《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

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