- Email: [email protected]
Autonomy promotion, responsiveness, and emotion regulation promote effective social support in times of stress
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Autonomy promotion, responsiveness, and emotion regulation promote effective social support in times of stress Carolyn E Cutrona1 and Daniel W Russell2 Adult attachment theory provides guidance for providing optimal social support in intimate relationships. According to attachment theory, facilitating autonomy (secure base support) sometimes is more important than providing nurturance (safe haven support). In addition, it is important that couples celebrate one another’s triumphs and successes (another form of secure base support). A key construct that explains the development of attachment is responsiveness to the individual’s needs. Support that is delivered in a responsive manner (i.e., that leads the individual to feel understood, validated, and cared for) is more likely to enhance the relationship and less likely to damage self-esteem than assistance that is not responsive. A responsive exchange is more likely if emotion dysregulation can be prevented. Attachment theory offers explanations for why people vary in their effectiveness at emotion regulation. Appropriate emotion regulation is more likely if disclosures of current difficulties can be made in a way that is not defensive or accusatory, an ability that varies as a function of attachment orientation. Attachment theory also offers guidance regarding the optimal forms of social support for specific individuals. All these insights from adult attachment theory can be integrated into interventions to help couples become more effective support providers.
of social support. Observational techniques that analyze specific support transactions and event-sampling methods (daily diaries) that track the behaviors of intimate partners over time have also provided rich new information. This article will provide a selective sampling of recent developments, all of which can be traced back to adult attachment theory. Advances in conceptualizations of social support include the importance of intimate partners in fostering autonomy and celebrating achievement, both of which build a reservoir of trust that may be drawn upon in times of adversity. Additional insights include the importance of perceived partner responsivity and emotion regulation as components of successful support transactions in couples. Differences in preferences for and ability to profit from different types of social support have also been found to vary as a function of adult attachment style. These topics were chosen because they have implications for improving the quality of support interactions among intimate partners, but have not yet been widely integrated into interventions to promote social support in couples. A theoretical model linking key constructs may be found in Figure 1.
Addresses 1 Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, USA 2 Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Iowa State University, USA
Conceptualizing social support — incorporating boosts and celebration
Corresponding author: Cutrona, Carolyn E ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:126–130 This review comes from a themed issue on Relationships and stress Edited by Gery C Karantzas, Marita P McCabe and Jeffry A Simpson
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.07.002 2352-250/# 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Social support is an important component of successful coping with stress. The past fifteen years have brought a wealth of new insights into social support processes as they unfold in the context of intimate dyadic relationships. New theoretical advances have come from an integration of attachment theory into conceptualizations Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:126–130
A new framework for conceptualizing the construct of social support comes from the work of attachment theorists. Prior definitions viewed support primarily as a resource in times of adversity. A recent re-conceptualization of social support argues for the importance of support in both high-stress and low-stress situations [1–3]. This reconceptualization involves two types of support: safe haven and secure base. Safe-haven support is defined as comfort and assistance to another in times of stress or adversity (traditional social support). Secure-base support is defined as support for the individual’s autonomy and exploration when not distressed. From this perspective, support has an important role in promoting goal attainment and autonomous functioning as well as assistance in times of stress. Evidence of the importance of social support in the context of achievement comes from research by Gable and colleagues, who have demonstrated the importance of supportive reactions to positive events [4,5]. For example, in a daily-diary study, on days when individuals shared a positive event with another person, they experienced more positive affect and life satisfaction than on days when a positive event occurred but they did not tell anyone [5]. An enthusiastic response to a positive event www.sciencedirect.com
Social support among couples Cutrona and Russell 127
Figure 1
Emotion Regulation Capacity
Quality of Secure Base Support to promote and celebrate growth
Responsiveness (Perception of being cared for, appreciated and understood by partner)
Quality of Safe Haven Support to promote adaptive coping with stressors
Adult Attachment Style
Current Opinion in Psychology
Theoretical model depicting the influence of adult attachment style on emotion regulation and responsiveness to one’s intimate partner. Experiences with caregivers during development contribute to the formation of expectations regarding the availability of other people in times of need and one’s own worthiness to receive love and assistance from others. These expectations, or working models, give rise to different approaches to dealing with relationships, termed adult attachment styles or orientations. Individuals with secure attachment styles are able to regulate their emotions and behave in a way that is responsive to other peoples’ needs. This makes them good providers of social support. Those with avoidant or anxious attachment styles have more difficulty with both emotion regulation and responsiveness to others, which interferes with the quality of social support they can provide. Two types of social support are important for intimate relationships. The first, safe haven support, involves comfort and assistance to the partner in times of adversity. The second, secure base support, involves encouragement of exploration and pursuit of personal goals. Both are critical to successful relationships and they have reciprocal effects on each other, building a firm belief in the partner’s responsiveness.
by another person communicates important information, that is, that the responder understands the significance of the event, takes an interest in the discloser’s experiences, and derives pleasure from the discloser’s positive personal events [6]. Thus, a key advance in recent years is the insight that part of providing support to one’s partner is encouraging the other in efforts toward growth and cheering him or her on when these efforts are successful.
The role of responsiveness Also building on attachment theory concepts, Cutrona [7] defined social support as acts that reflect responsiveness to another’s needs. Responsiveness, relating to others in a way that allows them to feel understood, validated, and cared for, is at the heart of many relationship processes [8]. Responsive caregiving is viewed by attachment theorists as the cornerstone of the bond that grows between infant and caregiver in the earliest months of life, and shapes the child’s beliefs about the essential goodness of both the self and others [9,10]. In adult relationships, intimacy grows when individuals disclose important aspects of themselves, and these self-disclosures are met with understanding, validation, and caring [11]. Expectations that form the core of trust are those that focus on the partner’s responsiveness to one’s needs in situations of stress [12]. As couples are assisted in their efforts to become more effective sources of support to their partner, it may be important to emphasize empathic listening, validation, and expressions of caring as much as specific types of social support. www.sciencedirect.com
Preventing the negative effects of support: a role for secure base support and responsive caregiving No studies have had greater impact on social support research than those of Bolger and colleagues, who found that social support from one’s partner can increase distress. Possible ways to circumvent this unwanted consequence of support by incorporating the concepts of secure base support and responsiveness will be proposed. Bolger and colleagues conducted a series of daily diary studies of couples in which one member of the couple faced the stress of preparing for the bar examination [13–15]. Each day for several weeks before the exam, the examinee and his or her partner recorded whether or not they had provided and/or received emotional support from the other. Daily ratings of mood were also collected. An unexpected but consistent finding across studies was that when examinees reported they had received social support from their partner on a given day (termed ‘visible support,’ because the recipient was aware of having received it), their mood was worse the following day. By contrast, on days when partners reported that they had provided support to the examinee but the examinee did not notice this support (termed ‘invisible support’), the examinee’s mood improved the following day [13]. The negative impact on mood of visible support has been replicated, both by Bolger and associates [14,16–18] and other researchers [19]. It may be that individuals preparing for the bar exam reacted negatively to the support they received because Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:126–130
128 Relationships and stress
they perceived it to be the wrong type: instead of emphasizing their competence as they pursued a valued achievement goal (secure base support), the support they received may have addressed their fear of failure (safe haven support) [1–3]. It may be that these aspiring lawyers needed expressions of confidence rather than comfort or sympathy as they prepared for the most important examination of their careers. Degree of perceived partner responsiveness may also contribute to the success or failure of support efforts. A replication of Bolger’s daily-diary study was conducted to test the hypothesis that partner responsiveness influences the impact of visible and invisible support [19]. The impact of support on mood and relationship responsiveness was examined in a community sample of couples facing a range of individual stressors. The authors hypothesized that daily evaluations of the partner’s responsiveness would moderate the impact of visible and invisible support on mood, such that when the partner was viewed as highly responsive, visible support would not have a negative effect. By contrast, when the partner was viewed as unresponsive, even invisible support would not be beneficial. Results were highly consistent with the predictions. On days when the partner was viewed as responsive, visible support was not associated with lower mood the next day. Furthermore, on high-responsive days visible support was associated with increased relationship quality (connectedness and security). On low responsive days, invisible support had no beneficial effect on mood and was associated with diminished relationship quality. The greatest declines in mood and relationship quality were seen on days when both partners reported low responsiveness. Thus, even visible support, with its potential to damage self-esteem, was not harmful when the partner was viewed as responsive and invisible support was not helpful when the partner was viewed as non-responsive. Providing further support for the importance of responsivity, in a long-term study of 2000 married couples, initial perceptions of partner responsiveness predicted eudemonic well-being (achieving one’s potential, finding meaning in life, and meeting life span developmental challenges) ten years later, when controlling for initial well-being, neuroticism, extraversion, affective reactivity, and the responsiveness of family and friends [20]. Thus, partner responsiveness was associated with development of the self on important dimensions, perhaps through its promotion of the perception of high-quality support from the partner. Of course, the findings do not provide insight into the determinants of perceiving one’s partner as responsive. It is not clear whether the content of supportive acts was different on days viewed as responsive versus Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:126–130
non-responsive, or whether the same type of support was offered, but in a manner that differed in sensitivity of delivery. It is also possible that the receptivity or mood of the support recipient differed across days rated as high versus low on partner responsiveness. Preliminary evidence suggests that both the behavior of the support provider and perceptual processes in the support recipient contribute to perceptions of high-quality support and responsiveness [21]. Clearly, more research is needed on the components of perceived responsiveness.
Emotion regulation in support transactions A very interesting innovation in social support research emphasizes the importance of emotion regulation in social-support transactions [22–24]. Theory and research on different adult attachment styles have discovered striking differences in emotion-regulation strategies as a function of both attachment anxiety and avoidance [24–26]. When emotional arousal becomes intense, people are not able to effectively solve problems, communicate, or complete complex tasks. Individuals with a secure attachment style are better able to engage in constructive self-regulation, as shown in a daily diary study of recovery following conflict [27]. Avoidant men experienced more negative affect on days when they experienced conflict with their partner than did non-avoidant men. Anxiously attached women experienced a greater drop in positive affect both the day of and the day after conflict than did secure women. Emotion regulation seems to vary as a function of adult attachment orientation, such that secure men and women are better able to navigate difficult times in their relationships [24]. According to Fruzzetti’s transactional model [22], the support seeker is most successful in preventing emotion dysregulation (overly intense negative affect) if he or she can engage in accurate expression of his or her emotions, thoughts, and/or desires, without interpretation (extensive analysis) or judgment (assigning blame). Furthermore, it is best if the support seeker expresses ‘primary emotions’ rather than ‘secondary emotions.’ Primary emotions, such as sadness or fear, are defined as universal and adaptive emotional responses [28]. By contrast, secondary emotions are learned, mediated by cognitions, and often defensive. When expressed, they have the effect of distancing and alienating the other person. An example is disappointment (e.g., over a forgotten birthday) that is instead expressed as anger or resentment. This pattern of defensive emotion expression seems to characterize communication of individuals with an anxious or avoidant attachment style when they experience threat [25]. The expression of a primary emotion such as disappointment makes it easier for the support provider to respond with validation (communication of understanding and acceptance) [22]. A validating or responsive communication keeps emotional arousal low, which helps individuals stay focused and able to process information. www.sciencedirect.com
Social support among couples Cutrona and Russell 129
By contrast, inaccurate expression of emotions and the expression of secondary emotions prevent the support provider from understanding the support seeker’s real concerns, thus precluding a response that communicates genuine understanding and acceptance. Invalidating responses by the support provider (arguing, criticizing) are likely, and a cycle of mutual invalidation and escalating emotional intensity are the result [22]. Evidence for the validity of Fruzzetti’s transactional approach comes from an intervention study with couples that focused on increasing accurate expression and validating responses [29]. The intervention was successful in decreasing both individual and relationship distress.
Attachment style and ability to benefit from social support Researchers have long endeavored to identify the types of social support that will be most effective in the context of specific stressful circumstances [e.g., 30]. Another recent development in research on social support involves the discovery that individuals with different attachment orientations prefer and benefit from different types and amounts of social support. In an observational study of dating couples, behavioral ratings revealed that securely attached individuals reacted more positively to emotional support; whereas avoidantly attached individuals reacted more positively to instrumental support [31]. These differences were most pronounced when individuals were highly stressed. A recent series of studies that employed both observational and daily diary methods revealed that social support is only effective in soothing highly avoidant individuals when it is provided at high levels of intensity; low to moderate doses of support did not appear to benefit these individuals [32]. Less avoidant individuals were able to benefit from support at all levels. Clearly, it is important to understand the support requirements of different kinds of people if interventions are to be tailored to yield maximal effectiveness.
Summary Support providers face a significant challenge in gauging their partner’s needs. Sometimes, facilitating autonomy is more important than providing nurturance. In addition, it is important that couples actively celebrate one another’s triumphs and successes. Support that is delivered in a responsive manner (i.e., that leads the individual to feel understood, validated, and cared for) is more likely to enhance the relationship and less likely to damage selfesteem than assistance that does not communicate understanding, affirmation and caring. A responsive exchange is more likely if emotion dysregulation can be prevented. Appropriate emotion regulation is more likely if disclosures of current difficulties can be made in a way that is not defensive or accusatory. Types and levels of social support differ in their effectiveness as a function of people’s attachment orientations. All of these insights could easily be integrated into interventions to help www.sciencedirect.com
couples become more effective support providers and may yield significant benefits in how successfully committed couples enhance the life quality of their partner.
Conflict of interest statement Nothing declared.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest 1.
Collins NL, Feeney BC: A safe haven: an attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000, 78:1053-10973 http:// doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.6.1053.
2.
FeeneyF B.C.: A secure base: responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 2004, 87:631-648 http://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.87.5.631.
3.
Feeney BC, Thrush RL: Relationship influences on exploration in adulthood: the characteristics and function of a secure base. J Pers Soc Psychol 2010, 98:57-76 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0016961.
4.
Gable SL, Gonzaga GC, Strachman A: Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. J Pers Soc Psychol 2006, 91:904-917 http://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.904.
5.
Gable SL, Reis HT, Impett EA, Asher ER: What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. J Pers Soc Psychol 2004, 87:228-245 http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228.
6.
Langston CA: Captalizing on and coping with daily-life events: expressive responses to positive events. J Pers Soc Psychol 1994, 67:1112-1125 http://doi.org/10.1037//00223514.67.6.1112.
7.
Cutrona CE: Social Support in Marriage: Marriage as a Resource in Times of Stress. Sage; 1996.
8.
Reis HT, Clark MS, Holmes JG: Perceived partner resonsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy. Edited by Mashek DJ, Aron A. Erlbaum; 2004:201-225.
9.
Ainsworth MDS, Blehar MC, Waters E, Wall S: Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Lawrence Erlbaum; 1978.
10. Bowlby J: Attachment and Loss. Vol 1. Basic Books; 1969. 11. Reis HT, Shaver PR: Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Handbook of Personal Relationships. Edited by Duck S. Wiley; 1988:367-389. 12. Holmes JG, Rempel JK: Trust in close relationships. In Close Relationships. Edited by Hendrick C. Sage; 1989:187-221. 13. Bolger N, Zuckerman A, Kessler RC: Invisible support and adjustment to stress. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000, 79:953-961 http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.953. 14. Gleason ME et al.: Receiving support as a mixed blessing: evidence for dual effects of support on psychological outcomes. J Pers Soc Psychol 2008, 94:824-838 http://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.824. 15. Shrout PE, Herman CM, Bolger N: The costs and benefits of practical and emotional support on adjustment: a daily diary study of couples experiencing acute stress. Pers Relationship 2006, 13:115-134 http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00108.x. 16. Bolger N, Amarel D: Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: experimental evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 2007, 92:458-475 http://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.92.3.458. Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:126–130
130 Relationships and stress
17. Gleason ME et al.: Daily supportive equity in close relationships. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2003, 29:1036-1045 http:// doi.org/10.1177/0146167203253473.. 18. Iida M et al.: Modeling support provision in intimate relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 2008, 94:460-478 http:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.460. 19. Maisel NC, Gable SL: The paradox of received social support: the importance of responsiveness. Psychol Sci 2009, 20:928932 http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02388.x. 20. Selcuk E et al.: Does partner responsiveness predict hedonic and eudaimonic well-being? A 10-year longitudinal study. J Marriage Family 2016, 78:311-325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ jomf.12272. The long-term importance of perceiving one’s intimate partner as responsive to one’s needs is demonstrated in this ten-year longitudinal study of over 2000 married couples. Initial ratings of the partner’s responsiveness significantly predicted eudaimonic well-being (achieving one’s potential, finding meaning in life, and meeting life span developmental challenges), even when controlling for initial well-being, extraversion, neuroticism, affective reactivity, and the responsiveness of family and friends. This association was partially mediated by lower emotional reactivity to daily stressors. 21. Howland M: Simpson: Getting in under the radar: a dyadic view of invisible support. Psychol Sci 2010, 21:878-885 http://doi.org/ 10.1177/0956797610388817. 22. Fruzzetti AE, Iverson KM: Intervening with couples and families to treat emotion dysregulation and psychopathology. In Emotion Regulation in Couples and Families: Pathways to Dysfunction and Health. Edited by Snyder DK, Simpson J, Hughes JN. American Psychological Association; 2006:249-267. 23. Fruzzetti AE, Shenk C, Hoffman PD: Family interaction and the development of borderline personality disorder: a transactional model. Dev Psychopathol 2005, 17:1007-1030 http://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050479. 24. Overall NC, Simpson JA: Regulation processes in close relationships. In The Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships. Edited 427-451. by Overall NC, Simpson JA. Oxford University Press; 2013: 25. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR: Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics and Change. Guilford; 2007. 26. Gomillion S et al.: Protected by your self-control: the influence of partners’ self-control on actors’ responses to interpersonal risk. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 2014, 5:873-882 http://doi.org/ 10.1177/1948550614538462. 27. Prager KJ et al.: Recovery from conflict and revival of intimacy in cohabiting couples. Pers Relationship 2015, 22:308-334 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/pere.12082.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:126–130
This study highlights the influence of adult attachment orientation on couples’ ability to regulate their emotions and recover from the stress of interpersonal conflict with their partner. In a three-week daily diary study, 100 cohabiting couples reported on their daily moods, intimacy, relationship satisfaction and conflicts. Adult attachment orientation moderated the ability of relationship partners to recover following conflict. Securely attached men were better able to recover positive affect, express appreciation and understanding and engage in self-disclosure than avoidant men the day of a conflict. Those with a secure partner experienced less negative affect on conflict days than those with an avoidant partner. Securely attached women showed smaller drops in positive affect than anxiously attached women on conflict days. Individuals with a secure partner reported smaller drops in appreciation and understanding and higher relationship satisfaction following conflict than those with an anxious partner. The ability to maintain intimacy and emotional equilibrium is an important component of dealing with stress. 28. Greenberg LS, Safran JD: Emotion in psychotherapy. Am Psychol 1989, 44:19-29 http://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.1.19.. 29. Fruzzetti AE, Mosco E: Dialectical Behavior Therapy Adapted for Couples and Families: A Pilot Group Intervention for Couples. University of Nevada; 2009. 30. Cutrona CE, Russell DW: Type of social support and specific stress: toward a theory of optimal matching. In Social Support: An Interactional View. Edited by Sarason IG, Sarason BR, Pierce GR. Wiley; 1990:319-366. 31. Simpson JA, Winterheld HA, Rholes WS, Orina AM: Working models of attachment and reactions to different forms of caregiving from romantic partners. J Pers Soc Psychol 2007, 93:466-477 http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.466.. 32. Girme YU, Overall NC, Simpson JA, Fletcher GJ: ‘‘All or Nothing’’: attachment avoidance and the curvilinear effects of partner support. J Pers Soc Psychol 2015, 108:450-475 http://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0038866. Across four separate studies (three observational and one daily diary study), highly avoidant individuals showed increasingly negative responses as the practical support received from their partner rose from low to medium levels; however, as partner support rose from medium to high levels, level of support was associated with decreasing negative and increasing positive responses. This curvilinear pattern was largely unique to individuals high on avoidant attachment orientation, and reflects a high level of defensiveness and mistrust, which is only overcome when provided with very strong evidence of their partner’s willingness to exert effort on their behalf. Negative outcomes that showed this pattern for individuals high on avoidance orientation included distress, keeping the partner at an emotional distance, and perceptions that their partner was controlling and critical. One positive outcome, self-efficacy, showed the same pattern of a negative association with partner support when support was low to moderate, and a positive association with partner support as it exceeded moderate intensity.
www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Autonomy promotion, responsiveness, and emotion regulation promote effective social support in times of stress Carolyn E Cutrona1 and Daniel W Russell2 Adult attachment theory provides guidance for providing optimal social support in intimate relationships. According to attachment theory, facilitating autonomy (secure base support) sometimes is more important than providing nurturance (safe haven support). In addition, it is important that couples celebrate one another’s triumphs and successes (another form of secure base support). A key construct that explains the development of attachment is responsiveness to the individual’s needs. Support that is delivered in a responsive manner (i.e., that leads the individual to feel understood, validated, and cared for) is more likely to enhance the relationship and less likely to damage self-esteem than assistance that is not responsive. A responsive exchange is more likely if emotion dysregulation can be prevented. Attachment theory offers explanations for why people vary in their effectiveness at emotion regulation. Appropriate emotion regulation is more likely if disclosures of current difficulties can be made in a way that is not defensive or accusatory, an ability that varies as a function of attachment orientation. Attachment theory also offers guidance regarding the optimal forms of social support for specific individuals. All these insights from adult attachment theory can be integrated into interventions to help couples become more effective support providers.
of social support. Observational techniques that analyze specific support transactions and event-sampling methods (daily diaries) that track the behaviors of intimate partners over time have also provided rich new information. This article will provide a selective sampling of recent developments, all of which can be traced back to adult attachment theory. Advances in conceptualizations of social support include the importance of intimate partners in fostering autonomy and celebrating achievement, both of which build a reservoir of trust that may be drawn upon in times of adversity. Additional insights include the importance of perceived partner responsivity and emotion regulation as components of successful support transactions in couples. Differences in preferences for and ability to profit from different types of social support have also been found to vary as a function of adult attachment style. These topics were chosen because they have implications for improving the quality of support interactions among intimate partners, but have not yet been widely integrated into interventions to promote social support in couples. A theoretical model linking key constructs may be found in Figure 1.
Addresses 1 Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, USA 2 Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Iowa State University, USA
Conceptualizing social support — incorporating boosts and celebration
Corresponding author: Cutrona, Carolyn E ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:126–130 This review comes from a themed issue on Relationships and stress Edited by Gery C Karantzas, Marita P McCabe and Jeffry A Simpson
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.07.002 2352-250/# 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Social support is an important component of successful coping with stress. The past fifteen years have brought a wealth of new insights into social support processes as they unfold in the context of intimate dyadic relationships. New theoretical advances have come from an integration of attachment theory into conceptualizations Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:126–130
A new framework for conceptualizing the construct of social support comes from the work of attachment theorists. Prior definitions viewed support primarily as a resource in times of adversity. A recent re-conceptualization of social support argues for the importance of support in both high-stress and low-stress situations [1–3]. This reconceptualization involves two types of support: safe haven and secure base. Safe-haven support is defined as comfort and assistance to another in times of stress or adversity (traditional social support). Secure-base support is defined as support for the individual’s autonomy and exploration when not distressed. From this perspective, support has an important role in promoting goal attainment and autonomous functioning as well as assistance in times of stress. Evidence of the importance of social support in the context of achievement comes from research by Gable and colleagues, who have demonstrated the importance of supportive reactions to positive events [4,5]. For example, in a daily-diary study, on days when individuals shared a positive event with another person, they experienced more positive affect and life satisfaction than on days when a positive event occurred but they did not tell anyone [5]. An enthusiastic response to a positive event www.sciencedirect.com
Social support among couples Cutrona and Russell 127
Figure 1
Emotion Regulation Capacity
Quality of Secure Base Support to promote and celebrate growth
Responsiveness (Perception of being cared for, appreciated and understood by partner)
Quality of Safe Haven Support to promote adaptive coping with stressors
Adult Attachment Style
Current Opinion in Psychology
Theoretical model depicting the influence of adult attachment style on emotion regulation and responsiveness to one’s intimate partner. Experiences with caregivers during development contribute to the formation of expectations regarding the availability of other people in times of need and one’s own worthiness to receive love and assistance from others. These expectations, or working models, give rise to different approaches to dealing with relationships, termed adult attachment styles or orientations. Individuals with secure attachment styles are able to regulate their emotions and behave in a way that is responsive to other peoples’ needs. This makes them good providers of social support. Those with avoidant or anxious attachment styles have more difficulty with both emotion regulation and responsiveness to others, which interferes with the quality of social support they can provide. Two types of social support are important for intimate relationships. The first, safe haven support, involves comfort and assistance to the partner in times of adversity. The second, secure base support, involves encouragement of exploration and pursuit of personal goals. Both are critical to successful relationships and they have reciprocal effects on each other, building a firm belief in the partner’s responsiveness.
by another person communicates important information, that is, that the responder understands the significance of the event, takes an interest in the discloser’s experiences, and derives pleasure from the discloser’s positive personal events [6]. Thus, a key advance in recent years is the insight that part of providing support to one’s partner is encouraging the other in efforts toward growth and cheering him or her on when these efforts are successful.
The role of responsiveness Also building on attachment theory concepts, Cutrona [7] defined social support as acts that reflect responsiveness to another’s needs. Responsiveness, relating to others in a way that allows them to feel understood, validated, and cared for, is at the heart of many relationship processes [8]. Responsive caregiving is viewed by attachment theorists as the cornerstone of the bond that grows between infant and caregiver in the earliest months of life, and shapes the child’s beliefs about the essential goodness of both the self and others [9,10]. In adult relationships, intimacy grows when individuals disclose important aspects of themselves, and these self-disclosures are met with understanding, validation, and caring [11]. Expectations that form the core of trust are those that focus on the partner’s responsiveness to one’s needs in situations of stress [12]. As couples are assisted in their efforts to become more effective sources of support to their partner, it may be important to emphasize empathic listening, validation, and expressions of caring as much as specific types of social support. www.sciencedirect.com
Preventing the negative effects of support: a role for secure base support and responsive caregiving No studies have had greater impact on social support research than those of Bolger and colleagues, who found that social support from one’s partner can increase distress. Possible ways to circumvent this unwanted consequence of support by incorporating the concepts of secure base support and responsiveness will be proposed. Bolger and colleagues conducted a series of daily diary studies of couples in which one member of the couple faced the stress of preparing for the bar examination [13–15]. Each day for several weeks before the exam, the examinee and his or her partner recorded whether or not they had provided and/or received emotional support from the other. Daily ratings of mood were also collected. An unexpected but consistent finding across studies was that when examinees reported they had received social support from their partner on a given day (termed ‘visible support,’ because the recipient was aware of having received it), their mood was worse the following day. By contrast, on days when partners reported that they had provided support to the examinee but the examinee did not notice this support (termed ‘invisible support’), the examinee’s mood improved the following day [13]. The negative impact on mood of visible support has been replicated, both by Bolger and associates [14,16–18] and other researchers [19]. It may be that individuals preparing for the bar exam reacted negatively to the support they received because Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:126–130
128 Relationships and stress
they perceived it to be the wrong type: instead of emphasizing their competence as they pursued a valued achievement goal (secure base support), the support they received may have addressed their fear of failure (safe haven support) [1–3]. It may be that these aspiring lawyers needed expressions of confidence rather than comfort or sympathy as they prepared for the most important examination of their careers. Degree of perceived partner responsiveness may also contribute to the success or failure of support efforts. A replication of Bolger’s daily-diary study was conducted to test the hypothesis that partner responsiveness influences the impact of visible and invisible support [19]. The impact of support on mood and relationship responsiveness was examined in a community sample of couples facing a range of individual stressors. The authors hypothesized that daily evaluations of the partner’s responsiveness would moderate the impact of visible and invisible support on mood, such that when the partner was viewed as highly responsive, visible support would not have a negative effect. By contrast, when the partner was viewed as unresponsive, even invisible support would not be beneficial. Results were highly consistent with the predictions. On days when the partner was viewed as responsive, visible support was not associated with lower mood the next day. Furthermore, on high-responsive days visible support was associated with increased relationship quality (connectedness and security). On low responsive days, invisible support had no beneficial effect on mood and was associated with diminished relationship quality. The greatest declines in mood and relationship quality were seen on days when both partners reported low responsiveness. Thus, even visible support, with its potential to damage self-esteem, was not harmful when the partner was viewed as responsive and invisible support was not helpful when the partner was viewed as non-responsive. Providing further support for the importance of responsivity, in a long-term study of 2000 married couples, initial perceptions of partner responsiveness predicted eudemonic well-being (achieving one’s potential, finding meaning in life, and meeting life span developmental challenges) ten years later, when controlling for initial well-being, neuroticism, extraversion, affective reactivity, and the responsiveness of family and friends [20]. Thus, partner responsiveness was associated with development of the self on important dimensions, perhaps through its promotion of the perception of high-quality support from the partner. Of course, the findings do not provide insight into the determinants of perceiving one’s partner as responsive. It is not clear whether the content of supportive acts was different on days viewed as responsive versus Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:126–130
non-responsive, or whether the same type of support was offered, but in a manner that differed in sensitivity of delivery. It is also possible that the receptivity or mood of the support recipient differed across days rated as high versus low on partner responsiveness. Preliminary evidence suggests that both the behavior of the support provider and perceptual processes in the support recipient contribute to perceptions of high-quality support and responsiveness [21]. Clearly, more research is needed on the components of perceived responsiveness.
Emotion regulation in support transactions A very interesting innovation in social support research emphasizes the importance of emotion regulation in social-support transactions [22–24]. Theory and research on different adult attachment styles have discovered striking differences in emotion-regulation strategies as a function of both attachment anxiety and avoidance [24–26]. When emotional arousal becomes intense, people are not able to effectively solve problems, communicate, or complete complex tasks. Individuals with a secure attachment style are better able to engage in constructive self-regulation, as shown in a daily diary study of recovery following conflict [27]. Avoidant men experienced more negative affect on days when they experienced conflict with their partner than did non-avoidant men. Anxiously attached women experienced a greater drop in positive affect both the day of and the day after conflict than did secure women. Emotion regulation seems to vary as a function of adult attachment orientation, such that secure men and women are better able to navigate difficult times in their relationships [24]. According to Fruzzetti’s transactional model [22], the support seeker is most successful in preventing emotion dysregulation (overly intense negative affect) if he or she can engage in accurate expression of his or her emotions, thoughts, and/or desires, without interpretation (extensive analysis) or judgment (assigning blame). Furthermore, it is best if the support seeker expresses ‘primary emotions’ rather than ‘secondary emotions.’ Primary emotions, such as sadness or fear, are defined as universal and adaptive emotional responses [28]. By contrast, secondary emotions are learned, mediated by cognitions, and often defensive. When expressed, they have the effect of distancing and alienating the other person. An example is disappointment (e.g., over a forgotten birthday) that is instead expressed as anger or resentment. This pattern of defensive emotion expression seems to characterize communication of individuals with an anxious or avoidant attachment style when they experience threat [25]. The expression of a primary emotion such as disappointment makes it easier for the support provider to respond with validation (communication of understanding and acceptance) [22]. A validating or responsive communication keeps emotional arousal low, which helps individuals stay focused and able to process information. www.sciencedirect.com
Social support among couples Cutrona and Russell 129
By contrast, inaccurate expression of emotions and the expression of secondary emotions prevent the support provider from understanding the support seeker’s real concerns, thus precluding a response that communicates genuine understanding and acceptance. Invalidating responses by the support provider (arguing, criticizing) are likely, and a cycle of mutual invalidation and escalating emotional intensity are the result [22]. Evidence for the validity of Fruzzetti’s transactional approach comes from an intervention study with couples that focused on increasing accurate expression and validating responses [29]. The intervention was successful in decreasing both individual and relationship distress.
Attachment style and ability to benefit from social support Researchers have long endeavored to identify the types of social support that will be most effective in the context of specific stressful circumstances [e.g., 30]. Another recent development in research on social support involves the discovery that individuals with different attachment orientations prefer and benefit from different types and amounts of social support. In an observational study of dating couples, behavioral ratings revealed that securely attached individuals reacted more positively to emotional support; whereas avoidantly attached individuals reacted more positively to instrumental support [31]. These differences were most pronounced when individuals were highly stressed. A recent series of studies that employed both observational and daily diary methods revealed that social support is only effective in soothing highly avoidant individuals when it is provided at high levels of intensity; low to moderate doses of support did not appear to benefit these individuals [32]. Less avoidant individuals were able to benefit from support at all levels. Clearly, it is important to understand the support requirements of different kinds of people if interventions are to be tailored to yield maximal effectiveness.
Summary Support providers face a significant challenge in gauging their partner’s needs. Sometimes, facilitating autonomy is more important than providing nurturance. In addition, it is important that couples actively celebrate one another’s triumphs and successes. Support that is delivered in a responsive manner (i.e., that leads the individual to feel understood, validated, and cared for) is more likely to enhance the relationship and less likely to damage selfesteem than assistance that does not communicate understanding, affirmation and caring. A responsive exchange is more likely if emotion dysregulation can be prevented. Appropriate emotion regulation is more likely if disclosures of current difficulties can be made in a way that is not defensive or accusatory. Types and levels of social support differ in their effectiveness as a function of people’s attachment orientations. All of these insights could easily be integrated into interventions to help www.sciencedirect.com
couples become more effective support providers and may yield significant benefits in how successfully committed couples enhance the life quality of their partner.
Conflict of interest statement Nothing declared.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest 1.
Collins NL, Feeney BC: A safe haven: an attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000, 78:1053-10973 http:// doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.6.1053.
2.
FeeneyF B.C.: A secure base: responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 2004, 87:631-648 http://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.87.5.631.
3.
Feeney BC, Thrush RL: Relationship influences on exploration in adulthood: the characteristics and function of a secure base. J Pers Soc Psychol 2010, 98:57-76 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0016961.
4.
Gable SL, Gonzaga GC, Strachman A: Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. J Pers Soc Psychol 2006, 91:904-917 http://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.904.
5.
Gable SL, Reis HT, Impett EA, Asher ER: What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. J Pers Soc Psychol 2004, 87:228-245 http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228.
6.
Langston CA: Captalizing on and coping with daily-life events: expressive responses to positive events. J Pers Soc Psychol 1994, 67:1112-1125 http://doi.org/10.1037//00223514.67.6.1112.
7.
Cutrona CE: Social Support in Marriage: Marriage as a Resource in Times of Stress. Sage; 1996.
8.
Reis HT, Clark MS, Holmes JG: Perceived partner resonsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy. Edited by Mashek DJ, Aron A. Erlbaum; 2004:201-225.
9.
Ainsworth MDS, Blehar MC, Waters E, Wall S: Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Lawrence Erlbaum; 1978.
10. Bowlby J: Attachment and Loss. Vol 1. Basic Books; 1969. 11. Reis HT, Shaver PR: Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Handbook of Personal Relationships. Edited by Duck S. Wiley; 1988:367-389. 12. Holmes JG, Rempel JK: Trust in close relationships. In Close Relationships. Edited by Hendrick C. Sage; 1989:187-221. 13. Bolger N, Zuckerman A, Kessler RC: Invisible support and adjustment to stress. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000, 79:953-961 http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.953. 14. Gleason ME et al.: Receiving support as a mixed blessing: evidence for dual effects of support on psychological outcomes. J Pers Soc Psychol 2008, 94:824-838 http://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.824. 15. Shrout PE, Herman CM, Bolger N: The costs and benefits of practical and emotional support on adjustment: a daily diary study of couples experiencing acute stress. Pers Relationship 2006, 13:115-134 http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00108.x. 16. Bolger N, Amarel D: Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: experimental evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 2007, 92:458-475 http://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.92.3.458. Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:126–130
130 Relationships and stress
17. Gleason ME et al.: Daily supportive equity in close relationships. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2003, 29:1036-1045 http:// doi.org/10.1177/0146167203253473.. 18. Iida M et al.: Modeling support provision in intimate relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 2008, 94:460-478 http:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.460. 19. Maisel NC, Gable SL: The paradox of received social support: the importance of responsiveness. Psychol Sci 2009, 20:928932 http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02388.x. 20. Selcuk E et al.: Does partner responsiveness predict hedonic and eudaimonic well-being? A 10-year longitudinal study. J Marriage Family 2016, 78:311-325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ jomf.12272. The long-term importance of perceiving one’s intimate partner as responsive to one’s needs is demonstrated in this ten-year longitudinal study of over 2000 married couples. Initial ratings of the partner’s responsiveness significantly predicted eudaimonic well-being (achieving one’s potential, finding meaning in life, and meeting life span developmental challenges), even when controlling for initial well-being, extraversion, neuroticism, affective reactivity, and the responsiveness of family and friends. This association was partially mediated by lower emotional reactivity to daily stressors. 21. Howland M: Simpson: Getting in under the radar: a dyadic view of invisible support. Psychol Sci 2010, 21:878-885 http://doi.org/ 10.1177/0956797610388817. 22. Fruzzetti AE, Iverson KM: Intervening with couples and families to treat emotion dysregulation and psychopathology. In Emotion Regulation in Couples and Families: Pathways to Dysfunction and Health. Edited by Snyder DK, Simpson J, Hughes JN. American Psychological Association; 2006:249-267. 23. Fruzzetti AE, Shenk C, Hoffman PD: Family interaction and the development of borderline personality disorder: a transactional model. Dev Psychopathol 2005, 17:1007-1030 http://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050479. 24. Overall NC, Simpson JA: Regulation processes in close relationships. In The Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships. Edited 427-451. by Overall NC, Simpson JA. Oxford University Press; 2013: 25. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR: Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics and Change. Guilford; 2007. 26. Gomillion S et al.: Protected by your self-control: the influence of partners’ self-control on actors’ responses to interpersonal risk. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 2014, 5:873-882 http://doi.org/ 10.1177/1948550614538462. 27. Prager KJ et al.: Recovery from conflict and revival of intimacy in cohabiting couples. Pers Relationship 2015, 22:308-334 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/pere.12082.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:126–130
This study highlights the influence of adult attachment orientation on couples’ ability to regulate their emotions and recover from the stress of interpersonal conflict with their partner. In a three-week daily diary study, 100 cohabiting couples reported on their daily moods, intimacy, relationship satisfaction and conflicts. Adult attachment orientation moderated the ability of relationship partners to recover following conflict. Securely attached men were better able to recover positive affect, express appreciation and understanding and engage in self-disclosure than avoidant men the day of a conflict. Those with a secure partner experienced less negative affect on conflict days than those with an avoidant partner. Securely attached women showed smaller drops in positive affect than anxiously attached women on conflict days. Individuals with a secure partner reported smaller drops in appreciation and understanding and higher relationship satisfaction following conflict than those with an anxious partner. The ability to maintain intimacy and emotional equilibrium is an important component of dealing with stress. 28. Greenberg LS, Safran JD: Emotion in psychotherapy. Am Psychol 1989, 44:19-29 http://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.1.19.. 29. Fruzzetti AE, Mosco E: Dialectical Behavior Therapy Adapted for Couples and Families: A Pilot Group Intervention for Couples. University of Nevada; 2009. 30. Cutrona CE, Russell DW: Type of social support and specific stress: toward a theory of optimal matching. In Social Support: An Interactional View. Edited by Sarason IG, Sarason BR, Pierce GR. Wiley; 1990:319-366. 31. Simpson JA, Winterheld HA, Rholes WS, Orina AM: Working models of attachment and reactions to different forms of caregiving from romantic partners. J Pers Soc Psychol 2007, 93:466-477 http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.466.. 32. Girme YU, Overall NC, Simpson JA, Fletcher GJ: ‘‘All or Nothing’’: attachment avoidance and the curvilinear effects of partner support. J Pers Soc Psychol 2015, 108:450-475 http://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0038866. Across four separate studies (three observational and one daily diary study), highly avoidant individuals showed increasingly negative responses as the practical support received from their partner rose from low to medium levels; however, as partner support rose from medium to high levels, level of support was associated with decreasing negative and increasing positive responses. This curvilinear pattern was largely unique to individuals high on avoidant attachment orientation, and reflects a high level of defensiveness and mistrust, which is only overcome when provided with very strong evidence of their partner’s willingness to exert effort on their behalf. Negative outcomes that showed this pattern for individuals high on avoidance orientation included distress, keeping the partner at an emotional distance, and perceptions that their partner was controlling and critical. One positive outcome, self-efficacy, showed the same pattern of a negative association with partner support when support was low to moderate, and a positive association with partner support as it exceeded moderate intensity.
www.sciencedirect.com