Interaction Supportiveness Scale

Interaction Supportiveness Scale
Cutrona‚ 1996
مقیاس پشتیبانی تعاملی
1.    My spouse gave me no useful information.
2.    I felt as if my spouse really cared about me.
3.    I felt worse about myself
4.    My spouse related to or shared my interests and concerns.
5.    My spouse let me know that he/she Was there if I needed him/her.
6.    My spouse behaved warmly toward me.
7.    My spouse was rude and abrupt in his/her comments.
8.    My spouse made me feel comfortable about myself and my feelings.
9.    My spouse offered to participate in activities that would help me solve my problems.
10.    My spouse offered me good‚ practical advice.
11.    My spouse offered to spend time with me.
12.    My spouse offered to take over some of my extra responsibilities while I dealt with the problem.
13.    My spouse was sensitive to my feelings.
14.    My spouse did not take my problems seriously.
15.    My spouse made me feel that I had the skills to solve my own problems.
16.    My spouse was indifferent to my needs.
17.    My spouse showed respect for my capabilities and talents.
18.    My spouse told me something he/she could do to solve my problem.
19.    My spouse let me know that others have been through similar problems.
20.    My spouse offered to intervene by actually doing something to help me solve my problem.
One's Partner's Supportiveness
1.    I felt as if my partner really cared about me.*
2.    My partner behaved warmly toward me.*
3.    My partner listened carefully when it was my turn to talk.
4.    My partner tried to see things from my point of view.
5.    My partner made me feel comfortable about myself and my feelings.*
6.    My partner seemed sensitive to my feelings.*
7.    My partner seemed uncaring.
8.    My partner showed respect for my capabilities and talents.*
9.    My partner did not seem to take my concerns seriously.*
10.    My partner seemed sincere during our interaction.
11.    My partner made me feel valued as a person.
12.    My partner seemed to understand my concerns.
* Reverse-keyed item
شرح سایت روان سنجی: از پاسخ دهنده درباره میزان توجه، حمایت، دادن اطلاعات ، مشاوره، ارتباط کلامی شریک زندگی پرسش می شود.
اعتبار: آلفا کرونباخ 0.92 "کوترنا و همکاران 1997"
 نمره گذاری:
0= strongly disagree to 4= strongly agree
چگونگی دستیابی
This instrument can be found at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12523770 & https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/988fedba-9a77-4971-a383-6353cefdeefc/content
منبع برای آگاهی بیشتر
Cutrona‚ C. E.‚ Russell‚ D.W. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. Advances in Personal Relationships‚1:37–67
Cutrona‚ C. E. (1989). Ratings of social support by adolescents and adult informants: Degree of correspondence and prediction of depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology‚ 9‚ 3-14.
Cutrona‚ C. E. & Suhr‚ J. A. (1994). Social support communication in the context of marriage: An analysis of couples' supportive interactions. In B. R. Burleson‚ T. L. Albrecht‚ ft I. G. Sarason (Eds )‚ Communication of social support: Messages‚ interactions. relationshiDS. And cnmmunitv (pp. 113-13S). Thousand Oaks‚ CA: Sage.
Cutrona‚ C. E.(1966). Social support as a determinant of marital quality: The interplay of negative and supportive behaviors. In: Pierce G‚ Sarason B‚ Sarason I‚ editors. Handbook of social support and the family. Plenum Press; New York: pp. 173–194.
Cutrona‚ C. E. (1996). Social support in couples: Marriage as a resource in times of stress. Thousand Oaks‚ CA: Sage.
Cutrona‚ C. E.‚ Hessling‚ R. M.‚ & Suhr‚ J. (1997). The influence of husband and wife personality on marital social support interactions. Personal Relationships‚ 4. 379-393.
Cross‚ Susan E.‚ Bacon‚ Pamela L.‚ and Morris‚ Michael L. (2000). The Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal and Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology‚ Vol. 78‚ No. 4‚ 791-808
Krebs‚ Krista Kay. (2000). Comparison of macro and micro observational methods for measuring marital social support. Unpublished doctoral Thesis. Iowa State University. DOI:10.31274/RTD-180813-13958