Social Support, Nature of

Perceived and Enacted Support

Two primary conceptions of social support exist. Perceived support refers to an individual's perception that social support is available if needed. Individuals high in perceived support believe that there are people in their social network on whom they can depend to provide various kinds of resources in times of need. Perceived support is associated with many different health benefits, including longer life, lower likelihood of disease, and better mental health and well-being (see Social Support and Health). This form of support is fairly stable or unchanging and is related to other characteristics of individuals. For example, people who perceive that [Page 1566]they have a lot of support available are also more likely to have high self-esteem; be optimistic, extroverted and socially competent; and be secure in their attachment to important figures in their life. Perceived support can be measured reliably with several questionnaires such as the Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ), the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL), or the Social Provisions Scale (SPS). Questions might ask whether there is anyone available to provide caring and comfort, to provide advice, or to provide assistance if needed.

In contrast, enacted support refers to actual social exchanges or interactions in which one person behaves in a manner meant to meet another's needs. Enacted support (also known as received support) is experienced as specific acts of caring, assistance, and guidance. Intuitively, it seems that perceived and enacted support should be closely related, but research has demonstrated otherwise. For example, in stigmatizing circumstances such as HIV or following a sexual assault, expected support is not always forthcoming. Although perceived support has been consistently linked with positive mental and physical outcomes, enacted support has not always appeared to be beneficial. This is most likely a result of the fact that support exchanges usually coincide with ongoing stressors, which makes it difficult to disentangle the benefits of enacted support from the adverse effects of stressors on adjustment. In addition, the mere attempt to provide social support does not guarantee that it will be effective.

Some theorists argue that the type of support provided must match the needs of the recipient to be beneficial. Evidence is largely supportive of this intuitively attractive “matching hypothesis,” but it is difficult to test because it calls for a detailed analysis of support needs and provisions over time, which is rarely done. In addition, matching the type of social support to needs does not capture the quality of support. For example, a family member may provide advice when needed, but do so in a controlling, critical, or domineering manner.

...