4.3 Article

They Understand What You're Going Through: Experientially Similar Others, Anticipatory Stress, and Depressive Symptoms

期刊

SOCIETY AND MENTAL HEALTH
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 20-37

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2156869320910773

关键词

experientially similar support; experiential homophily; the stress process; egocentric networks; depressive symptoms; anticipatory stress

资金

  1. National Science Foundation through a Dissertation Improvement Grant [1519056]
  2. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences
  3. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [1519056] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research shows that individuals who share similar experiences can provide empathetic understanding and tailored coping strategies. However, having additional peers in support networks may strengthen the detrimental effects of anticipatory stress for students facing high levels of stress about future outcomes.
Past research demonstrates that experientially similar others-people who have confronted the same stressor or who occupy the same social role-are uniquely equipped to provide empathic understanding and tailored coping strategies to individuals navigating comparable, taxing circumstances. Using the case of premedical education, fixed-effects regression analyses of egocentric network data (N = 286) indicate that premeds whose support networks include a greater proportion of premedical peers over time experience fewer depressive symptoms. However, among premeds who report greater anticipatory stress about failing to achieve medical school admission, the presence of additional peers in support networks strengthens the detrimental effects of anticipatory stress. Qualitative data (n = 39) shed light on this empirical puzzle. Although peers offer a broad spectrum of support functions, they can also accentuate stressors or serve as a basis for negative social comparison. These findings introduce new considerations for theorizing the role of similar other support in the stress process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据