Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39871367›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2025

Experimental paradigm to test the effects of providing social support: study protocol of the PROSPECT trial (Study 2).

Vivien Hajak, Simone Grimm, Ewa Gruszczyńska, Aleksandra Kroemeke, Natalia Józefacka, Lisa Marie Warner

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Vivien HajakDepartment of Psychology, MSB Medical School Berlin, Rüdesheimer Str. 50, Berlin, 14197, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0565-7119
Simone GrimmDepartment of Psychology, MSB Medical School Berlin, Rüdesheimer Str. 50, Berlin, 14197, Germany.
Ewa GruszczyńskaSWPS University, Institute of Psychology, Health & Coping Research Group, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1293-9798
Aleksandra KroemekeSWPS University, Institute of Psychology, Health & Coping Research Group, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8707-742X
Natalia JózefackaSWPS University, Institute of Psychology, Health & Coping Research Group, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1674-3760
Lisa Marie WarnerDepartment of Psychology, MSB Medical School Berlin, Rüdesheimer Str. 50, Berlin, 14197, Germany. lisa.warner@medicalschool-berlin.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4138-6141

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 465093987Narodowym Centrum Nauki 2020/39-G/HS6/02216
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA growing body of research suggests that the provision of social support can have benefits not only for the recipients but also for the provider. Although initial evidence for affective, self-evaluative and physiological outcomes has been established, the beneficial effects of support provision do not occur consistently across all support interactions, and some interactions may even have detrimental effects on providers. The aim of our experimental paradigm is to enable researchers to test the conditions under which the provision of social support to dyadic partners affects affective, self-evaluative, physiological, and relationship outcomes for the provider. In line with self-determination theory, it is proposed that the provision of support is only beneficial to the provider if it satisfies the three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness. The paradigm allows for the manipulation of the provider's levels of competence (feedback on the effectiveness of their support to the other person) and relatedness (feedback on the alleged level of relatedness perceived by the partner person following the provision of support).

methodsA priori power analyses resulted in a planned sample size of 250 participants randomized to four conditions: 1) no support provision, 2) support provision without feedback, 3) support provision with feedback on competence, 4) support provision with feedback on relatedness. Primary outcomes are immediate physiological (saliva cortisol, heart rate, heart rate variability, blood pressure), affective (positive and negative affect, anxiety), self-evaluative (e.g., self-esteem) and relationship outcomes. Generalized linear models will be used to compare the four conditions. DISCUSSION: In a controlled laboratory experiment, this new experimental paradigm manipulates the conditions under which social support is provided. Insights into the conditions under which the provision of social support is detrimental or beneficial to the provider can inform the development of preventive and interventional approaches across a range of life domains, motivational and developmental research across the lifespan (e.g. prevention of care-giver burnout), and applied clinical contexts (e.g. therapeutic interventions).

trial registrationPre-registration (2023-11-10): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8SPZW , retrospective registration with more details (2024-10-23): https://www.drks.de/DRKS00034287.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsSocial SupportAdultFemaleHeart RateHumansHydrocortisoneMalePersonal AutonomyResearch DesignYoung AdultHydrocortisoneAffectBlood pressureCortisolEmpathyHeart rateHelpingProsocial behaviourSelf-determination theorySupport provision

Identifiers

PMID39871367
PMCPMC11773939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.