American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 11, No.

1, 1983

Measures of Perceived Social Support From Friends

and From Family: Three Validation Studies 1

Mary E. Procidano 2
Fordham University

Kenneth Heller
Indiana University

Three studies are described in which measures o f perceived social support

from friends (PSS-Fr) and from family (PSS-Fa) were developed and
validated. The PSS measures were internally consistent and appeared to
measure valid constructs that were separate from each other and from
network measures. PSS-Fr and PSS-Fa were both inversely related to
symptoms o f distress and psychopathology but the relationship was
stronger f o r PSS-Fa. PSS-Fr was more closely related to social competence.
PSS-Fa was unaffected by either positive or negative mood states (self-
statements), but the reporting of PSS-Fr was lowered by negative mood
states. High PSS-Fr subjects were significantly lower in trait anxiety and
talked about themselves more to friends and sibs than low PSS-Fr subjects.
L o w Pss-Fa subjects showed marked verbal inhibition with sibs.

The impetus for psychologists to develop methods to adequately tap various

dimensions of social relationships arose in large part from the investigation
of the detrimental effects of stressful life events on physical and psycho-
logical health (e.g., see B. S. Dohrenwend, 1973; B. P. Dohrenwend, 1975;
Holmes & Masuda, 1974; Rabkin & Struening, 1976). Typically, the

IThis research was supported by a Biomedical Research grant P H S S07 R R 7031 awarded by
Indiana University to the second author. The authors wish to t h a n k Kelly G. Riddell, Michael
J. Platt, and Peter J. Bowes for their assistance in data collection. Appreciation also is
extended to Leon H. Levy who participated in the initial discussion o f the perceived social
support construct.
2AI1 correspondence should be sent to Mary E. Procidano, Department o f Psychology,
F o r d h a m University, Bronx, New York 10458.
1
0091-0562/83/0200-0001503.00/0© 1983PlenumPublishingCorporation
2 Procidano and Heller

empirically obtained life events-distress relationships have been consistent

but fairly low (approximately r -- .30), and many investigators have sus-
pected that social support might play a mediating role (Procidano & Heller,
Note 1).
While research on social support has expanded rapidly, the social
support construct has been plagued by conceptual vagueness. Definitions
and measurement of social support often have been simplistic and based
neither on well-standardized instruments nor on convergent indices
(Procidano, Heller, & Swindle, Note 2).
Clarifying the distinctions between social network characteristics and
perceived social support is one way of refining the social support construct
(Heller & Swindle, in press). Social networks refer to the social connections
provided by the environment and can be assessed in terms of structural and
functional dimensions (Marsella & Snyder, 1981). For example, size,
density, multiplexity, etc., refer to structural network characteristics while
network functions include the provision of information, comfort,
emotional support, material aid, etc. On the other hand, perceived social
support refers to the impact networks have on the individual. If networks
provide support, information, and feedback (Caplan, 1974) then perceived
social support (PSS) can be defined as the extent to which an individual
believes that his/her needs for support, information, and feedback are
fulfilled (Procidano, Note 3).
Heller and Swindle (in press) suggest that the perception of social
support is one element in an individual's appraisal of and subsequent coping
with stress (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus, Averill, & Opton, 1974). Support-
seeking results from appraisals that there is a threat to which one must
respond, that information or help is needed to adequately deal with the
threat, and that aid is perceived to be available within one's support
network. While the perception of support depends upon the availability of
supportive structures in the environment, perceived support and support
provided by networks are not identical. PSS probably is influenced by
within-person factors, including both long-standing traits on the one hand,
and temporal changes in attitude or mood on the other. Both of these may
influence the perception of whether support is available or has been
provided.
The PSS measures described in this report were designed to measure
the extent to which an individual perceives that his/her needs for support,
information, and feedback are fulfilled by friends (PSS-Fr) and by family
(PSS-Fa). The distinction between friend support and family support is
considered important. Different populations (e.g., different age cohorts)
may rely on or benefit from friend or family support to different extents. At
a given time, there might be more change in an individual's friend network
Perceived Social Support 3

(e.g., through moving for education or employment) or family network

(e.g., through death). Friend relationships are often of relatively shorter
duration than family relationships. And, while an individual's social
competence probably plays a role in the maintenance of his/her support
network (Heller, 1979), this is probably more true for friend relationships
than family relationships since some of the latter are, by definition, ours by
birth.

STUDY 1

The first study was concerned primarily with scale development and
construct validation. It was expected that the PSS measures would satisfy
requirements of internal consistency and tap statistically related yet separate
constructs. Relationships were assessed between the PSS scales and
measures of life events, networks, symptomatology, social competence, and
other related measures of individual traits.

Method

Subjects

Subjects were 222 Indiana University (IU) undergraduates (mean age

= 19).

Procedure

Subjects were recruited from the IU Introductory Psychology subject

pool, and received required experimental credit for their participation.
These subsets of the measures utilized (see below) were completed by dif-
ferent groups of subjects (ns of approximately 70, 80, and 90, respectively).
The total group of 222 also served as the final "scale construction" sample.
From an original pool of 84 items, generated by the first author to reflect
instances of provision of support, information, or feedback, as well as some
instances of support reciprocity (i.e., provision of support by the
individual), an intermediate pool of 35 items was selected according to the
magnitude of correlations between the item and the scale total (minus that
item). This set of 35 items constituted a preliminary version of a Perceived
Social Support measure (Procidano, Note 3) and was found to possess both
high test-retest reliability (r = .83 over a 1-month interval) and internal
4 Procidano and Heller

consistency (Cronbach o~ = .90). The preliminary version of the scale also

was found to be related to psychological distress, and to a measure of social
competence (see Heller, Amaral, & Procidano, Note 4).
The present study involved the final scale construction. Each of the 35
items in the preliminary PSS inventory was duplicated to refer to friends
and family. Then, both the PSS-Fr and PSS-Fa scales were reduced to 20
items each, again according to the magnitude of the item-total correlation
(see Appendix A).
Inventories were administered to three separate groups of subjects as
follows:
Group 1. Perceived Social Support, Friends (PSS-Fr) and Perceived
Social Support, Family (PSS-Fa). Each 20-item scale consisted of
declarative statements to which the individual answered "Yes," "No," or
"Don't know." For each item, the response indicative of perceived social
support was scored as + 1 so that scores ranged from 0, indicating no
perceived social support, to 20, indicating maximum perceived social
support, as provided by family or friends. (The "Don't know" category is
not scored.) 3 Also administered were the Life Experience Survey (LES)
(Sarason, Johnson, & Siegel, 1978); Social Network Questionnaire (SNQ)
(Liem & Liem, Note 5); Langner 22-item screening instrument (Langner,
1962).
Group 2. Short Form MMPI (FAM) (Faschinghauer, 1974); Marlowe-
Crowne Social Desirability (SD) (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964); PSS-Fr; PSS-
Fa.
Group 3. California Psychological Inventory (CPI) (Gough, 1960):
Good Impression (GI), Sociability (SY), Social Presence (SP); Dating and
Assertion Questionnaire (DAQ) (Levenson & Gottman, 1978);
Interpersonal Dependency (DCP) (Hirschfeld, Klerman, Gough, Barrett,
Korchin, & Chodoff, 1977); PSS-Fr; PSS-Fa.

Results

PSS-Fr and PSS-Fa proved to be homogeneous measures with

Cronbach's c~ of .88 and .90, respectively (N = 222). Similarly, separate
factor analyses with orthogonal factor rotation indicated that each scale
was composed of a single factor, as would be expected from the method of
final item selection and the internal consistency of both scales.

3See Appendix A for the list o f items in the PSS-Fr and PSS-Fa scales. Since the final items in
each scale were chosen by item-total correlation some items occur in both scales (with
changes only in the words "friends" for PSS-Fr and "family members" for PSS-Fa) while
other items are unique to only one scale.
 Perceived Social Support 5

Table I. M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , a n d P e a r s o n C o r r e l a t i o n Coefficients: PSS,

L a n g n e r , a n d Life E v e n t s Scores (n = 66)

Positive Negative
PSS-Fr PSS-Fa Langner life events life events
M = 15.15 M = 13.40 M = 4.29 M = 10.67 M = 11.00
Variable SD = 5.08 S D = 4.83 S D = 3.03 SD = 8.30 SD = 8.02
PSS-Fr .24 b - .27 c - .09 - . 17"
PSS-Fa - .29 c .09 - .05
Langner .10 .20 a
Positive
life e v e n t s .03

ap < .10.
bp ( .02.
Cp < .01.

The results of analyses regarding PSS, life stress, and symptomatology

are presented in Table I. As predicted, both PSS-Fr and PSS-Fa were signif-
icantly and negatively related to Langner s y m p t o m scores, rs -- - . 2 7 and
- .29, respectively; p < .01. Neither negative nor positive life events were
related to PSS-Fa, however, the PSS-Fr negative events relationship
reached borderline significance, r = - . 17; p < . 10.
Analysis of the social network variables (see Table II) showed that
PSS-Fr and the average time which a person has known members of his net-
work were inversely related, and that the latter, along with reciprocity in
tangible relationships (e.g., both members loaning each other money) were
the best network predictors of PSS-Fr, multiple R = .33; p < .03. The best
predictors of PSS-Fa were the individual's rating of intangible (positive cor-
relation) and tangible (negative correlation) support provided by family
members, multiple R = .43; p < .002. It should also be noted that no social
network measure predicted Langner scores as well as did either PSS-Fr or
PSS-Fa.
The relationships a m o n g three C P I scales: GI, SP, and SY; social
competence (as measured by the DAQ), and PSS are presented in Table III.
PSS-Fr was significantly and positively related to all of these social assets
(with p < .05); whereas PSS-Fa, while related to social competence, r =
.35; p < .005, did not approach a significant relationship with the three
C P I variables. Dependency, or more specifically lacking self-confidence,
was related significantly and negatively to PSS-Fr, r = - .43; p < .001, but
was unrelated to PSS-Fa.
The correlations for PSS, SD, and four F A M scales (i.e., the
shortened f o r m of MMPI): (K); Depression (D); Psychasthenia (Pt); and
Schizophrenia (Sc) are presented in Table IV. PSS-Fr was significantly and
negatively related to Pt, r = - .23; p < .05, and Sc, r = - .20; p < .05. 4

4 K - c o r r e c t e d P t a n d Sc.
6 Procidano and Heller

,. : ~ R ~
I

ir
.~ II II
I

~ 'q. ,q.
~ II II
I

0
-.-. -.~.
~.~

.~ [I II I I I
N
=
0
{D
Z
~ II II F" E'
0

0
{D
o
I
~
<~

0
II II

I1' II

•~ ~

V V V V V
Perceived Social Support 7

,-! OC

II I I I I I

t;

"~ II II

..,'I. ~ • •

r p~

',.o oo
"~c',

~.~8

r.~ II II

"T-

o II II

VVVV
>
8 Procidano and Heller

III

=
III

I l l

CD

I I I

~°°
~VVV
Perceived Social Support 9

PSS-Fa was significantly and negatively related to D, Pt, and Sc (with p <
.001); and positively to K, r = .20; p < .05. Finally, PSS-Fr was unrelated
to social desirability while social desirability itself was positively related to
PSS-Fa, r = .29; p < .005, and negatively to D, Pt, and Sc, p < .001.
Statistically controlling for social desirability (i.e., both K and SD) via
partial correlation did not attenuate the significance (i.e., p < .001) of the
correlations between PSS-Fa and the three pathology variables (D, Pt, Sc).

Discussion

The PSS-Fr and PSS-Fa scales, both internally consistent, were better
predictors of symptomatology than life events or social network character-
istics. Obviously, the direction of the relationship cannot be determined by
these data. While it is possible that perceived support "buffers" or protects
an individual from the adverse effects of stress, equally plausible is the
possibility that symptomatic individuals simply perceive less support, or
because of their pathology, actually receive less support from others (cf.
Tolsdorf, 1976).
The obtained relationships between PSS-Fa and social network
measures seem to indicate that while a certain amount of emotional support
from family is an asset for college students, excessive financial dependency
detracts from the perception of an overall positive family relationship for
this population (cf. Liem & Liem, Note 5). The negative relationship
between PSS-Fr and average length of time a person has known members of
his network is reasonable in view of the fact that for the subjects in this
study, most in their first or second year of college, many friendships are
relatively new. The role of reciprocity in tangible relationships is less clear,
but may add to' perception of mutual friend-based support rather than
financial dependence on family for college students.
Finally, just as PSS-Fr is more closely related to a range of social
assets than is PSS-Fa, at least for college students, it appears that lack of
family-based social support is related to reported psychopathology. The
inverse PSS-Fa-pathology correlations do not appear to be artifacts of the
correlations of all these variables with social desirability, since these rela-
tionships remain highly significant after statistically controlling for social
desirability.

STUDY 2

Following the construct validation, in which the PSS measures were

found to be related to a range of psychopathology and social-asset traits,
the second study was intended to investigate the potential effects of
temporary within-person states, specifically positive versus negative
10 Procidano and Heller

attitudinal sets, on PSS-Fr and PSS-Fa. Since there have been suggestions in
the literature that decreased satisfaction with supportive relationships could
be as much a result of depression as a cause of it (Barrera, 1981; Heller,
1979; Henderson, Byrne, Duncan-Jones, Adcock, Scott, & Steele, 1978),
this study was designed to determine whether one component of altered
mood states, i.e., changes produced by different self-statements, would
affect the reporting of perceived support.

Method

Subjects

Subjects were 105 IU undergraduates (mean age = 19).

Procedure

Subjects were recruited from the IU Introductory Psychology subject

pool, and received required experimental credit for participation. Subjects
completed a battery of instruments (see below), and returned 1 week later,
when they were randomly assigned to one of three self-statement conditions:
positive (Pos), negative (Neg), or control (Con). The procedure utilized to
produce the Pos and Neg attitudinal sets was the Velten Mood Induction
(1968). 5 The Pos and Neg subjects privately read, then said aloud, then
thought about, each of 60 positive or negative self-statements. The Con
condition was a simple test-retest, and involved no set of self-statements.
Subjects completed the same battery of instruments immediately after the
self-statement procedure.

Instruments

PSS-Fr; PSS-Fa; Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist (MAACL)

(Zuckerman, 1960)--depression (MAACL-Dep) and anxiety (MAACL-Anx)
subscales; Internal-External Locus of Control (I-E) (Rotter, 1966); Social
Desirability (Soc Des) (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; 1964).
Short Vocabulary Test, Forms A and B (Vocab-A, Vocab-B). These
are two parallel 10-item scales that require the subject to indicate which of
five words is most clearly opposite a given word in meaning (the format
used in S.A.T. exams). The Vocab tests were constructed for the purpose of

5The term "set" is used rather than "mood" to circumvent the controversy regarding whether
mood actually is altered by this procedure (see Buchwald, Strack, & Coyne, 1981), since
this issue does not make the Velten procedure inappropriate to the purpose intended here.
Perceived Social Support 11

this study, and a separate sample of approximately 30 volunteer subjects

was employed to select 10 pairs of equal-difficulty items from an initial 50-
item pool. Item-difficulty was determined by the number of subjects who
scored correctly on the given item. Finally, one item from each pair was
assigned to Vocab-A, and one to Vocab-B. To the extent possible Vocab
forms A and B were counterbalanced across all cells.

Results

The potential influence of prior levels of social desirability on re-

sponsiveness to the self-statement procedure was investigated by computing
Pearson correlation coefficients between Soc Des and increases and
decreases in MAACL-Dep and MAACL-Anx, all of which were nonsignif-
icant, p > . 10; however there were three exceptions. For the Pos group, Soc

Table V. Means, Standard Deviations, and t-Test Comparisons: Differences

Between Positive (Pos) and Negative (Neg) Versus Control (Con) Groups After
Self-Statements
Dependent Self-statement Pos vs. Con Neg vs. Con
variables groups M SD t(68) t(65)
PSS-Fr Pos 16.46 4.12
Neg 11.92 6.45 .90 2.42 b
Con 15.42 5.37

PSS-Fa Pos 15.22 5.27

Neg 11.77 6.58 1.39 1.10
Con 13.41 5.56

MAACL-Dep Pos 8.75 6.33

Neg 22.18 8.64 4.34 d 2.25 b
Con 16.77 8.69

MAACL-Anx Pos 4.90 2.79

Neg 10.79 4.14 3.99 c 1.39
Con 8.47 4.36

I-E Pos 9.37 4.24

Neg 13.77 5.12 2.34 a 2.05"
Con 11.58 3.49

Soc Des Pos 15.85 6.80

Neg 12.32 5.69 1.81 4.59 a
Con 18.64 5.78

Vocab Pos 4.63 3.08

Neg 4.00 2.23 .04 1.0
Con 4.60 2.71
~p < .05.
bp < .02.
~p < .01.
dp < .001.
12 Procidano and Heller

Des scores were significantly lower than those of the Con group, t(68) =
2.37, p < .02. For the Neg group, pretest MAACL-Dep and MAACL-Anx
scores were significantly lower than those of the Con group, t(65) = 10.90,
p < .001; t(65) = 2.50, p < .02, respectively.
Results of the t tests performed to determine whether the Pos and Neg
self-statement groups differed from the Con group after the self-statement
procedures (as recommended by Buchwald et al., 1981) are presented in
Table V. In this investigation, the positive self-statements did not influence
PSS-Fr or PSS-Fa. For the Pos group, compared to the Con group, t-test
comparisons for these variables, as well as for Soc Des (despite a pretest
difference) and Vocab, were nonsignificant, ps > .10. However, after the
positive self-statements, MAACL-Dep scores were lower, t(68) -- 4.34, p <
.001; MAACL-Anx scores were lower, t(68) = 3.99, p < .01; and I-E scores
were more internal, t(68) = 2.34, p < .05, in the Pos group than in the Con
group.
After the negative self-statement procedure, PSS-Fr was significantly
lower in the Neg group than in the Con group, t(65) = 2.42, p < .02, but
PSS-Fa was not affected. The negative self-statements also led to other
between-group differences. For the Neg group compared to the Con group,
MAACL-Dep was higher despite a pretest difference in the opposite direc-
tion, t(65) = 2.55, p < .02. MAACL-Anx scores were nonsignificantly
higher, despite a pretest difference in the opposite direction. In addition, I-
E scores were more external, t(65) = 2.02, p < .05, and Soc Des scores were
lower, t(65) = 4.34, p < .001, in the Neg group compared to the Con group
but Vocab was not affected, p > . 10.

Discussion

Individuals who had read and thought about 60 positive self-state-

ments subsequently reported fewer feelings of anxiety and depression, and
were more likely to express a belief in an internal rather than external locus
of reinforcement, compared with individuals who had no experience with
the self-statements. However, the positive set induction did not influence
the reporting of PSS-Fr or PSS-Fa.
On the other hand, individuals who ~had read and thought about the
negative self-statements subsequently reported significantly lower levels of
PSS-Fr and greater feelings of depression. They were more likely to express
a belief in external rather than internal sources o f reinforcement, and were
less likely to report behaving in socially preferred ways compared with
individuals who had no experience with the negative self-statements. PSS-
Fa remained unaffected by the negative induction.
Thus it would appear that the perceived support measures are
relatively stable. PSS-Fa was unaffected by changes in set in either a positive
Perceived Social Support 13

or negative direction, while PSS-Fr was vulnerable only to negative induc-

tion. It seems reasonable that perceptions of friends are more tenuous for
college students since their friend networks are relatively new and subject to
change. On the other hand, perceptions of relations with family members,
being of longer duration, are more predictable and less vulnerable to
temporary changes in attitudinal set.
The changes in the perception of support from friends in the negative
Self-statement condition does support the cautions voiced by Barrera
(1981), Heller (1979), and Henderson et al. (1978) concerning the interpre-
tation of correlations between support and depression. There is a general
pattern in correlational studies to report an inverse relationship between
social support and depression and to interpret these findings as indicating
that low support is a causal factor in depression. The finding reported here
suggests another possibility-that depressed individuals may simply
perceive less support as part of their negative self-appraisal.

STUDY 3

The purpose of this study was to obtain additional experimental verifi-

cation for the perceived social support construct by investigating the
similarities in network perceptions and comfort in self-disclosure between
individuals and members of their friend and family networks.

Method

Subjects

Subjects in this experiment were 105 IU undergraduates obtained from

the pool of IU students who had same-sexed sibs on campus (mean age =
20.5).

Procedure

A pool of IU undergraduate students with same-sexed siblings on

campus was selected by surveying the campus telephone directory for like-
sexed pairs of students with the same last name and home address. For sib
pairs in the same year of study (as indicated in the directory), the subjects
were chosen at random. For other pairs, the younger members were chosen
as subjects. Copies of the PSS measures and an invitation to participate in
a study of attitudes toward friends and family were sent to members of the
14 Procidano and Heller

subject pool (N = approximately 600). Each was asked to return the in-
ventories along with an indication of willingness to be accompanied by a
close same-sexed friend or same-sexed sibling. Payment for participation
($3) was offered to both subjects and companions. The returned question-
naires (approximately 225) were divided randomly into "Friend," "Family,"
and "Alone" conditions. Each subject was then contacted by telephone by
an experimental assistant and asked to participate in a 1-hour experiment
with a friend, with a sibling, or alone (according to the sorting). Since all
subjects had same-sexed siblings on campus and students were assigned
randomly to sib, friend, or alone conditions, differences between conditions
could not be attributed to prior selection factors or to prior socialization
skills. Subjects who could not bring the companion requested were excluded
from the study.
Participants were divided into high and low PSS-Fr and PSS-Fa
groups on the basis of median splits obtained at the time of the study. Thus
the independent variables in this study were high and low PSS-Fr and PSS-
Fa groups, and friend, sib, or alone conditions.
When subjects appeared for the experimental session, they first
completed several questionnaires (see below). Verbal interaction at this time
was not permitted. Next, subjects (and companions where applicable) were
escorted to a second experimental room and were told that after a 5-minute
wait the subject would be asked to make a short speech about him/herself
which would be video-recorded. Subjects with companions were told that
they and their companions could talk while waiting if they wished. The
interactions during the 5-minute waiting period were audiotaped and
subsequently rated. Talk time, self-references, task-relevant, and task-
irrelevant talk was scored as either present or absent, for each participant in
10-second intervals during the 5-minute wait period. Thus, scores for each
of the content variables could vary from 0 to 30.
At the end of the 5-minute waiting period, all subjects and com-
panions were administered the anxiety measures listed below. In the Friend
and Family conditions, both subjects and companions also were
administered indices of their general tendency to confide in the individuals
who accompanied them and their present willingness to disclose to that
same person in the current experiment. Last, the subject was required to
make a "speech" by responding to four questions about how he/she would
solve certain interpersonal problems. The "problems" were nos. 1, 2, 4, and
8 of the Means End Problem-Solving procedure (Platt & Spivack, 1975).

Instruments

PSS-Fr; PSS-Fa; State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger,

Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970); Self-Disclosure Questionnaires. These were
Perceived Social Support 15

two brief questionnaires designed for the purposes of this investigation.

One refers to the individual's general willingness to self-disclose to a
particular companion (Disc-Gen). It contains two items that are scored
from 1 to 5, so that possible total scores range from 2 to 10. The other refers
to the individual's present willingness to self-disclose to the same
companion (Disc-Pres). It contains six items that are scored from 1 to 5, so
that possible total scores range from 6 to 30.

Results

The concordance among subjects' and companions' PSS-Fr and PSS-

Fa, A-Trait and A-State, and Disc-Gen and Disc-Pres, in both Friend and
Family conditions, are presented in Table VI. Pearson correlation coef-
ficients supported the expectation o f covariation in some of the attributes of
individuals and those of persons in their social networks. Subjects' PSS-Fr
and PSS-Fa were significantly related to those o f the companion, but only
for friend companions, r = .34, p < .01; r = .38, p < .01, respectively. In
other words, friends had similar perceptions of support, while siblings'
perceptions of support were less concordant. While subjects' and friends' A-
Trait and A-State were unrelated, subjects and siblings reported somewhat
similar levels of A-Trait, r = .28, p < .10; and reported experiencing

Table VI. Pearson Correlation Coefficients: Concordance in Subjects' and Companions' PSS,
Anxiety, and Willingness to Disclose
Friends

Subject PSS-Fr PSS-Fa A-Trait A-State Disc-Gen Disc-Pres

Friend condition (n = 42)
PSS-Fr .34 c .17
PSS-Fa .03 .38 c

A-Trait .06 .00

A-State - .10 .06

Disc-Gen .48 a .15

Disc-Pres .34 c .11

Family condition (n = 23)

PSS-Fr .26 - .09
PSS-Fa .03 .285

A-Trait .28 a .38"

A-State -.07 .40 b

Disc-Gen .48 b .57 s

Disc-Pres .28" .56 c

~p < .10.
~p < .05.
~p < .01.
~p < .001.
16 Procidano and Heller

Table VII. Cell Means o f Subjects' Verbal Disclosure Levels, PSS-

Fr and PSS-Fa x C o m p a n i o n Condition
Variable Friend Family Friend Family
Total talk 81.45 85.43 78.13 87.29
Task talk 46.45 10.00 high 44.60 28.33 high
PSS-Fr PSS-Fa
Self-talk 18.00 29.33 16.60 25.00

Total talk 75.83 58.00 80.33 56.37

Task talk 43.43 24.67 low 45.54 6.33 low
PSS-Fr PSS-Fa
Self-talk 11.43 12.33 15.00 16.67

similar levels of A-State during this experiment, r = .40, p < .05. Subjects'
and their siblings' willingness to disclose to each other in general, and in this
experiment in particular, were significantly related, r = .56, p < .01; r =
.42, p < .05, respectively. Subjects willing to disclose to their sibs had sibs
willing to reciprocate. However, the same degree of reciprocity was not
found for friends. While subjects' and their friends' general willingness to
self-disclose were significantly related, r = .48, p < .001, willingness to
confide in this experiment was not, r = . 11, p > . 10.
Subjects' and companions' actual verbal disclosure levels were then
determined from content analyses of the taped interactions of the friend
and sibling pairs during the 5-minute waiting period. A breakdown o f cell
means for subject total, task, and self-talk is presented in Table VII
expressed as percentages of the total waiting time in which the specific
behavior was noted. Results of analyses of variance of verbal disclosure
variables are presented in Table VIII. As can be seen, both subject total talk
and self-references were influenced by PSS level. Individuals with high PSS-

Table VIII. Results o f Analysis of Variance, Subjects' Verbal

Disclosure Rates
Total talk Task talk Self-talk
Source of variation df F F F
PSS-Fr level 1 5.06 b .32 4.19 b
Error 58
PSS-Fa level 1 2.15 .76 .05
C o m p a n i o n condition 1 2.00 10.48 c 1.79
(friend/family)
PSS-Fr x Condition 1 2.69 a .10 1.69
Error 56
PSS-Fa x Condition 1 4.85 b .23 2.05
Error 56
ap < .10.
bp < .05.
Cp < .005.
Perceived Social Support 17

Table IX. Analysis of Variance, Subjects' A-Trait

and A-State
A-trait A-state
Source of variation df F F
PSS-Fr level 1 7.05 b 1.47
Error 92
PSS-Fa level 1 .45 1.39
Condition 2 .45 2.61a
(alone/friend/family)
Error 91
"p < .08.
bp < .01.

Fr talked more, F(1, 58) = 5.06, p < .05, and talked about themselves
more, F(1, 58) = 4.19, p < .05, to their companions than subjects with low
PSS-Fr. There was no similar main effect on subjects' total or self-talk time
based upon level of PSS-Fa. However, there were interactions between both
PSS-Fr and PSS-Fa levels and companion condition. Low PSS-Fr in-
dividuals who were accompanied by friends showed a tendency to verbalize
less than members o f other groups, F(1, 56) = 2.69, p < .10. Individuals
who reported low PSS-Fa and who were accompanied by their siblings
showed a marked verbal inhibition, F(1, 56) = 4.85, p < .05.
Finally, anxiety was investigated as a function of PSS-Fr and PSS-Fa,
and these results are presented in Table IX. As can be seen, subjects' A-
Trait was significantly related to level of PSS-Fr, F(1, 92) = 7.05, p < .01,
but not PSS-Fa, F ( ! , 92) = 1.47, p > . 10. Those high in PSS-Fr were lower
in A-Trait ( M = 37.43) than those low in PSS-Fr ( M = 42.80). The results
for A-State were quite different. Subjects' state anxiety while waiting to
make a ~self-disclosing speech was m o r e a function of the c o m p a n i o n with
w h o m the subject waited, rather than his/her prior levels of PSS.
Specifically, the presence of a friend was related to slightly lower A-State
(M = 38.72) relative to the presence of either no one (M = 40.63) or of a
sibling ( M = 40.45), F(2, 91) = 2 . 6 1 , p < .08.

Discussion

Study 3 was intended to provide additional verification of the PSS

scales by investigating similarities in perception, anxiety level, willingness to
disclose, and actual disclosive levels between friends and sibs. Overall, it
can be concluded that successful validation o f the PSS scales was achieved,
although the pattern o f results was more complex than originally
anticipated.
18 Procidano and Heller

Subjects' perceptions of their friend and family networks were similar

to network perceptions of their friends but siblings' perceptions of their
networks were less concordant. Perhaps due to within-family role dif-
ferentiation, siblings may experience the support they get from their
families differently. On the other hand, it appears that friendships are
assortative with respect to perceptions regarding social networks, implying
that people may be most compatible with others who share similar views
and social expectations.
Siblings reported similar reactions to the experimental procedure. They
experienced similar levels of anxiety (A-State) and indicated reciprocity in
willingness to disclose to one another. Friends, perhaps because they knew
one another less well, appeared somewhat more guarded. Their general
willingness to disclose to one another was significantly related, but their
willingness to do so in this experiment was not. In this somewhat unusual
situation, perhaps due to similar constitutions and learning histories, sib-
lings demonstrated greater similarity in response and coping styles than did
friends.
The PSS measures were found to be fairly good predictors of the
amount of disclosing behavior exhibited with companions. As was observed
in Study 1, this study confirms than PSS-Fr is related to social competence.
High PSS-Fr subjects were lower in trait anxiety, and were more open in
talking about themselves to companions, regardless of whether the
companions were friends or siblings. The support these individuals perceive
probably is not only a function of the supportive behavior of others, but in
an interactive fashion also probably is influenced by their own initiative and
skill in linking to others.
Although low PSS-Fr subjects showed a tendency toward verbal in-
hibition in the presence of friends, the corresponding effect for low PSS-Fa
subjects accompanied by siblings was more pronounced. Thus, negative
perceptions seem to lead to withdrawal from the object of those percep-
tions in the case of both friends and family members, but the consequence
was more evident in interactions between family members. Individuals who
in general feel dissatisfied with the support they receive from friends have
the option of making new friends, while siblings do not have a similar
option with respect to each other. Individuals with negative perceptions
regarding their families are likely to apply those perceptions to specific
family members, and are likely to withdraw from full intimate interaction
with them.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The three studies described here have provided verification for PSS-Fr
and PSS-Fa as related but separate and valid constructs. Additional
Perceived Social Support 19

research conducted with the PSS measures by our colleagues and students
generally confirm the findings reported here. Confirmation of the
independence of perceived support and network measures of support come
from separate factor analyses by Cho (Note 6) and by Swindle (see Note 2).
The distinction between perceived support and network measures of
support also is congruent with the results of a study by Corty and Young
(Note 7) in which perceived social support was found to be negatively cor-
related with feelings of loneliness but was unrelated to amount of social
contact with others.
The distinction between perceived support from family and from
friends also seems important. Family networks are by their nature of
relatively longer duration. And, though somewhat influenced by the extent
to which an individual has achieved material independence from his/her
family (at least for college students), the perception of family support seems
to be stable and not influenced by temporary attitudinal changes (Study 2).
While related to a measure of family cohesion (Moos, 1974) as determined
by Swindle (see Procidano et al., Note 2), and to rated intimacy with father
and mother and ratings of the proportion of emotional support provided by
family members (Fondacaro, Note 8), perceived social support from family
also is inversely related to several indices of psychopathology (Study 1). It
appears that family characteristics play a role in subsequent symptomatol-
ogy (as consistently observed by clinicians) even in a normal population.
The role of perceived support in pathological populations also has
been studied. For instance Benson (Note 9) found that daughters of
alcoholics and mental patients perceived less family support during their
teen years than did daughters of normal fathers, and that perceived social
support from family, along with the absence of family conflict, were better
predictors of daughters' current adjustment than was fathers' reported
drinking level. In a study of relapse phenomena among adult male alcohol-
ics, Rosenberg (Note 10) found that nonrelapsers were significantly higher
in perceived social support from friends and from family than relapsers.
Finally, in a study of recovered schizophrenics and manic-depressives,
Frame (Note 11) found that both groups reported smaller social networks
than normal control subjects and that former schizophrenics reported the
lowest levels of perceived friend and family support. These findings suggest
that the PSS-Fr and PSS-Fa measures have utility in understanding these
populations also.
Perceived social support is related to certain social network character-
istics, but is also related to some personality traits and sometimes may be
influenced by mood states. Therefore, measuring perceived social support
may be appropriate for some purposes but not for others. And the
perceived social support measures described here may be subject to the same
reporting biases inherent in any paper-and-pencil inventory. Thus,
20 Procidano and Heller

whenever possible, convergent behavioral data should be obtained (as in

Study 3).
In this paper it has been argued that differentiating perceived social
support from social network characteristics has value, and is one step in
clarifying the nature of social support. Psychometrically sound measures of
the size (Sarason, Levine, Basham, & Sarason, Note 12) and function of
social networks (Barrera, Sandler, & Ramsay, 1981) recently have been
developed. Yet to be demonstrated are consistencies among perceived social
support, particular behaviors on the part of supported and supporting
persons, and confirming data from co-informant members of social net-
works. Some encouraging evidence in this regard was obtained in Study 3,
which indicated that perceived support led to greater disclosure to com-
panions. Convergent study of perceived social support, social network
characteristics, and individual attributes in relation to symptomatology
(e.g., Phillips & Procidano, Note 13) may help to foster conceptual clarity
and beneficial clinical and community interventions.

APPENDIX A

PSS-Fr and PSS-Fa Scales

Directions: The statements which follow refer to feelings and experiences

which occur to most people at one time or another in their relationships
with friends. For each statement there are three possible answers: Yes, No,
Don't know. Please circle the answer you choose for each item.
Yes No Don't know 1. My friends give me the moral support I need.
Yes No Don't know 2. Most other people are closer to their friends than
I am.
Yes No Don't know 3. My friends enjoy hearing about what I think.
Yes No Don't know 4. Certain friends come to me when they have prob-
lems or need advice.
Yes No Don't know 5. I rely on my friends for emotional support.
Yes No Don't know 6. If I felt that one or more of my friends were upset
with me, I'd just keep it to myself.
Yes No Don't know 7. I feel that I'm on the fringe in my circle of friends.
Yes No Don't know 8. There is a friend I could go to if I were just feeling
down, without feeling funny about it later.
Yes No Don't know 9. My friends and I are very open about what we
think about things.
Yes No Don't know 10. My friends are sensitive to my personal needs.
Yes No Don't know 11. My friends come to me for emotional support.
Perceived Social Support 21

Yes No Don't know 12. My friends are good at helping me solve prob-
lems.
Yes No Don't know 13. I have a deep sharing relationship with a number
o f friends.
Yes No Don't know 14. My friends get good ideas about how to do things
or make things from me.
Yes No Don't know 15. When I confide in friends, it makes me feel un-
comfortable.
Yes No Don't know 16. My friends seek me out for companioship.
Yes No Don't know 17. I think that my friends feel that I'm good at help-
ing them solve problems.
Yes No Don't know 18. I don't have a relationship with a friend that is as
intimate as other people's relationships with
friends.
Yes No Don't know 19. I've recently gotten a good idea about how to do
something from a friend.
Yes No Don't know 20. I wish my friends were much different.

Directions: The statements which follow refer to feelings and experiences

which occur to most people at one time or another in their relationships
with their families. For each statement there are three possible answers:
Yes, No, Don't know. Please circle the answer you choose for each item.
Yes No Don't know 1. My family gives me the moral support I need.
Yes No Don't know 2. I get good ideas about how to do things or make
things from my family.
Yes No Don't know 3. Most other people are closer to their family than I
am.
Yes No Don't know 4. When I confide in the members o f my family who
are closest to me, I get the idea that it makes them
uncomfortable.
Yes No Don't know 5. My family enjoys hearing about what I think.
Yes No Don't know 6. Members of my family share many of my inter-
ests.
Yes No Don't know 7. Certain members of my family come to me when
they have problems or need advice.
Yes No Don't know 8. I rely on my family for emotional support.
Yes No Don't know 9. There is a member of my family I could go to if I
were just feeling down, without feeling funny
about it later.
Yes No Don't know 10. My family and I are very open about what we
think about things.
Yes No Don't know 11. My family is sensitive to my personal needs.
22 Procidano and Heller

Yes No Don't know 12. Members of my family come to me for emotional

support.
Yes N o 'Don't k n o w 13. Members of my family are good at helping me
solve problems.
Yes N o Don't k n o w 14. I have a deep sharing relationship with a number
of members of my family.
Yes N o Don't k n o w 15. Members of my family get good ideas about how
to do things or make things from me.
Yes No Don't know 16. When I confide in members of my family, it
makes me uncomfortable.
Yes No Don't know 17. Members of my family seek me out for com-
panionship.
Yes N o Don't k n o w 18. I think that my family feels that I'm good at help-
ing them solve problems.
Yes N o Don't k n o w 19. I don't have a relationship with a member of my
my family that is as close as other people's re-
lationships with family members.
Yes N o Don't k n o w 20. I wish my family were much different.

R E F E R E N C E NOTES

I. Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. Toward the assessment o f perceived social support. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York City,
September 3, 1979.
2. Procidano, M. E., Heller, K., & Swindle, R. W. Experimental studies of the nature and
effects of social support. In New developments in research on life stress and social
support. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Montreal, September 1980.
3. Procidano, M. E. Toward the assessment o f perceived social support. Unpublished manu-
script, Indiana University, 1978.
4. Heller, K., Amaral, T. M., & Procidano, M. E. The experimental study of social support:
An approach to understanding the indigenous helper. In Social support networks and
socially indigenous helpers. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psy-
chological Association, Toronto, September 1, 1978.
5. Liem, J. H., & Liem, G. R. Life events, social supports, and physical and psychological
well-being. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association,
1977.
6. Cho, J. Unpublished research, Indiana University, 1981.
7. Corty, E., & Young, R. D. Social contact and loneliness in a University population.
Paper presented at the meetings of the Midwestern Psychological Association, 1980.
8. Fondacaro, M. Unpublished research, Indiana University, 1981.
9. Benson, C. Coping and support among daughters o f alcoholics. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Indiana University, 1980.
10. Rosenberg, H. S. Relapse problems in alcohol abuse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Indiana University, 1979.
11. Frame, C. L. Cognitive and social functioning in schizophrenic and manic-depressive
outpatients: A descriptive study. Unpubfished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1981.
Perceived Social Support 23

12. Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. Assessing social support:
The social questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Office of Naval Research, Arlington,
Va., 1981.
13. Phillips, W. M., & Procidano, M. E. Dimensions of social support, cognitive develop-
ment, and symptomatology: Psychiatric inpatients in Research on social networks and
perceived social support: Issues & findings. Symposium presented at the meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Washington D.C., August, 1982.

REFERENCES

Barrera, M. Social support in the adjustment of pregnant adolescents: Assessment issues. In

B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Social networks and social support. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage
Publications, 1981.
Barrera, M., Sandler, I. N., & Ramsay, T. B. Preliminary development of a scale of social
support: Studies on college students. American Journal of Community Psychology,
1981, 9, 435-447.
Buchwald, A. M., Strack, S., & Coyne, J. C. Demand characteristics and the Ve!ten Mood
Induction Procedure. Journa ! of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1981, 49, 478479.
Caplan, G. Support systems and community mental health. New York: Behavioral Publica-
tions, 1974.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. A new scale of social desirability independent of psycho-
pathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 349-354.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. The approval motive. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Dohrenwend, B. P. Sociocultural and socio-psychological factors in the genesis of mental
disorders. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1975, 16, 365-392.
Dohrenwend, B. S. Social status and stressful life events. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1973, 28, 225-235.
Faschinghauer, T. R. A 166-item written short form of the group MMPI: The FAM. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 645-656.
Gough, H. G. California psychological inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press,
1969.
Heller, K. The effects of social support: Prevention and treatment implications. In A. P.
Goldstein & F. H. Kanfer (Eds.), Maximizing treatment gains: Transfer enhancement
in psychotherapy. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
Heller, K., & Swindle, R. W. Social networks, perceived social support and coping with stress.
In R. D. Felner, L. A. Jason, J. Moritsugu, & S. S. Farber (Eds.), Preventive psy-
chology: Theory, research and practise in community intervention. Pergamon Press, in
press.
Henderson, S., Byrne, D. G., Duncan-Jones, P., Adcock, S., Scott, R., & Steele, G. P. Social
bonds in the epidemiology of neurosis: A preliminary communication. British Journal
of Psychiatry, 1978, 132, 463-466.
Hirschfeld, R. M., Klerman, G. L,, Gough, H. G., Barrett, J., Korchin, S. J., & Chodoff,
P. A measure of interpersonal dependency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1977,
41, 610-618.
Holmes, T. H., & Masuda, M. Life changes and illness susceptibility. In B. S. Dohrenwend
& B. P. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life events: Their nature and effects. New York:
Wiley, 1974.
Langner, T. S. A twenty-two item screening score of psychiatric symptoms indicating impair-
ment. Journal of Health and Human Behavior, 1962, 3, 269-275.
Lazarus, R. S. Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Lazarus, R. S., Averill, J. R., & Opton, E. M., Jr. The psychology of coping: Issues of research
and assessment. In G. V. Coelho, D. A. Hamburg, & J. E. Adams (Eds.), Coping
and adaptation. New York: Basic Books, 1974.
Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. Toward the assessment of social competence. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 46, 453-462.
24 Procidano and Heller

Marsella, A. J., & Snyder, K. K. Stress, social supports and schizophrenic disorders: Toward
an interactional model. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1981, 7, 152-163.
Marx, M. B., Garrity, T. F., & Bowers, P. R. The influence of recent life experiences on
the health of college freshmen. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1975, 19, 87-98.
Moos, R. H. Family Environment Scale preliminary manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psy-
chologists Press, 1974.
Platt, J. J., & Spivack, G. The MEPS procedure manual. Philadelphia: Hahnemann Medical
College and Hospital, 1975.
Rabkin, J. G., & Struening, G. L. Life events, stress, and illness. Science, 1976, 194, 1013-
1020.
Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
PsychologicalMonographs, 1966, 80(1, Whole No. 609).
Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J: M. Assessing the impact of life changes: Develop-
ment of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
1978, 46, 932-946.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. C., & Lushene, R. E. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1970.
Tolsdorf, C. C. Social networks, support, and coping: An exploratory study. Family Process,
1976, 15, 407-417.
Velten, E. A laboratory task for induction of mood states. Behavior Research and Therapy,
1968, 6, 473-482.
Zuckerman, M. The development of an Affect Adjective Check List for the measurement
of anxiety. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 457-462.