Below are two extracts from a research article that was - Ответ на вопрос по ИЯвДиПО №2374662

Вопрос

Below are two extracts from a research article that was rejected by the journal called Review of Educational Research. PROVIDING SOCIAL SUPPORT MAY BE MORE BENEFICIAL THAN RECEIVING IT: Results from a Prospective Study of Mortality Stephanie L. Brown, Randolph M. Nesse As demographic shifts have produced a relatively more aged population, factors that influence longevity have taken on increased prominence. The documented health benefits of social support may offer a promising avenue for reducing mortality among older adults. Indeed, there is a robust association between social contact and health and wellbeing (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988). However, it is not clear that receiving support accounts for these benefits (House et al., 1988). Tests of the social-support hypothesis —that receiving support improves health and well-being—have provided somewhat inconsistent results (Kahn, 1994), demonstrating in some instances that receiving support is harmful (e.g., S.L. Brown & Vinokur, in press; Hays, Saunders, Flint, Kaplan, & Blazer, 1997; Seeman, Bruce, & McAvay, 1996). In fact, a meta-analysis of the link between social support and health outcomes produced negligible findings, leading the study’s authors to conclude that the “small amounts of shared variance [between receiving support and health outcomes] may not be considered significant nor generalizable” (Smith, Fernengel, Holcroft, Gerald, & Marien, 1994, p. 352). Conceptually, it is not clear that receiving social support will always be beneficial. For example, depending on other people for support can cause guilt and anxiety (Lu & Argyle, 1992). And feeling like a burden to others who presumably provide support is associated with increased suicidal tendencies, even after controlling for depression (R.M. Brown, Dahlen, Mills, Rick, & Biblarz, 1999; de Catanzaro, 1986). The correlation of social support with dependence may help to explain why studies have failed to consistently confirm the social-support hypothesis. Furthermore, the benefits of social contact may extend beyond received support to include other aspects of the interpersonal relationship that may protect health and increase longevity—for example, giving support to others. However, with few exceptions (e.g., Liang, Krause, & Bennett, 2001), social-support studies rarely assess whether there are benefits from providing support to others. Some measures of social support do seem to tap giving—perhaps inadvertently—yet the benefits are often attributed to receiving support or sometimes attributed to reciprocated support. For example, a nationwide survey of older peoples’ support networks measured social support by a combination of what was received and what was provided to others (Antonucci, 1985). Implicit in this assessment is the recognition that receiving social support is likely to be correlated with other aspects of close relationships, including the extent to which individuals give to one another. Thus, some of the benefits of social contact, traditionally attributed to receiving support, or to reciprocated support (e.g., Antonucci, Fuhrer, & Jackson, 1991), may instead be due to the benefits of giving support. THE BENEFITS OF PROVIDING SUPPORT TO OTHERS There are both theoretical and empirical reasons to hypothesize that giving support may promote longevity. For example, kinselection theory (Hamilton, 1964a, 1964b) and reciprocal-altruism theory (Trivers, 1971) suggest that human reproductive success was contingent upon the ability to give resources to relationship partners. Social bonds (S.L. Brown, 1999) and emotional commitment (Nesse, 2001) have been theorized to promote high-cost giving. The resulting contribution made to relationship partners is theorized to trigger a desire for self-preservation on the part of the giver, enabling prolonged investment in kin (de Catanzaro, 1986) and reciprocal altruists. Although few studies have explicitly examined whether helping others increases longevity, sociologists note the ubiquity of giving to others (Rossi, 2001), and studies show that individuals derive benefits from helping others, such as reduced distress (Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973; Midlarsky, 1991) and improved health (Schwartz & Sendor, 2000). Moreover, volunteering has beneficial effects for volunteers, including improved physical and mental health (Omoto & Synder, 1995; Wilson & Musick, 1999). Even perceptions that are likely to be associated with giving, such as a sense of meaning, purpose, belonging, and mattering, have been shown to increase happiness and decrease depression (e.g., Taylor & Turner, 2000; see Batson, 1998, for a review). Limitations and Directions for Future Research Although the prospective, longitudinal design of this study is very strong, given the outcome of interest, alternative explanations for these findings remain viable. It may be, for example, that giving support is a better measure of health than receiving support, or that individuals who have the resources and motivation to give are also more robust than those who do not, or that an abundance of resources promotes longevity and makes it easier to give. However, the beneficial effects of giving support were observed after controlling for the effects of age, functional health, satisfaction with health, health behaviors, mental health, interviewer ratings of health, socioeconomic status, and vulnerability to stress. Moreover, two distinct types of giving—GESS and GISO—contributed simultaneously to longevity. This means that a third variable correlated with one measure of giving—such as robustness of one’s health—would have been held constant in a model that simultaneously tested the effect of the other giving measure. Thus, it is unlikely that the same alternative explanation can account for both effects of giving support. Of course, given the correlational nature of the study design, the regression methods used to disentangle these alternatives do not give the confidence that would be achieved by an experimental design. Nonetheless, longitudinal prospective studies like the one described here are important precursors to eventual long-term (and large-scale) experimental interventions that promote giving support. Conclusion Giving support may be an important component of interpersonal relationships that has considerable value to health and well-being. It may not be a coincidence that mortality and morbidity studies inadvertently assess giving or manipulate giving (e.g., taking care of a plant; Rodin & Langer, 1977) to operationalize variables of interest such as receiving social support or locus of control. If giving, rather than receiving, promotes longevity, then interventions that are currently designed to help people feel supported may need to be redesigned so that the emphasis is on what people do to help others. The possibility that giving support accounts for some of the benefits of social contact is a new question that awaits future research. REFERENCES Antonucci, T.C. (2018). Personal characteristics, social support, and social behavior. In R.H. Binstock & E. Shanas (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (2nd ed., pp. 94–128). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand-Reinhold. Antonucci, T.C., Fuhrer, R., & Jackson, J.S. (1991). Social support and reciprocity: A cross-ethnic and cross-national perspective. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 7, 519–530. Batson, C.D. (2020). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 282–316). New York: McGraw-Hill. Bradburn, N.M. (2016). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine Brown, R.M., Dahlen, E., Mills, C., Rick, J., & Biblarz, A. (2019). Evaluation of an evolutionary model of self-preservation and selfdestruction. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 29(1), 58–71. Brown, S.L. (1999). The origins of investment: A theory of close relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe. Brown, S.L., & Vinokur, A.D. (in press). The interplay among risk factors for suicidal ideation and suicide: The role of depression, poor health, and loved ones’ messages of support and criticism. American Journal of Community Psychology. Carr, D., House, J.S., Kessler, R.C., Nesse, R.M., Sonnega, J., & Wortman, C. (2021). Marital quality and psychological adjustment to widowhood among older adults: A longitudinal analysis. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55B(4), S197–S207. Cialdini, R.B., Darby, B.K., & Vincent, J.E. (1973). Transgression and altruism: A case for hedonism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 502–516. Cialdini, R.B., & Kenrick, D.T. (2015). Altruism as hedonism: A social development perspective on the relationship of negative mood state and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 907–914. Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13. de Catanzaro, D. (1986). A mathematical model of evolutionary pressures regulating selfpreservation and self-destruction. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 16, 166–181. Fredrickson, B., Mancuso, R., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. (2000). The undoing effect of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24, 237–258. Greer, S., Morris, T., & Pettingale, K.W. (1994). Psychological response to breast cancer: Effect on outcome. In A. Steptoe (Ed.), Psychosocial processes and health: A reader (pp. 393–399). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hamilton, W.D. (1964a). The genetic evolution of social behavior: I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–16. Hamilton, W.D. (1964b). The genetic evolution of social behavior: II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 17–52.

• Firstly, the article has poor language quality. Secondly, there is lack of proper structure (There is no keywords, affiliations and abstract).
• Firstly, the article is out of scope for the journal. Secondly, there is lack of proper structure (There is no keywords, affiliations and abstract).*
• Firstly, the article has poor language quality. Secondly, there is lack of up-to-date references.
• Firstly, the article is out of scope for the journal. Secondly, the references contain a high proportion of self-citations.

Ответ