Supportive Communication

Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie16 Supportive communicationAbstract: The study of supportive communication revolves around verbal and non-verbal behaviors that are enacted with the primary intention of improving thepsychological state of another person. Since the early 1980s supportive communi-cation has grown into a veritable field of study in interpersonal communication.In this chapter we present a critical review of the dominant research program insupportive communication, person-centered theory. We argue that person-centeredtheory has grown into a mature theory replete with a stable philosophical basefrom which a series of exciting theoretical and empirical programs can belaunched. In support of our contention, we present a brief review of person-cen-tered theory. We then present three novel research trajectories that advance ourthinking about person-centered theory in supportive communication. We closewith the presentation of one inspiring research exemplar: the role of listening inperson-centered supportive communication.

Keywords: Cognitive appraisal, comforting messages, enacted support, person-cen-tered messages, supportive communication, well-being

1 IntroductionSince the early 1980s supportive communication has grown into a veritable fieldof study in interpersonal communication. One reason for its growth is the prolifera-tion of empirical evidence that supportive networks in general and the supportiveinteractions between people within these networks in particular contribute sub-stantially to our health (for a review see Ryff and Singer 2001). Because socialsupport possesses powerful health implications, federal funding opportunities forepidemiological and social psychological research have also dramatically in-creased over the past 30 years (National Research Council 2001).

Supportive communication concerns verbal and nonverbal behaviors enactedwith the primary intention of improving the psychological state of another person(Burleson and MacGeorge 2000). Supportive communication is grounded in thebroader interdisciplinary research tradition of social support. The differencebetween the study of social support and supportive communication is that thelatter is directly concerned with the study of those prosocial interactions throughwhich people express supportive intentions.

Rather than present a state of the art review of the supportive communicationliterature, we focus on the person-centered theory of supportive communication.Supportive communication reflects an array of theoretical approaches and has astrong presence in research on interpersonal relationships (Ryff and Singer, 2001),

372 Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie

health (Folkman 2011), online support groups (Craig and Johnson 2011), intercul-tural processes (Feng and Feng 2010), social policy (Jetten, Haslam and Haslam2012), and psychotherapy (Horowitz and Strack 2011). We refer the interestedreader to state of the art reviews prepared by Burleson and colleagues (Burlesonand MacGeorge, 2002; MacGeorge, Feng and Burleson 2010). Here we present threeresearch trajectories that advance person-centered theory and close with aresearch exemplar – the study of supportive listening.

2 Person-centered supportive communication:The evolution of a theory

Because comforting is intentional behavior with a concrete objective (i.e., relievingthe difficult emotions experienced by another person), research has focused onthe acquisition of helper competencies, which are organized into four processes:message production, message reception, interaction coordination, and social per-ception (Burleson 1982). Research has focused on message production and socialperception with a sustained interest in the form and content of more and lessbeneficial supportive messages.

Message benefits have been assessed in two ways: First, participants evaluatesupportive messages on a set of message qualities, such as appropriateness, effec-tiveness, helpfulness, sensitivity, and/or supportiveness (e.g., Jones and Burleson1997; Goldsmith, McDermott and Alexander 2000). Second, outcomes are assessedon the extent to supportive messages actually generate cognitive, affective, physio-logical, and behavioral changes (e.g., Bodie 2011; Jones and Wirtz 2001).

Because the goal of supportive messages is to relieve difficult emotions, theform and content of supportive messages is emotion- rather than problem-focused.Emotion-focused support messages fulfill two functions: a) to express care andcompassion and b) to assist in the alleviation of negative emotions. These func-tions are best fulfilled with person-centered support. The primary theoretical crite-rion of person-centered support is the extent to which a message facilitates “anawareness of and adaptation to the affective, subjective, and relational aspectsof communication contexts” (Burleson 1987: 305). Table 1 presents the nine-levelhierarchy of emotional support messages that captures the progression from lowperson-centered messages at major level 1 to highly person-centered messages atmajor level 3, with three messages that are integrated within each of the threemajor levels (Applegate 1980; Burleson 1982). A meta-analysis suggests the needto differentiate just the three major levels of low, moderate, and highly person-centered comforting messages (High and Dillard 2012).

Low person-centered (LPC) messages tend to deny or ignore the emotionalexperiences of the recipient. Not surprisingly, recipients consider these messagesas especially unhelpful and quite hurtful, precisely because LPC messages gener-

Supportive communication 373

Table : Message definitions and examples of the person-centered message hierarchy.

Message Definition Sample Message

. Messages that criticize the person’s feelings “You just can’t learn statistics because you didnot try your best. You probably didn’t do thethings you need to, so it’s really your own faultand nobody else’s.”

. Messages that confront the authenticity of “It’s probably that you are not working hardthe other person’s feelings. enough to learn the material. That’s probably

it, so you shouldn’t be so upset.”. Messages that completely disregard how a “Forget about learning statistics. There areperson is feeling and often tell the other how other, more interesting, things to learn.to feel or suggest forgetting about the situa- Nobody needs math anyway. Just don’t thinktion. about it and find something else to do.”. Efforts to redirect focus from the problem “Sometimes learning things like statistics areand relevant feelings. just crazy pursuits. Let’s go to the beach and

work on our tan while the day is still warm.”. Messages that recognize the other person’s “I’m sorry to hear you can’t learn statistics. I’mfeelings, but don’t try to help him or her figure sorry you feel terrible. If you want to, we canout why or how to properly deal with those talk about it.feelings.. Explanation of the event without focusing on “Learning statistics is difficult and lots of peo-feeling which try to lower negative affect and ple don’t get it; there are tons of people whooften mentions justifications. cringe at math! I wish you had done better, but

I understand how this happened. It’s reallytough. Maybe you just have trouble learningthose formulas. Or maybe you need to workmore examples. Your ability doesn’t rest juston learning statistics.”

. Messages that clearly identify and recognize “I know you are unhappy about not being ablethe other’s feelings but give condensed clarifi- to learn statistics and you might be feelingcation of these feelings and often try to simply down about it. The thing to do is to just keep“fix it”. moving forward and not dwell on the past. The

best thing to do is not be too troubled andreally put forth your best next time.”

. Statements giving detailed recognition and “I know this makes you mad. It’s really exasper-account of the upset person’s feelings. ating when you try and try, but don’t get any-

where. This kind of thing can make you crazy! Iknow you have never had trouble with anythinglike this in the past, but some things just don’tcome so easy. You’re only human and not asuper hero. Statistics is tough business. It tookme forever to learn all those formulas and therules, so I think I get how you feel.”

. Statements that help a person see his or her “I understand how bummed you must be – tofeelings from a different point of view and try your best to learn statistics and … . youattempts to help him or her understand how know … . to keep struggling, it’s very frustrat-these feelings are part of “the big picture”. ing. You might be thinking that it isn’t worth all

this aggravation. It certainly does not mean


you aren’t smart or anything like that. I knowit’s hard to see things differently, but maybeyou have learned something here that can helpnext time.”

Notes: Conceptual definitions and sample responses to a student’s inability to learn statisticswere adapted from Burleson and Samter (: ).

ate a sense of mental solitary confinement and also tend to exacerbate stress react-ivity (Bodie, 2012b). Moderate person-centered (MPC) messages express condolen-ces and sympathy, but do not encourage the comforted person to explore difficultemotions. Whether these messages play a significant role in the comforting process(for better or worse) has recently been questioned by High and Dillard (2012).Supporters who use highly person-centered (HPC) messages explicitly legitimizeand validate the emotions of the upset person in talk.

2.1 Theoretical foundations of person-centered theory

Person-centered theory is grounded in a version of psychological constructivism.The strongest theoretical strain in psychological constructivism is personal con-struct theory, originally formulated by Kelly (1955/1991; also see Chiari and Nuzzo1996; Neimeyer 2001; Raskin 2002). Personal construct theory postulates thatknowledge about people and social life is embedded in bipolar symbolic struc-tures, called interpretive or personal constructs. Personal constructs (a) are a func-tion of a person’s unique experience, (b) constantly produce and reproduce dailyrealities, (c) are the basic structures through which people evaluate and anticipatesocial interactions, and (d) become increasingly more differentiated, abstract, andintegrated with age and social experience (Delia, Kline and Burleson 1979). Theoperational mechanism of these personal construct structures is cognitive complex-ity, usually assessed via the Role Category Questionnaire (Crockett 1965). The movetoward construct structures as the organizing epistemic principle for interpersonalcommunication and thus also person-centered theory is significant because thatshift moved the theory toward a cognitive theory of communication with a distinctfocus on the individual as the primary unit of analysis.

Applegate (1980) first formulated the hierarchical structure of interpersonalinteraction by fusing Delia’s constructivist approach with Bernstein’s (1971) socio-linguistic code theory. Burleson (1982) subsequently adapted person-centered mes-sage characteristics to supportive encounters that define roles and expectationsfor helpers and emotionally upset people who experience mild-to-moderate dailystress. Perhaps the most important contribution of person-centered theory to socialsupport and supportive communication is not its actual conceptualization. Suppor-tive messages that express compassion and validate emotions should be perceivedas more beneficial. Indeed, this notion was articulated by Carl Rogers (1959, 1995).


What is so ingenious about the theory is to arrange supportive messages in pro-gressive order. Notably, Carkhuff’s (1969) Empathy Scale, developed in response toRogers’ work and used by most US psychotherapists, reflects a similar hierarchicalarrangement of empathic responses. Yet what makes the person-centered hier-archy so unique for interpersonal communication is its distinct focus on tangiblemessages. Because of its utility, the person-centered hierarchy of support messageshas been influential in supportive communication.

2.2 Support for person-centered theory

People easily discern more and less person-centered messages (High and Dillard2012). Studies reporting these findings relied on hypothetical scenario designs andpreformulated comforting message rating formats. Two interaction studiesdetected similar results: Samter (1984, 1985) found that cognitively complex partic-ipants who comforted a confederate feigning distress used more sophisticatedcomforting messages which were evaluated as more sensitive than participantswho used less sophisticated messages. Jones and Guerrero (2000) found that dis-tressed people reported feeling better after having received highly person-centeredcomfort from a confederate helper.

Although people consistently rank supportive messages on the basis of person-centered characteristics, there are moderating factors, including sex, gender orien-tation, and ethnic group (Burleson 2003). A recent iteration of person-centeredtheory has integrated these moderators into a dual-process theory of supportivemessage outcomes, which proposes that the impact of supportive communicationis a joint function of message quality and how recipients process messages (Bodieand Burleson 2008). When messages are processed more extensively, they appearto have a greater impact on long-lasting outcomes that assist in future coping (fora review see Bodie 2013a).

3 Expanding person-centered supportivecommunication: Three trajectories

Thanks to its strong theoretical foundation and empirical evidence, person-cen-tered theory has the necessary and sufficient attributes for a heuristic theory. Weoutline three research avenues that advance person-centered theory. The first tra-jectory taps the theoretical core of person-centered theory. The second trajectoryexplores methodological questions. The third trajectory challenges the axiologicalprinciple that person-centered theory is best studied in response to negative emo-tions.


3.1 Person-centered and position-centered dimensions ofsupportive messages

Our first trajectory concerns the basis of person-centered theory: Bernstein’s socio-linguistic code theory. We wonder whether Bernstein’s two codes, namely therestricted code (position-centered talk) and the elaborated code (person-centeredtalk) are two distinct functional dimensions or whether they are merely twoanchors of one dimension that captures differences in support talk. According toBernstein, when people learn a language they also learn a taken-for-granted stockof knowledge that regulates everyday social interactions in unique social groups(e.g., the family, a work team, a group of friends). Using 1950s British social classstructure, Bernstein differentiates between a restricted code used by working classpeople and an elaborate code spoken by middle class people. The restricted code(re)produces talk that focuses on social roles as they are defined by the socialgroup. The elaborated code focuses on explicit expressions of unique motivations,feelings, and intentions (Atherton 2011). Bernstein’s code theory, which resemblesBourdieux’s notions of habitus (Harker and May 1993), remains influential in conti-nental sociolinguistics and education (see Sriprakash 2011), and has morphed intoa social realist theory referred to as Legitimation Code Theory (Maton 2011).

It is worth exploring whether the two codes actually serve different relationalfunctions: Position-centered talk may effectively express the unique, shared realityof two or more people who have developed a close-knit relationship. In that rela-tionship, intimate information “lives on” in people’s everyday idiomatic talk.Details of past shared experiences become socially-shared markers that character-ize the intimate nature of the relationship between people. Elaborated talk, on theother hand, may be most effective when shared experiences (i.e., relational turningpoints) do not yet exist. In that case, people are more inclined to provide a detailednarrative. Atherton (2011) applies these functional code differences to family con-versations. He states,

The essence of the distinction is in what the language is suited for. The restricted code worksbetter than the elaborated code for situations in which there is a great deal of shared andtaken-for-granted knowledge in the group of speakers. It is economical and rich, conveying avast amount of meaning with a few words, each of which has a complex set of connotationsand acts like an index, pointing the hearer to a lot more information which remains unsaid.(Doceo website; emphases in the original)

Within the comforting context, person-centered and position-centered talk maythus be two message dimensions that serve similar yet somewhat different second-ary functions above and beyond the primary goal of ameliorating difficult emo-tions. Specifically, sophisticated person-centered talk legitimizes and validates theemotional experiences of the upset person in talk. Yet people may possess emotionknowledge that ranges from what is culturally and normatively expected whenoffering help (e.g., people usually cry when they grieve the loss of a loved one) to


idiosyncratic and unique emotion knowledge about the support recipient (e.g., Shenever cries when she’s sad), that privileges the unique relationship, and that alsogets expressed in more and less sophisticated person-centered messages.

The expression of feelings in position-centered speech is typically accom-plished through nonverbal channels, particularly the extent to which people effec-tively use nonverbal immediacy behaviors when expressing support. These behav-iors convey the communicator’s willingness to engage in interaction. Immediacycues include direct eye contact and expressions of vocal and facial warmth. Theyalso include listener-adapted cues, such as backchanneling cues that signal under-standing (e.g., headnods). More and less position-centered talk may reflect the(un)skilled use of idiosyncratic knowledge unique to the relationship. So for in-stance, position-centered talk may range from relational knowledge that consistsof scripted, role-based behavior (e.g., normative expressions of sympathy betweena sales clerk and a customer) to knowledge that reflects intimate, relational infor-mation a supporter possesses about the recipient (e.g., knowing that a recipient issensitive to touch).

Each message dimension may contribute in slightly different ways to an upsetperson’s affective improvement, and much like there is a range in the extent towhich people effectively use person-centered talk, we would also expect variationsin people’s ability to use position-centered support more or less effectively. Inshort, we propose an integrated, rather than a distributive model of supportivemessages: It may not be the case that people use either person-centered or posi-tion-centered messages. Rather, it might be the case that people use both personcentered and position centered messages in more and less skilled ways. For exam-ple, it may well be that a highly position-centered message consists of few words,but highly immediate nonverbal cues that express compassion.

There is initial evidence that person-centered and position-centered talk maybe somewhat conceptually and operationally distinct, yet related dimensions ofsupportive communication. Consider that person-centered studies have put a pre-mium on verbal message exchange as the primary vehicle through which supportis conveyed, but empirical research on “being there” shows that the mere presenceof another person affects well-being (Dakof and Taylor 1990; Woodgate 2006).Current work on nonverbal expressions of support suggests further that these non-verbal features may be important components of the “feeling better” process (Jonesand Wirtz 2006). Furthermore, it seems that nonverbal and verbal expressions ofsupport play different roles in the support process. Jones and Wirtz (2001) foundthat more and less person-centered messages are primarily responsible for differ-ences in perceived and actual well-being in stranger relationships, whereas imme-diacy cues other than those that are normatively appropriate in these relationshipsdid not significantly moderate the relationship between verbal person-centeredmessages and perceived as well as actual well-being. Lastly, the dual-processtheory discussed above suggests ways in which those mechanisms may differ.


Whether more and less person- and position-centered forms of support play outin interpersonal relationships that vary in function and closeness remains to beempirically seen.

3.2 Person-centered conversations

Our second trajectory concerns the methodological paradigm of person-centeredtheory. The refreshingly eclectic philosophical framework of constructivism standsin stark contrast to the methodological determinism that has guided empiricalresearch on person-centered theory over the past 25 years. Even though the expo-nents of constructivism have argued for the application of research methodologythat can unfold those interpretive processes which (re)produce social reality andagainst a research model that stresses variable analysis (Delia 1977; Delia, O’Keefe,and O’Keefe 1982), it is undoubtedly the latter that has dominated person-centeredscholarship.

People have little difficulty discerning more and less sophisticated, preformu-lated person-centered messages such as those presented in Table 1. But it is stillan empirical question whether competent supporters actually do talk the sophisti-cated person-centered talk when asked to help. Some evidence suggests that theydo. For example, Samter (1984, 1985) found that participants used what was subse-quently coded highly person-centered support in actual conversations. But Mettsand colleagues (1995) found that when support providers responded to the feigneddistress of confederates, only 4.2 % of their responses were highly person-centered.It seems imperative that we examine the presence and nature of person-centeredtalk in actual conversations. An expedition into person-centered features of actualconversations sparks interesting questions: How many person-centered messagesdoes it take to turn a person’s sadness into no sadness (if we assume that negativeemotion is not the absence of positive emotion; see Watson and Tellegen 1985)?Does one highly person-centered message “make up” for two or three moderatemessages? Or, in line with Gottman’s (1999) famous 5 : 1 ratio, does it take 5 HPCmessages to make up for one LPC message?

Evidently, people do not talk in messages; people have supportive conversa-tions with other people they know well, and it is these conversations and relation-ships that sustain peoples’ sense of perceived support and that ultimately contrib-ute to well being (cf. Lakey and Orehek 2011). The conversation is the site wherethe helper can “express, elaborate, and clarify relevant thoughts and feelings”(Burleson and Goldsmith 1998: 260). Burleson and Goldsmith (1998) presented atheory of supportive conversation. In line with stress buffering models whichassume that support is most beneficial in direct response to a stressor (for a reviewsee Uchino et al. 2012), the supportive conversation is a process of facilitatingreappraisals whereby emotional experiences result from appraisals which, in turn,are about how events are evaluated in the context of personal goals and needs.


Comforting works by discursively constructing appraisals over the course of a sup-portive conversation. To date, the theory remains untested. The problem is thatit is difficult to examine the extent to which supportive talk causes emotionalchange.

Conversational linkages are important in counseling psychology, and a processthat could be applied to appraisal talk is motivational interviewing (MI; Millerand Rollnick 2013). In line with appraisal theory, MI postulates that the person isresponsible for changing emotion, behavior, and/or thought. However, change isdifficult because people possess ambivalent motivations (e.g., wanting to succeedin class, yet also wanting to socialize with friends). These motivations are resistantto change because both motivations are rewarding (and potentially costly). There-fore, direct persuasion is often met with reactance. A first step for the helper is tofacilitate an assessment of where the recipient is in terms of wanting to change.MI stipulates five cognitive change stages, namely recontemplation (“I don’t thinkI have a problem”), contemplation (“Yeah, something’s not right”), preparation (“Ithink I’m going to do something about that”), action planning (“Here’s what I’mgonna do”), and actual implementation (I’m doin’ it”). Facilitating this assessmentultimately involves the use of person-centered support which ought to fulfill fourgoals: (a) express empathy, (b) encourage help recipients to experience andexpress their discrepant motivations, (c) roll with resistance (i.e., accepting resist-ance to change), and (d) foster self-efficacy. Rolling with resistance is entirely inline with appraisal theory, which suggests that the helper is there to facilitate, not“fix” or resolve problems that may have contributed to stressful and upsettingemotions.

But how do we encourage people to use these skills in everyday supportiveencounters? We propose mindfulness as a cognitive, motivational mechanism forperson-centered talk. Conceptually, both mindfulness and person-centered supportstress intention, attention and awareness of present relational realities (Shapiro etal. 2006). Mindfulness is defined as awareness of and attention to mental stimulias they present themselves to us in the here and now in a dispassionate, non-judgmental way (Brown, Ryan and Creswell 2007). Numerous experimental studiesshowed that mindfulness improves people’s mental and physiological health.Mindfulness may play an important role in appraisal talk (Brown, Ryan, and Cres-well 2007; Strohsahl and Wilson 1999). Most helpers experience some anxiety orpressure when they are asked to help (Jones 2011). Fears of not providing the“proper” support, expectations to fix problems, distorted views of support as afast-acting remedy – all of these preoccupy the helper who is therefore anythingelse but mindful. Mindfulness may permit person-centered supporters to firstbecome aware of, attentive to, and ultimately let go of their own fears before theyengage in person-centered talk (i.e., validating feelings). Mindfulness also provideshelpers with fundamental intentional action readiness or a perspective thatfocuses on other-centered kindness and compassion, and thus the opposite of self-


centered performance anxieties (Shapiro et al. 2006). The inclusion of mindfulnessdeviates from previous assumptions implicit in person-centered theory that thehelper ought to attend virtually exclusively to the distressed person through theprocess of validating emotion. The pressures and expectations that may lead help-ers to simply not “be there” or to offer glib comfort may dissipate by fosteringsimple mindful attunement.

Mindfulness, coupled with motivational interviewing, may provide us with aricher conceptualization of what person-centered talk could look and feel like. Itcould also help clarify what is meant by conceptualizations of “being there.”Lastly, similar to the many automatic mechanisms we develop over time (e.g.,stopping at a red light), mindfulness could easily turn into an effective cognitiveheuristic that activates a person’s use of person-centered messages and behaviors.In short, mindfulness may be all that’s needed to activate person-centered con-structs and thus the use of person-centered strategies.

3.3 Steady as she goes: Capitalizing on good emotions withperson-centered messages

The last trajectory conceived of supportive messages as most efficacious in buffer-ing immediately experienced stressors. Our next trajectory explores the utility ofeveryday person-centered talk above and beyond its immediate stress-bufferingbenefits. We propose that person-centered support may contribute significantly tomain effects. The main effects model (viz. the stress buffering model) stipulatesthat a person’s relatively stable perceived support, which is sustained throughordinary, nonstressful social interactions, generates a main effect for health (Lakeyand Orehek 2011).

Person-centered support may play an important role in ordinary talk and whenwe share good news. Of course, we experience mundane (and good) things farmore frequently than bad things. However, sharing a day filled with good thingsmay sound trivial at first blush: catching the bus, having a good conversation, aproject well done. Nevertheless, these mundane things fill our daily conversations.How people turn to others to share good news is called capitalization (Gable andReis 2010). Because a person’s perceived support is usually relatively stable andbecause well-being is a function of how people deal with their emotional experien-ces, it makes sense to explore the impact of person-centered support in responseto everyday minor hassles (i.e., the bad news) and everyday minor positive events.

Supportive communication and capitalization differ in at least one fundamen-tal way: Beneficial supportive communication minimizes negative emotions,whereas successful capitalization support maximizes, or capitalizes on positiveemotions. People maintain optimal well-being when they experience, on average,a ratio of three positive emotions to one negative emotion (Frederickson and Lo-sada 2005). In addition, negative and positive events are regulated by two inde-


pendent processes, namely appetition and aversion. The former deals with rewardsand positive emotions, whereas the latter deals with threats and negative emotions(Carver 1996). Positive and negative emotions also serve different functions: Nega-tive emotions orient a person to actions that aim to minimize these emotions.

Frederickson’s (1998) “broaden and build” theory contributes to capitalizationand proposes that positive emotions function to broaden the scope of interpersonalconstruct structures (thought-action repertoires; Frederickson 2001), social bonds,and support resources. Conveying positive events, be they minor or more substan-tial, has important personal and relational consequences. Positive emotionsenhance “broad-minded coping” (i.e., examining the “big picture of a problem,generating multiple solutions), which ultimately reinforce long-term coping abil-ities and stress resilience. Thus, positive emotions contribute to what Fredericksonlabels “up-ward spirals” in a person’s well-being (Frederickson and Joiner 2002;Tugade and Frederickson 2004).

The vast amount of mundane and good news is conveyed in close relationships(Gable et al. 2004), and how close others respond to this news is significantlyassociated with personal well-being and relational satisfaction (Gable, Gonzagaand Strachman 2006). To measure the effects of responses on the capitalizer (therecipient) Gable and her team adapted the active/passive-constructive/destructiveaccommodation response matrix designed as part of the investment model by Rus-bult and colleagues (e.g., Rusbult, Drigotas and Verette 1994). Active-constructiveresponses are person-centered in nature. In fact, Gable and Reis (2010) describethese responses as expressing involvement, excitement or enthusiasm about thegood news. These responses also tend to ask open-ended questions that encouragecapitalizers to elaborate on the implications and consequences of the positiveevent. Interestingly, McCullough and Burleson (2012) report initial results of astudy that tested specific message features of celebratory support. Two active-constructive features in particular, namely acknowledging feelings and offers tocelebrate, were viewed as most effective.

Two response categories tend to reflect low person-centered responses. Pas-sive-destructive responses minimize the relevance of the positive event by notacknowledging it at all, by dismissing any positive emotions associated with theevent, and by immediately changing the topic. Additionally, active-destructiveresponses are those that reflect an active and attentive listener, yet one who willdismiss the positive event or who will point out the negative sides of the event orwho will attempt to reframe the event in less favorable ways. Passive-constructiveresponses are closest to MPC messages because these responses may implicitlyindicate a positive attitude yet the responder says very little. Indeed, this responsediffers from the active-constructive response in level of involvement. Passive-con-structive responses do not ask questions or comment on the personal meaningful-ness of the event to the capitalizer. As expected, active-constructive responsesto positive event disclosures are usually positively associated with personal and


relational well-being, whereas the other three response styles are not (Reis et al.2010).

Capitalization and broaden-and-build theory are part of a growing area ofscholarship on positive psychology, which is concerned with the pursuit of under-standing optimal human functioning and human strength (see Lopez and Snyder2011). From the perspective of person-centered theory, it might be most insightfulto examine the impact of PC messages on positive event disclosures. A first ques-tion concerns the perceived and real impact of PC messages on positive and nega-tive event disclosures. It seems that LPC messages might be more relationally andpersonally harmful in response to positive event disclosures than in response tonegative event disclosures. A distressed person who just shared his or her frustra-tions will likely feel only worse in response to low person-centered support, but ahappy person who just shared his good news will likely not only feel less happybut also frustrated and sad. In other words, in addition to lower levels of positiveemotion, capitalizers who receive LPC support may also experience negative emo-tions. Thus, the personal and relational consequences of LPC responses to goodnews are more detrimental than LPC responses to bad news. Second, the presenceof person-centered support is a relational resource that contributes significantly toone’s perceived social support, which is itself positively associated with personalwell-being. So, people who consistently receive HPC support may be better ableto sustain adverse events. A final research question concerns the extent to whichpeople actually use high PC messages in response to good news.

3.4 Person-centered supportive communication: Reprieve

Let us summarize the development of PC since its inception in 1980. Early workin supportive communication cast PC as a cognitive construct best operationalizedin messages. PC was originally labeled “listener-adapted persuasive strategies”(O’Keefe and Delia 1979: 231), a slight oversimplification that was revised quicklyto acknowledge that messages (like people) are more or less “complex” (O’Keefeand Delia 1982). The fact that research on PC in the context of support emanatedfrom persuasion may explain why PC is operationalized in messages. Table 1shows nomothetic person-centered messages in the form of declarative statements,imperatives, and exclamations with the goal to ameliorate emotional upset, a goalthat is analogous to attitudinal change in the context of persuasion (see Bodie2013a).

Conceptualizations of person-centered comfort have since extended beyondthe use of such assertions. As discussed earlier, Burleson and Goldsmith’s (1998)theory of cognitively induced reappraisal has shifted the focus from examiningperceived differences in PC messages to the complex discursive choices supportersand recipients make during talk. This shift certainly complicated things for PC, apoint that did not elude Burleson. Indeed, in one of the last conversations the


second author had with Burleson (who passed away in 2010), Burleson admittedthat PC is a “messy” construct and perhaps not so easily captured in preformulatedmessages. Burleson (2003: 582–583) comments in more detail in a chapter:

“Helpers manifest a person-centered approach to emotional support by encouraging the targetto tell his or her story about the problem or upset (“What happened here? Can you tell meabout what happened?”), and continually create the conversational spaces through whichextended, detailed versions of that story can be told and retold. Once the distressed targetbegins telling his or her story, the person-centered helper can do several things to facilitatethis process. First, the helper can emphasize that the target should feel free to tell an extendedstory about the upsetting event … the helper can assist by prompting continuation and elabo-ration, making inquiries about the situation and reactions to it (“Um-hmm. Yes. And thenwhat happened?”) … helpers can … ask explicitly about the other’s thoughts and feelingsregarding the situation … [and] also be trained to encourage the target’s emotional talk bylearning to use statements explicitly elaborating and legitimizing the expression of feelings,and can reinforce this by asserting that having the experienced feelings is understandable”

PC support has evolved from a mere message on paper into a skill enacted by ahelper through the use of a “class” of specific behaviors, or rather “a repertoire ofbehavioral strategies and tactics” (Burleson 2003: 580). We would like to push thisevolution a bit further and argue that what PC looks like in conversation is likelyvery different than what it looks like in single-shot messages, a point that indeedis reflected already in the model presented by Burleson and Goldsmith (1998). PCis no longer a function of a message but a characteristic behavior of a person anda property of social interaction. This conjecture is somewhat reflected in tran-scripts from Jones and Wirtz (2006), which show that trained confederates usedquestions to explore the recipient’s emotions and other aspects of the problematicevent. In the HPC example, for instance, the confederate has 14 conversationalturns, 10 of which are questions (71.4 %). In contrast, the LPC example contains 8questions over 24 total turns (33 %); and, of course, most of the questions fromthe LPC helper challenge emotions rather than seek to explore them. So there areclearly qualitative differences and differences in types of questions that constitutehigh and low PC support.

4 Listening as supportive communication: Exemplarof an emerging research program

Supportive conversations present a unique context for the study of listening (Jones2011: 86), and scholars, practitioners, and distressed people alike assert that listen-ing is a key activity in the comforting process. Although the role of listening inhelping situations has been recognized for decades, it is difficult to articulate justwhat listening is or what listeners do (for a review see Bodie 2012a). ‘Good listen-ing’ and person-centeredness are often viewed synonymously (Bostrom 1990: 7).


In our view, there is a need to integrate person-centered listening behaviors intotheory and research on supportive communication. But just where (i.e., at whatmoment in the supportive process) and how listening should be explicated isdebatable. The second author has spearheaded a comprehensive research agendathat advances our theoretical and operational thinking of supportive “listening.”

4.1 The beginnings of a research program

The shift from person-centered messages to person-centered helpers is subtle butsignificant. While the focus on messages largely removes the support providerfrom systematic scrutiny, the focus on people and the ways in which they enactemotional support opens up a rich set of theoretical and empirical questions. Thefirst link is simple: Producing messages with higher levels of PC and supportive(or active) listening require significant cognitive processing. Evidence for the con-nection between PC support and skilled listening comes from research that peoplewith higher levels of interpersonal cognitive complexity (ICC) are more adept atproducing HPC messages (Burleson 2011). In addition, ICC has been linked to lis-tening comprehension (Beatty and Payne 1984), tendencies to remember conversa-tions (Neuliep and Hazleton 1986), and more sophisticated understanding of sup-portive communication (Bodie et al. 2011).

The importance of providing a nuanced account of supportive listening is cor-roborated by findings that people report a preference for interacting with engagedhelpers (Jones and Wirtz 2007) and consistently rate listening as an importantcomponent of social support (for review see Bodie, Vickery and Gearhart 2013).Support providers who are more attentive and conversationally responsive elicitmore detailed disclosures from distressed others (Miller, Berg and Archer 1983)and are more likely to provide appropriate responses to those disclosures (Clark1993). Consequently, stressed individuals seek out support from others whom theyview as particularly good listeners. If good listening is so crucial to support provi-sions, it behooves us to determine the profile of good listening.

4.2 Mapping the behavioral correlates of supportive listening

In line with personal construct theory, we wanted to examine the personal con-structs people associate with good listening and what specific behaviors are associ-ated with these constructs. We sought to uncover components of implicit theoriesof listening – those cognitive representations central to how listening works andthe behaviors that are associated with these attributes (Bodie et al. 2012; Bodie,Vickery and Gearhart 2013). Our theoretical approach was informed by an assump-tion common to social cognition, namely that people are naïve scientists. Kruglan-ski’s (1990) lay epistemic theory is an inferential theory about knowledge forma-


tion processes and proposes that people validate their hypotheses on the basis ofevidence that is either a result of logical (if-then), or probabilistic and statisticalinferences (half of all Americans vote). Applied to our context, we wanted to exam-ine listening attributes (e.g., what listening is) and the behavioral indicators thatare associated with these attributes (e.g., what listeners do) (Bodie et al. 2012).Much like personal constructs, attributes are beliefs about what an object is andbehavioral indicators are beliefs about what an object does (Pavitt and Haight1985).

In a set of three studies we found that people view competent listeners aspossessing five attributes, namely attentiveness, understanding, responsiveness,friendliness, and the ability to sustain conversational flow (Bodie et al. 2012).Attributes, such as intelligence, confidence, humor, and clarity were not highlyrelated to listening competence. These five attributes become salient when judgingothers as good or bad listeners. Our studies also revealed a range of specific behav-ioral indicators that are associated with these five attributes and that are thusrelevant to supportive conversations: (a) eye contact is primarily associated withattentiveness, (b) smiling and laughing with friendliness, (c) verbal and physicalcomposure with conversational flow, and (d) asking questions with understandingand responsiveness. It seems that people have implicit expectations or mentalrepresentations about good listening and subsequently “look for” certain kinds ofbehaviors that fulfill these expectations.

People’s implicit theories of listening easily integrate with person-centeredtheory. The five listening attributes map onto explications of “supportive people”who possess the motivation and ability to acquire (a) knowledge about the feelingsand emotional states of others; (b) knowledge about human emotion and itsdynamics; and (c) knowledge of specific nonverbal, linguistic, and rhetoricalresources through which supportive interactions can be realized in specific mes-sage strategies (Burleson and Kunkel 1996). The characteristics of supportive lis-teners mirror these general characteristics: listeners “get the meaning” of theirconversational partners; as part of recognizing their knowledge, they “attend toverbal cues” and “offer feedback,” and “make a conscious effort” expressing a“willingness” to listen to the partner.

What our research on implicit theories of listening research also suggests isthat listening and its attributes/behaviors are expected. Expectations are usuallydefined as normative behavioral scripts that define social interactions (Jones andGuerrero 2001). People expect to see certain supportive listening behaviors (i.e.,establishing eye contact, asking questions) that signal conversational engagement,responsiveness, attentiveness, and understanding. The absence of these suppor-tive listening behaviors may have negative implications for conversational partnersand the relationship. The power of expectations is imbedded in the philosophicalframework of person-centered theory: To be person-centered is to accommodatethe other person. By incorporating principles of accommodation we can further


advance the second trajectory outlined above, namely to move the study of suppor-tive communication from a focus on individuals producing and processing messa-ges to dyads co-constructing problems and coping solutions.

4.3 Linking effective supportive listening to outcomes

Carl Rogers’ (1959, 1995) philosophy of active-empathic listening permeates workon verbal person centeredness. However, recommendations for “active listening”are extrapolated from counseling (Hutchby 2005; Nugent and Halvorson 1995) withlittle direct evidence of its effectiveness in interpersonal relationships (Cramer1987; Gottman et al. 1998). Therefore, we conducted a study to addresses whetheractive listening behaviors influence important outcomes of informal supportiveconversations (Bodie and Vickery 2012). Supportive behaviors contribute to threeimmediate outcomes, namely generating emotional awareness and changingaffect, solving a problem, and reinforcing the relationship between helper andrecipient (Goldsmith et al. 2000). To explore the impact of active listening behav-iors on these three outcomes, we analyzed 171 supportive conversations. Of par-ticular relevance to our argument are the results of the relative importance ofspecific active listening behaviors to perceived emotional awareness and affectchange.

Active listening includes a range of observable behaviors, including para-phrasing, reflecting feelings, assumption checking, and asking questions, each ofwhich is mentioned by Burleson (2003) as an important behavior in the perceptionof helpful emotional support. Paraphrases are content and relational summariesthat signal understanding (Weger, Castle and Emmett 2010). These summaries aretypically prefaced with short introductions that indicate their speculative nature(It seems like …), but these linguistic hedges are not necessary. What is importantfor competent paraphrasing is that active listeners accurately detect and effectivelyarticulate the upset person’s feeling state (Hutchby 2005). One strategy to assureaccuracy is to follow the paraphrase or reflection with assumption checking. These“check-outs” or “tags” are short questions that determine whether the listener hasaccurately captured the meaning of the discloser’s response (Does that fit for you?)(Baldwin 1987). Finally, active listeners also engage with questioning in the formof open questions which shift the conversation in particular directions (Healingand Bavelas 2011).

We found that perceived emotional awareness is a function of how well alistener paraphrases and reflects feelings, suggesting that emotional awareness isprimarily communicated through summary statements that show understandingof a discloser’s content and feelings. On average, the verbal behaviors were 3.31times more important to the prediction of emotional awareness than were thenonverbal behaviors. For affect change, open questions, check outs, paraphrasing,eye contact, and facial expressions contributed substantively. Although the overall


effect was small for any given behavior, on average, the verbal behaviors werestronger predictors of affect change (2.72 times stronger on average) than werenonverbal behaviors, mirroring results from the model predicting emotional aware-ness.

In line with two other studies (Bodie and Jones 2011; Jones and Guerrero 2001),the results of this study clearly point to the superiority of linguistic listening cues.We now have evidence from three studies suggesting that verbal person-centeredcues are (a) more important contributors to impressions of others as “good listen-ers” (Bodie et al. 2012; Jones and Guerrero 2001) and (b) rated as more importantby third-party observers who rated a supportive listener (Bodie and Jones 2011).However, the somewhat arbitrary “verbal” and “nonverbal” labels may not explainthese results. Similar to lay epistemic views of listening, Clark (1996) suggests thatboth verbal and nonverbal listening behaviors contribute jointly to discourse.When we examined a set of supportive conversations, our research team foundthat conversations with fewer listening indicators (e.g., less eye contact, fewerdirect verbal displays of understanding), did not flow as smoothly. In these conver-sations, stories also were not told as coherently, and disclosers were more likelyto repeat themselves.

But why do verbal behaviors contribute more strongly to listening outcomesthan do nonverbal behaviors? Clark suggests that contributions to discourse areachieved in two phases, the presentation phase and the acceptance phase. In thepresentation phase, one partner offers a proposition which can then be accepted(fully, partially or not at all) by the other partner. As part of the acceptance phase(and quite reminiscent of the motivational interviewing stage we discussed above),listeners can engage in a range of behaviors that provide (in)valid evidence ofunderstanding and thus contribute more (or less) to explicit acceptance of whatwas said (or lack thereof). Clark lays out four types of positive evidence of under-standing, including (1) displays (e.g., using immediacy cues, and verbal statementsacknowledging emotions), (2) exemplifications (e.g., paraphrasing, using iconicgestures), (3) assertions (i.e., generic backchannel responses), and (4) presupposi-tions (i.e., uptaking or initiating the next turn). As noted previously, these typessustain our claim that listening cannot be viewed as independent of the speaker;it is jointly construed to generate shared meaning.

Whether active listening techniques promote beneficial outcomes in suppor-tive conversations (and stress-buffering situations) and how active listening func-tions for main effects models of support is another empirical question. Ourresearch suggests that traditional listening theories need to be revised. These theo-ries are usually based on stage models of information processing and contain asequential or parallel set of procedures through which all listeners supposedlytraverse when making sense of aural information (for reviews see Bodie et al. 2008;Imhof 2010). These procedures consist of sensing, interpreting, and responding;some models also include processes such as “hearing” prior to sensing and “evalu-


ating” prior to responding (Burleson 2011). Arguably, it is difficult to empiricallyverify these models; sensing is a theoretical attribute, not a behavioral indicator.In addition, these theories imply that good listening is guided by information-processing tropes that put a premium on comprehension: If a message has beenunderstood, the person has listened effectively (for a review see Bodie 2013b). Wemay want to move away from the traditional cognitive-structural listening troika(i.e., sensing, responding, interpreting) toward more integrative theories that con-ceive of listening as a interactive process unique to the human condition, and thatare grounded in a socially-shared reality, in our case the reality of the supportiveencounter.

4.4 Extending Supportive Listening

Bodie et al. (2008) present an organizational framework from which a meaningfuland comprehensive set of listening theories could be launched. Their frameworkincorporates preconditions for listening (person factors, listening context), theactual listening process (internal mental and overt behavioral process), and listen-ing outcomes (knowledge acquisition, relationship building, affective outcomes).The empirical evidence we accumulated thus far taps some factors and culminatesin four points we must attend to when conceptualizing active listening in thecontext of social support: First, emotion regulation likely plays an important rolefor supportive listeners. Listeners called on to provide emotional support oftenhave to set aside their own agenda to problem solve or otherwise “fix” the other’sdilemma. Second, the supportive listener not only has to “interpret” information,but he or she also must draw upon shared experience to discover common themesor habits of action, and situate the listening response in the here and now. Inshort, the supportive listener has to be “mindful”. Third, scholars often invoke theconstruct as an explanatory mechanism through which support occurs (Lipari2010). Clearly, there is no dearth in “listening-is-good” claims. But just how doesgood listening get to matter so much and how does good listening actually work?Lastly, as we pointed out above, supportive listening is what Clark (1996: 212) callsa joint construal. Indeed, constructivism may serve useful for formulations ofactive listening as a joint construal problem because Constructivism explicateshow support provider and recipient co-create meaning and reality.

5 Conclusion

Supportive communication will endure as one of the most important areas ofresearch in interpersonal communication and social psychology because expres-sions of care and compassion are integral to human survival. The field of interper-sonal communication has significantly contributed to the social support literature


with person-centered theory of supportive communication. Person-centered theoryis grounded in constructivism and has generated important knowledge regardingthe kinds of messages that prove beneficial in helping people cope with emotionaldistress. Our goal in this chapter was to present three fresh trajectories for thestudy of person-centered support. All trajectories share one important characteris-tic: They conceive of supportive communication as a complicated and intricateprocess that unfolds over time.

ReferencesAndersen, Peter A. 1999. Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions. Mountain View, CA:

Mayfield.Applegate, James L. 1980. Person- and position-centered teacher communication in a day care

center: A case study triangulating interview and naturalistic methods. Studies in SymbolicInteraction 3: 59–96.

Atherton, James S. 2011 Doceo: Language Codes [Online: UK] retrieved 17 November. 2012. fromhttp://www.doceo.co.uk/background/language_codes.htm

Baldwin, Cynthia. 1987. A question classification scale for marriage and family therapy. Journal ofMarital and Family Therapy 13: 375–386.

Bavelas, Janet Beavin, Dan McGee, Bruce Phillips and Robin Routledge. 2000. Microanalysis ofcommunication in psychotherapy. Human Systems: The Journal of Systemic Consultation &Management 11: 47–66.

Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckman. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in theSociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Bernstein, Basil. 1974. Class, Codes, and Control I: Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology ofLanguage. (2nd ed.) London: Routledge.

Bodie, Graham D. 2011. The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization andevidence of validity within the interpersonal domain. Communication Quarterly 59: 277–295.

Bodie, Graham D. 2012a. Listening as positive communication. In Thomas J. Socha and MargaretJ. Pitts (eds.), The positive side of interpersonal communication, 109–125. New York: PeterLang.

Bodie, Graham D. 2012b. Task stressfulness moderates the effects of verbal person centerednesson cardiovascular reactivity: A dual-process account of the reactivity hypothesis. HealthCommunication 27: 569–580.

Bodie, Graham. D. 2013a. Supportive communication and persuasion: Theoretical intersections.In James P. Dillard and Lijiang Shen (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion 2nd edition,237–255. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bodie, Graham D. 2013b. Issues in the measurement of listening. Communication ResearchReports 30: 76–84.

Bodie, Graham D. and Brant R. Burleson. 2008. Explaining variations in the effects of supportivemessages. Communication Yearbook 32: 355–398.

Bodie, Graham D. and Susanne M. Jones. 2012. The nature of supportive listening II: The role ofverbal person centeredness and nonverbal immediacy. Western Journal of Communication76: 250–269.

Bodie, Graham D., Brant R. Burleson and Susanne M. Jones. 2012. Explaining the relationshipsamong message quality, message evaluations, and message outcomes: A dual-processapproach. Communication Monographs 79: 1–22.


Bodie, Graham D., Burleson, Brant R., Holmstrom, Amanda J., McCullough, Jennifer D., Rack,Jessica J., Hanasono, Lisa K., and Rosier, Jennifer G. 2011. Effects of cognitive complexityand emotional upset on processing supportive messages: Two tests of a dual-process theoryof supportive message outcomes. Human Communication Research 37: 350–376.

Bodie, Graham D., Kellie St. Cyr, Michelle Pence, Michael Rold and James M. Honeycut. 2012.Listening competence in initial interactions I: Distinguishing between what listening is andwhat listeners do. International Journal of Listening 26: 1–28.

Bodie, Graham D., Andrea J. Vickery and Christopher C. Gearhart. 2013. The nature of supportivelistening I: Exploring the relation between supportive listeners and supportive people.International Journal of Listening 27: 39–49.

Bodie, Graham D. and Andrea J. Vickery. 2012. “So what I hear you saying is …”: An empiricaltest of the active listening paradigm in the context of troubles talk. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the International Association for Relationship Research: Chicago, IL.

Bodie, Graham D., Debra L. Worthington, Margarete Imhof and Lynn Cooper. 2008. What would aunified field of listening look like? A proposal linking past perspectives and futureendeavors. International Journal of Listening 22: 103–122.

Bostrom, Robert N. 1990. Conceptual approaches to listening behavior. In Robert N. Bostrom(ed.), Listening behavior: Measurement and application: 1–14. New York: Guilford.

Burleson, Brant R. 1982. The development of comforting communication skills in childhood andadolescence. Child Development 53: 1578–1588.

Burleson, Brant R. 1987. Communication skills and childhood peer relationships: An Overview.Communication Yearbook 10: 143–180.

Burleson, Brant R. 2003. The experience and effects of emotional support: What the study ofcultural and gender differences can tell us about close relationships, emotion andinterpersonal communication. Personal Relationships 10: 1–23.

Burleson, Brant R. 2011. A constructivist approach to listening. International Journal of Listening25: 27–46.

Burleson, Brant R. and Daena J. Goldsmith. 1998. How the comforting process works: Alleviatingemotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In: Peter A. Andersen andLaura K. Guerrero (eds.), Handbook of Communication and Emotion, 246–275. San Diego,CA: Academic Press.

Burleson, Brant R. and Adrianne Kunkel. 1996. The socialization of emotional support skills inchildhood. In: Gregory R. Pierce, Barbara. R. Sarason and Irwin G. Sarason (eds.), Handbookof Social Support and the Family, 105–140. New York: Plenum Press.

Burleson, Brant R. and Erina L. MacGeorge. 2002. Supportive communication. In: Mark L. Knappand John A. Daly (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (3rd ed.), 374–424.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burleson, Brant R. and Wendy Samter. 1984. Cognitive and motivational influences onspontaneous comforting behavior. Human Communication Research 11: 231–260.

Burleson, Brant R. and Wendy Samter. 1985. Consistencies in theoretical and naïve evaluationsof comforting messages. Communication Monographs 52: 104–123.

Burleson, Brant R., Jesse Delia and James Applegate. 1995. The socialization of person-centeredcommunication: Parents’ contributions to their children’s social-cognitive andcommunication skills. In: Mary Anne Fitzpatrick and Anita L. Vangelisti (eds.), ExplainingFamily Interactions, 34–76. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brown, Kirk W., Richard M. Richard Ryan and J. David Creswell. 2007. Mindfulness: Theoreticalfoundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry 18: 211–237.

Carkhuff, Robert R. 1969. Helping and Human Relations: A Primer for Lay and ProfessionalHelpers: Selection and Training (vol. 1) Oxford, England: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Chiari, Gabriele and M. Laura Nuzzo. 1996. Psychological Constructivism: A MetatheoreticalDifferentiation. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 9: 163–184.


Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Clark, Leslie F. 1993. Stress and the cognitive-conversational benefits of social interaction.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 12: 25–55.Craig, Elizabeth A. and Amy J. Johnson. 2011. Role strain and online social support for childless

stepmothers. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 28: 868–887.Cramer, Duncan. 1987. Self-esteem, advice-giving, and the faciliative nature of close personal

relationships. Person-Centered Review 2: 99–110.Crockett, Walter H. 1965. Cognitive complexity and impression formation. Progress in

Experimental Personality Research 2: 47–90.Dakof, Gayle A. and Shelley E. Taylor. 1990. Victims’ perceptions of social support: What is

helpful from whom? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58: 80–89.DeSanto, Paula. 2012. Effective Addiction Treatment: The Minnesota Alternative. Spring Lake Park:

Minnesota Alternatives LLC.Delia, Jesse. 1977. Constructivism and the study of human communication. Quarterly Journal of

Speech 63: 66–83.Delia, Jesse G., Susan L. Kline and Brant R. Burleson. 1979. The development of persuasive

communication strategies in kindergarteners through Twelfth-graders. CommunicationMonographs 46: 241–256.

Delia, Jesse, Barbara J. O’Keefe and Daniel J. O’Keefe. 1982. The constructivist approach tocommunication. In: Frank E. X. Dance (ed.) Human Communication Theory, 147–191. NewYork: Harper and Row.

Fehr, Beverly. 1988. Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 4: 557–579.

Feng, Bo and Hairong Feng. 2012. Examining cultural similarities and differences in responses toadvice: A comparison of american and chinese college students. Communication Researchdoi: 10.1177/0093650211433826 (online access).

Folkman, Susan (ed.). 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Stress, Health, and Coping. New York:Oxford University Press.

Frederickson, Barbara. 1998. What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology 2:300–319.

Frederickson, Barbara. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 56: 218–226.

Frederickson, Barbara and Marcial F. Losada. 2005. Positive affect and the complex dynamics ofhuman flourishing. American Psychologist 60: 678–686.

Frederickson, Barbara and Thomas Joiner. 2002. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals towardemotional well-being. Psychological Science 13: 172–175.

Gable, Shelley and Harry T. Reis. 2010. Good news! Capitalizing on positive events in aninterpersonal context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 42: 198–240.

Gable, Shelley, Harry T. Reis, Emily Impett and Evan R. Asher. 2004. What do you do when thingsgo right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 87: 228–245.

Gable, Shelley, Gian C. Gonzaga and Amy Strachman. 2006. Will you be there for me whenthings go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 91: 904–917.

Goldsmith, Daena J. 2004. Communicating Social Support. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Gottman, John M. and Nan Silver. 1999. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. NewYork: Three Rivers Press.

Gottman, John M., James Coan, Sybil Carrere and Catherine Swanson. 1998. Predicting maritalhappieness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family 60:5–22.


Halone, Kelby K. and Loretta Pecchioni. 2001. Relational listening: A grounded theoretical model.Communication Reports 14: 59–71.

Harker, Richard and Stephen A. May. 1993. Code and habitus: Comparing the accounts ofBernstein and Bourdieu. British Journal of Sociology of Education 14: 169–178.

Healing, Sara and Janet Beavin Bavelas. 2011. Can questions lead to change? An analogueexperiment. Journal of Systemic Therapies 30: 30–47.

Health and Behavior, Committee on. 2001. Health and Behavior: The Interplay of Biological,Behavioral, and Societal Influences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

High, Andrew C. 2012. The production and reception of verbal person-centered social support inface-to-face and computer-mediated dyadic conversations. Unpublished dissertation.Pennsylvania State University, College Park, PA.

Hutchby, Ian. 2005. “Active listening”: Formulations and the elicitation of feelings-talk in childcounseling. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38: 303–329.

High, Andrew and James P. Dillard. 2012. A review and meta-analysis of person-centeredmessages and social support outcomes. Communication Studies 63: 99–118.

Horowitz, Leonard M. and Stephen Strack (eds.). 2011. Handbook of Interpersonal Psychology:Theory, Research, Application, Assessment, and Therapeutic Intervention. Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.

Imhof, Margarete. 2010. The cognitive psychology of listening. In Andrew D. Wolvin (ed.),Listening and Human Communication in the 21st century: 97–126. Boston: Blackwell.

Jetten, Jolanda, Catherine Haslam and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.). 2011. The Social Cure: Identity,Health, and Well-Being. East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.

Jones, Susanne M. 2011. Supportive listening. International Journal of Listening 25: 85–103.Jones, Susanne M. and Brant R. Burleson. 1997. The impact of situational variables on helpers’

perceptions of comforting messages: An attributional analysis. Communication Research 24:530–555.

Jones, Susanne M. and Laura K. Guerrero. 2001. Nonverbal immediacy and verbal person-centeredness in the emotional support process. Human Communication Research 4: 567–596.

Jones, Susanne. M. and John G. Wirtz. 2007. “Sad monkey see, monkey do:” Nonverbal matchingin emotional support encounters. Communication Studies 58: 71–86.

Jones, Susanne M. and John G. Wirtz. 2006. How does the comforting process work?: Anempirical test of an appraisal-based model of comforting. Human Communication Research32: 217–243.

Kelly, George. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs: Clinical Diagnosis andPsychotherapy. London: Routledge.

Kruglanski, Arie W. 1990. Lay epistemic theory in social-cognitive psychology. PsychologicalInquiry 1: 181–197.

Lakey, Brian and Edward Orehek. 2011. Relational regulation theory: A new approach to explainthe link between perceived social support and mental health. Psychological Review 118:482–495.

Lipari, Lisbeth. 2010. Listening, thinking, being. Communication Theory 20: 348–362.MacGeorge, Erina L., Bo Feng and Brant R. Burleson. 2011. Supportive communication, In: Mark

L. Knapp and John A. Daly (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 317–354. (4th

ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Maton, Karl. 2011. Knowledge-building: Analysing the cumulative development of ideas. In:

Gabrielle Ivinson, Brian Davies and John Fitz (eds.), Knowledge and Identity: Concepts andApplications in Bernstein’s Sociology, 23–38. New York: Routledge.

McCullough, Jennifer and Brant R. Burleson. 2012. Celebratory support: Messages that enhancethe effects of positive experiences. In: Thomas J. Socha and Margaret Pitts (eds.), ThePositive Side of Interpersonal Communication, 229–245. New York: Peter Lang.


Metts, Sandra, Steve Backhaus and Dean Kazoleas. 1995, February. Social support asproblematic communication. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western StatesCommunication Association, Portland, OR.

Miller, Lynn C., John H. Berg and Richard L. Archer. 1983. Openers: Individuals who elicit intimateself-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44: 1234–1244.

Miller, William R. and Stephen Rollnick. 2012. Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change.(3rd ed.) New York: Guilford.

Neimeyer, Robert A. (ed.). 2001. Meaning Reconstruction and the Experience of Loss. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Notarius, Clifford I. and Lisa R. Herrick. 1988. Listener response strategies to a distressed other.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 5: 97–108.

Nugent, William R. and Helene Halvorson. 1995. Testing the effects of active listening. Researchon Social Work Practice 5: 152–175.

O’Keefe, Barbara J. 1988. The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning aboutcommunication. Communication Monographs 55: 80–103.

O’Keefe, Barbara J. and Jesse G. Delia. 1979. Construct comprehensiveness and cognitivecomplexity as predictors of the number and strategic adaptation of arguments and appealsin a persuasive message. Communication Monographs 46: 231–240.

O’Keefe, Barbara J. and Jesse G. Delia. 1982. Impression formation and message production. In:Mike E. Roloff and Charles R. Berger (eds.), Social cognition and communication, 33–7?■■■. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Pavitt, Charles and Larry Haight. 1985. The “competent communicator” as a cognitive prototype.Human Communication Research 12: 225–241.

Raskin, Jonathan D. 2002. Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radicalconstructivism, and social constructivism. In: Jonathan D. Raskin and Sara K. Bridges (eds.),Studies in Meaning: Exploring Constructivist Psychology, 1–25. New York: Pace UniversityPress.

Rogers, Carl R. 1959. A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships asdeveloped in the client-centered framework. In Sigmond Koch (ed.), Psychology: A Study ofa Science (3rd edition), 84–256. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rogers, Carl R. 1995. A Way of Being. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Rusbult, Caryl E., Stephen M. Drigotas and Julie Verette. 1994. The Investment Model: An

interdependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenancephenomena. In: Daniel J. Canary and Laura Stafford (eds.), Communication and RelationalMaintenance, 115–136. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Ryff, Carol D. and Burton H. Singer (eds.). 2001. Emotion, Social Relationships, and HealthOxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Shapiro, Shauna L., Linda E. Carlson, John A. Astin, and Benedict Freeman. 2006. Mechanisms ofmindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology 62: 373–386.

Snyder, C. R. and Shane J. Lopez. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. (2nd ed.)Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sriprakash, Arathi. 2011. The contributions of Bernstein’s sociology to education DevelopmentResearch. British Journal of Sociology of Education 32: 521–539.

Tugade, Michele M. and Barbara L. Frederickson. 2004. Resilient individuals use positiveemotions to bounce back From negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 86: 320–333.

Uchino, Bert N., Kimberly Bowen, McKenzie Carlisle and Wendy Birmingham. 2012. Psychologicalpathways linking social support to health outcomes: A visit with the “ghosts” of researchpast, present, and future. Social Science and Medicine 74: 949–957.

Watson, David and Auke Tellegen. 1985. Toward a consensual structure of mood. PsychologicalBulletin 98: 219–235.


Weger, Harry, Jr., Gina R. Castle and Melissa C. Emmett. 2010. Active listening in peer interviews:The influence of message paraphrasing on perceptions of listening skill. InternationalJournal of Listening 24: 34–49.

Woodgate, Roberta L. 2006. The importance of being there: Perspectives of social support byadolescents with cancer. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing 23: 122–134.

Supportive Communication

Documents

Transcript of Supportive Communication