Cited by 931Attachment and Relationship DynamicsHealth disparities and outcomesHealth and Well-being Studies

Relational regulation theory: A new approach to explain the link between perceived social support and mental health.

Open access
Lakey, Brian, Orehek, Edward·2011·Psychological Review

Abstract

Perceived support is consistently linked to good mental health, which is typically explained as resulting from objectively supportive actions that buffer stress. Yet this explanation has difficulty accounting for the often-observed main effects between support and mental health. Relational regulation theory (RRT) hypothesizes that main effects occur when people regulate their affect, thought, and action through ordinary yet affectively consequential conversations and shared activities, rather than through conversations about how to cope with stress. This regulation is primarily relational in that the types of people and social interactions that regulate recipients are mostly a matter of personal taste. RRT operationally defines relationships quantitatively, permitting the clean distinction between relationships and recipient personality. RRT makes a number of new predictions about social support, including new approaches to intervention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0023477

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Social support benefits mental health because it provides opportunities to participate in pleasurable, value-laden activities and conversations.

    “For example, social support benefits mental health not only because it helps people to manage stressors (Taylor 2007) but also because it provides opportunities to participate in pleasurable, value-laden activities and conversations, as when two music students talk about their favorite band (Lakey & Orehek 2011).”

    From The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and Social Psychological Intervention (2014) · cites this paper as Lakey & Orehek 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lakey, B., & Orehek, E.
Affiliations
  • Grand Valley State University (US)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2011-07
Volume
118
Issue
3
Pages
482-495
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W1972456431
Cited by
931
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 82 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 23
FWCI
44.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ScholarWorks - GVSU (Grand Valley State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Health and Well-being Studies
Keywords
perceived social support, mental health, stress buffering, emotion regulation, interpersonal relationships, shared activities, relationship measurement, social support interventions
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Affect, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Models, Psychological, Social Perception, Social Support, Emotional Intelligence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review