Non Directive Support

Words: 1672
Pages: 7

University is very exciting for many students who are looking forward to the different experiences and opportunities their institution has to offer. However reading a subject at degree level can place a huge amount of pressure on students due to higher academic expectations and new found freedom. For first year students, after the initial feelings of positive anticipation and excitement starts to settle, the academic expectations established by module organisers acts as a potential stressor. For some it can be extremely difficult to adjust to completing extra work and reading that is required of them to perform well at degree level. To add procrastinating can lead to extra work/ reading to accumulate resulting in added strain generating a vicious …show more content…
Harber et al. (2005) looked at directive support (instrumental) and non-directive support (informational, appraisal) and found that directive support was less effective in alleviating stress and led to higher levels of stress and a lower positive mood. On the other hand non-directive support proved to be beneficial for a distressed individual as it improved their mood and reduced overall stress levels. These findings can be validated by Bolger (2000) who carried out extensive research on whether Social interactions help or hinder stress. The general idea gathered from Bolger (2000) was that indirective support is useful in coping with stress as it is ‘cooperative’, less overpowering and can be applied to a range of different challenging situations, as opposed to directive support which may seem ‘intrusive’ to the stressed individual and reduce independence, leading to perceiving themselves as a liability or vulnerable, lowering the individual’s self-esteem. When applying this to undergraduate students it can be explained why some types of support are more effective than others in allowing students to cope with stress; directive support although carried out with good intentions can result in ‘over-involvement’ and ‘over-protectiveness’ (Harber at al. 2005) which puts the students at risk of overreliance, whilst indirective support is more suitable as it allows autonomy and growth of stress coping mechanisms, helpful in the