You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The methods of managing stress examined so far — drugs, stress inoculation, biofeedback — are all things done to or by the individual in isolation. But human beings are profoundly social, and one of the most powerful buffers against stress is something the individual cannot manufacture alone: other people. Social support — the help and comfort we receive from our relationships — has repeatedly been shown to protect physical and mental health and to reduce the impact of stressors. This lesson examines the different types of social support (instrumental, emotional, and esteem support) and how each helps, before turning to a striking and exam-important question: do men and women cope with stress differently? Here we consider Taylor et al.'s (2000) influential "tend and befriend" theory, which proposes that the classic "fight or flight" response describes the male stress response better than the female one, and that women have evolved a distinctive pattern of protecting offspring and seeking social contact, mediated partly by the hormone oxytocin. We also consider Tamres et al.'s (2002) meta-analysis showing that women tend to use more support-seeking coping. The recurring theme is that coping is not only individual but social and may be gendered — and that social support, like the other techniques, has both real benefits and important limits.
Key Definition: Social support is the perception or experience that one is cared for, valued, and able to draw on help from one's social network when coping with stress. It is conventionally divided into instrumental (practical), emotional, and esteem support. Gender differences in coping refer to systematic differences in the strategies men and women tend to use — notably women's greater use of support-seeking, captured in Taylor et al.'s "tend and befriend" theory.
The central insight is twofold: first, that relationships are a stress-management resource in their own right, working through several distinct types of support; and second, that the way people draw on this resource — and cope with stress generally — may differ systematically between the sexes.
This lesson addresses the following points in AQA A-Level Psychology (7182), Paper 3, Section C (Stress):
Assessment objectives engaged: AO1 (knowledge of the types of social support and of gender differences in coping, including tend-and-befriend and the role of oxytocin), AO3 (evaluation of the evidence on social support and on gender differences — correlational issues, the buffering versus direct-effect debate, the limits and potential downsides of support, and the biological-determinism, beta-bias, and alpha-bias debates around gendered coping), and — where a question includes a scenario — AO2 (applying types of support or gender differences to a described case). This lesson is strongly synoptic with the biological approach, biopsychology (the endocrine system), and the gender-bias material in issues and debates.
Social support is not a single thing; psychologists distinguish several types, each helping in a different way.
| Type of support | What it provides | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Instrumental support | Practical, tangible help — actions and resources that directly address the stressor | Lending money, helping with childcare, giving a lift, helping complete a task |
| Emotional support | Comfort, reassurance, empathy, and a sense of being cared for; helps the person manage the emotional impact of stress | Listening, expressing sympathy, "being there," a reassuring hug |
| Esteem support | Encouragement that bolsters the person's self-belief and confidence in their ability to cope | Expressing confidence in the person ("I know you can do this"), praising their competence |
These types often overlap in practice — a supportive friend may offer all three at once — but distinguishing them is useful because they address different aspects of stress. Instrumental support tackles the problem itself (reducing the stressor); emotional support tackles the feelings the stressor produces; and esteem support strengthens the person's appraisal of their own coping ability, which (recalling Lazarus) directly reduces the perceived threat. A fourth type sometimes added is informational support — providing advice, guidance, or relevant knowledge that helps the person understand and tackle the stressor — though the AQA specification emphasises the three above.
There are two main accounts of how social support protects health, and a strong answer can distinguish them. The buffering hypothesis proposes that social support works chiefly when stress is high, by cushioning the impact of stressors — support is like a shock absorber that only matters when the road is rough, helping the person reappraise the stressor as more manageable and cope more effectively, and so protecting them from harm at high stress levels. The direct-effects (main-effects) hypothesis proposes instead that social support is beneficial all the time, regardless of stress level — being embedded in a caring network promotes health and wellbeing continuously (through healthier behaviour, a sense of belonging, and lower baseline arousal), whether or not the person is currently stressed. The two are not mutually exclusive: support may have a steady baseline benefit and an extra buffering benefit when stress strikes.
graph TD
A[Stressor encountered] --> B{Social support available?}
B -->|High support| C[Instrumental help reduces the stressor<br/>emotional support eases distress<br/>esteem support raises coping confidence]
B -->|Low support| D[Stressor faced alone<br/>higher threat appraisal, sustained arousal]
C --> E[Lower physiological stress response<br/>better health outcomes]
D --> F[Greater stress impact<br/>poorer health outcomes]
Mechanistically, social support is thought to reduce the stress response itself: feeling supported lowers threat appraisal (the situation seems more manageable when help is at hand) and dampens physiological arousal — research links good social support to lower blood pressure and lower cortisol responses to stress, providing a physiological route from relationships to health.
A major theme in this area is that men and women may cope with stress differently. Two lines of work are central.
The traditional model of the acute stress response is "fight or flight" — confront the threat or escape it. Taylor and colleagues (2000) argued that this model was based largely on research with males (including male animals) and describes the male response better than the female one. They proposed that females have evolved a different pattern, which they called "tend and befriend."
Converging evidence comes from Tamres and colleagues (2002), who conducted a meta-analysis of many studies of coping. The broad finding was that women were more likely than men to use support-seeking coping — to turn to others and verbalise their feelings and problems — and tended to use more coping strategies overall and to engage more in actively seeking emotional support. This fits the "befriend" element of Taylor's theory: women, more than men, appear to respond to stress by reaching out to their social network. (As a meta-analysis, Tamres et al.'s strength is that it aggregates across many studies, though it also revealed that the size of gender differences varied with the type of stressor.)
The two strands of gender research are summarised below.
| Research | Type | Key claim |
|---|---|---|
| Taylor et al. (2000) | Theory (evolutionary) | Female stress response is "tend and befriend," mediated by oxytocin, not just fight-or-flight |
| Tamres et al. (2002) | Meta-analysis | Women use more support-seeking coping and more strategies overall than men |
It is important to handle gender differences carefully. The claim is about average tendencies, not absolutes: many men seek support and many women fight or flee. And these differences may arise from a mixture of biological factors (hormones such as oxytocin and oestrogen) and social factors (gender-role socialisation that encourages emotional expression and help-seeking in women and discourages it in men) — a classic nature–nurture interaction that is central to the evaluation.
It is worth understanding why oxytocin is central to Taylor et al.'s argument, because it gives the theory a testable, physiological core rather than leaving it as pure speculation about the ancestral past. Oxytocin is a hormone released by the pituitary gland in a range of affiliative and reproductive contexts — during childbirth, breastfeeding, and physical closeness — and it promotes bonding, caregiving, and trust. Crucially, oxytocin is also released as part of the stress response in both sexes. Taylor et al.'s key claim is about its behavioural effect under stress: where the adrenaline and cortisol of the classic stress response drive arousal and the impulse to fight or flee, a concurrent surge of oxytocin is proposed to pull behaviour in the opposite direction — toward seeking closeness, comfort, and social contact, and toward calming and protecting the young. Oxytocin is also thought to have an anxiety-reducing, calming effect, so reaching out to others and receiving support may itself trigger further oxytocin release, creating a self-reinforcing affiliative loop that reduces stress. The reason this pattern is proposed to be stronger in females is hormonal: oxytocin's effects are thought to be enhanced by oestrogen and inhibited by androgens such as testosterone, so the same stress-induced oxytocin release would produce a stronger affiliative pull in a typically female hormonal environment than in a typically male one. This gives a clear, biologically grounded reason why tend-and-befriend might be a more characteristically female response — and, importantly, it is a claim about hormones that can in principle be investigated, which is what raises the theory above a mere evolutionary story.
To see how these concepts apply, consider a new parent overwhelmed by the stress of caring for a baby while also facing money worries. Instrumental support might come from a relative who helps with childcare or shopping, directly reducing the practical load; emotional support from a partner or friend who listens and reassures, easing the distress; and esteem support from someone who expresses confidence in them as a parent ("you're doing a brilliant job"), which lifts their belief that they can cope. A gendered pattern might also appear: consistent with tend-and-befriend and Tamres et al., a stressed mother might characteristically respond by drawing her baby close and reaching out to other parents and friends for contact and advice, whereas a stressed father might be more inclined (through some mix of hormones and male-role socialisation) to withdraw or to try to "fix" the problem alone. Analysing a scenario like this — identifying which type of support is being offered and how gender might shape the coping response, while being careful to treat the gender pattern as an average tendency rather than a rule — is exactly what an AO2 question in this area would require.
A major strength of the social-support literature is that it is supported by a substantial body of evidence linking support to better health, which gives the concept real weight. Numerous studies find that people with strong social support show better physical and mental health, recover better from illness, and show lower physiological stress responses (lower blood pressure and cortisol) than those who are isolated. The implication is that social support is not a vague feel-good idea but a measurable protective factor with a plausible physiological mechanism — feeling supported lowers threat appraisal and arousal — which gives the concept solid empirical grounding and justifies its inclusion among recognised methods of managing stress, as well as suggesting that interventions to build support (support groups, befriending schemes) could genuinely improve health.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.