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