Cold Comfort - Springer Link

C 2005) Sex Roles, Vol. 53, Nos. 3/4, August 2005 ( DOI: 10.1007/s11199-005-5676-4

Some Consequences for Helpers Who Deliver “Cold Comfort”: Why it’s Worse for Women than Men to be Inept When Providing Emotional Support1 Amanda J. Holmstrom,2,4 Brant R. Burleson,2 and Susanne M. Jones3

Two experiments were conducted to assess whether responses to helpers who used insensitive emotional support vary as a function of the interaction between sex of participant and helper. We hypothesized that women would evaluate an insensitive female helper and her behavior more negatively than they would an insensitive male helper. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 137) read conversations in which male or female helpers sought to comfort emotionally distressed friends. In Experiment 2, participants (N = 87) engaged in face-to-face interactions in which they were comforted by either a male or female helper who used insensitive comforting messages. Overall, the results imply that women with deficient emotional support skills may be at high risk of rejection by same-sex peers. KEY WORDS: emotional support; comforting; women’s friendships; gender role expectations; social skills; heuristic information processing.

Emotional support is viewed by both theorists and laypersons as a basic provision of close personal relationships (Cunningham & Barbee, 2000; Weiss, 1974), and it is an important determinant of satisfaction within these relationships (Acitelli, 1996; Samter, 1994). When emotional support is provided skillfully (i.e., is experienced as sensitive and helpful), it can yield numerous benefits for the recipient, including improvements in emotional states (Burleson & Goldsmith, 1998), coping (Stroebe & Stroebe, 1996), and even health (Wills & Fegan, 2001). Unfortunately, research indicates that many

attempts to provide emotional support are not experienced as sensitive and helpful by recipients. There is a burgeoning literature concerned with “support attempts that fail” (Lehman & Hemphill, 1990), “miscarried helping” (Coyne, Wortman, & Lehman, 1988), and “cold comfort” (Burleson, 2003a), which shows that well-meaning, but insensitive, attempts to provide emotional support can be quite harmful to recipients, intensifying their emotional hurt, undermining their coping, and even damaging their health. But what are the consequences for the helpers who provide “cold comfort”? So far, this question has received little research attention. Moreover, the few studies that have addressed this issue have mostly focused on the consequences of providing cold comfort for male helpers because men are generally less skilled at providing emotional support than are women (e.g., MacGeorge, Gillihan, Samter, & Clark, 2003). However, there are reasons to think that the consequences of providing cold comfort for female helpers may be particularly severe, especially when their inept efforts at providing support are directed toward other women.

1A

preliminary report of Experiment 1 was presented at the biennial meeting of the International Association for Relationship Research, Madison, WI, July, 2004. 2 Department of Communication, Purdue University, Indiana. 3 Department of Communication Studies, University of Minnesota, Minnesota. 4 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Communication, Purdue University, 100 N. University Avenue, Beering Hall 2114, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2098; e-mail: [email protected].

153

C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 0360-0025/05/0800-0153/0

154 Effective Emotional Support and Gender Differences in its Provision In recent years, researchers have developed several models of detailing the properties of helpful efforts to provide emotional support (see reviews by Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002; Reis & Collins, 2000). One line of research indicates that highly “person-centered” comforting messages are perceived as doing a good job of providing sensitive, effective emotional support. Highly person-centered (HPC) comforting messages explicitly recognize and legitimize the other’s feelings, help the other to articulate those feelings, elaborate reasons why those feelings might be felt, and assist the other to see how those feelings fit in a broader context (see Burleson, 1994a). In contrast, low person-centered (LPC) comforting messages deny the other’s feelings and perspective by ignoring those feelings, challenging the legitimacy of those feelings, or telling the other how he or she should act and feel. HPC comforting messages are generally perceived by both men and women to be more sensitive and effective forms of support than LPC messages (e.g., Jones & Burleson, 1997; Kunkel & Burleson, 1999). In addition, one recent experiment (Jones & Burleson, 2003) demonstrated that both men and women who discussed an upsetting event with a helper felt better when the helper used HPC messages than if the helper used LPC messages. Other research indicates that using HPC comforting messages is associated with desirable relational outcomes for the helper; users of HPC messages have been found to be more likeable (e.g., Samter, Burleson, & Murphy, 1987) and to have more friends (e.g., Burleson, Delia, & Applegate, 1992) than users of LPC messages. Although both men and women respond more favorably to HPC than to LPC comforting messages, considerable research shows that women are more likely than men to produce HPC messages when providing comfort to distressed others (e.g., MacGeorge, Gillihan et al., 2003; Samter, 2002). Other research indicates that both men and women view HPC messages as “feminine” and LPC messages as “masculine” forms of behavior (Burleson, Holmstrom, & Gilstrap, 2003; Kunkel & Burleson, 1999). Though research has established the overwhelming preference of both men and women for receiving “feminine” HPC messages, as well as women’s greater propensity for providing such sup-

Holmstrom, Burleson, and Jones port (see review by Burleson & Kunkel, in press), only a few studies have examined whether sex of the helper moderates evaluations of those using HPC and LPC messages. For example, in an effort to explain why men are less likely than women to use HPC comforting messages, one recent study (Burleson et al., 2003) tested the hypothesis that prevailing masculine gender role expectations should lead men to like the male helpers who used HPC messages less than the female helpers who used such messages. The researchers found, as predicted, that sex of participant and sex of helper interacted with respect to liking for helpers who used HPC comforting messages: men liked the male helpers less than the female helpers who used HPC messages; in contrast, women did not differ in their liking for male and female HPC helpers. Yet to be addressed is the question of how sex of the helper influences evaluations of those who use LPC messages. Although research has shown that, on average, men are more likely than women to use LPC messages, some women do use LPC messages when seeking to comfort others. Little research has been focused on what happens when women use insensitive forms of emotional support when seeking to provide comfort. However, Eagly’s (1987; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000) social role theory of gender differences in behavior, as well as research on communicative patterns in women’s friendships (see review by Samter, 2003), suggest that just as there are repercussions for male helpers who use HPC messages with men (i.e., being liked less), there may be serious ramifications for those female helpers who use LPC comforting messages with other women. The purpose of the present experiments was to examine how a female helper’s non-normative behavior in emotional support contexts—specifically, the use of LPC comforting messages—influenced evaluations of the helper and her behavior by others, particularly by other women. This concern appears to have both theoretical and practical significance. For example, Eagly’s social role theory, as well as gender-based theories of friendship processes (e.g., Fehr, 1996), suggest that women who observe an LPC female helper should evaluate that helper more negatively than men who observe her, as well as more negatively than either male or female observers of a male LPC helper. An exploration of responses to LPC helpers may thus contribute to the elaboration and evaluation of these theories of sex and gender differences. Because the provision of sensitive emotional support plays a critical role in the friendships

Consequences of Cold Comfort of many women, those women with deficiencies in this skill may be at risk for peer rejection and social isolation. If this is the case, then therapists may be able to improve the peer acceptance of socially isolated women by enhancing their skill at providing emotional support. The Centrality of Emotional Support in the Feminine Gender Role Nurturance, emotional support, and the provision of comfort are highly gendered activities in many cultures; this is no less so than in contemporary American society (see Barbee et al., 1993; Kunkel & Burleson, 1998; Wood, 1994). Research indicates that over the course of socialization, girls, on average, receive more encouragement than boys do to (a) behave in a nurturing fashion with others (e.g., Taylor, 2002), (b) talk about their own and others’ emotions (e.g., Dunn, 1999), and (c) express sympathy both verbally and nonverbally (see Eisenberg, 2002). These experiences, in turn, are assumed to lead girls (and, later, women) to develop a more sophisticated repertoire of strategies for managing the emotional upsets of others. Reinforcing these experiences, the different roles that men and women often fill in post-industrial Western societies (e.g., Alexander & Wood, 2000) lead women to be somewhat more skilled at the complex psychological and communicative tasks associated with providing emotional support to distressed others. Consistent with this view, meta-analyses of gender differences studies report that, compared to men, women are more nurturing, “tender minded,” expressive, and emotionally supportive (Eagly, 1987; Feingold, 1994). Many additional studies document that women are more likely than men to provide solace, sympathy, HPC comforting, and other sophisticated forms of emotional support (e.g., Basow & Rubenfeld, 2003; Goldsmith & Dun, 1997; MacGeorge, Gillihan et al., 2003; MacGeorge, Graves, Feng, Gillihan, & Burleson, 2004; Oxley, Dzindolet, & Miller, 2002). More than just being better than men at providing emotional support, women are expected to be ready and willing providers of warm, nurturing support (Ashton & Fuehrer, 1993; Barbee et al., 1993; Prentice & Carranza, 2002). This expectation is communicated to girls and women in numerous ways over the course of socialization, and, for most of them, it becomes a central aspect of what it means to be feminine (Eagly et al., 2000; Wood, 1994). Most women conform to this aspect of the feminine gen-

155 der role because it tends to facilitate many of the activities they typically carry out, both personally and professionally, as women in our society. Moreover, many women become emotionally invested in the feminine gender role (i.e., want to be seen as feminine women). Gender role expectations matter most in the interpretation and evaluation of behavior when they are “activated” or made salient (Deaux & Major, 1987). Expectations associated with a particular role are likely to be activated by situations or behaviors characteristic of that role. Because the activity of providing emotional support is so strongly associated with gender (i.e., femininity) in our culture, emotional support situations are likely to activate and make salient gender role norms and expectations (see Barbee et al., 1993). Women are more likely to be sensitive to violations of gender role behavioral norms by female helpers than by male helpers because such violations constitute a greater challenge to their own self-understanding of what it means to be a woman (Leaper, Carson, Baker, Holliday, & Myers, 1995). Hence, women are likely to view “unfeminine” behavior by a woman more negatively than they are “unmasculine” behavior by a man, especially in prototypically feminine contexts (such as providing emotional support). More specifically, because LPC comforting messages are typed as masculine behavior in our culture, women are likely to evaluate female LPC helpers and their messages more negatively than they evaluate male LPC helpers and their messages. In contrast, because men are likely to be less affected than women by the “unfeminine” behavior exhibited by a female helper, sex of the helper should not influence men’s evaluations of LPC helpers or their behavior. The nature of women’s friendships provides another basis for predicting that poor emotional support skills may be particularly problematic for women. Talking about feelings, nurturing, and the mutual provision of emotional support have been identified as fundamental features of women’s friendships (e.g., Aries & Johnson, 1983; Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Fox, Gibbs, & Auerbach, 1985; Johnson, 1996). Women place a premium on the supportive communication skills of their friends (Burleson, Kunkel, Samter, & Werking, 1996; MacGeorge, Feng, & Butler, 2003). Moreover, the value women place on the comforting skills of their friends is associated with their degree of acceptance by female peers (Samter & Burleson, 1990). In

156 addition, Samter (1994) found that women’s levels of loneliness and peer acceptance were predicted by their friends’ skill in and valuing of comforting communication. Overall, women (a) expect their same-sex friends to be both seekers and providers of sensitive emotional support (e.g., Ashton & Fuehrer, 1993; Barbee, Gulley, & Cunningham, 1990), (b) frequently engage in support-related activities with their friends (e.g., Aukett, Ritchie, & Mill, 1988; Buhrke & Fuqua, 1987), and (c) evaluate their friendships, in part, on the basis of the quality of support these relationships provide (see reviews by Fehr, 1996; Samter, 2003). Because emotional support is so integral to women’s friendships—friendships that may be the only source of support for some women—the capacity to provide sensitive, effective emotional support is an important part of women’s evaluation of same-sex peers, particularly significant others (Barbee et al., 1993). Women who are unable or unwilling to provide their female friends with effective emotional support are likely to be at risk of negative evaluation and peer rejection. Although men are not necessarily expected to provide sensitive emotional support, LPC message use by women is non-normative and may be detrimental to their relationships, particularly their relationships with other women. EXPERIMENT 1 In sum, both Eagly’s (1987; Eagly et al., 2000) social role theory and research on women’s friendships suggest that women will evaluate a female LPC helper and her behavior more negatively than they will evaluate a male LPC helper and his behavior. We evaluated these ideas initially in an experiment in which participants read transcripts of interactions developed by the researchers to operationalize the use of LPC comforting messages by male and female helpers. More specifically, we hypothesized: H1: Women will like female LPC helpers less than male LPC helpers; men will not differ in their liking for female and male LPC helpers. H2: Women will view female LPC helpers as behaving less effectively, supportively, and normatively than male LPC helpers; men will not differ in their evaluations of behavior by female and male LPC helpers. We also examined how certain individual differences among women influenced evaluations of LPC helpers and their behavior.

Holmstrom, Burleson, and Jones Effects of Gender Schematicity on Evaluations of LPC Helpers and their Behavior Research by Markus and colleagues (Markus, 1977; Markus, Crane, Bernstein, & Siladi, 1982) and others (Deaux & Major, 1987; Martin, 1987) indicates that women (as well as men) differ in the extent to which they are “gender schematic.” Gender schematicity is a trait that reflects an individual’s reliance on and investment in culturally prevalent (i.e., traditional) conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Gender schematics hold specific, comparatively rigid expectations for men’s and women’s behavior, are quick to use gender-based schemata in the interpretation and evaluation of others’ behaviors, and respond negatively to “gender-bending” conduct (e.g., Markus, Smith, & Moreland, 1985). Thus, we reasoned that some women—specifically, the highly gender schematic—would be more likely to notice and respond negatively to “masculine” behavior by female helpers, such as the use of LPC comforting messages. This implies that, for women, gender schematicity would be negatively correlated with evaluations of female LPC helpers and their behavior. More specifically, we hypothesized: H3: Among women, individual differences in gender schematicity will be negatively associated with liking for female helpers who used LPC messages; women’s gender schematicity will not be associated with liking for male LPC helpers. H4: Among women, gender schematicity will be negatively associated with evaluations of the effectiveness, supportiveness, and normativeness of behavior by female helpers who used LPC messages; women’s gender schematicity will not be associated with evaluations of behavior by male LPC helpers.

Method Participants The initial sample for Experiment 1 was composed of 387 college students (190 men and 197 women) enrolled in undergraduate communication courses at a large midwestern university. The sample was largely European American (N = 336, 86.8%), but also included 13 Asian Americans (3.4%), 12 African Americans (3.1%), 10 Hispanic Americans

Consequences of Cold Comfort (2.6%), and 15 participants who declined to identify their ethnicity (3.9%). With respect to age, 145 (37.5%) were 18–19, 162 (41.9%) were 20–21, 60 (15.5%) were 22–23, 8 (2.1%) were 24–25, and 12 (3.1%) were 26 years or older. Participants received class research credit or extra credit. Procedure Participants were recruited during class sessions, but completed questionnaires on their own time. After receiving an informed consent form and details about how to receive research credit or extra credit for participating in the study, all participants received a questionnaire that consisted of five sections: (a) a background information sheet, (b) demographic measures, (c) one conversational transcript in which a helper provided emotional support to a distressed peer, (d) measures to assess participants’ evaluations of the helper and the helper’s messages, and (e) measures to assess participants’ gender schematicity. After they completed the demographic information, participants were randomly assigned to read one transcript of a conversation putatively taking place between two college students, one of whom comforts the other about a recent upset. We generated 18 scenarios by crossing dyad sex (same-sex male or same-sex female), person centeredness of the messages employed by the helper (low, moderate, or high), and distress situation (a romantic break-up, poor performance on a class test, or failing to receive a desired scholarship). The three distress situations have been used in previous research (Jones & Burleson, 1997; Samter et al., 1987) and were included to enhance generalizability of the results. Preliminary analyses detected no significant main or interaction effects for this factor; thus we make no further mention of it.5 To manipulate the sex of the interactants, participants were told that they would be reading a transcript of a conversation between either two male or two female college students. The word indicating the sex of the interactants (male or female) was underlined, and gendered names were used throughout the transcript (Paula and Christy for women; Paul and Chris for men). Messages used by helpers were constructed by the researchers to reflect either low, moderate, or high person-centered comforting (Burleson, 1994a). 5 Details regarding analyses for problem content are available from

the first author on request.

157 In the low person-centered condition, the helper told the target how he or she should act in the situation, advised the target to forget about the problem, suggested that there were “more important things in this world” to think about, and otherwise ignored or challenged the legitimacy of the target’s perspective. In the moderate person-centered condition, the helper provided an implicit acknowledgement of the target’s perspective, cited circumstances intended to mitigate the distressful event, offered expressions of sympathy, and suggested activities that would refocus the target’s attention on other events. In the high person-centered condition, the helper explicitly acknowledged the target’s feelings, indicated that the target’s feelings were understandable, offered to talk about those feelings, and suggested a context from which the distressing situation might be viewed.6 A panel of three experts, unconnected with this study but knowledgeable about the characteristics of comforting messages that vary in person centeredness, were asked to code the 18 sets of stimulus messages for whether each exhibited a low, moderate, or high level of person centeredness. All three experts coded all 18 messages in the intended manner, which indicates the successful manipulation of message person centeredness.7

Measures Immediately after reading one of the 18 comforting conversations (to which they had been randomly assigned), participants completed the fourth section of the questionnaire, which assessed their perceptions of the helper, the messages, and the comforting interaction. Perceived realism or normativeness was assessed with two items (“How easy is it for you to imagine a conversation like the one you read actually taking place between two students?” “How realistic was the conversation between Paula [Paul] and Christy [Chris]?”). Participants responded to 6 Copies

of the conversational transcripts are available from the first author on request. Similar, though not identical transcripts were employed by Samter et al. (1987). 7 As O’Keefe (2003) has recently shown, formal manipulation checks are not needed—and, indeed, are not feasible–in research designs such as that employed in the current study where the concern is with the impact of a message variation (here, person centeredness) on a particular outcome (here, evaluations of the helper and message). Our experimental messages represented low, moderate, and high levels of the theoretical construct of person centeredness, regardless of participant perceptions of these messages.

158 each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (very difficult to imagine, very unrealistic) to 5 (very easy to imagine, very realistic). Internal consistency for these two items was good, α = .82. Participant liking for the helper was assessed with three items that tapped how much the participant would enjoy having the helper as a friend, spending time with the helper, and talking with the helper. Participants responded to each of these items on a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). Internal consistency for this measure was good, α = .90. Four 5-point Likert-type items were used to assess judgments of message effectiveness (e.g., how much better the recipient would feel after talking with the helper), and six 5-point semantic differential items tapped evaluations of message supportiveness (e.g., supportive—unsupportive). (Detailed descriptions of the items used to assess effectiveness and supportiveness are given by Samter et al., 1987). Internal consistencies for these measures were good at α = .88 for effectiveness and α = .88 for supportiveness. To assist with a manipulation check for sex of the helper, perceptions of helper femininity were obtained with two 5-point semantic differential scales (feminine—masculine; manly—womanly); internal consistency for this measure was α = .78. Gender schematicity was operationalized with two measures, an assessment of self-perceived femininity and an assessment of homophobia. To assess self-perceived femininity, participants indicated on 5point scales that ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal) how well the two terms “masculine” and “feminine” applied to them. They also responded to the item “I think that most people typically see me as” with responses that ranged from 1 (extremely masculine) to 5 (extremely feminine). The three items were scored so that high scores indicated a high degree of self-perceived femininity. Internal consistency for this three-item measure was excellent, α = .93. Previous research (Burleson et al., 2003) demonstrated that this simple measure is associated with several other measures of gender schematicity. Homophobia has been found to be associated with highly traditional gender role attitudes and values (e.g., Basow & Johnson, 2000); thus, measures of homophobia provide one approach to the assessment of gender schematicity. Participants completed the Homophobia Scale developed by Bouton and his colleagues (Bouton et al., 1987). This scale consists of four negative statements about homosexual-

Holmstrom, Burleson, and Jones ity (e.g., “Homosexuality is a sin”) and three positive statements about homosexuality (e.g., “Homosexuals contribute positively to our society”). To disguise the purpose of this instrument, these seven items were interspersed with other items that concerned the homeless, immigrants, and television. Participants responded to each item on a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores on the positively worded items were reversed so that a high score indicates a high level of homophobia. The internal consistency for this scale was good, α = .88.

Results Preliminary Analyses Before conducting analyses intended to test the hypotheses of our study, we assessed the manipulation of helper sex to ensure that LPC messages were perceived as less supportive, effective, and feminine than HPC messages. As a manipulation check for the variable of helper sex, we carried out a 2 (participant sex) × 2 (helper sex) analysis of variance (ANOVA) on participants’ perceptions of helper femininity. As expected, a strong effect was observed for helper sex, F (1, 379) = 113.99, p < .001, η2 = .23; female helpers (M = 3.54, SD = 0.90) were viewed as more feminine than male helpers (M = 2.57, SD = 0.87). The effect for participant sex was not significant, F (1, 379) = 0.29, p > .50, nor was the interaction between participant sex and helper sex, F (1, 379) = 3.30, p > .08. Thus, the manipulation for helper sex was successful, and the strength of this manipulation did not vary significantly as a function of participant sex. An important assumption of this study is that both men and women perceive LPC comforting messages as less effective, supportive, and feminine than HPC messages. This assumption was evaluated through separate one-way (level of message person centeredness: low, moderate, or high) ANOVAs. The ANOVA for perceived effectiveness detected a significant effect for message level, F (2, 376) = 120.79, p < .001, η2 = .39. LPC comforting messages (M = 2.14, SD = 0.83) were viewed as substantially less effective than messages that exhibited moderate (M = 3.14, SD = 0.85) or high (M = 3.60, SD = 0.77) person centeredness. The ANOVA for perceived supportiveness also detected a significant effect for message level, F (2, 376) =

Consequences of Cold Comfort

159 less than they liked male LPC helpers (M = 2.71), t(65) = 3.38, p < .001 (see Figure 1). Furthermore, as expected, men did not differ in their liking of female (M = 2.32) and male (M = 2.51) LPC helpers, t(68) = 0.80, p > .30. Hypothesis 2 predicted that women would view female LPC helpers as behaving less effectively, supportively, and normatively than male LPC helpers; men were not expected to differ in their evaluations of behavior by female and male LPC helpers. This hypothesis was evaluated with a series of planned comparisons that contrasted (a) women’s evaluations of the effectiveness, supportiveness, and normativeness of female and male LPC helpers’ behavior and (b) men’s evaluations of female and male LPC helpers’ behavior. Means and standard deviations related to Hypothesis 2 are summarized in Table I. As expected, women viewed female LPC helpers (M = 1.85) as behaving less effectively than male LPC helpers (M = 2.25), t(65) = 2.14, p < .05 (see Figure 2). Furthermore, as predicted, men’s perceptions of effectiveness did not differ for female (M = 2.18) and male (M = 2.22) LPC helpers, t(68) = 0.22, p > .05. Also as expected, women viewed female LPC helpers (M = 2.34) as behaving less supportively than male LPC helpers (M = 2.88), t(65) = 3.20, p < .002 (see Figure 3). In contrast, men’s perceptions of supportiveness did not differ for female (M = 2.48) and male (M = 2.66) LPC helpers, t(68) = .86, p > .35. However, contrary to expectations, the difference between women’s ratings for the normativeness of female (M = 3.61) and male (M = 3.83) helper behavior was not significant, t(65) = 0.83, p > .30, although the means were in the predicted direction (see Figure 4). As expected, men did not perceive female LPC helpers (M = 3.81) as behaving less normatively than male LPC helpers (M = 3.74), t(68) = 0.25, p > .50. Thus, most expectations associated with Hypothesis 2 were supported.

184.50, p < .001, η2 = .50. LPC comforting messages (M = 2.61, SD = 0.79) were viewed as substantially less supportive than messages that exhibited moderate (M = 3.61, SD = 0.63) or high (M = 4.09, SD = 0.60) person centeredness. Finally, the ANOVA for perceived femininity detected a main effect for message level, F (2, 376) = 34.01, p < .001, η2 = .15. LPC comforting messages (M = 2.54, SD = 1.05) were viewed as substantially less feminine than messages that exhibited moderate (M = 3.17, SD = 1.01) or high (M = 3.47, SD = 1.13) person centeredness. In sum, our data met the assumptions of our hypotheses. The manipulation of helper sex was successful and, as expected, participants viewed LPC comforting messages as less effective, supportive, and feminine than messages that exhibited higher levels of person centeredness. Tests of Hypotheses The hypotheses of Experiment 1 concern perceptions of helpers who employed LPC comforting messages. In the present study, 137 participants (70 men and 67 women) were exposed to helpers using LPC messages. These participants were distributed into four cells defined by the crossing of participant sex and helper sex: male participant/male helper, n = 39; male participant/female helper, n = 31; female participant/male helper, n = 36; female participant/female helper, n = 31. Hypothesis 1 predicted that women would like a female LPC helper less than they would like a male LPC helper; men were not expected to differ in their liking for female and male LPC helpers. This hypothesis was evaluated with planned comparisons that contrasted (a) women’s liking for female and male helpers and (b) men’s liking for female and male helpers. Means and standard deviations for Hypothesis 1 are summarized in Table I. As predicted, women liked female LPC helpers (M = 2.03)

Table I. Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables in Experiment 1 Sex of participant Female Sex of target

Female

Male Male

Female

Male

Dependent variables

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Likeability Perceived effectiveness Perceived supportiveness Perceived normativeness

2.03 1.85 2.34 3.61

0.69 0.53 0.54 1.06

2.70 2.25 2.88 3.83

0.90 0.90 0.79 1.11

2.32 2.18 2.48 3.81

1.05 0.84 0.90 1.03

2.51 2.22 2.66 3.74

0.94 0.92 0.79 1.04

160

Holmstrom, Burleson, and Jones

Fig. 1. Effects of participant sex and helper sex on liking for low person-centered helpers in Experiment 1.

Hypotheses 3 and 4 predicted that among women, individual differences in gender schematicity (as assessed by self-perceived femininity and homophobia) would be negatively associated with liking for female helpers who used LPC messages (H3) as well as negatively associated with perceptions of the female LPC helper’s effectiveness, supportiveness, and normativeness (H4). Women’s gender schematicity was not expected to be associated with liking for male LPC helpers or evaluations of their behaviors. Correlations relevant to these hypotheses are reported in Table II. (The correlation between self-perceived femininity and homophobia for women was r = .23, p = .058.) Hypotheses 3 and 4 were not supported. For women exposed to female LPC helpers, there were significant, positive associations between homophobia and likeability, r = .42, p < .02, perceived effectiveness, r = .35, p < .06, and perceived supportiveness, r = .35, p < .06, instead of the predicted negative associations. That is, the more homophobic the participant, the more she liked the female LPC helper and viewed her as behaving effectively

and supportively. Also contrary to expectations, for women exposed to female LPC helpers, there was a significant positive association between selfperceived femininity and liking for the helper, r = .54, p < .002, rather than the predicted negative association. For women exposed to male LPC helpers, there were, unexpectedly, significant negative correlations between self-perceived femininity and helper likeability, r = −.36, p < .03, perceived effectiveness, r = −.33, p < .05, and perceived supportiveness, r = −.45, p < .01, instead of the predicted null associations. In other words, the more gender schematic the participant, the less she liked the LPC male helper and the less she viewed him as behaving effectively and supportively. Although they disconfirm Hypotheses 3 and 4, these results are internally consistent and represent an intriguing pattern. Discussion As anticipated, Experiment 1 revealed that women developed more negative evaluations of female than of male insensitive helpers. Specifically, we


161

Fig. 2. Effects of participant sex and helper sex on evaluations of effectiveness for low person-centered helpers in Experiment 1.

found that women who read transcripts of comforting interactions liked female helpers who used LPC messages less than male helpers who used identical messages. Women also judged the behavior of female LPC helpers as less effective and supportive than the behavior of male LPC helpers. In contrast, men’s evaluations of LPC helpers and their behavior did not vary as a function of helper sex. These results are consistent with Eagly’s (1987; Eagly et al., 2000) social role theory, as well as with research on women’s friendship (Samter, 2003), both of which underscore the centrality to the feminine gender role of providing sensitive emotional support. Women who violate this component of the feminine gender role are liked less by other women, but not by men. Thus, it appears that “out of role” behavior by a woman is more disturbing to (and more negatively evaluated by) other women than by men. Although the means were in the expected direction, women did not, contrary to our prediction, view insensitive comforting behavior by female helpers as less normative (i.e., realistic) than insensitive comforting behavior by male helpers. We had sufficient

power in Experiment 1 to detect for the female participants a medium or large effect for helper sex (power = .65 and .94, respectively); however, the observed effect size for helper sex on perceived normativeness was small, d = 0.20. This suggests that, although women find insensitive comforting by other women to be disturbing, they may not find it all that surprising—a possibility supported by extensive research that indicates that the incidence of insensitive emotional support is all too prevalent (e.g., Coyne et al., 1988; Figueiredo, Fries, & Ingram, 2004; Lehman & Hemphill, 1990). The most surprising—and, perhaps, intriguing— results obtained in Experiment 1 pertain to the effect of women’s gender schematicity on their evaluations of female and male LPC helpers. We reasoned that gender schematicity among women would increase their sensitivity to departures from feminine gender role norms. Thus, we predicted that women’s evaluations of female LPC helpers and their behavior would become more negative as their level of gender schematicity increased; women’s gender schematicity was expected to be unassociated

162


Fig. 3. Effects of participant sex and helper sex on evaluations of supportiveness for low person-centered helpers in Experiment 1.

with their evaluations of male LPC helpers and their behavior. In sharp contrast to these predictions, we found that women’s gender schematicity was positively associated with evaluations of female LPC helpers and their behavior and negatively associated with evaluations of male LPC helpers and their behavior. In other words, women highly schematic on gender responded positively to female LPC helpers and negatively to male LPC helpers. One explanation for these unanticipated results is that women who are highly gender schematic appear to be responding primarily to a peripheral feature of the support situation—the sex of the helper— and less to the message content. Markus et al. (1985) emphasized that gender schematics are comparatively quick to employ gender-based schemata in the interpretation and evaluation of others’ behaviors, which suggests that the sex of others serves as a cue that guides their interpretation and evaluation of others’ behavior. Thus, gender schematic women may be utilizing a heuristic in responding to the emotional support situations they observe: women comfort better than men. In contrast, women low in gen-

der schematicity appear to process the comforting interactions they observe more systematically; they respond more to the content of the messages used in those situations and less to the peripheral feature of the helper’s sex. Recent experimental evidence supports the notion that sex of helper is a heuristic actually used when responding to or judging the emotional support efforts of others. Several studies have shown main effects for sex of helper on evaluations or outcomes of supportive messages (Glynn, Christenfeld, & Gerin, 1999; Samter et al., 1987; Uno, Uchino, & Smith, 2002); participants responded more favorably to messages produced by female helpers than to those produced by male helpers—even though helpers of both sexes utilized identical, standardized messages. This result suggests that sex of the helper functions as a heuristic, something made more plausible by the cultural stereotype of women as the providers of nurturance, care, and sympathy (see Eagly et al., 2000; Wood, 1994). The results of our Experiment 1 suggest that there are individual differences in reliance on this heuristic; highly gender


163

Fig. 4. Effects of participant sex and helper sex on evaluations of behavior normativeness for low person-centered helpers in Experiment 1.

schematic women appear to be more reliant on it than less schematic women are. This finding is consistent with research that indicates that certain individual differences (such as need for cognitive closure) can decrease the likelihood of processing messages systematically and increase the likelihood of processing them heuristically (e.g., Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). Future researchers could evaluate this explanation by adding a thought-listing task to the design of Experiment 1 to assess message processing depth or

scrutiny (see Chaiken & Trope, 1999). If our speculations have merit, then gender schematicity should be negatively associated with the number of women’s thoughts about helpers’ comforting messages. The number of thoughts listed about the messages should also be negatively associated with evaluations of LPC messages and the helpers who use them. An obvious limitation of Experiment 1 was our use of written stimulus materials that depicted hypothetical comforting situations. Although such stimulus materials provide advantages in terms of

Table II. Correlations for Women Between Gender Schematicity and the Dependent Variables Sex of helper Female Dependent variables Likeability of helper Perceived normativeness Perceived supportiveness Perceived effectiveness ∗p

< .06. ∗∗ p < .05. ∗∗∗ p < .01.

Self-perceived femininity .17 −.01 .54∗∗∗ .01

Male Homophobia .42∗∗ .11 .35∗ .35∗

Self-perceived femininity −.36∗∗

−.21 −.45∗∗∗ −.33∗∗

Homophobia −.03 .14 −.04 .01

164 experimental control, concerns can be expressed about the ecological (i.e., external) validity of this research protocol. As Burleson and MacGeorge (2002, p. 391) observed, “there is obviously a difference (of unknown magnitude) between actually experiencing a supportive message when upset and making judgments about messages directed at hypothetical others.” Thus, we report a second experiment in which participants actually discussed an upsetting event with helpers who responded with LPC comforting messages.

EXPERIMENT 2 In Experiment 2, we sought to replicate the results obtained for Hypotheses 1 and 2 in Experiment 1 with a research design that featured direct, faceto-face interactions between male and female participants who were randomly paired with either a male or female helper.8 The participants thought about and then discussed an emotionally upsetting circumstance with the helper, and the helper responded with LPC comforting messages.9 Consistent with the reasoning that informed Hypotheses 1 and 2 in Experiment 1, we expected to find that women would like female helpers who used LPC comforting messages less than male helpers who used such messages. We also expected that women would view the behavior of female LPC helpers as less normative, effective, and supportive than the behavior of male LPC

Holmstrom, Burleson, and Jones helpers. No differences due to helper sex were expected for men. Specifically, we hypothesized: H5: In the context of actual, face-to-face comforting interactions, women will like a female LPC helper less than a male LPC helper; men will not differ in their liking for female and male LPC helpers. H6: In the context of actual, face-to-face comforting interactions, women will view female LPC helpers as behaving less effectively, supportively, and normatively than male LPC helpers; men will not differ in their evaluations of behavior by female and male LPC helpers.

Method Participants Participants were 87 college students (44 men and 43 women) attending a large southwestern university. The average age of the participants was 21.9 years (range = 18–49 years). The majority of the sample consisted of European Americans (n = 73), but also included Mexican Americans, Latinos/as, or Hispanics (n = 4), Asians or Asian Americans (n = 1), and African Americans (n = 2). Six participants belonged to other ethnic groups; one participant did not indicate any ethnic origin.

Procedure 8 Due

to time constraints, the protocol employed in Experiment 2 did not permit us to obtain assessments of individual-difference variables such as gender schematicity. Thus, it was not possible to evaluate Hypotheses 3 and 4 in Experiment 2. 9 The data for Experiment 2 are taken from a larger project that contained a total of 258 videotaped participant-confederate conversations; this project assessed diverse effects of comforting messages that varied in several systematically manipulated nonverbal and verbal comforting properties, including verbal person centeredness. Experiment 2 are concerned only with how the sex of recipients and helpers influences recipients’ responses to helpers who use LPC comforting messages; thus, only data for helpers who used such messages are reported here. In addition, the focus of Experiment 2 is specifically on the dependent variables of recipient’s liking for the helper and the recipient’s judgment of the effectiveness, supportiveness, and normativeness of the helper’s behavior; previous reports have focused on the affective change reportedly experienced by participants or their overall judgments of the messages’ “comforting quality.” Additional findings regarding the effects of verbal and nonverbal variables on a variety of cognitive, affective, and social outcomes of comforting messages are detailed in several recent articles (Jones, 2004; Jones & Burleson, 2003; Jones & Guerrero, 2001).

The experiment required participants to identify a recent emotionally upsetting event that they were comfortable talking about with a stranger in a 5-min conversation.10 The experiment made use of two female and two male confederates who played the role of helper. All confederates were trained to enact comforting behaviors that reflected low, moderate, or high person centeredness. Prior to each interaction, confederates drew a slip from an envelope to determine which condition they would enact. Confederates enacted their randomly assigned comforting condition as soon as participants arrived at the test site. After the conversation, participants completed a set of scales. The current study is focused exclusively on those interactions in which confederate helpers utilized LPC messages. 10 A

brief summary of the experimental set-up is provided here; the specifics can be obtained from Jones and Guerrero (2001).

Consequences of Cold Comfort To manipulate the person centeredness of the helpers’ messages, confederates in the LPC condition were trained to decrease their verbal comforting behaviors markedly from what they would typically do in interactions with strangers. Confederates were specifically trained to express boredom or a lack of interest and to use statements that encouraged the recipient to forget about her or his feelings (e.g., “I think you ought to get over it”) or that minimized feelings (e.g., “Oh, come on, it’s not the end of the world. It can’t really be that bad. You’ll get over it”). Confederates were also encouraged to switch the conversation to an unrelated topic or to begin talking about personal concerns (e.g., “Guess what happened to me?”). To assess the effectiveness of the manipulation of helper person centeredness, trained coders rated the performances of the confederate helpers for 72 of the 87 interactions (83%).11 Coders rated the performances of the confederate helpers on five 7point semantic differential scales that tapped fundamental features of person-centered comforting (i.e., self-centered vs. other-centered, invalidates vs. validates, judges vs. empathizes, disregards vs. acknowledges, and unconcerned vs. concerned). Inter-item reliability was excellent at α = .96, and inter-rater reliability (based on Ebel’s intraclass r) was .97; thus ratings for confederates were averaged over both items and raters. Confederate helpers who enacted LPC comforting messages (M = 1.28, SD = 0.83) were perceived by coders as behaving in a less person-centered manner than confederates who enacted messages that exhibited moderate (M = 4.04, SD = 0.81) or high (M = 6.36, SD = 1.11) person centeredness, F (2, 207) = 696.04, p < .001, η2 = .87. Thus, the manipulation of person-centered message use by the confederate helpers was judged to be successful. Dependent Variables Immediately following the interaction with the confederate, participants completed several scales that assessed multiple aspects of the interaction; the four dependent variables of interest in Experiment 2 included liking for the helper and evaluations of the normativeness, effectiveness, and supportiveness of the helper’s behavior. Three 7-point Likert-type 11 The

general findings of the manipulation check are reported below; detailed findings are reported by Jones and Guerrero (2001).

165 items with responses that ranged from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree) were used to assess liking for the helper (“The helper was likeable”; “Most people would like to interact with my conversational partner”; “I enjoyed interacting with my conversational partner”). These items were unidimensional (a single principal component accounted for 81% of their variance) and internally consistent, α = .88. Four 7-point Likert-type items were used to assess perceived normativeness of the helper’s behavior (“My partner’s behavior was how I would expect most people to behave in this situation”; “My partner was engaging with me in normal conversational behavior”; “My partner’s behavior was unusual” [reverse scored]; “My partner’s behavior was typical in this situation”). These items were unidimensional (a single principal component accounted for 69% of their variance) and internally consistent, α = .85. Four 7-point semantic-differential items were used to assess perceived effectiveness of the helper’s behavior (ineffective-effective; helpfulunhelpful; not beneficial-beneficial; adequateinadequate). These items were unidimensional (a single principal component accounted for 66% of their variance) and internally consistent, α = .82. Finally, four 7-point semantic-differential items were used to assess perceived supportiveness of the helper’s behavior (sensitive-insensitive; uncaring-caring; understanding-not understanding; supportiveunsupportive). These items were unidimensional as well (a single principal component accounted for 63% of their variance) and internally consistent, α = .84. Means of each item set were computed.

Results Preliminary Analyses Examination of the distributions of the four dependent variables indicated that each exhibited a substantial negative skew: liking for the helper, z = 6.74, p < .001; perceived normativeness of helper’s behavior, z = 7.13, p < .001; perceived effectiveness of the helper’s behavior, z = 4.14, p < .001; and perceived supportiveness of the helper’s behavior, z = 6.09, p < .001. Following the recommendations of Tabachnick and Fidell (1996), inspection of distributions led to the deletion of three outliers, which reduced the analyzed sample from N = 87 to N = 84. However, the distributions remained skewed even after we trimmed the outliers. Thus, a ladder of

166

Holmstrom, Burleson, and Jones Table III. Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables in Experiment 2 Sex of participant Female Sex of target Dependent variables Likeability Perceived effectiveness Perceived supportiveness Perceived normativeness

Male

Female

Male

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

3.70 3.39 3.86 4.10

1.36 1.40 1.58 1.61

4.35 4.24 4.23 4.41

1.61 1.74 1.88 1.52

5.38 4.76 4.98 5.35

0.86 1.07 1.02 1.00

4.83 4.35 4.56 5.01

1.03 1.28 1.43 1.22

re-expression was employed to find a normalizing transformation that eliminated skew in the distributions (see Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003); this procedure indicated that a cubic transformation did the best job of normalizing the distributions and minimizing skew. Following the cubic transformation, skew values were .228 for liking, −.074 for normativeness, .544 for effectiveness, and .159 for supportiveness. Thus, the transformed dependent variables were employed in all analyses; however, to facilitate interpretation of the results, untransformed means and standard deviations are reported here.12 Tests of Hypotheses Hypothesis 5 predicted that women would like a female LPC helper less than they would like a male LPC helper; men were not expected to differ in their liking for female and male LPC helpers. This hypothesis was evaluated with planned comparisons that contrasted (a) women’s liking for female and male helpers and (b) men’s liking for female and male helpers. Means and standard deviations associated with Hypothesis 5 are summarized in Table III. As predicted, women liked female LPC helpers (M = 3.70) less than they liked male LPC helpers (M = 4.35), t(38) = 1.79, p < .05, one-tailed test (see Figure 5). Unexpectedly, men liked LPC female helpers (M = 5.38) more than they liked LPC male helpers (M = 4.83), t(42) = 1.94, p < .06, two-tailed test. Hypothesis 6 predicted that women would view female LPC helpers as behaving less effectively, supportively, and normatively than male LPC helpers; men were not expected to differ in their evaluations of behavior by female and male LPC helpers. This hypothesis was evaluated with a series of planned comparisons that contrasted (a) women’s evaluations 12 Tables

Male

Female

of means and standard deviations for the transformed values of the dependent variables are available from the authors on request.

of the effectiveness, supportiveness, and normativeness of female and male LPC helpers’ behavior and (b) men’s evaluations of female and male LPC helpers’ behavior. Means and standard deviations related to Hypothesis 6 are summarized in Table III. As expected, women viewed female LPC helpers (M = 3.39) as behaving less effectively than male LPC helpers (M = 4.24), t(38) = 2.09, p < .05 (see Figure 6). Furthermore, as expected, men’s perceptions of effectiveness did not differ for female (M = 4.76) and male (M = 4.35) LPC helpers, t(42) = 1.00, p > .30. Contrary to expectations, however, women did not view female LPC helpers (M = 3.86) as behaving significantly less supportively than male LPC helpers (M = 4.23), although the means were in the predicted direction, t(38) = 1.09, p > .25 (see Figure 7). Similarly, men’s perceptions of supportiveness did not differ for female (M = 4.98) and male (M = 4.56) LPC helpers, t(42) = 0.73, p > .40. Also contrary to expectations, the difference between women’s ratings for the normativeness of female (M = 4.10) and male (M = 4.41) helper behavior was not significant, t(38) = 0.54, p > .50 (see Figure 8). As expected, men did not perceive female LPC helpers (M = 5.35) as behaving less normatively than male LPC helpers (M = 5.01), t(42) = 0.87, p > .35. GENERAL DISCUSSION The purpose of our two experiments was to assess whether women exposed to a female helper who used LPC messages would evaluate that helper and her behavior more negatively than they would a male helper who used the same messages. In both of our experiments, we found that women liked female LPC helpers less than male LPC helpers; further, in both experiments, women rated the behavior of female LPC helpers as less effective than that of male LPC helpers. Women also rated the behavior


167

Fig. 5. Effects of participant sex and helper sex on liking for low person-centered helpers in Experiment 2.

of female LPC helpers as less supportive than that of male LPC helpers in Experiment 1; in Experiment 2, the means for women’s ratings of supportiveness for female and male LPC helpers were in the predicted direction, but were not significantly different. Contrary to expectations, in both experiments women did not view the behavior of female LPC helpers as less normative than the behavior of male LPC helpers. Consistent with our expectations, across the two experiments, men’s evaluations of LPC helpers and their behaviors did not vary as a function of helper sex in seven of eight possible comparisons. These results largely, though not entirely, corroborate our hypotheses. Further, they provide additional support for social-role theory (Eagly, 1987; Eagly et al., 2000) and have important implications for our understanding of women’s friendships. Eagly’s social-role theory posits that in contemporary Western societies the feminine gender role is emotion-focused and communal; women are expected to be providers of sensitive, effective emotional support. Because women are more invested in the feminine role than in the masculine role, it is

more disturbing to them than to men when another woman breaches the expectations of her gender role, particularly in a gender-salient context such as providing emotional support. Indeed, the results of our two experiments indicate that there are negative consequences for women who utilize “masculine” messages: these messages were viewed as less supportive and less effective by women when they were used by female helpers. The insensitive character of these messages reflects poorly on the provider and led to perhaps the most serious consequence for women who utilize LPC messages, a consequence evidenced by the results of our two experiments: women’s greater dislike for female than male helpers who use such messages. When a woman uses LPC comforting messages with another woman, not only are her attempts at comforting viewed negatively, but she is also liked less. Similar consequences do not seem to hold for men’s perceptions of female or male LPC helpers. Experiment 2 in particular demonstrated that men liked female helpers more than male helpers, even though the helpers of both sexes employed similar messages. This finding echoes previous research,

168


Fig. 6. Effects of participant sex and helper sex on evaluations of effectiveness for low person-centered helpers in Experiment 2.

which has shown that men, in general, tend to be more comfortable talking with women than with other men about emotionally upsetting events, perhaps because such activities are a “woman’s domain” (Buhrke & Fuqua, 1987; Kunkel & Burleson, 1999). In the context of face-to-face helping, the sex of the helper is probably even more salient than it is in responses to hypothetical helpers, which may be why sex of helper influenced men’s liking for helpers in Experiment 2, but not in Experiment 1. However, it must be noted here that though men liked female LPC helpers better than male LPC helpers, they did not view the messages of these female helpers as more effective or supportive than those used by male helpers. Previous research on women’s friendships indicates that they are key sources of comfort and support for their participants (Fehr, 1996; Samter, 2003). Women’s friendships are built around the provision and reception of emotional support, and in these relationships, sensitive emotional support becomes an expectation. Thus, a woman who uses insensitive LPC messages (particularly with another woman) not only violates her feminine role, she also

violates the expectations of her role as a friend. We found in both Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 that women liked less and judged more harshly female LPC helpers than male LPC helpers who used similar messages. This suggests that women who regularly use LPC comforting messages may find it difficult to form, develop, and maintain friendships with other women. Contrary to expectations, in both Experiments 1 and 2 we found that women who observed an LPC female helper did not view that helper’s behavior as less normative or realistic than that of an LPC male helper. Burgeoning research indicates that the use of insensitive comforting is widespread (e.g., Coyne et al., 1988; Figueiredo et al., 2004; Lehman & Hemphill, 1990), and this null result may point to an unsettling reality that enhances the pragmatic relevance of our findings: “cold comfort” is common even amongst women. The results of both experiments indicate that though they see male and female LPC helpers’ behavior as equally realistic, women like women who use LPC messages less than men who use the same messages, and they evaluate female LPC helpers’ behavior more negatively than


169

Fig. 7. Effects of participant sex and helper sex on evaluations of supportiveness for low person-centered helpers in Experiment 2.

male LPC helpers’ behavior. Given the degree to which women’s LPC behavior is seen as normative or realistic, the social consequences of having poor emotional support skills (i.e., loneliness, social isolation) may be experienced by a substantial number of women. One limitation of our two experiments is that the samples were relatively homogeneous with regard to age, ethnicity, education, and socioeconomic status: the samples consisted largely of young, European American, middle class, college students. Some research suggests that there are ethnic differences in responses to supportive messages (see reviews by Burleson, 2003b; Dilworth-Anderson & Marshall, 1996). In particular, African Americans have been found to view LPC comforting messages as more sensitive and effective than do European Americans, and this ethnic difference is strongest for women (Samter, Whaley, Mortenson, & Burleson, 1997). Thus it is possible that the use of LPC messages with African American women may not be as socially disadvantageous for female helpers as the use of such messages with European American women. Future researchers should determine what forms of emo-

tional support are viewed as particularly insensitive by African American women and whether the use of these message forms with African American female recipients increases the likelihood that the helper will be socially rejected. Another limitation in our experiments stems from the fact that the participants did not know the helpers; we assessed the impact of LPC message use in a “zero-history” social context. Our results are, then, most generalizable to the acquaintance phase of relationship development. Although there is probably no phase of relationship development where the use of insensitive support is inconsequential, some recent research (Knobloch, MacGeorge, & Lucchetti, 2004) suggests that the use of insensitive comforting messages may have particularly potent effects at intermediate phases of relationship development. Thus, future researchers should examine how the use of more and less sensitive support messages influence various outcomes over the course of relationship development. Finally, it is possible that the use of LPC messages may have a less negative impact if these messages are used with female recipients who

170


Fig. 8. Effects of participant sex and helper sex on evaluations of behavior normativeness for low person-centered helpers in Experiment 2.

themselves typically employ LPC messages when they seek to comfort others. Consistent with this speculation, researchers have found that people are attracted to and form relationships with others who have levels of communication skill that are similar to their own, and this is particularly true with respect to comforting skill (Burleson, 1994b; Burleson & Samter, 1996). Thus, future researchers should examine whether the comforting skill of support recipients moderates the effects of LPC message use by helpers. Overall, the results of our two experiments suggest that emotional support matters, the quality of emotional support matters, and it may be as consequential for the helper as the recipient, particularly if both are women. These results underscore the importance of emotional support processes in the friendships of women, and imply that women with poor support skills may be at risk of rejection by their peers. Therapists who work with women who lack female friends thus might assess the support skills of their clients and seek to improve these skills if they appear to be deficient.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge Cristina M. Gilstrap for her assistance with data collection for Experiment 1. The authors would like to thank Jessica Immel, LeeAnn Price, Brendan MacFarlan, and Casey Moran for serving as confederates for Experiment 2 and Kristina Olson, Erin Kavaney, and Ely Sluder for serving as coders for Experiment 2. Preparation of this article was supported, in part, by a fellowship awarded to the second author by the Center for Behavioral and Social Sciences, School of Liberal Arts, Purdue University. REFERENCES Acitelli, L. K. (1996). The neglected links between marital support and marital satisfaction. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 83–104). New York: Plenum Press. Alexander, M. G., & Wood, W. (2000). Women, men, and positive emotions: A social role interpretation. In A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 189–210). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Consequences of Cold Comfort Aries, E. J., & Johnson, F. L. (1983). Close friendship in adulthood: Conversational content between same-sex friends. Sex Roles, 9, 1183–1196. Ashton, W. A., & Fuehrer, A. (1993). Effects of gender and gender role identification of participant and type of social support resource on support seeking. Sex Roles, 28, 461–476. Aukett, R., Ritchie, J., & Mill, K. (1988). Gender differences in friendship patterns. Sex Roles, 19, 57–66. Barbee, A. P., & Cunningham, M. R. (1995). An experimental approach to social support communications: Interactive coping in close relationships. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 381–413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Barbee, A. P., Cunningham, M. R., Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., Gulley, M. R., Yankeelov, P. A., & Druen, P. B. (1993). Effects of gender role expectations on the social support process. Journal of Social Issues, 49(3), 175–190. Barbee, A. P., Gulley, M. R., & Cunningham, M. R. (1990). Support seeking in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 531–540. Basow, S. A., & Johnson, K. (2000). Predictors of homophobia in female college students. Sex Roles, 42, 391–404. Basow, S. A., & Rubenfeld, K. (2003). “Troubles talk”: Effects of gender and gender-typing. Sex Roles, 48, 183–187. Bouton, R. A., Gallaher, P. E., Garlinghouse, P. A., Leal, T., Rosenstein, L. D., & Young, R. K. (1987). Scales for measuring fear of AIDS and homophobia. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 606–614. Buhrke, R. A., & Fuqua, D. R. (1987). Sex differences in sameand cross-sex supportive relationships. Sex Roles, 17, 339– 352. Burleson, B. R. (1994a). Comforting messages: Features, functions, and outcomes. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 135–161). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Burleson, B. R. (1994b). Friendship and similarities in socialcognitive and communication abilities: Social skill bases of interpersonal attraction in childhood. Personal Relationships, 1, 371–389. Burleson, B. R. (2003a). Emotional support skills. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 551–594). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Burleson, B. R. (2003b). The experience and effects of emotional support: What the study of cultural and gender differences can tell us about close relationships, emotion, and interpersonal communication. Personal Relationships, 10, 1–23. Burleson, B. R., Delia, J. G., & Applegate, J. L. (1992). Effects of maternal communication and children’s social-cognitive and communication skills on children’s acceptance by the peer group. Family Relations, 41, 264–272. Burleson, B. R., & Goldsmith, D. J. (1998). How the comforting process works: Alleviating emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 245–280). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Burleson, B. R., Holmstrom, A. J., & Gilstrap, C. M. (2003, November). Are men unmotivated to use highly personcentered comforting messages? An evaluation of sex and gender differences in liking for highly person-centered helpers. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, Miami Beach, FL. Burleson, B. R., & Kunkel, A. W. (in press). Revisiting the different cultures thesis: An assessment of sex differences and similarities in supportive communication. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex, gender, and communication: Similarities and differences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Burleson, B. R., Kunkel, A. W., Samter, W., & Werking, K. J. (1996). Men’s and women’s evaluations of communication skills in personal relationships: When sex differences make a

171 difference—and when they don’t. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 201–224. Burleson, B. R., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2002). Supportive communication. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 374–424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1996). Similarity in the communication skills of young adults: Foundations of attraction, friendship, and relationship satisfaction. Communication Reports, 9, 125–139. Caldwell, M., & Peplau, L. A. (1982). Sex differences in same-sex friendship. Sex Roles, 8, 721–731. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Coyne, J. C., Wortman, C. B., & Lehman, D. R. (1988). The other side of social support: Emotional overinvolvement and miscarried helping. In B. Gottlieb (Ed.), Marshalling social support: Formats, processes, and effects (pp. 305–330). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cunningham, M. R., & Barbee, A. P. (2000). Social support. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 272–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389. Dilworth-Anderson, P., & Marshall, S. (1996). Social support in its cultural contexts. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 67–79). New York: Plenum. Dunn, J. (1999). Siblings, friends, and the development of social understanding. In W. A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.), Relationships as developmental contexts (pp. 263–279). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A socialrole interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Eisenberg, N. (2002). Empathy-related emotional responses, altruism, and their socialization. In R. J. Davidson & A. Harrington (Eds.), Visions of compassion: Western scientists and Tibetan Buddhists examine human nature (pp. 131–164). London: Oxford University Press. Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456. Figueiredo, M. I., Fries, E., & Ingram, K. M. (2004). The role of disclosure patterns and unsupportive social interactions in the well-being of breast cancer patients. Psycho-Oncology, 13, 96–105. Fox, M. F., Gibbs, M., & Auerbach, D. (1985). Age and gender dimensions of friendship. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 489–502. Glynn, L. M., Christenfeld, N., & Gerin, W. (1999). Gender, social support, and cardiovascular responses to stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 61, 234–242. Goldsmith, D. J., & Dun, S. A. (1997). Sex differences and similarities in the communication of social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 317–337. Johnson, F. (1996). Friendships among women: Closeness in dialogue. In J. T. Wood (Ed.), Gendered relationships (pp. 79– 94). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Jones, S. M. (2004). Putting the person into person-centered and immediate emotional support: Emotional change and perceived helper competence as outcomes of comforting

172 in helping situations. Communication Research, 31, 338– 360. Jones, S. M., & Burleson, B. R. (1997). The impact of situational variables on helpers’ perceptions of comforting messages: An attributional analysis. Communication Research, 24, 530– 555. Jones, S. M., & Burleson, B. R. (2003). Effects of helper and recipient sex on the experience and outcomes of comforting messages: An experimental investigation. Sex Roles, 48, 1–19. Jones, S. M., & Guerrero, L. A. (2001). The effects of nonverbal immediacy and verbal person centeredness in the emotional support process. Human Communication Research, 27, 567– 596. Knobloch, L., MacGeorge, E. L., & Lucchetti, A. E. (2004, July). Relationship development and evaluations of supportive messages. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the International Association for Relationships Research, Madison, WI. Kunkel, A. W., & Burleson, B. R. (1998). Social support and the emotional lives of men and women: An assessment of the different cultures perspective. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 101–125). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kunkel, A. W., & Burleson, B. R. (1999). Assessing explanations for sex differences in emotional support: A test of the different cultures and skill specialization accounts. Human Communication Research, 25, 307–340. Leaper, C., Carson, M., Baker, C., Holliday, H., & Myers, S. (1995). Self-disclosure and listener verbal support in samegender and cross-gender friends’ conversations. Sex Roles, 33, 387–404. Lehman, D. R., & Hemphill, K. J. (1990). Recipients’ perceptions of support attempts and attributions for support attempts that fail. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 563–574. MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Butler, G. L. (2003). Gender differences in the communication values of mature adults. Communication Research Reports, 20, 191–199. MacGeorge, E. L., Gillihan, S. J., Samter, W., & Clark, R. A. (2003). Skill deficit or differential motivation? Accounting for sex differences in the provision of emotional support. Communication Research, 30, 272–303. MacGeorge, E. L., Graves, A. R., Feng, B., Gillihan, S. J., & Burleson, B. R. (2004). The myth of gender cultures: Similarities outweigh differences in men’s and women’s provision of and responses to supportive communication. Sex Roles, 50, 143–175. Markus, H. M. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78. Markus, H. M., Crane, M., Bernstein, S., & Siladi, M. (1982). Selfschemas and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 38–50. Markus, H. M., Smith, J., & Moreland, R. L. (1985). Role of the self-concept in the social perception of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1494–1512. Martin, C. L. (1987). A ratio measure of sex stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 489–499. O’Keefe, D. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13, 251–274.

Holmstrom, Burleson, and Jones Oxley, N. L., Dzindolet, M. T., & Miller, J. L. (2002). Sex differences in communication with close friends: Testing Tannen’s claims. Psychological Reports, 91, 537–544. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281. Reis, H. T., & Collins, N. (2000). Measuring relationship properties and interactions relevant to social support. In S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social support measurement and intervention (pp. 136–192). New York: Oxford University Press. Samter, W. (1994). Unsupportive relationships: Deficiencies in the support-giving skills of the lonely person’s friends. In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), The communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community (pp. 195–214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Samter, W. (2002). How gender and cognitive complexity influence the provision of emotional support: A study of indirect effects. Communication Reports, 15, 5–16. Samter, W. (2003). Friendship interaction skills across the life span. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 637–684). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Samter, W., & Burleson, B. R. (1990). Evaluations of communication skills as predictors of peer acceptance in a group living situation. Communication Studies, 41, 311–326. Samter, W., Burleson, B. R., & Murphy, L. B. (1987). Comforting conversations: Effects of strategy type on evaluations of messages and message producers. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 52, 263–284. Samter, W., Whaley, B. B., Mortenson, S. R., & Burleson, B. R. (1997). Ethnicity and emotional support in same-sex friendship: A comparison of Asian-Americans, African-Americans, and Euro-Americans. Personal Relationships, 4, 413–430. Stroebe, W., & Stroebe, M. (1996). The social psychology of social support. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 597–621). New York: Guilford. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Taylor, S. E. (2002). The tending instinct: How nurturing is essential for who we are and how we live. New York: Times Books. Uno, D., Uchino, B. N., & Smith, T. W. (2002). Relationship quality moderates the effect of social support given by close friends on cardiovascular reactivity in women. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 9, 243–262. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 261–271. Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto others (pp. 17–26). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Wills, T. A., & Fegan, M. F. (2001). Social networks and social support. In A. Baum, T. A. Revenson, & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology (pp. 209–234). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wood, J. T. (1994). Who cares? Women, care, and culture. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.