Experimental paradigm to test the effects of providing social support: study protocol of the PROSPECT trial (Study 2).

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Vivien Hajak, Simone Grimm, Ewa Gruszczyńska, Aleksandra Kroemeke, Natalia Józefacka, Lisa Marie Warner
{"title":"Experimental paradigm to test the effects of providing social support: study protocol of the PROSPECT trial (Study 2).","authors":"Vivien Hajak, Simone Grimm, Ewa Gruszczyńska, Aleksandra Kroemeke, Natalia Józefacka, Lisa Marie Warner","doi":"10.1186/s40359-024-02319-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A growing body of research suggests that the provision of social support can have benefits not only for the recipients but also for the provider. Although initial evidence for affective, self-evaluative and physiological outcomes has been established, the beneficial effects of support provision do not occur consistently across all support interactions, and some interactions may even have detrimental effects on providers. The aim of our experimental paradigm is to enable researchers to test the conditions under which the provision of social support to dyadic partners affects affective, self-evaluative, physiological, and relationship outcomes for the provider. In line with self-determination theory, it is proposed that the provision of support is only beneficial to the provider if it satisfies the three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness. The paradigm allows for the manipulation of the provider's levels of competence (feedback on the effectiveness of their support to the other person) and relatedness (feedback on the alleged level of relatedness perceived by the partner person following the provision of support).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A priori power analyses resulted in a planned sample size of 250 participants randomized to four conditions: 1) no support provision, 2) support provision without feedback, 3) support provision with feedback on competence, 4) support provision with feedback on relatedness. Primary outcomes are immediate physiological (saliva cortisol, heart rate, heart rate variability, blood pressure), affective (positive and negative affect, anxiety), self-evaluative (e.g., self-esteem) and relationship outcomes. Generalized linear models will be used to compare the four conditions.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In a controlled laboratory experiment, this new experimental paradigm manipulates the conditions under which social support is provided. Insights into the conditions under which the provision of social support is detrimental or beneficial to the provider can inform the development of preventive and interventional approaches across a range of life domains, motivational and developmental research across the lifespan (e.g. prevention of care-giver burnout), and applied clinical contexts (e.g. therapeutic interventions).</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Pre-registration (2023-11-10): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8SPZW , retrospective registration with more details (2024-10-23): https://www.drks.de/DRKS00034287.</p>","PeriodicalId":37867,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychology","volume":"13 1","pages":"74"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02319-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A growing body of research suggests that the provision of social support can have benefits not only for the recipients but also for the provider. Although initial evidence for affective, self-evaluative and physiological outcomes has been established, the beneficial effects of support provision do not occur consistently across all support interactions, and some interactions may even have detrimental effects on providers. The aim of our experimental paradigm is to enable researchers to test the conditions under which the provision of social support to dyadic partners affects affective, self-evaluative, physiological, and relationship outcomes for the provider. In line with self-determination theory, it is proposed that the provision of support is only beneficial to the provider if it satisfies the three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness. The paradigm allows for the manipulation of the provider's levels of competence (feedback on the effectiveness of their support to the other person) and relatedness (feedback on the alleged level of relatedness perceived by the partner person following the provision of support).

Methods: A priori power analyses resulted in a planned sample size of 250 participants randomized to four conditions: 1) no support provision, 2) support provision without feedback, 3) support provision with feedback on competence, 4) support provision with feedback on relatedness. Primary outcomes are immediate physiological (saliva cortisol, heart rate, heart rate variability, blood pressure), affective (positive and negative affect, anxiety), self-evaluative (e.g., self-esteem) and relationship outcomes. Generalized linear models will be used to compare the four conditions.

Discussion: In a controlled laboratory experiment, this new experimental paradigm manipulates the conditions under which social support is provided. Insights into the conditions under which the provision of social support is detrimental or beneficial to the provider can inform the development of preventive and interventional approaches across a range of life domains, motivational and developmental research across the lifespan (e.g. prevention of care-giver burnout), and applied clinical contexts (e.g. therapeutic interventions).

Trial registration: Pre-registration (2023-11-10): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8SPZW , retrospective registration with more details (2024-10-23): https://www.drks.de/DRKS00034287.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Psychology
BMC Psychology Psychology-Psychology (all)
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
2.80%
发文量
265
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of psychology, human behavior and the mind, including developmental, clinical, cognitive, experimental, health and social psychology, as well as personality and individual differences. The journal welcomes quantitative and qualitative research methods, including animal studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信