abbey, Dunkel-Schetter, & Brickman,
1983; French, Rodgers, & Cobb, 1974). Further research with other popula-
tions is necessary to determine the differential effects of these sources of so-
cial support on various subgroups in the population.

The Relationship Between Social Support and Social

Conflict

Social support and social conflict were strongly and inversely correlated
only when respondents thought of the person closest to them. Consequently,
researchers who wish to examine the separate, independent effects of social
support and social conflict may want to focus on other sources of social
support.
The inverse relationship between social support and social conflict for the
closest person phrasing suggests that most people do not feel closest to some-
one who consistently provides high levels of social conflict along with social
support. There are probably some people, however, who do receive high
levels of both social support and social conflict concomitantly from the same
individual; perhaps many victims of child or spouse abuse receive this pattern
of support and conflict. In a study with a larger, more heterogeneous sample,
identification and analysis of these individuals would be quite informative.
They may be unable to benefit from social support because the support is un-
dermined by social conflict.

Differential Effects of Social Support and Social

Conflict Depending on the Source

Main effects of social support. There were comparable, moderately

strong positive relationships between social support and quality of life for the
phrasings "people" and "some one person." The relationship between social
support and negative affect was moderately strong when the phrase "people"
was used, much weaker when the phrase "some one person" was used, and
nonexistent when the phrase "the person closest to you" was used. A progres-
sion in the impact of social support based on the number of supporters can be
 seen in the progression of coefficients from left to right in Table 1. (Individu-
als referring to the "person closest" to them only considered one source of so-
cial support; individuals referring to "people" considered many sources; indi-
viduals referring to "some one person" may have thought of only one person
or a different person for each question- on the average they probably con-
sidered a few people-a number somewhere in between the number consid-
ered for the other two groups.) This finding suggests that for global emo-
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

tions, such as anxiety and depression, social support across the entire social
network may be the prime determinant of well-being. If so, it would follow
that domain-specific emotions, such as marital satisfaction, might be more
influenced by social support from "some one person" or the "closest" person.
This hypothesis is supported by research indicating that social support from a
supervisor or from co-workers is associated with job satisfaction but not with
anxiety or depression (Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1980).
Another distinction between "people" as compared to "some one person"
and the "person closest to you" has to do with the degree of specificity with
which respondents are required to think. When asked about support from
people, respondents may have just considered in general how supported they
felt rather than actually considering each supporter and the amount of sup-
port he or she provided in the last 7 days. Thus, responses to this source of
support may reflect a global feeling rather than an assessment of specific
transactions.
As Thoits (1982) notes, in the search for buffering effects many researchers
have underestimated the value of main effects of social support. Although
this study does not provide information regarding the mechanisms by which
social support exerts its effects, it does emphasize the importance of examin-
ing the main effects of social support on well-being (cf. Abbey & Andrews,
1985).

Main effects of social conflict. Social conflict related positively to

negative affect and negatively to quality of life regardless of the source of
conflict. The effects of conflict were strongest when the phrase "some one
person" was used, and weakest when the phrase "the person closest to you"
was used. These findings suggest that social conflict is more of an "all or
nothing" phenomenon than social support. As long as just one person is
arguing with or misunderstanding an individual strain is produced.
These findings also suggest that researchers interested in the effects of so-
cial support should consider examining the effects of social conflict. Social
relations are composed of negative elements like arguing, misunderstanding
another's motives, and getting on someone's nerves along with the positive
features on which social support theorists usually focus. There appears to be
a difference between an absence of social support and the existence of social
conflict. It may be upsetting when someone is unwilling to listen, but if some-
 SOCIAL SUPPORT AND SOCIAL CONFLICT 125

one does listen and then totally misunderstands it may be even worse (cf. Ab-
bey, Holland, & Wortman, 1980; Wortman & Dunkel-Schetter, 1979). It
may be depressing if friends do not show appreciation, but it may be worse if
they actively argue or do things that get on an individual's nerves. High social
conflict has an active component that may be more distressing than low so-
cial support.
The minimal impact of both social support and social conflict from the
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

closest person on affect and life quality was unexpected. Previous research
had led us to believe that social support and conflict from the closest person
would be related to outcomes like depression and life quality (Caplan, 1979;
Schaefer, Coyne, & Lazarus, 1981). There are several hypotheses that could
explain these findings; evaluating the merits of each of these hypotheses is a
direction for future research. It may be that most individuals have a variety
of sources of social support so that support from any one person, even from
the person closest to the individual, does not have a major influence on affect
or quality of life (cf. Rook, 1984). The weaker effects of social conflict from
the closest person might be due to the significantly lower mean level of social
conflict this group experienced. It also may be that expressions of social con-
flict from the person closest to an individual are more likely to be discussed
by the two parties. Over time, compromises may develop that lead to a reduc-
tion in the amount of social conflict that occurs.

Buffering effects. The results of this study provided fairly strong evi-
dence for the buffering hypothesis when the phrase "some one person" was
used but not when the phrase "people" was used.' For individuals
experiencing high levels of social support, from some one person, there was
virtually no relationship between social conflict and well-being; increased so-
cial conflict did not relate significantly to negative affect or quality of life. In
contrast, for individuals experiencing low levels of social support from some
one person increased social conflict related strongly to increased negative af-
fect and reduced quality of life. This finding indicates the important role so-
cial support plays in helping individuals cope with stress effectively.
In summation, social support from people had main effects on emotional
well-being but no buffering effects, whereas social support from some one
person buffered the relationship between social conflict and emotional well-
being but had few main effects. What accounts for these differential effects?
We hypothesize that buffering works in response to particular stresses; it is
responsive support rather than enduring support. It seems likely that such re-
sponsive support would come from particular members of a network rather
than the network as a whole, that is, from some one person rather than
people. As noted earlier, a work stress is more likely to be buffered by a per-

IRecall that the closest person version was not used in these analyses.
 son at work rather than a person at home; a co-worker is more likely to be
aware of the stress and to be able to provide information, feedback, or assist-
ance that will be perceived as supportive. People may not easily buffer
stressors because one person may be buffering, whereas another person or
persons (perhaps most of them) are not. So whatever buffering contribution
is made by one person would be cancelled out or overwhelmed by the
noneffects of others in the network of people. These hypotheses regarding
the differentia1 effects of social support from people versus someone could
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

be examined in a social network study in which the amount of support from a

number of identified supporters could be assessed and compared to an over-
all measure of support.
Further theory and research also is needed on the types of stressors that can
and cannot be buffered by social support. This study examined onIy the stress
of social conflict. Just as individuals may be effective supporters only under
certain circumstances (e.g., co-workers only at work), social support may ef-
fectively buffer only certain types of stress (e.g., those about which support-
ers have accurate information). Not enough is known about the specific
stressors that social support has an impact on, so it is important to extend
these findings to a broader range of stressors, including less personal ones
such as work overload.

WHICH SOURCE OF SOCIAL SUPPORT AND SOCIAL

CONFLICT SHOULD ONE MEASURE?

At the outset of this article, we described three models that reflect different
assumptions about how social support affects well-being. We suggested that
if the "some one person" phrasing related most strongly to well-being this
supported the hypothesis that the critical functions of social support are
satisfied by having just one supporter. If the "closest person" phrasing re-
lated most strongly to well-being, this also suggested that the critical func-
tions of support can be satisfied by just one person, but that it must be a par-
ticular, close person. In contrast, if the "people" phrasing related most
strongly to well-being we argued that this would support the hypothesis that
the entire social network must be considered. This study's findings suggest
that each perspective has its special contribution to make although the
sources "people" and "some one person" related most strongly to our out-
come measures.
A question left unanswered in this study regards whom the respondents
were thinking of when they responded to the "some one person" phrasing of
the social support and social conflict items. Some respondents may have been
thinking of the same person for the entire series of questions, whereas others
may have thought of one person for the social support items and a different
person for the social conflict items. Others may have thought of a different
 SOCIAL SUPPORT AND SOCIAL CONFLICT 127

person for each individual question. Exactly how respondents selected the
person they referred to and the implications this choice has for well-being are
unclear. Presumably, they rated the most salient person. But what would
make a supporter most salient? The most salient person might be the person
who provided the most social support or conflict, or the person who provided
the least, or the person who provided an amount that was atypical of his or
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

her usual behavior. In a study recently completed, (Caplan et al., 1984), so-
cial support and social conflict questions were phrased in terms of "some one
person" and respondents were asked whom they were thinking of when they
answered each question. Based on the promising findings from both of these
s t ~ d i e swe
, ~ intend to continue to consider the sources of social support and
social conflict in our future research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research reported in this article was supported by a contract from

Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc. The authors wish to thank Frank Andrews, Terry
Conway, John R. P. French, Jr., and two anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Abbey, A. (1983, August). The effects of social support on emotional well-being. Paper
presented at the 91st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,
Anaheim, California.
Abbey, A., & Andrews, F. M. (1985). Modeling the psychological determinants of life quality.
Social Indicators Research, 16, 1-34.
Abbey, A., Dunkel-Schetter, C., & Brickman, P. (1983). Handling the stress of looking for a job
in law school: The relationship between intrinsic motivation, internal attributions, social
support, and happiness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 263-278.
Abbey, A., Holland, E., & Wortman, C. B. (1980). The misguided helper: An analysis of
people's responses to their loved one's crises. In D. G . McGuigan (Ed.), Women's lives: New
theory, research andpolicy (pp. 257-267). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Continuing Education
of Women, The University of Michigan.
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1974). Developing measures of perceived life quality: Results
from several national surveys. Sociallndicators Research, 1, 1-26.
Andrews, F.M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being:America'sperceptions
of life qualify. New York: Plenum.
Arnold, H. J. (1982). Moderator variables: A clarification of conceptual, analytic, and
psychometric issues. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 143-174.
Barrera, M., Jr. (1981). Social support in the adjustment of pregnant adolescents-assessment

8Preliminaryresults from that study indicate that respondents who received social support and
social conflict from the same individual experienced more negative affect than did respondents
whose sources of social support and social conflict did not overlap (Abbey, 1983).
 issues. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Social networks andsocialsupport @p. 69-96). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Billings, A. G., &Moos, R. H. (1982). Social support and functioning among community and
clinical groups: A panel model. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5, 295-3 11.
Brown, G. W., &Harris, T. (1978). Socialorigins of depression: A study ofpsychiatric disorder
in women. New York: Free Press.
Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1978). Recovery from rape and prior life stress. Research
in Nursing and Health, 1, 165-174.
Caplan, G., & Killilea, M. (1976). Support systems and mutual help. New York: Grune &
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

Stratton.
Caplan, R. D. (1979). Social support, person-environment fit, andcoping. In L. A. Ferman& J.
P. Gordus (Eds.), Mental health and the economy (pp. 89-137). Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn
Institute.
Caplan, R. D., Abbey, A., Abramis, D. J., Andrews, F. M., Conway, T. L., &French, J. R. P.,
Jr. (1984). Tranquilizer use and well-being: A longitudinal study of social andpsychological
effects. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Jr., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R., Jr. (1980).
Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences. Ann Arbor, MI:
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Caplan, R. D., Robinson, E. A. R., French, J. R. P., Jr., Caldwell, J. R., & Shinn, M. (1976).
Adhering to medical regimens: Pilot experiments in patient education and social support.
Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Carey, R. C. (1974). Emotional adjustment in terminal patients: A quantitative approach. Jour-
nal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 433-439.
Coates, D., & Wortman, C. B. (1980). Depression maintenance and interperonal control. In A.
Baum & J. Singer (Eds.), Advances in environmentalpsychology: Applications of personal
control (Vol. 2, pp. 149-182). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38,
300-314.
Cobb, S. (1979). Social support and health through the life course. In M. W. Riley (Ed.), Aging
from birth to death: Znterdisciplinaryperspectives(pp. 93-106). Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Cobb, S., & Kasl, S. V. (1977). Termination: The consequences ofjob loss (U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare). HEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 77-224.
Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & Covi, L. (1974). TheHopkins
symptom checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral Science, 19, 1-15.
Dyk, R., & Sutherland, A. M. (1956). Adaptation of the spouse and other family members to a
colostomy patient. Cancer, 9, 123-138.
Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839-852.
French, J. R. P., Jr., Rodgers, W., & Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as person-environment fit. In
G. V. Coelho, D. A. Hamburg,& J. E. Adams, (Eds.), Copingandadaptation (pp. 316-333).
New York: Basic Books.
Heller, K. (1979). The effects of social support: Prevention and treatment implications. In A. P.
Goldstein & F. H. Kanfer (Eds.), Maximizing treatment gains: Transfer enhancement inpsy-
chotherapy (pp. 353-382). New York: Academic.
Helmrath, T. A., & Steinitz, E. M. (1978). Death of an infant: Parental grieving and the failure
of social support. The Journal of Family Practice, 6, 785-790.
Henderson, B. S., Byrne, D. A., Duncan-Jones, P., Scott, R., & Adcock, S. (1980). Social rela-
tionships, adversity, and neurosis: A study of associations in a general population sample.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 574-583.
Jamison, K. R., Wellisch, D. K., & Pasnau, R. 0. (1978). Psychosocial aspects of mastectomy:
I. the woman's perspective. American Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 432-436.
 SOCIAL SUPPORT AND SOCIAL CONFLICT 129

Kahn, R. L., &Antonucci, T. C. (1980). Conveys over thelife course: Attachment, roles, and so-
cial support. In P. B. Baltes & 0. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 3,
pp. 253-286). Boston: Lexington Press.
Kelman, H. R., Lowenthal, M., & Muller, J. N. (1966). Community status of discharged reha-
bilitation patients: Results of a longitudinal study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Reha-
bilitation, 47, 670-675.
Kessler, R. C., &McLeod, J. (in press). Social support and mental health in community samples.
In S. Cohen & L. Syme (Eds.) Social support and health. New York: Academic.
Krasner, W., Meyer, L. C., &Carroll, N. E. (1978). Victimsof rape. Department of Health, Ed-
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:27 07 January 2014

ucation, and Welfare Publication No. (ADM) 78-485. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
LaRocco, J. M., House, J. S., &French, J. R. P., Jr. (1980). Social support, occupationalstress,
and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 202-218.
Lieberman, M. A. (1982). The effects of social supports on relations to stress. In L. Goldberg &
S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress @p. 764-783). New York: Free Press.
Lin, N., Simeone, R. L., Ensel, W. M., & Kuo, W. (1979). Social support, stressful life events,
and illness: A model and an empirical test. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 20,
108-119.
Lowenthal, M. P., &Haven, C. (1968). Interaction and adaptation: Intimacy as a crucial varia-
ble. American Sociological Review, 33, 20-30.
McCahill, T. W., Meyer, L. C., & Fischrnan, A. M. (1979). The aftermath of rape. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Raphael, B. (1977). Preventive intervention with the recently bereaved. Archives of General Psy-
chiatry, 34, 1450-1454.
Rook, K. S. (1984). The negative side of social interaction: Impact on psychological well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1097-1 108.
Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing social sup-
port: The social support questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,
127-139.
Schaefer, C., Coyne, J. C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). The health-related functions of social sup-
port. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 381-406.
Suls, J. (1982). Social support, interpersonal relations, and health: Benefits and liabilities. In G .
S. Sanders & J. Suls (Eds.), Socialpsychology of health and illness (pp. 255-277). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Thoits, P. A. (1982). Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical problems in studying social
support as a buffer against life stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 23, 145-159.
Veroff, J., Kulka, R., & Douvan, E. (1981). Mental health in America: Patterns of help-seeking
from 1957 to 1976. New York: Basic Books.
Weisman, A. D. (1976). Coping with an untimely death. In R. J. Moos (Ed.), Human adaptation
(pp. 261-274). Lexington, MA: Heath.
Weissman, M. M., & Paykel, E. S. (1974). The depressed woman: A study of social relation-
ships. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wellman, B. (1981). Applying network analysis to the study of support. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.),
Social networks and social support (pp. 171-200). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Williams, A. W., Ware, J. E., Jr., &Donald, C. A. (1981). Amodelof mental health, lifeevents,
and social supports applicable to general populations. Journalof Health andSocialBehavior,
22, 324-336.
Wortman, C. B. (1984). Impact and measurement of social support of the cancer patient. Can-
cer, 53, 2339-2360.
Wortman, C. B., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. (1979). Interpersonal relationships and cancer: A theo-
retical analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 120-155.
Zedeck, S. (1971). Problems with the use of "moderator" variables. Psychological Bulletin, 76,
295-310.