1pg introduction & 2 pg summary
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334861098
Social support from friends predicts changes in memory specificity following
a stressful life event
Article in Memory · August 2019
DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2019.1648687
CITATION
1 READS
110
5 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Self-projection and psychopathology View project
The Social Causes and Consequences of Reduced Autobiographical Memory Specificity View project
Christine Chiu
The University of Hong Kong
2 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE
Filip Raes
KU Leuven
192 PUBLICATIONS 6,886 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Tom J. Barry
The University of Hong Kong
44 PUBLICATIONS 217 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Christine Chiu on 15 August 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Running head: SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY
Social support from friends predicts changes in memory specificity following a stressful
life event
Christine H. M. Chiu1, Hon Wing Ma1, Yannick Boddez2,3, Filip Raes3, Tom J. Barry1,4*
1Experimental Psychopathology Lab, Department of Psychology, The University of Hong
Kong, Hong Kong.
2Department of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, University of
Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
3Centre for Learning Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, University of Leuven,
Leuven, Belgium.
4Researching Emotional Disorders and Development Lab, The Institute of Psychiatry,
Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom.
*Corresponding author: Tom J. Barry, Department of Psychology, Jockey Club Tower, The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. tom.j.barry@icloud.com; tjbarry@hku.hk
Word count: 7716
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 2
Abstract
Exposure to negative life stress has been associated with difficulty retrieving memories for
specific autobiographical events, with important consequences for the emergence of
emotional disorders. We examined whether social support can protect against the effects of
negative events on memory specificity. University students (N = 143) were assigned to
groups based on whether or not they experienced a negative stressor, operationalised as
whether or not their recent exam performance was in line with their expectations. After
receiving their exam results (T1), and one month later (T2), participants completed measures
of memory specificity, their attitudes towards themselves and the occurrence of other stress-
related events. Participants also completed a general measure of perceived social support
from friends, family, and significant others, and an equivalent measure for social support
related to performance. For participants who experienced an exam-related stressor, reduced
performance-specific social support from friends was associated with reduced memory
specificity at T2, even when accounting for T1 memory specificity, individual differences in
attitudes towards self, the experience of additional stressors, and gender. No such relation
was present for participants who did not experience a stressor. These findings provide new
understanding of the influence of social variables on autobiographical memory specificity.
Keywords: Autobiographical memory; overgeneral memory; memory specificity; social
support
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 3
Exposure to negative life events has been associated with subsequent difficulty recalling
specific memories of past personal events (Barry, Lenaert, Hermans, Raes, & Griffith, 2018;
Ono, Devilly, & Shum, 2016). This difficulty has in turn been associated with both the risk
for and presence of a range of emotional disorders (Barry, Del Rey, & Ricarte, 2018; Farina,
Barry, van Damme, van Hie, & Raes, 2018; Kleim & Ehlers, 2008). Existing research has
primarily focused on the intra-personal mechanisms through which memory specificity
comes to be compromised following negative events (see Williams et al., 2007 for review),
with little consideration of the social or inter-personal factors that might contribute towards
reduced autobiographical memory specificity (rAMS). We present the first investigation of
whether the support people perceive that others will give them following the experience of a
stressful event can influence the subsequent changes (i.e., reductions) in memory specificity.
Autobiographical memories are those memories which involve personally
experienced past events. These memories are classified as specific when they refer to a single
event that happened at a place and time within a 24-hour timeframe (e.g., “When I learned
that I had failed my chemistry class”); whereas non-specific memories are those which refer
to events that occur multiple times (e.g., “Failing college classes”), or over extended periods
of time (e.g., “My semester was a disaster”). Difficulty retrieving specific memories has been
found among assault survivors with depressive and post-traumatic stress symptoms 2-weeks
post-assault compared to survivors with lower emotional distress, and this difficulty has also
been associated with a persistence of emotional distress over the next six months (Kleim &
Ehlers, 2008). Meta-analyses also confirm that people who are exposed to negative life
events show rAMS compared with non-exposed people (Barry, Lenaert, et al., 2018). Other
longitudinal studies have also shown that rAMS predicts the course of depressive symptoms
over time and is associated with poorer symptomatic outcomes (Liu et al., 2016; Raes et al.,
2006) and delayed recovery (Dalgleish, Spinks, Yiend, & Kuyken, 2001; Peeters, Wessel,
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 4
Merckelbach, & Boon-Vermeeren, 2002). These findings suggest that rAMS is associated
with the experience of negative life events and may confer risk for the subsequent emergence
of emotional disorders. Despite these established associations, comparatively little is known
about the process by which the experience of negative events leads to rAMS.
The affect-regulation (Williams, 1996) and functional avoidance models of memory
retrieval (Williams et al., 2007) propose that when memories for specific events are retrieved,
the emotions associated with these events are also elicited. As such, a person might avoid
specific memories of stressful past events in order to prevent the re-experiencing of
associated negative emotions. Over time, this avoidance and the concomitant prevention of
negative emotions is negatively reinforcing and could turn into a more rigid avoidant memory
style that is applied to all autobiographical memories. Indeed, correlational research has
demonstrated that rAMS is associated with self-reported effortful avoidance of stressful
events (Kuyken & Brewin, 1995; Schönfeld & Ehlers, 2006). In subsequent prospective
studies, university students who faced performance-related stress and who tended to respond
to stressors with cognitive avoidance also retrieved fewer specific memories after the stressor
(Debeer et al., 2012; Debeer, Raes, Williams, & Hermans, 2011).
Although there is an association between avoidant coping and rAMS, it is less clear
which factors might mitigate avoidant coping, in doing so, mitigate the emergence of rAMS.
One such factor could be the support that people receive from others following negative life
events and the opportunities this affords them to process these events as well as the negative
emotions associated with them (Ehlers & Clark, 2000). When confronted with stressful or
unpleasant events, individuals often turn to their social network for help and support. As
proposed by the stress buffering hypothesis, social support can benefit a person’s overall
well-being whilst protecting them against the adverse emotional effects of stressful events
(Cohen & Wills, 1985). As such, social support has been shown to benefit both physiological
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 5
and mental health, and to protect individuals from potential negative outcomes resulting from
stress (Brewin, Andrews, & Valentine, 2000; Chu, Saucier, & Hafner, 2010; Kaniasty, 2012;
Taylor, 2011; Wang, Wu, & Liu, 2003). Among university students, perceived social support
has been found to act as a buffer against the effects of ongoing stress on well-being (Chao,
2011, 2012). In a diary study, access to social support was associated with reduced
experience of physical symptoms such as pain, dizziness, and low energy on high-stress days
(Stein & Smith, 2015).
This study built upon the apparent relation of rAMS with exposure to stressful life
events and social support, along with the suggestion that rAMS might emerge to help people
deal with the negative affect embedded within memories of these stressful events. The goal
was to better understand the social factors that might protect people against subsequent
reductions in memory specificity. The present investigation therefore examined the influence
of social support on memory specificity amongst people who are confronted with a stressor.
The experience of a stressor was operationalised in terms of participants’ ratings on a scale
regarding the extent to which their exam performance was better or worse than they expected.
Participants who reported that they did worse than expected were considered to have
experienced a stressor, in line with other research in this area (Hermans et al., 2008).
In addition, it is of note that for social support to effectively protect people against the
adverse consequences of stress, it has been argued that the type of support (i.e.,
informational, tangible, emotional, network, or esteem support) should match the individual’s
needs regarding the particular stressor (Cohen & McKay, 1984; Cutrona & Russell, 1990).
While ample research has found evidence for the support-matching hypothesis (Camara,
Bacigalupe, & Padilla, 2017; Cutrona, Shaffer, Wesner, & Gardner, 2007; Goldsmith, 2004),
knowledge on the importance of whether or not the support has to target the specific stressor
is limited. In the area of health psychology, some studies have found that social support
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 6
addressing a specific health issue such as alcoholism (Beattie & Longabaugh, 1999) or
diabetes (Gray, Hoerster, Reiber, Bastian, & Nelson, 2018) is related to better outcomes than
more general support. A meta-analysis on work-family conflict shows a stronger protective
relationship from specific support that focuses on work-family balance than general support
related to workers’ overall well-being (Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, & Hammer, 2011). As such,
the present investigation examined whether general or social support directed at performance
(i.e., stressor-specific support) would better protect university students from the negative
effects of stress and thereby buffer against subsequent decreases in memory specificity one
month later.
We expected social support to be related to memory specificity only for those who
experienced an exam stressor, and not for those who met or exceeded their exam expectations.
We expected stressor-specific support to be more strongly related to changes in memory
specificity than general support. These relations between stress, social support and rAMS
were expected to be unique even when accounting for the experience of other recent negative
life events experienced between assessment times. In addition, we controlled for participants’
self-critical view. Such negative attitudes could influence one’s views on one’s exam
performance and memory specificity irrespective of the social support that a person perceives.
Method
Participants
143 students (76% female) from the University of Hong Kong took part in this study. All
participants were native Chinese speakers, aged between 17 and 25 (M = 19.55, SD = 1.72).
Participants were recruited either on the Participant Pool System of the Department of
Psychology at the first authors’ university or through advertisements around campus.
Participants were compensated either with course credit or with a chance to win one of three
cash rewards of five-hundred, three-hundred, or two-hundred Hong Kong dollars.
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 7
Measures
Autobiographical Memory Specificity
The written version of the Minimal Instructions Autobiographical Memory Test (MI-AMT;
Debeer, Hermans, & Raes, 2009) assessed individual differences in autobiographical memory
specificity. Two separate sets of cues words were used, each with five positive (e.g., satisfied
and excited) and five negative cues (e.g., lonely and disappointed), with one set presented at
each of the two timepoints. Participants were instructed to write a personal memory in
response to each cue word without repeating an event or referring to events from the last
seven days. No instructions regarding the events’ specificity and no examples were given.
The second author was trained to code Chinese responses in the AMT using a pre-coded
independent dataset of 100 memories. After this, responses from this study were coded either
as specific (a single event which took place at a given time and place that lasted for less than
one day), not specific (grouping together the typical codes of categorical, extended and
semantic association), or omission when no response was given. The first author cross
checked 30% of the coding and interrater agreement was strong (ICC =.82). Disagreements
were resolved through discussions. Finally, a proportion score was calculated on the number
of specific memories recalled relative to the total number of responses given (the number of
cue words minus the number of non-responses).
Perceived Social Support
Two types of perceived social support were measured, namely general support and support
specifically targeting performance. Both measures concerned the participants’ perceptions of
support across time. General support was assessed using the Chinese version of the
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Chou, 2000; Zimet, Dahlem,
Zimet, & Farley, 1988). Participants rated twelve items from 1 = very strongly disagree to 7
= very strongly agree (e.g., “My family is willing to help me make decisions” and “I can
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 8
count on my friends when things go wrong”). Three subscales were calculated to illustrate
different sources of support (i.e., significant others, family, and friends). The internal
consistency of the MSPSS in our sample (at T1) was high with Cronbach’s alpha between .92
and .96 for the subscales. Higher scores indicated higher levels of perceived general social
support.
To examine whether there was any evidence of stressor-specific social support,
individuals’ perceived support around performance was assessed through 11 items adapted
from the original MSPSS. Example items include “My family is willing to help me perform
better” and “I can count on my friends when my performance does not meet expectations”.
This adapted scale is referred to as the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support in
Performance (MSPSS-p) and includes subscales for significant others, family, and friends.
Participants used the same 7-point scale as in the original MSPSS to rate the items. The
internal consistency of the MSPSS-p in our sample (at T1) was high, Cronbach’s alpha
ranging from .79 to .94 for the subscales. Higher scores reflected higher levels of
performance-specific social support.
Impact of Stress-related Events
Individuals’ level of stress resulting from recent stressors was measured using the 22-item
Chinese version of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R; Weiss & Marmar, 1997; Wu
& Chan, 2003). Participants were instructed to identify external stressors of any nature
between T1 and T2, excluding their academic performances, and to rate the 22 items from 0
= never to 4 = always. 77 participants at T1 (50% of the stressor group and 60% of the non-
stressor group) and 86 at T2 (57% of the stressor group and 66% of the non-stressor group)
reported having experienced an external stressor besides their exam results. The IES-R was
included both as a dichotomous variable (presence versus absence of additional stressor) and
a continuous variable (IES-R total score). The internal consistency of the IES-R total score at
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 9
both timepoints was good (T1 = .95; T2 = .97). Higher scores indicated higher level of
subjective stress resulting from the identified event.
Attitudes Towards Self
The Attitudes Toward Self-Revised (ATS-R; Carver, la Voie, Kuhl, & Ganellen, 1988)
measured individual differences in cognitive tendencies that make people more vulnerable to
depression, namely holding overly high standards (e.g., “I set higher goals for myself than
other people seem to”), being self-critical in the face of failure (e.g., “I get unhappy with
anything less than what I expected of myself”), and generalizing one failure to a broader
sense of self-worth (e.g., “A single failure can change me from feeling OK to seeing only the
bad in myself”). Participants rated 10 items from 1 (I agree a lot) to 5 (I disagree a lot). The
internal consistency of the ATS-R in our sample (at T1) was adequate (a = .88). Lower
scores indicated more negative attitudes towards the self.
Procedure
The procedure was approved by the ethical committee at the University of Hong Kong
(EA1708019).
Self-report data were collected online at two different timepoints. The first was
conducted within seven days of participants receiving their midterm results (T1) and the
second (T2) occurred one month later. At T1, after giving consent, participants provided
demographic information and filled out each of the measures. They also answered a question
regarding the extent to which their midterm results met their expectations. Specifically,
participants were asked to rate on a scale from -5 (way below expectations) to +5 (way above
expectations) regarding the extent to which their midterm results were in line with their
expectations. In line with the procedure of Hermans et al. (2008), participants with a negative
score were considered to have experienced an academic stressor (‘stressor group’) and the
others either met or exceeded their expectations (‘non-stressor group’). At T2, participants
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 10
received an email with the link to the same set of measures, with the exception of the exam
performance question, and were asked to fill them out within seven days.
Analysis strategy
Analyses were conducted using R Statistical Software (version 3.5.1). First, between-group
(stressor group vs. non-stressor group) differences were examined for each study variable. No
between-group difference was anticipated, as any effect of exam stressor exposure on AMS
was only expected amongst people who, in addition to the exam stressor also experienced
low social support. As our hypotheses were that social support would influence specificity for
people who experienced an exam stressor, but not other participants, we subsequently
calculated, within each group, correlations between our study variables and potential
covariates (e.g., age) and examined gender differences between these variables. In case of
evidence of a significant correlation between any of the social support variables and
specificity within either of the groups, we followed this up with regression analyses for that
particular group. If there had been evidence of a correlation across both groups, then a
sample-wide regression analysis would have been performed. These regression analyses
examined whether the relation between perceived social support at T1 and memory
specificity at T2 that was observed in the correlation analysis persisted while accounting for
potential covariates. Only the binary score (presence versus absence of additional stressor)
from the IES-R was used in the regression analyses as not all participants experienced a
significant non-academic stressor between assessment times, as reported below.
Results
Between-group analyses
The proportion of participants’ reports of the presence or absence of non-academic stressors
was the same between the stressor and the non-stressor groups at T2, χ2(1) = 0.86, p = .353, V
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 11
= .08. The two groups also did not differ in the proportion of female participants, χ2(1) =
0.35, p = .553, V = .05.
Table 1 presents between-group analyses between the stressor group and the non-
stressor group for each study variable. There are no group differences in memory specificity
at either timepoint. In addition, the two groups did not differ in attitudes towards self, general
social support, and performance support in T1, or impact of non-academic stressors in T2.
Participants in the non-stressor group were significantly older than those in the stressor group,
t(141) = 2.25, p = .026, d = .39.
Within-group analyses
Stressor group
Within the stressor group, there were gender differences in general support from
family, t(88) = -2.12, p = .037, d = .51, and from significant others, t(88) = -2.19, p = .031, d
= .52, as well as performance support from significant others, t(88) = -2.85, p = .005, d = .68,
such that female participants reported higher levels of perceived support from each of these
sources compared to male participants. There were no significant differences between male
and female participants within the stressor group for social support from other sources, with
general support from friends indicating the largest difference, t(88) = -1.88, p = .063, d = .45.
Memory specificity in T2, t(88) = .60, p = .550, d = .14, attitudes towards self in T1, t(88) =
.26, p = .792, d = .06, and impact of non-academic stressors in T2, t(58) = .796, p = .429, d =
.24, also did not differ between the two genders within the stressor group.
Table 2 provides an overview of the correlational findings. Within the stressor group,
age was not related to memory specificity, social support, attitude towards self or impact of
non-academic stressors. Memory specificity in T1 and T2 were significantly correlated (r =
.47, p < .001). Attitude towards self was significantly related to impact from non-
performance stressor (r = -.26, p = .046). Results confirmed the crucial hypothesis that social
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 12
support was related to memory specificity, with greater perceived performance support from
friends at T1 associated with greater memory specificity at T2 (r = .23, p = .026; see Figure
1) but not with memory specificity at T1 (r = -.01, p = .934). Other sources of perceived
general support or performance support were not related to memory specificity at either
timepoint.
Non-stressor group
Within the non-stressor group, female participants reported higher levels of general
support from significant others when compared to male participants, t(51) = -2.35, p = .022, d
= .80. There were no gender differences in social support from other sources, with
performance support from significant others indicating the strongest difference, t(51) = -1.89,
p = .064, d = .64. Memory specificity in T2, t(51) = 1.10, p = .277, d = .37, attitudes towards
self in T1, t(51) = -.73, p = .472, d = .25, and impact of non-academic stressors in T2, t(38) =
.304, p = .763, d = .12, also did not differ between male and female participants within the
non-stressor group.
As shown in Table 2, within the non-stressor group, age was not related to any of our
study variables. Memory specificity in T1 and T2 were significantly correlated (r = .56, p <
.001). Neither perceived general support nor performance support from any sources was
related to memory specificity in T2 (see Table 2 and Figure 1).
To summarise, greater perceived social support from friends related to performance
was associated with enhanced specificity a month later for people who experienced an exam-
related stressor. There was no such relation for general support, or performance support given
by families or significant others. Furthermore, there was a significant relation between social
support and specificity only for participants who reported experiencing an academic stressor.
These variables were not related for participants who were not confronted with an academic
stressor. Nevertheless, the strength of the correlations between social support and memory
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 13
specificity did not differ significantly between the stressor and non-stressor groups, z = .92, p
= .36. We then performed a linear regression predicting T2 memory specificity in order to
examine the extent to which, within the stressor group, the relation with T1 performance-
related social support from friends was independent of gender, the occurrence of the presence
of other stressors that occurred between T1 and T2, and participants’ individual differences in
negative attitudes themselves. As there were no significant correlations with age, this variable
was not included in the regression analyses.
T1 memory specificity, B = .452, SE = .088, p < .001, the presence of non-academic
stressors between T1 and T2, B = .204, SE = .043, p = .026, and T1 perceived performance
support from friends, B = .262, SE = .019, p = .005, each predicted significant unique
variance in T2 memory specificity. Participants’ attitudes towards themselves, B = -.025, SE
= .003, p = .784, and gender, B = -.132, SE = .048, p = .145 did not predict a significant
amount of variance. This model explained 30% of the variance in T2 memory specificity,
F(5, 84) = 8.55, p < .001. Amongst participants who experienced an exam-related stressor,
those who perceived that they had greater social support from their friends at the time of their
exam results showed greater memory specificity a month later. This relationship was
independent of specificity measured at the time of the exam results, and individual
differences in attitudes towards the self and the experience of additional stressors. Also, only
social support that was stressor-specific predicted memory specificity a month later, rather
than more general support that one receives more regularly.
Discussion
Although difficulty retrieving specific autobiographical memories has been associated with
exposure to life stressors (Barry, Lenaert, et al., 2018; Ono et al., 2016) and social support
has been found to protect people from the negative psychological consequences of such
exposure (Brewin et al., 2000; Chu et al., 2010; Kaniasty, 2012; Taylor, 2011; Wang et al.,
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 14
2003), no study has hitherto explored the relation between exposure to life stress, social
support and subsequent problems with memory specificity. Our study showed that among
students who perceived their exam results as not meeting their expectations, social support
from their friends related to performance (i.e. stressor-specific support) was associated with
more specific memory retrieval one month later, even when accounting for specificity
measured at the time of the exam results, individual differences in attitudes towards the self,
the experience of additional stressors, and gender.
These findings add to current knowledge on the mechanisms that underlie rAMS and
they expand the traditional focus from intrapersonal processes (Williams et al., 2007) to
better capture the social, interpersonal, processes that might influence memory specificity and
its association with emotional disorders. Our findings suggest that after significant life
events, individuals who perceive that they can access good social support, and particularly
that which is relevant to the stressor that they experienced, are less likely to experience
subsequent problems with memory specificity that might otherwise be expected (Barry,
Lenaert, et al., 2018). Our findings are also in line with an observed trend that people
retrieved more specific memories when they received support following emotional abuse as
compared to those without any support (Raes, Hermans, Williams, & Eelen, 2005). It could
be that the support received allows individuals to process the negative events and to cope
with any negative affect, which then preserves their ability to retrieve specific memories,
reduces their need for subsequent functional avoidance, and protects them from the risk of
subsequent emotional disorder (Kleim & Ehlers, 2008). Future research must now examine
the buffering effects of social support following more significant life stressors than exam
failure, such as physical or sexual traumas, and further decipher the underlying cognitive
mechanisms that might account for the protection against reduced specificity and in doing so,
subsequent depressive or post-traumatic stress symptoms.
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 15
In the present study, perceived support was positively related to memory specificity
only when people had experienced a stressor. This finding parallels past research where the
association between rAMS and individual differences in affect-regulation was only present in
distressing situations (Hermans et al., 2008; Raes, Hermans, De Decker, Eelen, & Williams,
2003). It may be that social support enables people to better process the negative events that
they have recently experienced. According to literature on the social sharing of emotions (for
a review see Rimé, 2009), people are naturally inclined to narrate their experiences with
others and this has effects on the way that people cope with the emotions associated with
these events. When the emotions attached to the memories are negative, they are found to
fade faster than if they are positive (the fading affect bias; see Walker & Skowronski, 2009
for review). It seems that in retelling the event, individuals have the opportunity to regulate
the negative affect that this evokes. This may in turn reduce the need for the person to use
cognitive avoidance strategies to cope and facilitate the elaboration and integration of the
event memory (Ehlers & Clark, 2000). Conversely, people who perceive social support to be
poor at the time of a stressful event may experience greater negative affect and so may be
more likely to use cognitive techniques such as avoidance to prevent the re-experiencing of
this negative emotionality. In accordance with the functional avoidance hypotheses of
Williams et al. (2007) this avoidant coping might compromise the retrieval of specific
memories more generally.
Although this explanation is plausible, the present investigation did not directly
examine the exact cognitive mechanisms at play. Future investigations could use experience
sampling technology to record the amount and quality of support received, to track changes
in affect, and to ask whether participants are thinking and talking about the stressor at various
moments between T1 and T2. Examining individual differences in the fluctuation of support
received, the psychological impact of the stressor, and the cognitive processes that underlie
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 16
this, will help build a more comprehensive picture of the effects of stress, affect, and social
support on memory specificity.
Importantly, the present investigation also found that the relation between perceived
support and memory specificity was distinctive to support directed at the stressor rather than
more general dimensions of social support. This is in line with existing research that has
shown better outcomes, including higher proportion of days abstaining from alcohol, better
adherence to diabetes-specific diets, and reduced work-family conflict when social support is
targeted at these specific negative or distressing circumstances (Beattie & Longabaugh, 1999;
Gray et al., 2018; Kossek et al., 2011). This finding also relates to the optimal-matching
theory which argues that the most effective social support is that which matches the nature of
the stressor (Cutrona & Russell, 1990). Although the optimal-matching theory emphasizes
the type of support offered or received (i.e., emotional, informational, network, tangible, and
esteem support), our findings additionally suggest that whether or not the support that is
offered is specific to a stressor is also important. In receiving stressor-specific support, the
individual may be better at evaluating and solving the problem at hand, enhancing self-
efficacy and reducing distress. While our findings suggest that stressor-specific support might
be particularly beneficial, it remains unclear which type(s) of support can further enhance
these protective effects against stress. Future investigations are needed to compare the
different types of stressor-specific support (e.g., informational versus esteem support on
performance, emotional versus network support on loss and grief etc) in protecting
individuals’ memory specificity.
Our finding that social support from friends, but not from family or significant others,
was associated with memory specificity is also of interest. Other studies examining the
relations between social support from different people and academic stress have reported
mixed findings in this regard. Our findings are in agreement with those of one study that
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 17
showed that support from friends, but not significant others or family members, predicted
greater emotional resilience amongst students who were experiencing academic stress (Wilks,
2008). Another study examined a wider range of support sources (i.e., significant others,
family, friends, parent, sibling, and college friends) and found that only perceived support
from significant others was significantly related to individual differences in academic-related
stress (Renk & Smith, 2007). Parental or familial support appears to relate more to students’
academic achievement such as their grade point average rather than the stress they experience
in academia (Cheng, Ickes, & Verhofstadt, 2012; Cutrona, Cole, Colangelo, Assouline, &
Russell, 1994). It may be that parents provide the initial foundation for students’ academic
performance but when students are confronted with academic-related stress, they find support
from friends more effective, which then protects them from the reduction of memory
specificity. Also as suggested by social affiliation theory (Schachter, 1959), perhaps
individuals are simply more drawn to talk to their peers who are or have been in a similar
situation. It could also be that social support from parents in response to academic stressors is
less variable, with most people receiving the support that they need. However, support from
friends may be more variable, either because friends are distracted by their own academic
stress or because some participants may be reluctant to discuss their academic failings with
peers that they perceive as competitors, even if these friends are generally supportive. Future
research must examine the nature of support as it is given, and explore in what way support
from friends is sought or is given following an academic stressor, compared to support from
family members.
It is also possible that memory specificity in turn influences whether people seek
social support, and the amount and quality of support they receive, resulting in a bidirectional
relation between support and specificity. It has been suggested that individuals who lack
memory specificity on a more severe level are less likely to seek treatment (Raes et al., 2005),
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 18
and to report less social support in the following year (Barry et al., 2019). Besides, the
sharing of personal past experiences has been theorized to serve several social functions,
namely developing intimate relationships, informing or advising others, and eliciting or
showing empathy and reassurance (Alea & Bluck, 2003). Research has shown that recalling
past personal events is related to enhanced warmth and closeness between pairs of people
(Alea & Bluck, 2007; Beike, Brandon, & Cole, 2016). It has been suggested that disclosure
about the self and social support reinforce each other (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010). As such,
perceived social support has been found to predict the extent to which unpleasant events were
disclosed (Kahn & Cantwell, 2017) and disclosing personally distressing information has
been found to be positively related to perceived social support at the time of a stressor (Kahn,
Achter, & Shambaugh, 2001) and two months later (Kahn & Hessling, 2001). It could be that
during the interaction between sharer and listener, the intimacy and support experienced help
increase the sharer’s memory specificity, and simultaneously, when the memories being
retrieved are more specific, the quality of support provided by the listener is then enhanced.
Surprisingly, participants’ attitude towards themselves was related only to the impact
of non-performance stressors measured using the IES-R. In particular, the more negative
attitudes one has towards self, the higher the level of subjective stress experienced from
external stressors. The ATS measure was solely focused on one’s view of self but it could be
that within a social context, people’s attitudes regarding how they would like to be viewed by
others and their fears of being negatively evaluated could play an important role in
determining the impact of a performance-related stressor and also the effects of social support
on the way that they cope with this stressor. Future research could explore this possibility
using more socially oriented measures of negative attitudes to better capture its effect on
social support and memory specificity.
There were a number of limitations in this study that should be noted. First, the
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 19
presence of an academic stressor was measured through participants’ self-report of whether
their midterm results were in line with their expectations. This was based on the assumption
that the greater the discrepancy between expectations and outcome, the more distress one
would experience. This approach replicates that of Hermans et al. (2008). However, this
single measure might not be the most accurate portrayal of students’ emotional response to
their academic results. Although research with more potent stressors is warranted, future
research replications of the present design could incorporate a more precise measure of
participants’ level of distress. With regard to our social support measure, while the revised
MSPSS-p captured social support related to performance, it was not specific to academic
results. When creating the MSPSS-p, we intended to create a measure that assesses support
for all kinds of performance as we hypothesized that support related to performance as a
whole would differ from the broader kind of socioemotional support that people typically
receive. The measure does not differentiate between different kinds of performance (e.g.,
academia versus sports). However, it could be that people perceive more or less support
based on different forms of performance. As mentioned previously, the use of experience
sampling could overcome this limitation by observing the kinds of support people are
actually receiving following stressors and its influence over memory specificity. Future
research could also compare the relations between social support and memory specificity
following two different performance stressors (e.g., failed exam versus competition loss).
Another limitation concerned the large number of significance tests in the correlation
analyses without correcting for multiple comparisons. However, our a priori hypotheses were
concerned only with the correlations including the AMT and social support. Other
correlations were reported in the interests of transparency and to increase the ease with which
our data might be used in meta-analyses. It is of note that previous results in this area (Barry
et al., 2019) also reported the same pattern of correlations with social support given by
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 20
friends, compared to other groups. In addition, the difference found between the stressor and
non-stressor groups was relatively small and non-significant. Future studies, perhaps with
more potent stressors, must replicate our findings using a larger sample size and a more
precise measure of distress level to categorize the stressor and non-stressor groups. Lastly, it
is important to note that the extent to which a person can recall a specific memory says
nothing about the accuracy of the memory that is recalled. Memories can be distorted or
biased due to factors such as the experience of highly stressful or emotional events (Schwabe
& Wolf, 2010), ruminative processes (Small, Kenny, & Bryant, 2011), and interpersonal
discussions (Soleti, Wright, & Curci, 2017). Future research could examine the effects of
social support following negative life events on other memory-related qualities, such as
memory accuracy or coherence.
In summary, the findings presented here correspond to a growing body of research
regarding the social processes that influence, and are influenced by, autobiographical
memory. The findings presented here suggest that research must move beyond examining the
intra-personal factors that cause problems with autobiographical memory specificity
(Williams et al., 2007) to examining the inter-persona factors that can enhance or diminish
memory specificity. The findings presented here provide the first evidence that social
processes and in particular the support people perceive that others will give them following a
stressful life event, might also play an important role in how people cope with these events
and how good social support might mitigate the effects of these events on their
autobiographical memory specificity. Future investigations are needed to replicate the
buffering effects of social support on memory specificity amongst people exposed to more
potent stressors and to understand how the social sharing of memories and emotions enhance
the coping of these stressors.
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 21
Disclosure statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 22
References
Alea, N., & Bluck, S. (2003). Why are you telling me that? A conceptual model of the social
function of autobiographical memory. Memory, 11(2), 165–178.
Alea, N., & Bluck, S. (2007). I’ll keep you in mind: The intimacy function of
autobiographical memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(8), 1091–1111.
Barry, T. J., Del Rey, F., & Ricarte, J. J. (2018). Valence-related impairments in the retrieval
of specific autobiographical memories amongst patients with schizophrenia. British
Journal of Clinical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12205
Barry, T. J., Lenaert, B., Hermans, D., Raes, F., & Griffith, J. W. (2018). Meta-analysis of the
association between autobiographical memory specificity and exposure to trauma.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 31(1), 35–46.
Barry, T. J., Vinograd, M., Boddez, Y., Raes, F., Zinbarg, R., Mineka, S., & Craske, M. G.
(2019). Reduced autobiographical memory specificity affects general distress through
poor social support. Memory. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1607876
Beattie, M. C., & Longabaugh, R. (1999). General and alcohol-specific social support
following treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 24(5), 593–606.
Beike, D. R., Brandon, N. R., & Cole, H. E. (2016). Is sharing specific autobiographical
memories a distinct form of self-disclosure? Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 145(4), 434–450.
Brewin, C. R., Andrews, B., & Valentine, J. D. (2000). Meta-analysis of risk factors for
posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed adults. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 68(5), 748–766.
Camara, M., Bacigalupe, G., & Padilla, P. (2017). The role of social support in adolescents:
Are you helping me or stressing me out? International Journal of Adolescence and
Youth, 22(2), 123–136.
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 23
Carver, C. S., la Voie, L., Kuhl, J., & Ganellen, R. J. (1988). Cognitive concomitants of
depression: A further examination of the roles of generalization, high standards, and
self-criticism. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7(4), 350–365.
Chao, R. C. (2011). Managing stress and maintaining well-being : Social support, problem-
focused coping, and avoidant coping. Journal of Counseling and Development, 89(3),
338–348.
Chao, R. C. (2012). Managing perceived stress among college students: The roles of social
support and dysfunctional coping. Journal of College Counseling, 15(1), 5–21.
Chaudoir, S. R., & Fisher, J. D. (2010). The disclosure processes model: Understanding
disclosure decision making and postdisclosure outcomes among people living with a
concealable stigmatized identity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 236–256.
Cheng, W., Ickes, W., & Verhofstadt, L. (2012). How is family support related to students’
GPA scores? A longitudinal study. Higher Education, 64(3), 399–420.
Chou, K. L. (2000). Assessing Chinese adolescents’ social support: The multidimensional
scale of perceived social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(2), 299–
307.
Chu, P. Sen, Saucier, D. A., & Hafner, E. (2010). Meta-analysis of the relationships between
social support and well-being in children and adolescents. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 29(6), 624–645.
Cohen, S., & McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress and the buffering hypothesis: A
theoretical analysis. In A. Baum, S. E. Taylor, & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of
Psychology and Health (pp. 253–267). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357.
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 24
Cutrona, C. E., Cole, V., Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Russell, D. W. (1994). Perceived
parental social support and academic achievement: An attachment theory perspective.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 369–378.
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a
theory of optimal matching. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.),
Social support: An interactional view. (pp. 319–366). Oxford, England: John Wiley &
Sons.
Cutrona, C. E., Shaffer, P. A., Wesner, K. A., & Gardner, K. A. (2007). Optimally matching
support and perceived spousal sensitivity. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 754–
758.
Dalgleish, T., Spinks, H., Yiend, J., & Kuyken, W. (2001). Autobiographical memory style in
seasonal affective disorder and its relationship to future symptom remission. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 110(2), 335–340.
Debeer, E., Hermans, D., & Raes, F. (2009). Associations between components of rumination
and autobiographical memory specificity as measured by a Minimal Instructions
Autobiographical Memory Test. Memory, 17(8), 892–903.
Debeer, E., Raes, F., Claes, S., Vrieze, E., Williams, J. M. G., & Hermans, D. (2012).
Relationship between cognitive avoidant coping and changes in overgeneral
autobiographical memory retrieval following an acute stressor. Journal of Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 43, S37–S42.
Debeer, E., Raes, F., Williams, J. M. G., & Hermans, D. (2011). Context-dependent
activation of reduced autobiographical memory specificity as an avoidant coping style.
Emotion, 11(6), 1500–1506.
Ehlers, A., & Clark, D. M. (2000). A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder.
Behavior Research and Therapy, 38(4), 319–345.
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 25
Farina, F. R., Barry, T. J., van Damme, I., van Hie, T., & Raes, F. (2018). Depression
diagnoses, but not individual differences in depression symptoms, are associated with
reduced autobiographical memory specificity. British Journal of Clinical Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12207
Goldsmith, D. J. (2004). Communicating Social Support. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Gray, K. E., Hoerster, K. D., Reiber, G. E., Bastian, L. A., & Nelson, K. M. (2018). Multiple
domains of social support are associated with diabetes self-management among
Veterans. Chronic Illness. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742395318763489
Hermans, D., de Decker, A., de Peuter, S., Raes, F., Eelen, P., & Williams, J. M. G. (2008).
Autobiographical memory specificity and affect regulation: coping with a negative life
event. Depression and Anxiety, 25(9), 787–792.
Kahn, J. H., Achter, J. A., & Shambaugh, E. J. (2001). Client distress disclosure,
characteristics at intake, and outcome in brief counseling. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 48(2), 203–211.
Kahn, J. H., & Cantwell, K. E. (2017). The role of social support on the disclosure of
everyday unpleasant emotional events. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 30(2), 152–
165.
Kahn, J. H., & Hessling, R. M. (2001). Measuring the tendency to conceal versus disclose
psychological distress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20(1), 41–65.
Kaniasty, K. (2012). Predicting social psychological well-being following trauma: The role
of postdisaster social support. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and
Policy, 4(1), 22–33.
Kleim, B., & Ehlers, A. (2008). Reduced autobiographical memory specificity predicts
depression and posttraumatic stress disorder after recent trauma. Journal of Consulting
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 26
and Clinical Psychology, 76(2), 231–242.
Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support
and work-family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work-
family specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64, 289–
313.
Kuyken, W., & Brewin, C. R. (1995). Autobiographical memory functioning in depression
and reports of early abuse. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104(4), 585–591.
Liu, Y., Zhang, F., Wang, Z., Cao, L., Wang, J., Na, A., … Zhao, X. (2016). Overgeneral
autobiographical memory at baseline predicts depressive symptoms at follow-up in
patients with first-episode depression. Psychiatry Research, 243, 123–127.
Ono, M., Devilly, G. J., & Shum, D. H. K. (2016). A meta-analytic review of overgeneral
memory: The role of trauma history, mood, and the presence of posttraumatic stress
disorder. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 8(2), 157–164.
Peeters, F., Wessel, I., Merckelbach, H., & Boon-Vermeeren, M. (2002). Autobiographical
memory specificity and the course of major depressive disorder. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 43(5), 344–350.
Raes, F., Hermans, D., De Decker, A., Eelen, P., & Williams, J. M. G. (2003).
Autobiographical memory specificity and affect regulation: An experimental approach.
Emotion, 3(2), 201–206.
Raes, F., Hermans, D., Williams, J. M. G., Beyers, W., Eelen, P., & Brunfaut, E. (2006).
Reduced autobiographical memory specificity and rumination in predicting the course of
depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(4), 699–704.
Raes, F., Hermans, D., Williams, J. M. G., & Eelen, P. (2005). Autobiographical memory
specificity and emotional abuse. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(1), 133–
138.
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 27
Renk, K., & Smith, T. (2007). Predictors of academic-related stress in college students: An
examination of coping, social support, parenting, and anxiety. Naspa Journal, 44(3),
405–431.
Rimé, B. (2009). Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion: Theory and empirical review.
Emotion Review, 1(1), 60–85.
Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of the sources of
gregariousness. Palo Alto, CA, US: Stanford Univer. Press.
Schönfeld, S., & Ehlers, A. (2006). Overgeneral memory extends to pictorial retrieval cues
and correlates with cognitive features in posttraumatic stress disorder. Emotion, 6(4),
611–621.
Schwabe, L., & Wolf, O. T. (2010). Stress impairs the reconsolidation of autobiographical
memories. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 94, 153–157.
Small, L., Kenny, L., & Bryant, R. A. (2011). The cost in remembering of ruminating on
negative memories. Emotion, 11(6), 1434–1438.
Soleti, E., Wright, D. B., & Curci, A. (2017). Emotional discussions reduce memory recall.
Memory, 25(5), 697–703.
Stein, E. R., & Smith, B. W. (2015). Social support attenuates the harmful effects of stress in
healthy adult women. Social Science and Medicine, 146, 129–136.
Taylor, S. E. (2011). Social support: A review. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), The Handbook of
Health Psychology (pp. 189–214). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Walker, W. R., & Skowronski, J. J. (2009). The fading affect bias: But what the hell is it for?
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1122–1136.
Wang, H.-H., Wu, S.-Z., & Liu, Y.-Y. (2003). Association between social support and health
outcomes: A meta-analysis. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 19(7), 345–
350.
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 28
Weiss, D. S., & Marmar, C. R. (1997). The impact of event scale - Revised. In J. P. Wilson &
T. M. Keane (Eds.), Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD: A handbook for
practitioners (pp. 399–411). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Wilks, S. E. (2008). Resilience amid academic stress: The moderating impact of social
support among social work students. Advances in Social Work, 9(2), 106–125.
Williams, J. M. G. (1996). Depression and the specificity of autobiographical memory. In D.
C. Rubin (Ed.), Remembering our past: Studies in autobiographical memory (pp. 244–
267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J. M. G., Barnhofer, T., Crane, C., Herman, D., Raes, F., Watkins, E., & Dalgleish,
T. (2007). Autobiographical memory specificity and emotional disorder. Psychological
Bulletin, 133(1), 122–148.
Wu, K. K., & Chan, K. S. (2003). The development of the Chinese version of Impact of
Event Scale - Revised (CIES-R). Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38(2),
94–98.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional
scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41.
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 29
Table 1. Between-group comparisons for each study variable
Stressor group Non-stressor group Independent t-test
M SD M SD df t p d
AMT (T1) .41 .24 .45 .26 141 .86 .389 .15
AMT (T2) .31 .24 .35 .26 141 .92 .358 .16
Age 19.30 1.48 19.96 2.02 141 2.25 .026 .39
ATS (T1) 29.78 8.36 30.94 8.54 141 .80 .426 .14
IES-R (T2) 3.44 3.31 4.52 2.81 98 1.70 .093 .35
MSPSS sig. other (T1) 4.82 1.63 4.94 1.74 141 .41 .680 .07
MSPSS family (T1) 5.03 1.35 4.98 1.39 141 -.22 .826 .04
MSPSS friends (T1) 5.21 1.17 5.28 1.39 141 .32 .751 .05
MSPSS-p sig. other (T1) 4.97 1.58 4.85 1.90 141 -.40 .691 .07
MSPSS-p family (T1) 4.74 1.40 4.69 1.47 141 -.23 .822 .04
MSPSS-p friends (T1) 5.08 1.09 4.92 1.38 141 -.74 .459 .13
Note: Independent t-tests comparing between the stressor group (n = 90) and the non-stressor group (n = 53) on mean of Autobiographical
Memory Test (AMT) in T1 and T2, the Attitudes Toward Self (ATS), the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), and the
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support in Performance (MSPSSp) in T1, and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) in T2.
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 30
Table 2. Within-group correlations for each study variable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. AMT (T2) - .47*** .01 -.07 .01 -.03 -.01 .03 -.07 .10 .23*
2. AMT (T1) .56*** - .08 -.10 -.05 -.16 -.18 -.13 -.12 -.09 -.01
3. Age .21 .14 - .17 -.17 .00 .19 .00 -.05 .03 -.05
4. ATS (T1) .11 .05 .06 - -.26* -.07 .08 .00 -.10 .01 -.07
5. IES-R (T2) .11 .02 .27 -.12 - -.07 -.30* -.33** -.05 -.14 -.16
6. MSPSS sig. other (T1) .14 .08 .14 -.18 .23 - .43*** .67*** .81*** .33** .54***
7. MSPSS family (T1) .05 .08 -.20 -.02 -.33* .17 - .45*** .34*** .84*** .43***
8. MSPSS friends (T1) .16 .04 .00 -.02 -.12 .54*** .58*** - .60*** .31** .76***
9. MSPSS-p sig. other (T1) .02 .08 .19 -.17 .20 .82*** .02 .38** - .30** .54***
10. MSPSS-p family (T1) -.05 .09 -.09 -.08 -.29 .13 .78*** .44*** .17 - .50***
11. MSPSS-p friends (T1) .07 .07 -.02 -.04 -.18 .43** .48** .82*** .42** .58*** -
Note: Correlation matrix for the stressor (n = 90; upper triangle) and non-stressor (n = 53; lower triangle) groups for scores on the
Autobiographical Memory Test (AMT), the Attitudes Toward Self (ATS), the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), the
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support in Performance (MSPSSp), and age measured at Time 1 (T1), and the AMT and the Impact
of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) measured at Time 2 a month later (T2). ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.
SOCIAL SUPPORT MEMORY 31
Figure 1. Scatter plots
Note. Scatter plot of relation between the proportion of specific memories recalled in the
Autobiographical Memory Test (AMT) and the degree of perceived performance-related
social support given by friends for the stressor (A) and non-stressor (B) groups. Line of best
fit and pearson’s r correlation coefficient are also given.
View publication statsView publication stats