See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301223326

Supportive Communication

Chapter · December 2014

DOI: 10.1515/9783110276794.371

CITATIONS READS

31 12,432

2 authors:

Susanne M. Jones Graham D Bodie

University of Minnesota Twin Cities University of Mississippi
42 PUBLICATIONS   1,523 CITATIONS    128 PUBLICATIONS   2,748 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

support types View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Susanne M. Jones on 13 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie
16 Supportive communication
Abstract: The study of supportive communication revolves around verbal and non-
verbal behaviors that are enacted with the primary intention of improving the
psychological state of another person. Since the early 1980s supportive communi-
cation has grown into a veritable field of study in interpersonal communication.
In this chapter we present a critical review of the dominant research program in
supportive communication, person-centered theory. We argue that person-centered
theory has grown into a mature theory replete with a stable philosophical base
from which a series of exciting theoretical and empirical programs can be
launched. In support of our contention, we present a brief review of person-cen-
tered theory. We then present three novel research trajectories that advance our
thinking about person-centered theory in supportive communication. We close
with the presentation of one inspiring research exemplar: the role of listening in
person-centered supportive communication.

Keywords: Cognitive appraisal, comforting messages, enacted support, person-cen-

tered messages, supportive communication, well-being

1 Introduction
Since the early 1980s supportive communication has grown into a veritable field
of study in interpersonal communication. One reason for its growth is the prolifera-
tion of empirical evidence that supportive networks in general and the supportive
interactions between people within these networks in particular contribute sub-
stantially to our health (for a review see Ryff and Singer 2001). Because social
support possesses powerful health implications, federal funding opportunities for
epidemiological and social psychological research have also dramatically in-
creased over the past 30 years (National Research Council 2001).
Supportive communication concerns verbal and nonverbal behaviors enacted
with the primary intention of improving the psychological state of another person
(Burleson and MacGeorge 2000). Supportive communication is grounded in the
broader interdisciplinary research tradition of social support. The difference
between the study of social support and supportive communication is that the
latter is directly concerned with the study of those prosocial interactions through
which people express supportive intentions.
Rather than present a state of the art review of the supportive communication
literature, we focus on the person-centered theory of supportive communication.
Supportive communication reflects an array of theoretical approaches and has a
strong presence in research on interpersonal relationships (Ryff and Singer, 2001),
372 Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie

health (Folkman 2011), online support groups (Craig and Johnson 2011), intercul-
tural processes (Feng and Feng 2010), social policy (Jetten, Haslam and Haslam
2012), and psychotherapy (Horowitz and Strack 2011). We refer the interested
reader to state of the art reviews prepared by Burleson and colleagues (Burleson
and MacGeorge, 2002; MacGeorge, Feng and Burleson 2010). Here we present three
research trajectories that advance person-centered theory and close with a
research exemplar – the study of supportive listening.

2 Person-centered supportive communication:

The evolution of a theory
Because comforting is intentional behavior with a concrete objective (i.e., relieving
the difficult emotions experienced by another person), research has focused on
the acquisition of helper competencies, which are organized into four processes:
message production, message reception, interaction coordination, and social per-
ception (Burleson 1982). Research has focused on message production and social
perception with a sustained interest in the form and content of more and less
beneficial supportive messages.
Message benefits have been assessed in two ways: First, participants evaluate
supportive messages on a set of message qualities, such as appropriateness, effec-
tiveness, helpfulness, sensitivity, and/or supportiveness (e.g., Jones and Burleson
1997; Goldsmith, McDermott and Alexander 2000). Second, outcomes are assessed
on the extent to supportive messages actually generate cognitive, affective, physio-
logical, and behavioral changes (e.g., Bodie 2011; Jones and Wirtz 2001).
Because the goal of supportive messages is to relieve difficult emotions, the
form and content of supportive messages is emotion- rather than problem-focused.
Emotion-focused support messages fulfill two functions: a) to express care and
compassion and b) to assist in the alleviation of negative emotions. These func-
tions are best fulfilled with person-centered support. The primary theoretical crite-
rion of person-centered support is the extent to which a message facilitates “an
awareness of and adaptation to the affective, subjective, and relational aspects
of communication contexts” (Burleson 1987: 305). Table 1 presents the nine-level
hierarchy of emotional support messages that captures the progression from low
person-centered messages at major level 1 to highly person-centered messages at
major level 3, with three messages that are integrated within each of the three
major levels (Applegate 1980; Burleson 1982). A meta-analysis suggests the need
to differentiate just the three major levels of low, moderate, and highly person-
centered comforting messages (High and Dillard 2012).
Low person-centered (LPC) messages tend to deny or ignore the emotional
experiences of the recipient. Not surprisingly, recipients consider these messages
as especially unhelpful and quite hurtful, precisely because LPC messages gener-
 Supportive communication 373

Table : Message definitions and examples of the person-centered message hierarchy.

Message Definition Sample Message

. Messages that criticize the person’s feelings “You just can’t learn statistics because you did
not try your best. You probably didn’t do the
things you need to, so it’s really your own fault
and nobody else’s.”
. Messages that confront the authenticity of “It’s probably that you are not working hard
the other person’s feelings. enough to learn the material. That’s probably
it, so you shouldn’t be so upset.”
. Messages that completely disregard how a “Forget about learning statistics. There are
person is feeling and often tell the other how other, more interesting, things to learn.
to feel or suggest forgetting about the situa- Nobody needs math anyway. Just don’t think
tion. about it and find something else to do.”
. Efforts to redirect focus from the problem “Sometimes learning things like statistics are
and relevant feelings. just crazy pursuits. Let’s go to the beach and
work on our tan while the day is still warm.”
. Messages that recognize the other person’s “I’m sorry to hear you can’t learn statistics. I’m
feelings, but don’t try to help him or her figure sorry you feel terrible. If you want to, we can
out why or how to properly deal with those talk about it.
feelings.
. Explanation of the event without focusing on “Learning statistics is difficult and lots of peo-
feeling which try to lower negative affect and ple don’t get it; there are tons of people who
often mentions justifications. cringe at math! I wish you had done better, but
I understand how this happened. It’s really
tough. Maybe you just have trouble learning
those formulas. Or maybe you need to work
more examples. Your ability doesn’t rest just
on learning statistics.”
. Messages that clearly identify and recognize “I know you are unhappy about not being able
the other’s feelings but give condensed clarifi- to learn statistics and you might be feeling
cation of these feelings and often try to simply down about it. The thing to do is to just keep
“fix it”. moving forward and not dwell on the past. The
best thing to do is not be too troubled and
really put forth your best next time.”
. Statements giving detailed recognition and “I know this makes you mad. It’s really exasper-
account of the upset person’s feelings. ating when you try and try, but don’t get any-
where. This kind of thing can make you crazy! I
know you have never had trouble with anything
like this in the past, but some things just don’t
come so easy. You’re only human and not a
super hero. Statistics is tough business. It took
me forever to learn all those formulas and the
rules, so I think I get how you feel.”
. Statements that help a person see his or her “I understand how bummed you must be – to
feelings from a different point of view and try your best to learn statistics and … . you
attempts to help him or her understand how know … . to keep struggling, it’s very frustrat-
these feelings are part of “the big picture”. ing. You might be thinking that it isn’t worth all
this aggravation. It certainly does not mean
374 Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie

you aren’t smart or anything like that. I know

it’s hard to see things differently, but maybe
you have learned something here that can help
next time.”

Notes: Conceptual definitions and sample responses to a student’s inability to learn statistics
were adapted from Burleson and Samter (: ).

ate a sense of mental solitary confinement and also tend to exacerbate stress react-
ivity (Bodie, 2012b). Moderate person-centered (MPC) messages express condolen-
ces and sympathy, but do not encourage the comforted person to explore difficult
emotions. Whether these messages play a significant role in the comforting process
(for better or worse) has recently been questioned by High and Dillard (2012).
Supporters who use highly person-centered (HPC) messages explicitly legitimize
and validate the emotions of the upset person in talk.

2.1 Theoretical foundations of person-centered theory

Person-centered theory is grounded in a version of psychological constructivism.
The strongest theoretical strain in psychological constructivism is personal con-
struct theory, originally formulated by Kelly (1955/1991; also see Chiari and Nuzzo
1996; Neimeyer 2001; Raskin 2002). Personal construct theory postulates that
knowledge about people and social life is embedded in bipolar symbolic struc-
tures, called interpretive or personal constructs. Personal constructs (a) are a func-
tion of a person’s unique experience, (b) constantly produce and reproduce daily
realities, (c) are the basic structures through which people evaluate and anticipate
social interactions, and (d) become increasingly more differentiated, abstract, and
integrated with age and social experience (Delia, Kline and Burleson 1979). The
operational mechanism of these personal construct structures is cognitive complex-
ity, usually assessed via the Role Category Questionnaire (Crockett 1965). The move
toward construct structures as the organizing epistemic principle for interpersonal
communication and thus also person-centered theory is significant because that
shift moved the theory toward a cognitive theory of communication with a distinct
focus on the individual as the primary unit of analysis.
Applegate (1980) first formulated the hierarchical structure of interpersonal
interaction by fusing Delia’s constructivist approach with Bernstein’s (1971) socio-
linguistic code theory. Burleson (1982) subsequently adapted person-centered mes-
sage characteristics to supportive encounters that define roles and expectations
for helpers and emotionally upset people who experience mild-to-moderate daily
stress. Perhaps the most important contribution of person-centered theory to social
support and supportive communication is not its actual conceptualization. Suppor-
tive messages that express compassion and validate emotions should be perceived
as more beneficial. Indeed, this notion was articulated by Carl Rogers (1959, 1995).
 Supportive communication 375

What is so ingenious about the theory is to arrange supportive messages in pro-

gressive order. Notably, Carkhuff’s (1969) Empathy Scale, developed in response to
Rogers’ work and used by most US psychotherapists, reflects a similar hierarchical
arrangement of empathic responses. Yet what makes the person-centered hier-
archy so unique for interpersonal communication is its distinct focus on tangible
messages. Because of its utility, the person-centered hierarchy of support messages
has been influential in supportive communication.

2.2 Support for person-centered theory

People easily discern more and less person-centered messages (High and Dillard
2012). Studies reporting these findings relied on hypothetical scenario designs and
preformulated comforting message rating formats. Two interaction studies
detected similar results: Samter (1984, 1985) found that cognitively complex partic-
ipants who comforted a confederate feigning distress used more sophisticated
comforting messages which were evaluated as more sensitive than participants
who used less sophisticated messages. Jones and Guerrero (2000) found that dis-
tressed people reported feeling better after having received highly person-centered
comfort from a confederate helper.
Although people consistently rank supportive messages on the basis of person-
centered characteristics, there are moderating factors, including sex, gender orien-
tation, and ethnic group (Burleson 2003). A recent iteration of person-centered
theory has integrated these moderators into a dual-process theory of supportive
message outcomes, which proposes that the impact of supportive communication
is a joint function of message quality and how recipients process messages (Bodie
and Burleson 2008). When messages are processed more extensively, they appear
to have a greater impact on long-lasting outcomes that assist in future coping (for
a review see Bodie 2013a).

3 Expanding person-centered supportive

communication: Three trajectories
Thanks to its strong theoretical foundation and empirical evidence, person-cen-
tered theory has the necessary and sufficient attributes for a heuristic theory. We
outline three research avenues that advance person-centered theory. The first tra-
jectory taps the theoretical core of person-centered theory. The second trajectory
explores methodological questions. The third trajectory challenges the axiological
principle that person-centered theory is best studied in response to negative emo-
tions.
376 Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie

3.1 Person-centered and position-centered dimensions of

supportive messages
Our first trajectory concerns the basis of person-centered theory: Bernstein’s socio-
linguistic code theory. We wonder whether Bernstein’s two codes, namely the
restricted code (position-centered talk) and the elaborated code (person-centered
talk) are two distinct functional dimensions or whether they are merely two
anchors of one dimension that captures differences in support talk. According to
Bernstein, when people learn a language they also learn a taken-for-granted stock
of knowledge that regulates everyday social interactions in unique social groups
(e.g., the family, a work team, a group of friends). Using 1950s British social class
structure, Bernstein differentiates between a restricted code used by working class
people and an elaborate code spoken by middle class people. The restricted code
(re)produces talk that focuses on social roles as they are defined by the social
group. The elaborated code focuses on explicit expressions of unique motivations,
feelings, and intentions (Atherton 2011). Bernstein’s code theory, which resembles
Bourdieux’s notions of habitus (Harker and May 1993), remains influential in conti-
nental sociolinguistics and education (see Sriprakash 2011), and has morphed into
a social realist theory referred to as Legitimation Code Theory (Maton 2011).
It is worth exploring whether the two codes actually serve different relational
functions: Position-centered talk may effectively express the unique, shared reality
of two or more people who have developed a close-knit relationship. In that rela-
tionship, intimate information “lives on” in people’s everyday idiomatic talk.
Details of past shared experiences become socially-shared markers that character-
ize the intimate nature of the relationship between people. Elaborated talk, on the
other hand, may be most effective when shared experiences (i.e., relational turning
points) do not yet exist. In that case, people are more inclined to provide a detailed
narrative. Atherton (2011) applies these functional code differences to family con-
versations. He states,

The essence of the distinction is in what the language is suited for. The restricted code works
better than the elaborated code for situations in which there is a great deal of shared and
taken-for-granted knowledge in the group of speakers. It is economical and rich, conveying a
vast amount of meaning with a few words, each of which has a complex set of connotations
and acts like an index, pointing the hearer to a lot more information which remains unsaid.
(Doceo website; emphases in the original)

Within the comforting context, person-centered and position-centered talk may

thus be two message dimensions that serve similar yet somewhat different second-
ary functions above and beyond the primary goal of ameliorating difficult emo-
tions. Specifically, sophisticated person-centered talk legitimizes and validates the
emotional experiences of the upset person in talk. Yet people may possess emotion
knowledge that ranges from what is culturally and normatively expected when
offering help (e.g., people usually cry when they grieve the loss of a loved one) to
 Supportive communication 377

idiosyncratic and unique emotion knowledge about the support recipient (e.g., She
never cries when she’s sad), that privileges the unique relationship, and that also
gets expressed in more and less sophisticated person-centered messages.
The expression of feelings in position-centered speech is typically accom-
plished through nonverbal channels, particularly the extent to which people effec-
tively use nonverbal immediacy behaviors when expressing support. These behav-
iors convey the communicator’s willingness to engage in interaction. Immediacy
cues include direct eye contact and expressions of vocal and facial warmth. They
also include listener-adapted cues, such as backchanneling cues that signal under-
standing (e.g., headnods). More and less position-centered talk may reflect the
(un)skilled use of idiosyncratic knowledge unique to the relationship. So for in-
stance, position-centered talk may range from relational knowledge that consists
of scripted, role-based behavior (e.g., normative expressions of sympathy between
a sales clerk and a customer) to knowledge that reflects intimate, relational infor-
mation a supporter possesses about the recipient (e.g., knowing that a recipient is
sensitive to touch).
Each message dimension may contribute in slightly different ways to an upset
person’s affective improvement, and much like there is a range in the extent to
which people effectively use person-centered talk, we would also expect variations
in people’s ability to use position-centered support more or less effectively. In
short, we propose an integrated, rather than a distributive model of supportive
messages: It may not be the case that people use either person-centered or posi-
tion-centered messages. Rather, it might be the case that people use both person
centered and position centered messages in more and less skilled ways. For exam-
ple, it may well be that a highly position-centered message consists of few words,
but highly immediate nonverbal cues that express compassion.
There is initial evidence that person-centered and position-centered talk may
be somewhat conceptually and operationally distinct, yet related dimensions of
supportive communication. Consider that person-centered studies have put a pre-
mium on verbal message exchange as the primary vehicle through which support
is conveyed, but empirical research on “being there” shows that the mere presence
of another person affects well-being (Dakof and Taylor 1990; Woodgate 2006).
Current work on nonverbal expressions of support suggests further that these non-
verbal features may be important components of the “feeling better” process (Jones
and Wirtz 2006). Furthermore, it seems that nonverbal and verbal expressions of
support play different roles in the support process. Jones and Wirtz (2001) found
that more and less person-centered messages are primarily responsible for differ-
ences in perceived and actual well-being in stranger relationships, whereas imme-
diacy cues other than those that are normatively appropriate in these relationships
did not significantly moderate the relationship between verbal person-centered
messages and perceived as well as actual well-being. Lastly, the dual-process
theory discussed above suggests ways in which those mechanisms may differ.
378 Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie

Whether more and less person- and position-centered forms of support play out
in interpersonal relationships that vary in function and closeness remains to be
empirically seen.

3.2 Person-centered conversations

Our second trajectory concerns the methodological paradigm of person-centered
theory. The refreshingly eclectic philosophical framework of constructivism stands
in stark contrast to the methodological determinism that has guided empirical
research on person-centered theory over the past 25 years. Even though the expo-
nents of constructivism have argued for the application of research methodology
that can unfold those interpretive processes which (re)produce social reality and
against a research model that stresses variable analysis (Delia 1977; Delia, O’Keefe,
and O’Keefe 1982), it is undoubtedly the latter that has dominated person-centered
scholarship.
People have little difficulty discerning more and less sophisticated, preformu-
lated person-centered messages such as those presented in Table 1. But it is still
an empirical question whether competent supporters actually do talk the sophisti-
cated person-centered talk when asked to help. Some evidence suggests that they
do. For example, Samter (1984, 1985) found that participants used what was subse-
quently coded highly person-centered support in actual conversations. But Metts
and colleagues (1995) found that when support providers responded to the feigned
distress of confederates, only 4.2 % of their responses were highly person-centered.
It seems imperative that we examine the presence and nature of person-centered
talk in actual conversations. An expedition into person-centered features of actual
conversations sparks interesting questions: How many person-centered messages
does it take to turn a person’s sadness into no sadness (if we assume that negative
emotion is not the absence of positive emotion; see Watson and Tellegen 1985)?
Does one highly person-centered message “make up” for two or three moderate
messages? Or, in line with Gottman’s (1999) famous 5 : 1 ratio, does it take 5 HPC
messages to make up for one LPC message?
Evidently, people do not talk in messages; people have supportive conversa-
tions with other people they know well, and it is these conversations and relation-
ships that sustain peoples’ sense of perceived support and that ultimately contrib-
ute to well being (cf. Lakey and Orehek 2011). The conversation is the site where
the helper can “express, elaborate, and clarify relevant thoughts and feelings”
(Burleson and Goldsmith 1998: 260). Burleson and Goldsmith (1998) presented a
theory of supportive conversation. In line with stress buffering models which
assume that support is most beneficial in direct response to a stressor (for a review
see Uchino et al. 2012), the supportive conversation is a process of facilitating
reappraisals whereby emotional experiences result from appraisals which, in turn,
are about how events are evaluated in the context of personal goals and needs.
 Supportive communication 379

Comforting works by discursively constructing appraisals over the course of a sup-

portive conversation. To date, the theory remains untested. The problem is that
it is difficult to examine the extent to which supportive talk causes emotional
change.
Conversational linkages are important in counseling psychology, and a process
that could be applied to appraisal talk is motivational interviewing (MI; Miller
and Rollnick 2013). In line with appraisal theory, MI postulates that the person is
responsible for changing emotion, behavior, and/or thought. However, change is
difficult because people possess ambivalent motivations (e.g., wanting to succeed
in class, yet also wanting to socialize with friends). These motivations are resistant
to change because both motivations are rewarding (and potentially costly). There-
fore, direct persuasion is often met with reactance. A first step for the helper is to
facilitate an assessment of where the recipient is in terms of wanting to change.
MI stipulates five cognitive change stages, namely recontemplation (“I don’t think
I have a problem”), contemplation (“Yeah, something’s not right”), preparation (“I
think I’m going to do something about that”), action planning (“Here’s what I’m
gonna do”), and actual implementation (I’m doin’ it”). Facilitating this assessment
ultimately involves the use of person-centered support which ought to fulfill four
goals: (a) express empathy, (b) encourage help recipients to experience and
express their discrepant motivations, (c) roll with resistance (i.e., accepting resist-
ance to change), and (d) foster self-efficacy. Rolling with resistance is entirely in
line with appraisal theory, which suggests that the helper is there to facilitate, not
“fix” or resolve problems that may have contributed to stressful and upsetting
emotions.
But how do we encourage people to use these skills in everyday supportive
encounters? We propose mindfulness as a cognitive, motivational mechanism for
person-centered talk. Conceptually, both mindfulness and person-centered support
stress intention, attention and awareness of present relational realities (Shapiro et
al. 2006). Mindfulness is defined as awareness of and attention to mental stimuli
as they present themselves to us in the here and now in a dispassionate, non-
judgmental way (Brown, Ryan and Creswell 2007). Numerous experimental studies
showed that mindfulness improves people’s mental and physiological health.
Mindfulness may play an important role in appraisal talk (Brown, Ryan, and Cres-
well 2007; Strohsahl and Wilson 1999). Most helpers experience some anxiety or
pressure when they are asked to help (Jones 2011). Fears of not providing the
“proper” support, expectations to fix problems, distorted views of support as a
fast-acting remedy – all of these preoccupy the helper who is therefore anything
else but mindful. Mindfulness may permit person-centered supporters to first
become aware of, attentive to, and ultimately let go of their own fears before they
engage in person-centered talk (i.e., validating feelings). Mindfulness also provides
helpers with fundamental intentional action readiness or a perspective that
focuses on other-centered kindness and compassion, and thus the opposite of self-
380 Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie

centered performance anxieties (Shapiro et al. 2006). The inclusion of mindfulness

deviates from previous assumptions implicit in person-centered theory that the
helper ought to attend virtually exclusively to the distressed person through the
process of validating emotion. The pressures and expectations that may lead help-
ers to simply not “be there” or to offer glib comfort may dissipate by fostering
simple mindful attunement.
Mindfulness, coupled with motivational interviewing, may provide us with a
richer conceptualization of what person-centered talk could look and feel like. It
could also help clarify what is meant by conceptualizations of “being there.”
Lastly, similar to the many automatic mechanisms we develop over time (e.g.,
stopping at a red light), mindfulness could easily turn into an effective cognitive
heuristic that activates a person’s use of person-centered messages and behaviors.
In short, mindfulness may be all that’s needed to activate person-centered con-
structs and thus the use of person-centered strategies.

3.3 Steady as she goes: Capitalizing on good emotions with

person-centered messages
The last trajectory conceived of supportive messages as most efficacious in buffer-
ing immediately experienced stressors. Our next trajectory explores the utility of
everyday person-centered talk above and beyond its immediate stress-buffering
benefits. We propose that person-centered support may contribute significantly to
main effects. The main effects model (viz. the stress buffering model) stipulates
that a person’s relatively stable perceived support, which is sustained through
ordinary, nonstressful social interactions, generates a main effect for health (Lakey
and Orehek 2011).
Person-centered support may play an important role in ordinary talk and when
we share good news. Of course, we experience mundane (and good) things far
more frequently than bad things. However, sharing a day filled with good things
may sound trivial at first blush: catching the bus, having a good conversation, a
project well done. Nevertheless, these mundane things fill our daily conversations.
How people turn to others to share good news is called capitalization (Gable and
Reis 2010). Because a person’s perceived support is usually relatively stable and
because well-being is a function of how people deal with their emotional experien-
ces, it makes sense to explore the impact of person-centered support in response
to everyday minor hassles (i.e., the bad news) and everyday minor positive events.
Supportive communication and capitalization differ in at least one fundamen-
tal way: Beneficial supportive communication minimizes negative emotions,
whereas successful capitalization support maximizes, or capitalizes on positive
emotions. People maintain optimal well-being when they experience, on average,
a ratio of three positive emotions to one negative emotion (Frederickson and Lo-
sada 2005). In addition, negative and positive events are regulated by two inde-
 Supportive communication 381

pendent processes, namely appetition and aversion. The former deals with rewards
and positive emotions, whereas the latter deals with threats and negative emotions
(Carver 1996). Positive and negative emotions also serve different functions: Nega-
tive emotions orient a person to actions that aim to minimize these emotions.
Frederickson’s (1998) “broaden and build” theory contributes to capitalization
and proposes that positive emotions function to broaden the scope of interpersonal
construct structures (thought-action repertoires; Frederickson 2001), social bonds,
and support resources. Conveying positive events, be they minor or more substan-
tial, has important personal and relational consequences. Positive emotions
enhance “broad-minded coping” (i.e., examining the “big picture of a problem,
generating multiple solutions), which ultimately reinforce long-term coping abil-
ities and stress resilience. Thus, positive emotions contribute to what Frederickson
labels “up-ward spirals” in a person’s well-being (Frederickson and Joiner 2002;
Tugade and Frederickson 2004).
The vast amount of mundane and good news is conveyed in close relationships
(Gable et al. 2004), and how close others respond to this news is significantly
associated with personal well-being and relational satisfaction (Gable, Gonzaga
and Strachman 2006). To measure the effects of responses on the capitalizer (the
recipient) Gable and her team adapted the active/passive-constructive/destructive
accommodation response matrix designed as part of the investment model by Rus-
bult and colleagues (e.g., Rusbult, Drigotas and Verette 1994). Active-constructive
responses are person-centered in nature. In fact, Gable and Reis (2010) describe
these responses as expressing involvement, excitement or enthusiasm about the
good news. These responses also tend to ask open-ended questions that encourage
capitalizers to elaborate on the implications and consequences of the positive
event. Interestingly, McCullough and Burleson (2012) report initial results of a
study that tested specific message features of celebratory support. Two active-
constructive features in particular, namely acknowledging feelings and offers to
celebrate, were viewed as most effective.
Two response categories tend to reflect low person-centered responses. Pas-
sive-destructive responses minimize the relevance of the positive event by not
acknowledging it at all, by dismissing any positive emotions associated with the
event, and by immediately changing the topic. Additionally, active-destructive
responses are those that reflect an active and attentive listener, yet one who will
dismiss the positive event or who will point out the negative sides of the event or
who will attempt to reframe the event in less favorable ways. Passive-constructive
responses are closest to MPC messages because these responses may implicitly
indicate a positive attitude yet the responder says very little. Indeed, this response
differs from the active-constructive response in level of involvement. Passive-con-
structive responses do not ask questions or comment on the personal meaningful-
ness of the event to the capitalizer. As expected, active-constructive responses
to positive event disclosures are usually positively associated with personal and
382 Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie

relational well-being, whereas the other three response styles are not (Reis et al.
2010).
Capitalization and broaden-and-build theory are part of a growing area of
scholarship on positive psychology, which is concerned with the pursuit of under-
standing optimal human functioning and human strength (see Lopez and Snyder
2011). From the perspective of person-centered theory, it might be most insightful
to examine the impact of PC messages on positive event disclosures. A first ques-
tion concerns the perceived and real impact of PC messages on positive and nega-
tive event disclosures. It seems that LPC messages might be more relationally and
personally harmful in response to positive event disclosures than in response to
negative event disclosures. A distressed person who just shared his or her frustra-
tions will likely feel only worse in response to low person-centered support, but a
happy person who just shared his good news will likely not only feel less happy
but also frustrated and sad. In other words, in addition to lower levels of positive
emotion, capitalizers who receive LPC support may also experience negative emo-
tions. Thus, the personal and relational consequences of LPC responses to good
news are more detrimental than LPC responses to bad news. Second, the presence
of person-centered support is a relational resource that contributes significantly to
one’s perceived social support, which is itself positively associated with personal
well-being. So, people who consistently receive HPC support may be better able
to sustain adverse events. A final research question concerns the extent to which
people actually use high PC messages in response to good news.

3.4 Person-centered supportive communication: Reprieve

Let us summarize the development of PC since its inception in 1980. Early work
in supportive communication cast PC as a cognitive construct best operationalized
in messages. PC was originally labeled “listener-adapted persuasive strategies”
(O’Keefe and Delia 1979: 231), a slight oversimplification that was revised quickly
to acknowledge that messages (like people) are more or less “complex” (O’Keefe
and Delia 1982). The fact that research on PC in the context of support emanated
from persuasion may explain why PC is operationalized in messages. Table 1
shows nomothetic person-centered messages in the form of declarative statements,
imperatives, and exclamations with the goal to ameliorate emotional upset, a goal
that is analogous to attitudinal change in the context of persuasion (see Bodie
2013a).
Conceptualizations of person-centered comfort have since extended beyond
the use of such assertions. As discussed earlier, Burleson and Goldsmith’s (1998)
theory of cognitively induced reappraisal has shifted the focus from examining
perceived differences in PC messages to the complex discursive choices supporters
and recipients make during talk. This shift certainly complicated things for PC, a
point that did not elude Burleson. Indeed, in one of the last conversations the
 Supportive communication 383

second author had with Burleson (who passed away in 2010), Burleson admitted
that PC is a “messy” construct and perhaps not so easily captured in preformulated
messages. Burleson (2003: 582–583) comments in more detail in a chapter:

“Helpers manifest a person-centered approach to emotional support by encouraging the target

to tell his or her story about the problem or upset (“What happened here? Can you tell me
about what happened?”), and continually create the conversational spaces through which
extended, detailed versions of that story can be told and retold. Once the distressed target
begins telling his or her story, the person-centered helper can do several things to facilitate
this process. First, the helper can emphasize that the target should feel free to tell an extended
story about the upsetting event … the helper can assist by prompting continuation and elabo-
ration, making inquiries about the situation and reactions to it (“Um-hmm. Yes. And then
what happened?”) … helpers can … ask explicitly about the other’s thoughts and feelings
regarding the situation … [and] also be trained to encourage the target’s emotional talk by
learning to use statements explicitly elaborating and legitimizing the expression of feelings,
and can reinforce this by asserting that having the experienced feelings is understandable”

PC support has evolved from a mere message on paper into a skill enacted by a
helper through the use of a “class” of specific behaviors, or rather “a repertoire of
behavioral strategies and tactics” (Burleson 2003: 580). We would like to push this
evolution a bit further and argue that what PC looks like in conversation is likely
very different than what it looks like in single-shot messages, a point that indeed
is reflected already in the model presented by Burleson and Goldsmith (1998). PC
is no longer a function of a message but a characteristic behavior of a person and
a property of social interaction. This conjecture is somewhat reflected in tran-
scripts from Jones and Wirtz (2006), which show that trained confederates used
questions to explore the recipient’s emotions and other aspects of the problematic
event. In the HPC example, for instance, the confederate has 14 conversational
turns, 10 of which are questions (71.4 %). In contrast, the LPC example contains 8
questions over 24 total turns (33 %); and, of course, most of the questions from
the LPC helper challenge emotions rather than seek to explore them. So there are
clearly qualitative differences and differences in types of questions that constitute
high and low PC support.

4 Listening as supportive communication: Exemplar

of an emerging research program
Supportive conversations present a unique context for the study of listening (Jones
2011: 86), and scholars, practitioners, and distressed people alike assert that listen-
ing is a key activity in the comforting process. Although the role of listening in
helping situations has been recognized for decades, it is difficult to articulate just
what listening is or what listeners do (for a review see Bodie 2012a). ‘Good listen-
ing’ and person-centeredness are often viewed synonymously (Bostrom 1990: 7).
384 Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie

In our view, there is a need to integrate person-centered listening behaviors into

theory and research on supportive communication. But just where (i.e., at what
moment in the supportive process) and how listening should be explicated is
debatable. The second author has spearheaded a comprehensive research agenda
that advances our theoretical and operational thinking of supportive “listening.”

4.1 The beginnings of a research program

The shift from person-centered messages to person-centered helpers is subtle but
significant. While the focus on messages largely removes the support provider
from systematic scrutiny, the focus on people and the ways in which they enact
emotional support opens up a rich set of theoretical and empirical questions. The
first link is simple: Producing messages with higher levels of PC and supportive
(or active) listening require significant cognitive processing. Evidence for the con-
nection between PC support and skilled listening comes from research that people
with higher levels of interpersonal cognitive complexity (ICC) are more adept at
producing HPC messages (Burleson 2011). In addition, ICC has been linked to lis-
tening comprehension (Beatty and Payne 1984), tendencies to remember conversa-
tions (Neuliep and Hazleton 1986), and more sophisticated understanding of sup-
portive communication (Bodie et al. 2011).
The importance of providing a nuanced account of supportive listening is cor-
roborated by findings that people report a preference for interacting with engaged
helpers (Jones and Wirtz 2007) and consistently rate listening as an important
component of social support (for review see Bodie, Vickery and Gearhart 2013).
Support providers who are more attentive and conversationally responsive elicit
more detailed disclosures from distressed others (Miller, Berg and Archer 1983)
and are more likely to provide appropriate responses to those disclosures (Clark
1993). Consequently, stressed individuals seek out support from others whom they
view as particularly good listeners. If good listening is so crucial to support provi-
sions, it behooves us to determine the profile of good listening.

4.2 Mapping the behavioral correlates of supportive listening

In line with personal construct theory, we wanted to examine the personal con-
structs people associate with good listening and what specific behaviors are associ-
ated with these constructs. We sought to uncover components of implicit theories
of listening – those cognitive representations central to how listening works and
the behaviors that are associated with these attributes (Bodie et al. 2012; Bodie,
Vickery and Gearhart 2013). Our theoretical approach was informed by an assump-
tion common to social cognition, namely that people are naïve scientists. Kruglan-
ski’s (1990) lay epistemic theory is an inferential theory about knowledge forma-
 Supportive communication 385

tion processes and proposes that people validate their hypotheses on the basis of
evidence that is either a result of logical (if-then), or probabilistic and statistical
inferences (half of all Americans vote). Applied to our context, we wanted to exam-
ine listening attributes (e.g., what listening is) and the behavioral indicators that
are associated with these attributes (e.g., what listeners do) (Bodie et al. 2012).
Much like personal constructs, attributes are beliefs about what an object is and
behavioral indicators are beliefs about what an object does (Pavitt and Haight
1985).
In a set of three studies we found that people view competent listeners as
possessing five attributes, namely attentiveness, understanding, responsiveness,
friendliness, and the ability to sustain conversational flow (Bodie et al. 2012).
Attributes, such as intelligence, confidence, humor, and clarity were not highly
related to listening competence. These five attributes become salient when judging
others as good or bad listeners. Our studies also revealed a range of specific behav-
ioral indicators that are associated with these five attributes and that are thus
relevant to supportive conversations: (a) eye contact is primarily associated with
attentiveness, (b) smiling and laughing with friendliness, (c) verbal and physical
composure with conversational flow, and (d) asking questions with understanding
and responsiveness. It seems that people have implicit expectations or mental
representations about good listening and subsequently “look for” certain kinds of
behaviors that fulfill these expectations.
People’s implicit theories of listening easily integrate with person-centered
theory. The five listening attributes map onto explications of “supportive people”
who possess the motivation and ability to acquire (a) knowledge about the feelings
and emotional states of others; (b) knowledge about human emotion and its
dynamics; and (c) knowledge of specific nonverbal, linguistic, and rhetorical
resources through which supportive interactions can be realized in specific mes-
sage strategies (Burleson and Kunkel 1996). The characteristics of supportive lis-
teners mirror these general characteristics: listeners “get the meaning” of their
conversational partners; as part of recognizing their knowledge, they “attend to
verbal cues” and “offer feedback,” and “make a conscious effort” expressing a
“willingness” to listen to the partner.
What our research on implicit theories of listening research also suggests is
that listening and its attributes/behaviors are expected. Expectations are usually
defined as normative behavioral scripts that define social interactions (Jones and
Guerrero 2001). People expect to see certain supportive listening behaviors (i.e.,
establishing eye contact, asking questions) that signal conversational engagement,
responsiveness, attentiveness, and understanding. The absence of these suppor-
tive listening behaviors may have negative implications for conversational partners
and the relationship. The power of expectations is imbedded in the philosophical
framework of person-centered theory: To be person-centered is to accommodate
the other person. By incorporating principles of accommodation we can further
386 Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie

advance the second trajectory outlined above, namely to move the study of suppor-
tive communication from a focus on individuals producing and processing messa-
ges to dyads co-constructing problems and coping solutions.

4.3 Linking effective supportive listening to outcomes

Carl Rogers’ (1959, 1995) philosophy of active-empathic listening permeates work
on verbal person centeredness. However, recommendations for “active listening”
are extrapolated from counseling (Hutchby 2005; Nugent and Halvorson 1995) with
little direct evidence of its effectiveness in interpersonal relationships (Cramer
1987; Gottman et al. 1998). Therefore, we conducted a study to addresses whether
active listening behaviors influence important outcomes of informal supportive
conversations (Bodie and Vickery 2012). Supportive behaviors contribute to three
immediate outcomes, namely generating emotional awareness and changing
affect, solving a problem, and reinforcing the relationship between helper and
recipient (Goldsmith et al. 2000). To explore the impact of active listening behav-
iors on these three outcomes, we analyzed 171 supportive conversations. Of par-
ticular relevance to our argument are the results of the relative importance of
specific active listening behaviors to perceived emotional awareness and affect
change.
Active listening includes a range of observable behaviors, including para-
phrasing, reflecting feelings, assumption checking, and asking questions, each of
which is mentioned by Burleson (2003) as an important behavior in the perception
of helpful emotional support. Paraphrases are content and relational summaries
that signal understanding (Weger, Castle and Emmett 2010). These summaries are
typically prefaced with short introductions that indicate their speculative nature
(It seems like …), but these linguistic hedges are not necessary. What is important
for competent paraphrasing is that active listeners accurately detect and effectively
articulate the upset person’s feeling state (Hutchby 2005). One strategy to assure
accuracy is to follow the paraphrase or reflection with assumption checking. These
“check-outs” or “tags” are short questions that determine whether the listener has
accurately captured the meaning of the discloser’s response (Does that fit for you?)
(Baldwin 1987). Finally, active listeners also engage with questioning in the form
of open questions which shift the conversation in particular directions (Healing
and Bavelas 2011).
We found that perceived emotional awareness is a function of how well a
listener paraphrases and reflects feelings, suggesting that emotional awareness is
primarily communicated through summary statements that show understanding
of a discloser’s content and feelings. On average, the verbal behaviors were 3.31
times more important to the prediction of emotional awareness than were the
nonverbal behaviors. For affect change, open questions, check outs, paraphrasing,
eye contact, and facial expressions contributed substantively. Although the overall
 Supportive communication 387

effect was small for any given behavior, on average, the verbal behaviors were
stronger predictors of affect change (2.72 times stronger on average) than were
nonverbal behaviors, mirroring results from the model predicting emotional aware-
ness.
In line with two other studies (Bodie and Jones 2011; Jones and Guerrero 2001),
the results of this study clearly point to the superiority of linguistic listening cues.
We now have evidence from three studies suggesting that verbal person-centered
cues are (a) more important contributors to impressions of others as “good listen-
ers” (Bodie et al. 2012; Jones and Guerrero 2001) and (b) rated as more important
by third-party observers who rated a supportive listener (Bodie and Jones 2011).
However, the somewhat arbitrary “verbal” and “nonverbal” labels may not explain
these results. Similar to lay epistemic views of listening, Clark (1996) suggests that
both verbal and nonverbal listening behaviors contribute jointly to discourse.
When we examined a set of supportive conversations, our research team found
that conversations with fewer listening indicators (e.g., less eye contact, fewer
direct verbal displays of understanding), did not flow as smoothly. In these conver-
sations, stories also were not told as coherently, and disclosers were more likely
to repeat themselves.
But why do verbal behaviors contribute more strongly to listening outcomes
than do nonverbal behaviors? Clark suggests that contributions to discourse are
achieved in two phases, the presentation phase and the acceptance phase. In the
presentation phase, one partner offers a proposition which can then be accepted
(fully, partially or not at all) by the other partner. As part of the acceptance phase
(and quite reminiscent of the motivational interviewing stage we discussed above),
listeners can engage in a range of behaviors that provide (in)valid evidence of
understanding and thus contribute more (or less) to explicit acceptance of what
was said (or lack thereof). Clark lays out four types of positive evidence of under-
standing, including (1) displays (e.g., using immediacy cues, and verbal statements
acknowledging emotions), (2) exemplifications (e.g., paraphrasing, using iconic
gestures), (3) assertions (i.e., generic backchannel responses), and (4) presupposi-
tions (i.e., uptaking or initiating the next turn). As noted previously, these types
sustain our claim that listening cannot be viewed as independent of the speaker;
it is jointly construed to generate shared meaning.
Whether active listening techniques promote beneficial outcomes in suppor-
tive conversations (and stress-buffering situations) and how active listening func-
tions for main effects models of support is another empirical question. Our
research suggests that traditional listening theories need to be revised. These theo-
ries are usually based on stage models of information processing and contain a
sequential or parallel set of procedures through which all listeners supposedly
traverse when making sense of aural information (for reviews see Bodie et al. 2008;
Imhof 2010). These procedures consist of sensing, interpreting, and responding;
some models also include processes such as “hearing” prior to sensing and “evalu-
388 Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie

ating” prior to responding (Burleson 2011). Arguably, it is difficult to empirically

verify these models; sensing is a theoretical attribute, not a behavioral indicator.
In addition, these theories imply that good listening is guided by information-
processing tropes that put a premium on comprehension: If a message has been
understood, the person has listened effectively (for a review see Bodie 2013b). We
may want to move away from the traditional cognitive-structural listening troika
(i.e., sensing, responding, interpreting) toward more integrative theories that con-
ceive of listening as a interactive process unique to the human condition, and that
are grounded in a socially-shared reality, in our case the reality of the supportive
encounter.

4.4 Extending Supportive Listening

Bodie et al. (2008) present an organizational framework from which a meaningful
and comprehensive set of listening theories could be launched. Their framework
incorporates preconditions for listening (person factors, listening context), the
actual listening process (internal mental and overt behavioral process), and listen-
ing outcomes (knowledge acquisition, relationship building, affective outcomes).
The empirical evidence we accumulated thus far taps some factors and culminates
in four points we must attend to when conceptualizing active listening in the
context of social support: First, emotion regulation likely plays an important role
for supportive listeners. Listeners called on to provide emotional support often
have to set aside their own agenda to problem solve or otherwise “fix” the other’s
dilemma. Second, the supportive listener not only has to “interpret” information,
but he or she also must draw upon shared experience to discover common themes
or habits of action, and situate the listening response in the here and now. In
short, the supportive listener has to be “mindful”. Third, scholars often invoke the
construct as an explanatory mechanism through which support occurs (Lipari
2010). Clearly, there is no dearth in “listening-is-good” claims. But just how does
good listening get to matter so much and how does good listening actually work?
Lastly, as we pointed out above, supportive listening is what Clark (1996: 212) calls
a joint construal. Indeed, constructivism may serve useful for formulations of
active listening as a joint construal problem because Constructivism explicates
how support provider and recipient co-create meaning and reality.

5 Conclusion
Supportive communication will endure as one of the most important areas of
research in interpersonal communication and social psychology because expres-
sions of care and compassion are integral to human survival. The field of interper-
sonal communication has significantly contributed to the social support literature
 Supportive communication 389

with person-centered theory of supportive communication. Person-centered theory

is grounded in constructivism and has generated important knowledge regarding
the kinds of messages that prove beneficial in helping people cope with emotional
distress. Our goal in this chapter was to present three fresh trajectories for the
study of person-centered support. All trajectories share one important characteris-
tic: They conceive of supportive communication as a complicated and intricate
process that unfolds over time.

References
Andersen, Peter A. 1999. Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions. Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield.
Applegate, James L. 1980. Person- and position-centered teacher communication in a day care
center: A case study triangulating interview and naturalistic methods. Studies in Symbolic
Interaction 3: 59–96.
Atherton, James S. 2011 Doceo: Language Codes [Online: UK] retrieved 17 November. 2012. from
http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/language_codes.htm
Baldwin, Cynthia. 1987. A question classification scale for marriage and family therapy. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy 13: 375–386.
Bavelas, Janet Beavin, Dan McGee, Bruce Phillips and Robin Routledge. 2000. Microanalysis of
communication in psychotherapy. Human Systems: The Journal of Systemic Consultation &
Management 11: 47–66.
Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckman. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Bernstein, Basil. 1974. Class, Codes, and Control I: Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology of
Language. (2nd ed.) London: Routledge.
Bodie, Graham D. 2011. The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization and
evidence of validity within the interpersonal domain. Communication Quarterly 59: 277–295.
Bodie, Graham D. 2012a. Listening as positive communication. In Thomas J. Socha and Margaret
J. Pitts (eds.), The positive side of interpersonal communication, 109–125. New York: Peter
Lang.
Bodie, Graham D. 2012b. Task stressfulness moderates the effects of verbal person centeredness
on cardiovascular reactivity: A dual-process account of the reactivity hypothesis. Health
Communication 27: 569–580.
Bodie, Graham. D. 2013a. Supportive communication and persuasion: Theoretical intersections.
In James P. Dillard and Lijiang Shen (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion 2nd edition,
237–255. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bodie, Graham D. 2013b. Issues in the measurement of listening. Communication Research
Reports 30: 76–84.
Bodie, Graham D. and Brant R. Burleson. 2008. Explaining variations in the effects of supportive
messages. Communication Yearbook 32: 355–398.
Bodie, Graham D. and Susanne M. Jones. 2012. The nature of supportive listening II: The role of
verbal person centeredness and nonverbal immediacy. Western Journal of Communication
76: 250–269.
Bodie, Graham D., Brant R. Burleson and Susanne M. Jones. 2012. Explaining the relationships
among message quality, message evaluations, and message outcomes: A dual-process
approach. Communication Monographs 79: 1–22.
390 Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie

Bodie, Graham D., Burleson, Brant R., Holmstrom, Amanda J., McCullough, Jennifer D., Rack,
Jessica J., Hanasono, Lisa K., and Rosier, Jennifer G. 2011. Effects of cognitive complexity
and emotional upset on processing supportive messages: Two tests of a dual-process theory
of supportive message outcomes. Human Communication Research 37: 350–376.
Bodie, Graham D., Kellie St. Cyr, Michelle Pence, Michael Rold and James M. Honeycut. 2012.
Listening competence in initial interactions I: Distinguishing between what listening is and
what listeners do. International Journal of Listening 26: 1–28.
Bodie, Graham D., Andrea J. Vickery and Christopher C. Gearhart. 2013. The nature of supportive
listening I: Exploring the relation between supportive listeners and supportive people.
International Journal of Listening 27: 39–49.
Bodie, Graham D. and Andrea J. Vickery. 2012. “So what I hear you saying is …”: An empirical
test of the active listening paradigm in the context of troubles talk. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the International Association for Relationship Research: Chicago, IL.
Bodie, Graham D., Debra L. Worthington, Margarete Imhof and Lynn Cooper. 2008. What would a
unified field of listening look like? A proposal linking past perspectives and future
endeavors. International Journal of Listening 22: 103–122.
Bostrom, Robert N. 1990. Conceptual approaches to listening behavior. In Robert N. Bostrom
(ed.), Listening behavior: Measurement and application: 1–14. New York: Guilford.
Burleson, Brant R. 1982. The development of comforting communication skills in childhood and
adolescence. Child Development 53: 1578–1588.
Burleson, Brant R. 1987. Communication skills and childhood peer relationships: An Overview.
Communication Yearbook 10: 143–180.
Burleson, Brant R. 2003. The experience and effects of emotional support: What the study of
cultural and gender differences can tell us about close relationships, emotion and
interpersonal communication. Personal Relationships 10: 1–23.
Burleson, Brant R. 2011. A constructivist approach to listening. International Journal of Listening
25: 27–46.
Burleson, Brant R. and Daena J. Goldsmith. 1998. How the comforting process works: Alleviating
emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In: Peter A. Andersen and
Laura K. Guerrero (eds.), Handbook of Communication and Emotion, 246–275. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Burleson, Brant R. and Adrianne Kunkel. 1996. The socialization of emotional support skills in
childhood. In: Gregory R. Pierce, Barbara. R. Sarason and Irwin G. Sarason (eds.), Handbook
of Social Support and the Family, 105–140. New York: Plenum Press.
Burleson, Brant R. and Erina L. MacGeorge. 2002. Supportive communication. In: Mark L. Knapp
and John A. Daly (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (3rd ed.), 374–424.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burleson, Brant R. and Wendy Samter. 1984. Cognitive and motivational influences on
spontaneous comforting behavior. Human Communication Research 11: 231–260.
Burleson, Brant R. and Wendy Samter. 1985. Consistencies in theoretical and naïve evaluations
of comforting messages. Communication Monographs 52: 104–123.
Burleson, Brant R., Jesse Delia and James Applegate. 1995. The socialization of person-centered
communication: Parents’ contributions to their children’s social-cognitive and
communication skills. In: Mary Anne Fitzpatrick and Anita L. Vangelisti (eds.), Explaining
Family Interactions, 34–76. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, Kirk W., Richard M. Richard Ryan and J. David Creswell. 2007. Mindfulness: Theoretical
foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry 18: 211–237.
Carkhuff, Robert R. 1969. Helping and Human Relations: A Primer for Lay and Professional
Helpers: Selection and Training (vol. 1) Oxford, England: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Chiari, Gabriele and M. Laura Nuzzo. 1996. Psychological Constructivism: A Metatheoretical
Differentiation. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 9: 163–184.
 Supportive communication 391

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Leslie F. 1993. Stress and the cognitive-conversational benefits of social interaction.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 12: 25–55.
Craig, Elizabeth A. and Amy J. Johnson. 2011. Role strain and online social support for childless
stepmothers. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 28: 868–887.
Cramer, Duncan. 1987. Self-esteem, advice-giving, and the faciliative nature of close personal
relationships. Person-Centered Review 2: 99–110.
Crockett, Walter H. 1965. Cognitive complexity and impression formation. Progress in
Experimental Personality Research 2: 47–90.
Dakof, Gayle A. and Shelley E. Taylor. 1990. Victims’ perceptions of social support: What is
helpful from whom? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58: 80–89.
DeSanto, Paula. 2012. Effective Addiction Treatment: The Minnesota Alternative. Spring Lake Park:
Minnesota Alternatives LLC.
Delia, Jesse. 1977. Constructivism and the study of human communication. Quarterly Journal of
Speech 63: 66–83.
Delia, Jesse G., Susan L. Kline and Brant R. Burleson. 1979. The development of persuasive
communication strategies in kindergarteners through Twelfth-graders. Communication
Monographs 46: 241–256.
Delia, Jesse, Barbara J. O’Keefe and Daniel J. O’Keefe. 1982. The constructivist approach to
communication. In: Frank E. X. Dance (ed.) Human Communication Theory, 147–191. New
York: Harper and Row.
Fehr, Beverly. 1988. Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 4: 557–579.
Feng, Bo and Hairong Feng. 2012. Examining cultural similarities and differences in responses to
advice: A comparison of american and chinese college students. Communication Research
doi: 10.1177/0093650211433826 (online access).
Folkman, Susan (ed.). 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Stress, Health, and Coping. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Frederickson, Barbara. 1998. What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology 2:
300–319.
Frederickson, Barbara. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-
and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 56: 218–226.
Frederickson, Barbara and Marcial F. Losada. 2005. Positive affect and the complex dynamics of
human flourishing. American Psychologist 60: 678–686.
Frederickson, Barbara and Thomas Joiner. 2002. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward
emotional well-being. Psychological Science 13: 172–175.
Gable, Shelley and Harry T. Reis. 2010. Good news! Capitalizing on positive events in an
interpersonal context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 42: 198–240.
Gable, Shelley, Harry T. Reis, Emily Impett and Evan R. Asher. 2004. What do you do when things
go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 87: 228–245.
Gable, Shelley, Gian C. Gonzaga and Amy Strachman. 2006. Will you be there for me when
things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 91: 904–917.
Goldsmith, Daena J. 2004. Communicating Social Support. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Gottman, John M. and Nan Silver. 1999. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. New
York: Three Rivers Press.
Gottman, John M., James Coan, Sybil Carrere and Catherine Swanson. 1998. Predicting marital
happieness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family 60:
5–22.
392 Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie

Halone, Kelby K. and Loretta Pecchioni. 2001. Relational listening: A grounded theoretical model.
Communication Reports 14: 59–71.
Harker, Richard and Stephen A. May. 1993. Code and habitus: Comparing the accounts of
Bernstein and Bourdieu. British Journal of Sociology of Education 14: 169–178.
Healing, Sara and Janet Beavin Bavelas. 2011. Can questions lead to change? An analogue
experiment. Journal of Systemic Therapies 30: 30–47.
Health and Behavior, Committee on. 2001. Health and Behavior: The Interplay of Biological,
Behavioral, and Societal Influences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
High, Andrew C. 2012. The production and reception of verbal person-centered social support in
face-to-face and computer-mediated dyadic conversations. Unpublished dissertation.
Pennsylvania State University, College Park, PA.
Hutchby, Ian. 2005. “Active listening”: Formulations and the elicitation of feelings-talk in child
counseling. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38: 303–329.
High, Andrew and James P. Dillard. 2012. A review and meta-analysis of person-centered
messages and social support outcomes. Communication Studies 63: 99–118.
Horowitz, Leonard M. and Stephen Strack (eds.). 2011. Handbook of Interpersonal Psychology:
Theory, Research, Application, Assessment, and Therapeutic Intervention. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Imhof, Margarete. 2010. The cognitive psychology of listening. In Andrew D. Wolvin (ed.),
Listening and Human Communication in the 21st century: 97–126. Boston: Blackwell.
Jetten, Jolanda, Catherine Haslam and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.). 2011. The Social Cure: Identity,
Health, and Well-Being. East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.
Jones, Susanne M. 2011. Supportive listening. International Journal of Listening 25: 85–103.
Jones, Susanne M. and Brant R. Burleson. 1997. The impact of situational variables on helpers’
perceptions of comforting messages: An attributional analysis. Communication Research 24:
530–555.
Jones, Susanne M. and Laura K. Guerrero. 2001. Nonverbal immediacy and verbal person-
centeredness in the emotional support process. Human Communication Research 4: 567–
596.
Jones, Susanne. M. and John G. Wirtz. 2007. “Sad monkey see, monkey do:” Nonverbal matching
in emotional support encounters. Communication Studies 58: 71–86.
Jones, Susanne M. and John G. Wirtz. 2006. How does the comforting process work?: An
empirical test of an appraisal-based model of comforting. Human Communication Research
32: 217–243.
Kelly, George. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs: Clinical Diagnosis and
Psychotherapy. London: Routledge.
Kruglanski, Arie W. 1990. Lay epistemic theory in social-cognitive psychology. Psychological
Inquiry 1: 181–197.
Lakey, Brian and Edward Orehek. 2011. Relational regulation theory: A new approach to explain
the link between perceived social support and mental health. Psychological Review 118:
482–495.
Lipari, Lisbeth. 2010. Listening, thinking, being. Communication Theory 20: 348–362.
MacGeorge, Erina L., Bo Feng and Brant R. Burleson. 2011. Supportive communication, In: Mark
L. Knapp and John A. Daly (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 317–354. (4th
ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maton, Karl. 2011. Knowledge-building: Analysing the cumulative development of ideas. In:
Gabrielle Ivinson, Brian Davies and John Fitz (eds.), Knowledge and Identity: Concepts and
Applications in Bernstein’s Sociology, 23–38. New York: Routledge.
McCullough, Jennifer and Brant R. Burleson. 2012. Celebratory support: Messages that enhance
the effects of positive experiences. In: Thomas J. Socha and Margaret Pitts (eds.), The
Positive Side of Interpersonal Communication, 229–245. New York: Peter Lang.
 Supportive communication 393

Metts, Sandra, Steve Backhaus and Dean Kazoleas. 1995, February. Social support as
problematic communication. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western States
Communication Association, Portland, OR.
Miller, Lynn C., John H. Berg and Richard L. Archer. 1983. Openers: Individuals who elicit intimate
self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44: 1234–1244.
Miller, William R. and Stephen Rollnick. 2012. Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change.
(3rd ed.) New York: Guilford.
Neimeyer, Robert A. (ed.). 2001. Meaning Reconstruction and the Experience of Loss. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Notarius, Clifford I. and Lisa R. Herrick. 1988. Listener response strategies to a distressed other.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 5: 97–108.
Nugent, William R. and Helene Halvorson. 1995. Testing the effects of active listening. Research
on Social Work Practice 5: 152–175.
O’Keefe, Barbara J. 1988. The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about
communication. Communication Monographs 55: 80–103.
O’Keefe, Barbara J. and Jesse G. Delia. 1979. Construct comprehensiveness and cognitive
complexity as predictors of the number and strategic adaptation of arguments and appeals
in a persuasive message. Communication Monographs 46: 231–240.
O’Keefe, Barbara J. and Jesse G. Delia. 1982. Impression formation and message production. In:
Mike E. Roloff and Charles R. Berger (eds.), Social cognition and communication, 33–7
?■■■. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pavitt, Charles and Larry Haight. 1985. The “competent communicator” as a cognitive prototype.
Human Communication Research 12: 225–241.
Raskin, Jonathan D. 2002. Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical
constructivism, and social constructivism. In: Jonathan D. Raskin and Sara K. Bridges (eds.),
Studies in Meaning: Exploring Constructivist Psychology, 1–25. New York: Pace University
Press.
Rogers, Carl R. 1959. A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships as
developed in the client-centered framework. In Sigmond Koch (ed.), Psychology: A Study of
a Science (3rd edition), 84–256. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rogers, Carl R. 1995. A Way of Being. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Rusbult, Caryl E., Stephen M. Drigotas and Julie Verette. 1994. The Investment Model: An
interdependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance
phenomena. In: Daniel J. Canary and Laura Stafford (eds.), Communication and Relational
Maintenance, 115–136. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ryff, Carol D. and Burton H. Singer (eds.). 2001. Emotion, Social Relationships, and Health
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Shapiro, Shauna L., Linda E. Carlson, John A. Astin, and Benedict Freeman. 2006. Mechanisms of
mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology 62: 373–386.
Snyder, C. R. and Shane J. Lopez. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. (2nd ed.)
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sriprakash, Arathi. 2011. The contributions of Bernstein’s sociology to education Development
Research. British Journal of Sociology of Education 32: 521–539.
Tugade, Michele M. and Barbara L. Frederickson. 2004. Resilient individuals use positive
emotions to bounce back From negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 86: 320–333.
Uchino, Bert N., Kimberly Bowen, McKenzie Carlisle and Wendy Birmingham. 2012. Psychological
pathways linking social support to health outcomes: A visit with the “ghosts” of research
past, present, and future. Social Science and Medicine 74: 949–957.
Watson, David and Auke Tellegen. 1985. Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological
Bulletin 98: 219–235.
 394 Susanne M. Jones and Graham D. Bodie

Weger, Harry, Jr., Gina R. Castle and Melissa C. Emmett. 2010. Active listening in peer interviews:
The influence of message paraphrasing on perceptions of listening skill. International
Journal of Listening 24: 34–49.
Woodgate, Roberta L. 2006. The importance of being there: Perspectives of social support by
adolescents with cancer. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing 23: 122–134.

View publication stats