Supportive listening psychology
Notice: This material may be protected by Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S. Code)
This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago] On: 29 January 2013, At: 10:19 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Journal of Listening Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hijl20 Supportive Listening Susanne M. Jones a a Department of Communication Studies, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Version of record first published: 08 Feb 2011. To cite this article: Susanne M. Jones (2011): Supportive Listening, International Journal of Listening, 25:1-2, 85-103 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2011.536475 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
THE INTL. JOURNAL OF LISTENING, 25: 85–103, 2011 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1090-4018 print / 1932-586X online DOI: 10.1080/10904018.2011.536475 Supportive Listening Susanne M. Jones Department of Communication Studies University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Listening is a multidimensional construct that consists of complex (a) cognitive pro- cesses, such as attending to, understanding, receiving, and interpreting messages; (b) affective processes, such as being motivated and stimulated to attend to another person’s messages; and (c) behavioral processes, such as responding with verbal and nonverbal feedback (e.g., backchanneling, paraphrasing). In addition, active listen- ing consists of verbal strategies (e.g., asking clarifying questions), whereas passive listening is nonverbal in nature (e.g., providing backchanneling cues). The purpose of this article is to show that supportive listening is a central dyadic mechanism of providing, perceiving, and receiving beneficial emotional support. Supportive listening differs from other types of listening (e.g., listening during chit-chat or a conflict, informational listening) because it requires that the support listener demon- strate emotional involvement and attunement while attending to, interpreting, and responding to the emotions of the support seeker—a complex and challenging task. Dear 5402 Commie Expert, How do I deal with other people’s emotional problems? Many people think that I am rude or insensitive because of the way I react to their problems. I want to help them feel better and comfort them, but I am very bad at showing support. For example, my friend approached me last week and told me that his dad had lost his job. My friend was really scared about what the family was going to do. I care deeply about my friend and his family, but the only thing I could say is, “That’s too bad.” When someone presents me with an emotional problem I feel as though the situation is very frustrating, but I also feel a lot of pressure on what I am supposed to say. How can I show people that I’m not insensitive, that I care about their problems, and This paper was presented as part of a panel, entitled Theorizing about Listening in Interpersonal Communication, at the 2009 National Communication conference, Chicago, Illinois. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Susanne M. Jones, Associate Professor, Department of Communication Studies, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 225 Ford Hall, 224 Church Street, SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
86 JONES I want to comfort and support them? — Advanced Undergraduate Student Letter (Spring 2010) This letter, written by a student in response to a class assignment illustrates vividly how difficult it is to comfort a person in need of help. We want to “be there” for our friends and loved ones, but what exactly do we say and do? Is it enough to say “I’m so sorry . . .”? Do we hug, give advice, or just plain listen and “throw in” the occasional “Uh huh . . .”? Supporters often feel overwhelmed by the expectation to be “the best supporters” they can be. What is perhaps most poignant about the student letter above is that not being a “good” supporter can have dire personal and relational consequences, (Holmstrom, Burleson, & Jones, 2005). So, what should the student do and say to demonstrate that he cares? Listening, the ability to effectively attend to, interpret, and respond to verbal and nonverbal messages (see Bostrom; Burleson; Edwards, all this volume), plays an important role in the support process and can be executed more or less skill- fully (see also Bodie, Worthington, Imhof, & Cooper, 2008). As has been noted elsewhere in this volume, listening is a multidimensional construct that consists of complex (a) cognitive processes, such as attending to, understanding, receiving, and interpreting messages; (b) affective processes, such as being motivated and stimulated to attend to another person’s messages; and (c) behavioral processes, such as responding with verbal and nonverbal feedback (e.g., backchanneling, paraphrasing). In addition, active listening consists of verbal strategies (e.g., ask- ing clarifying questions), whereas passive listening is nonverbal in nature (e.g., providing backchanneling cues). The purpose of this article is to show that supportive listening is a central dyadic mechanism of providing, perceiving, and receiving beneficial emotional support. Supportive listening differs from other types of listening (e.g., listen- ing during chit-chat or a conflict, informational listening) because it requires that the support listener demonstrate emotional involvement and attunement while attending to, interpreting, and responding to the emotions of the support seeker; a complex and challenging task. To date, little if any research has explicitly inte- grated listening into the support literature (Bodie et al., 2008). First, I demonstrate the central role of listening in the support process by defining verbal and nonverbal emotional support. I then situate supportive listening in the emotional support lit- erature. As we shall see, the crucial characteristics that have been examined in the context of emotional support are conceptually complementary behavioral mani- festations of supportive listening. Second, using the student’s letter as a pragmatic springboard, I present an interaction adaptation model of supportive listening. The model is based on the corollary that listening effectively is necessary for beneficial emotional support. Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
SUPPORTIVE LISTENING 87 CONCEPTUALIZING VERBAL AND NONVERBAL EMOTIONAL SUPPORT Social support encompasses phenomena, behaviors, and activities that are intended to improve the well being of another person and that range from hug- ging a crying co-worker who got diagnosed with a terminal disease, to lending money to a close family member who just lost her job (for a review of support types see Wills & Shinar, 2000). These examples illustrate that social support is moderated by factors, such as support type (e.g., tangible aid, emotional support, advice), relationship closeness and type (e.g., distant relative, close friend), and stressor (e.g., severe chronic stressors, everyday hassles). In our work we have focused on emotional support, because it has been found to be particularly beneficial to people’s health and life satisfaction (Barger, Donoho, & Wayment, 2009). Emotional support is one unique type of social support that consists of “specific lines of communicative behavior intended to help another person cope beneficially with emotional stress” (Burleson, 2003, p. 552). In line with cognitive, person-environment (P-E) fit models (for a review see Radnitz & Tiersky, 2007), emotional stress is a result of events that are appraised (i.e., evaluated) as difficult or threatening to one’s well-being. The vast major- ity of our research on comforting communication has examined how people cope with emotional stress as a result of everyday hassles and upsets rather than severe chronic stressors (Hobson & Delunas, 2001). Person Centeredness Almost 30 years of research in comforting communication has shown that beneficial emotional support must be person-centered. Person-centered support validates the difficult emotional experiences of the distressed person by explic- itly acknowledging them in talk. This message function is important because it signifies “awareness of and adaptation to the subjective, affective, and rela- tional reality” of the events that lead to the distress (Burleson, 1987, p. 305). Furthermore, person-centered support encourages the distressed person to elabo- rate on what lead to the upset. This function is crucial because it sets in motion a cognitive reappraisal process that leads to affective improvement (S. M. Jones & Wirtz, 2006). Highly person-centered support is also other-centered, evalua- tively neutral, and feeling-oriented (as opposed to fact-based or task-oriented; see Burleson, 1994). Highly person-centered messages are evaluated consistently as more helpful and sensitive than low person-centered messages (e.g., minimizing messages; Samter, Burleson, & Murphy, 1987). People also report feeling better after a person-centered support interaction (S. M. Jones & Guerrero, 2001). Further, sup- port of this nature carries beneficial relational consequences. For example, people Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
88 JONES who consistently use this kind of support are better liked (Burleson, 1990). Low person-centered support is viewed negatively (Samter et al., 1987), and this kind of support as well as insensitive social support in general may harm the supporter, the receiver, and the relationship (Beehr, Bowling, & Bennett, 2010; Burleson, 2003; Seidman, Shrout, & Bolger, 2006). Nonverbal Involvement Research on supportive communication has focused almost exclusively on the study of verbal person-centered messages, because “symbolic language provides more flexible, adaptable, and complex means of conveying support (Burleson, 2003, p. 553). However, nonverbal cues play an important role in the com- forting process. One nonverbal concept that has received attention in the study of emotional support is nonverbal involvement. Involvement conveys relational information (e.g., inclusion-exclusion, affinity, control) about how people view themselves, their partner, and their relationship (Burgoon & Bacue, 2003). This kind of relational information is particularly important during the emotional sup- port process because it provides information for the support seekers that the supporter is willing and motivated to comfort. After all, requesting support is often viewed as relationally burdensome and face-threatening (Brashers, Goldsmith, & Hsieh, 2002; Brashers, Neidig, & Goldsmith, 2004; Goldsmith, 2000; Goldsmith & Parks, 1990). Involvement cues are thus approach (vs. avoidance) cues that con- vey psychological and physiological closeness, warmth, and openness to engage with others (Andersen & Andersen, 2005; Burgoon & Bacue, 2003; Miczo & Burgoon, 2008). Involvement is frequently viewed as synonymous with immediacy, which encompasses behaviors that reflect the degree of psychological distance between (or closeness with) people. Yet involvement may also be communicated through expressivity (e.g., animated facial expressions), altercentrism (e.g., backchannel- ing, no interrupting), conversation management (e.g., interactional synchrony, short response latencies, effective turn taking), composure (e.g., behavioral relax- ation, no self adaptors), and positive affect (e.g., vocal pleasantness, postural mirroring; Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 2010). A series of studies conducted by myself (S. M. Jones, 2004; S. M. Jones & Wirtz, 2006; S. M. Jones & Wirtz, 2007) and Trees (Trees, 2000, 2002, 2005) found that both nonverbal immediacy and nonverbal involvement are perceived as beneficial and helpful when providing support to others. Specifically, using Sensitive Interaction Systems Theory (SIST; Barbee & Cunningham, 1995), which captures the ambivalence and tension that people experience when they request or provide emotional support, Trees (2000) found that mothers who used vocal warmth were viewed by their children as more supportive. She also found that more coordinated body movements between mothers and children predicted children’s perceptions of maternal supportiveness. Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
SUPPORTIVE LISTENING 89 SITUATING SUPPORTIVE LISTENING Research examining the roles, skills, and correlates of listening has mostly adopted a functional, skills-based approach that focuses on two questions: What constitutes active listening and how can we assess it? Listening has predomi- nantly been examined in sales (Comer & Drollinger, 1999; Drollinger, Comer, & Warrington, 2006) and in the healthcare field, specifically in the context of counseling (Cormier, Nurius, & Osborn, 2009; Hill, 2009; Hutchby, 2005; Little, Packman, Smaby, & Maddux, 2005), doctor-patient communication (Fassaert, van Dulmen, Schellevis, & Bensing, 2007; Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Gruber, 2004), and nurse-patient communication (A. C. Jones & Cutcliffe, 2009). Supportive Listening in Healthcare A case in point that vividly demonstrates the dearth of systematic theoretical listening research is a construct that is widely endorsed as a central compo- nent of high quality healthcare: patient-centered communication (PCC; Rao, Anderson, Inui, & Frankel, 2007). PCC has been linked to improved health out- comes (Epstein & Street, 2007), better patient adherence to prescribed regimen, and reduced diagnostic screening costs (Epstein et al., 2005). A physician who listens actively to a patient (e.g., by asking clarifying questions) not only vali- dates the patient’s perspective and emotional state but also encourages the patient to disclose health information more freely (Fassaert et al., 2007). Thus, through active listening, both physician and patient gain not only important information, but patients may also develop a trusting relationship with physicians, which in turn affects health recovery (Street, Makoul, Arora, & Epstein, 2009). Situating supportive listening within PCC is relatively easy if we consider that PCC is operationally defined a physician’s ability to (a) elicit and capture patients’ perspectives; (b) capture patients’ unique psychosocial contexts (i.e., integrating the person into family, work, and culture); and (c) reach shared doctor-patient understanding that is concordant with patients’ values (Brown, Stewart, & Ryan, 2001; Epstein, Franks, et al., 2005). These components all require active listen- ing. For example, shared understanding can only be reached when both doctor and patient actively listen to one another by asking questions and paraphrasing what was said. However, the role and importance of supportive listening in PCC is frequently assumed, rather than explicitly operationalized. Where listening is operationalized, it is done so in problematic ways. Consider the Active Listening Observation Scale (Fassaert et al., 2007), one example of a scale that operational- izes listening in PCC with seven items that range from observations of relatively concrete behaviors (e.g., is distracted, is hasty, uses exploring questions) to more global evaluations (e.g., is good in leading the conversation, expresses under- standing nonverbally). Attentive listening is itself a scale item and possesses the Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
90 JONES highest factor loading on this scale (the scale is unidimensional). This is problem- atic because it begs the question what exactly attentive listening is (or rather is not), that is not yet captured by the other six scale items. Supportive Listening in Interpersonal Relationships Systematic research examining the components and outcomes of supportive lis- tening in interpersonal communication is scant. Much like it is the case in healthcare research, there is quite a bit of research that implicitly assumes the rel- evance of listening in interpersonal communication (e.g., Affectionate Exchange Theory; Floyd, Judd, & Hesse, 2008), but there are only a few empirical stud- ies that explicitly focus on the impact of stress talk on listeners in interpersonal communication and close relationships (Lewis & Manusov, 2009; Notarius & Herrick, 1988; Pasupathi, Carstensen, Levenson, & Gottman, 1999; Pasupathi & Rich, 2005; Perrine, 1993). For example, Notarius and Herrick examined the affective reactions of listeners after a conversation with a distressed confeder- ate. Listeners who gave advice or joked were significantly more depressed and more rejecting of their distressed partners than were listeners who acknowl- edged the distressed confederate’s mood and who relied on supportive listening techniques. Similarly, Lewis and Manusov found that listening to an upsetting event is healing for the support seeker but stressful for the listener. Compared to those who gave advice, listeners who validated support seeker’s emotions (an important person-centered feature) reported increased levels of distress (see also Perrine, 1993). One reason why listeners may experience elevated levels of stress is because they are likely influenced by and pressured to conform to normative expectations of what constitutes beneficial emotional support. Listeners tend to think that merely appearing involved and providing encouragements (i.e., being there or passively listening) is not enough when comforting another per- son; they ought to do something and resolve the problem. Perrine (1993) had participants freely provide support to a distressed confederate who either indi- cated affective improvement or no affective improvement. Listener responses were categorized as either supportive (e.g., providing encouragement or listen- ing) or active (e.g., problem solving). Whatever the confederate’s manipulated level of improvement, listeners who relied on problem solving felt that they had helped more than did participants, who relied on listening alone. Merely validating or acknowledging emotions, and backchanneling may be perceived as less helpful than actually helping the distressed person resolve the problem and providing advice, even though research clearly shows that advice is often neither well received nor wanted in the first place (Feng & MacGeorge, 2006; Goldsmith, 2004; Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997; MacGeorge, Feng, & Thompson, 2008). Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
SUPPORTIVE LISTENING 91 Integrating Person-centered, Involved Comfort and Supportive Listening At the heart of comforting another person lies the supporter’s goal to facilitate emotional improvement. As I have shown earlier, we know a good bit about what constitutes “good comfort,” namely that it ought to be person-centered and involved. The connections between person-centered support and supportive listen- ing seem obvious. Beneficial person-centered support of any kind must explicitly validate and acknowledge the distressed person’s emotional upset. Therefore, compared to other interpersonal listening contexts (e.g., listening for directions, conversational listening, listening in conflicts), supportive listening requires that the listener pay particular attention to emotional cues. Person-centered support also requires that the supporter be attuned to the emotional state of the upset sup- port seeker. Person centeredness likely plays a crucial role in all three stages of the listening process (attending, interpreting, responding). First, when attending to the support seeker it is important that the supporter captures all emotion cues. This can be challenging because these cues may be ambiguous; seeking support is face-threatening and thus support seekers may not only use cues that visibly express distress but also politeness cues (e.g., smiling). Second, when interpreting and making sense of these cues, the support seeker’s skill in accurately ascribing meaning to emotional cues should play a particularly important role. This skill may gain in import especially in the last listening stage when responding to the support seekers, because supporters often paraphrase what is felt (e.g., “I totally understand how you feel; it’s like everything is falling apart around you, right?”). Thus, an initial entry point to conceptualizing supportive listening is person cen- teredness, because it captures the unique emotional state of the upset person and indicates that the supporter has attended to and interpreted the support seeker’s emotional upset. Many nonverbal behaviors that operationalize involvement (i.e., immedi- acy, expressivity, altercentrism, conversation management, composure, positive affect) also operationalize supportive listening. For example, Fassaert et al.’s (2007) aforementioned Active Listening Observation Scale contains items that tap primarily two involvement factors, namely altercentrism and conversation management (e.g., distraction, hastiness, talk time; see also Castleberry, 1993 for a review). This should not surprise; nonverbal cues are multifunctional, and listening is involved listening. Interestingly, Bodie (in press) recently found that supportive listening, assessed with a modified version of Drollinger et al’s (2006) Affective-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS) and immediacy, assessed with Richmond, McCroskey, and Johnson’s (2003) Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS) are only mildly correlated with one another (r’s ≤.19). What might have influ- enced his results is that (a) the NIS actually taps multiple involvement dimensions (e.g., altercentrism, expressivity) and not only immediacy; and (b) the AELS taps maro-level listening characteristics (e.g., “I listen for more than just words”), Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
92 JONES whereas the NIS taps concrete observable behaviors (e.g., headnods). Thus, both scales measure behavior at different levels. Nevertheless, his findings are intrigu- ing and may suggest that both nonverbal involvement and supportive listening are related, yet not isomorphic; they measure different constructs in the emotional support process. Indeed, it could be that beneficial supportive listening is viewed largely active in nature, that is, it is mainly person-centered (e.g., asking ques- tions, paraphrasing). Passive listening (e.g., using mainly backchanneling cues), on the other hand, may mainly consist of involvement cues. These speculations ought to be tested in future research. AN INTERACTION ADAPTATION MODEL OF SUPPORTIVE LISTENING One problem with the way we have theorized about supportive listening and emo- tional support is that both the provision of emotional support and listening mostly have been examined as unitary, individual-level constructs; the unit of analy- sis has been the individual who attends to, interprets, and responds with verbal and nonverbal messages. Supportive listening and emotional support, however, are dyadic: It takes one to talk, one to attend, and a message to attend to. A second and related point is that both listening and emotional support are inter- dependent processes that unfold over time. What the support seeker discloses influences the supporter’s response and vice versa. We must examine dyadic inter- actions in order to capture the complex nature of both listening and providing emotional support. For example, important work by Bolger and colleagues has demonstrated the importance of analyzing supportive mechanisms among couples (Bolger, Stadler, Paprocki, & DeLongis, 2010; Gleason, Iida, Bolger, & Shrout, 2003). To say that we need to account for dyadic interdependence seems self-evident to communication scientists. Perhaps we have not approached many behavioral concepts such as listening and supportive messages dyadically because we did not have statistical procedures to parse out complex effects, but now we do (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The HLM approach has several advantages over other analytic trajectory approaches (e.g., structural equation modeling). First, HLM provides reliable estimates of within-subject vari- ations even when sample sizes are relatively small. Second, HLM uses all data from all participants, even when some participants have missing data for some time intervals. Third, HLM computes effects on one parameter by controlling for effects on other parameters. Fourth, HLM controls for dyadic dependen- cies. Statistical procedures, such as these make it possible for us to capture the complex nature of social interaction, or as it is the case here, supportive listening. Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
SUPPORTIVE LISTENING 93 Heeding the warning that support should not be viewed as a magic bullet that instantly smashes our anguish, Burleson and Goldsmith (1998) offer a theoret- ical model of conversationally induced reappraisals. In their model, supporters encourage the upset person to talk about what happened so that the upset per- son may re-evaluate or reappraise events that lead to upsetting emotions; it is ultimately the reappraised event that alleviates upsetting emotions. In spite of its label, these researchers stress that reappraisals cannot be induced; they but must be facilitated through talk. However, in my view, Burleson and Goldsmith’s model does not resolve the magic bullet-problem: Facilitating (aka changing) a person’s reappraisals (aka thoughts about an event) is no easier than trying to change a per- son’s emotions (if that is the goal for the supporter); and how does one facilitate reappraisals when one is not a therapist, but a mere friend who wants to just “be there” anyway? Indeed, as I noted earlier, Gottman (1999) states that couples do not want their partners to act like therapists (nor can they) but rather like relational partners. One fruitful approach that taps the interactive nature of emotional support seeking and provision is Sensitive Interactive Systems theory (SIST) envisioned by Barbee and colleagues (Barbee, 1990; Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Barbee, Lawrence, & Cunningham, 1998). SIST is based on the assumption that the sup- port process is fraught with dialectically opposed approach/avoidance tensions and ambivalence that can either be expressed verbally or nonverbally (Barbee & Cunningham, 1995). SIST is a macro-theoretical model that begins with the for- mation of emotions experienced by the upset person (e.g., sadness, anger) leading to verbal/nonverbal, direct/indirect support activation. Asking for help would be an example of direct verbal activation, whereas complaining would be an example of indirect verbal activation. Crying and sulking are nonverbal behaviors that are direct and indirect, respectively. The support seeker’s activation behaviors lead to the supporter’s interactive coping behaviors, which vary on the bases of (a) approach or avoidance and (b) emotion focus or problem focus. Solve behaviors (e.g., giving advice) are problem-focused emotion behaviors, solace behaviors (e.g., hugging) are emotion-focused approach behaviors, dismiss behaviors (e.g., telling the upset person to ignore the situation) are problem-focused avoidance behaviors, and escape behaviors (e.g., avoiding embarrassing talk about emo- tions) are emotion-focused avoidance behaviors. These coping behaviors generate immediate seeker reactions, which consist of verbal/nonverbal, accept/resist reactions. Appreciating coping behaviors would be an example of a verbal accept reaction, whereas relaxing would be an example of a nonverbal accept reac- tion. Rejecting and recoiling are examples of respective verbal and nonverbal reject reactions. Researchers have mostly used the interactive coping behaviors, for example, system (e.g., Liu, Burleson, Liu, & Mortenson, 2005). In addition, this taxonomy has been used by Burleson and colleagues to tap support goals (Burleson & Gilstrap, 2002; Burleson, Liu, Liu, & Mortenson, 2006). Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
94 JONES SIST is important because it conceptualizes the support process as dyadic, dynamic, and unfolding over time. As discussed earlier, listening is instan- tiated through nonverbal involvement cues and verbal person-centered cues. Consequently, it makes sense to build on SIST and develop a theoretical model that is capable of predicting how these two behavioral messages features “work together” dynamically to influence affective, health, and relational outcomes; a point that has been touted extensively over the past ten years. We need to examine how exactly these observable messages features can accomplish these amazing things. One theory that enhances SIST and that can assist in capturing this dynamic process is interaction adaptation theory (IAT; Burgoon, Stern, & Dillman, 1995). IAT is helpful in theorizing about supportive listening because it makes predic- tions about cognitive, affective, and behavioral components in the dyadic process. IAT captures the rhythm of behavioral coordination during social interaction and proposes that behavioral coordination is a function of interpersonal needs, expec- tations, and desires. Adaptation patterns regulate social interaction and provide information such as affinity, rapport, and approval (Bernieri & Rosenthal, 1991; Ickes, 1997; Tickle-Degnen, 1995). Behavioral coordination varies in the extent to which it is (a) mindful, intentional, and strategic; and (b) contingent on and directed toward the behavior of another person (for a review see Burgoon et al., 1995). For example, matching postures or mannerisms (e.g., foot shaking, face rubbing) is nonconscious and automatic; it indicates co-occurrence of behavior that may merely signal some internal state (e.g., both interactants are nervous; Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Lakin & Chartrand, 2003; Lakin, Jefferis, Cheng, & Chartrand, 2003). Yet other adaptation patterns, such as compensation and reci- procity, are a direct result of the partner’s preceding behavior. In other words, these patterns are causal and require partner interdependence, such that Partner A’s behavior is contingent and dependent upon Partner B’s behavior. Adaptation patterns reflect either approach behaviors that aim to move “toward” or avoid- ance behaviors that aim to move “away” from the cointeractant. cointeractants can either reciprocate (i.e., a cold stare is met with a cold stare) or compensate these behaviors (i.e., a cold stare is met with a friendly smile). Reciprocity and matching tend to be the rule or default behavioral patterns in most interactions (Burgoon et al., 2010; Burgoon et al., 1995; Burgoon & White, 1997). IAT stipulates that people are compelled to match and reciprocate each other’s listening cues because adaptation patterns are universal and innate. Patterned behavior is advantageous for our species because it is conducive to communal liv- ing, pair bonding, and everyday interactions. It reflects harmonious coordinated behaviors (i.e., a dynamic equilibrium; Cappella, 1991). Gouldner (1960) labeled the phenomenon that people are driven biologically to reciprocate behaviors the norm of reciprocity (see also Burgoon & Hoobler, 2002). People usually recipro- cate behaviors that are equivalent in meaning or in IAT parlay, behaviors that are Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
SUPPORTIVE LISTENING 95 positively valenced (i.e., an approach cue is met with an approach or an avoidance cue is met with an avoidance cue). Extensive research supports this assumption (for a review see Burgoon & Hoobler, 2002). That people reciprocate behav- iors has also been demonstrated in the comforting context (S. M. Jones & Wirtz, 2007). For example, Taylor (2006) recently found that particularly when they are stressed, people “tend and befriend” others rather than fight or flight. For example, a sorrowful face, direct eye contact, and physical closeness are reciprocated with automimicry (making an equally solemn face even though the emotion is not felt), an embrace, a warm voice, and a verbal statement such as “Oh, what’s wrong?” As I have suggested earlier, these approach behaviors communicate involvement and should lead to positive psychological, health, and interpersonal outcomes (S. M. Jones & Wirtz, 2007). Recent evidence also suggests that support reciprocity sustains support equity in long-term close relationships and leads to increased positive mood (Gleason et al., 2003). Even though people are inclined to reciprocate each other’s behaviors, there are numerous support situations when people don’t. Consider support interac- tions where the helper responds with a hug to an upset person who has turned away with a frown; here, avoidance cues are compensated with approach cues. Conversely, numerous studies report instances when upset persons clearly sig- naled support readiness, yet were compensated with hurtful and unhelpful support (Dakof & Taylor, 1990; Ingram, Betz, Mindes, Schmitt, & Smith, 2001; Lehman & Hemphill, 1990). In these instances, behaviors were negatively valenced: Approach cues were often compensated with avoidance cues and vice versae. IAT provides the theoretical mechanism that explains these compensatory patterns. IAT explains instances when people do not reciprocate each other’s cues. Specifically, whether people compensate or reciprocate one another’s behaviors is a function of individual requirements (R), expectations (E), and desires (D), which make up the interaction position (IP; Burgoon et al., 1995; Burgoon & White, 1997; Floyd & Burgoon, 1999). Requirements reflect basic biological human needs and drives (e.g., survival, safety, comfort, affiliation; Maslow, 1970) that must be met in every interaction; the needs that play a particular role here are those that are tied to interpersonal interaction, including social inclusion, affinity, and control (Furnham, 2008; Simpson & Tran, 2006). Requirements often operate below a person’s conscious threshold. One requirement that will likely influence adaptation patterns is affect management (Burgoon & White, 1997). For example, the extent to which people are anxious or sad influences the nature and content of a message and therefore also its response; a point that reflected in SIST’s initial emotion formation of the upset person as well as the support givers emotional reactions to the support seeker (Barbee et al., 1998). Expectations reflect social factors and are anticipated behavioral scripts. Expectations may merely reflect what is culturally normative (e.g., helping is ethical) and appropriate (e.g., I must listen), or may be informed by situational demands, as well as our knowledge Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
96 JONES about idiosyncratic behaviors, views, and styles of the cointeractant (e.g., Cindy does not like it when I hug her). Desires are person-specific and reflect a person’s preferences (e.g., one’s personality and communication ability) and goals (what a person wants to attain). People pursue situation-specific (e.g., showing concern), relational (e.g., maintaining the friendship), and identity goals (e.g., being liked; Dillard, 2004). Individual requirements, expectations, and desires are not orthogonal; desires, requirements, and expectations all influence one another. For example, a person’s goal to “make a friend’s pain go away” is influenced by her emotional and rela- tional needs (a requirement) and her expectations (e.g., knowing that the friend would never admit to his pain). Requirements, expectations, and desires generate a person’s interaction position (IP). Of course, both supporter and support seeker have requirements, expectations, and desires that form their IP. Furthermore, requirements, expectations, and desires may be incongruent with one another. That is, these three factors may not all carry the same weight, be equally valenced, or be equally satisfied for any given interaction. When this is the case, IAT stipu- lates that requirements be most salient; that is requirements must be satisfied first (Floyd & Burgoon, 1999). Expectancies are next in line, because they reflect pres- sures to behave in line with what is normative and appropriate. Personal desires are last and here, goals in particular are influenced by interpersonal needs. A person’s IP is compared to the conversational partner’s actual behavior (A). The nature of the adaptation pattern (e.g., whether a person will compensate or reciprocate the conversational partner’s behavior) is a function of (a) the IP-A dis- crepancy, (b) the valence of the IP, and (c) the valence of A. So, when a receiver’s IP matches the sender’s A (IP =A), then reciprocity is likely. But what do peo- ple do in cases when the actual behavior is more positive than what was needed, anticipated, or desired (IP <A)? Conversely, do people continue to reciprocate when their IP is much higher than the A (IP >A); that is, when the partner did much less than what one needed, anticipated, or desired? An important factor that determines the nature of the adaptation pattern is the valence of the behavior that forms the basis for the IP and the actual behavior. If the partner’s actual behavior is much more positively valenced than what was needed, anticipated, and desired, then reciprocity is likely. However, compensation is likely when a person’s actual behavior falls far below what was needed, expected, and desired. Most of the time, people maintain fairly stable interaction patterns. Yet the sup- port condition jeopardizes this dynamic equilibrium. I argue here that incongruent IPs for both the distressed person and the supporter are responsible for botched support attempts. That is, incongruent IPs impede the seeker’s and supporter’s ability to effectively listen during the emotional support process. For example, the seeker’s preoccupation with requirements (e.g., affiliative needs), as well as the supporter’s concerns to meet expectations (e.g., to “make the pain go away”), Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
SUPPORTIVE LISTENING 97 put both under a cognitive load and may explain why listening to one another is difficult. Let us assess the IPs of each support seeker and supporter. Requirements are usually met in most everyday encounters, thus making way to what we anticipate from the other person and what we prefer. However, requirements are often in jeopardy when people seek and provide help. While content issues cause upset (e.g., not receiving a scholarship), the fundamental source of most emotional dis- tress is almost always some kind of breach to interpersonal bond that caused the upsetting situation (i.e., the relational dimension of each message; Goldsmith, 2004). In addition, asking for help and providing help also call into question affin- ity needs and social inclusion needs (Simpson & Tran, 2006); both distressed person and supporter require these need fulfillments from one another during the support encounter. In short, biological needs are very salient in supportive situations, and thus, requirements carry particular weight in support interactions (Taylor, 2006). To wit, both upset person and supporter have the same interper- sonal needs for social inclusion, affinity, and control and are also driven by the same biological pressures to reciprocate. Because requirements are ‘first in line,” fulfilling these interpersonal needs may trump expectations to make the upset person feel better; not meeting these expectations is not good, to be sure, but cer- tainly will not threaten one’s survival as would the loss of interpersonal inclusion, affinity, and control (a lot of these processes are, of course, nonconscious). Expectations can be generic, reflecting cultural norms. This is particularly the case when we interact with strangers. In most cases, people seek help from friends and close others. Thus, support encounters are also shaped by situational demands and relation-specific information. Research reviewed earlier suggests that most distressed persons prefer highly person-centered and immediate sup- port. However, things are more complicated for supporters. Many supporters may be aware (and perhaps pressured) that they are expected to adhere to and behave in line with learned cultural-specific schemas and scripts to fulfill communica- tion practices and functions (e.g., saying “I’m sorry”; Lewis & Manusov, 2009; Perrine, 1993), but what do supporters anticipate and expect and how do sup- porters’ expectations influence their IP and the subsequent adaptation pattern? Because they are aware of expectations to express compassion and care, support- ers may be concerned to project their image. In addition, supporters may also expect that efforts to help and support be e met with kindness and respect (i.e., “Hey, I’m doing the best I can here!”). Desires are person-specific and reflect personal preferences and goals. Relational specifics likely play an important role for the personal preferences of the distressed person and the supporter. There are numerous personal pref- erences that influence how upset persons seek and evaluate support (e.g., attachment styles; S. M. Jones, 2005) and how supporters respond to support requests. A goals analysis for both distressed person and supporter highlights Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
98 JONES at once the complex interaction of RED. First, goals operate at a more con- scious level and are also influenced by social norms. Therefore, goals are influenced by both requirements and expectations and also aid in the retrieval and enactment of message behavior (Berger, 2002; Dillard, 2004). Because goals are influenced by both requirements and expectations, it is likely that dis- tressed people and supporters pursue a multitude of goals (MacGeorge, 2001). Foremost, the distressed person’s goal is likely most strongly influenced by the goals surrounding affect management (e.g., feeling better), interpersonal needs (e.g., feeling validated, liked, connected), and problem or situation manage- ment (e.g., how to resolve concrete problems). Similarly, the supporter may likely pursue goals associated with interpersonal need satisfaction, followed by affect management (e.g., avoiding emotional contagion) and resolving the problem. Taken together, both IPs of emotional distressed person and supporter reflect similarly valenced requirements, expectations, and desires. Yet it may precisely be this characteristic that explains why many support attempts fail. First, consider that requirements for both the distressed person and supporter are made salient; both interactants must first attend to these interpersonal needs. Second, cultur- ally normative expectations to express care and concern may pale in comparison to these requirements and thus hamper the supporter’s goals to support. Third, goals are influenced by requirements and expectations and rarely guided solely by the immediate demands of the situation (e.g., I must listen). IAT thus provides a complex profile that helps explain why supporter inadvertently compensate the support initiations and calls for help with insensitivities. CONCLUSION: SUPPORTIVE LISTENING SKILLS The majority of supporters who feel they just botched a support episode actually had the goal to be the best supporters they can be. IAT helps explain why it is that many supporters succumb to the “pressures of support” and simply cannot follow through. Admittedly, this article has not brought us any closer to resolv- ing conceptual issues regarding listening and emotional support: Is listening part of support or synonymous with support? Are the components and processes that make up listening in general the same for supportive listening? I hope I have shown that listening is a necessary part of emotional support, and this is an impor- tant message for the student whose letter opened my article. In order to support his troubled friend, the student will not be able to merely “pick up” (or attend to and interpret, in listening parlay) emotional experiences from, say, vocal cues and eye contact and watching two episode of Lie to Me. Rather, the student will have to genuinely engage with others. Consider also that supportive listening clearly Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
SUPPORTIVE LISTENING 99 differs from nonsupportive kinds of listening: Casual listeners engaged in a con- versation about chestnut trees in France may get away with fake listening here and there: using appropriate behavioral cues, but being affectively (or motivationally) and cognitively nonpresent. The same does not hold for supportive listeners for various reasons, least of which may hark back to our evolutionary need to bond, which seems activated particularly when we are distressed, in need of approval, and emotionally vulnerable (Taylor, 2006). REFERENCES Andersen, P. A., & Andersen, J. F. (2005). Measurements of perceived nonverbal immediacy. In V. Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words (pp. 113–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barbee, A. P. (1990). Interactive coping: The cheering-up process in close relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 46–65). London, England: Sage Publications. Barbee, A. P., & Cunningham, M. R. (1995). An experimental approach to social support communica- tions: Interactive coping in close relationships. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 381–413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Barbee, A. P., Lawrence, T., & Cunningham, M. R. (1998). When a friend is in need: Feelings about seeking, giving, and receiving social support. In P. A. Anderson & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 281–301). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Barger, S. D., Donoho, C. J., & Wayment, H. A. (2009). The relative contributions of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, health, and social relationships to life satisfaction in the United States. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care & Rehabilitation,18(2), 179–189. Beehr, T. A., Bowling, N. A., & Bennett, M. M. (2010). Occupational stress and failures of social support: When helping hurts. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,15(1), 45–59. Berger, C. R. (2002). Goals and knowledge structures in social interaction. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 181–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bernieri, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). Interpersonal coordination: Behavior matching and interac- tional synchrony. In R. S. Feldman & B. Rimé (Eds.), Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior (pp. 401–432). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Bodie, G. D. (in press). The active-empathic listening scale (AELS): Conceptualization and validity evidence. Communication Quarterly. Bodie, G. D., Worthington, D., Imhof, M., & Cooper, L. (2008). What would a unified field of listening look like? A proposal linking past perspectives and future endeavors. The International Journal of Listening,22, 103–122. Bolger, N., Stadler, G., Paprocki, C., & DeLongis, A. (2010). Grounding social psychology in behav- ior in daily life: The case of conflict and distress in couples. In C. R. Agnew, D. E. Carlston, W. E. Graziano, & J. R. Kelly (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research (pp. 368–390). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Brashers, D. E., Goldsmith, D. J., & Hsieh, E. (2002). Information seeking and avoiding in health contexts. Human Communication Research,28, 258–271. Brashers, D. E., Neidig, J. L., & Goldsmith, D. J. (2004). Social support and the management of uncertainty for people living with HIV or AIDS. Health Communication,16(3), 305–331. Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
100 JONES Brown, J. B., Stewart, M. A., & Ryan, B. L. (2001). Assessing communication between patients and physicians: The measure of patient-centered communication (MPCC). Working paper series (2nd ed., p. 23). London, England: Centre for Studies in Family Medicine. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Burgoon, J. K., & Bacue, A. E. (2003). Nonverbal communication skills. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 179–219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (2010). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins. Burgoon, J. K., & Hoobler, G. D. (2002). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 240–299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Burgoon, J. K., & White, C. H. (1997). Researching nonverbal message production: A view from inter- action adaptation theory. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 279–312). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Burleson, B. R. (1987). Cognitive complexity. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 305–349). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Burleson, B. R. (1990). Comforting as everyday social support: Relational consequences of support- ive behaviors. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 66–82). London, England: Sage Publications. Burleson, B. R. (1994). Comforting messages: Features, functions, and outcomes. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 135–161). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Burleson, B. R. (2003). Emotional support skill. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 551–594). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Burleson, B. R., & Gilstrap, C. M. (2002). Explaining sex differences in interaction goals in support situations: Some mediating effects of expressivity and instrumentality. Communication Reports, 15(1), 43–55. Burleson, B. R., Liu, M., Liu, Y., & Mortenson, S. T. (2006). Chinese evaluations of emotional support skills, goals, and behaviors: An assessment of gender-related similarities and differences. Communication Research,33, 33–63. Cappella, J. N. (1991). The biological origins of automated patterns of human interaction. Communication Theory,1, 4–35. Castleberry, S. B. (1993). Effective interpersonal listening and personal selling. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,13(1), 35–49. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. (1999). The Chameleon Effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,76, 893–910. Comer, L. B., & Drollinger, T. (1999). Active empathetic listening and selling success: A conceptual framework. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,19(1), 15–29. Cormier, S., Nurius, P. S., & Osborn, C. J. (2009). Interviewing and change strategies for helpers: Fundamental skills and cognitive-behavioral interventions (instructor’s ed., 6th ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Dakof, G. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1990). Victims’ perceptions of support attempts: What is helpful from whom? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58, 80–89. Dillard, J. P. (2004). The goals-plan-action model of interpersonal influence. In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 185–206). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
SUPPORTIVE LISTENING 101 Drollinger, T., Comer, L. B., & Warrington, P. T. (2006). Development and validation of the active empathetic listening scale. Psychology & Marketing,23(2), 161–180. Epstein, R. M., Franks, P., Fiscella, K., Shields, G., Meldrum, S. C., Kravitz, R. L.,...Duberstein, P. R. (2005). Measuring patient-centered communication in patient-physician consultations: Theoretical and practical issues. Social Science & Medicine,61(7), 1516–1528. Epstein, R. M., Franks, P., Shields, C. G., Meldrum, S. C., Miller, K. N., Campbell, T. L.,... Fiscella, K. (2005). Patient-centered communication and diagnostic testing. Annals of Family Medicine,3(5), 415–421. Epstein, R. M., & Street, R. L. (2007). Patient-centered communication in cancer care: Promoting healing and reducing suffering (NIH Publication No. 07-6225). Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Fassaert, T., van Dulmen, S., Schellevis, F., & Bensing, J. (2007). Active listening in medical con- sultations: Development of the active listening observation scale (ALOS-global). Patient Education and Counseling,68(3), 258–264. Feng, B., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2006). Predicting receptiveness to advice: Characteristics of the problem, the advice-giver, and the recipient. Southern Communication Journal,71(1), 67–85. Floyd, K., & Burgoon, J. K. (1999). Reacting to nonverbal expressions of liking: A test of interaction adaptation theory. Communication Monographs,66(3), 219–239. Floyd, K., Judd, J., & Hesse, C. (2008). Affection exchange theory. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithewaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 285–293). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Furnham, A. (2008). Psychometric correlates of FIRO-B scores: Locating the FIRO-B scores in personality factor space. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,16(1), 30–45. Gleason, M. E., Iida, M., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2003). Daily supportive equity in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29(8), 824–838. Goldsmith, D. J. (2000). Soliciting advice: The role of sequential placement in mitigating face threat. Communication Monographs,67, 1–19. Goldsmith, D. J. (2004). Communicating social support. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Goldsmith, D. J., & Fitch, K. (1997). The normative context of advice as social support. Human Communication Research,23, 454–476. Goldsmith, D. J., & Parks, M. (1990). Communicative strategies for managing the risks of seeking social support. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 104–121). London, England: Sage Publications. Gottman, J. M. (1999). Seven principles for making marriage work. New York, NY: Crown. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review,25, 161–178. Hill, C. E. (2009). Attending, listening, and observing skills. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hobson, C. J., & Delunas, L. (2001). National norms and life-event frequencies for the revised Social Readjustment Rating Scale. International Journal of Stress Management,8(4), 299–314. Holmstrom, A. J., Burleson, B. R., & Jones, S. M. (2005). Some consequences for helpers who deliver “cold comfort”: Why it’s worse for women than men to be inept when providing emotional support. Sex Roles,53, 153–172. Hutchby, I. (2005). “Active listening”: Formulations and the elicitation of feelings-talk in child counseling. Research on Language and Social Interaction,38(3), 303–329. Ickes, W. (Ed.). (1997). Empathic accuracy. New York, NY: Guilford. Ingram, K. M., Betz, N. E., Mindes, E. J., Schmitt, M. M., & Smith, N. G. (2001). Unsupportive responses from others concerning a stressful life event: Development of the unsupportive social interactions inventory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,20, 173–207. Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
102 JONES Jones, A. C., & Cutcliffe, J. R. (2009). Listening as a method of addressing psychological distress. Journal of Nursing Management,17(3), 352–358. Jones, S. M. (2004). Putting the person into person-centered and immediate emotional support: Emotional change and perceived helper competence as outcomes of comforting in helping situations. Communication Research,32, 338–360. Jones, S. M. (2005). Attachment style differences and similarities in evaluations of affectively oriented communication skills and person-centered comforting messages. Western Journal of Communication,69, 233–249. Jones, S. M., & Wirtz, J. G. (2006). How does the comforting process work?: An empirical test of an appraisal-based model of comforting. Human Communication Research,32, 217–243. Jones, S. M., & Wirtz, J. G. (2007). “Sad monkey see, monkey do:” Nonverbal matching in emotional support encounters. Communication Studies,58, 71–86. Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science,14, 334–339. Lakin, J. L., Jefferis, V. E., Cheng, C. M., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). The Chameleon Effect as social glue: Evidence for the evolutionary significance of nonconscious mimicry. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,27, 145–162. 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. Lewis, T., & Manusov, V. (2009). Listening to another’s distress in interpersonal relationships. Communication Quarterly,57(3), 282–301. Little, C., Packman, J., Smaby, M. H., & Maddux, C. D. (2005). The skilled counselor training model: Skills acquisition, self-assessment, and cognitive complexity. Counselor Education & Supervision, 44, 189–200. Liu, M., Burleson, B. R., Liu, Y., & Mortenson, S. T. (2005, May). Assessing gender differences in Chinese evaluations of emotional support values, goals, coping behaviors, and messages. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York, NY. MacGeorge, E. L. (2001). Support providers’ interaction goals: The influence of attributions and emotions. Communication Monographs,68, 72–97. MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Thompson, E. R. (2008). “Good” and “bad” advice: How to advise more effectively. In M. Motley (Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication (pp. 145–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins. Miczo, N., & Burgoon, J. K. (2008). Facework and nonverbal behavior in social support interactions within romantic dyads. In M. T. Motley (Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication (pp. 245–265). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Notarius, C. I., & Herrick, L. R. (1988). Listener response strategies to a distressed other. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,5, 97–108. Pasupathi, M., Carstensen, L. L., Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1999). Responsive listening in long-married couples: A psycholinguistic perspective. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,23(2), 173–193. Pasupathi, M., & Rich, B. (2005). Inattentive listening undermines self-verification in personal storytelling. Journal of Personality,73(4), 1051–1086. Perrine, R. M. (1993). On being supportive: The emotional consequences of listening to another’s distress. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,10, 371–384. Radnitz, C. L., & Tiersky, L. (2007). Psychodynamic and cognitive theories of coping. In E. Martz & H. Livneh (Eds.), Coping with chronic illness and disability: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical aspects (pp. 29–48). New York, NY: Springer. Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013
SUPPORTIVE LISTENING 103 Rao, J. K., Anderson, L. A., Inui, T. S., & Frankel, R. M. (2007). Communication interventions make a difference in conversations between physicians and patients: A systematic review of the evidence. Medical Care,45(4), 340–349. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of the nonverbal imme- diacy scale (NIS): Measures of self and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly,51(4), 504–517. 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. Seidman, G., Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2006). Why is enacted social support associated with increased distress? Using simulation to test two possible sources of spuriousness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,32(1), 52–65. Simpson, J. A., & Tran, S. (2006). The needs, benefits, and perils of close relationships. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Close relationships: Functions, forms and processes (pp. 3–24). Hove, England: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis. Street, R. L., Jr., Makoul, G., Arora, N. K., & Epstein, R. M. (2009). How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Education and Counseling,74(3), 295–301. Taylor, S. E. (2006). Tend and befriend: Biobehavioral bases of affiliation under stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science,15(6), 273–277. Tickle-Degnen, L. (1995). The effect of target immediacy on experienced versus observed rapport (Unpublished manuscript). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Trees, A. R. (2000). Nonverbal communication and the support process: Interactional sensitivity in interactions between mothers and young adult children. Communication Monographs,67, 239–261. Trees, A. R. (2002). The influence of relational context on support processes: Points of difference and similarity between young adult sons and daughters in problem talk with mothers. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,19(5), 703–722. Trees, A. R. (2005). Nonverbal and verbal approach behaviors related to reported and perceived support seeking goals in conversations. Western Journal of Communication,69(4), 319–337. Wanzer, M. B., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Gruber, K. (2004). Perceptions of health care providers’ communication: Relationships between patient-centered communication and satisfaction. Health Communication,16(3), 363–384. Wills, T. A., & Shinar, O. (2000). Measuring perceived and received social support. In S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social support measurement and intervention (pp. 86–135). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Downloaded by [University of Chicago] at 10:19 29 January 2013 |