The Crooked Line

In its inaugural year the Trinity Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies will build on and enhance dialogue among faculty in diverse fields through workshops, a reading group, and a monthly essay, “The Crooked Line,” by a Trinity faculty member.  We look forward to opening new lines of conversation that will reverberate through our classrooms, libraries, labs, and offices.

The Crooked Line

"The Crooked Line," will consist of a monthly essay by a Trinity faculty member exploring new challenges before their fields, or before their own work.  We call this series of essays "The Crooked Line" as a reminder of the strange routes often traveled by fruitful thought.  Thinking goes in a straight line till it is blocked, and then a crooked path might appear that leads to somewhere productive.  We hope that these essays by Trinity faculty members might help locate the crooked line.

When coping with a problem or stressor, feeling and talking appear to go hand in hand. Seeking support from others through the disclosure of feelings or enlistment of advice is the predominant course of action in Western cultural contexts (Taylor, 2007). Indeed, it is not surprising that social support is widely utilized given that it is often a beneficial means of coping. A corpus of research attests to the buffering effects of social support on mental and physical health (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Thoits, 1995). Yet, explicitly recruiting and utilizing social support resources is more characteristic of Western cultural values and norms that prioritize individual needs (Taylor et al., 2004). In other cultural contexts (e.g., Asian), past research has shown that the activation of social support networks may not be as effective (Kim, Sherman, & Taylor, 2008). Although there is a growing body of evidence supporting the moderating role of culture with regard to social support, few studies have investigated cultural differences in the use and perceived effectiveness of social support (e.g., Kim et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2004). As such, insight into how social support functions in different cultural groups is rather limited.  

Diverging cultural models of the self underlie conceptions of social support. In individualistic contexts (e.g., United States), the self is agentic and responsive to norms encouraging the expression of one’s feelings and the fulfillment of one’s needs (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Accordingly, obtaining support from others to meet one’s needs is consistent with the Western notion of social support. The utilization of social support neither poses a risk to the independent self nor jeopardizes social relationships in individualistic contexts; in effect, relieving distress or resolving a problem entails the involvement of others in the pursuit of and congruent with the personal goal of coping. In contrast, non-Western collectivist cultures (e.g., Asian) promote an interdependent view of the self that highlights the interconnectedness of the individual to others, the precedence of group needs over personal needs, and the value of harmonious social relationships (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Consequently, social support may be more valuable in an implicit form (i.e., experiencing a sense of love, consideration, or high regard from others; feeling part of a reliable, supportive network of relationships; Taylor, Welch, Kim, & Sherman, 2007). When individuals attend to personal needs rather than group harmony and goals, soliciting social support compromises these social bonds.

Although collectivism appears to encourage social support, it fosters cultural values that discourage the reliance on social support networks. Most notably, relationship concerns have been found to inhibit the utilization of social support by Asians and Asian Americans (Kim et al., 2008). In particular, relationship concerns encompass expectations that recruiting social support resources damages group harmony, heightens face loss concerns, triggers negative feedback, and/or exacerbates matters (Taylor et al., 2004). These costs of social support suggest that cultural norms dictate the perceived value of social support and regulate modes of coping in ways that Western researchers might not have previously conceived.

In recent years, researchers have delineated the ways in which social support functions differently for Asians and Asian Americans in contrast to White Americans (for a review, see Kim et al., 2008), but what remains less understood is how social support is conceptualized across different Asian subgroups. Although the underutilization of social support is perceived to be common among different Asian and Asian American subgroups (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean), past studies have primarily involved individuals of East Asian descent and to a lesser extent those of Filipino and South Asian descent (Kim et al., 2008). Asian Americans represent a heterogeneous group with distinct immigration patterns, historical backgrounds, and socioeconomic experiences. It is possible that different relationship concerns take on greater importance for some Asian subgroups, especially when we consider how we define collectivism; specific dimensions of collectivism (e.g., obligation to in-group, importance of harmony) may be more salient to certain Asian subgroups and not others (see Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002, for a more extended discussion). Moreover, for Asian Americans with bicultural identities, the tensions between individualistic and collectivist modes of social support may be particularly pronounced under some circumstances (e.g., familial vs. peer contexts). Social support may be more nuanced in light of the diversity inherent among collectivist cultural groups. Ultimately, by examining the variations within broader cultural categories, we can gain a better understanding of social support processes within groups that typically underutilize mental health services.

Author note: No aspect of this essay may be stored, reproduced, or disseminated in any form or by any means, without obtaining in advance the written consent of Janet Chang.