《社会心理学》课程教学资源（文献资料）Close relationship——A New Look at Social Support - A Theoretical Perspective on Thriving Through Relationships

Article A New Look at Social Support:A 2014可 Theoretical Perspective on Thriving Through Relationships SAGE Brooke C.Feeney'and Nancy L.Collins2 Abstract Close and caring relationships are undeniably linked to health and well-being at all stages in the life span.Yet the specific pathways thro which clos I-b this article,we present that nde on thri This model hie may potentially thrive (coping successfully with life's adversities and actively pursuing life opportunities for growth and development).it proposes two relational support functions that are fundamental to the kehtenpPorskeyol e experience of thriving in each life t,and it es me tors thro ve long-term ef cts on ers to e a new support by concept ing it as an interpers Keywords social support growth,thriving.resilience,safe haven,secure e base,source of strength,relational catalyst attachment My mission in life is not merely to survive,but to thrive:and to network of meaningful relationships predicts mortality more do so with some passion,some compassion,some humor,and strongly than many lifestyle behaviors(e.g.,smoking,physi some style. Surviving is important.I hriving is elegant. -Mava Angelou focus on helping people to cultivate high-quality relation ships.But what would such a campaign look like?What spe ships health (e.g Deci&Ryan.2000:Diener.Lucas.Scollon the should be targeted that should 2006;Keyes,2005,2007;Lyubomirsky,Sheldon,Schkade be cultivated are not well understood 2005,Ry&Singer,1998,200i Selign 1,20 008 There are several reasons for this gap in the literature. mal well-being they all that de and r on relationships and health has not been v arge body of empirical work supports this view,showing Most of the rical work linkin at peopl and well-being conceptualizes social relations in terms of individuals'general reports of their marital status,social net well-being,and lower rates of morbidity and mortality (e.g. 2002.DS Syme Dunk 2001-L 2008:G.E.Mille Car egie Mellon Univ Sar on.Sarason.Gurung.1997:Seeman.2000:Uching 2009;Uchino,Cacioppo,&Kiecolt-Glase Co ding Author: 1996;Vaux 5000 Forbes Ave. Smith 2012)shows that a me an ing

Personality and Social Psychology Review 2015, Vol. 19(2) 113–147 © 2014 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1088868314544222 pspr.sagepub.com Article My mission in life is not merely to survive, but to thrive; and to do so with some passion, some compassion, some humor, and some style. Surviving is important. Thriving is elegant. —Maya Angelou In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the sci￾entific study of well-being and positive aspects of mental health (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000; Diener, Lucas, & Scollon, 2006; Keyes, 2005, 2007; Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005; Ryff & Singer, 1998, 2008; Seligman, 2002, 2008), and although theoretical models differ in how they define optimal well-being, they all agree that deep and meaningful close relationships play a vital role in human flourishing. A large body of empirical work supports this view, showing that people who are more socially integrated and who experi￾ence more supportive and rewarding relationships with oth￾ers have better mental health, higher levels of subjective well-being, and lower rates of morbidity and mortality (e.g., Cohen, 2004; Cohen & Syme, 1985; Collins, Dunkel￾Schetter, Lobel, & Scrimshaw, 1993; Kawachi & Berkman, 2001; Lakey & Cronin, 2008; G. E. Miller et al., 2011; B. R. Sarason, Sarason, & Gurung, 1997; Seeman, 2000; Uchino, 2009; Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996; Vaux, 1988). Especially notable, a meta-analysis (Holt-Lunstad & Smith, 2012) shows that being socially integrated in a network of meaningful relationships predicts mortality more strongly than many lifestyle behaviors (e.g., smoking, physi￾cal activity) that have been the focus of national health care campaigns. On the basis of these results, Holt-Lunstad and Smith (2012) suggest that public health campaigns should focus on helping people to cultivate high-quality relation￾ships. But what would such a campaign look like? What spe￾cific features of relationships should be targeted? Unfortunately, the mechanisms linking relationships to health, and the specific features of relationships that should be cultivated, are not well understood. There are several reasons for this gap in the literature. First, research on relationships and health has not been well￾integrated with research and theory on close relationships. Most of the empirical work linking relationships to health and well-being conceptualizes social relations in terms of individuals’ general reports of their marital status, social net￾works, social integration, and perceived social support (e.g., Antonucci, Okorodudu, & Akiyama, 2002; Diener, Suh, 544222 PSRXXX10.1177/1088868314544222Personality and Social Psychology ReviewFeeney and Collins research-article2014 1 Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 2 University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Corresponding Author: Brooke C. Feeney, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. Email: bfeeney@andrew.cmu.edu A New Look at Social Support: A Theoretical Perspective on Thriving Through Relationships Brooke C. Feeney1 and Nancy L. Collins2 Abstract Close and caring relationships are undeniably linked to health and well-being at all stages in the life span. Yet the specific pathways through which close relationships promote optimal well-being are not well understood. In this article, we present a model of thriving through relationships to provide a theoretical foundation for identifying the specific interpersonal processes that underlie the effects of close relationships on thriving. This model highlights two life contexts through which people may potentially thrive (coping successfully with life’s adversities and actively pursuing life opportunities for growth and development), it proposes two relational support functions that are fundamental to the experience of thriving in each life context, and it identifies mediators through which relational support is likely to have long-term effects on thriving. This perspective highlights the need for researchers to take a new look at social support by conceptualizing it as an interpersonal process with a focus on thriving. Keywords relationships, social support, growth, thriving, resilience, safe haven, secure base, source of strength, relational catalyst, attachment Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at Remen University of China on September 6, 2015

I14 Personality and Social Psychology Review 19(2) Lucas,Smith,1999:Helgeson.1993:Hughes.Waite end-state of receiving support as "thriving"(no Hawklev.Cacioppo.2004:Lang Carstensen.1994: ust stress buffering or maintenance of status quo),(c)high- Ryff,1989 Uchino et al,1996).With few exceptions(e.g lighting the importance of support provision in life context Burman Mar Kiecolt-Glaser wton,20 e.r dversity,and (d)i tifying specific m ator ers have not considered es.Our tion patterns that underlie the effects of social relations on integrative perspective for understanding how close relation health and well-being,or the mechanisms through which ships promote (or hinder)thriving,and for guiding a nev se effect Uchino,Bowen 9 generation of research on this important and timely topic aresult.we know relatively little aboutow relationships promote or hinder thriving. Theoretical Perspective on Thriving Through Relationships tionships and health has focu ely on orve relatior odel of thr buffering is important (Cobb.1976:Cohen Wills.1985) ort as an interpe sonal process that functions to promote there is also strong evidence for a main effects model of thriving in two life contexts- experiences of adversity and support,indicating that close relationships are th in the ence of erity.Th well-h ey many ways,not just as a resource in times of adversity.Yet core components of thriving and highlighting two life con decades of research texts in which individuals can thrive.Next,we specify two life atio et an at contr potential mechanisms linking these support functions to the abs nce of adversity. research on social support has or the presence c tality.morbidity):this has limited viding a roadmap for future research. by pr ding of the man vays in which socia mote (o r)positive hum h What Does It Mean to Thrive? ial su ort ha nderstand how close relationship ture on postiewell-bein which show that positive heat ive ones thriving.The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines thriving 2000.Die ing (gro ng or de )prosp 1008 sing toward of Seligman, 2002 2008).How do close relationships suppor umstances (Thriving,2013).Theoretical perspectiveson ability to cope with d ing agree t th connotes growth. Pf what t山 and th meaning in life? contexts in which it occurs (eg Bundick.Yeager,King. To understand how relat affect health eing nd ho els ople thriv e ure is in nee Lewimn-owe 010.y 200 Damon,2010;Diener et al. e,Lerner, 0 :that have cations for Although thriving has heen goal is to contribute to this effort by offer ng a model of alized in a variety of ways,all perspectives agree that it social support and thriving that takes ir sights from three lit includes flourishing both personally nd relatio onally (e.g p et a 14 010. 20032007.1 13010-8S the close relationships literature.This model builds on tradi 1998,2000,2008;Seligman,Steen,Park,&Peterson.2005 tional social support theory by (a)focusing on close relation Theokas et al,2005).Integrating these perspectives,we con ships and dyadic support processes,(b)emphasizing the ceptualize thriving in terms of five broad components of

114 Personality and Social Psychology Review 19(2) Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Helgeson, 1993; Hughes, Waite, Hawkley, & Cacioppo, 2004; Lang & Carstensen, 1994; Ryff, 1989; Uchino et al., 1996). With few exceptions (e.g., Burman & Margolin, 1992; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001; Pietromonaco, Uchino, & Dunkel Schetter, 2013), research￾ers have not considered specific dyadic behaviors or interac￾tion patterns that underlie the effects of social relations on health and well-being, or the mechanisms through which these effects occur (see Uchino, Bowen, Carlisle, & Birmingham, 2012, for further elaboration of this point). As a result, we know relatively little about how relationships promote or hinder thriving. Second, research on relationships and health has focused almost exclusively on the importance of supportive relation￾ships in the context of stress or adversity. Although stress buffering is important (Cobb, 1976; Cohen & Wills, 1985), there is also strong evidence for a main effects model of social support, indicating that close relationships are tied to well-being even in the absence of specific stressors (Lakey & Orehek, 2011). Close relationships promote well-being in many ways, not just as a resource in times of adversity. Yet decades of research on social support has all but ignored another life context in which relationships can protect and enhance well-being—by enabling individuals to fully par￾ticipate in life’s opportunities for growth and development in the absence of adversity. Finally, research on social support has conceptualized health primarily in terms of the presence or absence of nega￾tive outcomes associated with acute and chronic stress (e.g., mortality, morbidity); this narrow focus has limited our understanding of the many ways in which social relation￾ships can promote (or hinder) positive human health and well-being. One reason for this narrow focus is that research on social support has not been well-integrated with the litera￾ture on positive well-being, which shows that positive health endpoints are not simply the opposite of negative ones, and that optimal health is not simply the absence of mental and physical illness (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000; Diener et al., 2006; Keyes, 2007; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Ryff & Singer, 1998; Seligman, 2002, 2008). How do close relationships support individuals not only in their ability to cope with stress or adversity, but also in their efforts to learn, grow, explore, achieve goals, cultivate new talents, and find purpose and meaning in life? To understand how relationships affect health and well-being—and how people thrive—the literature is in need of theoretical models that describe specific interpersonal processes that have implications for human thriving. Our goal is to contribute to this effort by offering a model of social support and thriving that takes insights from three lit￾eratures that have remained largely independent—the posi￾tive well-being literature, the social support literature, and the close relationships literature. This model builds on tradi￾tional social support theory by (a) focusing on close relation￾ships and dyadic support processes, (b) emphasizing the important end-state of receiving support as “thriving” (not just stress buffering or maintenance of status quo), (c) high￾lighting the importance of support provision in life contexts other than adversity, and (d) identifying specific mediators that are likely to explain the link between support and long￾term thriving outcomes. Our overarching goal is to offer an integrative perspective for understanding how close relation￾ships promote (or hinder) thriving, and for guiding a new generation of research on this important and timely topic. Theoretical Perspective on Thriving Through Relationships In this article, we present an integrative model of thriving through relationships in which we conceptualize social sup￾port as an interpersonal process that functions to promote thriving in two life contexts—experiences of adversity and opportunities for growth in the absence of adversity. This model is presented in Figures 1 and 2 and will be elaborated throughout the following sections. We begin by identifying core components of thriving and highlighting two life con￾texts in which individuals can thrive. Next, we specify two corresponding relational support functions that contribute to thriving in each life context, followed by a discussion of potential mechanisms linking these support functions to long-term thriving outcomes. We then present an elaborated model of the interpersonal processes involved in each type of support and the ways in which these processes can be effec￾tively cultivated in close relationships. We conclude by pro￾viding a roadmap for future research. What Does It Mean to Thrive? To understand how close relationships promote (or hinder) thriving, it is important to begin with a clear definition of thriving. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines thriving as flourishing (growing or developing vigorously), prosper￾ing (being successful; gaining in wealth or possessions), and progressing toward or realizing a goal despite or because of circumstances (Thriving, 2013). Theoretical perspectives on thriving agree that thriving connotes growth, development, and prosperity, although differences emerge in the specifica￾tion of what this growth and prosperity looks like, and the contexts in which it occurs (e.g., Bundick, Yeager, King, & Damon, 2010; Diener et al., 2010; Lerner, von Eye, Lerner, Lewin-Bizan, & Bowers, 2010; Ryff & Singer, 2000). Components of thriving. Although thriving has been conceptu￾alized in a variety of ways, all perspectives agree that it includes flourishing both personally and relationally (e.g., Benson & Scales, 2009; Bundick et al., 2010; Diener et al., 2010; Keyes, 2003, 2007; Lerner et al., 2010; Ryff & Singer, 1998, 2000, 2008; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005; Theokas et al., 2005). Integrating these perspectives, we con￾ceptualize thriving in terms of five broad components of Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at Remen University of China on September 6, 2015

Feeney and Collins 15 Table I.Descriptive Summary of Thriving Components. motive to realize one's full potential (e.g.,Maslow,1998 Thriving components Examples and physical resil a ,subjective ell-being of thriving ing pu and meaning inife Gestsdottir,Anderson,von Eye,&Lemer,2003;King etal 2005;Lemer,Dowling,&Anderson,2003;K.A.Moore& rsonal growth,movement toward point of departure -for considering how relationship suppor rders 4.Social well-being outcomes mn d as an outco others/humanity .w ople can be more or less thriving across a variety of domains of -being Moreove thriving must be consid ongevity lower of heatth and weul-beine ed to an individual without cancer,but a cancer patient with a caring eing and thei support network likely to expe etter ou nes(e.g ceived quality of one's life).(eudaimonic well-being (hav deepe ing purpose and meaning in life,having and pursuing Thus thris must be defined in relative rather than abse pas nasf-disco lute term The goal of our theoretical perspective is to ery life y,de mp suppo ement toward one's full potential),(c) ell-bo es and well-being (positive sel gard,self cceptance,resilienc environments in which they are situated. a positive of m and ningful human being expectations,a prosocial orientation toward others,faith in 器 the r dise status above &S nge o lif This definition in es Ryff and Singer's (1998 2008)specification of"eriterial goods" that embody lives e of adversity.Individuals thrive in this context wher cification sof psychologica I flo e succe red f with adversities,not only 2008)It is also consistent with a large lite ture on subie rience as a stronger or more knowledgeable pe rson Be tive well-being,which def nes well-being in ms of plea thriving connotes growth and development,thriving in the adve sity involves more than simpl retu s toward yalued goa et al 1998)Thrivine ather the et al.1999):and the fulfilment of basic needs for compe storms of life in ways that enable them to grow from the tence,autonomy, ery,mncrea nistic ries nd 30

Feeney and Collins 115 well-being and their respective indicators (see Table 1): (a) hedonic well-being (happiness and life satisfaction—the per￾ceived quality of one’s life), (b) eudaimonic well-being (hav￾ing purpose and meaning in life, having and pursuing passions and meaningful goals, personal growth, self-discov￾ery, autonomy/self-determination, mastery/efficacy, devel￾opment of skills/talents, accumulation of life wisdom, movement toward one’s full potential), (c) psychological well-being (positive self-regard, self-acceptance, resilience/ hardiness, a positive belief system, the absence of mental health symptoms or disorders), (d) social well-being (deep and meaningful human connections, positive interpersonal expectations, a prosocial orientation toward others, faith in others/humanity), and (e) physical well-being (physical fit￾ness, the absence of illness or disease, health status above expected baselines, longevity). This definition incorporates Ryff and Singer’s (1998, 2008) specification of “criterial goods” that embody lives well lived, and other specifications of psychological flour￾ishing (e.g., Henderson & Knight, 2012; Keyes, 2003, 2007; Seligman et al., 2005) and positive health (e.g., Seligman, 2008). It is also consistent with a large literature on subjec￾tive well-being, which defines well-being in terms of pleas￾ant affect, life satisfaction, and satisfaction within specific life domains (e.g., work, family); having social and personal resources for making progress toward valued goals (Diener et al., 1999); and the fulfillment of basic needs for compe￾tence, autonomy, and relatedness that promote intrinsic moti￾vation and growth (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It also draws from humanistic theories regarding self-actualization and the motive to realize one’s full potential (e.g., Maslow, 1998; Rogers, 1961), from models of mental and physical resil￾ience in response to stress (e.g., Epel, McEwen, & Ickovics, 1998), and from developmental perspectives on the defining markers of thriving (Benson & Scales, 2009; Dowling, Gestsdottir, Anderson, von Eye, & Lerner, 2003; King et al., 2005; Lerner, Dowling, & Anderson, 2003; K. A. Moore & Lippman, 2005; Scales, Benson, Leffert, & Blyth, 2000; Theokas et al., 2005). Our goal in consolidating these per￾spectives into the five components (and related indicators) listed above is to provide a conceptual framework—and a point of departure—for considering how relationship support promotes people’s progress or prosperity in these many domains of well-being, not just in stress-related diseases and outcomes. This conceptualization of thriving does not require that thriving be viewed as an “all or none” outcome, or defined by a strict cutoff point on some scale or measure. Thriving is a multi-dimensional construct that exists as a continuum— people can be more or less thriving across a variety of domains of well-being. Moreover, thriving must be consid￾ered with respect to the individual’s current circumstances. For example, an individual with cancer is likely to experi￾ence lower levels of health and well-being compared to an individual without cancer, but a cancer patient with a caring support network is likely to experience better outcomes (e.g., more purpose and meaning in life, deeper social connec￾tions) than a cancer patient who lacks a supportive network. Thus, thriving must be defined in relative rather than abso￾lute terms. The goal of our theoretical perspective is to understand how relationship support (in stressful and non￾stressful times) contributes to optimal well-being in the ways that are possible for individuals given the circumstances and environments in which they are situated. Life contexts through which individuals thrive. Building on prior models of resilience and thriving in the face of stress (Carver, 1998; Epel et al., 1998), and models of flourishing and posi￾tive well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Diener et al., 2006; Ryff & Singer, 1998; Seligman, 2002, 2008), the current perspec￾tive highlights two life contexts through which individuals may potentially thrive. A first context involves the experi￾ence of adversity. Individuals thrive in this context when they are able to cope successfully with adversities, not only by being buffered from potentially severe consequences of adversity when it arises, but also by emerging from the expe￾rience as a stronger or more knowledgeable person. Because thriving connotes growth and development, thriving in the face of adversity involves more than simply returning to baseline or maintenance of the status quo (Carver, 1998; Epel et al., 1998). Thriving occurs when people weather the storms of life in ways that enable them to grow from the experience (e.g., perhaps through heightened sense of mas￾tery, increased self-regard, a greater sense of purpose in life, and more meaningful social bonds; Ryff & Singer, 1998). Table 1. Descriptive Summary of Thriving Components. Thriving components Examples 1. Hedonic well-being Happiness, life satisfaction, subjective well-being 2. Eudaimonic well-being Having purpose and meaning in life, having and progressing toward meaningful life goals, mastery/efficacy, control, autonomy/self-determination, personal growth, movement toward full potential 3. Psychological well-being Positive self-regard, self-acceptance, resilience/hardiness, optimism, absence (or reduced incidence) of mental health symptoms or disorders 4. Social well-being Deep and meaningful human connections, positive interpersonal expectancies (including perceived available support), prosocial orientation, faith in others/humanity 5. Physical well￾being Physical fitness (healthy weight and activity levels); absence (or reduced incidence) of illness and disease; health status above expected baselines; longevity Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at Remen University of China on September 6, 2015

I16 Personality and Social Psychology Review 19(2) adversity individuals who thrive through adversity are eventually able to both cope with it in such a way that they do not stay down and defeated. tem).The perspective advanced here extends attachmen and t ie something constructive from the experi heory in ocus on thriving and in its detailed articu on s m v context th gh which individuals may thrive e the tu involves the experience of life opportunities for growth and prosperity in the absence of adversity.Individuals thrive in adversity and opportunities for growth. hate in opp for thriving through adversity that relationships serve is to s sity,not only by buffering individuals from the negative society (Deci&Ryan,200;RyffSinger ,1998). These om th nes may be require time.effort.and concentration.Thriving individuals Relationships serve an important function of not simply are likely to formulate and actively pursue personal goals helping people return to baseline,but helping them to thriv nined manner (Deci nd life ties)to be a maximally thriving individual,as functioning in nomes that are better able to withstand similar storms in the each context makes independent contributions to thriving uture.So too are people able to em erge from adverse life outcomes stronger and be n than they were Relational Support Functions as Predictors of them in the rebuilding.In this sense.relationships can pro Thriving vide a source of strength,in addition to a refuge,in adverse umstances throug to the support into the kinds of pe onswho don't simply avoid problem pport-seeking in times of adversity)as the provision of a but who embrace life and make full use of haven. conceptualization is at b n(B 1by,19% which e for hov ionsh suppor conte of one close relationships promote stress (Collins&Feeney,2000:B.C.Feeney.2004:Feeney that pu ps at the ront in I he s Thi takea new look at social suppo ptualize itin the terms of the promotion of positive well-being instead of only are almost always referring to the provision(or ng)of d to view ersonal proce tional aid in response to stre ul c eg expe e A key proposition of this p ective is that well-function felt security when needed by providin ing close elationships(with family,friends,and intimate par notiona omfort and facilitating problem resolutio me serv g thriving as th exts th gh which pe nle m the afe h not fully all of what cessfully with adv sity.and participating in opportun eeded to promote thriving through adversity.Thus.we ties for growth and fulfillment in the abse of adve cory's notion a safe haven and refert (B 099. M ment 2007) supp which ses that all individuals enter the world with pr t(denicted in the ton p tion of Figur pensities to seek proximity to in times of stress(a )We emphasize the motion of thriving throug adversity attachment behavioral system),to explore the environment (an as the core purpose of this broader support fiunction

116 Personality and Social Psychology Review 19(2) Although everyone experiences adversity, individuals who thrive through adversity are eventually able to both cope with it in such a way that they do not stay down and defeated, and take something useful or constructive from the experi￾ence that enhances their well-being. A second context through which individuals may thrive involves the experience of life opportunities for growth and prosperity in the absence of adversity. Individuals thrive in this context when they are able to fully participate in oppor￾tunities for fulfillment and personal growth through work, play, socializing, learning, discovery, creating, pursuing hob￾bies, and making meaningful contribution to community and society (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryff & Singer, 1998). These opportunities may be viewed as positive challenges because they often involve goal strivings and goal pursuits that require time, effort, and concentration. Thriving individuals are likely to formulate and actively pursue personal goals, and to pursue them in a self-determined manner (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Emmons, 1991). Theoretically, one must func￾tion well in both life contexts (adversity and life opportuni￾ties) to be a maximally thriving individual, as functioning in each context makes independent contributions to thriving outcomes. Relational Support Functions as Predictors of Thriving What enables people to thrive through adversity and through life opportunities for growth? That is, how do people “flower into the kinds of persons who don’t simply avoid problems and pathologies, but who embrace life and make full use of their special gifts in ways that benefit themselves and oth￾ers?” (Benson & Scales, 2009, p. 90). Our ultimate goal is to make a case for how responsive social support within the context of one’s close relationships promotes thriving. In making this case, we present a model of thriving through relationships that puts relationships at the forefront in facili￾tating or hindering thriving. This perspective requires us to take a new look at social support and to re-conceptualize it in terms of the promotion of positive well-being instead of only buffering stress—and to view it as an interpersonal process that unfolds over time instead of an attitude or expectation (e.g., perceived available support). A key proposition of this perspective is that well-function￾ing close relationships (with family, friends, and intimate part￾ners) are fundamental to thriving because they serve two important support functions that correspond to the two life contexts through which people may potentially thrive—cop￾ing successfully with adversity, and participating in opportuni￾ties for growth and fulfillment in the absence of adversity. These support functions are rooted in attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1982, 1988; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), which proposes that all individuals enter the world with pro￾pensities to seek proximity to close others in times of stress (an attachment behavioral system), to explore the environment (an exploration system), and to support the attachment and explo￾ration behavior of close others (a caregiving behavioral sys￾tem). The perspective advanced here extends attachment theory in its focus on thriving and in its detailed articulation of ways in which supportive relationships contribute to thriving outcomes. We begin by elaborating on the two support func￾tions that relationships serve that facilitate thriving through adversity and opportunities for growth. Support for thriving through adversity. One important function that relationships serve is to support thriving through adver￾sity, not only by buffering individuals from the negative effects of stress, but also by helping them to emerge from the stressor in a way that enables them to flourish either because of or despite their circumstances (see Figure 1, Paths a-c). Relationships serve an important function of not simply helping people return to baseline, but helping them to thrive by exceeding prior baseline levels of functioning. A useful metaphor is that houses destroyed by storms are frequently rebuilt, not into the same houses that existed before, but into homes that are better able to withstand similar storms in the future. So too are people able to emerge from adverse life circumstances stronger and better off than they were before with the support of significant others who fortify and assist them in the rebuilding. In this sense, relationships can pro￾vide a source of strength, in addition to a refuge, in adverse circumstances. In other work, we refer to the support of a relationship partner’s attachment behaviors (i.e., proximity-seeking and support-seeking in times of adversity) as the provision of a safe haven. This conceptualization is based on attachment theory’s notion of a safe haven (Bowlby, 1988), which func￾tions to support behaviors that involve “coming in” to a rela￾tionship for comfort, reassurance, and assistance in times of stress (Collins & Feeney, 2000; B. C. Feeney, 2004; Feeney & Collins, 2004). Although the term safe haven has not gener￾ally been used in the social support literature, this is the type of support that has most often been studied in prior work. Indeed, when researchers use the term social support, they are almost always referring to the provision (or seeking) of instrumental or emotional aid in response to stressful or nega￾tive life events. From an attachment perspective, good sup￾port-providers are those who are able to effectively restore an attached person’s felt security when needed—by providing emotional comfort and facilitating problem resolution. However, when viewing thriving as the ultimate outcome of receiving support (and not only restoration of felt security), then the term safe haven does not fully capture all of what is needed to promote thriving through adversity. Thus, we expand attachment theory’s notion of a safe haven and refer to this relational support function that strengthens/fortifies as well as comforts/protects in times of adversity as Source of Strength (SOS) support (depicted in the top portion of Figure 1). We emphasize the promotion of thriving through adversity as the core purpose of this broader support function. Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at Remen University of China on September 6, 2015

Feeney and Collins 17 b motior Neural/ Lifestyle behavio and This idea of flourishing through adversity is emotional comfort and reassurance.conveving understand. 2010;Helgeson,Reynolds,&Tomich, 2006:J0s h ing and acceptance,providing instrumental aid with regard Murphy,Regel )and tcndnng se other from negative Silver,2010).However,these processes are not typically romantic partner who has been blindsided by friendship considered in a relational context,nor has the support of betrayal by accepting the partner's expressions of distress g through adversity becna o offering comfort, ad paner's rep- thriving through adversity (not just oping with adversity) or benefit finding:for example,J. Dunn.Occhipinti &Cha orain,T Leung.Mohamed.Scwar strengths and abilities that the person already has but may 2005;Morris,Campbell,Dw not recognize (helping them learn about the self through owell.G strength sity?Table 2 shy friend provides a summary of the components of SOS support taken advantage of at work by instilling confidence,coach- irst.consistent with attachment theory,the SoS support ing in ways of dealing with colleagues,helping to develop on a found ave ls,and pro for pr aswell as relief of the burdens that one 5 iences du not onl stop theadverse events.but also use the new times of adversity(Bowlby,1982;Collins&Feeney,2000) skills to reach new heights in his/her car er A related depend ency needs B aa201

Feeney and Collins 117 This idea of flourishing through adversity is consistent with work on post-traumatic growth or benefit finding (for reviews, see Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2006; Helgeson & Lopez, 2010; Helgeson, Reynolds, & Tomich, 2006; Joseph, Murphy, & Regel, 2012; Linley & Joseph, 2004) and on the development of resilience in the face of adversity (Aldwin, Sutton, & Lachman, 1996; Carver, 1998; Seery, Holman, & Silver, 2010). However, these processes are not typically considered in a relational context, nor has the support of growth through adversity been a focus of theoretical or empirical work in the social support literature (although there is emerging work within the post-traumatic growth lit￾erature that implicates social relations as predictors of growth or benefit finding; for example, J. Dunn, Occhipinti, Campbell, Ferguson, & Chambers, 2011; Lelorain, Tessier, Florin, & Bonnaud-Antignac, 2012; Lepore & Kernan, 2009; Leung et al., 2010; Luszczynska, Mohamed, & Schwarzer, 2005; Morris, Campbell, Dwyer, Dunn, & Chambers, 2011; Powell, Gilson, & Collin, 2012; Prati & Pietrantoni, 2009; Scrignaro, Barni, & Magrin, 2011). How does one promote thriving through adversity? Table 2 provides a summary of the components of SOS support. First, consistent with attachment theory, the SOS support function must be enacted on a foundation of safe haven sup￾port. This involves providing safety and protection (a refuge), as well as relief of the burdens that one experiences during times of adversity (Bowlby, 1982; Collins & Feeney, 2000). Relationship partners can provide this function by accepting a close other’s dependency needs (B. C. Feeney, 2007), providing a comfortable environment for the expression of negative emotion (Spiegel & Kimerling, 2001), providing emotional comfort and reassurance, conveying understand￾ing and acceptance, providing instrumental aid with regard to alleviating the adverse circumstances, and shielding or defending the close other from negative forces related to the stressor. For example, one may provide a safe haven to a romantic partner who has been blindsided by friendship betrayal by accepting the partner’s expressions of distress, offering comfort, and defending/protecting the partner’s rep￾utation from negative repercussions of the betrayal. On this foundation, the SOS support function promotes thriving through adversity (not just coping with adversity) through a process of fortification, which includes assisting in the development of a close other’s strengths and abilities rel￾evant to coping with the adversity—either by pointing out strengths and abilities that the person already has but may not recognize (helping them learn about the self through adversity) or by recognizing a strength or ability that is needed for successful coping and assisting them in attaining it. For example, one may fortify a shy friend who is being taken advantage of at work by instilling confidence, coach￾ing in ways of dealing with colleagues, helping to develop communication skills, and providing opportunities for prac￾ticing the skills. This promotes thriving because the recipient may not only stop the adverse events, but also use the new skills to reach new heights in his/her career. A related and necessary function of SOS support involves assisting in the reconstruction process once an individual has Life Adversity Life Opportunity Interpersonal SOS Support Processes Interpersonal RC Support Processes Immediate SOS-specific Outcomesfor Self and Relaonships Emoons Self-evaluaons Appraisals Movaon Situaon relevant outcomes Relaonal outcomes Neural/physiological response Lifestyle behaviors Recipient’s Long-Term Thriving Hedonic well-being Eudaimonic well-being Psychological well-being Social well-being Physical well-being a d b e c Immediate RC-specific Outcomesfor Self and Relaonships Emoons Self-evaluaons Appraisals Movaon Situaon relevant outcomes Relaonal outcomes Neural/physiological response Lifestyle behaviors f Figure 1. Conceptual framework for thriving through relationships. Note. SOS = source of strength; RC = relational catalyst. Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at Remen University of China on September 6, 2015

118 Personality and Social Psychology Review 19(2) Table 2.Descriptive Summary of Support Functions Source of strength support Relational catalyst support ote thriving th u negative effects of stre but also opportunit om the in ways thatn them to tlo 1.Providing a safe haven afety and protection;relief from ession of neg tive emotion and comfort zone dverse ci 2.Providing perce challengehppranpthewin 3.Assisting in the re onstruction proce 3.Facilitating preparation for engagement in life uild the resources encouraging setting of attainable goals .edeineymechnm or been fortified with the strength to rebuild.This involves possibility of thriving through adversity.Assistance in put motivating a close other who has experienced adversity to ing the adversity in perspective (e.g.,as a common occur ping stone for foreing new relationshin ing positive coping with adversity by encouraging positive It is important to note that a majority of the social suppor action instead of with the or e. e in h dall day liteoures suport has been defined as the would benefit from having someone who not only helps to benefit an individual's ability to cope with stress"(Cohen nurture his/her strengths,but who also encourages him/her to 2004,p.676).In positing the SOS support function,we pro pos that support-provder s can d m h more th change,go e that when su t-prviders rvide ss thev Doing this successfully requires assisting in reframing/ n helping the ipient to grow,flourish,or prosper (to redefining the adve siry as a mechanism for positive change adversity.Thus,we argue for a bro a cognitive redefining e on ly been tak insurmountable as it may have initialy It includes helping or to adverse expe supp nust be tet to approac he adv n a wa as we to next suggest tha iorcesanindicaototoneslackofdeimbiyorhceaes there is an abundance of research showing stress-buffering of one's life would be detrimental to positive coping and the effects.Instead,we propose that (a)support provision that

118 Personality and Social Psychology Review 19(2) been fortified with the strength to rebuild. This involves motivating a close other who has experienced adversity to stay in the game and use their strengths to implement new approaches that take into account the negative forces identi￾fied through the adverse experience. This includes motivat￾ing positive coping with adversity by encouraging positive action instead of dwelling on negative circumstances that cannot be changed. For example, an individual who copes with the loss of a job by ruminating and staying in bed all day would benefit from having someone who not only helps to nurture his/her strengths, but who also encourages him/her to use those strengths to rebuild in a positive way (e.g., to make a career change, go back to school) that can contribute to thriving. Doing this successfully requires assisting in reframing/ redefining the adversity as a mechanism for positive change. This function of SOS support involves a cognitive redefining of the adversity so that it does not seem as threatening or insurmountable as it may have initially. It includes helping a close other to view the adversity as one that can be overcome or to find benefits in the adverse experience. This redefini￾tion should enable one to approach the adversity in a way that will promote thriving. For example, viewing an unwanted divorce as an indicator of one’s lack of desirability or the end of one’s life would be detrimental to positive coping and the possibility of thriving through adversity. Assistance in put￾ting the adversity in perspective (e.g., as a common occur￾rence) and redefining it (e.g., as an impetus for positive change) may motivate the individual to use the experience as a stepping stone for forging new relationships. It is important to note that a majority of the social support literature has focused on stress-buffering effects of social support. In fact, social support has been defined as the “pro￾vision of psychological and material resources intended to benefit an individual’s ability to cope with stress” (Cohen, 2004, p. 676). In positing the SOS support function, we pro￾pose that support-providers can do much more than buffer stress or return one to baseline levels of functioning. We pro￾pose that when support-providers provide a SOS, they assist in helping the recipient to grow, flourish, or prosper (to thrive) through the adversity. Thus, we argue for a broader perspective on social support than has historically been taken in the literature, and we do this by proposing that support in times of adversity should be viewed more broadly than sim￾ply buffering negative effects of stress, and by proposing that social support must be considered in non-adverse life con￾texts as well, as we turn to next. We do not suggest that stress-buffering models of social support are incorrect, as there is an abundance of research showing stress-buffering effects. Instead, we propose that (a) support provision that Table 2. Descriptive Summary of Support Functions. Source of strength support Relational catalyst support Definition: Definition: Functions to promote thriving through adversity, not only by buffering the negative effects of stress but also by helping others to emerge from the stressor in ways that enable them to flourish Functions to promote thriving through full participation in life opportunities for exploration, growth, and development in the absence of adversity Components: Components: 1. Providing a safe haven—safety and protection; relief from burdens; emotional or physical comfort; a comfortable environment for the expression of negative emotion and vulnerability; expressing empathy, understanding, acceptance, reassurance; shielding and defending; tangible aid to alleviate adverse circumstances 1. Nurturing a desire to create or seize opportunities for growth—expressing enthusiasm, validating goals and aspirations, encouraging individual to challenge or extend the self, leave one’s comfort zone 2. Providing fortification—assisting in the development/nurturing of strengths/talents; recognizing/nourishing latent abilities or helping to attain new ones 2. Providing perceptual assistance in the viewing of life opportunities—appraising opportunities as positive challenges vs. threats, assistance in recognizing opportunities 3. Assisting in the reconstruction process—motivating and assisting one to get back up, stay in the game, use strengths to renew and rebuild the self, problem-solve, and cope with adversity in a positive manner 3. Facilitating preparation for engagement in life opportunities—promoting the development of plans and strategies, development/recognition of skills and resources; providing instrumental or informational assistance; encouraging setting of attainable goals 4. Assisting in reframing/redefining adversity as a mechanism for positive change 4. Facilitating implementation by serving a launching function that enables one to fully engage in life opportunities by: a. Providing a secure base for exploration b. Supporting capitalization c. Assisting in tune-ups and adjustments; responding sensitively to failures/setbacks d. Perceiving and behaving toward individual in ways consistent with his/her ideal self Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at Remen University of China on September 6, 2015

Feeney and Collins 19 promotes thriving goes beyond just buffering stress and (b) for exploration which emnhasizes a nassive waiting role) support for thriving should be examined in more than just the term secure base does not fully capture a support function stressful life contexts. that prom otes thriving in the absenc of adversity. us,10 Support for thriving through participation in life opportunities in Ar nother important necessary for supp porting thriving.We refer to this relationa support function that promotes engagement in lite opportun sity (Figure Paths.Supportive relationships can help es people thrive by promoting engagement in opportunities rt-providers can serve as active catalys ts for thriving in ha enable th enhan d rickson.2001)and finding rnose and meaning in life (Ryff&Singer,1998).Although most research in the social e thriving thr life oppo nities?Table 2 pr ovides a summary of the com versity is ponents of RC support.First,nurturing a desire to creat tive is that people must fully embrace life and its opp life oppor gr a key f ties to thrive,and that close relationships are integral in this (both big and small);encouraging a close other to challeng ofa or extend hir w as an individual (e.g.,lea one play,discover,and accomplish goals)as the provision of a secure base(e.g.B.C.Feeney,2004,2007).This s is based on suing life or n of e mch funct embrace even small opportunities that may be stepping sto ause opportur (Bowlby,1988;see also Crowell et al., .2002:Waters Cummings,2000).Although overlook in the social sup vating the p suit of life opp tunities port literature. supp o-provider Doing this involves Droviding signals of distress.but also how to support explora behavior(e.g,autonomous goal strivings,pe ersonal growth on the B30 into the ing tha ven opportunity-pursuits can lead to wth vork.learn.discover.create)knowing that he/she can retumn e e.or as stance should he/she encou ties that mightotherwise be missed Because a along the way. (1988)describe ment to engaging in life opportunities begin with the ecipient' cept f ther e.g to the world in a confident way: and aluate opportunities before they pass.This includes help of b when called upon to ence ing them create a vision of future pe ssibilities.as vi izing and pe but to e a Ti P to attaining the base from whic for by promoting the devel ry fore out and to which of the opment of plans,strategies,skills, and resources for approaching his includes encouraging the ding the expeditionary H) is secure tha pres in attaining neces ary resources accommodating plans/stra egies for pursuing goals,providing direct instruction or feed However,when viewing thriving as the ultimate outcome relevan of receiving social support (instead of just providing a bas capa (and

Feeney and Collins 119 promotes thriving goes beyond just buffering stress and (b) support for thriving should be examined in more than just stressful life contexts. Support for thriving through participation in life opportunities in the absence of adversity. Another important function that relationships serve is to provide support for thriving through participation in life opportunities in the absence of adver￾sity (Figure 1, Paths d-f). Supportive relationships can help people thrive by promoting engagement in opportunities that enable them to enhance their positive well-being by broadening and building resources (Bowlby, 1988; Fred￾rickson, 2001) and finding purpose and meaning in life (Ryff & Singer, 1998). Although most research in the social support literature concerns support in times of stress, we emphasize that support in the absence of adversity is equally important for thriving. A key aspect of this perspec￾tive is that people must fully embrace life and its opportuni￾ties to thrive, and that close relationships are integral in this process. In other work, we have referred to the support of a signifi￾cant other’s exploration behavior (e.g., desires to learn, grow, play, discover, and accomplish goals) as the provision of a secure base (e.g., B. C. Feeney, 2004, 2007). This is based on attachment theory’s notion of a secure base, which functions to support behaviors that involve “going out” from a rela￾tionship for autonomous exploration in the environment (Bowlby, 1988; see also Crowell et al., 2002; Waters & Cummings, 2000). Although overlooked in the social sup￾port literature, good support-providers must not only know how to respond appropriately to attachment behavior and signals of distress, but also how to support exploration behavior (e.g., autonomous goal strivings, personal growth; Bowlby, 1988). Thus, an important aspect of support-giving involves the provision of a secure base from which an attached person can make excursions into the world (to play, work, learn, discover, create) knowing that he/she can return for comfort, reassurance, or assistance should he/she encoun￾ter difficulties along the way. Bowlby (1988) describes the concept of a secure base as one in which support-providers create the conditions that enable significant others to explore the world in a confident way: In essence this role is one of being available, ready to respond when called upon to encourage and perhaps assist, but to intervene actively only when clearly necessary. In these respects it is a role similar to that of the officer commanding a military base from which an expeditionary force sets out and to which it can retreat, should it meet with a setback. Much of the time the role of the base is a waiting one but it is none the less vital for that. For it is only when the officer commanding the expeditionary force is confident his base is secure that he dare press forward and take risks. (p. 11) However, when viewing thriving as the ultimate outcome of receiving social support (instead of just providing a base for exploration, which emphasizes a passive, waiting role), the term secure base does not fully capture a support function that promotes thriving in the absence of adversity. Thus, for the model presented here, we expand attachment theory’s notion of a secure base to include additional components necessary for supporting thriving. We refer to this relational support function that promotes engagement in life opportuni￾ties in non-adverse times as Relational Catalyst (RC) sup￾port (depicted in the bottom portion of Figure 1) because support-providers can serve as active catalysts for thriving in this context. We emphasize the promotion of thriving through life opportunities as the core purpose of this broader support function. How does one promote thriving through engagement in life opportunities? Table 2 provides a summary of the com￾ponents of RC support. First, nurturing a desire to create and/or seize life opportunities for growth is a key function. This includes expressing enthusiasm for life opportunities; validating a close other’s goals, dreams, and aspirations (both big and small); encouraging a close other to challenge or extend himself/herself to grow as an individual (e.g., leave one’s comfort zone to try challenging as well as familiar activities); communicating the potential benefits of creating/ pursuing life opportunities; and providing encouragement to embrace even small opportunities that may be stepping stones to bigger ones. Because opportunities are not always readily available, the encouragement to take initiative in cre￾ating one’s own opportunities is an important part of moti￾vating the pursuit of life opportunities. Doing this successfully involves providing perceptual assistance in the viewing of life opportunities, which is another function of RC support. This includes helping a close other to focus on the positive aspects of opportunities instead of being paralyzed by potential difficulties and communicat￾ing that even unsuccessful opportunity-pursuits can lead to growth and subsequent opportunities. Perceptual assistance also includes assisting the person in recognizing opportuni￾ties that might otherwise be missed. Because a major impedi￾ment to engaging in life opportunities begins with the recipient’s perception of them (e.g., as too difficult, as a threat to security, as likely to result in failure), relational cat￾alysts help their significant others to notice and positively evaluate opportunities before they pass. This includes help￾ing them create a vision of future possibilities, as visualizing potential outcomes may be a first step to attaining them. A third function of RC support is to facilitate preparation for engagement in life opportunities by promoting the devel￾opment of plans, strategies, skills, and resources for approaching opportunities. This includes encouraging the development of requisite skills (and giving necessary space to do so), providing instrumental or informational assistance in attaining necessary resources, accommodating plans/strat￾egies for pursuing goals, providing direct instruction or feed￾back if one has relevant expertise, encouraging one to perform to his/her capabilities (and to stretch his/her Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at Remen University of China on September 6, 2015

120 Personality and Social Psychology Review 19(2) the setting of attainable ooal edition is strengthened by building (Wrosch.Scheier.Miller.Schulz.&Carver.2003).A rela tional catalyst may also see a special quality in a person tha ing by encouraging the pursuit of passions in a healthy and and nurture its development (Rusbult. balanced ner such that c important opportur The final function of RC support is to vide the launch ing finction during actual engagement in life opportunities. expansion (Aron,Aron,&Smollan,1992:Aron.Aron Part of this invove t theory's notion of a secure Tudor,&Nelson,1991),and by perceiving and behaving C.Feeney&Th 2010 or her providing support that is not needed/wanted,from becoming et al,2005).This functions to bring the individual closer to emotio 198 nis or her ideal self (in terms of dispositi g vioral ten d the of a base is a waiting one (Bowlby.1988):and (c)being on itudinal studies on this pmocess in c available in the event that the base is needed (e.g.,to assist in 2002;Drigotas et al,1999;Rusbult et al,2005)has showr emoving obstacles to stay conecte the partner hat when individual perceive and beh ave t g ed are in d the ideal dent in the availability of their base do not have to cling to which in turn predicts enhanced relationship functioning and that base to the extent that individuals who lack such confi nal well-being.In contrast.when indi nduals perceiv e do (B.C. 00 in ways tha e partn iable&Reis 2010 nent aw ay from the ideal self and deterioration in per another important part of the launching function that should and relationship well-being encourage persistence and I continued engagemer oppo ation on suppor on of SOS others confers efits that amplify the s nttwo distinet support functions that have differen event (e.g.. making it e&Re a longe urposes and that occur in different life This is a Rei al.20,0m to a nd when cl wh to respond actively with expressions of distress or vulnerability (e.g.,avoidan (gexpressing genuine pride ent).t ed chment)may a Ho when close others y have diffi the discloser's excite the dis 008:B. .2013 and Ro lifa in the that sharing positive events and experiences with others (which ion of particular support behavior Sunpont function are often related to goal pursuits and personal growth ribe the role or pur ose for which ort exist and uppo e ife Thu ing ine in the rt of capitalization by r ponding actively and con- shing designated functions Thus.a variety of sun ely to a clos sitive experence aviors can b used for eith support function,a e skills.and strategies)as needed,ands ote that although the nrovisio :tim to setbacks.This supports thriving by increasing the likel and effort,the support of a close other's thriving(through hood that close others learn from their experiences and tha SOS and RC support)does not always require a large

120 Personality and Social Psychology Review 19(2) capabilities), and encouraging the setting of attainable goals (Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver, 2003). A rela￾tional catalyst may also see a special quality in a person that others cannot yet see and nurture its development (Rusbult, Finkel, & Kumashiro, 2009). The final function of RC support is to provide the launch￾ing function during actual engagement in life opportunities. Part of this involves attachment theory’s notion of a secure base (Bowlby, 1982, 1988; B. C. Feeney & Thrush, 2010) and includes (a) providing encouragement during the engage￾ment; (b) not unnecessarily interfering (e.g., refraining from providing support that is not needed/wanted, from becoming emotionally over-involved [Coyne & DeLongis, 1986; Coyne, Wortman, & Lehman, 1988], or from impeding the accomplishment of the goal/activity), as the primary function of a base is a waiting one (Bowlby, 1988); and (c) being available in the event that the base is needed (e.g., to assist in removing obstacles, and to stay connected to the partner’s interests, choices, and feelings). Being available and staying connected are important because individuals who are confi￾dent in the availability of their base do not have to cling to that base to the extent that individuals who lack such confi￾dence do (B. C. Feeney, 2007). Supporting capitalization (Gable & Reis, 2010)—by cel￾ebrating successes and accomplishments along the way—is another important part of the launching function that should encourage persistence and continued engagement in oppor￾tunities for growth. Capitalization promotes thriving because the social sharing of good news and positive events with responsive others confers benefits that amplify the good event (e.g., making it more memorable, creating a longer lasting impact on positive well-being; Gable & Reis, 2010; Reis et al., 2010). Research shows that when people share personal positive events with close others, and when close others are perceived to respond actively and constructively (e.g., expressing genuine pride and excitement), then dis￾closers experience increased positive affect and well-being, above and beyond the impact of the positive event itself. However, when close others respond passively or destruc￾tively and thereby deflate the discloser’s excitement, the dis￾closer is unable to fully benefit from the positive event (Gable, Gonzaga, & Strachman, 2006; Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004). Enjoying life in the absence of adversity by sharing positive events and experiences with others (which are often related to goal pursuits and personal growth such as performing well at work or school, or milestones such as marriage or the birth of a child) is part of full engagement in life. Thus, an important part of supporting thriving includes the support of capitalization by responding actively and con￾structively to a close other’s positive experiences. Another important part of this launching function involves assisting in tune-ups and adjustments (e.g., in perceptions, skills, and strategies) as needed, and sensitively responding to setbacks. This supports thriving by increasing the likeli￾hood that close others learn from their experiences and that each successive expedition is strengthened by building on the one before. In addition, relational catalysts support thriv￾ing by encouraging the pursuit of passions in a healthy and well-balanced manner such that other important opportuni￾ties or facets of life are not neglected (e.g., time spent with children, sleep and nutrition needs), by encouraging self￾expansion (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992; Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991), and by perceiving and behaving toward a close other in ways consistent with his or her ideal self (Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & Whitton, 1999; Kumashiro, Rusbult, Finkenauer, & Stocker, 2007; Rusbult et al., 2005). This functions to bring the individual closer to his or her ideal self (in terms of dispositions, values, and behavioral tendencies) through a process of behavioral affir￾mation (termed the Michelangelo Phenomenon). A series of longitudinal studies on this process in couples (Drigotas, 2002; Drigotas et al., 1999; Rusbult et al., 2005) has shown that when individuals perceive and behave toward a partner in ways that are consistent with the partner’s ideal self, this treatment leads to actual movement toward the ideal self, which in turn predicts enhanced relationship functioning and personal well-being. In contrast, when individuals perceive and behave in ways that are inconsistent with the partner’s ideal self (a process of disaffirmation), this leads to move￾ment away from the ideal self and deterioration in personal and relationship well-being. Elaboration on support functions. Several aspects of SOS and RC support require elaboration. First, SOS and RC support represent two distinct support functions that have different purposes and that occur in different life contexts. This is an important distinction because individuals are likely to differ in the extent to which they provide or seek each support function. For example, individuals who are uncomfortable with expressions of distress or vulnerability (e.g., avoidant attachment) may have difficulty providing or seeking SOS support (Collins & Feeney, 2000; B. C. Feeney & Collins, 2001), whereas those who prefer to merge with others and fear losing them (e.g., anxious attachment) may have diffi￾culty providing or seeking RC support (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008; B. C. Feeney, Collins, Van Vleet, & Tomlinson, 2013). Second, SOS and RC support are conceptualized as sup￾port functions that are provided through the use of a constel￾lation of particular support behaviors. Support functions describe the role or purpose for which support exists, and specific support behaviors—emotional, esteem, informa￾tional, and tangible support (Brock & Lawrence, 2009; Cutrona, 1996b)—are employed in the service of accom￾plishing designated functions. Thus, a variety of support behaviors can be used for either support function, and these behaviors can be explicit (direct) or implicit (indirect), depending on the needs of the recipient. It is also important to note that although the provision of support requires time and effort, the support of a close other’s thriving (through SOS and RC support) does not always require a large Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at Remen University of China on September 6, 2015

Feeney and Collins 121 investment of time and energy.Many of the behaviors we partner's needs (Cohen Wills,1985:Cutrona,1990 Simpson,Winterheld,Rholes,&Orina,2007).Responsive onship,provi viders flexibly respond to ne eeds and (Collins &F 2006:B.C.Fe fact,research indicates that small acts of care (e.g a few Collins,2001).Being sensitive involves responding to need words of encouragement,an enthusiastic response to good in such a way that the support-recipient Gable.2009:Reis 1994 Schaefer.&Davidson. 2006 Collins This is accomnlished by offering sunnor in a wa Kane. Gable Hilmert, expresses generous intentions,protects the recipient's self an, berger 2011:B esteem,acknowledges the recipien s feelings and 2010:Gable 2010 Blascovich,2012;Schnall,Harber,Stefanucci,&Proffitt in a cay that r 2008),and that individuals from symboli self-determination(e.g to chart their own course,to cho ose pro mity to phy presence wn path apu to choose the 2014:Master et al.2009:Mikulir (Deci Ryan.2000 Gillath,&Shaver,2002:T.W.Smith,Ruiz,&Uchino,2004) 2002;Emmons,1991;Rogers,1961) ause they have deve cloped mental repre tions of close Thus,the degree to which support behavior is respe he (Bowlby M.W.Baldwin. de 003 Fourth altho nsive clos vide SOS and RC support provide the optimal environment casy-nesup I here does not sugg orts may son should be the onl of relational supp 2010:Coym ort for 1992:Gleason,lida,Shrout,&Bolger hriving.Inste tlikely to thrive when 2016 Rafa Rini Dunke hey a ship nt s vay tha th fee ssertion is supported by res quate:induces guilt or indebtedness:makes the recipient fee like a burden:minin net lem,isfo or accom en mes the rec unstad Smith 2012 mination:or conveys a sense of contingent accepta ng the health associated with tha one must su ed to be accepted).Support-providers Ca pp0,2 Thi s perspe eglectful engag over-involved,co 2011)emnba risk-distribution load-sha 006:B Couins 2001:Kunce with social network members to decrease costs of dealing Shaver 1994) with environmental demands and to free resources for engag We suggest that unresponsive and insensitive suppor elyw viors w undermine serve thec dence (an over-teliance e on others to do what can be tance of support quality.It is not iust whethe done oneself)represents a means of clinging to significant provides support, but it is how he or she does it that deter others whose avai lability and ac ptance is perceived to be Any eded to othe supp idin d nsively and sensitively to mote thriving(see Reis. sents a means of coning with a sunt tenvironment in which 2012:Reis,Clark,Holmes,2004,for theorizing on respon significant others have been insensitive to or rejecting of mount of support oth s in response to genu ne need),optim ence (a 30

Feeney and Collins 121 investment of time and energy. Many of the behaviors we outline for promoting thriving are simple to enact, such as communicating availability, sharing companionship, provid￾ing encouragement, not unnecessarily interfering, communi￾cating about life opportunities, and celebrating successes. In fact, research indicates that small acts of care (e.g., a few words of encouragement, an enthusiastic response to good news, being physically present and attuned) can have a pro￾found impact on personal and relationship well-being (e.g., Coan, Schaefer, & Davidson, 2006; Collins, Jaremka, & Kane, 2014; Eisenberger, Taylor, Gable, Hilmert, & Lieberman, 2007; Eisenberger et al., 2011; B. C. Feeney, 2004; B. C. Feeney & Lemay, 2012; B. C. Feeney & Thrush, 2010; Gable & Reis, 2010; Kane, McCall, Collins, & Blascovich, 2012; Schnall, Harber, Stefanucci, & Proffitt, 2008), and that individuals can even benefit from symbolic proximity to close others (such that physical presence is not always required to reap the benefits of supportive others; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2014; Master et al., 2009; Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002; T. W. Smith, Ruiz, & Uchino, 2004) because they have developed mental representations of close others through repeated experience with them (Bowlby, 1982; M. W. Baldwin, 1992). Fourth, although responsive close relationships that pro￾vide SOS and RC support provide the optimal environment for thriving, the perspective advanced here does not suggest that one particular type of relationship (e.g., a romantic rela￾tionship) is necessary for thriving, or that one particular per￾son should be the only source of relational support for thriving. Instead, people will be most likely to thrive when they are embedded in a network of responsive relationships (e.g., with friends, siblings, intimate partners, parents, men￾tors) that together serve these important support functions. This assertion is supported by research showing that com￾plex measures of social integration (i.e., having close, mean￾ingful relationships with diverse social network members) are stronger predictors of mortality than are measures of marital status or network size (Holt-Lunstad & Smith, 2012), and with research showing the health costs associated with loneliness (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2003). This perspective is also consistent with Social Baseline Theory’s (Beckes & Coan, 2011) emphasis on risk-distribution and load-sharing with social network members to decrease costs of dealing with environmental demands and to free resources for engag￾ing effectively with the environment. Fifth, by specifying specific support functions that rela￾tionships serve, the current perspective highlights the impor￾tance of support quality. It is not just whether someone provides support, but it is how he or she does it that deter￾mines the outcome of that support. Any behaviors in the ser￾vice of providing SOS and RC support must be enacted both responsively and sensitively to promote thriving (see Reis, 2012; Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004, for theorizing on respon￾siveness). Being responsive involves providing the type and amount of support that is dictated by the situation and by the partner’s needs (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Cutrona, 1990; Simpson, Winterheld, Rholes, & Orina, 2007). Responsive support-providers flexibly respond to needs and adjust their behavior in response to the contingencies of the situation (Collins, Guichard, Ford, & Feeney, 2006; B. C. Feeney & Collins, 2001). Being sensitive involves responding to needs in such a way that the support-recipient feels understood, validated, and cared for (Burleson, 1994, 2009; Maisel & Gable, 2009; Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988). This is accomplished by offering support in a way that expresses generous intentions, protects the recipient’s self￾esteem, acknowledges the recipient’s feelings and needs, conveys acceptance, and respects the recipient’s point of view (Collins et al., 2006). Sensitive support also is provided in a way that respects the support-recipients’ autonomy and self-determination (e.g., to chart their own course, to choose their own passions/goal pursuits, to choose their own ways of coping with or rebuilding after a stressor), which fosters confidence and intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2002; Emmons, 1991; Rogers, 1961). Thus, the degree to which support behavior is responsive depends on the type and amount of support given, and the degree to which it is sensitive depends on the manner in which the support is provided. Of course, being responsive and sensitive is not always easy, and even well-intended sup￾port efforts may have unintended negative consequences (Bolger & Amarel, 2007; Collins, Ford, Guichard, Kane, & Feeney, 2010; Coyne et al., 1988; Dunkel Schetter, Blasband, Feinstein, & Herbert, 1992; Gleason, Iida, Shrout, & Bolger, 2008; Rafaeli & Gleason, 2009; Rini & Dunkel Schetter, 2010; Rini, Dunkel Schetter, Hobel, Glynn, & Sandman, 2006). For example, support-providers may offer support in a way that makes the recipient feel weak, needy, or inade￾quate; induces guilt or indebtedness; makes the recipient feel like a burden; minimizes or discounts the recipient’s prob￾lem, goal, or accomplishment; blames the recipient for his or her misfortunes or setbacks; restricts autonomy or self-deter￾mination; or conveys a sense of contingent acceptance (e.g., that one must succeed to be accepted). Support-providers might also be neglectful or disengaged, over-involved, con￾trolling, or otherwise out of sync with the recipient’s needs (Collins et al., 2006; B. C. Feeney & Collins, 2001; Kunce & Shaver, 1994). We suggest that unresponsive and insensitive support behaviors will undermine thriving because they promote either overdependence or underdependence: Over￾dependence (an over-reliance on others to do what can be done oneself) represents a means of clinging to significant others whose availability and acceptance is perceived to be uncertain, or to others who provide support when it is not needed. Underdependence (defensive self-reliance) repre￾sents a means of coping with a support environment in which significant others have been insensitive to or rejecting of one’s needs. Optimal dependence (a healthy dependence on others in response to genuine need), optimal independence (a Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at Remen University of China on September 6, 2015

122 Personality and Social Psychology Review 19(2) e e of auton and or ely studied and when they are stud possible when significant others support thriving by provid- ing sens nd responsive so C suppor on o it is i the 、fstrain ks Dun Scheter,0 Newsom,Maban,Rook,008 and mediat suggest that the mechanisms for both support functions can Rook.1984:Rook.Mavandadi.Sorkin.Zettel.2007).The be organized into eight broad categories that reflect immed e of poor-quaty suppor mpac ate changes in the ecipint'm vent.(d)motivational state.(e)situation-relevant behav quality SOS support(or lack thereof)can exacerbate stress iors/outcomes,(f)relational outcomes,(g)neural activation/ olong functioning,and (h)lifestyle poor-qua ur in nd ha ld b ment of new talents and capacities.Thus,individuals ma differences in the specific manifestation of each outcom fail to thrive cither b cause they are socially isolated ane category for each support function ack access to ble relat support system or because Moreove thes es are expected core mes child telat os The TmeeicntowhichcoreelhaionsippatcSproideCac are considered to be relatively circumscribed to the particula tive SOS and RC suppor and the resulting effects on thriving situation,and a collection of these that with adversity and eng is not thriving.but an accumulation of such transformations support from significant othe and that would contribute to global thriving.Next,we describe each levels of interd However our perspe ategory of mediators for each support function.See Table hat peop a for a summary Emotional state.Because a variety of negative emotions are role of individual initiati ive and per. ssociated with the experience of adv ersity,an importan ardin mediat receiving suppo ibute to r g.H e that and the imated the sadn quilt shan interperson basis for these personl characteristics and for rief,embarrassment,humiliation,hurt/broken-heartednes eliness,despan resentment,jealousy,and envy)as we er rec fortitudes motions.which are often overlooked in research on socia support,also should result from receiving SOS support an Pathways to Thriving Through Relationships may include How do sos and ro 1082, 1077 ose that SoS and RC hrough the pr ns to thriving th ough specific mechanisms(see Figure sustaining a positive affective balance upport proce occurs in a d se pred g tha make inde ndent contributions to the long-term thriving outcomes vents de e de sion and anger (Cutrona 1986:Win (Figure 1,Paths c and). 985),increases positive mood (Collins s linkin SOS and RC ey,20 nt to de support to 02012: ases fee gh relationshin Nelligan.1992).Th are also s rted by laborator occurs and because they have received so little attention i esearch on emotion sharing.which shows that sharing nega the social support literature.The immediate outcomeso tive emotions with close others can reduce emotional distress

122 Personality and Social Psychology Review 19(2) healthy degree of autonomy), and optimal interdependence (relationships characterized by mutual dependence) are made possible when significant others support thriving by provid￾ing sensitive and responsive SOS and RC support. Thus, it is important to recognize that close relationships can be a source of strain as well as support (Brooks & Dunkel Schetter, 2011; Newsom, Mahan, Rook, & Krause, 2008; Rook, 1984; Rook, Mavandadi, Sorkin, & Zettel, 2007). The presence of poor-quality support can have a negative impact on thriving, and the mere existence of a relationship (e.g., a marriage) is not enough to confer thriving benefits. Poor￾quality SOS support (or lack thereof) can exacerbate stress, prolong recovery, reduce resilience, and hinder growth from adversity. Likewise, poor-quality RC support can thwart goal striving, reduce intrinsic motivation, and hinder the develop￾ment of new talents and capacities. Thus, individuals may fail to thrive either because they are socially isolated and lack access to a reliable relational support system or because they are embedded in central relationships (e.g., a marriage or parent–child relationship) that offer poor-quality support. The extent to which core relationship partners provide effec￾tive SOS and RC support and the resulting effects on thriving is an area ripe for future research. Finally, it is important to acknowledge that people can cope with adversity and engage in life opportunities without support from significant others, and that people differ in their preferred levels of interdependence. However, our perspec￾tive is that people are most likely to thrive through adversity and life opportunities with these relational support functions intact. In emphasizing the importance of relational support, we do not minimize the role of individual initiative and per￾sonal fortitudes—such as grit, optimism, and hardiness— that also contribute to resilience and thriving. However, we believe that prior research and theory has underestimated the interpersonal basis for these personal characteristics and for￾titudes. Our model suggests that social relationships (that provide responsive SOS and RC support) significantly con￾tribute to the development and maintenance of these personal fortitudes. Pathways to Thriving Through Relationships How do SOS and RC support shape thriving outcomes? We propose that SOS and RC support make independent contri￾butions to thriving through specific mechanisms (see Figure 1, Paths b and e). Each support process occurs in a different life context, involves different support functions, and results in different immediate outcomes that, over time, make inde￾pendent contributions to the long-term thriving outcomes (Figure 1, Paths c and f). The potential mechanisms linking SOS and RC support to thriving are important to delineate because they are neces￾sary for understanding how thriving through relationships occurs and because they have received so little attention in the social support literature. The immediate outcomes of receiving support are rarely studied, and when they are stud￾ied, researchers tend to focus only on stress-related outcomes (e.g., coping, stress reactivity). By focusing on a broader definition of social support, and a broader conceptualization of health and well-being, the current model suggests a broader array of potential mechanisms and mediators. We suggest that the mechanisms for both support functions can be organized into eight broad categories that reflect immedi￾ate changes in the recipient’s (a) emotional state, (b) self￾evaluations/self-perceptions, (c) appraisals of the situation or event, (d) motivational state, (e) situation-relevant behav￾iors/outcomes, (f) relational outcomes, (g) neural activation/ physiological functioning, and (h) lifestyle behaviors. Because SOS and RC support processes occur in different life contexts and have different functions, there should be differences in the specific manifestation of each outcome category for each support function. Moreover, these immediate outcomes are expected to temporally precede the core thriving outcomes, which develop over time and represent long-term outcomes. They are considered to be relatively circumscribed to the particular situation, and a collection of these circumscribed benefits contributes to thriving in a more global sense. For example, interpreting a single stressor as a challenge instead of a threat is not thriving, but an accumulation of such transformations would contribute to global thriving. Next, we describe each category of mediators for each support function. See Table 3 for a summary. Emotional state. Because a variety of negative emotions are associated with the experience of adversity, an important immediate outcome of receiving SOS support includes decreased negative emotion (e.g., fear, anxiety, doubt, dis￾tress, sadness, guilt, shame, anger, discouragement, loss/ grief, embarrassment, humiliation, hurt/broken-heartedness, loneliness, despair, resentment, jealousy, and envy) as well as faster recovery from negative emotional states generated by stressors (Collins et al., 2014). Increases in some positive emotions, which are often overlooked in research on social support, also should result from receiving SOS support and may include love, hope, gratitude, forgiveness, serenity/ peace, calm, relief, and felt security (a feeling of safety from threats, Bowlby, 1982; Sroufe & Waters, 1977). Thus, through the provision of SOS support, significant others assist in restoring and sustaining a positive affective balance (Fredrickson, 2009; Ryff & Singer, 2000). These predictions are supported by research showing that receiving caring sup￾port from friends and romantic partners during stressful events decreases depression and anger (Cutrona, 1986; Win￾stead & Derlega, 1985), increases positive mood (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Collins et al., 2014), and increases feelings of calmness and security (Kane et al., 2012; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992). They are also supported by laboratory research on emotion sharing, which shows that sharing nega￾tive emotions with close others can reduce emotional distress Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at Remen University of China on September 6, 2015