Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 816

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Safely testing the alarm: Close others' responses to personal positive events.

Gable, Shelly L., Gosnell, Courtney L., Maisel, Natalya C., Strachman, Amy·2012·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Previous research has shown that receiving social support in the face of negative events (i.e., enacted support) is sometimes correlated with positive outcomes, sometimes unrelated to outcomes, and sometimes associated with negative outcomes. However, people's perception that they have high-quality support available to them when they have a stressor (i.e., perceived support) is consistently and strongly associated with better health, well-being, and relationship functioning. However, both enacted and perceived support available in response to positive event disclosures are consistently associated with positive outcomes. In 2 studies, we examined why enacted support for negative events has such a spotty record and compared it with enacted support for positive events; a third study examined how support for positive events may be a major contributor to perceived availability of effective support for negative events. The results showed that providing responsive support to negative events is particularly difficult; received support for negative events disclosures (but not positive event disclosures) involves substantial drawbacks and risks, especially when that support is not responsive to the recipient's needs; and that enacted support for positive events was a better predictor of later perceptions of the quality of available support for stressors than enacted support for negative events. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for the social support literature and how positive relationship processes influence health and well-being, not only directly but also indirectly by providing critical information regarding the availability of others if a problem occurs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0029488

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 816

Metadata

Authors
Gable, S. L., Gosnell, C. L., Maisel, N. C., & Strachman, A.
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2012-12
Volume
103
Issue
6
Pages
963-981
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2041961434
Cited by
816
References
14
FWCI
88.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Safely testing the alarm: Close others' responses to personal positive events. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0029488
The paper
Gable, S. L., Gosnell, C. L., Maisel, N. C., & Strachman, A. (2012). Safely testing the alarm: Close others' responses to personal positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029488

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.