Communication Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by JONES, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by BURLESON, B. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Communication Research, Vol. 24, No. 5, 530-555 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/009365097024005004
© 1997 SAGE Publications

The Impact of Situational Variables on Helpers' Perceptions of Comforting Messages

An Attributional Analysis

SUSANNE M. JONES

BRANT R. BURLESON

Research indicates that people consistently perceive highly person-centered comforting messages as providing the most effective and sensitive emotional support. However, research on helping suggests that attributions about the cause of the distressful event (blame) and its solution (control) may influence what people perceive to constitute appropriate help. This study assessed how attributions of blame and control influenced evaluations of comforting messages varying in level of person centeredness. Participants (N = 342) read about a situation in which a sad target was either responsible or not responsible for the problem and either could or could not influence the outcome of the situation. Messages low in person centeredness were viewed as more appropriate with high blame targets, whereas messages high in person centeredness were viewed as more appropriate with low blame targets. Perceptions of situation controllability did not influence evaluations. The study also detected gender differences in perceptions of comforting messages.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyHome page
S. Mortenson, M. Liu, B. R. Burleson, and Y. Liu
A Fluency of Feeling: Exploring Cultural and Individual Differences (and Similarities) Related to Skilled Emotional Support
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, July 1, 2006; 37(4): 366 - 385.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Communication ResearchHome page
B. R. Burleson, M. Liu, Y. Liu, and S. T. Mortenson
Chinese Evaluations of Emotional Support Skills, Goals, and Behaviors: An Assessment of Gender-related Similarities and Differences
Communication Research, February 1, 2006; 33(1): 38 - 63.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Communication ResearchHome page
S. Jones
Putting the Person into Person-Centered and Immediate Emotional Support: Emotional Change and Perceived Helper Competence as Outcomes of Comforting in Helping Situations
Communication Research, June 1, 2004; 31(3): 338 - 360.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Communication ResearchHome page
E. L. MacGeorge, S. J. Gillihan, W. Samter, and R. A. Clark
Skill Deficit or Differential Motivation?: Testing Alternative Explanations for Gender Differences in the Provision of Emotional Support
Communication Research, June 1, 2003; 30(3): 272 - 303.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Communication ResearchHome page
B. R. Burleson and S. R. Mortenson
Explaining Cultural Differences in Evaluations of Emotional Support Behaviors: Exploring the Mediating Influences of Value Systems and Interaction Goals
Communication Research, April 1, 2003; 30(2): 113 - 146.
[Abstract] [PDF]