Growing evidence that personal adjustment and social behaviour can be influenced by a person's access to supp-ortive others. Support provided by the family, but not by peers, to moderate the relationship between occupational stress and depressive symptomatology. A measure of perceived available support was more strongly related to mortality than support defined as a frequency.
Growing evidence that personal adjustment and social behaviour can be influenced by a person's access to supp-ortive others. Support provided by the family, but not by peers, to moderate the relationship between occupational stress and depressive symptomatology. A measure of perceived available support was more strongly related to mortality than support defined as a frequency.
Direitos autorais:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formatos disponíveis
Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
Growing evidence that personal adjustment and social behaviour can be influenced by a person's access to supp-ortive others. Support provided by the family, but not by peers, to moderate the relationship between occupational stress and depressive symptomatology. A measure of perceived available support was more strongly related to mortality than support defined as a frequency.
Direitos autorais:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formatos disponíveis
Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
A BRIEF MEASURE OF SOCIAL
SUPPORT: PRACTICAL AND
THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
Irwin G. Sarason, Barbara R. Sarason,
Edward N. Shearin & Gregory R. Plerce
‘University of Washington, USA
‘Two studies leading to te development of a short form of the Sociat
‘Support Questionnaire (SSO) are reported. In Study 1 threo items
selected for high correlations with the total score (SSQ3) were
‘Administered 0 182 university stusanta together with several personality
‘measures. SSQ3 had acceptable tet-rtest reliability and correlations
with personality variables similar to thoweof he SSQ_ Internal rallablity
was marginal although acceptable for an instrument with 20 few items.
Study 2 employed three sets of data in developing asix-iteminstrument
(S86). The SSO8 had high internal reliability and correlated highly
‘with the SSQ and simitary toi with personality vaiables. The research
findings accompanying the development of the short form social
support measure suggest that perceivedsocial supportinadulte may be
{at ellection of arty atachment experience.
This article reports the development of measures of social support
that can be administered ina few minutes and are psychometricaly
sound, The purpose of the development of these instruments was
two-fold, First, although information about how people appraise
their social relationships is important for both research and applied
‘questions, a lengthy assessment too! is often a barrier to gathering
this information, Particularly for researchers who work in clinical
settings, social support assessments often must be made in a few
‘minutes or not at all.A short, reliable, psychometrically acceptable
social support assessment tool would be useful in situations where
time pressures are a limiting consideration. Second, the social
support construct itself is a muhifaceted one. Emphasis on one or
another of the aspects of social support has resulted in a variety of
‘measures that are not highly related to each other (Sarason et al,
NL25, University
‘Send correspondence 10: rwiaG, Sarason, Prychology Depart
‘of Washington, Seattle, WA 98193, USA.
owrnal of Social and Personal Relarioashys (SAGE, London, Newbary Pak, Bevetly
ila and New Delhi, Vo 4 1987), 497-310
oo Journal of Social and Pertanal Relasinships
1987). It was expected that inspection of the items that related to a
variety of social support measures might provide some theoretical
clues to the underlying aspects of the support process.
There is growing evidence that personal adjustment and social
behaviour, as well as health maintenance and recovery from illness,
can be influenced significantly by a person's access to supportive
others Brown & Harris, 1978; Henderson etal, 1981; Nuckolls etal,
1972; Sosa et al., 1980). However, the particular definition of social
support has an important effect on the relationships found. For
instance, Revicki & May (1985) examined the effects of oreupational
stress and social support on depression among 210 family physicians.
‘They found support provided by the family, but not by peers, 10
‘moderate the relationship between occupational stress and depressive
symptomatology. Sandler & Barrera(1984) compared the relationship
‘of several support indices they had developed both to.each other and
to measures of anxiety, depression, somatization and an index of
psychological disorder. The authors found their support measures to
be only marginally interrelated. Further, they found scales assessing
actually received support and total support network size to be
unrelated to any of the symptomatology measures used. In contrast,
their measure of support satisfaction was negatively related to all of
the symptomatology indices, while a measure of the number of
‘network members who were also perceived a sources of interpersonal
problems was positively related to the symptomatology scales.
‘An example of the problems caused by a variety of definitions of
social support can be seen in the findings of a study by Blazer (1982).
He examined mortality risk for a large group of elderly men and
women in Durham County, North Carolina, and found social
support (assessed on three dimensions) to be a significant risk factor
for thirty-month mortality. However, the magnitude of the
‘mortality-social support relationship depended on the definition of
support. A measure of perceived available support was more strongly
‘elated to mortality than cither support defined as a frequency of
interaction with friends and family or in terms of availability of roles
and attachment (aumber of living children and siblings, matital
status).
There is additional evidence suggesting that people's appraisal of
the support that might be available to thei may be even more
important than their actual interpersonal contacts (Antonucci &
Israel, 1986). This is understandable given that there are individual
differences in the need for contacts with others and that personalSaran
Social support *
‘meanings attached to these contacts vary widely. There are a number
of aspects of these personal appraisals of social support. To whom do
people feel they can turn for association with others and for help? For
which kinds of problems? How satisfied are people with what they
derive from their interpersonal relationships?
‘The abbreviated instruments described in this article were derived
from the twenty-seven-item Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ)
(Sarason et al., 1983). The items each have two parts. The first partof
‘each item assesses the number of available others the individual feels
he orshe can turn to in timesof need in each of a variety of situations
(Number or Perceived Availability score) and includes such questions
as: ‘Whom could you count on to help you if you had just been fired
from your job or expelled from school?" “Whom do you feel would
help if a family member very close to you died?” The second part of
‘each item measures the individual's degree of satisfaction (Satisfaction
score) with the perceived support available in that particular
situation. Subjects indicate how satisfied they are ona 6-point Likert
scale from ‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’
‘The SSQ had been factor analytically derived from a large body of
items intended tomeasure the functions served by social networks. Its
psychometric properties are good (Sarason et al., 1983). Factor
analyses of the two SSQ scales showed them to be composed of
different, unitary dimensions. Replication in a large number of data
sets has shown only a moderate correlation between the two scales
(typically, the correlations have been in the 0.30 t0 0.40 range). The
'SSQ takes fifteen to eighteen minutes to administer and has good
test-retest reliability. Scores on the Number and Satisfaction scales
are negatively related to depression and anxiety, as well as to
retrospectively perceived anxiety in childhood. In addition, Number
scores are positively related to extraversion, while Satisfaction scores
are inversely related to neuroticism as measured by the Eysenck
Personality Inventory (EPI) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968). Neither of
the SSQ scores is significantly correlated with the social desirability
response set. When the SSQ was compared with an extensive
structured interview, the two approaches yielded comparable results
(Sarason et al., 1987).
‘The SSQ has been related to clinical indices and used in laboratory
studies. In a study of interrelationships among negative life events,
social support and illness, social support was shown to be a
significant moderator of the relationship between life events and
illness (1. Sarason et al, 1985). The correlation between negative life
00 Journal of Social and Pertna! Relationships
‘events and illness was much stronger among subjects with low than
high SSQ scores. Laboratory studies have showa that subjects high in
social support are rated as being more attractive and socially skilled,
and report more optimism about their lives than do low support
‘subjects (B. Sarason et al., 1985). Low social support is related to an
‘external locus of control, difficulty in persisting on demanding tasks,
increased levels of cognitive interference and relative dissatisfaction
with life (Sarason et al., 1983). Iti also related to performance under
stress, with low perceived support being associated with less adequate
coping behaviour (Lindner, 1982; Sarason & Sarason, 1986).
‘This article describes two studies that attempted to develop three-
item and six-item versions of the SSQ. The aims of the studies were to
establish groups of items that correlate highly with the twenty-seven-
item version and to determine these short forms' internal reliabilities
and test-retest reliabilities. This was followed by comparing short-
and long-form correlations with relevant personality characteristics.
‘Stay 1
In this study, the items were chosen tom the twenty sever item SSQ on the bass of
‘both correlations with SSQ Numberand Satisfaction cores, and represctativenca of
item conteat. Thisshort (orm, SSQ), was given along with he log form SSQ so that
‘the comparably ofthe two forms could be determined.
Method
‘Atample of 182 male and female undergraduates were tested. Of hese, 7 women and,
29 men were tested only once und 61 women and 45 men were retsed 10 provide
test-retest data onthe $SQ3. Of the ees subject 101 were summer quarer students,
the remainder of he sample coming from spring quarter enrollees.
Students were tested ia sol groups withthe order of the SSQ and SSQ3 forms
counterbalanced Betwoen the administrations ofthe social support measures, several
Dertonality imtroments and a measure of social competence were complcied ducing
{he intial pession. Responses were obtained to the Mullple Adjective Affect Check
List Q(MAACL) (Zockerman & Lubia, 1963), he UCLA Looctines Sole (Russell et
1900), and the Social Competence Questionaire (B Sarason etal, 1985).
“The thre items sed on SSQ3 were items 19,22, nd 24 ofthe full ale SSQ:
1. Who accepts you totally, nchding both your wors and your bes! pois?
22 Whom can youreally count ontotel you,
rove in some way?
21 Whom do you fee tray loves you deepy?
ored for number or perceived vaiSarason etal: Social support a
A subset of 106 subjecs was tested 3-4 weeks after the inital administration. The
'S8Q3 and the Beck Depresion Inventory Beck eal, 1961) were administered ducing
this eta session.
Rents
Preliminary analyses with BMDPID and 2D showed te Satisfaction seal ofboth the
'$$Q and $8Q3 to be significantly (p<0.001) skewed 10 the left (dissatisfied). Low
{ransformations eliminated the skew But since the cortelations ofthe transformed nd
‘uneansformed variables with SSQ Number and other variables were ver similar, and
the minimum cell ie for subsequent ANOVAs was 40, thus providing large degsee
of robustness againat distribution assumption violations, further analyses were
‘conducted on the untransformed variables.
TABLED
{ata adetetration and retest Intercorrelaions among the thre tem SSQ (S53),
(heath scale Social Support Qustionaatre(SSQ), nd the nested S5Q (withthe SSQ3
ems removed from the fallacae lntrmet)
neue 7.
1.$8Q3 Number 0s 029 03% Ost 03s OA OM
2.8593 Retest Number = 028 03% os Ot O86 o.u
53.8503 Satistaction = 04s" 021% ost 0.1% one
4. $8Q3 Retest Satisfaction ~ 026 087 028 oF
5.5 Number = 038 1008 ose
{6 $8Q Satisfaction = oar Loe
7.S8Q Number (adjusted) = 03
1 SSQ Satistaction (adyated) 2
Notes
‘n= 171-9 initial testing; etest n= 97
§p<001, Lite.
*p< 0001, Laie.
“able I shows the inttcortelations ofthe SSQ3 with ees, wih the SSQ and with
‘the SSQ adjusted teach these thee items (SSQ ad) The et-ttert correlations of
'S5Q3 Number and Suisfction ate (100) = 0.84 (p < 0001) and 19) = 085 p<
(001) sexpectvey. The cortelations of $SQ3 Number and Satisfaction withthe
‘djusted (short form items removed) SSQ Number and Satisfaction are (179)= 0.09
‘<£.001) and (172) =0.84 (p < 0.001) respectively. Table 2 shows the correlations of
‘SSQi and SSQ Number and Satisfaction sores with personality ndsocial competence
‘variables, Aathe Table shows, the shor and long-form correlations are very similar.
"The mernal reliabilities of SSQ3-Number and SSQ3-Sausaction were O 0.75,
‘and €1= 0.29 respectively. The internal reliabilities of SSQ Number and Satstacion
scores werchigher,c1=097 foreach, Order fects and the wo subject groupe (pring,
‘and summer quarter students) were compared. While some diflerencea were found fot
‘xample, sutmer students had lower SSQ and SSQ3 Number scores), they did not
Influence th cortlations reported ia Tables and 2.
so oural of Socal and Personal Relationships
TABLE?
Caretatons of $SQ3 and $SQ with Pervoualy und Social Competence variables
S803 sq)
Numbee Satfacton Number Satfaction
028 2 4e
2r or oe
02m or te
aie Ose One
a5 oe 06F
2" om
12 = 173-81 except or Beck Depression, whose n= 97-102
* 7 <008, Laled.
°).<001, Mailed.
p< 0001, tailed.
Discusion
‘Thethree-item shor form of the SSQ (SSQ3) appear quite similar tothe went sven
lem version of the SSQ init relationships to personality and socal ompetence sales.
us test-retest elabilityiaccepuabl, but isintrnal liability (coeficent&)slower
than the $SQ’s This i not surprising considering that SSQ3 consis of only three
might be to0 few 10 provide all the psychometric properties
‘deemed desirable, Study ? was performed to denis somewha larger subset ois
from the twenty-sven-tcm SSQ which might have eater internal reliability while
‘maintaining the highly similar correlations exhibited by the threeitem form when
compared 10 the wenty-seven-item SSQ. In this study rather than we an a priori
selection of tems likely tobe represcotative of the SSQa¥ «whole, we sought tocollect
the items through suitical analysis.
Method
“Thre independeat samples of subjects whose respons tothe SSQ and other sales
were already in our database were used for thie sly.
‘Sample I consated ofthe 182 student sed in Study I. Sample 2 included another
‘woup of 81 male and 136 female undergraduates enrolled in an Introductory
Paychology clas. These subject had competed the SSQ and three other measute of
social support at wel as measures of early parent-child relationships, dynes, sci
esiabilty and social ansiety. Sample 3 was similar 1 Sample 2and consisted of 39
‘men and 87 women, These subjects had compleied the SSQ and two addtional
‘measures of socal support a well as measuresof parent-child relationship, depresion
and annity.om eta: Social sgport 503
In each study the subjecs were given & packet of questionaaite to complete. The
‘ests completed bythe subjects im sample | were described in Study I. The subjects a
sample 2completeda variety of social support measures including he Social Nework
List (Stokes, 198), Inventory of Socially Supportive Bchaviors (Barter ea, 1981),
the Family Environment Seale (Moos & Moos, 1981) and the SSQ. They also
‘completed the Social Reticence Seale Jones et alin press) a measure of shyness the
‘measure of social anu
LUCLA Lonelinew Scale (Russell al, 1960) the Marlowe-C
‘Scale(Crowne & Marlowe, 1964, Mariowe & Crowne, 1961}
Unstcument (Parker eta. 1979). Subject in stmple } completed several measures of
‘socal support, the Interpersonal Support Evaluation Lis 1985); the
Perceived Social Support (Friends and Family) measure (Procidano & Heller, 1983),
and he SSQ Inaddtion several other individual difference measures were uted. These
included the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spilberger et al, 1979), the Beck
Depression Inventory (Becket al. nding instrument (Parker
etal 1979)
Rees
Factor analyses using the method of principal (actors with Varimax rotation were
conducted fr samples | and 2. The defor thetwo samples were analysed seperately.
Frnt the $SQ Number and Satisfaction items were combined for each sample inthe
alysis and thea separate analyses were carried ou forthe Number and Satfction
fmt. Since the analyes with combined Number and Satisfaction items yielded just
‘one acot foreach ofthese categories (eigen values greater than | Oxteriteration,the
‘nalyes for Number and Satisfaction items factored separately were wed. The highest
sia loadings in each analysis were identified and then averaged across Number and
ction items yield Number-Saisfaction pairs ank-ordered bythe magnitude
pais for Sample | and seven pais for
sample 2 The sample | average loadings ranged from 0.78 to 0.82, while those for
‘ample 2 ranged from 0.761000. Of the pace fr the two sampler sn were selected
for further analysis. Three items were selected because they were common to he wo
TABLE 3
‘Sla-em short form af the Socal Suppot Questlonaare(SSQ6;
(albacale SSQ lem mambo In parentheses
‘Whom can you really count on vo distract you from your woris when you feel under
reat 0)
‘Whom can you realy count onto help you feel more relased when you ae under
pressure or tense? (17)
Who acepts you totally, including both your worst and your best point (19)
‘Whom can you relly count on o care about you, regards of whats happening
you? (20)
Whom can you really count on 1 help you fel beter when you a fel
‘down-in-he-dumpa? (23)
‘Woe can you count on to console you when you ae very upset? (28)
sou Journal of Socal and Persnal Relationships
‘samples and another three were chosen because the ranked a high or higher thanthe
common items in one ofthe wo samples. Table 3 ists the ax teme tha comprised
8596.
TABLES
Inercorrlations fr thre samples among the item SSQ (SSQM), the complete
‘Soclal apport Questionaire (SSQ) end the SSQ najeted to exchde the
'SSQ6 Keme (SSO mdjsed)
Sample Fore Variable
r rong Fi sesame
(162-21) Number(1) 0.37 093 037 091" 036
Satiafecton(2) = 032" 096 0.308 09"
sq
Number (3) 03s Lon 03s"
Satiafaction (4) = 03 100
$8Q adjusted
Number (5) = as
Satisfaction (6) S
2. 5596
(r=i03-6) Number(1) 0.49" 096" 050" 093" 0.50"
Satisfaction ®) = 046+ 095" O44" 0.90"
sq
Number (0) = 051" 10m osie
Satisfaction (4) 050 ase
$8Q adjusted
Number (5) = ost
Satisfaction (6) 3
$596
Number(I) 0.58" 097 ass! os oss
Satitaction(2) 059" O96" O5¥ Ose
ssq
Number (3) 038 Lom ose
‘Satisfaction (4) = Se 100
$89 adjusted
Number (5) = ose
‘P< 0.001, Ialed.
‘Table 4 presens the intercortclations among SSQ6, SSQ and the SSQ adjusted to
‘ace the $8Q6 items (SQ adjuted). The thre versions seem quite comparable
‘ven within sample 3 which was the cro-validation sample, The internal celal
(coeticins er forthe SSQ for the thre samples were between 09710 0,98 or Number
And between 096 t0 0.97 for Satisfaction. The comparsble internal rl
$Q6 ranged from 0.90 1 0.93 for both Number and Satisiact
(Comparisons were made between the correlations of SSQS 4nd SSQ wit
individual diference variables (Table 5). Data sts ncuding these variables had be,
sthered Because ofthe theoretical relationship they beat to the concept of perceived
social suppor. These relationships have Been discussed prior work with heSSQ (seeSarason tal: Soil upport 0s
TABLES
(Corrltions witha three samples (or both the complete Social Support Qeestonnare
($SQ) aed the ah-Hem SSQ (SSQ6) Namber() and Salfcton(S)
scales wld ndlvidal aflerence mesures
SQN SSQN_SSQS SSS
MAACL Anaiety “02s
i “ae or
Socia Sill ow ome ont
oneness 04 asx 03%
Beck Depression “oe om oe
2 Social Anxiety 03% ome 025
Shyness on oe
Loneliness oss ox ome
Social Desirability on oe ont
1SSB Total 02 oe oF
FES Cohesion oar os os
SNL Size oa ois ose
SNL % Confidants ose ose ose
SNL Density 008 oie ost
PBI Mother Care 03s oe one
PBI Father Care oss oar oat
PBI Mother Overprotection 021° 1% or
PBL Father Overprotection 0.14" coe oe
23. Stae-Teat Anxiety “oat ar 05s
Beck Depression “oe “os ar
ISEL Toul ost ost 0a
SS Friends oar ost os
Family oar Ose ste
PBI Mother Care oa oor 6
PBI Father Care oar oat ate
PBI Mother Overprotecion -0.21% ar 03
PBL Father Overprotection 0.18" oe oe
‘Notes
‘The range of «for sample | was 162-81 excep for Beck Depression which was 89-102;
the range of m for sample 2 was 198-205; the range of for sample 3 was 139-46;
MAACL = Multiple Adjective Affect Check Lit Pl
Inventory of Social Supportive Behaviors; FES = Family Environment List
{elaonshipa with the SSQ and SSQ6 were similar enough to allow the SQStoserve
tnadequate substitute or the SSQ. For sample |, the two scales’ correlations withthe
ety, depresion, loneliness and social skill meazres used in Study | were even
ila than SSQ3-SSQ cortelations reported in Table 2 For samples 2 and 3,
06 ural of Socal and Personal Relationships
'SSQ6 and SSQ were compared in their cortelations with & vaned group of social
suppor indices. There were no significant dillerenes between the $SQ6 and SSQ.
‘correlations and, as can be sen in Table 5, all the differences were quite small For
example, he Number sores for S$Q and S$Q6 correlated 0.43 and 039, eapectvely,
with the Social Network List. Correlations were also compared for a vanety of
‘individual ference measure, Again, the correspondence between the SSQ6 and SSQ
contelations was quite close,
Diacaton
‘The siritem shor form of the SSQ (SSQ6) appears to be highly similar to the
twenty-seven item version ofthe $SQ bothin the conelation of tatwoscores withthe
(Coetceat cof the SSS were highly aatsactory from paychometie viewpoin.
General discussion
‘The three-item and six-item SSQ scales both have acceptable
Psychometric properties. However, the greater internal reliability
(ais) of the six-item instrument's two scales suggests that it is the
preferable measure. Picliminary data from studies in progress
indicate that the Satisfaction scale of SSQ3 may be subject to
‘unacceptable amounts of skew and kurtosis (Z'< 12.00 for each) for
some populations duc to the very small number (18) of postible scale
values, The SSQ6 with twice the items is more resistant to such
distribution problems. Its correlations with the full-scale SSQ are
high, even when the six SSQ6 items are removed from the twenty-
seven-item version. One of the psychometric strengths of the full-
length SSQ is the absence of the ceiling effect found in many social
support measures (Sarason et al., 1987). The presence of this ceiling
effect and the accompanying heterogeneity of variance can create
problems in the interpretation of results. For this reason the
instrument of choice would be the SSQ in contrast to the SSQ6.
However, because the SSQ6 is psychometrically sound and when
the SSQ. It should be noted, however, that these data,
like that related to most social support measures, were obtained from
a college student population rather than a clinical population,
However, there is resson to believe that the relationships between
‘measures would be the same. The SSQ has been used widely in clinical
settings and has been found to relate to various individual difference
variables in a way consistent with that obtained from the student
samples used in the original validation work.‘Sarason etal: Socal upport 07
Although the intent in developing the instruments was in part
practical, the content of items identified by factor analysis and item
analyses carried out in the process of developing the abbreviated
instruments was of considerable theoretical interest in the under-
standing of the nature of social support. As Table 3 reveals, all of the
items on the six-item scale are of a very general nature and reflect the
affective aspects of relationships. None of them deals with instru-
‘mental support. The items of the three-item scale are similar in
‘content. Why might this be the case?
‘A somewhat similar result emerged from examination of a variety
of social support indices (Sarason et al., 1987). Those indices which
‘reflected subjects’ feelings of the degree to which they were loved and
valued correlated more strongly with personality measures than
those scales which assessed what might be regarded as specific
functions of social support that were either perceived to be available
‘or were reported to have actually been received. Those who reported
having relationships marked by these general qualities were less
depressed and lonely, and more satisfied with current relationships,
than those wha did not,
This belief that there are people available who care about an
individual and who would try to help if help were needed may be the
key factor in the efficacy of social support in promoting physical and
psychological health. The items that emerged as central in both
versions of the SSQ short form as well as our previous work (see, for
‘example, Sarason ct al., 1987) and that of others cited here lead us to
conclude that the perception that social support is available when
‘needed may be translated into the idea that the perception of being
loved and valued is central in the concept of social support, and that
this belief may be a counterpart in adult life to the attachment
experience in childhood described by Bowlby (1969, 1980). Attach-
‘ment implies an affective bond that is something beyond mere care-
ving. Tt occurs when the child experiences from the care-giver
‘acceptance, security and a safe haven. The items of Table 3 suggest
that the acceptance, affection and affirmation of personal worth that
Bowlby hypothesized as being important in attachment are pertinent
also to adults’ sense of social support. While supportive others
certainly provide a variety of useful functions, conceptualizing.
important relationships in functional terms as providers of ‘services’
may produce too narrow a focus for investigative work in the field of
social support. While specific types of help are needed at certain times
ina person's life, there may be times when itis given so inappropriately
so Lournal of Soil and Personal Relation ships
‘and profusely or grudgingly that it produces negative effects. On the
‘other hand, the triad of acceptance, affection and affirmation
‘mentioned above would be difficult to overuse or to misuse. An
additional problem in conceptualizing social support in terms of the
functions of the support provided is the lack of veridicality or
‘agreement between the support recipient and the support provider on
whether supportive behaviour occurred (see, for example, Antonucci
& Israel, 1986).
This view of social support as a general aspect of interpersonal
‘lationships rather than as specific assistance for particular types of
situations has implications which are consistent with available
evidence. Research on attachment has shown that securely attached
children are more able to immerse themselves in activities outside
‘themselves tasks, games) than are children who are less adequately
attached (Lieberman, 1977; Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). In a similar
vein, research with the SSQ has shown that low social support is
associated with excessive worry, self-preoccupation and relative
difficulty in focusing attention on a particular task.
Inaddition to its cognitive effects, social support might also have
significant physiological correlates. These have not been explored in
any systematic way although there are indications that people low in
social support are more prone than others to immune system
dysfunction, Lack of social support has been associated with risks for
illness and death from a diversity of causes (see, for example, Blazer,
1982; House et al., 1982). The mechanisms involved in the risks are
not yet known,
Exploration of relationships between the perception af generalized
social support and a variety of personal behavioursand characteristics
can be aided bya psychometrically sound, conveniently administered
instrument such as the six-item SSQ short form described in this
article, An understanding of the theoretical bases for some of the
‘relationships already found between social support and a number of
variables is also enhanced by consideration of the items identified in
the short form and their ability to replicate the relationships with
other variables produced by the much longer, more comprehensive
inventory of items found in the SQ.
B.A. (1986) “Veriicalty of Social Suppor: A Comparison
of Priscipaland Network Members’ Response Jounalof Conulting and Clinical
Pycholoy St 432-7‘Sarason eal: Sota xpport 08
ra, M.., Sandler, LN. & Ramsey, FD. (1981) “Preliminary Development of a
Saale of Social Support: Studies of College Students", American Journal of
Communuy Psychology 9: 435-7.
‘eck, A.T., Ward,C.H., Mendelson, M. Mock, J.& Exbaugh, J. (1961)'An laventory
for Measuring Depression’, Archives of General Paychaiy 4: $61
‘Blaze, D.(1982)'Social Support and Mortality i an Elderly Community Population’,
“American Journal of Epidemiology 115: 644-94
Bowity, J (1969) attachment ond Lor I. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowity, J. (1980) duechment and Lest J. ont: Sadness and Depression. New York:
Batic Books.
‘Brown, G.W. & Hari, T (1978) Social Origine of Depresron: A Study ofPaycaric
Disorder m Women. London: Tavistock Publications.
CCoher,S., Mermelscin, R., Kamatck, T. & Hoberman, H.M. (1985)'Measuring the
Functional Components of Social Support in .G. Sarason & BLR. Sarason (eds)
‘Seta Support: Theory, Research and Applications. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Martinus Nijhot
CCrowoe, DP. & Marlowe, D. (1964) The Approval Moriv. New York: Wiley
Eyienck, HJ. & Eysenck, $B, (1968) Manual: Eysenck Pertonalty Inventory. San
Diego, CA: Educational and Industria Testing Service.
Henderion, S., Bye, D.G. & Duncan-Jones, P. (1981) Newosis andthe Social
‘Emnronment, New York: Academie Pest,
House, 4S. Robbin, C. & Metzer, H.C. (1982) “The Assaciation of Social
Reationships and Activites with Moray: Prospective Evidence from the
Tecumseh Community Health Study’, American Journal of Epidemiology 116
40,
Jones, WH. Briggs S.R. & Smith, TG. (in press) Shyness: Conceptualzation and
‘Meanurement’ Joural of Perianaly and Socal Prychology.
Lieberman, A.F. (1977) ‘Preschooler Competence with # Peer: Relations with
‘Autchment and Peer Experience’, Child Development 4: 1277-82,
Lindner, KC. (1982) Life Change, Social Support and Cognitive Problem Solvi
‘Skul, unpublished doctoral disertation, University of Washington,
Marlove, D. & Crowne, D.P. (1961) “Social Desirability and Response to Peceived
wational Demands, Journal of Consuling Piychology 35: 105-15,
Moos, 8H. & Moos, BS. (1981) Family Environment Scale. Palo Alto, A:Consuling
Paychologata Pres
Nuckols, KB. Cassel, J & Kaplan, B.H.(1972)"Paychosocial Assets, Life Crises, and
the Prognosis of Pregnancy, American Journal of Epidemiology 95: 431-41
Parker, G., Tupling. H. & Brown, L.B. (1979) “A Parenial Bonding Instrument’,
Brush Journal of Medical Prychology 52: 1-10,
Procidano, M.E. & Heller, K. (1983) "Measures of Perceived Social Support fom
Friends and from Family: Three Validation Studies, American Journal of
Community Poychology U1 1-24.
Revic, D.A. & May, HJ. (1983) “Occupational Strest, Social Support, and
Depresion’, Health Poycholony 4: 61-71
RessllD., Peplau, L.A. & Carona, C-E, (1980) “The Revised UCLA +
‘Scale: Concurrent and Discriminant Validity Evidence’
‘Socal rychology 19: 472-40
Sandler, LN. & Barrera, M (19
Effet of Sx
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Sarasoo, BR. (1986)'Social Support, Socal Behavior, and Cognitive Processes in R.
Schwatter (ed) Selfrelaued Copniuons in Anstey and Mouvion, pp. 17-86
Mille, NJ: Lawrence Estbaum
‘Sarason, ®R., Sarason, LG. Hacker, TA. & Basham, RB. (1985)"Concomitants of
‘Social Support: Social Skills, Physical Autactvenes and Gender”, Journal of
Pesonaliy and Socal Prychology 49- 469-80.
Sarazon, B.R.,Shearin, EN. Pierce, G.R, & Sarason, |G, (1987) Interclationshape
tween Social Support Measutes: Theoretical and Practical Implications" Journal
of Personality & Social Poychoogy 52: 813-22
Sarason, 1.G., Levine, H.M,, Basham, RB. Sarason, BR, (1963) ‘Assessing Soe
‘Support: The Social Support Questionnaise’, Journal of Pertoaliy and See al
Payhology 44: 120-29
Sarason, 1G. & Sarason, BR. (1986) “Experimentally Provided Social Support,
Journal of Personality and Social Pychology 30: 1222-5.
Saratoo, LG., Sarason, DLR, Potter, EH, Il & Aston, MH. (198) ‘Life Events,
Social Support and illness’, Prychouomatlc Medicine 47: 156-63
Sosa, R. Kennel J., Klaus, M., Robertton,S.& Urrutia . (1980) The Effect of «
‘Supportive Companion on Perinatal Problems, Length of Labor, and Mother
{infant tneractio’, New England Journal of Medicine 303. 597-£0
Spieberger,C., Gornch, R. & Lushene,R (1979) Manual forthe Stae-Teoit Ancicty
Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consuling Paychoogits Pres.
Sroute, L.A. & Fleeson,J.(1986)"Attachment andthe Constrction of Relationships",
{in Z, Rubin & W.H. Hartup (eds) Relationships and Development Hillsdale, N3:
Lawrence Elba
Stokes, .P. (1983) "Predicting Satistaction with Socal Suppor from Social Network
Structure’, American Journal of Community Paychology Il: 141-51
‘Zuckerman, M. & Lubin B.(1965) Manual forthe huliple Affect Adjective Check List.
‘San Diego, CA: Educational and Indutral Testing ServicSarason, I,G., Sarason, B-R., Shesrin, E.N., & Pierce, G.R. (1987)
‘A brief measure of socal suppert:Pracical and theoretical implications,
Joumal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 497-510.
Social Support Questionnaire (Short Form)
SSQSR
INSTRUCTIONS:
‘The following questions ask about people in your environment who provide you with help or support. Each
‘question has two parts. For the first par, list all the people you know, excluding yourself, whom you can
‘count on far help or support in the manner described. Give the persons’ initials, their relationship to you (see
example). Do not list more than one person next to each of the numbers beneath the question.
For the second part, circle how satisfied you are with che overall support you have.
If you have had no support for a question, check the words “No one,” but still rate your level of satisfaction.
Do not list more than nine persons per question.
Please answer all the questions as best you can. All your responses will be kept confidential.
EXAMPLE:
‘Who do you know whom you can trust with information that could get you in wouble?
Noone 1) T.N. (brother) 4) T.N. (father) n
2) LM. (friend) 5) LM. (employer) 8)
3) RS. (friend) 8 9%)
How satisfied?
6- very 5+ fairly 4-alinle 3-alitle 2- fairly 1 - very
satisfied satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Torin) 516-961, Whom can you really count on to be dependable when you need help?
Noone 1) a 2
2) 5) 8)
3) 6 9)
2. How satisfied?
6-¥ 5 - fail 4-alitue 3 -alitue 1 -very
Suistied Satisfied. satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
3. Whom can you really count on to help you feel more relaxed when you are under prssure or tense?
Noone 1) 4) n
3 3 3
3 6 9
4. How satisfied?
6 - very S-fairly 4- alittle 3 -alile 2 - fairl 1 = very
satisfied satisfied satisfied dissatisfied Gissatisfied dissatisfied
5. Who accepts you totally, including both your worst and your best points?
Noone 1) 4 n
2) 5) 8)
3) 6 9)
6. How satisfied?
6 - very 5. faity 4a litle 3-abinte 2.- fai 1 -very
satisfied satis satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
7. Whom can you really count on to care about you, regardless of what is happening to you?
Noone 1) 4) y
2) 5) 8)
3) 6 9)
8, How satisfied?
6- very 5 ~ fairl 4- alittle 3. alittle 2 - fairl 1- very
satisfied satisfi satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
9. Whom can you really count on to help you feel better when you are feeling generally down-in-the dumps?
Noone 1) 4 2
2 5 8)
3 ) 9)
10. How satisfied?
6- very 4-alinde 3-alinle 2 - fail 1- very
satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied —_—_aissatisiied
11. Whom can you count on to console you when you are very upset?
Noone 1) 4) 3
2 5) 8
3) 8 9)
12, How satisfied?
6 - very 5 -fily 4a little 2 - fain 1 -very
satisfied Satie satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
‘TO SCORE SSOsR:
1. Count the total number of people for each ofthe odd-numbered items. Add the totals together (Max. = 54),
Divide by 6 for per item $89 Number Score, ar SQN.
2, Add the total Satisfaction scores for the 6 even-numbered items (Max. = 36). Divide by 6 for per item 8SQ
2, You ca aso computes Fanuly score and « Non-Family soe by using the mshod in fr al people described
. You cat also compute « Family score and a Non-Family score by using the method in #I forall people described as
family membors, Gr not decribed as famlY members respectively. pom