Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Social Support in Couples: An Examination of Gender Differences Using Self-report and Observational Methods

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We explored gender differences in actual and perceived spousal support in a survey study involving 458 married Belgian couples and in an observational study involving 32 married Belgian couples. Self-reports were used in both studies to assess spouses’ support behaviors and perceived support. These measures were supplemented in Study 2 with measures of observed support behavior and on-line perceived support, as assessed during support interactions. Overall, the self-report measures yielded significant gender differences in support soliciting and support provision, whereas the observational measures did not. Furthermore, the results concerning global and on-line perceived support and support profiles were inconsistent with the “support gap” perspective. These findings were discussed in light of the existing research on gender differences in support and marriage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Ethical procedures were followed in accordance with American Psychological Association guidelines.

  2. In the present research, a Dutch version of this instrument was used. The translation into Dutch was conducted in accordance with the standardized back-translation procedure (see Bontempo 1993). The English version of the instrument was first translated into Dutch. Next, the Dutch translation was back-translated into English by an independent native English speaker. The back-translated version was then compared with the original version, and any discrepancies were adjusted.

  3. This questionnaire assessed the respondents’ own behaviors (i.e., self-reported) as well as their partner’s behaviors (i.e., partner-reported). Preliminary analyses revealed that the self-reported scores for support solicitation and provision behaviors of one spouse were significantly correlated with the partner-reported scores for support solicitation and provision behaviors of the other spouse, and their mean scores did not differ significantly. Because the gender of the rater did not qualify the pattern of results in any way, no new insights would be gained by including the gender-of-rater variable in our analyses. For that reason, and to avoid complicating the presentation of the results unnecessarily, we decided to exclude the gender-of-rater variable from all remaining analyses. Instead, we computed a score for all support behaviors reported in the present studies by averaging the self-reported scores of one spouse and the partner-reported scores of the other spouse.

  4. In the present research, a Dutch version of this instrument was used. The translation into Dutch was conducted in accordance with the standardized back-translation procedure (see Bontempo 1993). The English version of the instrument was first translated into Dutch. Next, the Dutch translation was back-translated into English by an independent native English speaker. The back-translated version was then compared with the original version, and any discrepancies were adjusted.

  5. See footnote 1.

References

  • Aries, E. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basow, S. A., & Rubenfeld, K. (2003). “Troubles talk”: Effects of gender and gender-typing. Sex Roles, 48, 183–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bate, B., & Bowker, J. (1997). Communication and the sexes (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, S. R. H., Martin, J. K., Blum, T. C., & Roman, P. M. (1993). Effects of marital and co-worker relationships on negative affect: Testing the central role of marriage. American Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belle, D. (1982). The stress of caring: women as providers of social support. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 496–505). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bontempo, R. (1993). Translation fidelity of psychological scales: An item response theory analysis of an individualism–collectivism scale. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Understanding and altering the longitudinal course of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66, 862–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, T. N., & Pasch, L. A. (1994). The Social Support Interaction Coding System (SSICS). Unpublished coding manual, University of California, Los Angeles.

  • Burleson, B. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burleson, B. R., & Gilstrap, C. M. (2002). Explaining sex differences in interaction goals in support situations: Some mediating effects of expressivity and instrumentality. Communication Reports, 15, 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burleson, B. R., & Kunkel, A.W. (2006). Revisiting the different cultures thesis: An Assessment of sex differences and similarities in supportive communication. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 137–159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canary, D. J, & Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (1997). Sex and gender differences in personal relationships. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canary, D. J., & Dindia, K. (1998). Sex differences and similarities in communication. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carels, R. A., & Baucom, D. H. (1999). Support in marriage: Factors associated with on-line perceptions of support helpfulness. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 131–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., Gottlieb, B. H., & Underwood, L. G. (2000). Social relationships and health. In S. Cohen, B. H. Gottlieb, & L. G. Underwood (Eds.), Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists (pp. 3–28). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, R. D., Rueter, M. A., & Elder, G. H. (1999). Couple resilience to economic pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 54–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, J. C., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Going beyond social support: The role of social relationships in adaptation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 454–460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support in couples. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dakof, G. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1990). Victims’ perception of social support: What is helpful for whom? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 80–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Clercq, A., Buysse, A., Roeyers, H., Ickes, W., Ponnet, K., & Verhofstadt, L. L. (2001). VIDANN: A video annotation system. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 33, 159–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G. J. O. (2002). The new science of intimate relationships. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G. J. O., & Thomas, G. (2000). Behavior and on-line cognition in marital interaction. Personal Relationships, 7, 111–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontaine, R. J. (2005). Equivalence. In Encyclopedia of social measurement. (Vol 1) Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Goldsmith, D. J., & Dun, S. A. (1997). Sex differences and similarities in the communication of social support, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 317–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. M., & Notarius, C. I. (2000). Decade review: Observing marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 927–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. W. (2001). The psychophysiology of marital interaction: Differential effects of support and conflict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon, USA.

  • Hinde, R. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, F. L. (2000). Speaking culturally: Language diversity in the United States. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S. M., & Burleson, B. R. (2003). Effects of helper and recipient sex on the experience and outcomes of comforting messages: An experimental investigation. Sex Roles, 48, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Butler, G. L. (2003). Gender differences in the communication values of mature adults. Communication Research Reports, 20, 191–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., Butler, G. L., Dane, J. L., & Passalacqua, S. A. (2005). Sex differences in goals for supportive interactions. Communication Studies, 56, 23–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGeorge, E. L., Graves, A. R., Feng, B., Gillihan, S. J., & Burleson, B. R. (2004). The myth of gender cultures: Similarities outweigh differences in men’s and women’s provision of and responses to supportive communication. Sex Roles, 50, 143–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaud, S. L., & Warner, R. M. (1997). Gender differences in self-reported response to troubles talk. Sex Roles, 37, 527–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). Gender differences in social support: A question of skill or responsiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 79–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pasch, L. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (1998). Social support, conflict, and the development of marital dysfunction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 219–230.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pasch, L. A., Bradbury, T. N., & Davila, J. (1997a). Gender, negative affectivity, and observed social support behavior in marital interaction. Personal Relationships, 4, 361–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasch, L. A., Bradbury, T. N., & Sullivan, K. T. (1997b). Social support in marriage: An analysis of intraindividual and interpersonal components. In G. R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G. Sarason, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook of social support and personality (pp. 229–256). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasch, L. A., Harris, K. W., Sullivan, K. T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2004). The social support interaction coding system. In P. Kerig & D. Baucom (Eds.), Couple observational coding systems (pp. 319–334). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1991). General and relationship-based perceptions of social support: Are two constructs better than one? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 1028–1039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T., & Collins, N. (2000). Measuring relationship properties and interactions relevant to social support. In S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists (pp. 136–194). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, L. J., & Greenberg, D. R. (2002). Observational “windows” to intimacy processes in marriage. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 118–149). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saitzyk, A. R., Floyd, F. J., & Kroll, A. B. (1997). Sequential analysis of autonomy–interdependence and affiliation–disaffiliation in couples’ social support interactions. Personal Relationships, 4, 341–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Pierce, G. R. (1994). Social support: Global and relationship-based levels of analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., Groves, R. M., & Schuman, H. (1998). Survey methods. In D. T. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., vol. 2, pp. 143–179). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sillars, A., Roberts, L. J., Leonard, K. E., & Dun, T. (2000). Cognition during marital conflict: The relationship between thought and talk. Journal of Social and Personal relationships, 17, 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanier, G. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steil, J. M. (2000). Contemporary marriage: Still an unequal partnership. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 124–136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Men and women in conversation. New York: Ballentine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoits, P. A. (1991). Gender differences in coping with emotional distress. In J. Eckenrode (Ed.), The social context of coping (pp. 107–138). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhofstadt, L. L. (2005). Conflict and social support: An interactional analysis within couples. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ghent University, Belgium.

  • Verhofstadt, L. L., & Buysse, A. (2006). Mannen en vrouwen in interactie: Een kijk op gelijkenissen en verschillen vanuit relatieonderzoek. (Spouses in interaction: What can relationship research tell us about gender similarities and differences?) Verslagen van het Centrum voor Genderstudies, 15, 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhofstadt, L. L., Buysse, A., De Clercq, A., & Goodwin, R. (2005a). Emotional arousal and negative affect in marital conflict: The influence of gender, conflict structure, and demand-withdrawal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 449–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhofstadt, L. L., Buysse, A., Devoldre, I., & De Corte, K. (2007). The influence of personal characteristics and relationship properties on social support in marriage. Manuscript accepted for publication in Psychologica Belgica.

  • Verhofstadt, L. L., Buysse, A., Ickes, W., De Clercq, A., & Peene, O. J. (2005b). Conflict and support interactions in marriage: An analysis of couples’ interactive behavior and on-line cognition. Personal Relationships, 12, 23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhofstadt, L. L., Buysse, A., Rosseel, Y., & Peene, O. J. (2006). Confirming the three-factor structure of the Quality of Relationships Inventory within couples. Psychological Assessment, 18, 15–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wills, T. A., & Shinar, O. (2000). Measuring perceived and received social support. In S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists (pp. 86–135). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. T. (1996). She says/he says: communication, caring, and conflict in heterosexual relationships. In J. T. Wood (Ed.), Gendered relationships (pp. 149–164). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. T. (2000). Relational culture: The nucleus of intimacy. In J. T. Wood (Ed.), Relational communication: Continuity and change in personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 76–100). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. T., & Dindia, K. (1998). What’s the difference? A dialogue about differences and similarities between women and men. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 19–39). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Y., & Burleson, B. R. (2001). Effects of sex, culture, and support type on perceptions, of spousal social support: An assessment of the « Support Gap » hypothesis in early marriage. Human Communication Research, 27, 535–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by a grant from the Fund for Scientific Research—Flanders—Belgium.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, H. Dunantlaan 2, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Lesley L. Verhofstadt & Ann Buysse

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA

    William Ickes

Authors
  1. Lesley L. Verhofstadt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ann Buysse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William Ickes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lesley L. Verhofstadt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Verhofstadt, L.L., Buysse, A. & Ickes, W. Social Support in Couples: An Examination of Gender Differences Using Self-report and Observational Methods. Sex Roles 57, 267–282 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9257-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9257-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation