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 of114 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