Acceso usuarios
Lara K. Kammrath, Benjamin F. Armstrong III, Sean P. Lane, Michelle K. Francis, Mona Clifton, Katelyn M. McNab, Olivia M. Baumgarten
Before people seek support for an issue, they must choose whom in their support network to approach. Two prominent supporter-selection hypotheses are the attachment figure hypothesis and the strong ties hypothesis, housed in psychology and sociology, respectively. People are expected to have a special preference for attachment figures and also for strong ties and to seek them more frequently than others. Despite the widespread acceptance of these hypotheses, neither has ever been tested, we argue, with the most appropriate methods for their claims. Moreover, no one has ever tested whether the 2 theories might not be independent, that is, whether one might subsume the other. To properly test the theories, one requires intranetwork, enacted support-seeking data, and the theories must be modeled not just separately but also simultaneously. The present article reports 3 such studies. In Studies 1 and 3, a sample of adults reported their supporter-selection decisions for a single stressful event, and in Study 2, a sample of emerging adults reported their supporter-selection decisions for a period of 2 weeks. Evidence showed that each theory uniquely predicted supporter-selection decisions. For each theory the data revealed both expected and unexpected findings. Attachment figures were selectively sought for support, but this preference did not get stronger as issues became more severe. Stronger ties were selected more often than weaker ties; however, the strong tie effect emerged as 2 independent effects rather than one (closeness and interaction frequency). Taken together, the studies supported both theories, but also suggest the need for further theoretical development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
