《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