Social network sites are desirable media through which to seek supportive communication, and users can signal a need for assistance to large, diverse pools of potential support providers with a single message. According to social information processing theory, support seekers adapt to the lack of nonverbal cues online by leveraging the verbal elements of messages. This study classifies the variety of verbal strategies that Facebook users employ to seek support to better understand how people publicly initiate supportive exchanges online. A community sample of participants (N = 291) completed an online questionnaire in which they provided their most recent Facebook post that was intended to garner supportive communication. A thematic analysis revealed seven themes that describe the verbal strategies of support-seeking that social network site users enacted to request support. Implications for initiating supportive exchanges and revealing personal information online are discussed.
AfifiTSteuberK (2009) The revelation risk model (RRM): factors that predict the revelation of secrets and the strategies used to reveal them. Communication Monographs76: 144–176.
2.
BarbeeAPCunninghamMR (1995) An experimental approach to social support communications: interactive coping in close relationships. In: BurlesonBR (ed.) Communication Yearbook 18. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 381–413.
3.
boyddMarwickA (2011) Social steganography: privacy in networked publics. Paper presented at 61st annual international communication association conference, Boston, MA, 28 May.
4.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3: 77–101.
5.
BuehlerEM (2017) “You shouldn’t use Facebook for that”: navigating norm violations while seeking emotional support on Facebook. Social Media + Society3: 1–11.
6.
BurkeMKrautR (2013) Using Facebook after losing a job: differential benefits of strong and weak ties. In: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work, San Antonio, TX, 23–27 February, pp. 1419–1430. New York: ACM.
7.
BurlesonBRMacGeorgeEL (2002) Supportive communication. In: KnappMLDalyJA (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 374–424.
8.
ChoiMTomaCL (2014) Social sharing through interpersonal media: patterns and effects on emotional well-being. Computers in Human Behavior36: 530–541.
9.
CohenS (2004) Social relationships and health. American Psychologist59: 676–684.
10.
DerlegaVJWinsteadBAOldfieldEC, et al. (2003) Close relationships and social support in coping with HIV: a test of sensitive interaction systems theory. AIDS and Behavior7: 119–129.
11.
DeVitoMABirnholtzJHancockJT (2017) Platforms, people, and perception: using affordances to understand self-presentation on social media. In: Proceedings of the conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, Portland, OR, 25 February–1 March, pp. 740–754. New York: ACM.
12.
DugganMLenhartALampeC, et al. (2015) Parents and Social Media. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center Report.
13.
EllisonNBGrayRVitakJ, et al. (2013) Calling all Facebook friends: exploring requests for help on Facebook. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual international conference on weblogs and social media, Cambridge, MA, 8–11 July, pp. 155–164. Washington, DC: Association For the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
14.
EllisonNBSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12: 1143–1168.
15.
EllisonNBSteinfieldCLampeC (2011) Connection strategies: social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society13: 873–892.
16.
EllisonNBVitakJGrayR, et al. (2014) Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19: 855–870.
FoxJHoltLF (2018) Fear of isolation and perceived affordances: the spiral of silence on social networking sites regarding police discrimination. Mass Communication and Society21: 533–554.
19.
FoxJMcEwanB (2017) Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: the perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs84: 298–318.
20.
GableSLReisHTImpettEA, et al. (2004) What do you do when things go right? the intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology87: 228–245.
21.
GoldsmithDJ (1994) The role of facework in supportive communication. In: BurlesonBRAlbrechtTLSarasonIG (eds) Communication of Social Support: Messages, Interactions, Relationships, and Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 29–49.
22.
GoldsmithDJ (1995) The communicative microdynamics of support. In: BurlesonBR (ed.) Communication Yearbook 18. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 414–433.
23.
GoldsmithDJ (2004) Communicating Social Support. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
GulleyMR (1993) Sequential analysis of social support elicitation and provision behaviors. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.
25.
HighACBuehlerEM (2019) Receiving supportive communication from Facebook friends: a model of social ties and supportive communication in social network sites. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships36: 719–740.
26.
HighACCrowleyJL (2018) Gaps among desired, sought, and received support: deficits and surpluses in support when coping with taboo marital stressors. Communication Research45: 319–338.
27.
HighACScharpKM (2015) Examining family communication patterns and seeking social support direct and indirect effects through ability and motivation. Human Communication Research41: 459–479.
28.
HighACOeldorf-HirschABellurS (2014) Misery rarely gets company: the influence of emotional bandwidth on supportive communication on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior34: 79–88.
29.
LimVKGTeoTSHZhaoX (2013) Psychological costs of support seeking and choice of communication channel. Behaviour & Information Technology32: 132–146.
30.
LincolnYSGubaEG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
31.
MaXHancockJNaamanM (2016) Anonymity, intimacy and self-disclosure in social media. In: Proceedings of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, 7–12 May, pp. 3857–3869. New York: ACM.
32.
MacGeorgeELFengBBurlesonBR (2011) Supportive communication. In: KnappMLDalyJA (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 317–354.
33.
MarwickAEboydd (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13: 114–133.
34.
MengJMartinezLHolmstromA, et al. (2017) Research on social networking sites and social support from 2004 to 2015: a narrative review and directions for future research. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking20: 44–51.
35.
OhHJLaRoseR (2016) Impression management concerns and support-seeking behavior on social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior57: 38–47.
36.
RozzellBPiercyCWCarrCT, et al. (2014) Notification pending: online social support from close and nonclose relational ties via Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior38: 272–280.
37.
RuiJRLiS (2018) Seeking help from weak ties through mediated channels: integrating self-presentation and norm violation to compliance. Computers in Human Behavior87: 121–128.
38.
SarasonBRSarasonIGGurungRAR (1997) Close personal relationships and health outcomes: a key to the role of social support. In: DuckS (ed.) Handbook of Personal Relationships. 2nd ed.Chichester: Wiley, pp. 547–573.
39.
SmithAAndersonM (2018) Social Media Use in 2018. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
40.
ThoitsPA (1995) Stress, coping, and social support processes: where are we? what next?Journal of Health and Social Behavior 35: 53–79.
41.
TreemJWLeonardiPM (2013) Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. In: SalmonCT (ed.) Communication Yearbook, vol. 36. New York: Routledge, pp. 143–189.
42.
UchinoBN (2009) Understanding the links between social support and physical health: a life-span perspective with emphasis on the separability of perceived and received support. Perspectives on Psychological Science4: 236–255.
43.
VangelistiAL (2009) Challenges in conceptualizing social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships26: 39–51.
44.
VitakJEllisonNB (2013) “There’s a network out there you might as well tap”: exploring the benefits of and barriers to exchanging informational and support-based resources on Facebook. New Media & Society15: 243–259.
45.
WaltherJB (1992) Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Communication Research19: 52–90.
46.
WaltherJB (2004) Language and communication technology: introduction to the special issue. Journal of Language and Social Psychology23: 384–396.
47.
WaltherJB (2012) Interaction through technological lenses: computer-mediated communication and language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology31: 397–414.
48.
WilliamsSLMickelsonKD (2008) A paradox of support seeking and rejection among the stigmatized. Personal Relationships15: 493–509.
49.
WrightKBRainsSA (2013) Weak-tie support network preference, health-related stigma, and health outcomes in computer-mediated support groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research41: 309–324.
50.
WrightKBJohnsonAJBernardDR, et al. (2011) Promises and pitfalls for individuals coping with health concerns. In: ThompsonTLParrottRNussbaumJF (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Health Communication. 2nd ed.New York: Routledge, pp. 349–362.
51.
XuYBurlesonBR (2001) Effects of sex, culture, and support type on perceptions of spousal social support: an assessment of the “support gap” hypothesis in early marriage. Human Communication Research27: 535–566.
52.
YbemaJFKuijerRGHagedoornM, et al. (2002) Caregiver burnout among intimate partners of patients with a severe illness: an equity perspective. Personal Relationships9: 73–88.
53.
YoungvorstLJHighAC (2018) “Anyone free to chat?” using technological features to elicit quality support online. Communication Monographs85: 203–223.
54.
ZhaoXLampeCEllisonN (2016) The social media ecology: user perceptions, strategies and challenges. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, 7–12 May, pp. 89–100. New York: ACM.
55.
ZiegeleMReineckeL (2017) No place for negative emotions? the effects of message valence, communication channel, and social distance on users’ willingness to respond to SNS status updates. Computers in Human Behavior75: 704–713.
