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:

//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: //dx.doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2011.536475

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: //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]; 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