PCI Network Science

251

Title *

Discrepancies in the perception of social support relationships (Stage 1 Registered Report)use asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Heike Krüger, Thomas Grund, Srebrenka Letina, Emily Long, Julie Riddell, Claudia Zucca, Mark McCannPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2024

Picture *

Abstract *

Objective: Prior research in the area of social support suggests that it is an important influential factor of mental health. Yet, it often remains unclear how much overlap there is between provided support, the perceived availability of support resources, and the factors that account for discrepancies. Mental health disorders tend to produce and are maintained by distorted perceptions of the social environment. Depressive symptoms, in particular, are associated with increasingly negative thought processes and evaluations of social relationships and interactions. Consequently, the present study seeks to identify the discrepancies in the perceptions between givers and receivers of support. We aim to assess the extent to which the individual attributes of mental health, loneliness, and gender are related to discrepancies in support provision.  Method: In order to examine the research question, two school surveys will be utilized. First, we investigate dual-perspective networks of more than 3000 adolescents at 37 schools in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, using the second wave of the SOCIALBOND study. The analysis is based on sociocentric network data from adolescents in the eighth grade, distinguishing between the nominations of adolescents who provide support and those who receive emotional support at the grade level. The analyses will be replicated using two cohorts of the Net4health pilot study. The aim is to conduct the analyses in diverse national contexts and for distinct mental health outcomes. Results: The preliminary findings based on the SOCIALBOND study indicate that there is a substantial amount of mismatch in individuals' perception of support relationships. Nevertheless, mental health and loneliness do not emerge as significant influential factors of discrepancies. In contrast, there is evidence for gender differences in misperceptions. Support provision is more likely to stay unnoticed when the provider is a young man, and young men are more likely to perceive support that was not intended.

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@networksci.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw data are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@networksci.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw scripts are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

https://osf.io/afdp6/You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@networksci.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw codes are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

dual-perspective networks, social support, mental health, loneliness, perception bias, social network analysis

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

MRQAPPlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Social networks

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Network Sci. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2024-06-18 13:48:02

Recommender

Cédric Sueur

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a preprint

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY