Disaster Mental Health
The Differential Buffering Effects of Four Types of Social Support on the Relationship between COVID-19 Perceived Threat and Anxiety
Ashley Reed, B.S.
Graduate Student
The George Washington University
Washington, District of Columbia
Cynthia Rohrbeck, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
The George Washington University
Washington, District of Columbia
Nicholas W. Talisman, Ph.D.
Visiting Researcher
George Washington University
bethesda, Maryland
Blakely Murphy, B.A.
Clinical psychology phd student
The george washington university
Washington, District of Columbia
Philip Wirtz, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
The George Washington University
Washington, District of Columbia
Introduction:
Emerging research suggests that greater perceived threat of COVID-19 is associated with worse mental health outcomes (Paredes et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2020). The social support buffering hypothesis suggests that social support can prevent or alleviate the impacts of stress appraisals that may otherwise lead to maladaptive emotional responses (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Furthermore, Cutrona’s (1990) optimal matching theory suggests that certain types of social support can act as better buffers in different situations depending on the specific impacts of the stressor. This study aims to investigate the differential buffering effects of four specific types of perceived social support (Cutrona & Russell, 1984), including reliable alliance (tangible support), guidance (informational support), social integration (network support), and reassurance of worth (esteem support) on the relationship between COVID-19 perceived threat and anxiety.
Methods:
A nationwide sample of undergraduates (N=369, 52.7% White, 50.7% female) were obtained through Prolific. Participants completed a series of self-report measures through Qualtrics. Self-report measures included a modified version of the Perceived Threat Scale (Wirtz, Rohrbeck, & Burns, 2017) to examine COVID-19 perceived threat, the Reliable Alliance, Guidance, Social Integration, and Reassurance of Worth subscales of the Social Provisions Scale (Chan et al., 2015; Cutrona & Russell, 1984), and the GAD-7 (Spitzer et al., 2006). All measures had acceptable internal consistency.
Results:
The Guidance (F = 8.36, p < .005) and Social Integration (F = 8.93, p < .005) social support subscales significantly buffered the relationship between COVID-19 perceived threat and anxiety after controlling for relevant covariates (race, gender). Additionally, the Reliable Alliance subscale marginally (F = 3.69, p = .055) buffered the relationship between COVID-19 perceived threat and anxiety. However, the Reassurance of Worth subscale did not significantly interact with COVID-19 perceived threat to predict anxiety.
Discussion:
Our results suggest that specific types of perceived social support, including guidance and social integration, can buffer the negative effects of COVID-19 perceived threat on anxiety, consistent with Cutrona’s (1990) optimal matching theory. With regards to the COVID-19 pandemic, the sense of belonging associated with social integration may help to buffer the stress caused by social distancing policies. Additionally, guidance from others may help to engage in problem-focused coping and make informed decisions about how to best stay safe and healthy, thus decreasing anxiety about the pandemic. Future analyses will examine how perceived controllability impacts the stressor-support match and subsequent buffering effect. Ultimately, the results of this study suggest that specific types of social support should be targeted for intervention among college students in order to best promote better mental health outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.