Você está na página 1de 9
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 personal Saran 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 vai Sarason 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 $Q6 ranged from 0.90 1 0.93 for both Number and Satisiact (Comparisons were made between the correlations of SSQS 4nd SSQ wit individual diference variables (Table 5). Data sts ncuding these variables had be, sthered Because ofthe theoretical relationship they beat to the concept of perceived social suppor. These relationships have Been discussed prior work with heSSQ (see Sarason tal: Soil upport 0s TABLES (Corrltions witha three samples (or both the complete Social Support Qeestonnare ($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 Servic Sarason, 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) 516-96 1, 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

Você também pode gostar