What predicts who we approach for social support? Tests of the attachment figure and strong ties hypotheses.

Before people seek support for an issue, they must choose whom in their support network to approach. Two prominent supporter-selection hypotheses are the attachment figure hypothesis and the strong ties hypothesis, housed in psychology and sociology, respectively. People are expected to have a special preference for attachment figures and also for strong ties and to seek them more frequently than others. Despite the widespread acceptance of these hypotheses, neither has ever been tested, we argue, with the most appropriate methods for their claims. Moreover, no one has ever tested whether the 2 theories might not be independent, that is, whether one might subsume the other. To properly test the theories, one requires intranetwork, enacted support-seeking data, and the theories must be modeled not just separately but also simultaneously. The present article reports 3 such studies. In Studies 1 and 3, a sample of adults reported their supporter-selection decisions for a single stressful event, and in Study 2, a sample of emerging adults reported their supporter-selection decisions for a period of 2 weeks. Evidence showed that each theory uniquely predicted supporter-selection decisions. For each theory the data revealed both expected and unexpected findings. Attachment figures were selectively sought for support, but this preference did not get stronger as issues became more severe. Stronger ties were selected more often than weaker ties; however, the strong tie effect emerged as 2 independent effects rather than one (closeness and interaction frequency). Taken together, the studies supported both theories, but also suggest the need for further theoretical development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

The Costs of Online Learning: Examining Differences in Motivation and Academic Outcomes in Online and Face-to-Face Community College Developmental Mathematics Courses.

Although online courses are becoming increasingly popular in higher education, evidence is inconclusive regarding whether online students are likely to be as academically successful and motivated as students in face-to-face courses. In this study, we documented online and face-to-face students' academic motivation and outcomes in community college mathematics courses, and whether differences might vary based on student characteristics (i.e., gender, underrepresented ethnic/racial minority status, first-generation college status, and adult learner status). Over 2,400 developmental mathematics students reported on their math motivation at the beginning (Week 1) and middle (Weeks 3, 5) of the semester. Findings indicated that online students received lower grades and were less likely to pass from their courses than face-to-face students, with online adult learners receiving particularly low final course grades and pass rates. In contrast, online and face-to-face students did not differ on incoming motivation, with subgroup analyses suggesting largely similar patterns of motivation across student groups. Together, findings suggest that online and face-to-face students may differ overall in academic outcomes but not in their motivation or differentially based on student characteristics. Small but significant differences on academic outcomes across modalities (Cohen's ds = 0.17-0.28) have implications for community college students' success in online learning environments, particularly for adult learners who are most likely to be faced with competing demands.