Abstract
Background
Although social support is generally thought to have positive consequences, this is not always the case. Receiving social support may threaten independence, which research has shown is more highly valued among those higher in socioeconomic status. As a result, support may be less strongly associated with positive outcomes for those higher in socioeconomic status (SES). Conversely, those lower in SES are more interdependent (Kraus, Piff, Mendoza‐Denton, Rheinschmidt, & Keltner, 2012; Stephens, Markus, & Phillips, 2014) and may, therefore, be less threatened when receiving social support. This study examined SES as a moderator of how daily received support (within and between persons) predicted both daily psychological stressor appraisals and diurnal cortisol.
Method
Healthy undergraduate students (N = 128) participated in a 3-day study. Participants completed one or more evening diaries the first day of the study and additional questionnaires upon awakening, throughout the day, and at bedtime during the following 2 days. Support was measured each evening and stressor appraisals and cortisol were measured throughout the day.
Results
As expected, for those who reported higher subjective SES, receiving more support than usual (within-person support) was associated with a flatter pattern of diurnal cortisol the next day. Although SES did not moderate the association of either within- or between-person support with stressor appraisals, the receipt of more support on average (between-person support) was associated with higher reported resources to cope.
Conclusion
The findings demonstrate that there may be physiological costs—but not psychological costs—associated with the receipt of support for those higher in socioeconomic status.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This experimental manipulation was tested as a covariate in all models.
The number of evening diaries depended on when the laboratory session started. Sessions in the afternoon allowed for more evening diaries than evening laboratory sessions.
Participants were asked to complete diaries and cortisol measurements at the same time—plus an additional saliva sample 30 minutes post-awakening; however, the exact time of cortisol measurements was not recorded. The timepoint (e.g., 2, 4, 6) was recorded and was used to match diary responses to cortisol samples. The time stamp on the diary was the time variable used for cortisol models.
Tables are not included for non-significant findings but are available upon request.
These findings were unchanged when subjective SES was not controlled for.
References
Bolger N, Amarel D. Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: experimental evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;92:458–75.
Crockett EE, Neff LA. When receiving help hurts: gender differences in diurnal cortisol responses to spousal support. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2012;4:190–7.
Berkman LF, Glass T, Brissette I, Seeman TE. From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51:843–57.
Stephens NM, Markus HR, Phillips LT. Social class culture cycles: how three gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. Annu Rev Psychol. 2014;65:611–34.
Kraus MW, Piff PK, Mendoza-Denton R, Rheinschmidt ML, Keltner D. Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: how the rich are different from the poor. Psychol Rev. 2012;119:546–72.
Biehle SN, Mickelson KD. Provision and receipt of emotional spousal support: the impact of visibility on well-being. Couple Fam Psychol Res Pract. 2012;1:244–51.
Rafaeli E, Cranford JA, Green AS, Shrout PE, Bolger N. The good and bad of relationships: how social hindrance and social support affect relationship feelings in daily life. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2008;34:1703–18.
Gleason MEJ, Iida M, Shrout PE, Bolger N. Receiving support as a mixed blessing: evidence for dual effects of support on psychological outcomes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;94:824–38.
Gleason MEJ, Iida M, Bolger N, Shrout PE. Daily supportive equity in close relationships. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2003;29:1036–45.
Maisel NC, Gable SL. The paradox of received social support: the importance of responsiveness. Psychol Sci. 2009;20:928–32.
Eisenberger NI, Taylor SE, Gable SL, Hilmert CJ, Lieberman MD. Neural pathways link social support to attenuated neuroendocrine stress responses. Neuroimage. 2007;35:1601–12.
Vella EJ, Kamarck TW, Shiffman S. Hostility moderates the effects of social support and intimacy on blood pressure in daily social interactions. Health Psychol. 2008;27:S155–62.
Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000316.
Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1985;98:310–57.
McEwen BS, Seeman T. Protective and damaging effects of stress: elaborating and testing the concepts of allostatis and allostatic load. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;338:30–47.
Dickerson SS, Kemeny ME. Acute stressors and cortisol responses: a theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychol Bull. 2004;130:355–91.
Adam EK, Quinn ME, Tavernier R, McQuillan MT, Dahlke KA, Gilbert KE. Diurnal cortisol slopes and mental and physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2017;83:25–41.
Kumari M, Shipley M, Stafford M, Kivimaki M. Association of diurnal patterns in salivary cortisol with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: findings from the Whitehall II study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96:1478–85.
Hostinar CE, Sullivan RM, Gunnar MR. Psychobiological mechanisms underlying the social buffering of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis: a review of animal models and human studies across development. Psychol Bull. 2014;140:256–82.
Campos B, Kim H. Culture, relationships and health: Incorporating the cultural diversity of family and close relationships into our understanding of health. Am Psychol. 2017;72:543–54.
Piff PK, Kraus MW, Cote S, Cheng BH, Keltner D. Having less, giving more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010;99:771–84.
Park J, Kitayama S, Markus HR, Coe CL, Miyamoto Y, Karasawa M, et al. Social status and anger expression: the cultural moderation hypothesis. Emotion. 2013;13:1122–31.
Kraus MW, Piff PK, Keltner D. Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97:992–1004.
Greenfield PM. Linking social change and developmental change: shifting pathways of human development. Dev Psychol. 2009;45:401–18.
Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci. 2010;33:61–83.
Adler NE. Health disparities through a psychological lens. Am Psychol. 2009;64:663–73.
Hooker ED, Campos B, Zoccola PM, Dickerson SS. Subjective socioeconomic status matters less when perceived social support is high. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2017;9:981–9.
John-Henderson NA, Stellar JE, Mendoza-Denton R, Francis DD. Socioeconomic status and social support: social support reduces inflammatory reactivity for individuals whose early-life socioeconomic status was low. Psychol Sci. 2015;26:1620–9.
Townsend SS, Truong M. Cultural models of self and social class disparities at organizational gateways and pathways. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;18:93–8.
Dietze P, Knowles ED. Social class and the motivational relevance of other human beings: evidence from visual attention. Psychol Sci. 2016;27:1517–27.
Hoffman L. Between-person analysis and interpretation of interactions. Longitud Analysis. New York: Routledge; 2015. p. 30–78.
Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, Ickovics JR. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychol. 2000;19:586–92.
Hoffman L. Longitudinal analyses. New York: Routledge; 2015.
Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 1984.
Edwards S, Clow A, Evans P, Hucklebridge F. Exploration of the awakening cortisol response in relation to diurnal cortisol secretory activity. Life Sci. 2001;68:2093–103.
Fries E, Dettenborn L, Kirschbaum C. The cortisol awakening response (CAR): facts and future directions. Int J Psychophysiol. 2009;72:67–73.
Stalder T, Kirschbaum C, Kudielka BM, Adam EK, Pruessner JC, Wüst S, et al. Assessment of the cortisol awakening response: expert consensus guidelines. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2016;63:414–32.
Wilhelm I, Born J, Kudielka BM, Schlotz W, Wüst S. Is the cortisol awakening rise a response to awakening? Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2007;32:358–66.
Adam EK, Kumari M. Assessing salivary cortisol in large-scale, epidemiological research. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2009;34:1423–36.
Gruenewald TL, Kemeny ME, Aziz N. Subjective social status moderates cortisol responses to social threat. Brain Behav Immun. 2006;20:410–9.
Reis HT, Clark MS. Responsiveness. In: Simpson JA, Campbell L, editors. Oxford Handb close relationships. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 400–24.
Feeney BC. A secure base: responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004;87:631–48.
Barrera M. Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models. Am J Community Psychol. 1986;14:413–45.
Park J, Kitayama S, Karasawa M, Curhan K, Markus HR, Kawakami N, et al. Clarifying the links between social support and health: culture, stress, and neuroticism matter. J Health Psychol. 2013;18:226–35.
Kumari M, Badrick E, Chandola T, Adler NE, Epel E, Seeman T, et al. Measures of social position and cortisol secretion in an aging population: findings from the Whitehall II study. Psychosom Med. 2010;72:27–34.
Miller GE, Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D, Brody GH, Chen E. Viral challenge reveals further evidence of skin-deep resilience in African Americans from disadvantaged backgrounds. Health Psychol. 2016;35:1225–34.
Cundiff JM, Smith TW, Uchino BN, Berg CA. Subjective social status: construct validity and associations with psychosocial vulnerability and self-rated health. Int J Behav Med. 2013;20:148–58.
Operario D, Adler NE, Williams DR. Subjective social status: reliability and predictive utility for global health. Psychol Health. 2004;19:237–46.
Funding
Emily D. Hooker was supported by a University of California, Irvine President’s Dissertation Year Fellowship during the completion of this manuscript. This research was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation (BCS-0720066; P.I. Sally S. Dickerson) and the Harry and Miriam Levinson Scholarship from the American Psychological Foundation and Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology (Peggy M. Zoccola).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 27.5 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hooker, E.D., Campos, B., Hoffman, L. et al. Is Receiving Social Support Costly for Those Higher in Subjective Socioeconomic Status?. Int.J. Behav. Med. 27, 325–336 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-019-09836-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-019-09836-w