The theory of conversationally-induced reappraisal is based on the notion that people feel stressed or experience distress and negative emotions because of how they are thinking about a situation. While it would be great if people could change their circumstances, that isn’t always an option (if you’re stressed about an exam, you usually can’t make the exam disappear). When eliminating a stressor isn’t feasible, you might be able to cope or feel better by reappraising the stressor in less distressing ways. For example, you might think about how hard you studied for this test, the things you can do to prepare, or remind yourself that one exam won’t determine your whole future. Changing how you see a situation can be hard on your own, and the theory of conversationally-induced reappraisal suggests that conversations with other people can help you. Thus, this theory focused on how supportive interactions change people’s appraisal of a stressful situation so as to improve negative emotions. The theory claims that conversation facilitates cognitive reappraisal because it provides a space for distressed individuals to elaborate and explore their feelings, perspectives, and experiences. In the process of describing a problematic situation, people may be led to modify their goals, perceptions of the situation, and coping options. For example, Jones and Wirtz (2006) found that distressed individuals’ verbalization of positive emotions during a supportive interaction led to cognitive reappraisal, which in turn improved their emotional state. Similarly, Afifi and colleagues (2019) observed that support providers who encouraged a friend to positively reframe the stressor were able to help reduce anxiety and negative thoughts. This theory, and the research testing it, suggests that people can cope with difficult circumstances by seeing their problem in a less negative light through interpersonal communication with other people. 

References and other suggested readings: 

Afifi, T. D., Merrill, A., Davis, S., Denes, A., & Coveleski, S. (2019). The impact of a need for closure and support quality on verbal and cognitive brooding. Communication Research, 46(6), 757–784. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216644018 

Burleson, B. R., & Goldsmith, D. J. (1998). How the comforting process works: Alleviating emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In P. A. Andersen, & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion (pp. 245–280). Academic Press. 

Holmstrom, A. J. (2015). Emotional appraisal/reappraisal in social support. In C. R. Berger & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), International encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic058 

Jones, S. M., & Wirtz, J. (2006). How does the comforting process work? An empirical test of an appraisal-based model of comforting. Human Communication Research, 32(3), 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468–2958.2006.00274.x 

Nozaki, Y., & Gross, J. J. (2025). Bridging supportive communication and interpersonal emotion regulation: An integrative review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251335816 

Rains, S. A., & High, A. C. (2021). The effects of person-centered social support messages on recipient distress over time within a conversation. Journal of Communication, 71(3), 380–402. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab010   Youngvorst, L. J., & Jones, S. M. (2025). An experimental test of mediated supportive communication and resulting outcomes. Communication Research, 52(3), 398–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231206028

Multiple factors influence the outcomes of supportive interaction, including the content of the message (e.g., how appropriate, sensitive, and helpful the message is), characteristics of the helper (e.g., gender, credibility, relationship to the support recipient), the interactional context (e.g., physical setting, medium, the problem situation itself), and features of the recipient (e.g., personality traits, cognitive abilities). The dual process model of supportive communication provides a framework to understand how different elements of supportive interactions work together to affect support recipients’ thinking, emotions, and behaviors. The model suggests that the amount of thought people give to supportive interaction influences support outcomes. When people are motivated and able to think about the support they receive, the quality of the support content matters a great deal. But, if people don’t put much effort into processing social support, other heuristic cues play a more important role in supportive interaction, such as the attractiveness of the helper or the type of relationship between the helper and recipient. The model suggests that people are likely to experience long-lasting positive changes in emotion and behavior when they carefully process high-quality supportive messages (e.g., feeling less sad about the loss of a beloved pet). Temporary positive changes in emotion and behavior can occur when people rely on environmental cues in the situation to process social support (e.g., the presence of a close friend makes you feel better briefly). In general, this model provides useful guidelines for support provision. If you perceive that a friend is capable of thoughtfully processing information, offering longer and complex messages may be more effective than simple and short messages. In contrast, under conditions when a friend cannot carefully absorb information, giving short and straightforward supportive messages or simply being there may be just as helpful.  

References and other suggested readings:  

Bodie, G. D., & Jones, A. C. (2015). Dual-process theory of supportive message outcomes. In C. R. Berger & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), International encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic044 

Bodie, G. D., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2014). Supportive communication theories: Dual-process theory of supportive message outcomes and advice response theory. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 129–141). SAGE. 

Burleson, B. R. (2009). Understanding the outcomes of supportive communication: A dual-process approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(1),21–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509105519 

Fang, Y. (2021). A dual process model of help-seeking on social media websites. Communication Research, 48(7), 978–1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218824801 

Harvey-Knowles, J., & Faw, M. H. (2018). Caregiver social support quality when interacting with cancer survivors: Advancing the dual-process model of supportive communication. Supportive Care in Cancer, 26(4), 12811–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3951-x 

Peterson, A. M., & Acevedo Callejas, M. L. (2021). Using dual-process theory and cues of identifiability to explain supportive exchanges on social question and answer sites. Communication Quarterly, 69(3), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2021.1951790  Rains, S. A., Brunner, S. R., Akers, C., Pavlich, C. A., & Tsetsi, E. (2016). The implications of computer-mediated communication (CMC) for social support message processing and outcomes: When and why are the effects of support messages strengthened during CMC? Human Communication Research, 42(4), 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12087