Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Dyadic View of Support in Marriage: The Critical Role of Men’s Support Provision

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

Abstract

This study examined how sensitive support provision and receipt were related to marital outcomes in a sample of 57 happily married, middle-class couples from the Midwestern U.S. To assess how observed supportive behaviors may be differentially associated with self-reported support satisfaction, marital love, and marital conflict for men and women, we utilized a series of Actor Partner Interdependence Models (APIM). This dyadic approach revealed significant gender differences regarding how the supportive role enacted (i.e., provider versus recipient) contributed considerably to marital outcomes. Specifically, husbands’ sensitive support provision significantly predicted both spouses’ support satisfaction. Additionally, husbands’ sensitive support provision was significantly associated with wives’ marital love. Wives’ reported conflict was predicted by the combination of both providing and receiving sensitive support. For husbands’ outcomes, husbands’ own sensitive support provision was most critically associated with their reporting greater love and less conflict. These findings reveal notable gender differences as men’s ability to provide sensitive support was critical not only to their wives’ marital outcomes, but to their own as well. Our results build upon and extend the literature implicating the importance of examining gender differences in supportive interactions in marriage. Moreover, our findings suggest that simultaneous consideration of spousal support receipt and provision is critical when seeking to understand how support is related to marital outcomes for men and women.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acitelli, L., & Antonucci, T. (1994). Gender differences in the link between marital support and satisfaction in older couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 688–689. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.688.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In T. D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 282–316). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengston, V. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1–16. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00001.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braiker, H., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 135–168). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., Nesse, R. M., Vinokur, A. D., & Smith, D. M. (2003). Providing social support may be more beneficial than receiving it: Results from a prospective study of mortality. Psychological Science, 14, 320–327. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. B., Consedine, N. S., & Magai, C. (2005). Altruism relates to health in an ethnically diverse sample of older adults. Journal of Gerentology: Psycological Sciences, 60, 143–152. doi:10.1093/geronb/60.3.P143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casterline, J. B., Williams, L., & McDonald, P. (1986). The age differences between spouses: Variations among developing countries. Population Studies: A Journal of Demography, 40, 353–374. doi:10.1080/0032472031000142296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, W., & Kenny, D. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109. doi:10.1080/01650250444000405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutrona, C. E. (1990). Stress and social support: In search of optimal matching. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 3–14. doi:10.1521/jscp.1990.9.1.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support as a determinant of marital quality: The interplay of negative and supportive behaviors. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 173–194). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 319–366). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutrona, C. E., & Suhr, J. A. (1992). Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction with spouse support behaviors. Communication Research, 19, 154–174. doi:10.1177/009365092019002002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutrona, C. E., Hessling, R. M., & Suhr, J. A. (1997). The influence of husband and wife personality on marital social support interactions. Personal Relationships, 4, 379–393. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00152.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dakof, G. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1990). Victim’s perceptions of social support: What is helpful from whom? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 80–89. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fiori, K. L., & Denckla, C. A. (2012). Social support and mental health in middle-aged men and women: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Aging and Health, 24, 407–438. doi:10.1177/0898264311425087.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frosch, C. A., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & McHale, J. L. (1998). Correlates of marital behavior at 6 months postpartum. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1438–1449. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.6.1438.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fruzzetti, A. E., & Worrall, J. M. (2010). Accurate expression and validating responses: A transactional model for understanding individual and relationship distress. In K. T. Sullivan & J. Davila (Eds.), Support processes in intimate relationships (pp. 121–150). New York, NY: Oxford Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, M. E. J., Iida, M., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2003). Daily supportive equity in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1036–1045. doi:10.1177/0146167203253473.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grewen, K. M., Anderson, B. J., Girdler, S. S., & Light, K. C. (2003). Warm partner contact is related to lower cardiovascular reactivity. Behavioral Medicine, 29, 123–130. doi:10.1080/08964280309596065.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heffner, K. L., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Loving, T. J., Glaser, R., & Malarkey, W. B. (2004). Spousal support satisfaction as a modifier of physiological responses to marital conflict in younger and older couples. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 27, 233–254. doi:10.1023/B:JOBM.0000028497.79129.ad.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hook, M., Gerstein, L., Detterich, L., & Gridley, B. (2003). How close are we? Measuring intimacy and examining gender differences. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 462–472. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00273.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarrett, R. L. (1994). Living poor: Family life among single-parent, African-American women. Societal Problems, 41, 30–49. doi:10.1525/sp.1994.41.1.03x0423g.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, E. B., & Bhatti, M. R. S. (2005). Psychosocial problems and social patterns of HIV seropositive wives of men with HIV/AIDS. Social Work in Health Care, 39, 29–47. doi:10.1300/J010v39n01_04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D., Kashy, D., & Cook, W. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiboer, A. M., Kuijer, R. G., Hox, J. J., Schreuurs, K. M. G., & Bensing, J. M. (2006). Receiving and providing support in couples dealing with multiple sclerosis: A diary study using an equity perspective. Personal Relationships, 13, 485–501. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00131.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoll, N., Kienle, R., Bauer, K., Pfuller, B., & Luszczynska, A. (2007). Affect and enacted support in couples undergoing in-vitro fertilization: When providing is better than receiving. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 1789–1801. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krieger, N. (2001). Theories for social epidemiology in the 21st century: An ecosocial perspective. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30, 668–677. doi:10.1093/ije/30.4.668.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A., & Mahler, H. I. (1989). Social support and recovery from surgery. Health Psychology, 8, 221–238. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.8.2.221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mathers, C. D., Sudana, R., Salomon, J. A., Murray, C. J., & Lopez, A. D. (2001). Healthy life expectancy in 191 countries, 1999. The Lancet, 357, 1685–1691. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04824-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIsaac, C., Connolly, J., McKenney, K. S., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2008). Conflict negotiation and autonomy processes in adolescent romantic relationships: An observational study of interdependency in boyfriend and girlfriend effects. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 691–707. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.08.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Melby, J. N., Ge, X., Conger, R. D., & Warner, T. D. (1995). The importance of task in evaluating marital interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 981–994. doi:10.2307/353417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mickelson, K. D., Helgeson, V. S., & Weiner, E. (1995). Gender effects on social support provision and receipt. Personal Relationships, 2, 211–224. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00087.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2009). Mplus statistical modeling software (Version 5.21). Los Angeles: Author.

    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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orth-Gomer, K. (2009). Are social relations less health protective in women than in men? Social relations, gender, and cardiovascular health. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 63–71. doi:10.1177/0265407509105522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reevy, G. M., & Maslach, C. (2001). Use of social support: Gender and personality differences. Sex Roles, 44, 437–459. doi:10.1023/A:1011930128829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rini, C., & Dunkel Schetter, C. (2010). The effectiveness of social support attempts in intimate relationships. In K. T. Sullivan & J. Davila (Eds.), Support processes in intimate relationships (pp. 26–67). New York, NY: Oxford.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Samter, W. (2002). How gender and cognitive complexity influence the provision of emotional support: A study of indirect effects. Communication Reports, 15, 5–16. doi:10.1080/08934210209367748

  • Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (2009). Social support: Mapping the construct. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 113–120. doi:10.1177/0265407509105526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strazdis, L., & Broom, D. H. (2007). The mental health costs and benefits of giving social support. International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 370–385. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.14.4.370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, M. M. (2002). Two decades of family change: The shifting economic foundations of marriage. American Sociological Review, 67, 132–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannen, D. (1990). Gender differences in topical coherence: Creating involvement in best friends’ talk. Discourse Processes, 13, 73–90. doi:10.1080/01638539009544747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhofstadt, L. L., Buysse, A., Ickes, W., De Clercq, A., & Peene, O. J. (2005). Conflict and support interactions in marriage: An analysis of couples interactive behavior and on-line cognition. Personal Relationships, 12, 23–42. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00100.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhofstadt, L., Buysse, A., & Ickes, W. (2007). Social support in couples: An examination of gender differences using self-report and observational methods. Sex Roles, 57, 267–282. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9257-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (1989). Providing help and desired relationship type as determinants of changes in moods and self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 722–734. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.722.

    Article  PubMed  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. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00792.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors of this paper would like to express their gratitude to the Fetzer Institute for funding the research and also to the families who participated in it.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA

    Jakob F. Jensen & Amy J. Rauer

  2. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Brenda Volling

Authors
  1. Jakob F. Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy J. Rauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brenda Volling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jakob F. Jensen.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Marital Discussion Task

Using the scale below, please rate the following statements about your thoughts and feelings during the marital communication task.

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

1

2

3

4

1. My spouse gave me no useful information.

1

2

3

4

2. I felt as if my spouse really cared about me.

1

2

3

4

3. I felt worse about myself.

1

2

3

4

4. My spouse related to or shared my interests and concerns

1

2

3

4

5. My spouse let me know that she was there if I needed her.

1

2

3

4

6. My spouse behaved warmly towards me.

1

2

3

4

7. My spouse was rude and abrupt in her comments.

1

2

3

4

8. My spouse made me feel comfortable about myself and my feelings.

1

2

3

4

9. My spouse offered to participate in activity which would help me solve my problem.

1

2

3

4

10. My spouse offered me good, practical advice.

1

2

3

4

11. My spouse offered to spend time with me.

1

2

3

4

12. My spouse offered to take over some of my extra responsibilities.

1

2

3

4

13. My spouse was sensitive to my feelings.

1

2

3

4

14. My spouse did not take my problems seriously.

1

2

3

4

15. My spouse made me feel that I had the skills to solve my own problems.

1

2

3

4

16. My spouse was indifferent to my needs.

1

2

3

4

17. My spouse showed respect for my capabilities and talents.

1

2

3

4

18. My spouse told me something she could do to solve my problem.

1

2

3

4

19. My spouse let me know that others have been through similar problems.

1

2

3

4

20. My spouse offered to intervene by actually doing something to help me solve my problem.

1

2

3

4

21. My spouse was very supportive of my concerns.

1

2

3

4

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jensen, J.F., Rauer, A.J. & Volling, B. A Dyadic View of Support in Marriage: The Critical Role of Men’s Support Provision. Sex Roles 68, 427–438 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0256-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0256-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation