support providers' interaction goals: the influence of attributions and emotions

This article was downloaded by: [TOBB Ekonomi Ve Teknoloji]On: 21 December 2014, At: 15:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication MonographsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmm20

Support providers' interaction goals:the influence of attributions andemotionsErina MacGeorge aa Department of Communication at George Washington UniversityPublished online: 21 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Erina MacGeorge (2001) Support providers' interaction goals: theinfluence of attributions and emotions, Communication Monographs, 68:1, 72-97, DOI:10.1080/03637750128050

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750128050

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmm20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03637750128050

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750128050

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Support Providers’ Interaction Goals:The Influence of Attributions and Emotions

Erina L. MacGeorge

The current study examines cognitive and emotional influences on the formation of interaction goals.Specifically, it develops and assesses an extension of Weiner’s attribution-emotion-intention model ofhelping (e.g., Weiner, 1995) to the prediction of support providers’ goals. 608 college students readsituations manipulating attributions of responsibility, stability, and effort with regard to a friend whowas seeking support. They subsequently responded to measures of emotional response (anger, sympathy),interaction goals, and attributions. Attributions were found to influence goals both directly and throughthe mediation of emotion, though the character of this influence depended strongly on the goal. The resultssuggest that at least some variability in the effectiveness and sensitivity of supportive communication canbe explained by support providers’ goals. They also indicate the need for continued, closer examination ofcognitive and emotional influences on interaction goals and behaviors.

In recent years, interaction goals have become a focal point for analyses of messageproduction (e.g., Dillard, 1997). For most current theorists, goals are the starting

point of the message production process; theories that assume the pivotal role ofgoals include Action Assembly Theory (e.g., Greene, 1997), Planning Theory (e.g.,Berger, 1997), and the Cognitive Rules Model (e.g., Wilson, 1995). Concurrent withtheoretical development, research evidence of goal effects on message characteris-tics is growing (e.g., Cegala & Waldron, 1992; Dillard, 1989; Samp & Solomon,1999). These goal-based analyses improve on earlier theorizing and research bycentering attention on cognition as the most proximal cause of message behavior(Wilson, 1997); they also enhance our ability to diagnose and alter the causes ofineffective messages (Fincham & Beach, 1999).

Despite this increased interest in goals as influences on communication behavior,research examining goal formation or development has been limited (Wilson, 1995).Efforts have been made to identify types of goals, such as types of compliance-gaining goals (Cody, Canary, & Smith, 1994) and goals relevant to the managementof problematic events (Samp & Solomon, 1998). Yet, existing research is largelysilent with respect to the cognitive processes by which these goals are formed orselected during interaction. The major exception is the Cognitive Rules Model(Wilson, 1995), which argues that individuals select goals by matching their currentsituations with representations of situations and goals (“cognitive rules”) in memory.However, the research associated with this model has been very narrowly focused,primarily indicating that cognitive complexity interacts with situational ambiguity toinfluence the development of compliance-gaining goals (Wilson, 1995). A fullerunderstanding of goal formation requires that we examine (a) other aspects of

Erina L. MacGeorge (Ph.D., University of Illinois, 1999) is an Assistant Professor of Communication atGeorge Washington University. This article is based on the author’s doctoral dissertation, completed at theUniversity of Illinois under the direction of Dr. Ruth Anne Clark. A version of this paper was presented at theannual convention of the National Communication Association, November 9–12, 2000, Seattle, WA. Addresscorrespondence concerning this article to the author at George Washington University, CommunicationProgram, 2130 H St., NW, Washington, DC, 20052, or at [email protected].

Communication Monographs, Vol. 68, No. 1, March 2001, pp 72–97Copyright 2001, National Communication Association

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

situations critical to the development of goals, (b) perceptual and interpretiveprocesses leading from situational information to goals, and (c) goals relevant tocommunicative purposes other than compliance-gaining. In addition, messageproduction research has largely failed to consider the role that emotion plays in ourmental processes, and thus the role it may play in shaping goals and messages(Wilson, 1997). In sum, there is much to be discovered about the cognitive—rationaland emotional—processes behind the formation of interaction goals.

Interaction Goals and the Quality of Support Messages

Message production research is especially worthwhile when it helps to explainwhy communicators produce messages of varying effectiveness or appropriateness(Fincham & Beach, 1999; Greene & Geddes, 1993). Communication in supportcontexts is one place where this kind of explanation is needed. A growing researchliterature documents wide variability in the messages people use when addressingdistressed others (see review by Burleson & Goldsmith, 1998). Sometimes supportseekers receive what they perceive as sensitive and effective comfort and counsel.However, they also receive messages they perceive as less appropriate and effective,including those that dismiss or condemn their feelings, trivialize the problem, andblame or criticize (Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Cutrona & Suhr, 1994; Dunkel-Schetter, Blasband, Feinstein, & Herbert, 1992). Given the widely documentedassociation between perceptions of support and physical and mental health (seereview by Burleson, Albrecht, Goldsmith, & Sarason, 1994), explaining variability insupport message quality has more than just theoretical value.

To date, explanations for variability in the quality of supportive communicationhave concentrated on (1) enduring characteristics of support providers, and (2) theeffects of these characteristics on providers’ capacity or ability to produce sensitiveand effective messages. Various lines of research have focused on socio-demo-graphic variables such as age, sex, and socio-economic status (see reviews byBurleson, Delia, & Applegate, 1995; Kunkel & Burleson, 1998); personality andaffective variables such as anxiety, extraversion, neuroticism, and self-esteem (e.g.,Gurung, Sarason, & Sarason, 1997; Pasch, Bradbury, & Davila, 1997); and social-cognitive skills such as cognitive complexity, role-taking, and affective perspective-taking (see review by Burleson, 1985). These studies indicate that these variablesinfluence support providers’ capacity to produce sensitive and effective messagesbecause they affect social perception and communicative skills.

Although resulting in a body of useful knowledge, this research has neglected thealternative perspective afforded by recognizing communication behavior as goal-based. Support providers may not only vary in their capacity to produce sensitiveand effective supportive communication, they may vary in their intention to provideit. In other words, the quality of support providers’ messages may vary because ofthe goals they develop and pursue in response to the support seekers and situationsthey encounter. The idea that support providers (1) develop interaction goals, (2)form these goals in response to perceptions and interpretations of the situation, and(3) produce messages based on these goals is entirely commensurate with currenttheorizing about message production (e.g., Berger, 1997; Greene, 1997; Wilson,1997). However, research on the communication of support has given this idea andits potential for explaining variation in support message quality surprisingly littleattention (Hale, Tighe, & Mongeau, 1998; Jones & Burleson, 1997). Accordingly,

73SUPPORT PROVIDERS’ INTERACTION GOALS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

this study was designed to test one model of support providers’ goal development inresponse to situationally based cognitions and emotions.

Weiner’s Model of Cognitive and Emotional Influenceon Helping Intentions

The goals that support providers develop for their interactions with supportseekers are almost certainly influenced by a wide range of situational features andthe perceptual and emotional processes by which these features are evaluated.However, an initial direction for exploring goal formation is suggested by anextensive line of research in the social psychology of helping behavior. Largelydriven by the work of Weiner (see comprehensive review by Weiner, 1995), thisresearch focuses on helpers’ causal attributions about help-seekers and their needs.Paradigmatic research in this area has examined the intention to engage in a tangibleact of helping behavior for a stranger or acquaintance who has an obvious need (e.g.,having fallen down), or has communicated one (e.g., needing class notes). In thesecontexts, Weiner and colleagues have repeatedly demonstrated that the intention tohelp is strongly influenced by information about the help-seeker’s responsibility1 forhis or her problem; willingness to help declines as perceived responsibility increases.As Weiner explains it, potential help-givers act as “judges,” assessing responsibilityand deciding accordingly whether help is deserved and whether to provide it(Weiner, 1993).

Weiner and others have also found that the effect of responsibility attributions onhelping intentions is largely mediated through the emotions of anger and sympathy(e.g., Betancourt, 1990; Schmidt & Weiner, 1988). As perceived responsibilityincreases, anger toward the help-seeker increases and sympathy decreases, and theseemotions are the more proximal cause of the decline in helping intentions. Theseeffects are consistent with current perspectives on the cognitive bases of emotion andthe action tendencies (broad action orientations) associated with different emotions.Research on the cognitive bases for emotion indicates that anger frequently arisesfrom the perception that another person is responsible for behavior that impedesone’s own personal goals (Averill, 1982; Frijda, 1986), or from the perception that asituation is “illegitimate, wrong, unfair, [or] contrary to what ought to be” (Shaver, etal., 1987). Sympathy has been found to result from the perception that anotherperson is afflicted by a negative event, especially when the person is not viewed asblameworthy for his or her plight (Blum, 1980; Lazarus, 1991; Weiner, Graham, &Chandler, 1982). Research has also identified contrasting action tendencies associ-ated with anger and sympathy. Anger tends to provoke hurting, resisting, opposing,and removing the object of anger (e.g., Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989), whereassympathy creates “the impulse to reach out, to mitigate the other’s plight, to help theother person” (Lazarus, 1991, p. 290). Thus, anger and sympathy may arise naturallyfrom cognition in the help-seeking context, and have clear implications for helpingintentions and behaviors.

As others have observed, helping and support interactions are both forms ofpro-social behavior that should be subject to many of the same influences (e.g.,Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Dunkel-Schetter & Skokan, 1990). In support of thisview, two studies have found that the intention to provide a friend with support(broadly defined and operationalized) declines as perceived responsibility increases( Jung, 1988, Experiment 2; Schwarzer & Weiner, 1991). A third study has found that

74 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

willingness to interact with a friend in need of support also declines as perceivedresponsibility increases (Otten, Penner, & Waugh, 1988). Extrapolating from thisresearch, it might be concluded that support providers will interact with supportseekers in a “less supportive” way when support seekers are responsible for theirown problems. But what does being “less supportive” mean in terms of theinteraction goals that support providers pursue?

Examining Variation in the Interaction Goals of Support Providers

There is good evidence that the communication of support, in contrast to theprovision of tangible help, is a complex, multifaceted activity, underlain by multiplegoals. Most theorists agree that communication, in general, is frequently character-ized by the pursuit of multiple goals (e.g., Clark & Delia, 1979; Dillard, 1989;O’Keefe & Shepherd, 1987). More direct evidence that support providers frequentlypursue multiple goals is provided by research in which messages to a support-seekerhave been collected and classified. Numerous studies demonstrate that messagecontent varies widely within and across messages, ranging (for example) fromexpressions of sympathy and care, to information and advice, to criticism andrejection (e.g., Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Burleson, 1994; Cutrona & Suhr, 1994;for a review see Burleson & Goldsmith, 1998). This variation suggests that supportproviders frequently pursue a multiplicity of goals, rather than a single intention toprovide support. A useful extension of Weiner’s model from helping to supportprovision therefore requires attention to a range of goals that are commonly presentin support interactions and could plausibly account for variation in messages.

An obstacle to pursuing this research direction is the general lack of attention paidto the interaction goals of support providers. Research on social support hasconcentrated almost exclusively on the content and effects of support behaviorrather than the motivations or intentions that underlie the behaviors (e.g., Dunkel-Schetter & Skokan, 1990; Trobst, Collins, & Embree, 1994). Consequently, there arenot any systematic analyses or typologies of support providers’ interaction goals.Thus, before considering how attributions and emotions might influence such goals(and associated messages), it is necessary to consider the goals that are likely to befrequently present and plausibly responsible for variation in message content.

Support Providers’ Interaction Goals

The best available source of information about the goals of support providers isthe same literature that demonstrates the variability of content in support messages.While this literature does not provide a direct analysis of goals, it does describecategories of message content that appear to represent a diversity of specific goals.Based on classic research examining types of individual coping responses (e.g.,Folkman & Lazarus, 1982), social support scholars have frequently made a concep-tual distinction between two dimensions of support provision, emotion-focused andproblem-focused (e.g., Barbee & Cunningham, 1995, Goldsmith & Dun, 1997).Support messages that appear to be primarily directed at managing or alleviating asupport-seeker’s emotional distress are typically referred to as “emotion-focused”and distinguished from those that are primarily aimed at obtaining a solution to theproblematic situation (i.e., “problem-focused”). Thus, this literature suggests that twobroad goals are centrally relevant to many support interactions: (1) alleviating asupport-seeker’s emotional distress, and (2) determining what action(s) the support-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

seeker can or should be taking in response to the problem.2 However, the variedtypes of message content described in the support literature (e.g., Barbee & Cunning-ham, 1995; Burleson, 1994; Cutrona & Suhr, 1994) also suggest that supportproviders frequently pursue a variety of additional, more narrowly focused goals,either as a means of achieving distress alleviation or problem-solving, or as ends inthemselves.

Five additional goals having a primarily emotion-focused character are suggestedby message content described in previous research. Support providers frequentlydiscuss their sympathy and appreciation for the support-seeker’s distress (e.g.,Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Burleson, 1994), suggesting the goal of conveyingsympathy. They regularly produce messages containing expressions of care andconcern for the support-seeker (Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Cutrona & Suhr,1994), suggesting the goal of making the support provider feel cared about. Supportproviders also produce messages that describe, analyze, or ask questions about thesupport-seeker’s emotional distress, suggesting the goal of helping the support-seeker to understand his or her feelings (Burleson, 1994; Barbee & Cunningham,1995). Messages recommending activity that distracts the support-seeker from his orher feelings are also well-documented (Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Burleson,1994), providing evidence that distraction is a goal pursued by support-providers.Finally, encouraging the support-seeker to dismiss or suppress his or her feelings is acomponent of many support messages (e.g., Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Burleson,1994), suggesting that dismissing the support provider’s feelings is also a frequently-pursued goal.

Three additional goals of a problem-focused character are also suggested bymessage content described in previous studies. Messages that describe, analyze, orask questions about the problem (e.g., Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Goldsmith &Dun, 1997) suggest the goal of getting the support-seeker to understand the problem.Those that downplay the seriousness of the problem or directly recommend apositive outlook appear to represent the goal of encouraging a positive perspectiveon the problem (e.g., Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Burleson, 1994). Multiplestudies document messages in which support providers discuss how a support-seekercan plan to avoid or prevent the problem in the future, appearing to represent thegoal of helping the support-seeker to prevent subsequent problems (Barbee &Cunningham, 1995; Cutrona & Suhr, 1994).

Finally, two additional goals are suggested not only by the literature on supportmessage content, but also by this study’s focus on attributional influence on supportprovision. Getting the support-seeker to recognize his or her own responsibility, orothers’ responsibility for the problem, are goals that would seem to arise quitedirectly from the formation of responsibility attributions. However, these goals arealso suggested by the frequency of messages that convey blame and criticism of thesupport-seeker, or that criticize others and absolve the support-seeker of blame(Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Cutrona & Suhr, 1994).

Responsibility Attributions and Interaction Goals

The previous section has outlined twelve goals that appear to underlie manysupport interactions: distress alleviation, problem-solving, sympathy, care, understandfeelings, distraction, dismiss feelings, understand problem, positive perspective, prevention,recognize own responsibility, and see others’ responsibility. Taking these twelve goals asrepresentative (though certainly not exhaustive) of goals relevant to support interac-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

tions, it is now possible to hypothesize in more detail how support providers’responsibility attributions may affect their pursuit of these goals.

Previous research shows that increased responsibility attributions negativelyinfluence helping intentions (e.g., Weiner, 1995) and broad support intentions (e.g.,Schwarzer & Weiner, 1991). Distress alleviation and problem-solving are thought tobe central dimensions of support interactions (e.g., Barbee & Cunningham, 1995).Thus, the distress alleviation and problem-solving goals may be viewed in the supportcontext as analogous to helping intentions in the helping context. It is thereforereasonable to predict that support providers will pursue both of these goals lessstrongly as a support-seeker’s perceived responsibility increases. However, theaffective focus of distress alleviation and the instrumental focus of problem-solving alsosuggest a difference in the strength of influence that responsibility attributions willhave on these goals. In cases where responsibility is high, support providers may notbe inclined to legitimate emotional distress, but they may still want to provideassistance (or be seen as providing assistance) due to pro-social norms operating inclose relationships. Problem-solving, with its more instrumental focus, may thereforebe pursued as an alternative to distress alleviation, somewhat strengthening its pursuitunder conditions of higher responsibility. The following hypotheses were thereforeproposed:

H1: Support providers will pursue distress alleviation and problem-solving more strongly as thesupport-seeker’s perceived responsibility decreases.

H2: The effect of perceived responsibility on problem-solving will be weaker than its effect ondistress alleviation.

The likely effect of responsibility attributions on the sympathy, care, and dismissfeelings goals is broadly suggested by the research on helping intentions. To theextent that support providers view a support-seeker’s problem as self-caused, theyare likely to view positive approaches to the support-seeker’s distress as undeserved.This view is also supported by the only previous research with a central focus onattributions and communication in support contexts. Jones and Burleson (1997)found that the perceived appropriateness of emotionally insensitive communication(denying, condemning, or dismissing the emotional distress) increased as perceivedresponsibility increased. Although judgments of perceived appropriateness may notalways coincide with actual goals pursued or messages produced, this study nonethe-less suggests the following hypotheses.

H3: Support providers will pursue the sympathy and care goals more strongly as the support-seeker’s perceived responsibility decreases.

H4: Support providers will pursue the dismiss feelings goal more strongly as the support-seeker’sperceived responsibility increases.

Given their direct relationship to the attributions being made, predicting theeffects of responsibility attributions on pursuit of the goals recognize own blame and seeothers’ blame is a relatively straightforward task. This prediction is also supported,indirectly, by Karasawa (1991), who found that the intention to criticize a help-seeker increased as perceived responsibility increased. Accordingly, the followinghypotheses were advanced:

H5: Support providers will pursue the recognize own blame goal more strongly as the support-seeker’s perceived responsibility increases.

H6: Support providers will pursue the see others’ blame goal more strongly as the support-seeker’sperceived responsibility decreases.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The effects of responsibility attributions on the five remaining goals are moredifficult to predict. Helping a support-seeker understand his or her feelings or theproblem at hand could be motivated by the belief that the individual brought theproblem on his or herself, and needed that type of understanding, but could also bean outgrowth of believing that the individual was not responsible, and needed tounderstand the situation in that light. Efforts to encourage a more positive outlook bythe support-seeker, or to recommend distracting activities, could be motivated bythe desire to terminate involvement with a problem created by the support-seeker.This prediction would be generally congruent with the finding by Otten et al. (1987)that the intention to initiate interaction with someone in need of support declines asperceived responsibility increases. However, it seems equally plausible that effortstoward distraction and a more positive perspective could be motivated by a desire togive the support-seeker respite from his or her distress. Finally, planning to avoid theproblem in the future is a specialized component of problem-solving that could bepursued more strongly when a support-seeker is more “deserving” of assistance.However, it could also be seen as most relevant when the problem was caused by thesupport-seeker (and therefore preventable by the support-seeker). Accordingly, thefollowing research question was advanced with respect to these goals:

R1: What is the influence of perceived responsibility on the goals of understand feelings, understandproblem, positive perspective, distraction, and prevention?

The Mediating Role of Anger and Sympathy

Weiner argues that the effects of responsibility attributions on helping intentionsare actually the effects of anger and sympathy; responsibility attributions arouseanger or sympathy in the helper, with these emotions thus mediating the positive ornegative influence of responsibility on helping intentions. There is considerableempirical support for this mediated model of responsibility’s influence on helping(e.g., Betancourt, 1990; Reisenzein, 1986; see review in Weiner, 1995). Further, theeffects are consistent with theory and research on the cognitive bases and actionconsequences of emotional states (e.g., Lazarus, 1991). Clearly, then, an examinationof emotional influence on support providers’ goals is required to fully test anextension of Weiner’s model.

However, no previous research has attempted to determine the extent to whichemotions are responsible for mediating the effects of attributions on any goals orbehaviors in support contexts. The research on helping intentions obviously recom-mends the view that anger and sympathy will mediate the influence of responsibilityattributions on support providers’ goals. But there is also good reason for consider-ing the possibility of direct (unmediated) effects for responsibility attributions.Several studies have reported small but significant unmediated effects of responsibil-ity on helping intentions (e.g., Betancourt, 1990; Meyer & Mulherin, 1980). Inaddition, Wilson, Cruz, Marshall and Rao (1993) have argued that attributions mayinfluence communication not only by provoking emotional responses, but by alsoindicating the obstacles to be overcome through communication. To illustrate, itmay be the case that high responsibility arouses anger and thereby influences asupport provider to pursue recognize own responsibility more strongly, because thesupport seeker deserves to be shown the error of his or her ways. However,support-providers may also have a “cooler” motivation for pursuing this goal: theymay view it as key to helping the support-seeker resolve the problem in a satisfactory


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

manner. The following hypothesis and research question are motivated by theseconsiderations:

H7: Anger and sympathy will mediate the influence of responsibility attributions on support providers’interaction goals.

RQ2: To what extent do responsibility attributions have direct effects (i.e., effects unmediated by emotion) onsupport providers’ interaction goals?

Attention to the research on attributions and helping intentions provokes anotherconsideration with regard to the influence of emotions on support interaction goals.In all previous research, it appears that anger and sympathy have always beentreated as having only independent effects. However, emotion theorists commonlyrecognize “emotion blends,” in which multiple, and even contradictory emotions areexperienced simultaneously (e.g., Lazarus, 1991). Nor is it implausible that distressand need for assistance could arouse sympathy even as the surrounding circum-stances provoked anger (perhaps especially if the support-seeker is an intimate).Therefore the following research question is warranted:

RQ3: What is the interactive effect of anger and sympathy on support providers’ interaction goals?

Stability and Effort Attributions

This study was intended not only to extend Weiner’s model, but to expand thescope of knowledge about the influence of causal attributions in pro-social contexts.Both the bulk of studies on attributions and helping intentions and the few studies onattributions in support contexts have focused on the influence of responsibilityattributions (e.g., Jung, 1988; Otten et al., 1987). However, research concerned withattributions in other domains of behavior (e.g., achievement) clearly indicates thatresponsibility is not the only influential dimension of causal reasoning (e.g., Ander-son, Krull, & Weiner, 1996).

A few studies suggest that the stability, or temporal consistency, of a help-seeker’scircumstances can influence helping intentions (e.g., Barnes, Ickes, & Kidd, 1979;Meyer & Mulherin, 1980). However, this variable also appears to have been definedand operationalized inconsistently—as the stability of the problematic situation (i.e.,its duration or chronicity; Meyer & Mulherin, 1980), as the stability of the cause forthe problem (i.e., whether the causal factors are enduring or temporary; Weiner,1980), or as some uncertain combination of these perceptions (in a field experimentby Barnes et al., 1979). Given this diversity, a range of findings is perhaps notsurprising. Weiner (1980) found no effect, though a small sample size may haveprovided insufficient power; Barnes et al. (1979) found that greater stability in-creased helping intentions; and Meyer & Mulherin (1980) found the opposite.Meyer & Mulherin (1980) also reported that stability interacted with responsibility tointensify the influence of responsibility attributions on helping intentions.

Two more recent studies have examined the effects of effort attributions onpro-social intentions. In these studies, the intention to help (Karasawa, 1991) orprovide support (broadly defined; Schwarzer & Weiner, 1991) was found to besubstantially stronger when help- or support seekers were perceived as exertinggreater personal effort to resolve or cope with their own problems. Karasawa (1991)found that the influence of effort on helping intentions was stronger than that ofresponsibility.

Attention to stability and effort attributions becomes particularly relevant in lightof the desire to explain goal development in support interactions. Whereas research


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

on helping has focused on interactions between strangers or casual acquaintances(e.g., classmates), support interactions most commonly occur in close relationships(e.g., Argyle, 1992). As a general rule, close relationship partners have more accessthan do strangers to information about the individual seeking aid and his or hersituation. Thus, attributions of stability or effort may be more readily formed bysupport providers and have greater potential for influencing the interaction.

The extent to which stability and effort attributions influence support interactiongoals, either independently or in conjunction with responsibility attributions, has yetto be examined. A desire to maintain the focus on attributions concerning thesupport-seeker prompted the choice to examine the effects of stability for the causeof the problem in the current research. Conceptually, the duration or chronicity of aproblem may be evaluated independently from the individual who is experiencing it(e.g., recognizing an illness as short- or long-term). In contrast, assessing thetemporary or enduring nature of a cause necessarily involves some awareness of thecause itself, and by extension, an awareness of the individual’s role (or lack of role) inthat cause. Given the small number of previous studies, and inconsistent findings, aresearch question was posed:

RQ4: What is the influence of stability attributions on support providers’ interaction goals?

Although the influence of effort is consistent in promoting pro-social intentions intwo previous studies, the exact nature of its influence on support providers’ goals isdifficult to predict. For example, greater effort might be thought to increase distressalleviation because it indicates greater deservingness of support, but might alsodecrease pursuit of this goal if greater effort is taken to mean that the support-seekeris coping well and needs less assistance of this type. Similarly, greater effort mightdecrease pursuit of problem-solving because the support-seeker is viewed as alreadyknowing what to do, or increase it because the support-seeker is viewed as ready toact on the problem, or needing guidance toward the selection of different oradditional problem-solving actions. Thus, the following research question wasposed:

RQ5: What is the influence of effort attributions on support providers’ interaction goals?

Finally, no research has examined the interactive influence of responsibility,stability, and effort attributions, or the potential for anger or sympathy to mediate theinfluence of stability or effort attributions. The following research questions addressthese issues:

RQ6: What interactive influences do responsibility, stability, and effort attributions have on supportproviders’ interaction goals?

RQ7: To what extent is the influence of stability and effort attributions on support providers’ interaction goalsmediated by anger and sympathy?

Method

Overview

Participants were college students (N 5 608, average age 5 19.3 years) at a largeMidwestern university, recruited for participation from Speech Communicationclasses. Each participant was presented with a packet containing one of 48 hypotheti-cal scenarios and a set of questionnaires.3 Each hypothetical scenario depicted aclose friend as distressed due to a personal difficulty, and each constituted a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

manipulation of responsibility, effort, and stability attributions with regard to these“friends.” After reading the scenario, each participant responded to three question-naires. The first questionnaire assessed emotional responses, the second question-naire measured strength of intention to pursue various interaction goals, and thethird questionnaire assessed attributions.4 Students completed the questionnairepacket on a voluntary basis at the beginning or end of a class period. Approximately660 students initiated participation in this study, but incomplete data was excluded.

Manipulations and Measures

Manipulating attributions. Participants’ attributions of responsibility, stability, andeffort were manipulated through hypothetical scenarios similar to those used inprevious research (e.g., Jones & Burleson, 1997; Karasawa, 1991). In each, a friendwas described as upset about a problem in his or her life and discussing this with theparticipant; friendship was chosen as the close relationship context for this studybecause college students commonly rely on friendships for support (e.g., Hays,1989). Each scenario also depicted the friend as having high or low control over theorigin of the problem (high/low responsibility), as being typically or not typically atfault for problems in his or her life (high/low stability), and as having made eithersome effort or no effort to resolve the problem (high/low effort). Thus, there wereeight combinations of attribution manipulations (high responsibility/high stability/high effort, high responsibility/high stability/low effort, etc.)

To reduce the likelihood that results were due to any particular manipulation, thehypothetical scenarios also incorporated a situation replication factor (see Jackson,1992). All eight combinations of the attribution manipulations were presented withinsix situations that differed in the nature of the problem being experienced by thefriend. The six problems, chosen to be representative of college student experiences,were as follows: failing an audition, not receiving a raise at work, being rejected by afriend, having parents threaten the removal of a privilege, having a borrowed cardamaged, and having a fraternity event that one planned go poorly. Table 1describes the attribution manipulations within the fraternity event replication. Anindependent groups design was employed; thus, each participant read and re-sponded to questions about one of the 48 scenarios.

Measuring attributions. A questionnaire was designed to measure participants’attributions in response to the friends and their situations. This questionnaire

TABLE 1EXAMPLE OF ATTRIBUTION MANIPULATIONS (IN FRATERNITY EVENT SITUATION REPLICATION)

Attribution/Level Manipulation

High Responsibility Darrell didn’t do his job as the leader.Low Responsibility The group members were lazy.High Stability For High Responsibility conditions: Darrell usually doesn’t take leadership

seriously.For Low Responsibility conditions: Darrell usually takes leadership seriously.

Low Stability For High Responsibility conditions: Darrell usually takes leadership seriously.For Low Responsibility conditions: Darrell usually doesn’t take leadership

seriously.High Effort Darrell has asked the house president for a meeting.Low Effort Darrell hasn’t done anything.

Note: Descriptions of the manipulations used in the other situation-replications and copies of the actualstimulus materials used in the study can be obtained from the author.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

employed closed-ended items similar to those used in previous studies of attributionsand helping or support intentions (e.g., Jones & Burleson, 1997; Karasawa, 1991).Sets of 3 five-point Likert-style items assessed whether (1) the friend was perceived asbeing responsible for his or her problem (responsibility), (2) the friend was perceivedas variably or consistently responsible for his or her problems (stability), and (3) thefriend was perceived as having done something beneficial in response to his or herproblems (effort).5 The alpha reliabilities for these were .89 for the responsibilityitems, .88 for the stability items, and .88 for effort items, so indices were created fromthe means of the appropriate items.

To ensure that the manipulations produced sufficient attributional variation, allwere pilot-tested prior to this study. In addition, three ANOVAs were conducted todetermine whether there was a statistically significant difference between theaverage attributions formed in response to the high and low levels of each manipula-tion (across the situation replications). To check the success of the responsibilitymanipulations, a 2 (high/low responsibility) 3 6 (situation-replication) ANOVA wasperformed in which the situation-replication was treated as a random factor.6 Thesignificant effect for the responsibility manipulation [F (1, 5) 5 461.32, p , .001,h2 5 .42] indicated that friends depicted in high responsibility conditions wereviewed as being more responsible for their problems than friends in the lowresponsibility conditions (Ms 5 3.76 and 2.12, respectively). Similar ANOVAsindicated different perceptions of the high and low stability manipulations [F (1,5) 5 34.97, p , .01, h2 5 .11, Ms 5 3.64 and 2.96, respectively], and of the highand low effort manipulations [F (1, 5) 5 80.06, p , .001, h2 5 .24, Ms 5 3.57 and2.45, respectively]. Accordingly, the manipulations were judged to have producedsufficient variation.

Measuring emotions. A questionnaire with closed-ended items was designed tomeasure participants’ experience of anger and sympathy. Item selection was basedin part on previous research (e.g., Meyer & Mulherin, 1980; Schmidt & Weiner,1988). For the emotion of sympathy, four items assessed participants’ feelings ofcompassion, pity, sympathy, and “feeling sorry for.” For anger, six items assessedparticipants’ feelings of aggravation, anger, annoyance, frustration, disgust, andirritation. Items assessing feelings of joy, happiness, embarrassment, surprise, andanxiety were included as distraction. The alpha reliabilities for the sympathy andanger scales were .79 and .89 respectively; accordingly, indices of sympathy andanger were created from the means of the appropriate items.

Measuring interaction goals. A questionnaire was designed to assess variability in thestrength of intentions to pursue the twelve interaction goals targeted for examinationin this research: distress alleviation, problem-solving, understand feelings, sympathy, care,distraction, dismiss feelings, understand problem, positive perspective, prevention, recognizeown responsibility, and see others’ responsibility. Intended strength of pursuit for each ofthese 12 goals was measured with 3 five-point, Likert-style items. Preliminary datainspection revealed that the strength-of-pursuit ratings for many of the interactiongoals were significantly correlated, suggesting the inadvisability of performingseparate analyses on these twelve variables. Accordingly, an exploratory factoranalysis was conducted to develop a smaller set of distinct and non-redundantvariables.

A principal axis factor analysis with oblique rotation was conducted on the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

strength-of-pursuit ratings for the 36 goal items, resulting in a solution with 7 factorshaving eigenvalues greater than one. Examination of the scree plot for the eigenval-ues suggested that between 4 and 7 factors could adequately account for the varianceof the 36 items. Subsequent analyses were conducted, forcing 4, 5, 6, and 7 factors.The 6-factor solution was chosen because it exhibited the sharpest elbow in the screeplot and provided a highly interpretable solution. These six factors collectivelyaccounted for 60% of the total variance. Table 2 lists all 36 items and their factorloadings. Using a .50/.30 selection criteria, seven items loaded primarily on the firstfactor, three items loaded primarily on each of the second through fifth factors, andfour items loaded primarily on the sixth factor.

All three items for the care goal, all three items for the sympathy goal, and one of theitems for the distress alleviation goal loaded on the first factor. The alpha reliability forthese items was .87. The distress alleviation item loaded most weakly on the factor anddid not improve the reliability estimate. Accordingly, this item was dropped, and anew scale was formed from the average of the six care and sympathy items (alpha 5.87). Based on its constituent items, this newly formed goal-index was entitledemotional support. The second, third, fourth, and fifth factors corresponded directlywith the previously defined goals of recognize own responsibility, distraction, see others’blame, and problem-solving. Alpha reliabilities for these three-item scales were .87, .80,.88, and .75, respectively. Consequently, the original indices for these four goalswere retained. The sixth factor consisted of two items from understand problem, onefrom understand feelings, and one from positive perspective. A new scale was formedfrom the average of the items, and this newly formed goal-index was entitledperspective. The alpha reliability for this four-item scale was .73.

Results

The results of the factor analysis on the goals items required revision of this study’shypotheses and research questions. The revised hypotheses and research questionsare presented below. Most of the revisions reflect the simple deletion of a goal thatwas not retained after the factor analysis, or the substitution of a goal derived fromthe factor analysis for the goals whose items loaded on that factor. Hypothesis H3Rreflects both the elimination of the distress alleviation goal in the factor analysis, and thesubstitution of the emotional support goal in this hypothesis. This was done for tworeasons: (1) Emotional support was the factor on which the distress alleviation items loadedmost strongly, and (2) substituting emotional support maintains the desired contrastbetween emotion-focused and problem-focused dimensions of support providers’ goals.

H1R: Support providers will pursue problem-solving more strongly as the support-seeker’sperceived responsibility decreases.

H2R: Support providers will pursue emotional support more strongly as the support-seeker’sperceived responsibility decreases.

H3R: The effect of perceived responsibility on problem-solving will be weaker than the effect onemotional support.

H4R: Support providers will pursue recognize own responsibility more strongly as the support-seeker’s perceived responsibility increases.

H5R: Support providers will pursue see others’ responsibility more strongly as the support-seeker’sperceived responsibility decreases.

R1R: What is the influence of perceived responsibility on perspective and distraction?H6R: (same as previous H7) Anger and sympathy will mediate the influence of responsibility

attributions on support providers’ interaction goals.R2–R7: No revision; as previously stated.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

TABLE 2INTERACTION GOAL ITEMS, FACTOR LOADINGS, AND RELIABILITY ESTIMATES

Items

Factors

1 2 3 4 5 6

Convey to her [him] that you care about her[him].a .80

Let her [him] know that what happens to her [him]really matters to you.a .79

Make her [him] aware that you’re concerned forher [him].a .76

Make her [him] aware of your sympathy for her[his] feelings.b .64

Help her [him] see that you appreciate what she’s[he’s] going through emotionally.b .61

Convince her [him] that you understand what she’s[he’s] feeling.b .58

Improve how she’s [he’s] feeling.c .51 2.22 .29 .25Make her [him] feel better.c .48 2.27 .32Lift her [his] mood.c .45 2.26 .29Get her [him] to recognize that she’s [he’s] the only

one to blame for this problem.d .83Make her [him] see that the situation is her [his]

fault.d .82Help her [him] understand that she’s [he’s]

responsible for creating this problem.d .71 .24Convince her [him] that she’ll [he’ll] be better off if

she [he] suppresses her [his] emotions about thissituation.e .41 .34 .22 2.25

Make her [him] see that ignoring her [his] feelingsis the best thing to do in this situation.e .31 .27 .28 2.23

Help her [him] identify something pleasant to doso she [he] doesn’t have to think about theproblem.f .72

Get her [him] to focus on doing something funinstead of worrying about the problem.f .72

Convince her [him] to do something enjoyable totake her [his] mind off the situation.f .64

Get her [him] to forget about her [his] negativeemotions in this situation.e .49

Get her [him] to recognize that other people areresponsible for this problem.g .87

Make her [him] see that this situation was createdby the other people involved.g .84

Help her [him] understand that others are at faultin this situation.g 2.20 .78

Help her [him] figure out what can be done inresponse to this situation.h .68

Assist her [him] in determining what actions she[he] should take to deal with this problem.h .62

Help her [him] figure out what she [he] can do toavoid similar situations in the future.i .35 .57 2.24

Get her [him] to consider what things she might doto improve this situation.h .57

Make her [him] give some thought to preventingthis kind of problem in the future.i .33 .55

Get her [him] to think about how she [he] mightkeep this kind of problem from coming upagain.i .35 .41 2.24

Help her [him] understand the problem situationmore completely.j .40 2.38

Make her [him] recognize that every negativeevent has its good points too.k .30 2.60


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The study’s hypotheses and research questions concern the independent andinteractive effects of responsibility, stability, and effort attributions on interactiongoals, and the extent to which these effects are mediated by the emotions of angerand sympathy. Hierarchical regression analyses were utilized to address thesehypotheses and research questions.

A separate regression equation was computed for each of the six dependentvariables. For each equation, the attribution variables were entered first, in threesteps. The main effects of the attribution variables were entered together in the firststep, the product terms representing the two-way interactions were entered togetherin a second step, and the product term representing the three-way interaction wasentered in the third step. This procedure is required to partial out previous effects,leaving the effect uniquely due to the two-way and three-way interactions (e.g.,Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Subsequent to the entry of the attribution variables, theemotion variables were entered. The main effects of anger and sympathy wereentered together in a fourth step prior to the entry of their product term as the fifthand final step in the analysis. Inspection of these results revealed that the responsibil-ity 3 effort, stability 3 effort, and responsibility 3 stability 3 effort interactions hadno significant effect on any attribution or emotion variables. For this reason the

Items

Factors

1 2 3 4 5 6

Help her [him] develop a more completeunderstanding of her [his] feelings in thissituation.l .26 2.59

Help her [him] gain a deeper appreciation of theproblem-situation.j 2.57

Get her [him] to see that it’s possible for somegood to come from this difficult situation.k 2.52

Help her [him] appreciate the positive features ofthe situation.k 2.23 .37 2.47

Help her [him] gain a richer appreciation of her[his] feelings.l .35 2.44

Assist her [him] in understanding what she’s [he’s]feeling and why.l .33 2.40

Help her [him] get a better mental picture of thisproblem.j .23 2.39

Alpha for items used in goal indices (items withbold loadings) .87 .87 .80 .88 .75 .73

Note. Blank cells indicate loadings less than .20. Factor 1 was labeled emotional support. Factor 2 was labeledrecognize own responsibility. Factor 3 was labeled distraction. Factor 4 was labeled see others’ blame. Factor 5 waslabeled problem-solving. Factor 6 was labeled perspective.aItem for care.bItem for sympathy.cItem for distress alleviation.dItem for recognize own responsibility.eItem for dismiss feelings.fItem for distraction.gItem for see others’ responsibility.hItem for problem-solving.iItem for prevention.jItem for understand problem.kItem for positive perspective.lItem for understand feelings.


TABLE 2 continued

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

regression equations were re-parameterized, and the analyses were re-conducted,entering the attribution main effects, the responsibility 3 stability interaction, theemotion main effects, and the anger 3 sympathy interaction in four steps. Theresults of these analyses are described in the following sections. Non-significantresults are not reported in the text, except as necessary to show mediation. Table 3provides a numerical summary of these results.

TABLE 3HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSES

DependentVariable Step 1 Attributions—Main Step 2 Attributions—All

Step 3 Attributions All,Emotions—Main

Step 4 Attributions—All,Emotions—All

Problem-solving Resp .03 Resp .10 Resp .10 Resp .11Stabil .13** Stabil .17 Stabil .13 Stabil .12Effort .04 Effort .04 Effort .03 Effort .03

R2 5 .018, F 5 3.56* R 3 S 2.08 R 3 S .00 R 3 S .00R2 5 .018, F 5 2.77* Anger 2.01 Anger .15

Symp .21** Symp .32**R2 5 .057, F 5 6.08** A 3 Sy 2.16

R2 5 .060, F 5 5.43**

Emotional Resp 2.12** Resp 2.02 Resp 2.03 Resp 2.02support Stabil .05 Stabil .12 Stabil .06 Stabil .04

Effort .12** Effort .11 Effort .10* Effort .10*R2 5 .035, F 5 7.20** R 3 S 2.11 R 3 S 2.01 R 3 S 2.01

R2 5 .035, F 5 5.55** Anger .12** Anger .36**Symp .37** Symp .54**

R2 5 .147, F 5 17.29** A 3 Sy 2.25*R2 5 .153, F 5 15.46**

Distraction Resp 2.12** Resp .07 Resp .06 Resp .07Stabil 2.01 Stabil .11 Stabil .10 Stabil .10Effort .06 Effort .06 Effort .06 Effort .06

R2 5 .017, F 5 3.56* R 3 S 2.20 R 3 S 2.19 R 3 S 2.19R2 5 .021, F 5 3.20* Anger .09 Anger .31**

Symp .08 Symp .24**R2 5 .030, F 5 3.06** A 3 Sy 2.23

R2 5 .034, F 5 3.04**

Perspective Resp .03 Resp .08 Resp .06 Resp .07Stabil .08 Stabil .11 Stabil .09 Stabil .08Effort .10* Effort .10* Effort .09* Effort .10*

R2 5 .017, F 5 3.41* R 3 S 2.05 R 3 S 2.02 R 3 S 2.01R2 5 .017, F 5 2.59* Anger .11* Anger .31*

Symp .18** Symp .33**R2 5 .047, F 5 4.88** A 3 Sy 2.21

R2 5 .050, F 5 4.54**

Recognize own Resp .66** Resp .43** Resp .40** Resp .41**responsibility Stabil .07* Stabil 2.07 Stabil 2.02 Stabil 2.03

Effort .04 Effort .04 Effort .05 Effort .05R2 5 .64, F 5 140.68** R 3 S .24* R 3 S .17 R 3 S .17

R2 5 .65, F 5 107.52** Anger .17** Anger .25*Symp 2.10** Symp 2.04

R2 5 .68, F 5 84.40** A 3 Sy 2.08R2 5 .68, F 5 72.39**

See others’ Resp 2.45** Resp 2.29* Resp 2.30* Resp 2.30*responsibility Stabil .06 Stabil .16* Stabil .17* Stabil .17*

Effort .07* Effort .07 Effort .07* Effort .07*R2 5 .224, F 5 58.05** R 3 S 2.17 R 3 S 2.18 R 3 S 2.18

R2 5 .226, F 5 44.05** Anger 2.03 Anger 2.03Symp 2.03 Symp 2.07

R2 5 .228, F 5 29.58** A 3 Sy .06R2 5 .228, F 5 25.36**

Note. Resp 5 Responsibility; Stabil 5 Stability; R 3 S 5 Responsibility 3 Stability; Symp 5 Sympathy; bs 5betas (standardized regression weights) at entry; R2 5 variance explained by set of variables at entry.*p , .05. **p , .01.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Problem-Solving

Attributions and emotions jointly accounted for 5.9% of the variance in strength ofpursuit for the problem-solving goal, F (7, 600) 5 5.43, p , .01. When initiallyentered (in Step 2), the four attribution variables (main effects and the interactionbetween responsibility and stability) collectively accounted for 1.8% of the totalvariance. Only the main effect for stability was significant (b 5 .13, p , .002), withthe positive beta indicating that support providers pursued this goal more stronglywhen they perceived a support-seeker’s level of responsibility to be temporallyconsistent. Because responsibility was not found to have a significant effect on thisgoal, Hypothesis 1R was not supported. When the three emotion variables wereentered together with the attributions (in Step 4), they accounted for an additional4.1% of the variance. Only the effect of sympathy was significant (b 5 .21, p ,.001). The entry of the emotion variables caused the effect of stability to decline veryslightly and become non-significant (b 5 .129, p . .14). The size of this declinesuggests that very little of stability’s influence was mediated via emotion. To examinethe extent of mediation more closely, a second set of regression analyses wasconducted, in which the emotion variables were entered prior to the attributionvariables. Comparison of the r-square values from the two analyses indicated thatonly .2% of the total variance in problem-solving was mediated by emotion.7 Thus, theeffects of stability and sympathy on this goal are largely independent.

Emotional Support

Attributions and emotions jointly accounted for 15.3% of the total variance instrength of pursuit for the goal emotional support, F (7, 600) 5 15.46, p , .01. Whenthe four attribution variables were initially entered, they accounted for 3.6% of thetotal variance. The effects for responsibility and effort were each significant (p ,.005). The negative beta for responsibility (b 5 2 .12, p , .005) and positive betafor effort (b 5 .12, p , .005) indicated that this goal was pursued less strongly whensupport seekers were perceived as more responsible for their problems or as lesseffortful in resolving them. Because responsibility was found to have a negativeeffect on pursuit of this goal, Hypothesis 2R was supported. When the three emotionvariables were entered together with the attributions, they explained an additional11.8% of the total variance in emotional support. Anger and sympathy both hadsignificant effects (bs 5 .12 and .37; ps , .005 and .001; respectively), as did theirinteraction (b 5 2 .25, p , .05). Decomposition of the interaction indicated thatthe positive association between sympathy and pursuit of the emotional support goal isgreater when anger is low, and weaker when anger is high. The entry of the emotionvariables caused the beta for responsibility to decline substantially (from 2.12 to2.02) and become non-significant. However, the beta for effort declined only slightly(from 2.12 to 2.10) and remained significant (p , .02). Thus, the effect ofresponsibility was almost entirely mediated by emotion, whereas the effect for effortwas not.

Together with the findings for problem-solving, this result suggests support forHypothesis 3R. Emotional support was significantly affected by responsibility, whereasproblem-solving was not, suggesting that responsibility affected the emotional supportgoal more strongly. To further test this hypothesis, a t-test for dependent correlationswas used to determine whether the significant correlation between responsibility andemotional support (r 5 2 .14, p , .001) was greater than the nonsignificant


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

correlation between responsibility and problem-solving (r 5 2 .01, p . .76).Hypothesis 3R was supported (t 5 2 .29, p , .01).

Distraction

Attributions and emotions jointly accounted for 3.4% of the variance in strength ofpursuit for the distraction goal, F (7, 600) 5 3.04, p , .005. When the fourattribution variables were initially entered, they collectively accounted for 2.1% ofthe total variance. Only the main effect for responsibility was significant (b 52 .12, p , .01), with the negative beta indicating that greater perceptions ofresponsibility resulted in weaker pursuit of this goal. When the emotion variableswere entered together with the attribution variables, they explained a non-significant1.3% of the variance. Since none of the emotion variables made a significantcontribution, this indicated that the effect of responsibility on distraction was notmediated.

Perspective

Attributions and emotions jointly accounted for 5% of the total variance instrength of pursuit for the perspective goal, F (7, 600) 5 4.54, p , .001. When thefour attribution variables were initially entered, they collectively accounted for 1.7%of the total variance. Only the main effect for effort was significant (b 5 .10, p ,.02), with the positive beta indicating that greater perception of effort resulted instronger pursuit of this goal. When the emotion variables were entered together withthe attribution variables, they explained 3.3% of the total variance. Anger had asignificant effect (b 5 .11, p , .02), as did sympathy (b 5 .18, p , .001). Theentry of the emotion variables caused the beta for effort to decline only slightly (from.10 to .09); it remained significant (p , .02). This indicates that the effects of efforton this goal are largely unmediated by anger and sympathy.

Recognize Own Responsibility

Attributions and emotions jointly accounted for 45.8% of the total variance instrength of pursuit for the goal recognize own responsibility, F (7, 600) 5 72.39, p ,.001. When the four attribution variables were initially entered, they collectivelyaccounted for 41.6% of the total variance. The effect for responsibility was significant(b 5 .66, p , .001), as was the effect for stability (b 5 .07, p , .02), with positivebetas indicating that greater perceptions of responsibility and stability resulted instronger pursuit of this goal. Because responsibility was found to have a positiveeffect on pursuit of this goal, Hypothesis 4R was supported. The responsibility 3stability interaction was also significant (b 5 .24, p , .03). Decomposition of thisinteraction indicated that the positive association between responsibility and pursuitof this goal is greater when stability is high, and weaker when stability is low. Whenthe three emotion variables were entered, they explained 4.2% of the total variance.Anger and sympathy both had significant effects (bs 5 .17, 2.10; p , .001, .005;respectively). The entry of the emotion variables caused the beta for responsibility todecline (from .66 to .40), but it remained both large and significant (p , .001),indicating that the effect of responsibility is only partially mediated by emotion. Thebetas for stability and responsibility 3 stability declined (from .07 and .24 to 2.02and .17, respectively) and become non-significant, indicating that the influence ofthese variables is almost entirely mediated by anger and sympathy. To examine the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

extent of mediation more closely, a second set of regression analyses was conducted,in which the emotion variables were entered prior to the attribution variables.Comparison of the r-square values from the two analyses indicated that 24.5% of thetotal variance in recognize own responsibility was not mediated by emotion.

See Others’ Responsibility

Attributions and emotions jointly accounted for 22.8% of the variance in strengthof pursuit for the goal see others’ responsibility, F (7, 600) 5 25.36, p , .001. When thefour attribution variables were initially entered, they accounted for 22.6% of the totalvariance. The effect for responsibility was significant (b 5 2 .45, p , .001), as wasthe effect for effort (b 5 .07, p , .05). Because responsibility was found to have anegative effect on pursuit of this goal, Hypothesis 5R was supported. When theemotion variables were entered together with the attribution variables, they ex-plained a non-significant .2% of the total variance. Neither anger nor sympathy had asignificant effect, indicating that the influence of the attribution variables on this goalis not mediated by these emotions.

Discussion

One major objective of this research was to determine how successfully Weiner’sattribution-emotion-intention model could be applied and extended to explain thedevelopment of interaction goals in support contexts. In addition, this study wasmotivated by the desire to determine whether some of the variability in the quality ofsupportive communication might be plausibly explained in terms of support provid-ers’ interaction goals. Finally, within the domain of support provision, this researchsought to explore the contribution of both cognitive and affective factors to thegeneration of interaction goals. In the following sections, the results of this research,along with its limitations, are analyzed with respect to these three issues.

Extending the Attribution-Emotion-Intention Model: Attributions

In accord with previous research (e.g., Jones & Burleson, 1997; Jung, 1988), theresults of this study suggest that Weiner’s model is broadly useful for predicting theformation of support interaction goals. However, the results also indicate that theinfluence of attributions and emotions on support providers’ goals is not captured bythe relatively simple model that has successfully explained variation in helpingintentions. Specifically, responsibility attributions do not affect all goals similarly, orequally, nor do the emotions of anger and sympathy fully mediate the influence ofresponsibility on support providers’ goals. In addition, both stability and effort wereinfluential dimensions of attribution on some goals.

Previous studies have indicated that believing a support-seeker to be responsiblefor his or her distress leads support providers to be “unsupportive” (i.e., to indicateless intention to provide support; Jung, 1988; Schwarzer & Weiner, 1991). Thecurrent research, which employed a multidimensional approach to the assessment ofsupport intentions, indicates that responsibility attributions have a complex patternof influence on different dimensions of support goals. Responsibility attributions hada substantial positive influence on pursuit of the recognize own responsibility and seeothers’ blame goals, a small negative influence on emotional support and distraction, andno significant influence on either the problem-solving or perspective goals. Further, theinfluence of responsibility on emotional support was shown to be significantly greater


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

than its influence on problem-solving. Thus, when support providers attribute respon-sibility to the support-seeker, they express considerably more intent to communicateabout the support-seeker’s responsibility for the problem, considerably less intent tocommunicate about others’ responsibility for the problem, and slightly less intent toexpress sympathy or care, or to encourage distraction behavior. However, increasedperceptions of responsibility do not seem to make providers less willing to partici-pate in problem-solving, or to help the support-seeker gain perspective on theproblem. These findings suggest that being “less supportive” to support seekers whoare responsible for their problems means changing one’s pursuit of both emotion-focused goals and goals that are directly related to perceptions of responsibility (i.e.,“attribution-focused” goals), but it does not mean changing more general problem-focused goals. One direction for future research is considering whether this patternof effects is unique to close relationship contexts. Close relationships are commonlycharacterized by norms for assistance in times of need (Argyle & Henderson, 1984).Thus, even when support seekers are to blame for their problems, support providersin close relationships may still feel it necessary that they provide instrumentalassistance. Stronger effects on problem-focused goals may be observed for supportinteractions in more casual relationships.

This research also indicates that stability and effort attributions play a role indetermining the pursuit of several goals, though these effects tended to be smallerthan those of responsibility attributions. Stability had a small, positive main effect onboth problem-solving and recognize own responsibility. When support providers wereseen as more stable in their behavior (i.e., consistently responsible or consistently notresponsible for their problems), there was a slightly increased intention to help withresolving the problem, but also to encourage recognition of their own role in causingthe problem. The finding with respect to problem-solving is probably best explained interms of perceived ability to influence the situation; problems whose causes areconsistent may be somewhat more amenable to resolution than those whose causesare variable. The finding with respect to recognize own responsibility might be similarlyexplained; even under conditions where support seekers are typically not respon-sible for their problems, getting them to take some element of responsibility may beseen as providing them with a measure of control over the situation. Similar to oneprevious study on helping intentions (Meyer & Mulherin, 1980), stability attributionswere also observed to intensify the effects of responsibility attributions with respectto recognize own responsibility. When support seekers were perceived as more stable intheir behavior (i.e., the typical and current levels of responsibility were the same) theeffects of responsibility attributions were stronger than in cases where supportseekers were perceived as less stable in their behavior (i.e., the typical and currentlevels of responsibility were different). These findings indicate that future researchmay wish to give more attention to the effects of stability attributions in supportcontexts. An additional direction for exploration concerns perceptions of problemstability (i.e., the duration or chronicity of the problem), how those are related toattributions of causal stability (the focus in this study), and the relationship of bothperceptions to the frequency with which support has been sought from a provider.Research on burnout among caregivers (e.g., Glass & McKnight, 1996) and theinterpersonal rejection of depressed persons (e.g., Segrin, 1998) suggests that endur-ing problems and enduring distress may make support providers less supportive,even when the problems are not the fault of the support-seeker.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Effort attributions had small, positive main effects on the pursuit of the emotionalsupport, perspective, and see others’ responsibility goals. Support providers indicatedslightly stronger intention to convey sympathy and care, encourage understandingof the problem, and promote the recognition of others’ responsibility when supportseekers were seen as making more effort to manage their problems. These relativelyweak effects contrast with the strong effects of effort observed with regard to helpingand support intentions (Karasawa, 1991; Schwarzer & Weiner, 1991). Perhaps theinteraction goals measured in this study failed to capture some dimension ofcommunication goals that would be more strongly influenced by effort, such as thegoal of encouraging or praising the support-seeker. However, the small influence ofeffort may also be a consequence of the specific manipulations employed in thisstudy. In the current research, it was considered important that participants see thetarget’s support seeking as realistic. Participants might have questioned why targetswere still distressed and seeking support if they had been depicted as having exerteda substantial degree of effort to resolve their problems. Accordingly, the effortbehaviors depicted in this study’s “high effort” manipulations were small actionssuch as making a phone call. Although the support seekers in this study’s “higheffort” conditions were reliably perceived as exerting more effort than in the “loweffort” conditions, previous studies that obtained stronger effects for effort have alsooperationalized high effort as more substantive behavior extended over a period oftime (Karasawa, 1991; Schwarzer & Weiner, 1991). Future research should attemptto determine if more substantive effort produces stronger effects on support interac-tion goals.

Extending the Attribution-Emotion-Intention Model: Emotions and Mediation

The current research indicates that the effects of emotion on support providers’ goalsare more complex than would be predicted by Weiner’s model, in which emotionwholly mediates the effect of responsibility attributions. This study found that the extentof emotion’s mediation was moderated by goal-type. The influence of responsibility onemotional support was substantially mediated by anger and sympathy. However, approxi-mately half of the large influence of responsibility on recognize own responsibility wasunmediated. Although this finding is roughly analogous to studies of helping intentionsthat found both direct and mediated effects of responsibility (e.g., Betancourt, 1990;Meyer & Mulherin, 1980; Zucker & Weiner, 1993), in these studies the mediated effectswere always considerably larger than the direct effects. Further, the current study foundthat the effects of responsibility on see others’ responsibility and distraction (relatively largeand small effects, respectively) were both entirely unmediated by emotion. This researchalso provided the opportunity to examine whether the effects of other attributionaldimensions—stability and effort—were mediated by the emotions of sympathy and anger.Emotion was found to mediate all of stability’s small effect on recognize own responsibility,but none of its influence on problem-solving. Emotion played little mediating role in theeffects of effort on emotional support or perspective, and none with regard to see other’sresponsibility.

These findings raise several interesting issues with respect to the role of responsi-bility attributions and emotions in support interactions. First, what is the explanationfor the observed variability in the effects of emotions on goals? Current theory withrespect to the action tendencies for anger and sympathy indicates that angertypically provokes behavior that hurts, resists, opposes, or removes the object ofanger, whereas sympathy motivates connection and assistance (e.g., Frijda et al.,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

1989; Lazarus, 1991). Thus, the findings may be interpreted as indicating that somegoals provide an adequate channel for expressing these tendencies, whereas othersdo not. Further research is needed to determine the characteristics of goals that affectresponsiveness to various emotions.

Second, what is the explanation for variability in the association between differenttypes of attributions and emotions? Current theory indicates that anger and sympa-thy arise from specific kinds of cognition about situations. From this perspective, thefailure to find any association between effort attributions and emotions in this studyis intriguing. To illustrate, some analyses of anger’s cognitive origins suggest thatanother person’s responsibility for impeding one’s goals is a key element forarousing anger toward that person. Perhaps in support contexts (or at least in thescenarios for this study) the support-seeker’s lack of effort is not sufficiently detrimen-tal to the support provider’s goals to arouse anger. However, other analyses of angersuggest that this emotion requires only the broader perception that a situation iscontrary to the way things “ought to be.” Given the general societal expectation thatpeople should manage their own problems, why then is a failure to exert effort notassociated with anger? As noted previously, the high effort condition in this studydepicted what, in absolute terms, was a fairly small effort. Future research canenhance our understanding of emotions aroused in support contexts by determiningwhether greater variation in effort succeeds in arousing anger and sympathy.

Third, what is the exact character of direct attributional influence? Wilson et al.(1993) have suggested that attributions indicate obstacles that communicators mustovercome. Thus, to illustrate with regard to the recognize own responsibility goal,attributions of high responsibility may cause support providers to believe thatsupport seekers don’t understand their situations, and that “education” aboutresponsibility is necessary to addressing the problem. However, a less charitableexplanation is that support providers see the recognize own responsibility goal asappropriate “justice” in response to high responsibility attributions (see Weiner,1993).8 Future research needs to consider the means by which attributions “directly”affect support providers’ goals.

The current study indicates that at least one support providers’ goal is influencednot only by the independent effects of anger and sympathy, but by the interactionbetween them. The interaction between anger and sympathy influenced emotionalsupport, with the positive association between sympathy and goal-pursuit declining asanger increased. This finding concurs with theorizing about “emotion blends”involving multiple and even contradictory emotions (e.g., Lazarus, 1991), andprovides a concrete illustration of action tendencies that compete and dampen eachother’s effects. Since the motivation toward sympathy is likely to be weaker outsidethe close relationship context, future research may wish to examine whether theinteractive influence of anger and sympathy is unique to support interactions in closerelationships.

Finally, the limitations of this study’s method for stimulating support providers’emotions must be noted. The method, relying on hypothetical scenarios, is virtuallyidentical to that employed in most previous research on helping intentions, and therebyconstitutes a direct extension. However, imagined situations are unlikely to generate theintensity of emotion provoked in actual experiences. Future research should examinethe effects of support providers’ emotions using more naturalistic data.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Variation In Supportive Message Quality

The current study was motivated in part by research documenting wide variabilityin the quality (i.e., effectiveness, sensitivity) of support messages (e.g., Barbee &Cunningham, 1995; Burleson, 1994; Cutrona & Suhr, 1994; Dunkel-Schetter et al.,1992). Sometimes support seekers receive sensitive and effective comfort andcounsel, yet ineffective and insensitive messages are also widely documented.Typically, variability in the quality of support messages has been explained in termsof support providers’ having or lacking the ability to produce effective messages.This paper advanced an alternative position (see also Jones & Burleson, 1997),suggesting that at least some variability may be a result of situation-based goaldevelopment.

The design of the current study does not permit a direct determination of whethervariation in attributions, emotions, and goals actually results in messages that vary inperceived effectiveness or sensitivity. But could the observed effects of attributionsand emotions on goals provide a plausible account for some of the variation in theperceived quality of support messages? The answer is “yes.” The observed effects ofattributions and emotions on emotional support and see own responsibility are especiallyrelevant. These findings indicate that when support seekers are viewed as respon-sible for their own problems, support providers become less concerned withconveying sympathy and caring, and considerably more concerned with making thesupport-seeker accept responsibility. Even with allowances for individual differencesin message production (e.g., O’Keefe & Shepherd, 1989), this pattern of goal pursuitshould result in messages that contain more of certain kinds of content (e.g., blaming,criticizing), and less of others (e.g., legitimation of distress, expressions of caring).And messages with these characteristics are uniformly perceived as less effective and sensitive(e.g., Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Burleson, 1994; Dunkel-Schetter et al., 1992).Thus, the findings of this study suggest that support providers’ attributions andemotions influence the perceived quality of the messages they produce.9 Futureresearch should test this suggestion with appropriate data.

Interaction Goals

Due to the lack of previous theoretical or methodological work on support goals,the dependent variables for this research were derived from the literature on thecontent of support messages, and items were developed to comprise a reliablemeasure of these goals. This approach has both weaknesses and strengths. Theclosed-ended measure may have led participants to consider a broader range ofgoals than they would normally pursue, and thus one or more of these goals may notsubstantially influence “real” support messages. However, the goals measured in thisstudy are all plausible possibilities, based on accumulated empirical evidence.Further, these goal types have been shown to respond to attributions and emotionsin meaningful ways, regardless of whether they exist in precisely these forms for agiven individual. The factor analysis of responses to the goal items provides somepreliminary insight into the structure of goals as perceived by support providers. Inparticular, results for the distress alleviation items tend to support the idea that distressalleviation is a broad and central goal in support interactions. Although these itemsloaded most strongly on the emotional support factor (with the care and sympathyitems), they also had substantial cross-loadings on recognize own responsibility, distrac-tion, and problem-solving. In contrast, the items for problem-solving loaded on a single


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

factor, suggesting that this goal may be understood as more specific and less central.The conceptualization and measurement of support providers’ goals has only beeninitiated in this study and deserves continuing attention.

The current study contributes to a growing body of research and theory thatconceptualizes message production as a goal-driven process (e.g., Berger, 1997;Dillard, 1997; Greene, 1997; Wilson, 1997). More specifically, this study providedan exploration of goal development, a process that has been under-researched todate. The current research also raises a number of questions to be addressed astheorists and researchers begin to investigate goal development more thoroughly. Inthis study, responsibility, stability, and effort attributions were linked in varyingstrengths to particular goals. This raises the broader question: How and why dospecific aspects of situational perception come to be strongly linked with some goalsand not with others? Further, in this study sympathy and anger were observed tohave a substantial influence on some goals and little on others. This raises a moregeneral issue that, as Wilson (1997) suggests, has been virtually ignored to date:What role does emotion play in the conceptualization of situations and the origins ofgoals in particular interactions? The present study is not equipped to answer thesequestions, but does underscore their significance and relevance. Answers to theseand other questions about goal formation should help us more fully understand thenature of message production and its consequences for social interaction.

Notes1Weiner prefers to distinguish between attributions of controllability for a problem’s cause and perceptions

of responsibility for the problem, but acknowledges that these are typically highly correlated. Many researchers(e.g., Karasawa, 1991) who have extended Weiner’s work have switched terminology because they view it asmore accurately reflecting what is most salient about controllability attributions. In concurrence with this view,the term responsibility is used in this paper.

2The probable centrality and commonality of these goals is also suggested by everyday terms that emphasizethese affective and instrumental dimensions of support interactions (i.e., comfort and advice, emotional supportand problem-solving).

3Complete versions of all the scenarios and questionnaires are available from the author.4The questionnaires were always presented in the same order. It was considered necessary for the emotion

questionnaire to be presented first in order to provide as valid a measure as possible of immediate emotionalreactions to the scenarios, and for the attribution questionnaire to be presented third so that it would not makeattributions inappropriately salient to participants as they responded to the goals questionnaire.

5The responsibility items were “The problem being experienced by [friend’s name] is his [her] fault,”“[Friend’s name] is responsible for causing this problem,” and “[Friend’s name] has only himself [herself] toblame for this problem.” The stability items were “When [friend’s name] has problems similar to this one, he[she] is usually at fault,” “When [friend’s name] has problems of this sort he (she) is typically responsible forcausing them,” and “When it comes to problems like this one, [friend’s name] generally brings them on himself[herself].” The effort items were “[Friend’s name] has already tried to make the situation better,” “[Friend’sname] has made an effort to make the situation better,” and “[Friend’s name] has attempted to do somethingconstructive in response to this situation.”

6The F-tests used in these analyses compared the estimate of variability due to the manipulations against theestimate of variability due to random factors—not only the variability due to individual responses, but also thevariability due to the interaction between the manipulations and the situation-replications (see Jackson, 1992;Jackson & Brashers, 1994).

7This is a standard procedure for examining the extent of mediation (Biddle & Marlin, 1987; Cohen &Cohen, 1983). Details of the analyses have been eliminated in the interest of space and readability, but can beobtained from the author.

8The direct effect of responsibility on the distraction goal can be similarly interpreted. Pursuing this goal maybe viewed as less appropriate in high responsibility conditions because (1) the support-seeker can and shouldbe doing something about his or her problem and therefore shouldn’t be distracted, or (2) the support-seekerdoesn’t deserve to be distracted from his or her distress.

9As support providers pursue see others’ responsibility, perspective, problem-solving and distraction, goals to varyingdegrees, the content of their messages should also vary. However, the implications of these goals for the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

perceived quality of support messages is less clear because the effects of content directly related to these goals isless clear in previous research. Although it seems likely that support recipients would typically appreciatemessages that blame others for a problem, or assert that the support-seeker is not to blame, it does not appearthat any research has directly addressed this issue. Some research suggests that messages providing additionalperspective on a problem may be evaluated quite highly, but only if the added perspective provideslegitimation of the support-seeker’s distress and viewpoint on the problem (e.g., Burleson, 1994; Burleson &Samter, 1985). The evaluation of problem-solving communication is quite variable, and appears to hinge onstylistic and contextual factors (e.g., Goldsmith, 2000; Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000). Similarly, messagesfocused on distraction obtain inconsistent evaluations from support recipients, possibly depending on the typeof distraction effort being promoted (e.g., Barbee & Cunningham, 1995; Denton & Zarbatany, 1996). Therelationship between these goals, message content, and message evaluation is an important direction for futureresearch.

References

Anderson, C.A., Krull, D.S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Explanations: Processes and consequences. In E.T. Higgins& A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 271–296). New York, NY: TheGuilford Press.

Argyle, M. (1992). Benefits produced by supportive social relationships. In H.O.F. Veiel & U. Baumann (Eds.),The meaning and measurement of social support (pp. 13–32). New York, NY: Hemisphere Publishing Corpora-tion.

Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1984). The rules of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1,211–237.

Averill, J.R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Barbee, A.P., & Cunningham, M.R. (1995). An experimental approach to social support communications:

Interactive coping in close relationships. In B.R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 381–413).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barnes, R.D., Ickes, W., & Kidd, R.F. (1979). Effects of the perceived intentionality and stability of another’sdependency on helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 367–372.

Berger, C.R. (1997). Planning strategic interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Betancourt, H. (1990). An attribution-empathy model of helping behavior: Behavioral intentions and judg-

ments of help-giving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 573–591.Biddle, B.J., & Marlin, M.M. (1987). Causality, confirmation, credulity, and structural equation modeling. Child

Development, 58, 4–17.Blum, L. (1980). Compassion. In A.O. Rorty (Ed.), Explaining emotions (pp. 507–517). Berkeley, CA: University

of California Press.Burleson, B.R. (1985). The production of comforting messages: Social-cognitive foundations. Journal of

Language and Social Psychology, 4, 253–273.Burleson, B.R. (1994). Comforting messages: Significance, approaches, and effects. In B.R. Burleson, T.L.

Albrecht, & I.G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, andcommunity (pp. 3–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burleson, B.R., Albrecht, T.L., Goldsmith, D.J., & Sarason, I.G. (1994). The communication of social support.In B.R. Burleson, T.L. Albrecht, & I.G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions,relationships, and community (pp. xi–xxx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burleson, B.R., Delia, D.G., & Applegate, J.L. (1995). The socialization of person-centered communication:Parental contributions to the social-cognitive and communication skills of their children. In M.A. Fitzpatrick& A.L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 34–76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burleson, B.R., & Goldsmith, D.J. (1998). How the comforting process works: Alleviating emotional distressthrough conversationally induced reappraisals. In P.A. Anderson & L.K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook ofcommunication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 245–280). San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.

Cegala, D.J., & Waldron, V.R. (1992). A study of the relationship between communicative performance andconversation participants’ thoughts. Communication Studies, 43, 105–123.

Cody, M.J., Canary, D.J., & Smith, S.W. (1994). Compliance-gaining goals: An inductive analysis of actors’goal types, strategies, and successes. In J.A. Daly & J.M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication(pp. 33–90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cutrona, C.E., & Suhr, J.A. (1994). Social support communication in the context of marriage. In B.R. Burleson,T.L. Albrecht, & I.G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support (pp. 113–135). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Denton, K., & Zarbatany, L. (1996). Age differences in support processes between friends. Child Development,67, 1360–1373.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dillard, J.P. (1997). Explicating the goal construct: Tools for theorists. In J.O. Greene (Ed.), Message production:Advances in communication theory (pp. 47–69). Mahwah, NJ.

Dillard, J.P., Segrin, C., & Harden, J.M. (1989). Primary and secondary goals in the production of interpersonalinfluence messages. Communication Monographs, 56, 19–38.

Dunkel-Schetter, C., Blasband, D.E., Feinstein, L.G., & Herbert, T.B. (1992). Elements of supportive interac-tions: When are attempts to help effective. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Helping and being helped:Naturalistic studies (pp. 83–114). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dunkel-Schetter, C., & Skokan, L.A. (1990). Determinants of social support provision in personal relationships.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 437–450.

Fincham, F.D., & Beach, S.R.H. (1999). Conflict in marriage: Implications for working with couples. AnnualReview of Psychology, 50, 47–77.

Frijda, N.H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Frijda, N.H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action

readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212–228.Glass, D.C., & McKnight, J.D. (1996). Perceived control, depressive symptomatology, and professional

burnout: A review of the evidence. Psychology & Health, 11, 23–48.Goldsmith, D.J. (2000). Soliciting advice: The role of sequential placement in mitigating face threat. Communi-

cation Monographs, 67, 1–19.Goldsmith, D.J., & MacGeorge, E.L. (2000). The impact of politeness and relationship on perceived quality of

advice about a problem. Human Communication Research, 26, 234–263.Greene, J.O. (1997). A second generation action assembly theory. In J.O. Greene (Ed.), Message production:

Advances in communication theory (pp. 151–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Greene, J.O., & Geddes, D. (1993). An action assembly perspective on social skill. Communication Theory, 3,

26–49.Gurung, R.A.R., Sarason, B.R., & Sarason, I.G. (1997). Personal characteristics, relationship quality, and social

support perceptions in young adult romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 319–339.Hale, J.L., Tighe, M.R., & Mongeau, P.A. (1997). Effects of event type and sex on comforting messages.

Communication Research Reports, 14, 214–220.Hays, R.B. (1989). The day-to-day functioning of close versus casual friendships. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 6, 21–37.Jackson, S. (1992). Message effects research. New York: Guilford.Jackson, S., & Brashers, D.E. (1994). Random factors in ANOVA. (Vol. 98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Jones, S.M., & Burleson, B.R. (1997). The impact of situational variables on helpers’ perceptions of comforting

messages: An attributional analysis. Communication Research, 24, 530–555.Jung, J. (1988). Social support providers: Why do they help? Basic and Applied Psychology, 9, 231–240.Karasawa, K. (1991). The effects of onset and offset responsibility on affects and helping judgments. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 21, 482–499.Kunkel, A.W., & Burleson, B.R. (1998). Social support and the emotional lives of men and women: An

assessment of the different cultures perspective. In D.J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences andsimilarities in communication (pp. 101–125). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Meyer, J.P., & Mulherin, A. (1980). From attribution to helping: An analysis of the mediating effects of affect

and expectancy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 517–524.O’Keefe, B.J., & Shepherd, G.J. (1987). The pursuit of multiple objectives in face-to-face persuasive interac-

tions: Effects of construct differentiation on message organization. Communication Monographs, 54, 396–419.Otten, C.A., Penner, L.A., & Waugh, G. (1988). That’s what friends are for: The determinants of psychological

helping. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 34–41.Pasch, L.A., Bradbury, T.N., & Davila, J. (1997). Gender, negative affectivity, and observed social support

behavior in marital interaction. Personal Relationships, 4, 361–378.Reisenzen, R. (1986). A structural equation analysis of Weiner’s attribution-affect model of helping behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1123–1133.Roseman, I.J., Antoniou, A.A., & Jose, P.E. (1996). Appraisal determinants of emotions: Constructing a more

accurate and comprehensive theory. Cognition and Emotion, 10, 241–277.Samp, J.A., & Solomon, D.H. (1998). Communication responses to problematic events in close relationships I:

The variety and facets of goals. Communication Research, 25, 66–95.Samp, J.A., & Solomon, D.H. (1999). Communicative responses to problematic events in close relationships II:

The influence of five facets of goals on message features. Communication Research, 26, 193–239.Schmidt, G., & Weiner, B. (1988). An attribution-affect-action theory of behavior: Replications of judgments of

help-giving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 610–621.Schwarzer, R., & Weiner, B. (1991). Stigma controllability and coping as predictors of emotions and social

support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 133–40.Segrin, C. (1998). Interpersonal communication problems associated with depression and loneliness. In P.A.

Andersen & L.K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, andcontexts (pp. 215–242). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of aprototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 916–929.

Trobst, K.K., Collins, R.L., & Embree, J.M. (1994). The role of emotion in support provision: Gender,empathy, and expressions of distress. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 45–62.

Weiner, B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)—emotion—action model of motivated behavior: An analysis ofjudgments of help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 186–200.

Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York, NY: GuilfordPress.

Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Chandler, C.C. (1982). Pity, anger, and guilt: An attributional analysis. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 226–232.

Wilson, S.R. (1995). Elaborating the cognitive rules model of interaction goals: The problem of accounting forindividual differences in goal formation. In B.R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 3–25).Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wilson, S.R. (1997). Developing theories of persuasive message production: The next generation. In J.O.Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 15–43). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Wilson, S.R., Cruz, M.G., Marshall, L.J., & Rao, N. (1993). An attributional analysis of compliance-gaininginteractions. Communication Monographs, 60, 352–372.

Received: April 21, 2000Accepted: December 21, 2000


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

TO

BB

Eko

nom

i Ve

Tek

nolo

ji] a

t 15:

12 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

support providers' interaction goals: the influence of attributions and emotions

Documents