The Buffering Effect of Social Support Subsequent to an Important Life Event

Author(s): Nan Lin, Mary W. Woelfel and Stephen C. Light

Source: Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Sep., 1985), pp. 247-263
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2136756
Accessed: 01-11-2015 02:01 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and American Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Health and Social Behavior.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Buffering
EffectofSocial SupportSubsequent
to an Important
LifeEvent*
NAN LIN
MARY W. WOELFEL
STEPHEN C. LIGHT
State Universityof New York,Albany

of Healthand Social Behavior1985,Vol. 26 (September):247-263

Journal

Thisstudyexaminedthe buffering effectof social supportby identifyingthemostimportantlife

eventexperiencedby an individualand by tracingthe characteristicsof theperson who helped
duringandlor afterthe event. Using the social resources theory, 'e operationalized social
supportin termsof thestrengthofsocial ties and homophilyof characteristicsbetweenego and
the helper. Hypotheses were constructed to test whetherone life event considered most
importantand undesirableby the individualcould adequately representthe stressors-illness
relationship.We found that individualsshowed an increased level of depressivesymptomsif
theyexperienceda mostimportantand undesirableevent,butthattheeffectwas reduced when
help came from strong(ratherthan weak) ties. For those *thohad just experiencedmarital
disruption(recentlyseparated or widowed),however,help, regardlessof its source, was not as
valuable. Similaritiesin age and education betweenrespomidemit and helperloweredthemarried
respondents'depressivesymptoms,amidsimilarityof occupatiomialstatus aIffectedthe unnmar-
ried in the same way. We discussed the implicationsof' these findingsfor definingamid
operationalizingsocial supportfor the studyof bufferimigeffects(imid
thesignificamce
ofm/alirital
disengagementon the supportsystem.

THE PROBLEM Althoughsomeinvestigations failedto support

thehypothesis (Pinneau,1975;Andrewset al.,
Since the mid-1970swhen social support 1978;Lin et al., 1979;Hendersonet al., 1980;
beganto be examinedin the contextof the Williamset al., 1981),otherstudiesconfirmed
psychosocial dynamics ofphysicaland mental it (Caplan,1972;Nuckollset al., 1972;Brown
healthandwas conceptually integratedintothe et al., 1975;Eaton, 1978;Gore, 1978;House
stressor-illness model (Cassell, 1974; Cobb, andWells,1978;Larroccoet al., 1980;Turner,
1976;Kaplanet al., 1977;Dean and Lin, 1977; 1981).
Henderson,1977),mucheffort has been de- Even thoughtheevidenceforthebuffering
votedto examining theindependent as wellas effectof social supportis equivocal,theidea
thebuffering effectsof social support.Recent that social supportmay serve as a buffer
reviewstendto showthatsocialsupport exerts againstthe potentially harmful effectof life
a directeffecton a numberof mentalhealth events remainstheoretically intriguing and
measures,butresearchexamining thebuffer- practically This paperrepresents
inviting. an
inghypothesis has yieldedinconsistent results. attemptto resolvesomeofthetheoretical and
empiricalissuesinvolved.
* Directall correspondence Threeissuescharacterize past workon the
to: Nan Lin, Depart-
mentof Sociology, State Universityof New York,
bufferinghypothesis. The firstconcernsthe
Albany, NY 12222. conceptualization of social support,but in
A previous version of the paper was read at the many instancesthe termis left undefined.
National Conference on Social Stress Research, Those researchers attempting to definethe
Universityof New Hampshire,October 11-12, 1982. conceptgenerallyuse eithera synthetic ap-
The research is supported by grantsfromthe Na-
tional Instituteof Mental Health (#MH30301 and proach,in which various elements of the con-
#MH36962).The paperbenefittedfromcommentsof ceptare identified (e.g., Cobb'sconceptualiza-
threeanonymousJHSB reviewers. tionconsiderssupportas information of vari-

247

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
248 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

ous types,1976;House's enumeration of who past six months,and depressivesymptoms in

gives what to whomregarding whichprob- the last week). However,whetherthe social
lems, 1981;Lin et al.'s instrumental and ex- supportmeasuredis indeeddue to a reactive
pressivesupport,1981)or an explanatory ap- processafteroneormoresignificant lifeevents
proach,(e.g., Brownet al.'s conception ofthe is generallyuncertain. Dohrenwend (1982),for
significance of intimates, 1975;Weiss's focus example,has calledfordatathatclearlylinka
on attachment, 1969; Pearlinand Schooler's lifeeventto mobilizedsocial support.
analysisofcopingfunctions, 1978).No doubt, We used a recentlydevelopedtheoretical
each of thesedefinitions taps significantcom- framework in one's socialnetwork, thesocial
ponentsof theconceptof social support,but resourcestheory,whichlinkssocial actions
thelackof an integrated theoryhas prevented withresourcesembeddedin one's social net-
thestandardization ofmeasurements andcom- work,to anchortheconceptof social support
parability of empiricalevidence. and itsindicators.Utilizing measuresof social
A secondissue concernstheunderstandingsupportderivedfromthe theoreticalframe-
of the buffering process. Many researchers work,we examineda datasetwhichtracesthe
equate "buffering effects"with"interaction socialsupportactivities triggeredbya particu-
effects. For example,the measuresof life larlifeeventconsideredimportant to theindi-
eventsare multiplied by thoseforsocial sup- vidual. The data allowed us to determine
portto testtheirjointinteractive contributionwhether differentsocialsupportactivities sub-
to theexplanation of thedependentvariable. sequentto an important lifeeventmakea dif-
However,thecausal meaning of sucha multi- ferencein depressivesymptomatology, as the
plicativetermis problematic. It couldindicate buffering hypothesis predicts.In essence,we
eitherthatstrongsupportcountersa previous argueherethatmentalhealthis a statemost
stressful
lifeevent-thebuffering effect-orthat successfullyprotectedby interactions with
a stressful
lifeeventnegatively offsetsa strong strongratherthanweaktiesand byhomophil-
priorsocial supportsystem.- Even thoughthe ous (sharing similarcharacteristics)rather than
lattermaybe moredifficult tojustifytheoreti- heterophilous(dissimilarin characteristics)
cally,itcannotbe ruledoutunlessa cleartem- ties.Itfollowstherefore thatoncean important
poralorcausalsequencebetweenthestressors lifeeventis experienced, thosereceiving help
and social supporthas been establisheddis- fromstrongand homophilous ties shouldex-
provingit (Lin and Ensel, 1981; Clearyand hibit lower levels of depressive symp-
Kessler,1982).As fortheformer, mostpanel tomatology thanthosewho do not.
studiesin whichtemporalsequenceof vari-
ables couldbe identified have so farfailedto
confirm anybuffering effect(Henderson,1981; The TheoreticalFramework
Pearlin et al., 1981; Shaeferet al., 1981;
Williams et al., 1981; Aneshensel and Social resourcestheoryis action-oriented in
Freirichs,1982;Lin and Dean, 1984).'As will thatit viewsthesuccessof different kindsof
be arguedlaterin the paper,interaction (the actionas dependentuponthetypesof social
multiplicative or productterm)is onlyone of resourcesused(Lin, 1982and 1983).Basically,
threeprevailing interpretations ofthebufferingthe theoryassertsthatto negotiateany suc-
hypothesis.Evaluationof the buffering hy- cessfulaction,thepurposeof theactionmust
pothesisis important fromotherinterpretativebe consideredalongwiththe typesof social
perspectives. resourcesused. Most actionsare undertaken
A thirdissue concernsalternative ways of foreitherinstrumental orexpressivepurposes,
gathering datato testthebuffering hypothesis. andtheresourcesnecessaryforsuccessful res-
To date,moststudiesincorporate measuresof olutionoftheactionvary,depending uponthe
lifeevents,socialsupport, andmentalhealthin purposeof the action. Instrumental actions
a questionnaire and demonstrate theircausal referto interactions designedforthepurpose
linkageby statisticalassociations.Some in- ofachieving somespecificgoal,e.g., finding a
vestigators haveattempted tobuildintemporal job, buyinga house,or borrowing money.Ex-
elementsin themeasures(e.g., lifeeventsin pressiveactionsareundertaken forthesakeof
thepast twelvemonths,social supportin the theinteraction itself,suchas sharingan emo-

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUFFERING EFFECT OF SOCIAL SUPPORT 249

tionalproblemor exchanging personallifeex- thenitmakessenseto suggest thatpsychologi-

periences. cal problemsare likelyto be reducedthrough
The successofeithertypeofactiondepends strongand homophilous ties. In contrast,ac-
uponaccess to and use of social resources- cess to weakandheterophilous tiesshouldnot
resourcesembeddedin theindividual's social providesuchbenefit.
network.For successfulinstrumental actions, Depressivesymptoms, thevariableof con-
use of numerous andwidelydiversesocialre- cernhere,areassumedtobe a manifestation of
sourcesis desirable.Accessto resourcesother psychologicalproblems,which may result
thanone'sownis morelikelytooccurthrough fromeitherunresolvedexpressiveproblems,
weak ratherthan strongties (Granovetter, e.g., interpersonal coinflict, or unresolvedin-
1973,1974and 1982)and heterophilous rather strumental problems, e.g., unemployment. Re-
than homophilousties. For successfulex- gardlessof theirorigin,we arguethatthese
pressiveaction,on theotherhand,the most symptomatic manifestations may be amelior-
effective relationships are thosecharacterized atedbestthrough interaction withotherswho
bycaring,trust, intimacy, andempathy. These sharesimilarcharacteristics and lifestyles and
kindsof relationships are most likelyto be whoareabletounderstand andempathize with
providedby strongratherthanweak tiesand theproblemsinvolved.
homophilous ratherthanheterophilous ties. Although partofthisformulation followsdi-
The relationships hypothesized above flow rectlyfromHomans'theoryaboutinteraction
in partfromthefrequent observation thatthe and sentiment, two modifications have been
frequency andintensity ofsocialinteractions is made. First,social resourcestheorypredicts
associatedwith similarity of social charac- thattherelationship betweeninteraction and
teristicsand psychologicalmakeup, i.e., sentiment holdsonlyin thecase ofexpressive
peopletendto seekoutotherslikethemselves. action.Secondly,itpredicts jointeffects onthe
Homans(1950),forexample,pointedout the actionfrombothstrength oftiesanddegreeof
significant consequencesof the relationship homophily of ties (sharedcharacteristics and
betweensentiment andinteraction. Lazarsfeld lifestyles).
Thus, social resourcestheoryim-
andMerton(1964)havecalledtherelationship plies an important predictionregardingthe
the "homophilyprinciple,"and Laumann processofmaintaining mentalhealth,namely,
(1966)namedit the"like-me"hypothesis. In access to and use of strong and more
theseinteraction situations, the relationshipshomophilous tiespromotethereduction ofde-
are reciprocalin nature.Personsof similar pression.
characteristics,attitudes, andlifestyles tendto
congregatein similarresidential, social, and
workenvironments, all of whichpromotein-
teractionand association(Blau, 1977). Simi- The Operational Definitionof Social Support
larly,thefrequency and intensity of interac-
tionsincreasesimilarattitudes and lifestyles. Severalramifications ofthistheoretical pro-
The homophily relationship is thusthefunda- posal mustnow be discussed.Note thatthis
mentalingredient in the formation of social theorydoes not requirethe use of the term
circlesand networks.Granovetter (1973) de- "social support,"butwe maintain thatthede-
scribed this phenomenonin termsof the gree of access to and use of strong and
strength of socialties.He suggeststhatstrong homophilousties are indicatorsof social sup-
ties play significant roles in the individual's port. This operationaldefinition is consistent
sociopsychological activities,whereas weak withthemajorconceptualcontentions in the
ties are effective in linkingthe individualto literature, and itcan serveto unifyourunder-
othersocial circlesor networks,whichthe standing ofsocialsupportas a concept.Pearlin
strongties are less able to provide.If this and associates(1981,p. 340) have suggested
homophily principleis true-i.e., ifwe tendto that"beingembeddedina network is onlythe
interactwith otherslike ourselves and if firststeptowardhavingaccess to support;the
throughincreased interaction,we become finalstepdependson thequalityof therela-
moreandmoresimilar andtherefore capableof tionsone is able to findwithinthe network.
empathizing withone another'sproblems- The qualitiesthatseemtobe especiallycritical

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
250 JOURNALOF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

involvetheexchangeof intimate communica- use ofonlyweakand heterophilous ties,does

tionsandthepresenceofsolidarity andtrust." notpreventdeclinein mentalhealth.
Theythengo on to equatesocialsupportwith
"themobilization anduse of socialresources"
(p. 341). Henderson'sconceptualandresearch
work(1981)emphasizesthesignificance ofthe Prerequisitesand Elements of
relativeadequacyofclose as wellas ofdiffuse the BufferingModel
Brownetal. (1975)singled
relationships. outthe
lackofan intimate confiding relationshipwitha Causal inferences fromsocial surveydata
wife/husband or a girl/boyfriend as the most mustbe madewithcaution.Each researchde-
powerfulnegative"mediator"between ad- sign,including experimental ones, imposesa
verse eventsand psychiatric disturbance. In set of assumptions and biases on any causal
Cobb's formulation (1976), social supportis inference. Withrespectto thebuffering issue,
information thatconveyscareandlove,esteem further complications arisebecauseno consen-
and mutualobligation.Similarly, Kahn (1979) sus as to what constitutes evidencefor the
viewed social support as interpersonal buffering effecthasbeenreached.We willcon-
transactions, includingone or moreof three siderthreepossibleinterpretations, proposea
factors:positiveaffect,affirmation, and aid. setofelementsthatmustbe presenttotestthe
Cassel (1976) suggestedthatthe strength of buffering models,anddiscussa possibledesign
social supportis providedin the primary thatincorporates theseelements.
groupsof mostimportance to theindividuals. In thenarrowest interpretation andprobably
Also, alongthesamelines,Kaplan (1975)de- themostpopular,buffering is equatedwithin-
finedsocial supportas a person'sbasic needs teraction.Social supportis said to reduce
(approval,esteem,succor,etc.) beingmetby mentalhealthproblems onlyinthepresenceof
the presenceof psychologicalsupportfrom stressors(i.e., important lifeevents).In this
others.In a similarvein,Dean and model,social supportshouldnot make any
significant
Lin (1977:407)singledout the significance of difference ifimportant lifeeventsare absent,
expressiverelationswithothers. butitis seentoexertan effect onlyinconjunc-
All of these important previouseffortsat tionwithan adversecondition.The effectis
conceptualizing socialsupport havefocusedon demonstrated by a negativeassociationbe-
resourcesprovidedby strong ties,eitheras an tweena productterm(i.e., productof a life
independent contributor to a person'swell- eventsmeasure[LE] anda socialsupport mea-
beingor as a bufferagainstadverseeffects. sure [SS] or of theirdeviationscores)and a
The theoryproposedhere combinesthe di- mentalhealthmeasure.
verseelements ofsocialsupport withina larger A second interpretation arguesthatsocial
theoreticalperspective andmakespossiblethe supportbuffers eitherthrough its interaction
testingof propositions. Of course,otherdi- withlife events,or whenit counteractslife
mensionsand indicatorsof social support eventsdirectly. In thecounteracting situation,
exist.Nevertheless, we contendthataccess to socialsupport becomesmobilizedas a resultof
and use of strength and homophily of tiesare theoccurrence ofan adversecondition (creat-
twoconceptually meaningful indicators. Note inga positiveassociationbetweenlifeevents
that these indicatorsare not necessarily and social support).Lin and his associates
dichotomous (thepresenceor absence)-they (1979) and Wheaton(1983) seem to espouse
maybe continuous (degreesofaccess anduse) this interpretation, whichproposesthatthe
in nature. buffering effectis presenteither:(1) as an
We nowaddressthebuffering hypothesis. A interactive effectwhentheinteraction between
primary assumption hereis thatan individual's stressorsand social supportis sign-ificant; or
stateof mentalhealthundergoes deterioration(2) as a counteractive effectwhenstressors and
whena lifeeventperceivedto be important is social support are positively associated
experienced. We predict thataccessto anduse (LE-i>SS), in whicheach of the two vari-
of strongand homophilous tiessubsequentto ables also directlyaffectsmental health.
thelifeeventalleviatesuchdeterioration. On Statistically, buffering is saidto haveoccurred
theotherhand,theabsenceofsocialtiesorthe ifthetotaleffectof stressors on mentalprob-

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUFFERING EFFECT OF SOCIAL SUPPORT 251

lemsis reducedin thepresenceof social sup- amongrepeatedmeasuresof the same vari-

port. ables and by measurement errors.Several
Stilla thirdinterpretation,and themostlib- studieshavebeenundertaken to resolvethese
eralone,statesthatifthedirecteffect ofstres- problems byusingchangescoresor regression
sorson mentalhealthproblems variesbecause residualscoresas dependent variables(Linand
of variation in socialsupport, thensocial sup- Dean, 1984;Lin, 1984;Lin and Wang,1985).
portservesas a buffer. Thisinterpretationsees The seconddesign,thatadoptedhere,traces
buffering as a globalterm,describing any in- an individual's experienceofa mostimportant
terveningeffectof social supportbetween lifeeventand ascertainstheparticular person
stressors andmentalhealth.Kessler(1983)and the individual interacts with,duringand sub-
Lin and Dean (1984) seem to preferthisin- sequentto the event.The advantageof this
terpretation. It encompasses:(1) the interac- approachis theclear linkagebetweena par-
tioneffect; (2) thecounteractive effect;and(3) ticularevent and the natureof the social
the mediating effectwhenthe stressorsand relationshipevoked (Dohrenwend, 1982).
social supportare negatively relatedand each Therefore, a comparison can be madebetween
exertsa directeffect on mentalhealth.A more thedepressivesymptoms ofthosewhoexperi-
detaileddiscussionof these models can be encedtheimportant lifeeventwiththosewho
foundin Lin (1984). did not.Then,focusingon whether theevent
We adopted here the last interpretation:experiencedwas desirableor not,identifica-
Buffering occurswhenthedirectrelationship tion of the exact typeof social relationship
betweenstressorsand illnessvariesas social evokedandtheextenttowhichsucha relation-
supportvaries. Specifically, we demonstrate shipameliorates theeffect oftheeventon de-
the buffering effectby way of a mediating pressivesymptoms is possible.2
model that shows: (1) stressorsrelatedto
mentalhealth;and (2) reductionin thisre-
lationship in situationswherehelpis provided Design and Hypotheses
by strongand/orhomophilous ties.
A causal demonstration of thebuffering ef- Thetheory outlinedinthediscussionledtoa
fectfurther requiresthefollowing designcon- researchdesignin whichthe data were col-
ditions:For each case, (1) the designmust lectedinthefollowing sequence:Each individ-
identify thepresenceor absenceofa setoflife ual respondentwas asked to identifylife
events(or a lifeeventconsideredmostimpor- eventsexperiencedin the last six months.
tant),followedby(2) socialsupportduring and Fromthislist,each respondent was askedto
subsequentto theevents,and (3) an indicator selectone eventthatshe/heconsideredmost
of mentalhealth.Conditions(1) and (3) are important. Then a series of questionswas
necessaryto demonstrate thatpoorermental asked to determine whethershe/heinteracted
healthis associatedwiththepresenceofa set withanyoneconcerning the eventduringor
of lifeeventsor a singlemostimportant life afterit. If so, information regarding theirre-
event. Condition(2) is necessary to test lationship (strengthofthetieandhomophily of
whether social supportalleviatesthestressof characteristics) was requested.Finally,there-
theeventformentalhealth.Unlessthesethree spondent'spresentdepressivesymptoms (last
pieces of information are collectedin a clear week)wererequested.
time-order sequence,theroleofsocialsupport Further considerations ledtotheinclusion of
as an ameliorative agentbetweenstressors and severaladditionalvariablesin thedesign:
mentalhealthcannotbe properly assessed. (I) Desirability of an event: Previous re-
At least two researchstrategiesmightbe searchhas suggested thatthisis a criticalvari-
adoptedtomeettheseconditions, eachwithits able. Undesirable-events seemto exertgreater
virtuesand limitations. One designincreas- effecton mentalhealthmeasuresthando de-
inglyused is thepanelanalysis.Although this sirableevents(Myerset al., 1975;Gerstenet
designhas as itsadvantagea specificclear-cut al., 1974;Paykel,1974;Vinokurand Selzer,
timesequence,determining meaningful time 1975; Ross and Mirowsky,1979; Tausig,
lags is difficult, and estimations tend to be 1982).Thus, assessingthe desirability of the
complicatedby problemsof autocorrelationsimportant eventto theindividual is valuable.

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
252 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

(2) Most importantlifeevent: The basic re- Hypothesis3: Amongthose who experi-
searchdesignfocuseson the singlemostim- enceda mostimportant lifeevent,an undesira-
portantevent;it assumesthatthedepressive ble eventratherthana desirableone is posi-
impactofthiseventon thoseexperiencing itis tivelyassociatedwiththe depressivesymp-
similarto or greaterthanthe impactof the toms.Thishypothesis verifiestheeffect ofde-
totality
ofeventson thoserespondents notre- sirability
oftheeventas a conditional variable.
porting a singlemostimportant one. This as- Hypothesis4: Interaction withstrongties
sumption mustbe verified, forunlessthesingle duringand subsequentto themostimportant
mostimportant eventcan be shownto exert and undesirablelifeeventwill be associated
suchimpact,anyfurther information on social witha lowerlevel of depressivesymptoms.
interactions and social supportin conjunction Thishypothesis teststhebuffering effectofthe
withthiseventwouldnotbe worthpursuing. strength of socialties.
Hypothesis2 belowaddressesthisissue. Hypothesis5: Interaction withthosemore
Utilizingall ourvariables,we nowexaminea homophilous withthe respondent duringand
seriesof hypotheses(depictedin Figure1). subsequent to themostimportant andundesir-
Threeof thehypotheses (1, 2, and 3) testthe able lifeeventwillbe associatedwitha lower
effectsofalllifeevents,themostimportant life levelofdepressivesymptoms. Thishypothesis
event,and the desirability of the event;the examinesthebuffering effectofthehomophily
remaining hypotheses(4 and 5) examinethe of theties.
buffering effectof social support. Somenotesaboutmeasurement areinorder.
Hypothesis1: The meanlevelofdepressive Although thisdesignfocusesmainlyon a per-
symptomsis positivelyrelatedto the total ceived singlemostimportant lifeeventthat
numberof significant lifeevents.This initial occurredto the respondent in the priorsix-
hypothesis establishes theoverallimpactoflife monthperiodalongwiththesocialsupportre-
eventson depressivesymptoms. ceivedduringand aftertheevent,it also ex-
Hypothesis2: Amongthose experiencingaminesthe effectsof the totalof lifeevents
significantlifeevents,the meanlevel of de- summated ina score.3Thistechniqueallowsa
pressivesymptoms is higherforthoseexperi- comparisonbetweenthe effectof the total
encingan eventtheyconsidermostimportantnumber ofsignificantlifeeventson depressive
thanforthosenot experiencing such an im- symptoms and the effectof the singlemost
portantevent.The hypothesis establishesthe important lifeeventon thesymptoms. Unless
relativesignificance ofthemostimportant life evidenceshowsthatthe presenceof a most
event.In otherwords,it teststheassumption important lifeeventhas an impacton depres-
thattheimpactoflifeeventscan be bestrepre- siongreaterthanor equal to thetotalevents
sentedby thesinglemostimportant lifeevent score,we willnotexaminethebuffering effect.
experienced. Furthermore, sincerecentdiscussionand em-

FIGURE 1. Hypotheses(numbered)and PredictedOutcomes(in parentheses)

1. Experiencing Significant Life Events
YES NO

(High Depression) (Low Depression)

2. Experiencing a Most Important Life Event

Y.;/
(High Depression) (Low Depression)
3. The Most Important Life Event
Urndesirah)le

YES 0

(High Depression) (Low Depression)

4. and 5. Interactions with Strong
and/or Homophilous Ties

NO

(High Depression) (Low Depression)

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUFFERING EFFECT OF SOCIAL SUPPORT 253

pirical evidence have pointed to the im- tie. Thisclassification is consistent withcom-
portanceof thedegreeof desirability
of a life monusageintheliterature. The dimensions of
event as a qualifying variable,attentionis interactions weredetermined byusinga series
givento thisvariableas well. ofquestionson thefrequency of
and intensity
interactions as follows:(1) numberof years
known,(2) frequency ofcontactinthelastsix
THE STUDY, DATA, months, (3) frequency ofrespondent to
talking
AND MEASUREMENT this personabout his/herproblems,(4) fre-
quencyof this persontalkingabout his/her
A panelofadultmalesandfemales,aged 18 problems torespondent, (5) ease withwhichto
to 70, residingin the Albany-Troy-Sche-getincontactwiththeperson,(6) talking freely
nectady(SMSA) area of New York Statehas to theperson,(7) importance ofthepersonto
been studiedover a periodof 4 years; data therespondent (Kaplan,1975).We includedan
were gatheredin 1979, 1980,and 1982.The additionaldimensionto assess (8) how much
initialsurveyconsistedof 1,091respondents,the personhelpedduringthe mostimportant
and in thesecondsurvey,871 (80Wo) of them lifeevent.5Theseitemswerescoredsuchthat
were reinterviewed. The thirdsurveydata is thelowerthe score,themore(or longer)the
beingprocessed.The data used forthisstudy relationship orthegreater itsease, freedom,or
came fromthesecondsurvey.Measurements importance. To avoid confusionin analysis,
of the major model variablesare presented thescorewas reversedso thatthehigherthe
below. score,thestronger thetie.
The stressful lifeeventsvariablesand the To measurehomophily a
of characteristics,
desirabilityoftheeventweremeasuredbythe set of questionswas askedaboutthehelper's
interviewer's presenting therespondent witha characteristics, including age,gender,occupa-
listof 118lifeeventsandasking:"Have anyof tion,education,and maritalstatus.An occu-
theseeventshappenedto you in thepast six pationalprestige score(Siegel,1971)was com-
months?" Thetotalnumber oflifeeventsexpe- puted.For thehomophily variable,theabso-
riencedwas summed.For anyeventthathad lutedifference in scoresbetweentherespon-
happened,therespondent was askedwhether dentandthehelperwas calculatedforeach of
theeventwas considered goodorbad. "Good" thesecharacteristics. The absolutescore dif-
was assigneda valueof 1, and "bad," a value ference was thenreversedso thatthehigher its
of 3. If therespondent was uncertain, thede- value, the greaterthe homophily (similarity)
sirabilityoftheeventwas assigneda valueof2. betweentherespondent andthehelperon that
To measuretheimportant lifeevent,each re- characteristic.
spondent was askedto nameone oftheevents The dependent variableintheanalysisis the
listedas mostimportant.4 A dichotomous vari- CenterforEpidemiologic Studies'depression
able was constructed to indicatewhether a re- scale (CES-D) (Markushand Favero, 1974;
spondentnamedan important event,and for Radloff,1977),whichis a simplesummated
thosewho namedan important event,thede- score of twentyitemsrelatedto depression
sirabilityof theeventwas ascertained. reported fortheweekpriortothesurvey.6 The
The strength of tieswas measuredin terms higherthe score, the greaterthe depressive
ofboththerolerelationships involvedandthe symptoms or thedepressedmood.The mean
dimensions of the interactions. Followingthe CES-D fortheentiresamplewas 8.63.
identificationofthemostimportant event,the
respondentwas asked whetheranyonehad
helpedduringor aftertheevent,and whatthe RESULTS
role relationship was betweenthe helperand
the respondent(spouse, close friend,etc.). Effectof the Most Important
The strength of the tie was represented by Life Event
the following categories: acquaintances
and helpingprofessionals (1), close friend(s) The analysesbeganwithan examination of
(2), otherrelative(s)(3), and spouse/lover (4). Hypotheses1, 2, and3, concerning theeffects
The higher thecategory value,thestronger the on depressionof thetotalsumof lifeevents,

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
254 JOURNALOF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

the most important life event,and the de-
sirability
of themostimportant lifeevent.
Whenwe comparedthemeanCES-D levels
for those who did not experienceany life
events(X = 6.88) withthatforthosewho did
(X = 8.90),thedifference was significant (p <
.05). The zero-order correlationbetweenthe
CES-D andthetotalnumber oflifeeventsex-
periencedwas .26. Whena dichotomized vari-
ablewas constructed to representthepresence
or absence of any (one or more)lifeevents
experienced, itszero-order correlation withthe
CES-D was much reduced (.07), but still
statistically
significant
(p < .05).In eithercase,
Hypothesis1 was confirmed.
As arguedin Hypothesis2, however,this
associationmight primarily be due to themost
important life eventexperienced.The zero-
ordercorrelation betweentheCES-D and the
presenceor absenceof a mostimportant life
eventwas .16. Figure2 presentsthe mean
CES-D scoresforthreecategoriesof respon-
dents(excludingmissingdata): (1) thosewho
didnotnameanylifeevent(s)duringtheprior
six months,(2) those who mentionedlife
event(s)butdidnotsingleoutanyone as most
important, and (3) thosewhoidentified a most
important lifeevent.
As expected,the meanlevel of CES-D is
highestforthosewho mentioned a mostim-
portant life event. Based on t-tests of
significance,the mean difference is signifi-
cantlyhighbetweenthosewhoexperienced a
mostimportant lifeeventand thosewho did
not(p < .01betweenCategory1 andCategory
3; p < .001betweenCategory2 and Category
3). Furthermore, themeanCES-D scoresfor
thosewho did notexperienceanylifeevents
and forthosewhoexperienced lifeeventsbut
did not considerany of themimportant are
bothlow (p > .10 betweenCategory1 and
Category2). Hypothesis 2 was therefore con-
firmed.Hence, althoughexperiencinglife
events(Categories 2 and3 combined) is associ-
ated witha higherlevel of depressivesymp-
toms,theassociationis largelydependenton
theexperienceofa mostimportant lifeevent.
We next examinedthe effectof the de-
ofthemostimportant
sirability lifeevent(Hy-
pothesis3). As shownin Figure3, 61 percent
(256) of the respondents (excludingmissing
data) who mentioneda most important life
eventperceivedthe eventas "good," 30 per
cent(127) perceivedit as "bad," and there-
maining 9 percent(36) perceivedit as of un-
certaindesirability.T-tests of significance
showa significant difference(p < .001)in the
meanCES-D scoresbetweenthegoodandthe
bad event categories.Those perceivingthe
eventas undesirablescore much higheron

FIGURE 2. Effectof Life Events Experienceon DepressiveSymptoms(CES-D Scores)

10.0 - 9.83

9.0

l
8.0..
Mean Depression Level
(CES-D Score)

7.0 -6.88
6.47

6.0 -

No Life Events Life Events, But No Most Important

(Category 1) Important Life Event Life Event
(N=99) (Category 2) (Category 3)
(N=208) (N=543)

Respondent Life Event Experience

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUFFERING EFFECT OF SOCIAL SUPPORT 255

FIGURE 3. Effectsof the Desirabilityof the Most ImportantLife Event on Depression(CES-D Scores)

14
13. 25
13 -

12

Mean-Depression Level 11 _
(NcS-u Score")
10 -99

9 - 8.55

Desirable Uncertain Desirability Undesirable

(N=256) (N=36) (N=127)

Most Important Life Event

CES-D (X= 13.25)thanthoseperceiving it as FIGURE 4. Effectsof Strengthof Helper's Role Re-

desirable(X= 8.55). Thus,thedata showper- lationship and the Desirabilityof the
ceiveddesirability
oftheimportanteventto be Most ImportantLife Event on Depres-
sion (CES-D Scores) (Numberof respon-
a significantfactorin predictingdepressive dentsin parentheses)
symptoms, a confirmation
ofthethirdhypoth-
esis.
It has becomeclearthatthosemerelyexpe- 60

riencing lifeeventsbutreporting
no important
life event did not show greaterdepressive
symptoms thanthosewhoexperienced no life
events(see Figure2). The undesirability
ofthe Mean Depression
Level (CES-D)
1

most important event significantly

increased AX (13)

the CES-D level and should,therefore, be AD A (4)

takenintoaccount.7 II / K3)

/4 /\
BufferingEffectsof Strong Ties If
(21) / (20)

Role RelationshipwithHelper. As we have (22)

(27)
proposed,one dimension of social supportis / . (19)
- -
(31)
theextentto whichhelpis providedby strong
andhomophilous ties.If strongandhomophil- (11>.-J
/
oustiesbuffera mostimportant andundesirable b
(67)
(6)

lifeevent,thenrespondents experiencingsuch
an eventwho receivehelp fromstrongties 3

shouldshowlowerCES-D scoresthanthose
experiencing a similareventbutwithouthelp
fromsuchties.We nowexaminethesehypoth- 0 (5 AZ~~~55
eses (4 and5). We firstexplorethehypothesis
on theeffectofthestrength ofties(Hypothesis (105)
4). -snd desirable
- -desirable
event
49
(35)
event
Figure4 showsmeanCES-D scoresby the -*-*-(uncertain) ROLE RELATrIONShlIP

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
256 JOURNALOF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

desirabilityof the eventand by the role re- FIGURE 5. Effectof Desirabilityof Most Important
lationshipwiththe helperforthose respon- Event and Strengthof Helper's Role Re-
dentswhoreceivedhelpwitha mostimportant lationshipfor Married Respondentson
Depression (CES-D Scores) (Number of
lifeevent.As expected,helpfromstronger ties respondentsin parentheses)
is generallyassociatedwithlowerlevelsofde-
pressedmood. For each level of event de-
helpfroma spouse/lover
sirability, is relatedto MeantDepression
Level (CES-D) AS
a lowerlevel of depressionthanis helpfrom Score b

any othertypeof tie. Furthermore, whenan

13
XJ (2)
eventis considereddesirableand is accom- AO
A(
-. _. (2)
paniedbyhelpfroma spouse/lover, thelevelof it /I -1

depressionis lowerthanwouldbe expected 17/

had the event not occurred(see Figure2).
Moreover,whenan eventis considered bad or '4/

uncertain and is accompaniedby helpfroma 'e / (1)

spouse or relative,the meanCES-D level is

substantiallylowerthanitis whentheeventis
lo (25 () _ ()

1 / / _ __ _
accompaniedby helpfroma close friend,an I (IO4?* -
(5) (16)

acquaintance,or helpingprofessional (weak (53) s

tie). Thus,thisfindingis evidenceof thebuf-

fering ofsocialsupport
effect as indexedbythe 3
9

strength ofrolerelationshipoftherespondent
to the person providing help. Several
anomalies,however,mustbe considered.For
bad events,closefriends areless effectivethan
weaktiesinreducing depression; andforgood Ma 0 (12) (29)
events,relativesare less effective thanclose (88) (26)

friendsand weak ties. -

undesirable event
event
--desirable
ROLE RELATIONSHIP
(Strong to Weak)

Effect of Marital Status. Since evidence -*-*-(uncertain)

existsthatmaritaldisruption is accompanied
byhighlevelsofmentaldisorder, we wondered sideredgood,thestrength ofthetiemakesless
ifit also disruptsothernormative social sup- differenceon CES-D scores.
port:Intimeofmarital crisis,ties,suchas those For theunmarried, thehypothesis concern-
withclose friendsor relatives,mightbe ren- ingtheeffect of strengthoftieson depression
deredineffective inresolving thetensiondueto does not hold. For bothundesirableand un-
significant life events. Therefore,we con- certain events, for example, help from
ductedseparateanalysesforthose currentlyspouse/loverwas associated with a higher
marriedand thoseunmarried. The lattercate- ratherthanlowerlevel of depressivesymp-
gory consists of the single, separated,di- toms.On theotherhand,weaktieswereasso-
vorced,and widowed.Amongthose experi- ciatedwitha lowerlevelofCES-D inthecase
encing an importantlife event (excluding ofan undesirable event.Thus,anomaliesinthe
missingdata),63 percent(155) weremarried initialanalysiswereattributed to datafromthe
and 37 percent(89) wereunmarried. unmarried. Thisobservation led to further
ex-
Figure5 shows thatforthe married,the plorationof thepossibleeffectof maritaldis-
strength of social ties,as indexedby therole ruption.
relationship of thehelperto ego, is negatively Because data on maritalstatuswere col-
relatedto the level of depression(CES-D lectedin bothfirst(1979) and second (1980)
scores)wheneventsareuncertain or undesira- surveys,itwas possibleto examinechangesin
ble. For the undesirableor uncertainevent, maritalstatusover the one-yearperiod.We
those receiving help from strongestties constructed ninetypesof maritalengagement
(spouse/lover) showeda lowermeanCES-D and disengagement categories:(1) recently
thanthose receivinghelp fromweakerties married-thosemarriedduringthe one-year
(otherrelatives andweakties).Foreventscon- period;(2) alreadymarried-thosewho had

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUFFERING EFFECT OF SOCIAL SUPPORT 257

FIGURE 6. Effectof Desirabilityof Most Important single-thosewhohadbeensinglebefore1979.

Event and Strengthof Helper's Role Re- Thesecategoriesweredesignedto reflect mar-
lationshipforUnmarriedRespondentson
Depression (CES-D Scores) (Number of
ital statusas a process-fromenteringinto
respondentsin parentheses)- marriageto disruptions of marriageand re-
6(5 turning to singlestatus.We thenanalyzedthe
(8) depression(CES-D) levelsas well as therole
Mean Depression (2) relationshipswiththehelpersforeach ofthese
Level I(CES-D) A 2/
Score */ (2) categoriesofrespondents. Again,analysiswas
A) conductedonlyforthoseexperiencing an im-
portantlifeevent.Because of the relatively
small sample sizes, dividingthe categories
further intothoseexperiencing desirableand
,, //
undesirableeventswas not feasible.The re-
/' \I sultsappearin Table 1.
As can be seen,CES-D levelswerelowest
4t / \ ./(1)10 (15) forthe recently marriedand alreadymarried
and highest for the recently disrupted
o. A
(widowedor separated).The disengaged(al-
( 14 ) (3)
'\ readyseparated, recentlydivorced,alreadydi-
vorced,or alreadywidowed)had moderate
CES-D levels,in mostcases notshowingsig-
'0 0
(23() 15
nificantlyhigherlevelsthanthemarried. Thus,
ifthemarried-disrupted-disengaged-single are
approximate phases in the marital
engagement-disengagement process,theirex-
vI ~ M M
pected mental health status can be dif-
( (23 ) (26)
(17) ( ferentiated.
undesirable event ROLE RELATIONSHIP
(Strong to Weak)
The role relationships withthe helperfor
thesephasesalso showeddifferences. For the
-desirable event
--6-(uncertain )
married, thespouse/lover andotherrelative(s)
been married before 1979; (3) recently tiesaccountedfortheoverwhelming percent-
widowed-those who were widowed during age ofthehelperswiththemostimportant life
the one'-yearperiod; (4) recentlyseparated- event. For the disrupted(recentlywidowed
those who became separated in the one-year and recentlyseparated),help was provided
period; (5) already separated-those who had primarily by otherrelativesand close friends.
been separated before 1979; (6) recently For the disengaged(already separated,re-
divorced-those who became divorced during centlydivorced,alreadydivorced,andalready
the one-year period; (7) already divorced- widowed), spouse/lover(probably mostly
those who had been divorced before 1979; (8) lovers),otherrelatives,andclose friends were
already widowed-those who had been all used as helpers.Also, a trendtowardless
widowed before 1979; and (9) already use of spouse/lover and more use of close

TABLE 1. Marital Engagement-Disengagement, ProportionalStrengthof Ties, and Depressive Symptoms

(CES-D Scores) for Those Experiencingan ImportantLife Event

Marital Engagement-Disengagement
Recently Already Recently Already Recently Already Recently Already
Relationshipof Married Married Widowed Widowed Separated Separated Divorced Divorced Single
Helper (N= 10) (N = 169) (N = 2) (N = 14) (N = 12) (N = 5) (N = 6) (N = 15) (N = 49)
Spouse/Lover 60.0o 52.7% 0%0 7.1% 8.3% 40.0o 33.3% 13.3% 18.8%
Other relative(s) 30.0 16.6 100.0 50.0 16.7 20.0 50.0 6.7 22.9
Close friend(s) 0 8.9 0 7.1 58.3 40.0 0 46.7 20.8
Weak ties 10.0 21.9 0 35.7 16.7 0 16.7 33.3 37.5
Average Depression
Level (CES-D Score) 7.4 9.1 26.6 10.6 21.1 12.5 8.1 11.2 9.9

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
258 JOURNALOF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

friends,acquaintances and helpingprofession- Interactions with Helper. Next, we exam-

als (weak ties) is notedfurther along in the ined dimensionsof interactions betweenthe
disengagement process(fromthealreadysepa- respondent and thehelperas indicators ofthe
ratedand recently divorcedto thealreadydi- strength of theirties. Correlationswerecom-
vorcedandwidowed).The singletendedtouse putedbetweeneach dimensionof interaction
weaker ties, as compared with the other and depressivesymptoms (CES-D) forthree
groups. categories:all respondents, marriedrespon-
Limitation ofthesamplesize does notallow dents,and unmarried respondents experienc-
controlforthedesirability of theeventor as- inga mostimportant lifeevent(see Table 2).
sessmentof the different depressionlevels Whentheeffect ofthedesirability oftheevent
(CES-D) foreachcombination ofmaritalstatus is factoredout,resultsshowsignificant nega-
and role relationship. However,the marital tiverelationships betweenCES-D andmostof
engagement-disengagement processaffects the these interactiondimensions forthe married
typeofsocialtiesusedas helperswiththemost but not forthe unmarried. For the married,
important lifeevents,withapparent differentialfrequencyof contact,reciprocalrelations, ac-
consequenceon depressivesymptoms. As a cessibility,importanceof relationship, and
person'smaritalstatusis disrupted, thetend- amountofhelpare significantly andnegatively
encyto use stronger ties lessensand greater correlatedwith CES-D. Only two factors,
distressis evidenced. lengthofrelationshipandease oftalking freely
In conclusion, hypothesis on thestrength of withthehelper,haveno effect on depression.
ties seems to applyonly to individualsin a None ofthecorrelations are significant
forthe
stable maritalstatus(married,divorced,or unmarried. Perhaps, again, the marital
single).For thoseexperiencing maritaldisrup- engagement-disengagement categoriesshould
tion(recently separatedor widowed),the so- be controlledforthe unmarried, but further
cial network is also disrupted inthatthosewho analysisis statisticallydifficultbecauseofthe
otherwiseperform theirnormativebufferingrelativelysmallsamplesize formanyof the
rolecan no longeroperateeffectively. categories.Nevertheless, we suspectthatthe

TABLE 2. CorrelationsbetweenDepression(CES-D) and Dimensionsof InteractionbetweenRespondentand

Helper

Depression (CES-D)l
Total Not
Interaction
Dimensions2 Sample (N) Married (N) Married (N)
Years helper known - .04 (274) - .06 (175) .06 (99)
-.08 (241) -.11 (152) .009 (86)
Frequencyof contactwithhelper -.12* (280) -.21** (178) .02 (102)
- .12* (243) - .20** (153) - .003 (87)
Helpertalkedwithaboutproblem - .06 (279) - 13* (178) .05 (101)
-.04 (243) -.11 (153) -.07 (87)
Helper talkingabout own problem - .16** (278) - .21** (178) - .06 (100)
- .14* (242) - .21** (153) - .04 (86)
Helper easy to get in touch with - .18** (279) - .19** (178) - .10 (101)
- .17** (243) - .19** (153) - .10 (87)
Helpereasy to talkfreelywith -.04 (277) -.10 (177) .02 (100)
- .04 (241) - .12 (152) .04 (86)
Importanceof helper - .10* (278) - . 19** (175) .05 (101)
- .11 (242) -.23** (152) .04 (87)
Amountof help by helper - .08 (275) - .19** (171) .11 (100)
- .08 (239) - .22** (150) .14 (86)
*p .05.
**p .01.
1 Thefirst
coefficient
foreachitemis thezero-ordercorrelation
withCES-D, andthesecondcoefficient
is
thepartialcorrelation, fordesirability
controlling of event.
2 For"Frequency ofContact"through "AmountofHelp,"thesignshavebeenchangedso thatthehigher
thescore,thegreateramountof theparticular interaction.

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUFFERING EFFECT OF SOCIAL SUPPORT 259

expectedrelationshipbetweendimensionsof greaterthe depression.For the unmarried,

interactionand depressivesymptomsis the noneoftheremaining homophily variableswas
relatedto depression.
weakest for those who experiencedrecent significantly
maritaldisruptions.
BufferingEffectsof Homophilyof Ties. The
theorypresentedhere predictsthat the in- DISCUSSION
teraction withotherswho sharehomophilous
characteristics is mosteffective in promoting This studyexaminedthebuffering effectof
mentalhealth(Hypothesis 5). To testthishy- social supportby identifying themostimpor-
pothesis,separateanalyseswere again per- tantlifeeventan individualexperiencedand
formedfor the marriedand the unmarried.bytracing thecharacteristics ofthepersonwho
Sincetheuse ofspouseas helperis associated helpedduring and/or aftertheevent.Usingthe
witha lower mean CES-D forthe married, social resourcestheory,we operationalized
genderhomophily was notconsideredforthe socialsupport intermsofthestrength ofsocial
married.Also, homophilyof occupational tiesand homophily ofcharacteristicsbetween
prestigeis notincluded,sincemanywivesdo ego andthehelper.Hypotheses werealso con-
notwork.Becauseofthesmallsamplessizeon structed to testwhether one lifeeventconsid-
thehomophily variable,resultsfortheunmar- ered mostimportant and undesirableby the
riedmustbe interpreted cautiously.Theresults individualcould adequately representthe
of theseanalysesappearin Table 3. (totallifeevents)-illness(depressive
stressors
Negative correlationswere expected be- symptomatology) relationship. We foundthat
tweenthehomophily variablesandtheCES-D individuals showeda greaterlevel of depres-
scores;i.e., thegreaterthesimilarity(thehigher sive symptoms iftheyexperienced a mostim-
the score) betweenthe respondentand the portant andundesirable event.Thiseffect was
helper,thelowerthedepression. As predicted reducedifhelpcame fromstrongratherthan
forthe married,age homophily is negatively weak ties. These observations did not apply
relatedto CES-D as is education,although the however,forthosewho hadjust experienced
latterrelationship signifi-marital disruption(recently separated or
is not statistically
cant.In otherwords,thegreaterthedisparity widowed).Similarities in age and education
in age and, to a lesser extent,in education betweenrespondent and helperloweredthe
betweenthe respondent and the helper,the marriedrespondents'depressivesymptoms,
morenumerous thedepressivesymptoms. For and similarity of occupationalstatusaffected
theunmarried, a strongerthanexpectednega- theunmarried in thesameway.
tive relationship existsbetweenoccupational These resultssuggestthatsocial resources
homophilybetween ego and helper and theorymay providea viabletheoretical per-
CES-D. The moredissimilar theoccupational spective in resolvingprevious conceptual
prestigebetween ego and the helper, the confusionabouttherelationship betweenso-

TABLE 3. Correlations
between
Depression ofRespondent
(CES-D)andHomophily andHelperCharacteristics
byMaritalStatus

Depression(CES-D)'
Characteristic Married (N) Not Married (N)
Age similarity -j 13* (169) .12 (90)
(- .09) (148) (.15) (90)
Sex similarity N.A. .11 (100)
(.08) (87)
Educationsimilarity -.12 (158) .09 (86)
(- .09) (138) (.17) (77)
Occupationalstatussimilarity
(SiegelScale) N.A. -.23* (73)
(-.24*) (62)
*p .05.
1
The firstcoefficient
foreach itemis the zero-order correlation,and the secondcoefficient
(within
parentheses)
is thepartialcorrelation, of event.
fordesirability
controlling

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
260 JOURNALOF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

cial supportand illness.Althoughthe study fectsofone variableon another, testedbyway

calls attentionto thelimiting conditions (e.g., of clearlyconceptualizedand designedre-
maritalties) withinwhich the theorywas search.This studyis a preliminary attempt to
shownto operate,it has thepotential to bring demonstrate suchan approach.Elsewhere,we
abouta unifiedperspective on social support have analyzed the panel data using the
andto providespecifichypotheses fortesting. structuralequation modellingapproach in
An important, serendipitousfinding is that whichcross-lagged effects among(undesirable)
maritaldisengagement mayhave a substantial life events, social support,and depressive
disruptiveimpacton a person'ssocial envi- symptoms weresimultaneously examined(Lin
ronment so as to renderit,although apparently and Ensel, 1984; Lin, 1984; Lin and Wang,
only temporarily, incapableof providing the 1985).The resultscorroborate the mediating
necessarysupport.Suchdisruption maybe due effect ofsocialsupport foundinthisstudy.The
to thetransition fromold supportresourcesto multimethod and multidataapproachesrein-
newones. Analysisof theunmarried suggests forceourconfidence in thetheoretical formu-
thatdisruption in maritalrelationserodesthe lation.Although thisstudyhas limitations and
effectiveness of supportprovidedby thosein defects,we hopesomebenchmarks havebeen
close socialcircles.Strongtiesare associated identified and questionsadvancedforfuture
with intenseand frequentinteractionwith researchon the important relationships be-
otherswhosharesimilarattitudes, values,and tweensocial supportand mentalhealth.
lifestyles.Severanceof a strongtie may re-
quirereadjustment on thepartof othermem- NOTES
bers of the sharedsocial network,and time
in
maybe requiredto permitreassembly of the 1. The interactionhypothesis was confirmed
panel studies conducted by Cobb (1976) and
same network or construction of a new one. Turner(1981).
The effectsof social supporton mental 2. This model can be thoughtof as an additive
healthare complex.Whilethisstudyfocused model. One disadvantage of this design is its
on the buffering effect(and one particular relianceon the respondent'srecall of lifeevents
and the social supportexperienced subsequent
model,itsmediating othermodelsneed
effects), to the event. However, recall problemsare not
to be examined.Futureresearchmay show unique to this particular type of design-all
that propositionsderivablefromsocial re- paper-pencilor personal surveysconfrontsuch
sourcestheoryalso holdtruefortheindepen- risk. Since this design focuses on a particular
dentrelationship betweensocial supportand event, the recall problems are minimized.The
ideal design of this kind calls for diary-keeping
mentalhealth.In otherwords,access to, and by each respondent. Eventually the buffering
use of, strongand homophilous ties promote hypothesisshould be examined in both its ad-
mentalhealth,regardless ofwhether significant ditive and multiplicativeforms as well as in
andundesirable eventsoccur,incontrast tothe panel and tracing designs. Multimethod ap-
proaches will add to the credibilityof the hy-
assumption oftheinteractive modelthatthese pothesis.
tiesdo nothave an independent effect. 3. The six-monthcut-offperiod was selected for
The studyalso demonstrated theneedto im- two reasons. First,Myers, Lindenthal,and Pep-
prove measurementsof variables. Recent per (1975) demonstratedthat the effectsof life
studiessuggestthatintimacy or qualityof re- events occurringin the past six months were
more significantlystressfulthan the effectsof
lationshipis a bettermeasureofthestrength of life events that occurred longer ago. Secondly,
ties than is the particularrole relationship Jenkins,Hurst, and Rose (1979) demonstrated
(Marsdenand Campbell,1984).In thisstudy, thatrecall of events diminishesover time at an
bothmeasureswereused,andtheresultsseem approximaterate of 5 per cent per month.
tobe consistent. Therolerelationship measure 4. The question reads,
clarifiesthesocialnetwork inconjunction with "Of all these events occurringto you, which
one would you say was the most important?
maritalstatus.However,we proposethata That is, which one, for better or worse,
varietyof strength-of-ties measuresshouldbe changed or affectedyour life the most'?"
used untiltheirspecificproperties (especially
Althoughperhaps some respondentswill desig-
relativetothesocialstructure) areunderstood. nate a most importantlifeevent fromamongthe
Finally,whatis or is nota buffering effect is set of events experienced simplyto oblige the
perhapsless important thanwhatare the ef- interviewerand stillothers are unable to desig-

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUFFERING EFFECT OF SOCIAL SUPPORT 261

nate a most importantlifeevent fromamongthe Caplan, Robert D.

set of events, these instances would bias our 1972 "Organizationalstressand individualstrain:
resultsagainst ratherthan in supportof our hy- A sociopsychologicalstudy of risk factors
potheses. We expect high depression levels in coronary heart disease among adminis-
among those experiencinga most importantlife trators,engineers,and scientists." Disser-
event and low depression levels among those tation Abstracts International 32:6706b-
who do not. Those designatinga most important 6707b (University Microfilms No. 72-
lifeevent not actuallyexperiencedwould be in- 14822).
cluded among those who experienced a most Cassell, JohnC.
important lifeevent,therebyartificiallylowering1974 "An epidemiological perspective on psy-
the mean levels of depression for that group chosocialfactorsin disease etiology."Ameri-
according to our hypothesis. Likewise, those can Journalof Public Health 64:1040-43.
who did not designate a most importantlife 1976 "The contribution ofthe social environment
event but who actuallydid experience it will be to host resistance." American Journal of
included among those who did not experience Epidemiology 104:107-23.
Cleary, Paul D., and Ronald C. Kessler
the event, artificiallyinflatingthe mean level of
depression among those not reportinga most 1982 "The estimationand interpretation of mod-
importantlife event. ifiereffects."Journalof Health and Social
5. Questions (2) and (4) each had four response Behavior 23:159-69.
Cobb, Sidney
categories-most or all of the time,occasionally
or a moderate amount of time, some or a little 1976 "Social support as a moderator of life
time,and rarelyor none of thetime.Question (5) stress." Psychosomatic Medicine
had responses of very easy, easy, somewhat 38:300-14.
easy, and not very easy. Question (6) had re- Dean, Alfred,and Nan Lin
sponses of very freely,freely, somewhat im- 1977 "The stress-buffering role of social sup-
portant,and not very important.Question (8) port." Journalof Nervous and Mental Dis-
had responses of very much, much, some, and ease 165:403-13.
not very much. Dohrenwend, Bruce P.
6. Each itemconsists of fourresponse categories: 1982 "Alternativesocial and psychologicalmod-
mostor all of the time(5-7 days a week), occa- els of relationsbetween life stress and ill-
sionallyor a moderateamountof time(3-4 days ness." Paper presented at the National
a week), some or a littleof the time(1-2 days a Conference on Social Stress Research,
week), and rarelyor none of the time (less than Universityof New Hampshire, Durham,
once a week). N.H.
7. Note that the most importantreported events Dohrenwend,Barbara S., Larry Krasnoff,Alexan-
pertainedto familyand marriage,work and fi- der R. Askenasy, and Bruce P. Dohrenwend
nance, illness and death, and injuriesand acci-1978 "Exemplificationof a method for scaling
dents.No personalhabitsconcerningchanges in life events: The PERI life events scale."
events (e.g., in sleeping and eating) were men- Journal of Health and Social Behavior
tioned,thus avoiding the problemof confound- 19:205-29.
ing such events withdepressive symptoms(see Eaton, William W.
Tausig, 1982). 1978 "Life events, social supports,and psychiat-
ric symptoms:A re-analysis of the New
Haven data." Journalof Health and Social
REFERENCES Behavior 19:230-34.
Gersten,JoanneC., Thomas S. Langner,JeanneG.
Andrews, Gavin,. Christopher Tennant, Daphne Eisenberg, and Lida Orzek
Hewson, and George W. Vaillant 1974 "Child behavior and life events: Undesira-
1978 "Life event stress, social support, coping ble change or change per se." Pp. 159-70 in
style, and risk of psychological impair- Barbara S. Dohrenwend and Bruce P.
ment."Journalof Nervous and Mental Dis- Dohrenwend(eds.), StressfulLife Events:
ease 166:307-16. Their Nature and Effects.New York: John
Aneshensel, Carol S., and Ralph R. Frerichs Wiley and Sons.
1982 "Stress, support, and depression: A lon- Gore, Susan L.
gitudinalcausal model." Journalof Com- 1978 "The effectof social supportin moderating
munityPsychology 10:363-76. the health consequences of unemploy-
Blau, Peter M. ment." Journalof Health and Social Be-
1977 Inequality and Heterogeneity.New York: havior 19:157-65.
Free Press. 1981 "Stress-buffering functionsof social sup-
Brown, George W., M. N. Bhrolchain, and Tirril ports: An appraisal and clarificationof re-
Harris search models." Pp. 202-22 in Barbara S.
1975 "Social class and psychiatricdisturbance Dohrenwend and Bruce P. Dohrenwend
among women in an urban population." (eds.), Stressful Life Events and Their
Sociology 9:225-54. Contexts. New York: Prodist.

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
262 JOURNALOF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Granovetter,Mark Kessler,RonaldC.
1973 "The strength of weak ties." American 1983 "Social supportand mentalhealthin com-
Journal of Sociology78:1360-80. munity samples."To appearin S. Cohen
1974 Gettinga Job. Cambridge, MA: Harvard and L. Syme (eds.), Social Supportand
University Press. Health.New York:AcademicPress.
1982 "The strength of weak ties: A network LaRocco,JamesM., JamesS. House,andJohnR. P.
theoryrevisited."Pp. 105-130in PeterV. French,Jr.
Marsden and Nan Lin (eds.), Social 1980 "Social support,occupationalstress,and
Structure and NetworkAnalysis.Califor- health."Journalof Healthand Social Be-
nia: Sage. havior21:202-18.
Henderson, Scott Laumann,Edward0.
1977 "The socialnetwork, support andneurosis: 1966 Prestigeand Association in an Urban
The function of attachment in adultlife." Community.Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill
BritishJournal of Psychiatry131:185-91. Publishers.
1981 "Social relationships, adversityand neu- Lazarsfeld,Paul F., and RobertK. Merton
rosis: An analysisof prospectiveobser- 1964 "Friendship as social process:A substan-
vations." BritishJournalof Psychiatry tiveandmethodological analysis."In Mor-
138:391-98. risBerger,etal., (eds.),FreedomandCon-
Henderson, Scott,PaulDuncan-Jones, D. G. Byrne, trolin ModernSociety.New York: Octa-
and RuthScott gonPress.
1980 "Measuringsocialrelationships: The inter- Lin, Nan
viewscheduleforsocialinteraction." Psy- 1982 "Social resourcesandinstrumental action."
chologicalMedicine10-723-34. In PeterMarsdenand Nan Lin (eds.), So-
Holmes,ThomasH., and RichardH. Rahe cial Structureand Network Analysis.
1967 "The social readjustment ratingscale." California:
Sage Publications.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research 1983 "Social resourcesand social actions: A
11:213-18. progressreport."Connections 6:10-16.
Homans,GeorgeC. 1984 "Modelingthe effectsof social support."
1950 The HumanGroup.New York: Harcourt, Paper presentedat the annualmeetingof
Brace. theAmerican SociologicalAssociation, San
House, JamesS. Antonio,Texas.
1981 WorkStressand Social Support.Reading, Lin, Nan, and AlfredDean
MA: Addison-Wesley Press. 1984 "Social Supportand Depression:A Panel
House,JamesS., and JamesA. Wells Study."Social Psychiatry 19:83-91.
1978 "Occupationalstress,social support,and Lin, Nan, AlfredDean, and WalterM. Ensel
health."Pp. 8-29 in AlanMcLean,Gilbert 1981 "Social supportscales: A methodological
Black, and Michael Colligen(eds.), Re- note."Schizophrenia Bulletin7:73-90.
ducingOccupational Stress:Proceedingsof In Social Support,Life Events,and Depres-
a Conference. U.S. Department of Health, Press sion.New York:AcademicPress.
Educationand Welfare,(NIOSH) Publica- Lin, Nan, and WalterM. Ensel
tionNo. 78-140.Washington, DC. 1981 "Causal interpretation of interaction ef-
Jenkins,C. David,MichaelW. Hurst,andRobertM. fect."(Replyto W. ThomasBoyce.)Jour-
Rose nal of Health and Social Behavior22:
1979 "Life changes: Do people really re- 195-96.
member?" ArchivesofGeneralPsychiatry 1984 "Depression-mobility and its social etiol-
36:379-84. ogy:The roleoflifeeventsand socialsup-
Joreskog, Karl G., and Dag Sorbom port."Journal ofHealthand Social Behav-
1981 LISREL VI: Analysisof LinearStructural ior25:176-88.
Relationships byMaximum Likelihoodand
LeastSquaresMethods.Uppsala,Sweden: Lin, Nan, WalterM. Ensel,and JohnC. Vaughn
University of Uppsala. 1982 "Social resourcesand strengthof ties:
Structuralfactorsin occupationalstatus
Kahn,RobertL. attainment." AmericanSociological Re-
1979 "Agingand social support."Pp. 77-91 in
M. W. Riley (ed.), AgingfromBirthto view46:393-405.
Death.Boulder,CO: Westview. Lin, Nan, StephenC. Light,andMaryW. Woelfel
Kaplan,Berton H. 1982 "The buffering effects of socialsupport:A
1975 "Toward further researchon familyand theoreticalframework and an empirical in-
health."In D. Kaplan and J. C. Cassell vestigation."Paper presentedat the Na-
(eds.), Familyand Health:An Epidemio- tional Conferenceon Social Stress Re-
logicalApproach.ChapelHill, N.C.: Uni- search, Universityof New Hampshire,
versity of NorthCarolinaPress. Durham,N.H.
Kaplan,BertonH., JohnC.Cassell, and Susan L. Lin, Nan, RonaldSimeone,WalterM. Ensel, and
Gore Wen Kuo
1977 "Social supportand health."MedicalCare 1979 "Social support,stressful lifeevents,and
15:47-58. illness:A modeland an empiricaltest."

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BUFFERING EFFECT OF SOCIAL SUPPORT 263

Journalof Health and Social Behavior scale forresearchin the generalpopula-

20:108-119. tion."AppliedPsychological Measurement
Lin, Nan, and Ling Wang 1:385-440.
1985 "Social support, lifeeventsanddepression: Rahe, RichardH.
modelsand evidence."In Proceedings of 1975 "Updateto lifechangeresearch."Mimeo.
theRochester Conference, "Social Support Ross, Catherine E., and JohnMirowsky II
and Health: New Directionsfor Theory 1979 "A comparisonof life-event-weighting
Development and Research." schemes. Change, undesirability,and
Markush,RobertE. and RachelV. Favero effect-proportional indices." Journalof
1974 "Epidemiologic assessment ofstressful life Healthand Social Behavior20:166-177.
events, depressed mood, and psycho- Shaefer, Catherine,JamesC. Coyne,andRichardS.
physiological symptoms-apreliminary re- Lazarus
port."Pp. 171-90in BarbaraS. Dohren- 1981 "The health-related functionof social sup-
wend and Bruce P. Dohrenwend(eds.), port." Journalof Behavioral Medicine
StressfulLife Events: TheirNatureand 4:381-406.
Effects.New York:JohnWileyand Sons. Siegel,Paul
Marsden,PeterV., and KarenE. Campbell 1971 "Prestige in the Americanoccupation
1984 "Measuringtie strength."Social Forces structure."Unpublished doctoraldisserta-
63:482-01. tion,University of Chicago.
Myers,Jerome K., JacobJ.Lindenthal, andMax P. Tausig,Mark
Pepper 1982 "Measuring lifeevents."Journal ofHealth
1975 "Life events,social integration, and psy- and Social Behavior23:52-64.
chiatric symptomatology."Journal of Thoits,PeggyA.
Healthand Social Behavior16:421-29. 1982 "Conceptual,methodological, andtheoreti-
Nuckolls,Katherine B., JohnC. Cassell,andBerton cal problems instudying socialsupport as a
H. Kaplan bufferagainstlifestress."Journal ofHealth
1972 "Psycho-social assets,lifecrises,and the and Social Behavior23:145-59.
prognosis ofpregnancy." American Journal Turner,R. Jay
of Epidemiology 95:431-41. 1981 "Social supportas a contingency in psy-
Paykel,E. S. chologicalwell-being."Journalof Health
1974 "Lifestressandpsychiatric disorder: appli- and Social Behavior22:357-67.
cations of the clinical approach." Pp. Vinokur,Amiram, and MelvinL. Selzer
135-49 in Barbara S. Dohrenwendand 1975 "Desirableversusundesirable lifeevents:
BruceP. Dohrenwend (eds.), StressfulLife Theirrelationship to stressandmentaldis-
Events: Their Natureand Effects.New tress."Journalof Personality and Social
York:JohnWileyand Sons. Psychology 32:329-37.
Pearlin, Leonard I., Morton A. Lieberman, Weiss,RobertS.
ElizabethG. Menaghan, andJosephT. Mullan 1969 "The fundof sociability."Trans-Action
1981 "The stressprocess."Journal ofHealthand 6:36-43.
Social Behavior22:337-56. Wheaton,Blair
Pearlin,LeonardI., and CarmiSchooler 1983 "Modelsforthestressbuffering function of
1978 "The structureof coping." Journalof copingresources."Paperpresented at the
Healthand Social Behavior19:2-21. annualmeeting oftheAmerican Sociologi-
Pinneau,S. Richard cal Association,Detroit,Michigan.
1975 "Effectsofsocialsupport on psychological Williams, AnnW., JohnE. Ware,Jr.,andCathyA.
and physiologicalstress." Unpublished Donald
doctoraldissertation, University of Michi- 1981 "A modelofmentalhealth,lifeevents,and
gan. social supports applicable to general
Radloff,LenoreS. populations." Journal of Healthand Social
1977 "TheCES-D scale:A self-report depression Behavior22:324-36.

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:01:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions