Niall Bolger, Adam Zuckerman, and Ronald C. Kessler examined why perceived social support is effective in reducing stress but actual support transactions are not. They found that many support transactions are invisible to recipients, meaning the recipient does not realize they are receiving support. This invisible support is most effective because it avoids the emotional costs associated with receiving help, such as lowered self-esteem. Using a daily diary study of couples preparing for the New York State Bar Examination, they found that support provided by partners was often not reported by recipients. This invisible support helped reduce stress and distress, especially in high-stress situations. The study showed that while support receipt increased distress, support provision decreased it. However, when support was invisible to the recipient, the benefits were maximized. The findings suggest that traditional measures of support may not capture the true effectiveness of support because they rely on recipients' reports, which can confound the benefits of support with its costs. The study highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of support transactions and the role of visibility in their effectiveness. Future research should explore the mechanisms behind these effects and the generalizability of findings to other stressors and populations.Niall Bolger, Adam Zuckerman, and Ronald C. Kessler examined why perceived social support is effective in reducing stress but actual support transactions are not. They found that many support transactions are invisible to recipients, meaning the recipient does not realize they are receiving support. This invisible support is most effective because it avoids the emotional costs associated with receiving help, such as lowered self-esteem. Using a daily diary study of couples preparing for the New York State Bar Examination, they found that support provided by partners was often not reported by recipients. This invisible support helped reduce stress and distress, especially in high-stress situations. The study showed that while support receipt increased distress, support provision decreased it. However, when support was invisible to the recipient, the benefits were maximized. The findings suggest that traditional measures of support may not capture the true effectiveness of support because they rely on recipients' reports, which can confound the benefits of support with its costs. The study highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of support transactions and the role of visibility in their effectiveness. Future research should explore the mechanisms behind these effects and the generalizability of findings to other stressors and populations.