Social Support Opinions Survey (SSOS)

Abstract

The Social Support Opinions Survey (SSOS) is a psychometric instrument developed by Kent D. Harber, Lee Jussim, Kathleen A. Kennedy, Robin Freyberg, and Lisa Baum (2008) to evaluate individual beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral orientations regarding how social support should be provided to individuals facing life distress or acute psychological challenges. Unlike traditional social support inventories that exclusively quantify the perceived availability or received frequency of supportive behaviors from the recipient's perspective, the SSOS specifically assesses the provider's underlying philosophy and endorsement of two distinct supportive styles: Directive Support and Nondirective Support. The instrument comprises 14 self-report items evaluated on a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from Not at all important (1) to Extremely important (5). Directive support captures active, intrusive, and prescriptive helper behaviors aimed at orchestrating problem resolution, taking charge, and expediting recovery. Conversely, nondirective support reflects empathetic, autonomy-supportive, patient, and nonjudgmental behaviors that validate the recipient's perspective, pace, and agency. Psychometric evaluations across multiple experimental and correlational investigations demonstrate robust structural validity via confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses, sound internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha ranging between .74 and .78 for directive support, and between .70 and .77 for nondirective support), and compelling convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. Notably, the SSOS has proven essential in demonstrating the "provider's paradox" and uncovering mismatched support dynamics, wherein well-intentioned directive support often exacerbates recipient distress while nondirective support consistently fosters adaptive psychological coping, self-efficacy, and interpersonal trust across diverse clinical, educational, and interpersonal domains.

Keywords

Social Support Opinions Survey, SSOS, directive support, nondirective support, provider beliefs, autonomy support, psychological coping, interpersonal helping, psychometrics, social psychology

Authors

The Social Support Opinions Survey was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by a collaborative research team led by Kent D. Harber at Rutgers University:

• Kent D. Harber, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Rutgers University at Newark. Primary investigator specializing in social cognition, emotional disclosure, stress buffering, and social support dynamics. Email contact: [email protected].
• Lee Jussim, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Rutgers University at New Brunswick. Renowned scholar in social perception, interpersonal expectations, stereotypes, and self-fulfilling prophecies.
• Kathleen A. Kennedy, Ph.D. — Affiliated with Rutgers University, contributing expertise in interpersonal communication and experimental social psychology.
• Robin Freyberg, Ph.D. — Affiliated with Rutgers University and Yeshiva University, investigating emotional regulation, stress responses, and psychological adjustment.
• Lisa Baum, Ph.D. — Research contributor at Rutgers University focusing on health psychology and interpersonal support mechanisms.

Purpose

The primary objective of the Social Support Opinions Survey (SSOS) is to assess an individual's normative beliefs, personal values, and procedural preferences regarding how interpersonal assistance should be delivered to someone confronting either major or moderate life problems. For several decades, the empirical literature on social support was disproportionately recipient-centric. Classic instruments, such as the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) or the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), evaluate whether recipients feel cared for, valued, and provided with tangible or emotional assistance. While foundational, this paradigm obscured the cognitive and ideological frameworks of the support provider, neglecting the crucial mechanisms that dictate how and why helpers choose specific support modalities.

Harber and colleagues (2008) developed the SSOS to bridge this critical theoretical and empirical gap. The scale systematically measures how strongly a provider prioritizes directive versus nondirective methodologies when intervening in another person's crisis. In clinical and counseling settings, the SSOS provides clinicians with a diagnostic lens to assess caregivers', partners', and peer supporters' helping styles. Many interpersonal conflicts and failed helping interactions do not stem from a lack of empathy or goodwill, but rather from a fundamental misalignment between the provider's behavioral style and the recipient's psychological needs. For instance, caregivers who score exceptionally high on directive support may inadvertently induce feelings of incompetence, infantalization, and psychological reactance in recipients, eroding therapeutic alliance and exacerbating relational strain.

In empirical research, the SSOS serves as a powerful predictive and explanatory tool across multiple subdisciplines, including social, clinical, health, and organizational psychology. Researchers utilize the instrument to investigate how perceived crisis severity (e.g., major life traumas versus moderate daily stressors) alters endorsement of supportive strategies. Moreover, the scale illuminates the "provider's paradox"—the phenomenon wherein providers intuitively believe that forceful, directive intervention is necessary to resolve acute crises, despite extensive clinical evidence demonstrating that nondirective, autonomy-supportive listening yields substantially better recipient emotional regulation and cognitive processing. By quantifying these provider dispositions, the SSOS enables investigators to model complex dyadic interactions, test the efficacy of caregiver training interventions, and formulate evidence-based protocols for peer-counseling and mental health advocacy programs.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the SSOS is the dual-dimensional orientation toward interpersonal helping, demarcated along the axes of Directive Support and Nondirective Support. These two dimensions reflect divergent philosophical, motivational, and behavioral blueprints for assisting distressed individuals.

1. Directive Support Dimension

Directive support reflects a provider-centered, prescriptive, and controlling approach to psychological and instrumental assistance. A provider endorsing directive support operates under the assumption that the distressed individual is overwhelmed, incapable of optimal decision-making, or in need of firm external guidance to circumvent prolonged suffering. The primary characteristics of directive support include:

• Assuming Leadership and Control: Items such as "Take charge of as much as possible" (Item 1) and "Take charge of solving problems" (Item 6) evaluate the helper's propensity to usurp executive agency from the distressed individual.
• Accelerating Recovery Timelines: Reflected in Item 2 ("Encourage the person to get over his/her problem quickly"), this facet measures urgency and intolerance for prolonged emotional display, often compelling the recipient toward premature emotional closure.
• Unilateral Diagnostic and Solution Imposition: Captured by Item 8 ("Decide for the person what kind of help they might need") and Item 10 ("Advise others on how to help the person"), the helper assumes superior diagnostic competence, dictating interventions without soliciting the recipient's input.
• Paternalistic Pressure: Exemplified by Item 13 ("Push the person to take charge of his/her problem"), directive helpers employ coercion and assertive prodding, operating under the belief that passivity must be actively disrupted.

Although directive support is often motivated by genuine altruism and acute concern, its psychological consequence can be detrimental. In psychological theory, high directive support frequently triggers feelings of inadequacy, diminishes the recipient's perceived self-efficacy, and introduces evaluation apprehension, because the provider implicitly communicates that the recipient lacks the resilience or intellectual capacity to resolve the problem independently.

2. Nondirective Support Dimension

In contrast, nondirective support represents a recipient-centered, autonomy-supportive, and empathetic helping orientation. Rooted in humanistic psychology and client-centered counseling paradigms, nondirective support presumes that the distressed individual possesses inherent growth capacities and must retain ultimate authorship over their coping process. The core facets of nondirective support encompass:

• Pacing and Unconditional Acceptance: Captured by Item 4 ("Let the person get over problems at his/her own pace") and Item 5 ("Listen to problems without making any judgments"), nondirective helpers prioritize emotional holding and nonjudgmental validation over expedient problem eradication.
• Restraint and Boundary Respect: Reflected in Item 3 ("Know when to back off from being helpful") and Item 11 ("Accept the person's wish to be alone, even if you think company is what is needed"), the provider demonstrates disciplined restraint, resisting the impulse to intrude when the recipient signals a desire for solitude or space.
• Perspective Taking and Solidarity: Evaluated by Item 7 ("Try to see things from the person's point of view") and Item 9 ("Let the person know that you are on his/her side"), the helper establishes emotional resonance, validating the recipient's subjective reality without imposing external value judgments.
• Solicited Assistance and Solution Deference: Measured by Item 12 ("Only give help that is asked for, even if you think that other things should be done") and Item 14 ("Support solutions that the person comes up with, even if you disagree with them"), the provider honors the recipient's autonomy by deferring to their chosen coping trajectory, even when the provider would personally select an alternate strategy.

Psychologically, nondirective support reinforces recipient empowerment, cultivates psychological safety, and enhances internal locus of control. By serving as an empathetic sounding board rather than an autocratic problem-solver, the nondirective provider facilitates cognitive reappraisal and authentic emotional processing.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the Social Support Opinions Survey rests upon the synthesis of several major psychological paradigms: Self-Determination Theory, Carl Rogers' Person-Centered Theory, the Stress and Coping Paradigm of Lazarus and Folkman, and optimal matching models of social support.

1. Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan)

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) posits that human psychological flourishing and adaptive functioning require the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: autonomy (experiencing oneself as the author of one's actions), competence (feeling effective in interacting with the social and physical environment), and relatedness (feeling connected to and cared for by others). The SSOS directly operationalizes behaviors that either support or thwart these basic needs. Directive support, by usurping control, mandating solutions, and dictating timelines, inadvertently undermines the recipient's need for autonomy and competence. Even when delivered with warmth, controlling help thwarts autonomous agency, transforming the recipient into a passive object of assistance. Conversely, nondirective support exemplifies autonomy-supportive behavior: it acknowledges the recipient's feelings, offers choices, validates their perspective, and encourages self-initiated problem solving, thereby satisfying both autonomy and relatedness needs concurrently.

2. Rogerian Humanistic Principles

Carl Rogers (1951, 1957) revolutionized clinical psychology by arguing that psychological healing occurs within a relational climate characterized by unconditional positive regard, empathic understanding, and genuineness. Rogers cautioned extensively against directive techniques—such as offering unprompted advice, moralizing, or steering the client—maintaining that such maneuvers generate defensiveness and disrupt self-actualization. The nondirective subscale of the SSOS directly translates Rogerian therapeutic principles into everyday interpersonal metrics. Items measuring nonjudgmental listening, pacing, and deference to recipient-generated solutions capture the exact behaviors that humanistic psychology identifies as necessary for authentic therapeutic and relational growth.

3. The Stress and Coping Paradigm and Optimal Matching

According to the cognitive appraisal theory of stress articulated by Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman (1984), coping effectiveness depends on the congruence between perceived situational control and coping strategies. Extending this framework to interpersonal dynamics, Cutrona and Russell (1990) formulated the Optimal Matching Model of Social Support, postulating that social support alleviates stress most effectively when the specific type of support delivered matches the controllable dimensions of the stressor. Harber et al. (2008) utilized the SSOS to examine how providers adapt their support philosophies based on whether a problem is appraised as "major" versus "moderate." Interestingly, Harber and colleagues identified an acute cognitive bias: when confronting severe crises, providers systematically elevate their endorsement of directive support, believing that high-magnitude threats demand decisive, heavy-handed intervention. However, empirical recipient evaluations reveal that recipients experiencing severe crises are precisely those who find directive support most alienating and invalidating, highlighting a fundamental misalignment in naturalistic helping dynamics.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Social Support Opinions Survey has been rigorously established through multiple programmatic investigations involving diverse adult, undergraduate, and community samples (Harber et al., 2008). These studies provide comprehensive evidence across construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity domains.

Construct and Structural Validity

Harber et al. (2008) subjected the 14 items of the SSOS to both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with varimax and promax rotations and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The analyses unequivocally confirmed a robust two-factor orthogonal or modestly oblique structure representing Directive Support and Nondirective Support. The items loaded cleanly onto their respective target constructs without substantial cross-loadings, demonstrating that providers maintain distinct, internally consistent cognitive schemas regarding directive versus nondirective interventions.

Convergent Validity

The convergent validity of the SSOS was evaluated by examining correlations between subscale scores and established personality and interpersonal inventories:

• Empathy and Perspective Taking: Scores on the Nondirective Support subscale correlated positively and significantly with the Perspective Taking and Empathic Concern subscales of Davis's Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) ($r = .35$ to $.48, p < .001$). Providers who naturally empathize with others overwhelmingly endorse nondirective, patient, and nonjudgmental helping strategies.
• Dominance and Need for Control: Conversely, scores on the Directive Support subscale correlated positively with interpersonal dominance, authoritarian orientations, and personal need for structure ($r = .28$ to $.42, p < .01$). Helpers with a high need to control their environment predictably endorse taking charge of other individuals' difficulties.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established through negligible correlations between SSOS subscales and measures of general intelligence, verbal fluency, and socially desirable responding (e.g., the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, where correlations hovered between $r = -.08$ and $r = .11$, non-significant). This confirms that high scores on nondirective support do not merely reflect an attempt to portray oneself in a socially approved or altruistic light, but rather reflect authentic helping attitudes. Furthermore, although directive and nondirective orientations represent contrasting philosophies, they typically exhibit modest to near-zero intercorrelations ($r = -.12$ to $.15$, $p > .05$), confirming that they are functionally independent dimensions rather than polar opposites on a single continuum. An individual may possess low endorsement for both, high endorsement for one, or contextually endorse elements of both depending on situational constraints.

Predictive and Ecological Validity

The most compelling validity evidence for the SSOS stems from experimental behavioral paradigm studies. In laboratory settings, Harber et al. (2008) paired participants with confederates or real peers experiencing genuine emotional distress (e.g., recounting personal traumatic disclosures or confronting laboratory-induced acute evaluative stress). Participants' baseline SSOS scores robustly predicted their observable conversational behaviors during real-time interactions:

• High-directive scorers engaged in significantly more conversational interruptions, offered unsolicited advice, minimized the speaker's emotional expressions, and attempted to redirect the conversation toward immediate action plans.
• High-nondirective scorers engaged in active listening, head nodding, verbal affirmations, emotional reflection, and allowed long reflective pauses without interjecting.
• Critically, recipients interacting with providers high in nondirective support reported significant drops in state anxiety, increased feelings of personal mastery, and heightened relational closeness. In contrast, recipients interacting with high-directive providers reported elevated irritation, diminished feelings of competence, and a perceived lack of emotional attunement.

Reliability

The reliability of the Social Support Opinions Survey has been repeatedly confirmed across experimental cohorts, psychometric testing samples, and cross-cultural replications.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation studies conducted by Harber et al. (2008), internal consistency reliability was assessed across multiple independent samples varying in sample size, age, and crisis severity contexts (e.g., rating support for "major problems" versus "moderate problems"):

• Directive Support Subscale: The 6 directive items routinely demonstrated Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging between $lpha = .74$ and $.78$. Corrected item-total correlations for directive items consistently exceeded $.40$, indicating strong cohesion among the items assessing controlling and prescriptive orientations.
• Nondirective Support Subscale: The 8 nondirective items exhibited Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging between $lpha = .70$ and $.77$. Corrected item-total correlations ranged from $.36$ to $.56$, demonstrating solid internal homogeneity despite the multidimensional nuances of nonjudgmental listening, boundary maintenance, and solution deference.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability of the SSOS was evaluated across a 4-to-6-week test-retest interval among undergraduate cohorts not subjected to supportive training interventions. Test-retest correlation coefficients demonstrated substantial longitudinal stability:

• Directive Support test-retest reliability: $r_{tt} = .79, p < .001$.
• Nondirective Support test-retest reliability: $r_{tt} = .82, p < .001$.

These findings indicate that the SSOS measures enduring ideological frameworks and stable behavioral dispositions regarding interpersonal support, rather than transient mood states or momentary situational reactions.

Factor Analysis

The latent structural integrity of the SSOS was examined by Harber et al. (2008) via systematic factor analytic protocols. The developmental sample ($N > 400$) was subjected to Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) followed by both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations to discern the underlying dimensions of helping opinions.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Examination of the scree plot and Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues greater than 1.0) revealed two primary factors that together accounted for approximately 46% to 52% of the total variance across conditions:

• Factor 1: Nondirective Support accounted for the largest portion of initial variance (eigenvalue $\approx 3.4$), with robust primary factor loadings ranging from $.48$ to $.72$. Items such as "Listen to problems without making any judgments" (Item 5) and "Try to see things from the person's point of view" (Item 7) loaded prominently on this latent dimension.
• Factor 2: Directive Support accounted for substantial secondary variance (eigenvalue $\approx 2.6$), with primary factor loadings ranging from $.45$ to $.74$. Prominent items defining this construct included "Take charge of as much as possible" (Item 1) and "Take charge of solving problems" (Item 6).
• Cross-loadings across the two extracted factors were remarkably low; no item exhibited a secondary cross-loading greater than $.22$, affirming strong simple structure and conceptual differentiation.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent validation studies tested a formal two-factor oblique measurement model using structural equation modeling software. The two-factor model demonstrated good-to-excellent fit indices across independent samples:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2/df$): Values fell consistently between $1.65$ and $2.10$, well below the conservative threshold of $3.0$.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Ranged from $.92$ to $.95$, denoting strong structural correspondence.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Consistently exceeded $.90$, ranging between $.91$ and $.94$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Ranged from $.048$ to $.062$ with a 90% confidence interval falling entirely below $.08$, indicating minimal approximation error.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Observed values were between $.051$ and $.064$, well within established psychometric benchmarks for adequate model fit.

Crucially, alternative competing models—such as a unidimensional model where all 14 items loaded onto a single general "helping orientation" factor—yielded abysmal fit indices ($\chi^2/df > 5.8$, $ ext{CFI} < .65$,$ ext{RMSEA} > .13$), confirming that directive and nondirective support cannot be collapsed into a single bipolar construct.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Social Support Opinions Survey (SSOS) is a brief, self-administered questionnaire designed for easy integration into psychometric, laboratory, and clinical batteries. Below are the administrative, formatting, and scoring specifications:

• Construct Measured: Endorsement of Directive versus Nondirective styles of providing interpersonal social support.
• Total Item Count: 14 items.
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents (approximate reading level: grade 7 or higher). Applicable to general community populations, healthcare professionals, counselors, educators, and romantic couples.
• Administration Modality: Available as a paper-and-pencil instrument or via digital/online assessment platforms. Administration typically requires 3 to 5 minutes.
• Stem Prompt: "When supplying help for a major [moderate] problem, how important is it to you to:" (Note: Researchers can experimentally manipulate or contextually fix the bracketed prompt to assess support opinions for "a major problem" or "a moderate problem").
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale formatted with verbal anchors:
  • 1 = Not at all important
  • 2 = Slightly important
  • 3 = Moderately important
  • 4 = Very important
  • 5 = Extremely important
• Subscale Composition:
  • Directive Subscale (6 items): Items 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 13.
  • Nondirective Subscale (8 items): Items 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14.
• Scoring Protocol:
  • No reverse-scored items are included.
  • Directive Support Score: Calculate the mean score of items 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, and 13 (sum of ratings divided by 6). Subscale range: 1.00 to 5.00.
  • Nondirective Support Score: Calculate the mean score of items 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 14 (sum of ratings divided by 8). Subscale range: 1.00 to 5.00.
  • Higher scores on each dimension reflect stronger endorsement of that specific helping philosophy. Subscales should be interpreted independently rather than summed into a single composite total.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Social Support Opinions Survey was originally published in 2008 by Kent D. Harber, Lee Jussim, Kathleen A. Kennedy, Robin Freyberg, and Lisa Baum in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. The instrument was developed within academic institutions and is widely accessible for non-commercial educational, scientific, and empirical research purposes without payment of licensing fees.

Researchers intending to use, adapt, or translate the SSOS for scholarly investigations should formally cite the foundational 2008 publication. Inquiries regarding permissions for proprietary commercial usage, standardized clinical diagnostic software integration, or related inquiries should be addressed to the primary corresponding author:

• Lead Author: Kent D. Harber, Ph.D.
• Institutional Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Rutgers University at Newark, Smith Hall, 101 Warren Street, Newark, NJ 07102, USA.
• Email: [email protected]
• Archival PDF & Materials: Available through institutional repositories and the author's official Rutgers University academic profile: Harber et al. (2008) Publication Link.

References

• 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). John Wiley & Sons.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Harber, K. D., Jussim, L., Kennedy, K. A., Freyberg, R., & Baum, L. (2008). Social support opinions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1463–1505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00356.x
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Houghton Mifflin.
• Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045357
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2

Items of the Scale