You are on page 1of 23

Co gniti ve Therap y an d Research, Vol. 23, No . 5, 1999, pp .

511-533

Clinical D epression and Perceptions of Supportive Others: A G eneralizab ility A n alysis
Brian Lake y,1,2 Jan a B rittain D rew ,1 an d K im berly Sirl 1

Lo w perceived support is asso ciated w ith emotio nal distu rban ce. Tw o im portan t determ in an ts of social support ju dgm ents are perceptual biases of the perceivers an d the Percei ver 3 Su pporter in teractio n. Recent gen eraliz ab ility studies ha ve found that the Perceiver 3 Su pporter in teractio n is a m uch stronger in ¯ uence on support ju dgm ents than the perceptual biases of percei vers. How ever, these recent studies were based on norm al sam ples. The present research in vestigated w hether perceptual biases in support ju dgm ents w ould be stronger for clin ically depressed in patien ts. Patien ts an d con trols view ed four vid eotap ed targets an d rated targets’ supporti veness. Co m pared to norm al controls, depressed in patien ts did not show a negati ve perceptu al bias that gen eraliz ed acro ss support pro vid ers. Consisten t w ith norm al sam ples, how ever, th e Perceiver 3 Su pporter in teractio n w as m ore im portan t, as patien ts an d controls differed in w hom they saw as suppo rti ve. Controls saw su pporters high on agreeab leness as m ore supportive, but did not rely on extra versio n, conscientio usness, or openness in m akin g support ju dgm ents. The su pport ju dgm en ts of depressed patien ts w ere hard er to ch aracteriz e. Im plicatio ns for in terventio ns w ere discussed.
KE Y WOR DS: depression; cognition; social support.

Cognitive proce sse s are important in both depression and social support. Score s of studie s have be e n publishe d on cognition and depression and succe ssful inte rventions have be e n de velope d from cognitive perspe ctive s ( Barne tt & Gotlib, 1988; Be ck, Rush Shaw, & E mery, 1979; Gotlib & Hammen, 1992; Hammen & Krantz, 1985; Robinson, B e rman, & Neimeye r, 1990) . A lthough cognitive approache s have only recently be e n applie d to unde rstanding social support, the re is now a growing cognitive perspective in social support re se arch (Lakey & Cassady, 1990; Lake y & Drew, 1997; Mankowski & Wyer, 1997; Pie rce, B aldwin, & Lydon, 1997; Sarason, Pie rce, & Sarason, 1990) . Rese arch in both areas has e mphasize d assimilation e ffects in which chronically accessible cognitive cate gorie s bias the processing of ne w inform ation to ® t e xisting be liefs (c.f. Higgins, 1996) . For example , many studie s
1 2

Wayne State Unive rsity. Corresponde nce should be sent to B rian Lake y, Departme nt of Psychology, 71 W. Warren A ve ., Wayne State Unive rsity, Detroit, Michigan, 48202. E -mail: brian.lakey@wayne .edu 511
0147-5916/99/1000-0511 $16.00/0 Ó 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

512

Lakey, Dre w , and Sirl

have e xam ine d de pre ssion and ne gative biase s in atte ntion, judgm e nt, and memory (Gotlib & Hamme n, 1992; William s, Mathe ws, & MacLe od, 1996) . Similarly, cognitive social support re se arch has inve stigate d how individual diffe re nces in pe rceive d support are re late d to the inte rpretation of and me mory for supportive be haviors and people (Lake y & Drew, 1997; Mankowski & Wye r, 1997; Pierce, B aldwin, & Lydon, 1997) . A lthough a large numbe r of studie s indicate that low pe rceived support is associate d with de pre ssion and a wide range of othe r he alth outcom es (B arrera, 1986; Cohe n & Wills, 1985; B arne tt & Gotlib, 1988; Lowe nthal & Have n, 1968; Phife r & Murre ll, 1986; Swindle , Cronkite , & Moos, 1989; Uchino, Cacioppo, Keicolt-Glase r, 1996) , less progre ss has be en made in unde rstanding the dete rminants of support perceptions. Conce ptually, the re are at le ast three important dete rminants: The pe rceive r, the supporte r, and the Perceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction (Lake y, McCabe , Fisicaro, & Drew, 1996) . Social support the ory traditionally has e mphasize d the role of the supporte r. A ccording to this vie w, support pe rceptions ( i.e ., pe rceive d support) are dire ct re¯ e ctions of the amount and quality of the social support actually receive d (i.e ., enacte d support) ( Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990; Cutrona & Russe ll, 1990; Thoits, 1986) . Howe ve r, the size of the re lation betwe en pe rceive d support and enacte d support is too small ( r # .30) for pe rceive d support to be base d prim arily on the receipt of supportive behaviors (B arre ra, 1986; Lake y & Lutz, 1996; Lakey & Drew, 1997; Dunke l-Sche tter & B e nne tt, 1990; Sarason e t al., 1990; Sarason, She arin, Pie rce, & Sarason, 1987) . Perceive rs’ contribution to support judgme nts traditionally has be en emphasized by individual-dif ference mode ls of pe rceive d support (Lake y & Cassady, 1990; Sarason et al., 1990; Sarason, Sarason, & She arin, 1986) . A ccording to this vie w, support judgm e nts partly re ¯ ect the te nde ncy of pe rceive rs to color new inform ation to ® t existing beliefs. In fact, the re is substantial e vide nce that high pe rceived support pe ople inte rpre t the same , nove l, supportive be havior and persons more favorably than do low perceive d support individuals. This ® nding has be e n re plicate d many time s across a wide range of sample characte ristics and measure s (A nan & Barne tt, in pre ss; Lake y & Cassady, 1990; Lake y, Moine au, & Drew, 1992; Pierce, Sarason, & Sarason, 1992; Rudolph, Hamme n, & B urge , 1995; Sarason, Pie rce, She arin, Sarason, Poppe , & Waltz, 1991) . Howe ve r, the size of the Perceive r e ffect is not suf® ciently strong to sugge st that support judgme nts can be unde rstood solely on the basis of pe rceptual biase s. B e yond the role of supporte rs and pe rceivers, a re cent se rie s of ge neralizability studie s sugge st that the most important de te rminant of support judgm ents is the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction (Lake y, McCabe , e t al., 1996) . For e xample , Pe rceive r A may re liably se e Targe t A as more supportive than Targe t B , whereas Pe rceive r B may re liably show the opposite patte rn. This inte raction can occur through both cognitive and be havioral processes. A s an example of a be havioral proce ss, Perceive r A may e licit more supportive be haviors from Targe t A than from Targe t B , and Perceiver B may e licit more supportive be havior from Targe t B. The Perceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction can also occur through pure ly cognitive mechanisms. E ve n when pe rceive rs are pre se nted with the same information about

Studie s that include patie nts may show stronge r e ffects for the role of perceive rs than studie s base d on normal sample s. ME THOD Particip an ts E le ve n clinically de pre sse d inpatie nts and 14 nonde pressed controls from Detroit participate d in the study.3 O nly a portion of perceived support variance is associate d with disorde r. McCabe . although the Pe rceive r e ffe ct may be re lative ly small (eve n among clinical sample s). Perceptual biase s may be more important for de pre sse d patie nts than for controls. To inve stigate the se que stions. the n the two groups may be responding to diffe rent characte ristics of targe ts in making support judgments. Pille me r. 1996. the Pe rceive r effe ct may still be the compone nt that is associate d with disorde r. & B e ntle y. (1996) found that the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction was a much stronge r in¯ uence on support judgm e nts than the pe rceptual biase s of perceivers. If patie nts and controls diffe r in whom the y se e as supportive . then de pressed patie nts should display a diffe re nt relative orde ring of targe ts on supportive ne ss than do controls. If clinical de pre ssion is associate d with a bias to see ne arly e ve ryone as unsupportive . In addition. Ross. the Perceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction is still obse rved (Lake y. & Keeton. et al. Lutz for this insight.Social Sup po rt Cognition in De pre ssion 513 supporte rs. The same information that make s Targe t A similar to Pe rceive r A make s Targe t A dissimilar to Perceiver B . the present study include d both de pre sse d inpatie nts and norm al controls. . 1996. if the diffe re nce s be twe en de pre sse d patie nts and controls follow the patte rn of the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction. e t al. The re fore . study 3). McCabe . Given the appare nt importance of the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction. 3 We thank Catherine J. The re is anothe r re ason to study the Pe rceiver 3 Supporte r inte raction in clinical samples. A lthough Lake y. it will be important to identify groups that diffe r in whom they se e as supportive . A n e xam ple of a cognitive proce ss contributing to the Pe rceiver 3 Supporte r inte raction is whe n pe rceivers base support judgme nts on pe rceive rs’ similarity to supporte rs (Lake y. Clinical disorde r is one important individual diffe re nce variable that may account for why diffe rent pe ople se e the same supporte rs diffe re ntly. the n patie nts should se e a sample of targe ts as le ss supportive than do controls. B utle r. If so. inte rve ntions de signe d to incre ase pe rceive d support among de pressed patie nts must be guide d by knowle dge of what type s of people de pre sse d patie nts se e as supportive . The two groups were roughly e quivale nt on age . Suitor. and this ove rlap may be share d with the pe rceiver compone nt rathe r than the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction. 1995) . their studie s were base d on norm al sample s.. Studie s including clinically de pre sse d patie nts may show important diffe re nce s. patie nts’ and controls’ judgm e nts of targe ts were mappe d onto supporte rs’ pe rsonality characte ristics to see which characte ristics of targe ts were associate d with patie nts’ and controls’ support judgme nts. Howe ve r.

The re we re no orde r e ffe cts. and past tre atment for psychologic al disorders or substance abuse . Pote ntial participants we re administe red a brie f scree ning que stionnaire to de termine the ir suitability for the study. This scree ning instrum ent include d que stions re garding ethnicity. and Sirl ethnicity.6 . gende r. and had B e ck Depre ssion Inve ntory scores be low 9. E xpe rime nters were blind to the hypothe ses of the study. substance abuse followe d the onse t of depre ssion. Four depressed participants had a history of substance abuse or depende nce as well.5 19. Howeve r. and socioe conom ic status (Table I). the ir primary diagnosis was depre ssion. Hospital diagnose s of depre ssion were veri® e d by one of the authors by making RDC diagnose s of Major De pre ssion base d on the Sche dule for A ffe ctive Disorde rs and Schizophre nia (SA DS. in e ach of these cases. Dre w .1 90. A ll but one of these inte rviews and diagnose s we re inde pe nde ntly re vie wed by a fully lice nse d clinical psychologist with exte nsive clinical e xpe rie nce in de pre ssion (the audio re cording faile d for one patie nt’ s inte rvie w) . and patie nts we re fre e of ille gal drugs at the time of the study. De mographic V ariables Depresse d patients Gende r Male Female E thnicity A frican A merican E uropean A merican Hispanic Median SE S Mean age Mean IQ 6 5 6 5 0 26. A dministration of the vide o asse ssment measure s and the que stionnaire packe t asse ssing depre ssion and pe rceive d support were counte rbalance d.1 90. E ndicott & Spitze r. 1978) . Controls were solicite d through ¯ ye rs adve rtising for participants . Controls had not be e n hospitalize d in the past for psychologic al disorde rs. Pote ntially suitable participants were the n se en for an individual testing se ssion to comple te the study me asure s. Procedure The main asse ssment instrum ent was a vide otape that aske d participants to judge the supportive ne ss of four targe ts and re call the targe ts’ be haviors.514 Lakey. Two ve rsions of the vide o we re pre se nte d that varie d the orde r in which the targe ts appe are d. socioe conomic status.5 19. and all four of the se were abusing at admission. Participants were include d in the study only if the ir primary diagnosis from all three source s was Major Depre ssion. Thre e patie nts also suffere d from anxious symptom atology. Table I.8 Controls 5 9 8 5 1 28. Hospital staff also saw the se four patie nts as having de pre ssion as the ir primary diagnosis as none of the patie nts were be ing tre ated spe ci® cally for substance abuse . inte llige nce . but again.

de pre sse d participants and controls were typically raise d in le vel IV familie s. Karmarck. & Garbin. Pe rceiv e d So cial Su pport Perceive d support was me asure d by the Interpersonal Support E valuation List (Cohen.. car. Stee r. 1975) . The came ra was focused on the targe t. with the hope that more ambiguous response s would allow for gre ater individual diffe rence s in inte rpre tation. 1990) . 1988) to provide an inde x of participants ’ current le ve l of de pre ssion.g. This scale has be e n use d exte nsive ly in social support research and has substantial e vide nce for its re liability and validity. & Hobe rman. Substantial evide nce e xists for the re liability and validity of this scale . Me rmelste in. . or landlord dif® cultie s. So cioeconom ic Statu s Socioe conomic status was measure d by the Hollingshe ad Inde x of Social Position (Hollingshe ad. 1992) . This short form has be e n shown to correlate with the full scale score at r 5 . Lake y & Cassady. 1985) . A ctors of age s similar to participants portraye d the role s. D e pre ssio n Participants comple te d the B eck Depression Inve ntory ( B eck. which assigns a classi® cation of socioe conom ic status base d on the occupation and educational le ve l of the head( s) of house hold.90 (Sattle r. It was modi® e d for the pre se nt study by providing a 5-point re sponse scale with ``strongly agre e ’ ’ and ``strongly disagre e’ ’ as e xtre me re sponse s. A ccording to this inde x. Lake y e t al. who had bee n instructe d to behave in ne ithe r a particularly supportive nor nonsupporti ve fashion.. Su pport-R e late d Cogn itio n To asse ss cognitive proce sse s in support judgme nts. participants were shown a vide otape consisting of four 5-min inte ractions be twee n a targe t and an individual describing a proble m to the targe t. Same -se x dyads discusse d family (in two of the vigne tte s). characte rized by se miskille d worke rs such as security guards and orde rlie s. 1990. This modi® cation was made to allow for gre ater variance in re sponse s and has be e n used succe ssfully in prior inve stigations (e .Social Sup po rt Cognition in De pre ssion 515 ME A SU R E S Intellige nce Inte llige nce was me asure d by the use of a short form of the WA IS-R that consiste d of the V ocabulary and B lock Design subte sts.

22 for ne uroticism. we wante d to se lect conve rsations in which the targe t was within one standard de viation of the me an on supportive ne ss according to the distribution obse rve d in our prior study. participants were aske d (via instructions on the vide o monitor) to think for 1 min about the conve rsation the y had just se e n. Inte rrater re liabilitie s ( a) were . . Following this delay. participants rate d e ach targe t on how supportive the targe t would be if the participant were discussing a proble m with that targe t. We se le cted the se four conve rsations base d on se ve ral conside rations. To de te rmine how the targe ts’ pe rsonalitie s diffe re d (as e xpre sse d during the vide o). a black woman. a re pe ate d-measure s A NOV A was calculate d for e ach personality trait with each targe t represe nting one le ve l of the Targe t factor. Ratings were made on modi® e d ve rsions of 10 items from the Procidano and Helle r (1983) Pe rceived Support Scale . and Sirl Characte ristics of V id e otap ed Targe ts The se four conve rsations we re sele cted from the e ight conve rsations use d in study 3 of Lake y. participants were pre se nte d with the ne xt conve rsation to vie w. This scale is a freque ntly use d measure with e stablishe d . First. because our sample was expe cted to be roughly eve nly divide d be twee n men and wome n and be twe e n pe ople of both A frican and Europe an ance stry. The black woman and the white man were vie wed as the most conscie ntious and the black man and the white woman were see n as the le ast conscie ntious. e t al. a white man. B eyond ge nde r and e thnicity. . we sele cted four vide os that repre se nte d all four combinatio ns of ge nde r and e thnicity. 1. B e fore rating each targe t. the black woman was se en as the most ope n to expe rie nce and the black man was se e n as the le ast ope n. McCabe .516 Lakey. Finally. The two women were the most agre e able and the two men were the least agre e able . O ne targe t’ s support score was well above one standard de viation above the mean. Thus we re taine d a black man. A fter vie wing e ach conve rsation. De pre sse d patie nts and controls viewed e ach of the four conve rsations. Judge s vie wed the four conve rsations and rated each targe t on a 5-point scale with the 92 adje ctives provide d by Trapne ll and Wiggins (1990) as marke rs of the B ig 5. and a white woman. this variable was not analyze d. . A fte r viewing all four conve rsations. This was done be cause prior research had sugge ste d that giving participants additional time to think about be haviors helps consolidate their impre ssions of the pe rsons be ing rate d ( Srull & Wye r. (1996) . The ite m wording was modi® e d so that the items aske d participants ’ opinions about e ach spe ci® c targe t. but she was include d in the ® nal tape because she was the only A frican-A merican female targe t include d in our prior study. Dre w . 1989) . and .88 for ope nne ss. E ach targe t was also rate d on the B ig-5 pe rsonality dime nsions by a se parate group of 19 judge s. The se judge s were unde rgraduate s e nrolle d in psychology classe s at Wayne State Unive rsity.80 for conscie ntiousne ss.92 for e xtrave rsion. B ecause of the low inte rrate r agre e ment for ne uroticism. The four targe ts diffe re d signi® cantly and substantially on all of the traits. The black woman was the most extrave rte d and the white woman and black man were the least e xtrave rte d.89 for agre e able ne ss. Diffe re nce s in judge s’ ratings of targe ts’ pe rsonality characte ristics are pre se nted in Fig. participants were reminde d of the targe t with a 15-se c sile nt clip.

Pe rrotta. Following the ratings and re call of supportive ne ss.64 across all four targe ts). A fte r making support judgm ents. M 5 14. participants rate d how busy the spe ake r appe are d to be and recalle d the activitie s he de scribe d. 1. Inte rnal consiste ncy compute d across all four targe ts for this modi® e d scale was a 5 . The se ratings were include d to te st hypothe ses about the re lation be twe e n support judgm e nts and the re call of supportive be haviors. 1988) . reliability and validity ( Procidano & Helle r. but be fore the supportive ne ss ratings and recall tasks. & Hanche r. respondents re calle d ve ry fe w actual e xample s of be haviors and state ments ( M 5 2. uninte re sted.24 across all four targe ts). a male speake r de scribe d the activitie s of his day.. the ir response s were dominate d by e xam ples of traitlike concepts (e .001) . A ttentio n to an d Mem ory fo r the Task To allow for the control of factors associate d with general me mory ability and atte ntion to the task. A ctivitie s recalle d were summed to create a total score .g. spe ci® c be haviors was signi® cant ( t(23) 5 8. .23. Lyons. p . Judge s ratings of targets’ pe rsonality characte ristics. we were unable to inve stigate the re lation betwe en support judgm e nts and the re call of supportive be haviors. bore d. participants were aske d to list as many supportive and unsupportive be haviors or state ments as the y re membered from e ach inte raction.Social Sup po rt Cognition in De pre ssion 517 Fig. participants were presente d with a ® fth scene afte r the fourth conve rsation. because this task e licite d the re call of trait conce pts rathe r than spe ci® c supportive be haviors. Instead. Thus. Howeve r. 1983. kind.92. In this scene . . The more fre que nt recall of trait conce pts vs.

age .0 26. McCabe . (1996) unde re stimate d the role of pe rceive rs’ pe rceptual biase s by studying nonclinical sample s.8 5. Shave lson & We bb. the size of the Pe rceive r main e ffe ct should be substantially large r than obse rve d pre viously. Dre w . this term is an appropriate estimate of random e rror.001. and g theory has be e n applie d succe ssfully to a number of basic re se arch que stions. O ur ® rst analysis was a dire ct re plication of the ge neralizability studie s pre sente d in Lake y. the powe r of g the ory to answe r basic research que stions is less well appre ciated. the highe st-orde r Table II.22 a 5. this analysis was a 25 3 4 3 10 A NOV A . For e xam ple . 1972.59 a 0. and Sirl R E SU LTS Pre liminary analyse s focuse d on diffe re nce s betwe e n depressed and control participants on le ve ls of pe rceived support and de pression. . fully crosse d A NO V A with random factors. e ach targe t as one le ve l of the Targe t factor. Nanda. the situation. In such designs. E ach participant was tre ate d as one le ve l of the Pe rceive r factor. & Rajaratnam . the re were no diffe re nce s in socioe conom ic status.1 164. A main goal of the prese nt study was to dete rmine whe ther Lake y.59. whe n the pre se nt sample was analyze d as a ge ne ralizability study. The prese nt study was analyze d as a Pe rceive r 3 Targe t 3 Item.518 Lakey. Kenny (1994) deve lope d a unique variant of g the ory methodology to dete rmine the e xtent to which pe rceptions of targe ts’ pe rsonalitie s re presents characte ristics of the targe t. the re was one obse rvation pe r cell. Wiggins. Whe n such an inte raction is pre se nt. Thus. (1996) . .0 9. clinically depre sse d patie nts had highe r de pre ssion and lower pe rceive d support score s than did nonde presse d controls ( t(23) 5 8. respe ctively) . B e cause e ach re sponde nt was tre ate d as a separate le vel of the Pe rceiver factor. McCabe . Gle se r. A s displaye d in Table II.6 14.2 4.001. Howeve r. or inte llige nce. . and t(23) 5 5. and e ach item as one leve l of the Ite m factor. Gene ralizability the ory provide s powe rful te chnique s for de te rmining the source s of variance in a group of score s (Cronbach. et al. Comparing Patie nts and Controls on Depression.22. Most clinical psychologists are familiar with gene ralizability ( g) the ory’ s contribution to unde rstanding the inte rnal consiste ncy of te sts. E ndle r and Hunt ( 1966. (1996) . indicating that the two groups we re comparable on de mographic variable s. e t al. 1969) use d g the ory to analyze the exte nt to which anxie ty was a function of the person.3 20. Whe n the re is no thre e -way inte raction. and Memory for Activities Depressed patie nts M Depre ssion Pe rce ived Support Me mory for activities a Controls M 5. . If so. the perceive r.1 10. 1991.6 t 8. McCabe .1 SD 2. e t al.6 125. Perceive d Support.2 p . p . the appropriate e rror term is the highe st-orde r inte raction (Pe rceive r 3 Targe t 3 Ite m). or the ir unique relationship. Howeve r.46 SD 8. and the Pe rson 3 Situation inte raction.001. p . A more exte nsive discussion of g theory as applie d to social support is provide d in Lake y. 1973) .

Thus.78 a 8.30 Depresse d patients E ffect Pe rce iver Targe t Item Pe rce iver 3 Targe t Pe rce iver 3 Ite m Targe t 3 Item 3-way interaction (error) df 10 3 9 30 90 27 270 F 8.97 a 1.45 b 4. McCabe.05 .50 a 2.50 a 4.55 df 13 3 9 39 117 27 351 F 41.55 Controls E ffect Pe rce iver Targe t Item Pe rce iver 3 Targe t Pe rce iver 3 Ite m Targe t 3 Item 3-way interaction (error) a b a E ffect size .09 .11 . targets should be e ither se lecte d randomly from some population or chose n for their repre se ntative ne ss of supporters in a give n population (see Lakey.21 . et al.29 . the re were signi® cant Pe rceiver.08 a 10.22 .09 158.02 .77 a 2..21 . and signi® cant Pe rceiver 3 Targe t and Pe rceive r 3 Item inte ractions (Table III).30 a 2. The purpose of the curre nt study was to inve stigate cognitive proce sses in the Perceive r e ffect and in the Pe rceive r 3 Supporter interaction. 1972) . 4 The Pe rceive r e ffect accounte d for 4 The size of the Targe t (Supporter) effe ct is not particularly me aningful in studies that re ly on judgme nts of videotaped targe ts be cause the size of the e ffect is largely de te rmined by the particular targe ts that the e xperime nters choose to prese nt.03 194.50 a 4.00 .34 E ffect size . Ge ne ralizability A nalyse s for the E ntire Sample .01 .93 a 1.00 . De pre sse d Patients and Controls E ntire sample E ffect Pe rce iver Targe t Item Pe rce iver 3 Targe t Pe rce iver 3 Ite m Targe t 3 Item 3-way interaction (error) df 24 3 9 72 216 27 648 F 22. .25 .48 a 26.05.06 a a E ffect size .Social Sup po rt Cognition in De pre ssion 519 Table III.00 .13 . To obtain meaningful estimates of effe cts due to supporters.11 . p .23 p . inte raction is an ove re stimate of error.01.16 .02 . it is the siz e of the se e ffects that is most important. The only nonsigni® cant e ffect was the Targe t 3 Ite m inte raction.08 . Howe ve r.26 a 1. 1996) . we are unconce rne d with the size of the Supporter effe ct in this study. . E ffe ct sizes were calculate d from formulas provide d by Shave lson & We bb (1991) and are pre sente d in Table III. Consiste nt with our prior re search. producing more conse rvative signi® cance te sts (Cronbach et al.. . O f primary inte rest is the variance e stimates for the Perceive r main effe ct and the Pe rceive r 3 Targe t inte raction.50 b 0. Targe t. and Ite m effe cts.

which also use d vide otape d targe ts ( 21% in Lake y.23) 5 0. A lso. Such an inte raction would indicate that patie nts and controls diffe r in whom the y see as supportive .45.207) 5 2. The Perceiver 3 Targe t inte raction was substantially large r than the Pe rceive r main e ffe ct. Compare d to patie nts.69) 5 21. the re was a signi® cant Diagnosis 3 2 Targe t inte raction ( F (3. p . norm al controls made more sharp distinctions among the targe ts. indicating that de pre sse d patie nts produce d a diffe re nt relative orde ring of targe ts on supportive ne ss than did controls.01) . de pre sse d patie nts saw the targe ts as less supportive than did controls.05) .88. similar to the e stimate of 8% obtaine d in our prior g studie s with norm al sample s. on ave rage .09. The se analyse s were more conve ntional in the se nse that multiple responde nts pe r cell allowe d the calculation of a within-grou ps error te rm. p . .28.45. Howe ve r. Part of the Perceive r 3 Targe t inte raction may re¯ ect a process whe re by pe rsons judge d targe ts of similar ge nde r or e thnicity as more supportive than dissimilar . we wante d to de te rmine whe the r any diffe re nce betwe e n patie nts and controls in support judgme nts followe d the patte rn of Pe rceive r e ffe cts or the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction. 1996. p . we also e xam ine d whe the r pe rceive rs’ ge nde r or ethnicity would he lp illuminate the basis of the Pe rceive r 3 Targe t inte raction. we conducte d a Diagnosis ( depre sse d vs. n. with Targe t and Item as random factors and Diagnosis as a ® xe d factor. depre sse d patie nts did not se e the white woman as more supportive than the two me n. . re spe ctive ly.01) and the black man ( t(13) 5 3. . e t al.520 Lakey. The 25% estimate is consiste nt with our prior g study. but unlike controls.. The results re ve ale d no signi® cant effe ct for diagnosis ( F (1. p . In contrast. Controls also perceive d the white woman as more supportive than the white man ( t(13) 5 4. p .85. .49. the next analyse s classi® ed re spondents as de pre sse d vs.01) and Targe t main e ffects ( F (3. In contrast. unlike the controls. and Sirl 11% of the variance . Next. and the black man ( t(13) 5 4.10. patie nts did not se e the black woman as signi® cantly more supportive than the white man. Figure 2 presents graphically how de pre sse d patie nts and controls saw the targe ts diffe re ntly.02. diffe rence s be twe en patie nts and controls may follow the patte rn of the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction.01) . the white man ( t(13) 5 6.) indicating that depressed patie nts did not vie w targe ts ove rall as less supportive than did controls. This would indicate that. control) 3 Targe t 3 Ite m mixed A NO V A . . . the n classifying responde nts according to diagnosis should produce a main e ffe ct for diagnosis. p . This e ffe ct would be capture d by a Diagnosis 3 Targe t inte raction. Dre w .01) .06) . . In addition to diagnosis.s. Instead of tre ating e ach responde nt as a se parate le vel of the Perceive r factor (as in the g study) . This re sulte d in a Diagnosis (2) 3 Targe t (4) 3 Item (10) A NOV A . v Ä 5 . To inve stigate these hypothe se s. . study 3) . p .001) accounting for 6% and 42% of the variance . p .05) and the black man ( t(10) 5 3. Follow-up paire d t-tests re vealed that controls saw the black woman as more supportive than the white woman ( t(13) 5 2. McCabe .01) . nonde pre sse d. accounting for 25% of the variance . patie nts saw the black woman as more supportive than the white woman ( t(10) 5 2. p . The g analyse s re plicate d our prior re search in showing that the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction is substantially more powe rful than perceive rs’ pe rceptual biase s.69) 5 3.85.27. p . The re were also Ite m ( F (9. . . If the Pe rceive r effe ct in the g study re sulte d from diffe re nces in de pre ssion.62.

Thus. agre eable ness..5 Howe ve r. the Pe rceiver 3 Targe t inte raction did not re sult from a tende ncy to perceive targe ts as more supportive if the targe ts were similar to pe rceive rs in gender or e thnicity. on e xtrave rsion. we could re je ct the hypothe sis that re sponde nts base d the ir support judgme nts on e xtrave rsion. Howe ve r. e xtrave rsion. Thus. for the four personality dime nsions for which the re was high inte rrater agre e ment (i. only data from A frican. targe ts. The se analyse s re lie d on the judge s’ ratings of targe ts’ pe rsonality characte ristics. B e cause 5 In analyse s involving ethnicity. Patients’ and controls’ ratings of targets’ supportivene ss. Thus. re sulting in a Gende r 3 Targe t 3 Ite m A NO V A and an E thnicity 3 Targe t 3 Ite m A NO V A . Data from the lone Hispanic re spondent were excluded . if e xtrave rsion showe d the same con® guration across targe ts as did support ratings. we compare d the targe ts’ re lative standing on supportive ness with the ir relative standing on a give n pe rsonality dime nsion. De pre sse d patie nts and controls diffe re d in whom the y saw as supportive . . For e xam ple . We re patie nts and controls re sponding to diffe rent targe t characte ristics when making support judgme nts? The ne xt se t of analyse s ide nti® e d the targe t characte ristics that were re late d to controls’ and depressive s’ pe rceptions of targe ts. in part.or E urope an-A me ricans were analyzed. 2. We compare d targe ts’ re lative standing on supportive ne ss with the ir re lative standing on a give n personality dime nsion. if the con® guration across targe ts for e xtrave rsion con¯ icte d with the con® guration for supportive ne ss. the re we re no main e ffects or inte ractions with targe ts involving ge nde r or e thnicity.Social Sup po rt Cognition in De pre ssion 521 Fig.e . ope nne ss. and conscie ntiousne ss). this would ® t the hypothe sis that re sponde nts base d support ratings. paralle l A NOV A s were conducte d in which ge nde r or e thnicity was substitute d for the diagnosis factor.

Four analyse s of this kind were run for both the controls and patie nts in which one of the four pe rsonality dime nsions was use d as one le ve l of the Rating factor.93 3.00 . .00 .02 .12 . The two leve ls of the Rating factor were (1) support judgm e nts by controls and (2) agre e able ne ss ratings by judge s.31 0.05 2 v Ä Agree able ne ss and Supportive ne ss Conscientiousness and Supportiveness Extrave rsion and Supportive ne ss Openne ss and Supportive ne ss . The four targe ts re pre se nted the four leve ls of the within-subje cts Targe t factor.63 Controls p.74 1.62 7. conscie n6 In these analyse s.00 Rating 3 Targe t interactions involving df 3. A signi® cant Rating 3 Targe t inte raction would indicate that the support ratings by controls and the agre e able ne ss ratings by judge s did not follow the same patte rn. Controls’ support ratings were compare d with judge s’ pe rsonality ratings in a serie s of Rating (2) 3 Targe t (4) mixe d A NO V A s in which Rating was the be twee nsubje cts factor and Targe t was the within-subje cts factor. The only effe ct of intere st in these analyse s is the Rating 3 Targe t interaction.00 .522 Table IV . and Sirl Target Interactions for De pre sse d Patients and Controls Depre ssed patie nts Rating 3 Targe t interactions involving df 3. we ce ntered the personality and support ratings by subtracting the me an of their re spe ctive distributions from e ach Target’ s rating. providing support for the infe re nce that controls base d support judgme nts in part on targe t agre e able ne ss.74 .41 8.93 3.19 .60 2 v Ä Agree able ne ss and Supportive ne ss Conscientiousness and Supportiveness Extrave rsion and Supportive ne ss Openne ss and Supportive ne ss . This had the e ffect of e liminating main e ffects due to ratings. Such a ® nding would cast doubt on the hypothe sis that controls use d targe t agre e able ness to infe r targe t supportive ne ss. B ecause variance re sulting from the Rating 3 Targe t interaction can be represe nted as main effects.84 3. The pe rsonality ratings provide d by judge s on a give n personality dimension were one le ve l of the Rating factor and the support ratings by controls (in the ® rst se t of analyse s) or de pre sse d patie nts (in the se cond se t of analyse s) were the othe r le vel of the Rating factor.6 Neuroticism ratings were not include d in these analysis be cause of unacce ptably low inte rrate r agre e ment.84 3.93 3. Dre w .84 F 1. which mere ly indicates whether targets’ pro® les for a give n personality trait diverges from their pro® le on supportivene ss.84 3.16 . .03 patie nts and controls diffe re d in whom they saw as supportive .32 2. se parate analyse s we re conducte d for both patie nts and controls. Te sts of the Rating 3 Lakey. which were not relevant to the hypothe sis unde r examinati on.74 p. . conside r the de sign use d to te st the hypothe sis that controls’ support judgme nts paralle le d judge s’ agre e able ness ratings. the main e ffects for targe ts are not me aningful because they re ¯ e ct a combination of the support judgme nts by controls (or depressives) and the pe rsonality ratings by judge s. the abse nce of a Rating 3 Targe t inte raction would indicate that we could not reje ct the hypothe sis that the se two ratings were paralle l.16 .95 8.13 . Results comparing controls’ ratings of support with judge s’ rating of pe rsonality reve ale d thre e signi® cant Rating 3 Targe t inte ractions for e xtrave rsion. Howeve r.93 F 0.00 . For example .02 .

Social Sup po rt Cognition in De pre ssion 523 Fig. Controls’ ratings of targets’ supportivene ss and judge s’ ratings of targets’ conscie ntiousness. . 4. Fig. Controls’ ratings of targets’ supportivene ss and judges’ ratings of targe ts’ e xtraversio n. 3.

Figs. A s shown in Figs. Dre w . Howeve r. e ven though the hypothe sis that the y corre sponde d could not be re jected at the p . 5. Keeping in mind that signi® cance tests re ¯ ect both me an diffe rences and random error. and ope nne ss (Table IV . A lthough patie nts appare ntly did not base the ir support judgme nts on e xtrave rsion. conscie ntiousne ss. we wonde re d whethe r the support judgme nts of patie nts had more random e rror than those of controls. The re sults of the same analyse s using patie nts’ support ratings reve ale d that the ir judgm ents dive rge d only from judge s’ e xtave rsion ratings (Table IV . . We might conclude that patie nts rely on e ach of the se traits in making support judgm e nts. controls appare ntly did not base their support judgm ents on the se thre e traits.524 Lakey. and Sirl Fig. we could not rule out their use of conscie ntiousne ss. controls’ ratings of supportive ne ss con¯ icte d with judge s’ ratings of e xtrave rsion. in examining the ® gure s. sugge sting that controls may have base d the ir support judgme nts on this inform ation. Fig. To te st the hypothe sis that the support judgm ents of patie nts had more random error 7 than controls. 8± 10) . Controls’ ratings of targe ts’ supportiveness and judges’ ratings of targe ts’ openne ss. E ve n the close st-® tting pair for patie nts (ope nne ss/ support) appe are d to re¯ e ct a less pre cise ® t than the close st-® tting pair for controls (agre e able ness/support) . controls’ support judgme nts closely paralle le d judge s’ ratings of agre e able ne ss (Fig. ope nness. Thus. 3± 5. the re was more than twice as much random 7 Although it is common to refe r to u nexplain ed variance as random error. Unexplained variance may be error only in the sense that we have not mode led it adequate ly. or agre e able ness (Figs. 6). it is worthwhile to re me mbe r that un exp lained variance is not ne ce ssarily u nexp lainable variance . A s can be see n in Table II. we se e that the corresponde nce be twee n agre e able ness /support and conscie ntiousne ss/support for patie nts is not exact. we conducte d se parate ge ne ralizability analyse s for both groups. 7). . Howe ve r.05 le ve l. and openne ss. 3± 5). tiousne ss.

Depresse d patie nts’ ratings of targe ts’ supportivene ss and judge s’ ratings of targets’ extraversion. 7.Social Sup po rt Cognition in De pre ssion 525 Fig. Controls’ ratings of targe ts’ supportiveness and judges’ ratings of targe ts’ agre eablene ss. . 6. Fig.

Depre ssed patie nts’ ratings of targets’ supportivene ss and judges’ ratings of targe ts’ conscientiousne ss. Fig. . and Sirl Fig. 9. De pre ssed patie nts’ ratings of targets’ supportiveness and judge s’ ratings of targe ts’ agre eableness. Dre w . 8.526 Lakey.

comparative ly high le vels of random ness se eme d to characte rize the majority of the de pre sse d patie nts. O ur prior ge neralizability 8 Standard internal consistency e stimate s produce a lower e stimate s of error than do full ge ne ralizability analyse s be cause standard internal consistency estimates do not analyze variance due to targets or items (Wiggins. Eight of 11 de pressed patie nts had comparative ly high le ve ls of error variance . re spe ctive ly) . . D ISCU SSION Two important de terminants of support judgme nts are the pe rceptual biase s of perceive rs and the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction. .98. re spe ctive ly. Howe ver. indicating that the outlie rs we re those with low rate s of random ness in their answe rs. and . Consiste nt with this analysis.83 for pe rceive d support. Thus. 10.88 vs.74 and . patie nts’ re sponse s to the se measure s had less e rror variance than the re sponse s of controls (patie nts’ and controls’ as were .8 We re the high leve ls of error variance a result of a fe w outlie rs who were re sponding randomly? We calculate d se parate Targe t 3 Ite m repe ated-measure s A NO V A s for each de pressed patie nt and e xam ine d the distribution of error variance . 1973) . To de termine whethe r de pressed patie nts would display highe r leve ls of random ne ss in the ir judgm e nts on the individual-dif fe re nce s measure s of de pre ssion and pe rceive d social support (i. we calculate d se parate inte rnal consiste ncy analyse s for patie nts and controls on the se measure s.41 for depre ssion.. re spective ly) . error in the support judgme nts of patie nts than in the support judgm ents of controls (55% vs.Social Sup po rt Cognition in De pre ssion 527 Fig. De presse d patie nts’ ratings of targe ts’ supportiveness and judge s’ ratings of targe ts’ ope nness. 23%).e . not ratings of targe ts).93 and . patie nts’ support ratings were le ss inte rnally consiste nt than were controls ( as 5 .

othe rs. de pre ssed patie nts’ judgm ents were less cle arly linke d to a particular trait. For . The curre nt study inve stigate d whe ther the role of perceptual biase s was stronge r in a sample that include d clinically de pre sse d individuals. The Pe rceiver main e ffect accounte d for 11% of the variance in the current study. some patie nts may characte rize diffe re nce s betwe en targe ts by re lying he avily on some ite ms vs. the support judgme nts of patie nts may be more comple x than those of controls. Lutz (Lutz. the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction accounte d for 25% of the variance . Howe ver. the size of the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction in the current sample was ve ry similar to that of our prior g study that used vide otape d targe ts (study 3 of Lake y. McCabe . where as othe r patie nts characte rize diffe re nce s be twe en targe ts by using a diffe rent se t of items. Thus. Lutz did not ® nd e vide nce that e motional distre ss was re late d to the use of more traits. and Sirl studie s had indicate d that the Perceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction was much more powerful than pe rceivers’ biase s (Lake y. The large r Pe rceive r 3 Targe t 3 Ite m inte raction for patie nts vs. 1996) . The pre se nt study sugge sts that patie nts and controls may diffe r in the information they use to make support judgm e nts. whe re as controls may have re lie d more he avily on a single trait. Howe ver. 1997. E ve n whe n data from the de pre sse d group we re analyze d separate ly. and he r results may not apply to clinically disorde red individuals. Howe ve r. not substantially diffe re nt from the 8% obtaine d in our prior studie s of norm al sample s. controls sugge sts two othe r explanations for why the support judgm ents of patie nts were harde r to characte rize . In the curre nt study. in contrast to the hypothe sis that patie nts use d more traits than controls in making support judme nts. 1997) has shown that some individuals base support judgme nts on line ar combinations of multiple traits. Patie nts and controls diffe red in whom the y saw as supportive . there was a strong e ffe ct for the Perceive r 3 Targe t inte raction (22%). First.528 Lakey. although the y did not appe ar to use e xtrave rsion. Lutz studie d norm al sample s. Lutz & Lake y. In fact. For example . The re are at le ast three e xplanations for why the support judgme nts of patie nts were le ss cle arly linke d to a single trait. et al. patie nts may have base d their support judgm ents on a line ar combination of agre eable ness. 1996) . Dre w . e t al.. ope nne ss. McCabe . Controls appe are d to re ly on agre eable ne ss be cause the ir support judgm ents paralle le d judge s’ ratings on that trait. it is important to ide ntify why pe ople diffe r in whom they se e as supportive . Give n the appare nt importanc e of the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction. the curre nt study con® rme d the strong role of the Perceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction. the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction appe ars to more ade quate ly re pre sent the diffe rence be twe en de pressed patie nts and controls. The e ffe ct size for the Diagnosis 3 Targe t inte raction accounte d for only 6% of the variance . and conscie ntiousne ss. Howeve r. where as study 3 of our prior article e stimate d it at 21%. whe re as the Pe rceive r 3 Targe t inte raction accounte d for 25%. rathe r than de pre sse d patie nts se e ing targe ts ge ne rally as le ss supportive than did controls. In addition. First.. in addition to be ing the single most important dete rminant of support judgme nts. diffe re nces betwe e n patie nts and controls were only part of the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction in this study. None the less. The pre se nt study also found that the diffe re nce s in the support judgm e nts betwe en patie nts and controls followe d the patte rn of the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction rathe r than the Pe rceiver e ffe ct.

This is re¯ e cted in our obse rvation that the inte rnal consiste ncy e stimate s for support ratings of targe ts were lowe r for depressed patie nts than for controls. de pre sse d people may be reluctant to spe ak to othe rs. be cause this lack of cohesive ness was not obse rve d in re sponse s to a me asure of perceive d support from e stablishe d relationships. dif® culty making support judgme nts could have ne gative in¯ uences on social inte raction. A nothe r possibility is that patie nts may have dif® culty making initial social judgme nts. 1993) . Furthe rmore . but not with ite ms re¯ ecting acce ptance . O ne possibility is that de pre sse d patie nts have more dif® culty e ngaging in effortful vs. A ccording to this e xplanation. the vide otape d supportive conve rsations.Social Sup po rt Cognition in De pre ssion 529 example . howe ve r.. a ne w job) . Furthe rmore . automatic cognitive proce ssing ( Har zquez. V a should do le ss well at any task that involve d e ffortful proce ssing (e . may have much greate r dif® culty identifying supportive othe rs. Se cond.. Patie nt B may distinguish be twee n Targe ts C and D with ite ms that re ¯ e ct good advice . De pre sse d patie nts may also have le ss well-organize d conce pts of supportive ness than do controls. Patie nt A may draw distinctions be twee n Targe ts A and B only with ite ms that re ¯ e ct acce ptance . and me mory for. Such a patte rn would produce a large Pe rceiver 3 Supporte r 3 Ite m inte raction. Whe re as nonde pressed people may be able to quickly and e asily de cide who will be supportive . A lloy. indicating that the ite ms on the support scale s were not as cohe sive for patie nts. B e cause of a greate r dif® culty in making support judgme nts. Howe ve r. In ge ne ralizability de signs of this kind. de pre ssive s’ judgme nts may be shroude d in doubt and unce rtainty. controls is that patie nts’ support judgm ents have more random e rror than do those of controls. The personal conce pt of supportive ne ss may be more fuzzy for depre sse d patie nts. A se cond explanation for the large r Pe rceiver 3 Supporte r 3 Item inte raction for patie nts vs. & Dykman. and not with ite ms that re ¯ ect good advice . this fuzzy conce pt hypothe sis would only apply to initial support judgme nts. Nonde pre sse d pe ople may be able to disce rn quickly who will be a source of support and who will not. the y may incorre ctly identify who will be supportive and have disappointin g social inte ractions with unsympathe tic othe rs. patie nts did not have more dif® cultie s making judgme nts about the ir own de pre ssive symptom s or about the supportive ne ss of pe ople in the ir own social ne tworks. We be lieve that this explanation is unlike ly be cause inte ractions involving ite ms have ge ne rally be e n small in all of our ge neralizability studie s. the n pe rsons who have trouble recognizing supportive othe rs may e xpe rie nce more negative emotion. ranging from 1% to 8% of the variance . In contrast. . patie nts tlage . eve n if the othe rs are pre se nt.g. If positive thought about social relations helps maintain emotional well-be ing. Howe ver. tasks that require attention and conscious aware ne ss). Patie nts’ gre ate r random ness in making judgm ents about the vide otape d supporte rs is dif® cult to e xplain by a ge ne ralize d de® cit in e ffortful proce ssing or in making social judgme nts. this inte raction is the appropriate inde x of random error. The re are seve ral pote ntial e xplanations for why depressive s might make support judgm e nts in a more random fashion. Conside r the situation in which both de pre sse d and nonde pre sse d people e nter a new social ne twork (e. this alte rnative has dif® culty explaining the obse rvation that patie nts and controls had e quivale nt score s on a measure of inte llige nce and on a me asure of atte ntion to.g. De pre sse d individuals.

1997) . traditional social support the ory has vie we d the main cause of low pe rceived support as the abse nce of obje ctively supportive people in the social e nvironm e nt (Cutrona & Russe ll.. 1990. Supporte rs. in light of the power of the Pe rceiver 3 Supporte r inte raction. value s (Lake y.530 Lakey. one supporte r may be se e n as cool and aloof by most pe rsons in a give n social network.. Studie s that allow for pe rceivers to in¯ ue nce the be haviors of supporte rs (studie s 1 and 2 of Lake y.. McCabe . and Sirl O ne limitation of the prese nt study is that it inve stigate d only cognitive processe s in the Pe rceiver 3 Supporte r inte raction. First. 1995) . Sarason e t al.. pe ople ’ s social adjustme nt is in¯ ue nce d by how well pe ople ® t within a give n social e nvironm e nt or network. Similarity be twe e n pe rceive rs and supporte rs re ¯ e cts the Perceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction because the characte ristics of Perceive r A that make s he r similar to Supporte r A also make s he r dissim ilar to Supporte r B . and personality (Lutz. B ecause the size of the Pe rceivers and Supporte rs e ffe cts are smalle r than the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction. 1986) . 1990. Thinking about pe rceived support as a Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction has implications for both the ory and inte rvention. it would sugge st that low support patie nts are mismatche d to their social e nvironm e nts. Lake y et al. it sugge sts that prior the ory has ove re mphasize d both the role of pe rceive rs and the role of supporte rs in contributing to the low leve ls of perceived support among de pre sse d patie nts. Dre w . We belie ve that some type of be havioral effe ct must be occurring. Lutz & Lake y. Conce ptualizing pe rceive d support as a Perceiver 3 Supporte r inte raction encourage s inve stigators and clinicians to think about social support in te rm of person ± environme nt ® t (Helle r & Monahan.. e t al. For example . focusing e xclusive ly on the role of pe rceive rs or provide rs is too narrow. Howe ve r. 1977) . If we thought of the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction in te rms of person ± environme nt ® t. the re are probably important behavioral proce sse s as we ll. 1996. 1990. Ross et al. What contribute s to this mismatch? Recent re se arch has indicate d that one de terminant of pe rceive r± supporte r matching is similarity in attitude s. McCabe . and the current study) . Howeve r. most social support inte rve ntions have targe te d the Supporte rs e ffect by atte mpting to provide obje ctive ly supportive . 1992) . life e xpe rience s (Suitor e t al. 1996) . Conve rse ly. inte rve ntions pe rhaps should focus on proce sse s associate d with the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction. Coyne (1976) had e mphasize d de pre sse d pe ople ’ s own noxious social behavior in their social isolation. Howe ve r. share d expe rie nce betwe e n a perceive r and supporte r may le ad the supporte r to act diffe rently toward that perceive r than to othe rs. Thoits. we had pre viously argue d that low perceived support re presente d cognitive biase s on the part of pe rceivers (Lake y & Cassady. 1997. Thus. and the Perceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction also have implication s for inte rve ntion. Similarly. e t al.. A ccording to this view. For e xample . are depre ssive s with low pe rceive d support obje ctive ly less similar than othe rs in their social e nvironm e nts? Do patie nts behave in ways that fail to take advantage of the similarity that doe s exist? A re the re othe r social environme nts in which the y might fare be tte r? The re lative size s of the e ffe cts for Pe rceive rs. 1996) produce much large r effe cts for the Pe rceiver 3 Supporte r inte raction than do studie s that do not pe rmit this type of in¯ ue nce (study 3 of Lake y. Howe ve r. O ne be havioral mechanism may be that certain perceive rs may be have in such a way that they e licit diffe re nt behaviors from a give n supporte r than do othe r pe rceivers.

Children’ s pe rce ptions of social support: Construct validity and relation with attachme nt.. the n inte rve ntions must match perceive rs and supporte rs on similarity. & E mery. and models. Patie nts can be matched with similar the rapists to promote a supportive the rape utic re lationship. this is not surprising if the Pe rceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction is as pote nt as it appe ars. & B arnett. 413-445. For example . 104. Be ck.. & Gotlib. M. Shaw. and conseque nce s. inte rve ntions that focus only on Pe rceiver effe cts by changing the pe rsonal characte ristics of low-suppor t pe rsons will also have only limite d succe ss ( e.. I. 14. D. H.Social Sup po rt Cognition in De pre ssion 531 persons or actions to low pe rceive d support pe rsons. concomitants. . T. Rush. (in pre ss). 1997. The re se arch de scribe d in this article re pre se nts a ® rst ste p in atte mpting to answe r the ® rst que stion. and (2) deve loping me chanism s for matching individuals with like ly supportive pe ople and environme nts. & B e rman. deve loping such inte rve ntions like ly will involve two ste ps: (1) ide ntifying the type s of pe rsons and environme nts that are supportive for spe ci® c individuals.. J... A . Lutz. B rand. Ross et al. New York: Guilford. (1986) . A .. B . Detroit. 1996. New inte rve ntions are necessary that targe t proce sse s associate d with the Perceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction. What will be se e n as supportive by some persons will be se e n as obnoxious by othe rs. R. 1996) .. Cogniti ve th erap y o f d ep ression.g. B ecause research to ide ntify the se proce sse s is only just beginning. R E FE R E NCES Anan. G. skills can be taught to he lp patie nts ide ntify and gain e ntry to social se ttings populate d with similar othe rs. A CK NOWLE D G ME NTS The authors thank two anonym ous re vie wers for helpful comme nts on an earlie r version of this manuscript and the patie nts and staff of A urora Young A dult Hospital. 1995) . We e xpe ct that the Perceive r 3 Supporte r inte raction re sults from a wide range of diffe re nt me chanism s involving both cognitive and behavioral proce sse s. A . De velo pm ental Psycholo gy. If similarity is con® rme d as an important dete rminant of supportive ne ss. the y have only rarely re sulte d in improve d pe rceive d support (Lake y & Lutz. Interve ntions mode led after dating se rvice s could he lp similar ye t unmatche d persons ® nd e ach othe r.. Lutz & Lake y. 97-126. Jr. Barne tt. Suitor e t al. 1997. V ie wing perceive d support as an inte raction sugge sts that there is little in the way of obje ctive ly supportive pe rsons or actions. Am erican Journ al of Co mm u nity Psych ology. With hindsight. Michigan. Howeve r. Similarly. Psych olo gical B u lletin. although the results sugge ste d that identifying who will be supportive may be more dif® cult for de pre sse d patie nts than for controls. measure s. P. A lthough the se inte rve ntions have occasionally produce d change s in mental he alth. Barrera. it is dif® cult to spe culate about what form the se ne w inte rve ntions might take . Psychosocial functioning and depression: Distinguishing among ante ce de nts. (1988) . F. Distinctions betwe e n social support concepts. Lake y. O the r recent work indicate s that similarity betwe en pe rceive rs and supporte rs contribute s to the pe rceived supportive ne ss of dyads (Lake y. (1979) . 1995) . M.

& Russe ll. In E . Lake y B . A utomatic and e ffortful proce ssing in de pre ssion. N. B . Nanda. S. B . Pie rce. T. L. (1976) . Home wood IL: Dorse y. E . E . H. A rchi ves o f G en eral Psychiatry. S. C. In B . J. Dunke l-Schetter. W ayne State University. (1988) . New York: Plenum. S. R. J. 113. & Dre w. 336-346. & G. Jou rnal o f Person ality an d So cial Psycho logy. IL.. Brand. A lloy. The depen dability of b eha vioral measurem en ts: th eory of generaliz ability for sco res and pro ® les.). S. (1996) . E . M. C. Hamme n.. So cial sup port: A n in teractio nal view (pp. R. S. Higgins & A . R. C. G. Endler. D. (1997) . C. (1968) . Unpublishe d doctoral dissertation. (1993) . J. . C. Endicott. (1990) . (1972) . & Garbin. Incre asing social support: Pre ve ntive and therapeutic interventions. L. Jo urnal o f Social and Clinical Psycho logy.. Home wood. & B e rman. (1992) . (1994) . (1985) . M. Sarason (E ds. S. & Hoberman . 283-304. & Hunt. A m erican Jo urnal o f Com m unity Psycho logy. 408-444) . (1978) . & B e nnett. J.. Ne w York: Wiley. B . 247-278. & Dre w. (1990) . 15. Cohen. social support. B eckham & W . 77-100. & B e ntley. Lutz. & Lutz. G. Social sup port: A n interaction al view (pp. Psych olo gy and com mu nity ch an ge. Sarason (E ds.. In G. 98. Lakey. 267-296) . Ge ne ralizability of contributions from sources of variance in the S-R inventories of anxiousness. 117-136. Differe ntiating the cognitive and be havioral aspects of social support. A . W. 85. Lakey. P. R.. E . R. Psycho logical aspects of depressio n : Tow ard a cogniti ve-in terperso nal in tegration . C. Perrotta. In E . R. UK: W iley. C. T..). Fisicaro. Ne w York: Wiley.. 337-343. (E ds. 336-348. L.. Pie rce (E ds. 319-366) . Sources of be havioral variance as me asure d by the S-R inventory of anxiousness. C. 11. Pie rce (E ds. Ne w Haven: A uthor. In B . A . Le be r (E ds. 33. S. G... Sarason & B . Cronbach. A... S. and the buffering hypothesis Psycho logical B ulletin. (1985) . R. H. & G. & Dre w. New York: Ple num. Psych ological Bu lletin. Higgins. G. B utler. R. Hartlage . (1995) .. & Monahan. 70. IL: Dorse y Press. L. B . C.. S. G. Type of social support and spe ci® c stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching. (1992) . J. A social-cognitive perspe ctive of social support.). Chicago. The Ne therlands: Martinus Nijhoff. B .. In I. Ne w York: Guilford. K. B . 1-24. T. P. assessm en t an d research (pp. Pre sented at the symposium. Hollingshead. Sarason. & Have n. chair) . He ller. research. G. Lakey. and Sirl Be ck. L. R. (1996) .. Lakey. & Hanche r-Kvam. E . In di vidu al differen ces in th e co gn itive rep resen tation of so cial sup port.532 Lakey. Cognitive. Journ al of So cial an d Clinical Psycho logy. R. 42-47. Moineau. Knowledge activation: A cce ssibility. psychoe ducational approach to increase pe rceived support. Lutz. Chichester. R. B . Cohen. 1270-1280. W. Psycho logical B ulletin. N.. Personal and environmental dete rminants of social support: Three ge ne ralizability studies. 107-140) . (1997) . Stee r. The Hague ... Me asuring the functional compone nts of social support. & Rajaratnam. N.. K. J. I. Sarason. & Hunt. (1990) . J. Lakey. Journ al of Person ality an d Social Psycho logy.). Jou rnal o f Perso nality A ssessm ent. Sarason.). (pp.. Me rme lstein. J. Kamarck. I.. L. C. (1966) . Pierce e t al. Social p sycho logy: Han dbo ok of basic prin ciples. Gotlib... 186-193. Journ al o f A bn orm al Psych olo gy. Ne w York: Guilford Pre ss. & Spitzer.. & Wills. Lakey. Glese r. Stress. A merican So ciolo gy Re view .. 23. 73-94) . & Lakey.. Pe rce ived social support from family and friends: Me asuremen t across disparate sample s. T. & Dykman. (1988) . (1985) . So urceb oo k o f social su ppo rt and person ality (pp. B . M. Ke nny. Han dbo ok o f d epression : Treatm ent. Endler. A n idiograp h ic ap pro ach to the person 3 en viro nm en t in teractio n in su ppo rt ju dgm en ts. (1996) . J. C. 390-400.. H.). R.. Interaction and adaptation: Intimacy as a critical variable . Me asures of psychological processe s in de pre ssion. Dre w . T.. (1996) . 52. J. Ne w York: Wiley. McCabe. (1975). (1969) . Lyons.. T. ``Explaining Perceptions of Social Support: De ve lopmental. 35. B . Va  zquez. B . M. J. and E nvironme ntal Factors’ ’ (K. Jo urnal o f Person ality. Social Sup po rt: Theo ry. B . & Krantz. 37.. Fo ur factor index of so cial status. Clinical Psycho logy Review. Psychometric prope rties of the B e ck De pre ssion Inventory: Twe nty-® ve ye ars of e valuation. Kaniasty. S. In G. & Cassady. Making social support judgme nts: The role of pe rceived similarity and conscie ntiousness. S. Lowe nthal. Cognitive processe s in pe rce ived social support... and ap plicatio ns (pp. F. 59. 65. 837-844. D. Kruglanski (E ds. Ross. Depression and the re sponse of others. (1997) . Handb oo k o f social su pp ort and the fam ily. (1977) . Coyne . B . 310-357. A diagnostic intervie w: The sche dule for affe ctive disorders and schizophre nia. Sarason. A me rican Psychological Association annual conve ntion. A preve ntive. & Hammen.). 8. K. & I. Sarason. Pe rce ived social support and individual differences in the interpretation and recall of supportive behaviors. applicability and salie nce .. Cutrona. 435-466) . J. I. In terperson al perception : A so cial relatio ns analysis. C.

S. E .. M. 1385-1402. When expe rie nce counts: The effe cts of expe rie ntial and structural similarity on patte rns of support and interpersonal stress. T... (1989) . So urceb oo k of so cial sup po rt an d person ality (pp. Sarason.. Psych olo gical B u lletin. J. 141-165) . B . B . & B urge. D. R. 50. G. E . Lakey. N.. Phifer. Am erican Journ al of Co mm un ity Psych ology. G. K. & Wye r. Psych olo gical Re view . Jo urnal of Co nsultin g Psycho logy. & MacLeod. R. Sarason. Procidano. & Moos. B . Mass: A ddison-Wesle y. Srull. Social support: The se nse of acce ptance and the role of relationships. Sarason. (1973) . I.. 66. Ne w York: Wiley. Cronkite. Pie rce. Jou rnal o f A bn orm al Psycho logy. T. 3-24 . Williams. 73. (1992). I. R. C.Social Sup po rt Cognition in De pre ssion 533 Mankowski. R. 52. Social sup po rt: A n in teractio nal view (pp... A . & Pie rce . N. R. social resource s. 58-83. Me asure s of perceive d social support from friends and family: Thre e validation studies. Waltz. Sarason. R. Psychotherapy for the tre atment of depression: A compre he nsive re view of controlled outcome re search. G. In B . M. I. Lake y. 98. G. W. R.. and re lational aspe cts. G. 154. B . & Kee ton. R. R. (1991) . S. (1995) .. L. E tiological factors in the onse t of de pre ssive symptoms in older adults.). S. C. 120. R. Pie rce.. Sarason (E ds. The relationship be tween social support and physiological processe s: A re view with emphasis on unde rlying me chanisms and implications for health. Pie rce (Eds. (1986) . Ne wbury Park: Sage. J. R. Psycho logical B ulletin. Pie rce . 813-832. 119.. Person me mory and judgme nt. 468-477. A . J. 19-48) . E .. J. S. I. R. Shavelson. The e motional Stroop task and psychopathology. K. In G. T.). S. (1987). R. (1997) .. Interrelationships among social support me asure s: The ore tical and practical implications. Pillemer. Wiggins. B . Hammen.. Jou rnal o f Perso nality an d So cial Psych olo gy. (1986) .. Pie rce .). 96. G. Mathe ws. 30-49. (1997) . Person ality and predictio n : Princip les o f person ality assessm en t. K. B .. Shearin. Jou rn al o f Person ality and So cial Psycho lo gy. I. (1990) . G. G.. Pie rce . P. K. Ch ild D e velop men t. family. 11. Sarason. 273-287.. J. and pee rs in school-age children: Links with social compe tence and sociome tric status. G. Sarason.. Swindle. Sarason. R. origins. Suitor.. J. Social support as an individual difference variable: Its stability. G. So cial Forces. and the 4-ye ar course of unipolar de pre ssion. 108.. R.. (1986) . B . (1991). (1996) . G. & Lydon. Jou rnal o f Person ality and So cial Psych olo gy. E . (1996) .. 63. San Diego: A uthor. In B . & Murre ll. R. A . G.. Cacioppo. Sarason. & Sarason. & Neime ye r. J. S. Sarason and B . B . & Poppe. N. B aldwin. (1983) . New York: W iley. I. Cognitive re pre sentations of se lf. (1990) . I. I. Sarason. Sarason. In G. 95. L. G. Jou rn al of Ab no rm al Psych ology. J. 60. Pie rce (E ds. (1995). A relational sche ma approach to social support.. Robinson. R. Social support as coping assistance . Sourcebo ok o f social sup po rt an d p erso nality (pp. R. Jr.. M. Re ading. & Heller. Sarason. Be rman. G. B . C. New York: Plenum. She arin. & G. N. R. & Keicolt-Glase r. 282-291. (1990) . R. I. R. & Shearin. (1990) . Ge ne ral and speci® c support expe ctations and stress as predictors of pe rce ived supportivene ss: A n expe rimental study. Psycholo gical B ulletin. J. Pierce. R. A ssessm ent of ch ildren (3rd ed. 488-531. Life stre ssors.. Cognitive cause s and conseque nces of pe rce ived social support. Uchino. Sattler.. G. F. & We bb. 9-25) . & Sarason. Traditional views of social support and their impact on asse ssme nt. J. H. Thoits. R. G. So cial sup po rt: An in teractio nal view (pp.. Sarason. 416-424. R. G en eraliz ability theory: A p rim er.. Jou rnal of Perso nality and So cial Psycho logy.. (1989) . 1-24. R. & G.. Jr. J. 297-307. & Wye r.). Perce ive d social support and working mode ls of self and actual others.). A . I. Sarason & B . Sarason. Rudolph. D. Pie rce . M. 1573-1588. 97-128) . coping. Sarason (E ds. N. E . M. Ne w York: Plenum. R. K. J. 845-855.. & Sarason..