Does Emotional Support Positively Benefit Well-Being? That May Depend on Culture

When you hear “emotional support,” you might think of positive actions like understanding, encouragement, compassion, and comfort.

Emotional support is commonly seen as essential for forming and maintaining friendships, providing a sense of help, tangible support, and self-worth. 

Existing studies have highlighted the positive impact of emotional support on health and well-being, emphasizing its role in combating loneliness and improving overall health outcomes.

Interestingly, some researchers have found that the perception of emotional support does not always lead to positive effects on subjective well-being and can even have adverse effects. 

According to Fisher et al. (1982)

“Recipients of support often ‘experience negative consequences including feelings of failure, inferiority, and dependency’ and thus ‘in many instances “[they] bite the hands that feed them”’ (p. 27).”

This apparent contradiction prompted this study published by sage, exploring the cultural underpinnings of the benefits or absence of benefits associated with perceived emotional support.

Independence-Interdependence Theory

Drawing on the independence-interdependence theory of cultural self, the researchers argue that in cultures that value independence, the direct link between perceived emotional support and well-being may be compromised. 

This is because perceiving oneself as dependent on support can conflict with the importance placed on independence. 

On the other hand, in cultures that prioritize interdependence, perceived emotional support is expected to have clear and positive effects on well-being.

To test this hypothesis, the study examines subjective well-being and reported physical health among college students (Study 1) and nonstudent adults (Study 2). 

By considering different cultural contexts, the research aims to shed light on the role of culture in shaping the effectiveness of perceived emotional support in promoting well-being.

The Study

Study 1 found that among Euro-American college students, the positive effect of perceived emotional support on subjective well-being was weak and virtually nonexistent once self-esteem was taken into account. 

On the other hand, in testing Japanese and Filipinos in Asia, even after controlling for self-esteem, perceived emotional support positively predicted subjective well-being

Study 2 extended the research by examining Japanese and American adults in midlife. 

The results supported Study 1.

The evidence suggests that cultural orientations towards independence or interdependence influence the way individuals perceive and benefit from emotional support. 

Those cultures that are more interdependent are more likely to benefit from perceived emotional support in terms of well-being and physical health.

These findings have implications for understanding the role of cultural context in shaping social support processes and interventions to promote well-being.

Cross-Cultural Research: How to Leverage the Benefits and Positive Dynamics of Cultural Differences

Are we Debbie Downers when analyzing cultural differences in cross-cultural management research?

That is, do we look at the negative side of these differences over the positive to our own detriment?

That’s what researchers for this paper determined.

Authoring, “The upside of cultural differences: Towards a more balanced treatment of culture in cross-cultural management research,” the team of researchers encouraged scholars to “explore how cultural diversity, distance, and foreignness create value for global organizations.”

And this is what they discovered.

The State of Cross-Cultural Management Literature Today

More often than not, CCM literature looks at the negative when discussing differences in culture and management.

The paper highlights regularly used terms in such research, like “foreignness,” “cultural distance,” and “cultural misfit,” saying they reflect this emphasis on the negative.

These terms suggest incompatibility, conflict, and friction.

To counter this, the authors suggest an emphasis on the upside of cultural differences, instead seeking the “positive role of distance and diversity across national, cultural, institutional, and organizational dimensions.”

Endeavoring to seek out the positive, they argue, will balance the treatment of culture in CCM research, the goal being to leverage the benefits and positive dynamics of cultural differences in various contexts.

So, how does one do this exactly?

International and global businesses reap the benefits of cross-cultural labor and management, so the authors suggest the focus in CCM research and literature can be placed on those benefits.

A Double-Edged Sword

One example outlined in the paper is the following research submission:

Pesch and Bouncken’s paper, “The double-edged sword of cultural distance in international alliances,” shows how examining positive outcomes of cross-border interactions can benefit international businesses. 

Their findings suggest that the positive effects of cultural differences involving knowledge combination and task discourse outweigh any issues with trust-building that can occur by perceived distance. 

Moreover, cross-border alliances lead to improved innovation and joint product development. 

The research submission clarifies that these positive effects occur mainly in non-equity alliances, whereas M&As or joint ventures might run into more cross-cultural conflict, due to communication issues and social categorization processes.

Still, the above benefits are often overlooked in CCM research.

The authors conclude:

“Explicitly considering positive phenomena can help better understand when and how cultural diversity, distance, and foreignness can enhance organizational effectiveness and performance at multiple levels.”

The paper also took a look at Hyun-Jung Lee’s interview with renowned cognitive social psychologist, Richard Nisbett, who authored The Geography of Thought.

We’ll dive into that next week.