In Chapter 1, we Saw that although there is great intuitive appeal to the idea that we can say and do things to help family and friends when they are experiencing stress, studies of enacted support have seldom found convincing or consistent evidence for a stress-buffering effect. One explanation for this apparent anomaly is that many early tests of the buffering effect overlooked the fit between the type of support offered and needs elicited by a particular stressor. The bereaved, the ill, the unemployed – all were treated as similarly stressed and the various types of support that might be given (e.g., information, tangible aid, comfort, and assurance of worth) were aggregated into single measures of the frequency of support. This way of measuring stress and support assumed that any form of support from anybody at any time could be equally effective for any problem.

Many researchers now agree that the effectiveness of supportive behaviors depends on how adequately they are matched to the particular needs created by a stressor (e.g., Barrera & Ainlay, 1983; Eckenrode & Wethington, 1990; Heller et al., 1986; Hobfoll & Stokes, 1988; Pearlin, 1985; Schaefer, Coyne, & Lazarus, 1981; Shinn, Lehmann, & Wong, 1984; Shumaker & Brownell, 1984; Thoits, 1986; Vachon & Stylianos, 1988; Wilcox & Vernberg, 1985).