Evaluation of Peer Comforting Strategies

7/27/2019 Evaluation of Peer Comforting Strategies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-of-peer-comforting-strategies 1/33

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E

Evaluation of Peer Comforting Strategies by

Children and AdolescentsRuth Anne Clark1, Erina L. MacGeorge2, & Lakesha Robinson3

1 Department of Speech Communication, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801

2 Department of Communication, Purdue University, West Lafayetle, IN 47907

3 Verizon Wireless, Atlanta, GA 30314

Despite the importance of social support across the lifespan and extensive research on

supportive communication between adults, little is known about how children or ado-lescents respond to the comforting efforts of their peers. The current study was designed

to examine how 5th, 7th, and 9th graders evaluate six peer comforting strategies (sym-

pathy, account giving, companionship, advice, optimism, and minimization) and to

assess moderating effects of age, gender, and situation. Participants ( N = 292) read sce-

narios involving a social rejection or academic failure and rated messages for affective

improvement and perceived caring. Results indicated that companionship was the most

positively evaluated strategy on both dependent variables, whereas minimization and

account were least positively evaluated; sympathy, advice, and optimism received inter-

mediate evaluations. These results were somewhat moderated by age, gender, and situa-

tion. Results are discussed with respect to potential differences between adult and tween

evaluations and expectations in comforting interactions.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00323.x

Supportive interactions with peers are important to the lives of children and ado-

lescents (see reviews by Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Samter, 2003), just as they are to

adults (see reviews by Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002; Cunningham & Barbee, 2000;

Sarason, Sarason, & Gurung, 1997). In particular, the child’s ability to provide

comfort, or emotional support, to distressed peers is associated with desirable out-

comes for both the recipient and the provider of support (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 1996;

see reviews by Berndt & Hestenes, 1996; Burleson & Kunkel, 1996). Although con-

siderable research suggests the importance of comforting skill during childhood and

adolescence, we currently know very little about the peer comforting strategies that

children, themselves, view as most and least effective. Thus, the present study was

designed to examine how children evaluate commonly used peer support strategies.

Corresponding author: Ruth Anne Clark; e-mail: [email protected]

This article was accepted under the editorship of Jim Dillard

Human Communication Research ISSN 0360-3989

Human Communication Research 34 (2008) 319–345 ª 2008 International Communication Association 319



We also sought to determine whether children’s evaluations of peer comforting

strategies are moderated by several demographic and situational factors.

Peer emotional support during childhood and adolescence

From early childhood onward, children routinely seek support from peers when

feeling upset (see reviews by Burleson & Kunkel, 1996; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998;

Samter, 2003). Children’s exchange of peer support is nontrivial. Greater perceived

support from peers during childhood is associated with having a more positive

self-concept, better academic performance, less loneliness, and fewer emotional

or behavioral problems (Demaray & Malecki, 2002; Helsen, Vollebergh, & Meeus,

2000; Levitt et al., 2005; Richman, Rosenfeld, & Bowen, 1998; for a review, see

Berndt & Hestenes, 1996). In addition, there is growing evidence that children

who are more skilled at providing comfort enjoy greater peer liking and acceptance

than those who are less skilled (Burleson, Delia, & Applegate, 1992; Burleson et al.,1986; Clinton & Hancock, 1991; Rose & Asher, 2004). Thus, both the provision and

the receipt of peer comforting are associated with significant outcomes.

What do children do and say to provide comfort to their peers? From early

through middle childhood (2–7 years old), youngsters use a variety of nonverbal

behaviors (pats, hugs, soothing touches, and sounds; e.g., Farver & Branstetter, 1994;

Persson, 2005). They may also employ simple verbal expressions of condolence and

sympathy (‘‘I’m sorry’’ and ‘‘That’s too bad’’), present comfort objects (such as teddy

bears), and recruit adults (such as parents and teachers) to help provide aid (see

Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). By late adolescence and early adulthood (17–22 years old),

many have developed the capacity to employ more sophisticated verbal comfortingstrategies, including the use of messages that acknowledge and legitimize the other’s

feelings and encourage the other to express and explore those feelings (i.e., highly

‘‘person-centered’’ messages; Burleson, 1982, 1983; Ritter, 1979; Samter & Burleson,

1984; Tamborini, Salomonson, & Bahk, 1993).

The greatest expansion in the repertoire of peer comforting strategies appears to

come in the ‘‘tweens’’—the period from middle childhood to early adolescence (i.e., ages

8–14).1 In particular, there is substantial growth in the variety of the verbal strategies

children use to comfort peers during this period (see Burleson, 1982; Denton &

Zarbatany, 1996; Dooley, Whalen, & Flowers, 1978; Eisenberg, Fabes, Karbon, &

Murphy, 1996; Hoffner & Haefner, 1997; McCoy & Masters, 1985; Ritter, 1979; Rose

& Asher, 2004). Overall, this literature indicates that peer comforting strategies most

commonly employed by tweens include sympathy (expressing compassion and under-

standing), advice (recommending actions to take in response to the problem), optimism

(expressing reassurance or projecting a positive outcome), companionship (offers of

shared activity), account (explaining the distressing event, including validation of

explanations or excuses offered by the distressed other), and minimization (treating

the problem or feelings as insignificant). Tweens may also try to distract their distressed

peers (changing the subject or otherwise diverting attention from the problem) or

engage in rejection behaviors that include criticism, blame, rejection, or avoidance.

Peer Comforting R. A. Clark et al.

320 Human Communication Research 34 (2008) 319–345 ª 2008 International Communication Association



How do children and adolescents evaluate the comforting efforts of their peers?

Researchers with a focus on comforting and other aspects of prosocial behavior have

given very little attention to this question, focusing instead on (a) the strategies

children and adolescents use (as reviewed above), (b) children’s perceptions about

the responsibility or obligation to comfort others (e.g., Jackson & Tisak, 2001), and

(c) the influence of individual differences in children’s comforting skills on accep-

tance by the peer group (e.g., Rose & Asher, 2004). Similarly, although there is

increasing focus among developmental psychologists on self-regulation of emotion

by children (especially young children; for reviews, see Stegge, & Terwogt, 2007;

Zeman, Cassano, Perry-Parrish, & Stegall, 2006), this research paradigm has not

been extended to address the efficacy of ‘‘other regulation.’’

Nonetheless, there are both theoretical and pragmatic reasons for examining how

children evaluate their peers’ comforting efforts. From a pragmatic perspective, the

strategies that children evaluate as most supportive may actually do the best job of relieving distressed affect, conveying concern, and improving coping. Further, chil-

dren who typically receive preferred strategies (i.e., those evaluated most positively)

may experience a stronger sense of being supported by their peers (Berndt & Perry,

1986; Malecki & Demaray, 2002; Reid, Landesman, Treder, & Jaccard, 1989), and

children who use preferred strategies may enjoy stronger, more satisfying peer rela-

tionships (Asher, Parker, & Walker, 1996; Rose & Asher, 2004). To assess these

possibilities, we must, of course, know which strategies children evaluate as more

and less supportive. From a theoretical perspective, children’s evaluations of peer

comforting strategies may provide insight into their conceptualizations of effective

comfort and expectations for support within peer relationships.

Focus of the present study

The present study was designed to assess children’s evaluations of six common peer

comforting strategies (minimization, expressing optimism, offering an account or

explanation for the distressing, giving advice, offering companionship, and expressing

sympathy ). Specifically, we examined 5th, 7th, and 9th graders’ perceptions of how

well each strategy would relieve emotional distress and express caring. We elected to

focus on evaluations supplied by 5th to 9th graders (tweens) for several reasons. As

previously noted, there is substantial growth during this developmental period in the

variety of verbal comforting strategies children employ with their peers. Given this, it

appears especially important to examine how this age group evaluates the expanding

repertoire of comforting strategies employed by their peers. In addition, peer rela-

tionships become increasingly important to children in middle to late childhood,

with a corresponding upturn in support seeking and the expectation of support from

peers (Berndt & Hestenes, 1996; Helsen et al., 2000). Thus, the potential impact of

peer comforting behavior may be magnified as children approach adolescence.

Lacking a research literature on tweens’ evaluation of comforting strategies, our

specific hypotheses were informed by the quite substantial body of theory and

research pertaining to the comforting strategies that adults find more and less helpful

R. A. Clark et al. Peer Comforting




(e.g., Clark et al., 1998; see review by Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002). The dominant

theoretical perspective on adults’ comforting is that of constructivism; both theory

and research in this paradigm indicate that adults’ evaluations of comforting mes-

sages depend strongly on the extent to which those messages are ‘‘person centered’’

(for reviews, see Burleson, 2003; Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002). Person centeredness,

with respect to comforting, references the extent to which messages explicitly

acknowledge, elaborate, legitimize, and contextualize the recipient’s feelings and

perspective. A large research base indicates that higher levels of person centered-

ness produce more positive evaluations and outcomes of comforting messages

(e.g., Jones & Guerrero, 2001; Burleson & Samter, 1985).

Of the six strategies we selected, the sympathy strategy is the most person centered

because it involves explicit acknowledgment of the emotional distress being experienced

(for detailed specification of the person-centeredness coding hierarchy, see MacGeorge,

Gillihan, Samter, & Clark, 2003). Account, companionship, and optimismrepresent themoderate range of person centeredness, in which there is implicit (but not explicit)

recognition of the recipient’s feelings. Within this range, account is more person cen-

tered than companionship or optimism because it focuses directly on the problem.

Companionship and optimism are usually regarded as equally person centered because

both strategies attempt to ‘‘reframe’’ the problem in a positive way. However, because

the optimism strategy conveys more contradiction of the distressed person’s current

perspective (i.e., by asserting that the problem will improve), it is arguably less person

centered. Advice and minimization represent the lower range of person centeredness.

Telling another person how to act in the face of their problems does little in the way of

acknowledging or legitimizing that person’s perspective or feelings, and minimizationactually contradicts the recipient’s perspective (i.e., ‘‘the problem is not as bad as you

think’’). Thus, theory and research based on the concept of person centeredness indicate

that adults would rank the six peer comforting strategies as follows: sympathy, account-

ing, companionship, optimism, advice, and minimization.

Are there reasons to believe that tweens might evaluate these strategies somewhat

differently than adults? With regard to the strategy of companionship, perhaps yes.

Engaging in joint play is central to the definition of friendship for children, and ado-

lescents also view spending time together as critical to friendship even if their activities

are more adult-like (e.g., talking rather than playing; Mathur& Berndt, 2006; Raffaelli &

Duckett, 1989). Thus, for children and adolescents, being offered companionship may

be tantamount to be being offered friendship or having the friendship affirmed in

a significant way. Furthermore, as more concrete thinkers than adults (Flavell, Miller,

& Miller, 1993), tweens may actually prefer the ‘‘compensation’’ of companionship to

the more abstract validation of emotion or perspective provided by the sympathy and

account strategies. Some additional guidance for this hypothesis is provided by Reid

et al. (1989), who found that 6- to 12-year-olds rated their friends as better providers of

companionship support than emotional support. This may indirectly indicate the type

of support that children and adolescents prefer to receive from their friends. Based on

this reasoning, we proposed the following rank order of strategies.





H1: Tweens will evaluate peer comforting strategies in the following order (from

highest to lowest): companionship, sympathy, account, advice, optimism, and

minimization.

Moderating variables

We also explored the extent to which tweens’ evaluations of the six peer comforting

strategies were moderated by three factors: age of the recipient, sex of the recipient,

and type of problematic situation. Each of these factors has been found to influence

the evaluation of comforting messages by adults (e.g., Jones & Burleson, 1997;

Kunkel & Burleson, 1999). Moreover, each of these factors has been found to

influence the production of comforting messages by children and adolescents

(e.g., Burleson, 1982; Dooley et al., 1978), raising the possibility that they also

influence children’s evaluations of comforting messages.

Age

Developmental changes in relationships, affect, and cognition that occur between

5th and 9th grade suggest that evaluations of comforting strategies will change

with age (i.e., from 5th to 7th to 9th grades). In particular, adolescent friendships

are more ‘‘talk-based’’ than childhood friendships, including significant amounts

of personal disclosure, confiding, and problem solving (Mathur & Berndt, 2006,

Raffaelli & Duckett, 1989; for a review, see Samter, 2003). This may result in more

positive evaluations by adolescents of the sympathy and account strategies

because these strategies focus on talking about the problem and the feelings itgenerates. Additionally, adolescents’ broader base of experience gives them greater

knowledge of the ‘‘real world’’ (see Flavell et al., 1993). This could contribute to

greater rejection of the idea that problems will turn out all right in the end (i.e.,

optimism) or are not that significant (minimization).

One prior study also supports hypotheses about age-related differences in

children’s responses to peer support. Denton and Zarbatany (1996) assessed

reduction in negative affect at the end of interactions in which preadolescent

and adolescent friends discussed a problem they had experienced. The use of

distraction behavior (e.g., changing the topic, gossiping, or acting silly) was

associated with reduced negative affect for preadolescents but not adolescents.If adolescents are less willing or able to be distracted from their problems, they

may also have a more positive view of strategies that remain focused on the

problem or associated emotion (i.e., sympathy, accounting), and a less positive

view of strategies that treat the problem and emotion as temporary (optimism) or

insignificant (minimization).

On this basis, we proposed the following hypothesis.

H2: Tweens’ evaluations of sympathy and accounting will increase as grade increases,

whereas evaluations of optimism and minimization will decrease.





Gender

Research on gender differences in adult evaluations of comforting messages indicates

that women evaluate comforting strategies more critically, such that strategies receiv-

ing low evaluations from both men and women receive lower evaluations from

women than men, and strategies receiving high evaluations from both men and

women receive higher evaluations from women (Kunkel & Burleson, 1999; Mac-

George, Graves et al., 2004). In Burleson’s (1982) study of 1st–12th graders, female

children and adolescents produced more emotionally sensitive comforting strategies

than did males, suggesting that they might also evaluate more critically than males;

similar results were obtained by Banerjee, Rieffe, Terwogt, Gerlein, and Voutsina

(2006) in a study of preadolescents. Accordingly, we hypothesized:

H3: Girls will evaluate companionship and sympathy strategies more positively than boys,

whereas boys will evaluate optimism and minimization strategies more positively than girls.

Situation

Some theory and research on social support has suggested that support behaviors are

viewed more positively when they are better ‘‘matched’’ to characteristics of the stressor

(i.e., the optimal matching model; Cutrona, 1990). For example, advice may be viewed

more positively when the recipient has more control over the problem (Cutrona &

Russell, 1990). In the current study, we obtained tweens’ evaluations of strategies in

two situations, one involving a social rejection and the other involving academic diffi-

culty. The primary reason for including these situations was to increase the generaliz-

ability of the results (assuming similar findings for the two situations). However, these

situations differ in that the social rejection situation involves a loss of social inclusion;

importantly, the companionship strategy provides inclusion, thus compensating

‘‘in kind’’ for the loss suffered by the distressed recipient. The companionship strategy

doesnotprovidethesamekindofmatchtotheproblemintheacademicfailuresituation

(it does not, e.g., give a good grade on a different exam). Accordingly, we hypothesized:

H4: The companionship strategy will be evaluated more positively in the social rejection

situation than in the academic difficulty situation.

Method

Participants

Students ( N = 292; 107 5th graders, 98 7th graders, and 87 9th graders) enrolled in

public schools participated near the end of the school term. Grade was used as a proxy

for age. There were 149 female and 142 male participants; 1 participant who did not

report gender was excluded from all analyses. There were 195 participants from

schools in Community A (67 5th graders, 56 7th graders, and 72 9th graders), and

97 participants from Community B (40 5th graders, 42 7th graders, and 15 9th

graders). No information was obtained regarding the race of the participants from

either community, but those involved appeared to reflect the demographic composition





of their respective school systems. Community A schools exhibited more ethnic diver-

sity (Caucasian, 58.4%; African American, 34.7%; Hispanic, 5.4%; Asian and Pacific

Islander, 1.3%; and Native American, 0.2%) than schools in Community B (97.2%

Caucasian, 0.9% African American, 0.9% Hispanic, 0.8% Asian or Pacific Islander,

and 0.2% Native American). In both communities, we obtained passive consent of the

parents and active consent of the students.

Message evaluation task

Situations

To enhance the generalizability of the results from our message evaluation task and

to test our hypothesis about the match between strategy and situation (H5), we chose

to obtain evaluations of the comforting strategies in two situations. Hypothetical

situations have been used effectively in studies of both child and adult comfortingbehavior (Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002; Rose & Asher, 2004). Furthermore, in

studies of adult preferences for comforting, convergent results have been obtained

from hypothetical and more naturalistic methods (Burleson, 2003; Burleson &

MacGeorge, 2002). The situations we employed are as follows.

Academic difficulty (Test): You had a big test at school and you worked hard to try to do

well on it. When you got your test back, you were surprised and disappointed that you

didn’t do very well on it.

Social rejection (Picnic): You heard a rumor that a group of your friends was talking

about a picnic that they are planning for next weekend. You do lots of things with this

group, but they haven’t mentioned the picnic to you, so you are guessing that you’re not

invited. You feel left out, because the picnic sounds like a lot of fun.

Strategies

Participants were asked to imagine that they encountered a friend and decided to

discuss the situation. (In the picnic situation, the friend they encountered was not

involved with the picnic.) They were told that the friend might say a lot of different

things, and they were asked to consider and then evaluate each of sixdifferent messages

representing the six strategies (see Table 1 for messages for both situations).2

Measure of improved affect Two 5-point scales were used to measure how much each message type was perceived

to improve the affective state of the participant. One scale assessed whether the

message made them feel better (1 = no better to 5 = completely better ), and the other

scale assessed whether they would feel happier following the message (1 = no happier

to 5 = completely happier ). Alpha reliabilities for the six 2-item scales were excellent,

ranging from .85 to .88.

Measure of perceived caring

Two 5-point scales assessed perceptions of caring from the friend to whom

the comforting messages were attributed (1 = does not care to 5 = cares totally and





Table 1 Messages

Test SituationAdvice: Maybe you could go talk with the teacher about the test. She might not have under-stood what you meant by some of your answers. If you explained what you meant, you might

get some more points. I’ve gotten a higher grade a couple of times by talking to the teacherabout my answer.

Account: It really wasn’t possible to get a good grade on the test. I don’t think anyone couldhave done very well on the test. Everyone I talked to, including me, thought that the questionswere confusing, and some of the questions were about things we hadn’t even talked about very much in this class.

Companionship: Would you like to do something together after school tonight? We can doanything that you’d like to do. We always have a good time when we do somethingtogether—I really had fun the last time you came over to my house.

Minimization: Don’t let that grade get you down. It’s not really worth worrying about. I gota bad grade in math a couple of weeks ago, and I was really sad. Then I realized that there arelots of other things that I’m happy about, and it just wasn’t worth worrying about one gradeon one test—I won’t even remember the grade a month from now.

Optimism: Maybe the test won’t even count toward your grade. I wouldn’t be surprised if theteacher throws the grades from this test out and doesn’t even count them. I think sometimesshe just gives tests to get us to work harder, but she doesn’t actually count them as part of ourgrade. When my brother was in her class last year, that’s the way she was.

Sympathy: I’m really sorry that you didn’t get as good a grade as you expected. I know how badthat can make you feel. A couple of weeks ago I studied really hard for a math test, and I stilldid really badly on it, and I was very disappointed. I’m sorry that you’re upset.

Picnic Situation

Account: Maybe that group wanted to invite you and just couldn’t. I’ll bet that they like youa lot, but just couldn’t invite a lot of people. Sometimes my parents say that I can only invitea certain number of friends, and that I have to invite people who have had me to parties orother things. Your friends’ parents may have the same kind of rules.

Advice: You know, maybe your friends think that you’re busy next weekend. If you just kind of said to them that you hope you find something fun to do next weekend, they’ll realize that youcould go to the picnic and then they might invite you. A couple of weeks ago a group of my friends went to the movies and didn’t invite me, and I learned later that they thought that I wasat my grandparents’ house. They would have invited me if they had known that I was home.

Companionship: Why don’t we do something together next weekend? I’d be glad to do any-thing that you’d like to do. We always have fun together—I know that I had a really good

time the last time we went to a movie together.Minimization. Don’t let this get you down. It’s really not worth being upset about. A coupleof weeks ago I was feeling really bad about not being invited to go with my friends to a party,but I had a lot of fun that weekend anyway.

Optimism: I’ll bet that your friends really are going to invite you. I’ll bet that your friends justhaven’t had a chance to ask you yet. Sometimes it takes several days to invite everybody. My parents had a party about a month ago, and it took them over a week to talk to everybody they wanted to invite.

Sympathy: I’m sorry that you didn’t get invited to the picnic. I know how bad that can make you feel. Some of my friends went to Great America a couple of weeks ago and didn’t inviteme, and I was really sad. I’m sorry that you’re upset.





1 = not nice to 5 = extremely nice). Alpha reliabilities for the six 2-item scales were

excellent, ranging from .83 to .89.

Strategy preference task

In addition to the message evaluation task, participants from Community A were

also asked to complete a strategy preference task. The six strategies assessed in the

message evaluation task were summarized in the brief statements shown below and

presented in a list (with labels omitted). From the list, participants picked the single

strategy they would most want a friend to take if they were in a situation similar to

the one they had just considered.

Minimization: Say that the situation wasn’t bad enough to worry about.

Optimism: Tell you that the situation would probably turn out okay.

Sympathy: Say that they felt sorry for you and understood how you felt.

Advice: Tell you something that you could do to make the situation turn out better.

Account: Say that the situation didn’t mean that you were dumb or that people don’t

like you.

Companionship: Invite you to do something fun so that you wouldn’t worry about the

situation.

Procedure

Four versions of the questionnaire booklet were prepared so that each participant

received only one situation (test or picnic scenario) but evaluated all six strategy

types (messages) for that situation. The order of the strategy types was randomizedwithin each version of the booklet. The study was administered during regularly

scheduled classes or study halls. Students in each class or study hall received the same

version of the booklet so that the researcher could read the booklet aloud as students

worked through it to compensate for any differences in reading ability.

Results

Analyses were begun with a 3 3 2 3 2 3 6 doubly multivariate mixed-model

multivariate analysis of variance, with grade (5, 7, or 9), sex, and situation (Test

or Picnic) as between-groups factors, the six comforting strategies as the repeatedfactor, and two dependent variables: affect improvement and caring. This analysis

indicated distinctive patterns of effects for the two dependent variables. Accordingly,

two separate mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted, one for

each dependent variable. Throughout these results, both simple (bivariate) eta

squares (denoted as h2) and partial eta squares (denoted as h2p) are reported for

main effects, and partial eta squares are reported for interaction effects.

Affect improvement

The mixed-model ANOVA with affect improvement as the dependent variable

revealed the following significant effects involving the within-subjects (repeated)





factor: a main effect for strategy, F (5, 1,385) = 46.12, p , .001, h2 = .14, h2p = .14,

a two-way interaction between strategy and situation, F (5, 1,385) = 11.82, p , .001,

h2p = .04, a three-way interaction between strategy, grade, and situation, F (10,

1,385) = 1.90, p , .05, h2

p = .01, a three-way interaction between strategy, sex,

and situation, F (5, 1,385) = 3.54, p , .05, h2p = .01, and a four-way interaction

between strategy, grade, sex, and situation, F (10, 1,385) = 2.25, p , .05, h2p = .02. In

addition, there were significant between-subjects main effects for grade, F (2, 277) =

9.16, p , .001, h2 = .07, h2p = .06, and for situation, F (1, 277) = 14.03, p , .001, h2

= .04, h2p = .05.

The main effects for grade and situation showed that 5th graders evaluated all

strategies, on average, as producing more affect improvement than did 7th or 9th

graders ( M s = 3.21 vs. 2.71 and 2.85, respectively) and that all strategies, on average,

were seen as producing more affect improvement in the Test situation than in the

Picnic situation ( M s = 3.11 and 2.78, respectively). To decompose the main effect forstrategy, the means were inspected (see Table 2) and three pair-wise t tests were

conducted to determine which strategies were evaluated as producing significantly

more (or less) affect improvement than others. A pair-wise t test revealed that the

strategy of Companionship ( M = 3.71) was evaluated significantly more positively

than the strategy of Optimism, M = 3.09, t = 6.249, p, .001. A second pair-wise t test

revealed that the strategy of Sympathy ( M = 3.01) was evaluated significantly more

positively than the strategy of Minimization ( M = 2.80), t = 2.25, p , .03. The third

pair-wise t test revealed that the strategy of Minimization ( M = 2.80) was evaluated

significantly more positively than the strategy of Account ( M = 2.52), t = 3.03, p ,

.01. No tests were conducted to compare Optimism, Advice, or Sympathy becausethe means were so close in value. Overall, the pair-wise t tests indicated that Com-

panionship was perceived as producing the most affect improvement, followed by

Optimism, Sympathy, and Advice (not significantly different), Minimization, and

Account (see Figure 1).

As indicated by their small effect sizes, the interaction effects qualified the main

effects to a limited degree. The two-way interaction between strategy and situation

resulted from the Companionship strategy being evaluated (as predicted) more

positively in the Picnic situation ( M = 3.77) than in the Test situation ( M = 3.37),

t (290) = 2.82, p , .01. As indicated by the main effect for situation, all other

strategies were evaluated more positively (on average) in the Test situation than in

the Picnic situation (see Figure 1).

As indicated by the two three-way interactions and the four-way interaction,

the perceived superiority of the Companionship strategy in the Picnic situation was

also qualified by grade and sex. Decomposition of this set of interactions revealed

that female 5th graders evaluated Companionship significantly more positively in

the Picnic situation ( M = 4.37) than in the Test situation, M = 3.30, t (57) = 4.02,

p , .001, as did female 7th graders, M s = 3.87 and 3.16, t (45) = 2.25, p , .05.

The remaining participants (7th-grade girls and all boys) did not evaluate the Com-

panionship strategy differently in the two situations.





2.13

2.51

2.59

2.78 2.76

3.73

2.71

2.97

3.32

3.13 3.15

3.38

2.42

2.74

2.95 2.96 2.95

3.56

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

Account Minimization Sympathy Advice Optimism C ompanionship

Strategy

A f f e c t I m p r o v e m e n t

PicnicTestBoth

Figure 1 Strategy evaluations—affect improvement.

2.92

3.04

3.423.39

3.24

3.98

3.12

3.38

3.84

3.59

3.32

3.75

3.02

3.21

3.63

3.49

3.28

3.87

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

Account Minimization Sympathy Advice Optimism Companionship

Strategy

C a r i n g

Picnic

Test

Both

Figure 2 Strategy evaluations—caring.





Caring

The mixed-model ANOVA revealed the following significant effects involving com-

forting strategy: a main effect, F (5, 1,380) = 45.02, p, .001, h2 = .14, h2p = .14, a two-

way interaction between strategy and situation, F (5, 1,380) = 6.24, p, .001, h2

p

= .02,

and a three-way interaction between strategy, grade, and situation, F (10, 1,380) =

1.95, p , .001, h2p = .02. In addition, there were significant between-subjects

main effects for grade, F (2, 276) = 8.91, p , .001, h2 = .06, h2p = .06, and for sex,

F (1, 277) = 12.74, p , .001, h2 = .05, h2p = .04.

The main effects for grade and sex revealed that 5th graders evaluated all strat-

egies, on average, as indicative of more caring than did 7th or 9th graders ( M s = 3.69

vs. 3.23 and 3.34, respectively) and that all strategies, on average, were seen as more

caring by girls than by boys ( M s = 3.60 and 3.23, respectively). To decompose the

main effect for strategy, the means were inspected (see Table 3) and three pair-wise

t tests were conducted to determine which strategies were evaluated as producingsignificantly more (or less) affect improvement than others. A pair-wise t test

revealed that the strategy of Companionship ( M = 3.90) was evaluated as indicating

significantly more caring than the strategy of Sympathy ( M = 3.62), t (288) = 4.02,

p , .001. The second pair-wise t test revealed that the strategy of Advice ( M = 3.51)

was evaluated as indicating significantly more caring than the strategy of Optimism

( M = 3.30), t = 3.56, p , .001. The final pair-wise t test showed that the strategy of

Minimization ( M = 3.22) was evaluated as indicating more caring than the Account

strategy ( M = 3.05), t = 2.53, p , .01. Overall, the pair-wise t tests indicated that

Companionship resulted in the highest perception of caring, followed by Sympathy

and Advice (not significantly different), Optimism and Minimization (not signifi-cantly different), and Account (see Figure 2).

As shown by their small effect sizes, the interaction effects qualified the main

effects to a limited degree. The two-way interaction between strategy and situation

and the three-way interaction between strategy, situation, and grade resulted from

the Companionship strategy being evaluated more positively in the Picnic situation

than in the Test situation, though this difference was only significant for 5th graders,

M s = 4.30 . 3.86, t (105) = 2.31, p , .05, not 7th or 9th graders. Thus, as with the

dependent variable of affect improvement, support for H5 is mixed.

General preference

A chi-square test was conducted to analyze the strategy preference data collected

from Community A. As seen in Table 4, the preferred strategy for more than half of

these participants was Companionship, x2 = 203.19, p , .001, C = .72. Advice was

a distant second choice, preferred by slightly more than 12% of participants. Chi-

square tests conducted within grades revealed a virtually identical pattern for all

grades. Companionship was strongly preferred at each grade level, and advice was

the (distant) second choice for 7th and 9th graders. Among 5th graders, the second

choice was Account, followed by Sympathy and then Advice (selected by 9, 6, and 5

of the 66 children who responded to the question, respectively).





Table 2 Means for Strategies by Grade, Sex, and Situation for Improved Affect

Situation Grade Sex N Companionship Optimism Advice Sympathy Minimization Account

Test 5 Male 22 M 3.57 3.00 3.18 3.55 2.80 2.89

SD 1.41 1.28 1.38 1.37 1.29 1.17Female 28 M 3.30 3.73 3.45 3.57 3.46 3.05

SD 1.23 1.35 1.23 1.22 1.19 1.22

Total 50 M 3.42 3.41 3.33 3.56 3.17 2.98

SD 1.30 1.36 1.29 1.28 1.27 1.19

7 Male 24 M 3.48 3.31 2.85 2.77 2.73 2.33

SD 1.00 1.13 1.27 1.17 1.11 1.19

Female 22 M 3.55 2.98 3.50 3.61 2.84 2.59

SD 1.09 1.38 0.90 0.98 0.98 1.37

Total 46 M 3.51 3.15 3.16 3.17 2.78 2.46

SD 1.03 1.26 1.15 1.15 1.04 1.27

9 Male 23 M 3.13 2.96 2.70 3.00 2.93 2.72

SD 1.38 1.31 1.25 1.43 1.32 1.33

Female 16 M 3.16 2.91 3.09 3.44 3.06 2.69

SD 1.09 1.08 1.28 0.96 0.96 0.93

Total 39 M 3.14 2.94 2.86 3.18 2.99 2.71

SD 1.25 1.21 1.26 1.26 1.17 1.17

Total Male 69 M 3.39 3.09 2.91 3.09 2.82 2.64

SD 1.26 1.23 1.30 1.35 1.22 1.24

Female 66 M 3.35 3.28 3.38 3.55 3.16 2.81

SD 1.14 1.34 1.14 1.07 1.09 1.21

Total 135 M 3.37 3.19 3.14 3.32 2.99 2.72

SD 1.20 1.29 1.24 1.24 1.17 1.22

Picnic 5 Male 26 M 3.87 2.92 3.23 2.71 3.10 2.60

SD 1.10 1.16 1.27 1.19 1.13 1.44

Female 31 M 4.37 3.03 3.47 2.90 2.45 2.65

SD 0.78 1.06 0.80 1.14 1.25 1.17

Total 57 M 4.14 2.98 3.36 2.82 2.75 2.62

SD 0.97 1.10 1.04 1.16 1.23 1.29

7 Male 29 M 3.02 2.21 2.22 2.34 2.27 1.98

SD 1.37 0.98 1.09 1.11 1.05 1.01

Female 21 M 3.86 2.60 2.12 2.52 2.21 1.62

SD 1.16 1.07 1.08 0.99 1.09 0.63

Total 50 M 3.37 2.37 2.18 2.42 2.24 1.83

SD 1.34 1.02 1.08 1.06 1.06 0.88

9 Male 17 M 3.41 2.91 2.71 2.50 2.35 1.85

SD 1.29 1.20 0.97 1.32 1.10 0.95

Female 31 M 3.87 2.87 2.98 2.53 2.66 2.08

SD 1.00 1.10 0.94 0.97 1.21 0.99

Total 48 M 3.71 2.89 2.89 2.52 2.55 2.00

SD 1.12 1.12 0.95 1.10 1.17 0.97

Total Male 72 M 3.42 2.63 2.70 2.51 2.59 2.17

SD 1.29 1.14 1.20 1.19 1.14 1.20

Female 83 M 4.05 2.86 2.95 2.67 2.47 2.17

SD 0.99 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.20 1.06

Total 155 M 3.76 2.75 2.83 2.60 2.53 2.17

SD 1.18 1.11 1.13 1.11 1.17 1.12

(continued)





Discussion

This study was designed to examine how tweens evaluate six peer comforting strat-

egies, with attention to the potential moderating variables of age (grade), gender, and

situation. Accordingly, this discussion begins by considering differences in the eval-

uations of the strategies, including comparison with research on adult evaluations of

comforting. It continues by exploring the findings with regard to the moderating

variables. Limitations of the present studies and directions for future investigation

are addressed throughout.

Strategy evaluations

The findings from this study reveal a clear pattern of strategy evaluation: one that is

relatively consistent across the evaluation criteria of affect improvement and

perceived caring, and one that is not strongly affected by grade or other moderating

variables. Indeed, for both affect improvement and caring, the bivariate effect size for

strategy was more than double that of any other independent variable. Companion-

ship received the most positive evaluations for both affect improvement and caring

and was the overwhelmingly preferred option in the strategy preference task. Sym-

pathy, Advice, and Optimism were given similar, moderately positive ratings, though

there was some variation in how these strategies were ranked with regard to the two

Table 2 Continued


Total 5 Male 48 M 3.73 2.96 3.21 3.09 2.96 2.73

SD 1.25 1.21 1.31 1.33 1.20 1.32Female 59 M 3.86 3.36 3.46 3.22 2.93 2.84

SD 1.14 1.25 1.01 1.22 1.32 1.20

Total 107 M 3.80 3.18 3.35 3.16 2.94 2.79

SD 1.19 1.24 1.16 1.26 1.26 1.25

7 Male 54 M 3.23 2.71 2.51 2.54 2.48 2.14

SD 1.22 1.18 1.21 1.15 1.09 1.10

Female 43 M 3.70 2.79 2.83 3.08 2.53 2.12

SD 1.12 1.24 1.20 1.12 1.07 1.17

Total 97 M 3.44 2.74 2.65 2.78 2.51 2.13

SD 1.20 1.20 1.21 1.16 1.08 1.13

9 Male 40 M 3.25 2.94 2.70 2.79 2.69 2.35

SD 1.33 1.25 1.13 1.39 1.25 1.25

Female 47 M 3.63 2.88 3.02 2.84 2.80 2.29

SD 1.08 1.08 1.06 1.05 1.14 1.00

Total 87 M 3.45 2.91 2.87 2.82 2.75 2.32

SD 1.21 1.16 1.09 1.21 1.19 1.12

Total Male 142 M 3.40 2.86 2.80 2.80 2.70 2.40

SD 1.27 1.21 1.25 1.30 1.19 1.24

Female 149 M 3.74 3.05 3.14 3.06 2.78 2.46

SD 1.11 1.21 1.11 1.14 1.20 1.17

Total 291 M 3.58 2.96 2.97 2.93 2.74 2.43

SD 1.20 1.21 1.19 1.22 1.19 1.20





Table 3 Means for Strategies by Grade, Sex, and Situation for Caring


Test 5 Male 22 M 3.73 3.48 3.70 4.02 3.57 3.64

SD 1.19 1.21 1.37 1.13 1.20 1.03Female 28 M 3.96 3.93 3.77 4.13 3.96 3.48

SD 0.89 1.03 0.92 0.93 0.79 1.16

Total 50 M 3.86 3.73 3.74 4.08 3.79 3.55

SD 1.03 1.13 1.13 1.01 1.00 1.09

7 Male 24 M 3.60 2.94 3.40 3.38 2.94 2.67

SD 0.99 0.97 0.75 1.11 0.99 1.18

Female 22 M 3.77 3.50 3.86 4.11 3.39 3.07

SD 1.03 1.04 0.93 0.87 0.98 1.24

Total 46 M 3.68 3.21 3.62 3.73 3.15 2.86

SD 1.00 1.03 0.86 1.06 1.00 1.21

9 Male 23 M 3.61 2.93 3.13 3.37 3.20 2.72

SD 1.14 1.11 1.21 1.43 1.26 1.17

Female 16 M 3.75 3.16 3.69 4.03 3.25 3.19

SD 1.17 1.22 1.00 0.88 0.93 1.06

Total 39 M 3.67 3.03 3.36 3.64 3.22 2.91

SD 1.14 1.15 1.15 1.27 1.12 1.13

Total Male 69 M 3.64 3.11 3.41 3.58 3.22 2.99

SD 1.09 1.11 1.14 1.25 1.16 1.20

Female 66 M 3.85 3.60 3.78 4.10 3.60 3.27

SD 1.00 1.11 0.93 0.89 0.93 1.16

Total 135 M 3.74 3.35 3.59 3.83 3.41 3.13

SD 1.05 1.13 1.05 1.11 1.07 1.18

Picnic 5 Male 26 M 4.12 3.31 3.71 3.60 3.19 3.27

SD 0.98 1.22 1.05 1.18 1.19 1.27

Female 31 M 4.47 3.47 4.10 3.65 2.92 3.37

SD 0.68 0.62 0.71 0.91 1.03 0.96

Total 57 M 4.31 3.39 3.92 3.62 3.04 3.32

SD 0.84 0.93 0.90 1.03 1.10 1.10

7 Male 29 M 3.41 2.83 2.74 3.04 2.84 2.67

SD 1.43 1.13 1.20 1.27 1.26 1.12

Female 21 M 4.20 3.21 3.00 3.52 3.05 2.83

SD 0.68 0.78 1.08 0.78 1.11 0.90

Total 50 M 3.73 2.99 2.85 3.24 2.93 2.74

SD 1.24 1.01 1.15 1.10 1.19 1.03

9 Male 17 M 3.53 3.12 3.12 3.18 2.88 2.32

SD 1.26 1.02 1.01 1.36 1.10 0.90

Female 31 M 4.18 3.50 3.71 3.53 3.32 3.11

SD 0.71 0.93 0.69 0.80 1.08 0.95

Total 48 M 3.95 3.36 3.50 3.41 3.17 2.83

SD 0.98 0.97 0.86 1.03 1.10 1.00

Total Male 72 M 3.69 3.07 3.18 3.27 2.98 2.81

SD 1.27 1.14 1.17 1.27 1.19 1.18

Female 83 M 4.29 3.42 3.67 3.57 3.10 3.14

SD 0.70 0.79 0.91 0.83 1.07 0.95

Total 155 M 4.01 3.25 3.45 3.44 3.05 2.98

SD 1.05 0.98 1.07 1.06 1.13 1.07

(continued)





dependent variables. As predicted, Minimization received relatively low evaluations,but, more surprisingly, Account was rated least positively on both dependent vari-

ables. We consider each strategy in turn.

Companionship

In the constructivist theoretical framework, companionship is a moderately person-

centered comforting strategy and one that adults typically evaluate less positively

than more person-centered strategies, such as expressing sympathy or giving an

Table 3 Continued


Total 5 Male 48 M 3.94 3.39 3.71 3.79 3.36 3.44

SD 1.09 1.20 1.19 1.17 1.20 1.17Female 59 M 4.23 3.69 3.94 3.87 3.42 3.42

SD 0.82 0.87 0.83 0.94 1.06 1.05

Total 107 M 4.10 3.55 3.84 3.84 3.39 3.43

SD 0.96 1.04 1.01 1.04 1.12 1.10

7 Male 54 M 3.50 2.88 3.04 3.19 2.88 2.67

SD 1.24 1.05 1.06 1.20 1.14 1.13

Female 43 M 3.98 3.36 3.44 3.83 3.22 2.95

SD 0.90 0.92 1.09 0.87 1.04 1.08

Total 97 M 3.71 3.09 3.22 3.48 3.04 2.80

SD 1.12 1.02 1.09 1.10 1.10 1.11

9 Male 40 M 3.58 3.01 3.13 3.29 3.06 2.55

SD 1.17 1.07 1.11 1.39 1.19 1.07

Female 47 M 4.03 3.38 3.70 3.70 3.30 3.14

SD 0.91 1.04 0.80 0.85 1.03 0.98

Total 87 M 3.82 3.21 3.44 3.51 3.19 2.87

SD 1.06 1.06 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.06

Total Male 142 M 3.67 3.09 3.29 3.43 3.10 2.90

SD 1.18 1.12 1.16 1.26 1.18 1.19

Female 149 M 4.09 3.50 3.72 3.81 3.32 3.20

SD 0.87 0.95 0.92 0.89 1.04 1.05

Total 291 M 3.89 3.30 3.51 3.62 3.21 3.05

SD 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.10 1.11 1.12

Table 4 Community A: General Preferences for Comforting Approach

Number of ParticipantsPreferring

Percentage of ParticipantsPreferring

Strategy

Minimization 16 9

Optimism 8 4

Sympathy 16 9

Advice 24 13

Account 20 11

Companionship 103 55

Total 187





account of the negative event. Does the present study constitute evidence that chil-

dren and adolescents differ from adults in their evaluation of companionship as

a comforting strategy? We wrote our situations and messages for tweens and did

not obtain evaluations by adults. Thus, it remains possible that adults might also

have rated companionship most positively in these situations (or similar ones). Some

studies outside the constructivist paradigm have found that adults report ‘‘being

there’’ or ‘‘presence’’ as high-quality forms of comfort (e.g., Dakof & Taylor, 1990).

However, these forms of companionship probably incorporate listening and sym-

pathy and are thus somewhat different from the ‘‘let’s do something together’’ type of

companionship strategy examined in this and other studies with children (Burleson,

1982; Rose & Asher, 2004). Furthermore, the preponderance of research indicates

that adults prefer, and experience more affective relief from, strategies with a higher

degree of person centeredness (Burleson & Samter, 1985; Jones & Wirtz, 2006; for

a review, see Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002).To the extent that children respond differently to companionship as a comforting

strategy than do adults, future research should test alternative explanations for this

difference as a way of advancing theory about children’s responses to comforting.

One possibility is that children and adolescents view the companionship of their

friends as more important than do adults. For children especially, companionate

activity is central to the definition and enactment of friendship; once out of school,

adults spend less time in the company of friends (Samter, 2003; Verbrugge, 1983).

Consequently, being offered companionship may be a more significant indicator of

esteem and caring for children and adolescents than for adults. Another explanation

hinges on the ‘‘compensatory’’ character of companionship—unlike the other strat-egies examined, companionship offers something to make up for the distressing

event. Children and adolescents may have a stronger expectation than adults that

friends will try to compensate them for their difficulties, perhaps stemming from

adult use and modeling of compensatory strategies with children (‘‘I’m sorry you’re

so sad. Will an ice cream cone cheer you up?’’ or ‘‘Jenna is feeling unhappy. Maybe

she would like it if you gave her one of your stickers.’’). A third possible explanation

for the high evaluations of companionship is that children and adolescents are more

able or willing than adults to be diverted from their distress. Consistent with this

possibility, Denton and Zarbatany (1996) found that distraction behavior (e.g.,

changing the topic, gossiping, or acting silly) produced affective improvement for

preadolescents discussing a problem but not for adolescent or young adult friends.

Sympathy and advice

Although the sympathy and advice strategies were evaluated less positively than

companionship, they were viewed as improving affect and indicative of caring (near

the midpoints of the scales). Obviously, the relatively high evaluation of sympathy is

completely consistent with research on adult comforting (Burleson, 2003). However,

the evaluation of advice is more positive than adults might have been expected to

give because comforting messages that focus on telling a recipient what to do are





classified as low in person centeredness. To what extent does this suggest something

distinctive about tween evaluations of comforting messages? One possibility is that

children and adolescents are more receptive than adults to ideas from others about

what they should do. Tweens may have greater confidence that problems can be

‘‘fixed’’ and less certainty about how to do that. Furthermore, tweens may not have

developed adult expectations for autonomy, so that they respond with less negativity

to directives when those directives are from friends trying to help. However, adults

might also have given relatively positive evaluations to the advice strategies in this

study. Because the constructivist framework focuses on the emotional aspects of

comforting messages, it is not well suited to capturing distinctions between better

and worse qualities of advice, and instead treats all advice-based comforting as

identical. In fact, the advice messages presented in this study have several qualities

that adults evaluate as contributing to ‘‘good’’ advice: The messages are phrased as

suggestions rather than demands, and the recommended actions are likely to befeasible and potentially efficacious (Feng & Burleson, in press; MacGeorge, Feng,

Butler, & Budarz, 2004). Thus, although the possibility that children and adolescents

respond differently to advice than do adults is worth continued investigation, it is

also likely that the theory focused on the evaluation and outcomes of comforting

efforts needs to take more account of variation in the quality of advice messages (for

a review, see MacGeorge, Feng, & Thompson, in press).

Optimism

Optimism is considered a moderately person-centered strategy within the construc-

tivist framework and is grouped with companionship as a strategy that attemptsa positive reframing of the problem. Thus, the fact that it received evaluations on

affect improvement that were statistically indistinguishable from those of sympathy

provides some additional evidence that tweens may respond differently than adults

to moderately person-centered comforting (or specifically to ‘‘positive reframing’’

strategies). However, optimism was also evaluated as significantly less caring than

sympathy and advice (and was evaluated on that dimension as similar to minimization).

Although the reason for this difference cannot be determined from the data itself, it

seems likely that tweens in the present study viewed the strategy as less caring because it

dismisses the situation as something that will simply ‘‘get better’’ rather than treating the

recipient’s feelings or problem seriously (as with sympathy or advice) or offering com-

pensation (as with companionship).

Minimization

Of the six strategies, minimization ranked fifth on both dependent variables. Chil-

dren and adolescents, like adults, do not appear to view the ‘‘down-playing’’ of their

feelings and problems as especially cheering or caring, despite the fact that both

children and adults make frequent use of the minimization strategy (Burleson,

1982; MacGeorge et al., 2003) and that the intention to reduce distress with this

strategy may be sincere (Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002).





Account

Surprisingly, the lowest evaluated strategy (on both dependent variables) was

account. This is a more person-centered strategy than companionship, optimism,

or advice; correspondingly, adult evaluations are generally positive (Denton &

Zarbatany, 1996; for a review, see Burleson, 2003). Theorists have argued that effec-

tive support strategies attend to esteem or ‘‘face’’ needs (e.g., Goldsmith, 1994). The

account strategies should have done this by diverting blame for the problem away

from the message recipient. For example, the account strategy in the test situation

emphasized the idea that no one could do well on the test, implying that failure was

not the recipient’s fault. Why, then, did the tweens in this study respond negatively?

Commenting on the failure of ‘‘excuse validation’’ to improve affect in their study,

Denton and Zarbatany (1996) suggested that preadolescents and adolescents fail to

benefit from accounts or excuses given by their friends because they do not make the

necessary inferences to recognize or appreciate that they are being given esteem sup-port. This may also be a plausible explanation in the present study. For example, in the

test situation, participants may not have realized that asserting ‘‘No one could have

done very well’’ meant the friend thought they were competent despite the failure.

However, it is odd that 9th graders, who should have found it easier to make the

necessary inferences, did not rate the account strategy more positively than 7th graders

or 5th graders. In fact, 5th graders rated account (as with all strategies) more positively

than 7th or 9th graders. Thus, other explanations must be considered, such as the

possibility that the account strategies failed because the explanations being given were

seen as inaccurate. Even 5th graders have had some considerable experience with

exams and may not believe that a test was simply too hard for everyone. Similarly,ifachildoradolescentisinaclosegroupoffriends,itmaybeunlikelythatheorshehas

been left out of a picnic due to a limit on the number of invitees. Future research

should examine these issues to determine whether giving accounts or explanations is

generally ineffective because esteem support is not inferred, or whether the success of

this strategy has more to do with the believability of the account.

Moderating variables

Grade

We hypothesized that increases in grade would produce more positive evaluations of sympathy and account strategies and less positive evaluations of optimism and

minimization strategies. This hypothesis was not supported. Instead, the primary

influence of grade was a main effect: 5th graders evaluated all strategies as resulting in

more affect improvement and indicative of greater caring. One explanation is that

7th and 9th graders are, in fact, more stringent critics of comforting efforts, and that

the six strategies in the study did not include those that 7th and 9th graders perceive

most positively. For example, although the sympathy strategy provided explicit

validation of feelings, it did not represent the sophisticated and ‘‘psychological’’

discourse that characterizes the highest levels of person centeredness (see Burleson,





2003; MacGeorge et al., 2003). Tweens do not typically produce this type of comfort-

ing (Burleson, 1982) but may still have experienced it (e.g., from adult comfort

providers). Future research should examine how children or adolescents respond to

highly person-centered comforting, and whether evaluations are qualified by the

source of the message (e.g., parent or teacher vs. friend) or other factors. Future

research should also examine whether there are other strategies that adolescents rate

more positively, even if they are not necessarily more person centered. For example, by

adolescence, there is a strong expectation that friends will be loyal and ‘‘stick up for one

another’’ (Bergin, Talley, & Hamer, 2003; for a review, see Berndt & Hestenes, 1996).

Correspondingly, 7th and 9th graders may have been looking for strategies that

attacked the individuals perceived as causing the distress (e.g., ‘‘That teacher is a jerk.’’

‘‘She didn’t invite you? Then I won’t invite her to my party next week.’’).

It is also important that the influence of grade not be overemphasized. Despite

higher overall evaluations by 5th graders, all grades were remarkably similar in theirpattern of evaluations. Companionship was the highest-rated strategy for all grades,

account the lowest, and so forth. Interestingly, the degree of similarity in evaluation

is consistent with studies indicating little age-related variation in the use (i.e., pro-

duction) of comforting strategies in the tween age range (Burleson, 1982; Denton &

Zarbatany, 1996). Future research should examine whether there is greater variability

in the evaluation of comforting strategies when younger children and adolescents

closer to adulthood are included.

Gender

The influence of sex on comforting message evaluation was not substantial. Therewas no general tendency for girls to evaluate the most positively or negatively

evaluated strategies as more negative or positive than boys. Instead, there was a small

main effect in which girls perceived all of the strategies, on average, as more caring

than did boys, and a complex interaction in which the difference between the social

rejection (Picnic) and academic difficulty (Test) situations affected girls’ evaluations

of the companionship strategy more than boys’. The main effect might be explained

by assuming that girls tended to imagine the ‘‘friend’’ delivering the comforting

message as another girl, whereas boys tended to imagine other boys. In studies with

adults, female support providers are often perceived as more empathic or caring,

even when the comforting messages they produced are scripted to be exactly the

same as those used by males (Samter, Burleson, & Murphy, 1987; for a review, see

Bodie & Burleson, in press). The interaction effect might be consistent with evidence

that women are more likely than men to evaluate comforting messages for nuances of

effectiveness or appropriateness (Kunkel & Burleson, 1999). However, it is also

important not to overstate the interest or importance of an interaction that explained

little variance. Like the preponderance of empirical work on adult evaluations of

supportive behavior, the current studies of children and preadolescents indicate that

males and females are not ‘‘different cultures’’ but are very similar in how they

respond to comforting (MacGeorge et al., 2004).





Situation

The two situations were included to enhance the generalizability of the findings and

not as representatives of theoretically important variables. However, we did hypoth-

esize that the companionship strategy was a better ‘‘match’’ to the social rejection

(Picnic) situation than to the academic difficulty (Test) situation, and this hypoth-

esis was supported. Prior research has not provided much support for the

optimal matching model or similar theoretical claims (for a review and critique,

see Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002). Yet, the idea retains intuitive appeal. One possi-

bility is that prior work has not identified the dimensions on which strategy

and situation must match. In the present study, it was argued that the companion-

ship strategy was more beneficial in the social rejection situation because it restored

acceptance and inclusion that was lost in that situation. As previously discussed,

it may be important for researchers to reconsider the supposed inferiority of

compensation-based comforting.In addition to the hypothesized effect of situation on evaluations of companion-

ship, there was a main effect in which all strategies other than companionship were

evaluated more positively in the academic difficulty situation than in the social

rejection situation. The reason for this difference is unclear and open for speculation.

It is possible that the companionship strategy was seen as so well matched to the

social rejection situation that the remaining strategies were devalued by comparison.

Alternatively, because the academic difficulty situation involved an adult authority

figure whose decisions might well be viewed as final, all strategies (other than an offer

to change the grade) might have been viewed as somewhat futile. Overall, the unan-

ticipated finding adds to the accumulating evidence that aspects of situations affecthow comforting messages are evaluated (for a review, see Bodie & Burleson, 2007)

and recommends theoretical and research attention.

Limitations

Several limitations of the current study have been noted in prior discussion. However,

there are three additional limitations that should also be recognized here and addressed

as much as possible in subsequent research. First, although there was some ethnic and

socioeconomic diversity represented by the study’s participants, we did not collect data

on these variables at the level of the individual student. There is increasing evidencethat culture, operationalized in various ways (e.g., ethnicity, nationality, socioeco-

nomic status) can affect expectations and outcomes in comforting interactions (e.g.,

Burleson, Delia, & Applegate, 1995; Burleson & Mortenson, 2003). Thus, these vari-

ables may have had unknown influences on the current study. Second, the current

studies presented participants with single messages written by one of the researchers to

represent the selected strategies, with language that seemed appropriate to the age of

the participants (i.e., with relatively simple vocabulary and sentence structure). How-

ever, the messages were not pretested for realism or other perceptions that might have

affected participants’ evaluations. Thus, one interpretation of 5th graders’ more





positive evaluations of all strategies might be that they saw the messages as more

realistic than did 7th or 9th graders. Efforts to replicate and extend the present findings

should address this issue. Of course, realism is just one dimension on which messages

representing the same general strategy can vary. Thus, it is important that subsequent

research consider how children and adolescents respond to different message content

and style used to carry out the same strategy (see Jackson & Jacobs, 1983).

Third, the present study examined the evaluation of comforting messages not

their actual outcomes. An increasing number of studies with adults show that

comforting strategies evaluated as more effective (e.g., those higher in person

centeredness) actually produce more affective improvement (Jones, 2004; Jones &

Wirtz, 2006). However, children and adolescents may have less insight into what

actually ‘‘works’’ to reduce distress and generate perceptions of caring in a real

situation. Interestingly, Rose and Asher (2004) did not find any association between

5th graders’ intention to offer companionship in a hypothetical comforting situationand their actual peer acceptance or friendship quality. This may point to variability

in the sensitivity with which the strategy is employed, the level of follow-through

after the offer of companionship is made (do the children/adolescents actually get

together?), and what happens during any companionship episodes (which could be

venues for the use of other comforting strategies). Finally, the present study focused

on ordinary negative events rather than more serious crises. In the face of major

problems, young people have been shown to seek more help from parents or pro-

fessionals than friends (Boldero & Harris, 1990; Frey & Rothlisberger, 1996); the

support they want from their friends may also change in those circumstances.

Practical and theoretical conclusions

The current study’s findings have both practical and theoretical implications. On the

practical side, the present study suggests that teachers, parents, and other adults may

enhance child and adolescent ability to provide comfort if they encourage offers of

companionship as a response to distressed peers, suggest sympathy and advice as

alternative or supplemental strategies, help children and adolescents understand why

minimization strategies are not particularly comforting (and why optimism may not

be viewed as caring), and, perhaps, facilitate companionate interaction when alerted

to child or adolescent distress. Improving children’s ability to provide comfort has

the potential of improving their relationships with peers, with far-reaching implica-

tions for success and well-being (Rose & Asher, 2004).

On the theoretical side, the apparent preeminence of companionship as a com-

forting strategy for tweens underscores the centrality of peer relationships and

interactions during the transition from childhood to adolescence (Berndt &

Hestenes, 1996; Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). It also suggests that tweens may

conceptualize effective comforting differently from adults—as providing

compensation for a negative event, and perhaps distracting the individual from

focusing on the event, rather than a process of helping the distressed person to

understand the event, manage the emotional reaction, and undertake coping





efforts (Burleson & Goldsmith, 1999; Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002). On the one

hand, it is possible that tweens’ evaluations of comforting strategies are inconsis-

tent with what actually makes them feel better. However, it is also possible that

there are developmental changes in the effectiveness of different comforting strat-

egies. We hope that the current findings will stimulate further examination of child

and adolescent responses to comforting.

Notes

1 The term ‘‘tween’’ has been variably defined. Children between the ages of 10 and 12 are

almost always included, as they most clearly represent the period between childhood and

the teenage years. However, the term is also frequently used to represent younger children

(down to age 8; see The American Heritage Dictionary , 2006), and those in their early teens

(see Tween Brands, Inc.). Because the participants in our study span 5th, 7th, and 9th

grades (approximately ages 10–14), we selected ‘‘tween’’ as the best single term to represent

the range (avoiding the awkwardness of multiple terms such as ‘‘child and adolescent’’).

2 In Community A, we also included a between-groups manipulation of strategy elabo-

ration (low vs. high). Low elaboration messages were written as minimal instantiations

of the strategies, whereas high elaboration messages added to the low elaboration

messages some extension, explanation, or argument that elaborated and supported the

basic strategy. For example, below are the low and high elaboration messages for the

advice strategy in the test situation. The high elaboration message includes the (implicit)

argument that the advised action is likely to be effective.

Low elaboration: Maybe you could talk with the teacher about the test. She might

not have understood what you meant by some of your answers.

High elaboration: Maybe you could go talk with the teacher about the test. She might

not have understood what you meant by some of your answers. If you explained what

you meant, you might get some more points. I’ve gotten a higher grade a couple of times

by talking to the teacher about my answer.

Although we had hypothesized a preference for more elaborated messages and increasing

preference across grades, preliminary analyses of the Community A data indicated that

strategy elaboration actually had little influence on the findings (partial h2, .02) and its

influence was difficult to interpret (coming in complex three- and four-way interactions with

situation and gender). Thus, when collecting data in Community B, we elected to drop this

manipulation and present only the high elaboration messages. Because we combined the

Community A and Community B samples, message elaboration is not included as a variable

in the present analyses. Further details can be obtained from the authors.

References

The American heritage dictionary of the English language (4th ed.), (2006). Retrieved April 11,

2007, from http://www.answers.com/topic/tween

Asher, S. R., Parker, J. G., & Walker, D. L. (1996). Distinguishing friendship from acceptance:

Implications for intervention and assessment. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, &





W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence

(pp. 366–405). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Banerjee, R., Rieffe, C., Terwogt, M. M., Gerlein, A. M., & Voutsina, M. (2006). Popular and

rejected children’s reasoning regarding negative emotions in social situations: The role of

gender. Social Development , 15, 418–433.Bergin, C., Talley, S., & Hamer, L. (2003). Prosocial behaviours of young adolescents:

A focus group study. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 13–32.

Berndt, T. J., & Hestenes, S. L. (1996). The developmental course of social support: Family

and peers. In L. Smolak, M. P. Levine, & R. Striegel-Moore (Eds.), The developmental

psychopathology of eating disorders: Implications for research, prevention, and treatment

(pp. 77–106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Berndt, T. J., & Perry, T. B. (1986). Children’s perceptions of friendships as supportive

relationships. Developmental Psychology , 22, 640–648.

Bodie, G. D., & Burleson, B. R. (in press). Explaining moderators of the effects of supportive

messages: Can a dual-process model account for extant findings? In C. Beck (Ed.),Communication yearbook 32. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Boldero, G. W., & Harris, R. L. (1990). Adolescent help-seeking: What do they get help for

and from whom? Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 193–209.

Burleson, B. R. (1982). The development of comforting communication skills in childhood

and adolescence. Child Development , 53, 1578–1588.

Burleson, B. R. (1983). Social cognition, empathic motivation, and adults’ comforting

strategies. Human Communication Research, 10, 295–304.

Burleson, B. R. (2003). Emotional support skill. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.),

Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 551–594). Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Burleson, B. R., Applegate, J. L., Burke, J. A., Clark, R. A., Delia, J. G., & Kline, S. L. (1986).Communicative correlates of peer acceptance in childhood. Communication Education,

35, 349–361.

Burleson, B. R., Delia, J. G., & Applegate, J. L. (1992). Effects of maternal communication and

children’s social-cognitive and communication skills on children’s acceptance by the peer

group. Family Relations, 41, 264–272.

Burleson, B. R., Delia, J. G., & Applegate, J. L. (1995). The socialization of person-centered

communication: Parents’ contributions to their children’s social-cognitive and

communication skills. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family

interactions (pp. 34–76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burleson, B. R., & Goldsmith, D. J. (1999). How the comforting process works: Alleviatingemotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In P. A. Andersen &

L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory,

applications, and contexts (pp. 245–280). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Burleson, B. R., & Kunkel, A. (1996). Emotional support skills in childhood. In G. R. Pierce,

B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family

(pp. 105–140). New York: Plenum.

Burleson, B. R., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2002). Supportive communication. In M. L. Knapp &

J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 374–424). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.





Burleson, B. R., & Mortenson, S. R. (2003). Explaining cultural differences in evaluations of

emotional support behaviors: Exploring the mediating influences of value systems and

interaction goals. Communication Research, 30, 1113–1146.

Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1985). Consistencies in theoretical and naive evaluations of

comforting messages. Communication Monographs, 52, 103–122.Clark, R. A., Pierce, A. J., Finn, K., Hsu, K., Toosley, A., & Williams, L. (1998). The impact of

alternative approaches to comforting, closeness of relationship, and gender on multiple

measures of effectiveness. Communication Studies, 49, 224–239.

Clinton, B. L., & Hancock, G. R. (1991). The development of an understanding of comforting

messages. Communication Reports, 4, 54–63.

Cunningham, M. R., & Barbee, A. P. (2000). Social support. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick

(Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 272–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cutrona, C. E. (1990). Stress and social support: In search of optimal matching. Journal of

Social and Clinical Psychology , 9, 3–14.

Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Towarda 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.

Dakof, G. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1990). Victims’ perceptions of social support: What is helpful

from whom? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 58, 80–89.

Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2002). Critical levels of perceived social support associated

with student adjustment. School Psychology Quarterly , 17, 213–241.

Denton, K., & Zarbatany, L. (1996). Age differences in support processes in conversations

between friends. Child Development , 67, 1360–1373.

Dooley, D., Whalen, C. K., & Flowers, J. V. (1978). Verbal response styles of children and

adolescents in a counseling analog setting: Effects of age, sex, and labeling. Journal of

Counseling Psychology , 25, 85–95.Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In W. Damon, & N. Eisenberg

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development

(5th ed., pp. 701–708). New York: Wiley.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Karbon, M., & Murphy, B. C. (1996). Relations of school

children’s comforting behavior to empathy-related reactions and shyness. Social

Development , 5, 330–351.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Smith, M., & Maszk, P. (1996). The

relations of children’s dispositional empathy-related responding to their emotionality,

regulation, and social functioning. Developmental Psychology , 32, 195–209.

Farver, J. M., & Branstetter, W. H. (1994). Preschoolers’ prosocial responses to their peers’distress. Developmental Psychology , 30, 334–341.

Feng, B., & Burteson, B. R. (in press). The effects of argument explicitness on responses to

advice in supportive interactions. Communication Research.

Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, P. H. (1993). Cognitive development . Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Frey, C. U., & Rothlisberger, C. (1996). Social support in healthy adolescents. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 25, 17–31.

Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of

personal relationships. Child Development , 63, 103–115.





Goldsmith, D. J. (1994). The role of facework in supportive communication. In

B.R.Burleson,T.L.Albrecht,&I.G.Sarason(Eds.), Communication of social support:Messages,

interactions, relationships, and community (pp. 29–49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Helsen, M., Vollebergh, W., & Meeus, W. (2000). Social support from parents and friends and

emotional problems in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 319–335.Hoffner, C., & Haefner, M. J. (1997). Childrens comforting of frightened coviewers—Real

and hypothetical television-viewing situations. Communication Research, 24, 136–152.

Jackson, M., & Tisak, M. S. (2001). Is prosocial behaviour a good thing? Developmental

changes in children’s evaluations of helping, sharing, cooperating, and comforting.

British Journal of Developmental Psychology , 19, 349–367.

Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1983). Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and

analysis of experiments. Human Communication Research, 9, 169–191.

Jones, S. M. (2004). 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, 31, 338–360.Jones, S. M., & Burleson, B. R. (1997). The impact of situational variables on helpers’

perceptions of comforting messages: An attributional analysis. Communication Research,

24, 530–555.

Jones, S. M., & Guerrero, L. K. (2001). The effects of nonverbal immediacy and verbal person

centeredness in the emotional support process. Human Communication Research, 27,

567–596.

Jones, S. M., & Wirtz, J. G. (2006). How does the comforting process work? An empirical

test of an appraisal-based model of comforting. Human Communication Research, 32,

217–243.

Kunkel, A. W., & Burleson, B. R. (1999). Assessing explanations for sex differences in

emotional support: A test of the different cultures and skill specialization accounts.Human Communication Research, 25, 307–340.

Levitt, M. J., Levitt, J., Bustos, G. L., Crooks, N. A., Santos, J. D., Telan, P., et al. (2005).

Patterns of social support in the middle childhood to early adolescent transition:

Implications for adjustment. Social Development , 14, 398–420.

MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., Butler, G. L., & Budarz, S. K. (2004). Understanding advice in

supportive interactions: Beyond the facework and message evaluation paradigm.

Human Communication Research, 30, 42–70.

MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Thompson, E. (in press). Good and bad advice: How to advise

more effectively. In M. T. Motley (Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.MacGeorge, E. L., Gillihan, S. J., Samter, W., & Clark, R. A. (2003). Skill deficit or differential

motivation: Testing alternative explanations for gender differences in the provision of

emotional support. Communication Research, 30, 272–303.

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

response to supportive communication. Sex Roles, 50, 143–175.

Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2002). Measuring perceived social support: Development

of the child and adolescent social support scale (CASSS). Psychology in the Schools, 39, 1–18.

Mathur, R., & Berndt, T. J. (2006). Relations of friends’ activities to friendship quality.

Journal of Early Adolescence, 26, 365–388.





McCoy, C. L., & Masters, J. C. (1985). The development of children’s strategies for the social

control of emotions. Child Development , 56, 1214–1222.

Persson, G. E. B. (2005). Young children’s prosocial and aggressive behaviors and their

experiences of being targeted for similar behaviors by peers. Social Development , 14,

206–228.Raffaelli, M., & Duckett, E. (1989). ‘‘We were just talking.’’: Conversations in early

adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 567–581.

Reid, M., Landesman, S., Treder, R., & Jaccard, J. (1989). ‘‘My family and friends’’: Six to

twelve-year-old children’s perceptions of social support. Child Development , 60, 896–910.

Richman, J. M., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Bowen, G. L. (1998). Social support for adolescents at

risk of school failure. Social Work , 43, 309–323.

Ritter, E. M. (1979). Social perspective-taking ability, cognitive complexity and

listener-adapted communication in early and late adolescence. Communication

Monographs, 46, 40–51.

Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (2004). Children’s strategies and goals in response to help-givingand help-seeking tasks within a friendship. Child Development , 75, 745–763.

Samter, W. (2003). Friendship interaction skills across the life span. In J. O. Greene &

B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills.

(pp. 637–684). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Samter, W., & Burleson, B. R. (1984). Cognitive and motivational influences on spontaneous

comforting behavior. Human Communication Research, 11, 231–260.

Samter, W., Burleson B. R., & Murphy L. (1987). Comforting conversations: The effects of

strategy type on evaluations of messages and message producers. Southern Speech

Communication Journal , 12, 263–284.

Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., & Gurung, R. A. R. (1997). Close personal relationships and

health outcomes: A key to the role of social support. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 547–573). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Stegge, H., & Terwogt, M. M. (2007). Awareness and regulation of emotion in typical and

atypical development. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 269–286).

New York: Guilford Press.

Tamborini, R., Salomonson, K., & Bahk, C. (1993). The relationship of empathy to

comforting behavior following film exposure. Communication Research, 20, 723–738.

Tween Brands Inc. Corporate profile. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://

phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=61045&;p=irol-irhome

Verbrugge, L. M. (1983). A research note on adult friendship contact: A dyadic perspective.

Social Forces, 62, 78–83.Zeman, J., Cassano, M., Perry-Parrish, C., & Stegall, S. (2006). Emotion regulation in children

and adolescents. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 27, 155–168.





L’évaluation des stratégies de réconfort des pairs des enfants et des adolescents

Ruth Anne Clark

University of Illinois

Erina L. MacGeorge

Purdue University

Lakesha Robinson

Verizon Wireless

This article was accepted under the editorship of Jim Dillard

Résumé

Malgré l’importance du soutien social tout au long de la vie et en dépit de la recherche

considérable sur la communication de soutien entre adultes, on connaît peu la façon dont les

enfants ou les adolescents réagissent aux efforts de réconfort de leurs pairs. La présente étude fut

conçue afin d’examiner la façon dont des élèves de 5e, 7

e et 9

e années (10-11 ans, 12-13 ans et

14-15 ans) évaluent six stratégies de réconfort des pairs (sympathie, reddition de comptes,

compagnonnage, conseil, optimisme et minimisation) et d’évaluer les effets modérateurs de

l’âge, du sexe et de la situation. Les participants (N = 292) ont lu des scénarios mettant en scène

un rejet social ou un échec scolaire et ont évalué des messages en fonction de leur amélioration

affective et de la préoccupation perçue. Les résultats indiquent que le compagnonnage était la

stratégie évaluée le plus positivement en ce qui a trait aux deux variables dépendantes, alors que

la minimisation et les comptes étaient le moins positivement évalués; la sympathie, le conseil et

l’optimisme ont reçu des évaluations intermédiaires. Ces résultats étaient quelque peu modérés

par l’âge, le sexe et la situation. Les résultats sont commentés quant aux différences possibles

entre les évaluations et les attentes des adultes et des préadolescents dans les interactions

réconfortantes.



Die Beurteilung von Tröstungsstrategien Gleichaltriger durch Kinder und Jugendliche

Auch wenn soziale Unterstützung während des gesamten Lebens wichtig ist und intensive

Forschungsarbeiten zur Form einer unterstützenden Kommunikation zwischen Erwachsenen

geleistet wurden, ist bislang wenig bekannt, wie Kinder oder Jugendliche auf tröstende

Bemühungen von Gleichaltrigen reagieren. In der vorliegenden Studie wurde untersucht, wie 5.,

7. und 9. Klässler 6 Tröstungsstrategien von Gleichaltrigen (Sympathie, Erklärungen,

Gemeinschaft, Hinweis, Optimismus und Minimierung) bewerten, und welchen moderierenden

Einfluss die Variablen Alter, Geschlecht und Situation haben. Die Teilnehmer (N=292) lasen

Szenarien, in denen es um soziale Zurückweisung oder schulischen Misserfolg ging und

bewerteten die Botschaften hinsichtlich der affektiven Verbesserung und wahrgenommener

Fürsorge. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Gemeinschaft für beide abhängigen Variablen die am

positivsten bewertete Strategie war, während Minimierung und Erklären am schlechtesten

bewertet wurden. Sympathie, Hinweis und Optimismus wurden mittelmäßig bewertet. Diese

Ergebnisse sind teilweise durch Alter, Geschlecht und Situation moderiert. Die Befunde werden

im Hinblick auf mögliche Unterschiede zwischen Tröstungsbewertungen und -erwartungen von

Erwachsenen und Tweens diskutiert.



Evaluando las Estrategias de Consolación de Pares Usadas por Niños y Adolescentes

Ruth Anne Clark


Erina L. MacGeorge

Purdue University

Lakesha Robinson

Verizon Wireless

Resumen

A pesar de la importancia del apoyo social a través de la vida, y de la extensa

investigación sobre la comunicación compasiva entre adultos, poco se sabe acerca de

cómo los niños y los adolescentes responden a los esfuerzos de consolación de sus pares.

El estudio presente fue diseñado para examinar cómo los niños de quinto, séptimo y

noveno grado evalúan 6 estrategias de consolación de pares (compasión, contar un relato,

compañerismo, consejo, optimismo, y minimización), y para evaluar los efectos

moderadores de la edad, el género, y la situación. Los participantes (N = 292) leyeron

escenarios que involucraban rechazo social ó fracaso académico, y evaluaron los

mensajes por su mejoramiento afectivo y preocupación percibida. Los resultados

indicaron que el compañerismo fue la estrategia evaluada más positivamente en ambas

variables dependientes, mientras que la minimización y el contar un relato fueron las

opciones evaluadas menos positivamente; la compasión, el consejo, y el optimismo

recibieron evaluaciones intermedias. Los resultados fueron de algún modo moderados por

la edad, el género y la situación. Los resultados son discutidos con respecto a las

diferencias potenciales entre las evaluaciones y las expectativas de interacción de

consolación de adultos y adolescentes.



评童及青少年安慰其同辈的策略

Ruth Anne Clark

伊利诺伊大学

Erina L. MacGeorge

普渡大学

Lakesha Robinson

弗莱森无线公司

社会支持在人的一生中很重要；关于成人间支持性传播的研究也很广泛。尽管如

此，我们却很少了解儿童或青少年如何应对同辈的安慰。本研究检验了 5、7、9年级的学生评估 6种同辈安慰策略（即同情、讲述、陪伴、建议、乐观主义和淡化）

的方式，此外还检验了年纪、性别和情境等因素的中介性影响。实验参与者

（ N=292）通过阅读了解一个涉及社会排斥或成绩不及格的场景，然后评估信息的

情感改良性和关怀度，结果显示，陪伴所得到的评价最积极，淡化和讲述所收到的

评价最消极。同情、建议和乐观主义收到的评价则处于中间。这些结果在一定程度

上受到年级、性别和情境的影响。本文最后从成人和青少年之间以及安慰性互动过

程中评价和期待之间之潜在差异的角度讨论了上述发现的涵义。



어린이들 청소년들에 의한 동료 위로 전략에 대한 평

Ruth Anne Clark


Erina L. MacGeorge

Purdue University

Lakesha Robinson

Verizon Wireless

요약

사람의 일생을 통한 사회적 지지의 중요성과 성인들 사이의 지지적인 커뮤니케이션에

관한 광범위한 연구에도 불구하고 어린이들과 청소년들이 어떻게 그들 동료들의

위로노력에 반응하는지는 잘 알려지지 않았다.본 연구는 어떻게 5, 7,그리고 9학년

학생들이 6가지 동료 위로 전략들 (동정심,고통을 설명하는 것,동료애,충고,긍정주의,

그리고 문제의 최소화)을 평가하는지를 연구하기 위하여,그리고 나이,젠더,그리고

상황의 중재적인 노력들을 평가하기 위해 고안되었다.참여자 (N = 292)들은 사회적 거부

또는 학문적 실패에 관련된 시나리오를 읽은뒤 감정적인 개선과 인지된 보호에 관한

메시지를 평가했다.결과는 동료애는 두가지 종속변수들에 있어 가장 긍정적으로 평가된

전략이라는 것을 보여준 반면,문제의 최소화와 고통을 설명하는 것은 가장 낮은 정도로

긍정적인 것으로 평가되었다.동점심,충고,그리고 긍정주의는 중간정도의 평가를

받았다. 이러한 결과들은 나이,젠더,그리고 상황에 의해 다소간 중재되었다.결과들이

위로 상호작용에 있어 평가와 기대사이의 차이에 근거하여 논의되었다.

Evaluation of Peer Comforting Strategies

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of Peer Comforting Strategies