Predicting the Pursuit and Support of Challenging Life Opportunities

Abstract

Deciding to embrace challenging opportunities may present one life context through which individuals may thrive, and these decisions may be influenced by one’s significant relationships. Married couples were unobtrusively videotaped as one couple-member was presented with a challenging opportunity and decided whether to accept it. We assessed interpersonal predictors of the decision to accept or forgo the opportunity, predictors of the spouse’s support during decision-making, and follow-up thriving outcomes 6 months later. Results indicated that specific support behaviors enacted by the spouse—relational catalyst (RC) support provision—encouraged decision-makers to accept the challenge and that this decision predicted long-term thriving outcomes for the decision-maker. Results also indicated that the spouse’s support behavior was influenced by both chronic and experimentally manipulated motivations for providing support, and these motives provide pathways by which relationship satisfaction and attachment security predict the provision of RC support. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

challenging life opportunities social support thriving relational catalyst motivation

Individuals must often decide whether to embrace or forego challenging life opportunities. These decisions have important implications for the decision-maker, and they are unlikely to occur in a vacuum, independent of external influences. The purpose of this research was to investigate the idea that these decision points (and the subsequent embracing of opportunities) present one life context through which individuals may thrive, and that these choices are influenced by the significant relationships in one’s life. Because there is currently a lack of research on interpersonal processes surrounding one’s choice to embrace versus forgo challenging opportunities, this investigation addresses two critical questions aimed at understanding these processes: First, we address the question of what predicts the pursuit of challenging opportunities. We make the case that a particular type of social support—relational catalyst (RC) support—is an important predictor. Second, we address the question of what predicts the responsive support of an individual’s embracing of challenging opportunities. We make the case that chronic and experimentally manipulated motivations are key predictors of responsive support provision in this context.

The theoretical backdrop for this work is a perspective on thriving through relationships (Feeney & Collins, 2014, 2015a, 2015b), which emphasizes the importance of reconceptualizing social support in terms of the promotion of thriving. This perspective emphasizes that although the social support literature historically has focused on stress buffering (Cohen & Wills, 1985), there is also strong evidence for main effects models of social support, which indicate that supportive relationships are tied to well-being even in the absence of stress/adversity (Lakey & Orehek, 2011). The thriving perspective also emphasizes that the social support literature historically has assessed the presence or absence of negative outcomes associated with acute or chronic stress but has not considered how social relationships can promote (or hinder) positive outcomes. Thus, this perspective raises the question: How do close relationships support individuals not only in their ability to cope with stress/adversity but also in their efforts to learn/grow, explore, achieve goals, cultivate new talents, and find purpose/meaning in life? In other words, how do close relationships facilitate thriving?

Although thriving has been conceptualized in a variety of ways (see Feeney & Collins, 2015a, for a review), all perspectives agree that it includes flourishing both personally and relationally. The theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships (a) views thriving as including five major components of well-being: eudaimonic well-being (life purpose, growth), hedonic well-being (happiness), psychological well-being (positive self-regard, absence of mental health symptoms), social well-being (deep and meaningful human connections), and physical well-being (absence of illness/disease, health status above expected baselines); (b) has highlighted two major life contexts through which individuals can thrive (coping successfully with life adversities and embracing life opportunities for growth in the absence of adversity); and (c) has specified two corresponding relational support functions that contribute to thriving in each context (Feeney & Collins, 2015a, 2015b).

One context in which people may potentially thrive, which is the focus of the current investigation, involves the active pursuit of life opportunities (positive challenges) in times of nonadversity (Feeney & Collins, 2015a). Relationships should be fundamental to the experience of thriving in this life context because they serve an important support function that enables one to embrace positive challenges. This support function is referred to as relational catalyst support (Feeney & Collins, 2015a, 2015b) because support-providers can serve as active catalysts for thriving in this context. A useful metaphor is that, to lift off and successfully accomplish a mission, rockets must have a supportive launchpad that provides services to the vehicle before, during, and after the launch. Similarly, relationships can function as launchpads in the pursuit of opportunities by providing necessary functions that promote thriving. Important components of RC support include nurturing a desire to create or seize opportunities, assisting in perceiving opportunities positively (e.g., as not too difficult to attain), facilitating preparation for engagement in opportunities, and providing the launching function during actual engagement in opportunities (which includes providing a secure base for exploration, Feeney & Thrush, 2010; enabling capitalization on successes, Gable, Gonzaga, & Strachman, 2006; Gable & Reis, 2010; and sensitively responding to setbacks; see Feeney & Collins, 2015a, 2015b, for elaboration).

This theoretical perspective also highlights the importance of responsiveness when providing RC support (Feeney & Collins, 2015a). Being responsive involves providing the type and amount of support that is dictated by the situation and the partner’s needs (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Cutrona, 1990; Reis, 2012; Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). Responsive support-providers flexibly respond to needs and adjust their behavior in response to the contingencies of the situation (Collins, Guichard, Ford, & Feeney, 2006; Feeney & Collins, 2001). Thus, a responsive RC support-provider encourages the pursuit of opportunities that would likely be attainable and benefit the recipient.

This support function is rooted in but extends attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982, 1988) in its focus on the promotion of thriving. In other work, we have referred to the support of a significant other’s exploration behavior (e.g., desires to learn, grow, play, discover, accomplish goals) as the provision of a secure base (e.g., Feeney, 2004, 2007; Jakubiak & Feeney, 2016). This is based on attachment theory’s notion of a secure base, which functions to support behaviors that involve “going out” from a relationship for autonomous exploration in the environment (Bowlby, 1988). However, when viewing thriving as the ultimate outcome of receiving social support (instead of just providing a base for exploration, which emphasizes more of a passive, waiting role), the term secure base does not fully capture a support function that promotes thriving in the absence of adversity. Thus, Feeney and Collins (2015a) have expanded attachment theory’s notion of a secure base to include the additional components necessary for supporting thriving. The promotion of thriving through life opportunities is the core purpose of this broader support function.

The thriving perspective posits that people must fully embrace life and its opportunities to achieve optimal health, happiness, and well-being (to thrive) and that close relationships are integral in this process (Feeney & Collins, 2015a, 2015b). In support of this idea, initial work has shown that RC support for goal-strivings predicts both short- and long-term outcomes indicative of thriving (Tomlinson, Feeney, & Van Vleet, 2015). However, we currently lack any studies that examine people’s in-the-moment decisions to pursue or forego opportunities and the long-term effects of these decisions. In the current research, we hypothesized that a specific social support function—RC support—would predict the pursuit of a challenging opportunity. In addition, we hypothesized that the decision to pursue a specific challenging opportunity (likely representative of typical choices one makes regarding opportunities) would predict important personal and relational outcomes indicative of thriving over time, including growth/learning (eudaimonic well-being), happiness (hedonic well-being), self-perceptions (psychological well-being), and relationship quality (relational well-being). That is, the specific, in-the-moment choice participants make regarding accepting/embracing an opportunity presented in the lab (likely reflecting decisions made in one’s day-to-day life given stable patterns of RC support in long-married couples) should predict the extent to which participants are thriving over a 6-month assessment period. These hypotheses were tested using both observational and longitudinal methods.

In testing whether RC support would predict the pursuit of a challenging opportunity, we assessed four indicators of pursuit. One important indicator is the choice one makes to embrace the opportunity or not. We hypothesized that individuals who embrace the opportunity would receive greater RC support from their spouse than those who do not. A second indicator involves the decision-maker’s reasons for pursuing the challenge or not. Because RC support should theoretically release one from constraints that may hinder these pursuits, a natural immediate consequence should be an increase in approach versus avoidance motivation toward the opportunity (Elliot, 2008; Feeney & Collins, 2015a). Approach motivation enables one to focus on the potential rewards to be gained by the opportunity instead of focusing on avoiding potentially negative outcomes (e.g., failure or embarrassment). Thus, we hypothesized that receiving greater RC support from one’s spouse would predict greater approach and intrinsic (internally driven; Deci & Ryan, 2000) motivation for pursuing the opportunity including accepting the opportunity because they want to be challenged and earn the reward associated with the opportunity, they might enjoy it, and they would disappoint themselves by not trying. In contrast, we predicted that individuals who lack RC support would exhibit greater avoidance motivation and less intrinsic motivation regarding the opportunity including not embracing the opportunity because it would be easier to avoid it, they would not enjoy it, and they do not wish to be challenged or earn the reward associated with the challenge.

A third indicator of pursuit involves the decision-maker’s self-perceptions of capability (self-appraisals) and perceptions that the spouse views one as capable (reflected appraisals) because feelings of capability should underlie one’s willingness to pursue a challenging opportunity. We hypothesized that RC support would predict feelings of capability, and a lack of such support should predict reduced feelings of capability. A final indicator of pursuit involves the decision-maker’s perceptions that support is available. High perceived support availability indicates appraisals of resources as outweighing the demands of the situation. We hypothesized that the provision of RC support (rated by independent observers) would predict decision-maker’s perceptions that the spouse encouraged acceptance of the challenge, was emotionally and instrumentally supportive, and that one was able to seek support from the spouse. A lack of RC support was expected to predict decision-maker reports that the spouse was not encouraging or emotionally supportive, and that the spouse was negative, critical, and unsupportive regarding the opportunity.

In addition, the theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships (Feeney & Collins, 2015a) emphasizes three prerequisites for being a responsive support-provider. These include having requisite skills (e.g., knowledge of how to support others), resources (e.g., constitutional and situational resources), and motivation (being positively motivated to use one’s skills and resources in the service of another; see also Feeney, Collins, Van Vleet, & Tomlinson, 2013). We focused specifically on motivations in this investigation because responsive support provision is unlikely to occur if support-providers are not appropriately motivated. We hypothesized that general altruistic versus egoistic motivations for supporting a partner’s goals would be especially important in predicting the provision of RC support. Specifically, we expected altruistic motives (e.g., helping for enjoyment or to benefit the spouse) to predict greater RC support provision and egoistic motives (e.g., helping to avoid negative consequences, gain rewards, or meet an obligation) to predict less RC support provision. These predictions are consistent with research showing that individuals differ in their motivation to provide support, that support-providers who are motivated by altruistic concerns are more effective than those who are motivated by egoistic concerns (Feeney & Collins, 2001, 2003; Feeney et al., 2013), and that altruistic motives predict increased relatedness, empathy, and more other-oriented goals, whereas egoistic motives predict decreased relatedness, empathy, and more self-oriented goals (Park, Troisi, & Maner, 2011).

We also hypothesized that relationship satisfaction and attachment security would predict these motives. People who are happier with their relationships should be more positively motivated to function as an RC for their significant others. In addition, secure individuals may be altruistically motivated to provide RC support because they do not need to focus on having their own attachment needs met (e.g., Feeney & Collins, 2015a). Previous research indeed demonstrates that securely attached individuals have more altruistic motives for helping others than less secure individuals, who report egoistic motives for providing support (Feeney & Collins, 2003; Feeney et al., 2013). Because both types of insecurity (anxiety and avoidance) have been associated with egoistic motives for providing support and with unresponsive support provision (e.g., Feeney & Collins, 2001, 2003; Feeney & Thrush, 2010), we consider an overall index of attachment security versus insecurity in this investigation. We further predicted that these general motives would provide pathways through which partners’ relationship satisfaction and attachment security predict RC support. Specifically, we expected that less satisfied and less secure individuals might provide less RC support because they are more egoistically (vs. altruistically) motivated.

Finally, because less satisfied and less securely attached individuals may need a motivational push to support a partner’s opportunity, a final component of this investigation involved an assessment of whether we can experimentally manipulate motives to make these individuals more likely to provide RC support. We predicted that if we experimentally manipulate potential outcomes of engaging in life opportunities to be more rewarding for the support-provider, then less satisfied and less secure people may be more likely to support a partner’s challenging opportunity. We tested this hypothesis by experimentally manipulating whether the challenging opportunity would be potentially rewarding for just the person given the opportunity (the decision-maker) or for the partner/support-provider as well (a possible joint benefit).

Method

Participants

Participants were 163 married, heterosexual couples who were part of a larger investigation of marital relationships. Couples had been married for an average of 9.68 years, known each other for an average of 13.58 years, and romantically involved for an average of 12 years. All lived with their spouses, and 65.6% had children together. One couple participated at a time. Before arriving for the study, couple-members were randomly assigned to the roles of “decision-maker” and “partner.” Thus, the couple (not individual) is the unit of analysis. Decision-makers (78 females, 85 males) were, on average, 38.17 years old, and the majority were White (75.5%) or Black (15.3%); most completed a bachelor’s degree or higher (44.8%) or some college credits or an associate’s degree (34.3%). Partners were, on average, 38.35 years old, and the majority were White (77.9%) or Black (16.6%); most completed a bachelor’s degree or higher (45.3%) or some college credits or an associate’s degree (36.2%).

Although this was part of a larger investigation for which sample size was already determined, we calculated power for prototypical analyses to be conducted for this investigation using G*Power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009): For analyses comparing two groups (choice differences in predicted outcomes), we had power of .95 to detect a large effect size (Cohen’s d of 0.80) with only 35 participants per group (total sample size of 70). To test an interaction using hierarchical multiple regression with three predictor variables (two main effects and an interaction), we had power of .95 to detect an effect size of .15 with a total sample size of 119 (at p = .05). Thus, a sample size of 163 couples was more than sufficient to test the hypotheses proposed.

Procedure

Background characteristics

Each couple visited the laboratory to complete background questionnaires which included demographics (e.g., age, relationship length), partners’ general motivations for supporting the decision-maker’s opportunities, relationship satisfaction, and attachment orientation.

Specifically, partners completed a measure of their typical motivations for supporting their spouses’ goals/opportunities (the Motivations for Providing a Secure Base scale; Feeney et al., 2014). Partners were presented with the phrase, “On occasions when I encourage or support my spouse’s goals, I generally do so because . . . ,” and responded to 32 motivation items on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Consistent with prior work (Feeney et al., 2014), a principal components analysis indicated that the items loaded on 11 factors representing the following motives: (a) Avoid Negative Consequences (four items; α = .81, for example, “I want to avoid negative consequences from my spouse (e.g., my spouse would get angry or withdraw from me”), (b) Keep Spouse (three items; α = .74, for example, “My spouse will be more likely to remain in the relationship if I encourage and support him or her”), (c) Avoid Own Goals (four items; α = .81, for example, “When I support my spouse, I don’t have to think about my own goals”), (d) Gain Rewards (four items; α = .79, for example, “I expect something in return for my encouragement and support later”), (e) Needy Spouse (four items; α = .67, for example, “My spouse really needs my encouragement; he or she would be reluctant to do anything otherwise”), (f) Feel Obligated (two items; α = .70, for example, I feel obligated to encourage and support my spouse’s goals; it’s expected of me”), (g) Enjoy Helping (two items; α = .84, for example, “I truly enjoy helping my spouse”), (h) Love Spouse (two items; α = .75, for example, “I love my spouse”), (i) Connect With Spouse (three items; α = .79, for example, “It helps me to stay connected to my spouse”), (j) Make Spouse Feel Good (two items; α = .55, for example, “I want my spouse to feel good about himself or herself”), and (k) Makes Me Feel Good (two items; α = .73, for example, “It makes me feel good about myself when I help my spouse”).

To further consolidate the motivation variables for use in data analysis, we conducted another principal components analysis on the 11 composite variables. Results indicated that five of the composite variables loaded on one factor representing relatively egoistic motives (i.e., avoid negative consequences, avoid own goals, keep spouse, feel obligated, and gain rewards), and five loaded on a second factor representing relatively altruistic motives (i.e., love spouse, enjoy helping, connect with spouse, make spouse feel good, makes me feel good). Thus, we computed two composite indexes of relatively egoistic motives and relatively altruistic motives by averaging the respective motive scales. One motive, needy spouse, did not conceptually fit on either factor and was retained as a separate scale for use in data analysis.

Partners also completed an abbreviated 26-item version of Brennan, Clark, and Shaver’s (1998) Experiences in Close Relationships scale, a well-validated measure for assessing adult attachment. The Avoidance subscale measures the extent to which one is comfortable with closeness/intimacy and the degree to which one feels that people can be relied on to be available when needed (α = .89). The Anxiety subscale measures the extent to which one is worried about being rejected, abandoned, or unloved (α = .91). Partners responded to each item on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) in terms of their general orientation toward close relationships. For purposes of this investigation, the avoidance and anxiety dimensions were reverse-scored and averaged into a composite variable representing attachment security (with higher scores reflecting greater attachment security).

Partners’ relationship satisfaction (α = .95) was measured using the four items employed by Van Lange et al. (1997) and two additional items from Collins and Read (1990). These items assessed the degree to which partners felt happy/satisfied with their relationship (e.g., “All things considered, how satisfied do you feel with your relationship?”). Partners responded using 9-point Likert-type scales with appropriate anchors.

Challenging opportunity

Approximately 1 week later, couples returned to the laboratory to participate in an observational session. Couple-members were informed that they would participate in a series of activities—some joint activities that they would complete together, and an individual activity. The individual activity provided a challenging opportunity for the “decision-maker” and is the focus of this investigation.

First, the experimenter instructed the partner as follows:

We’d like you to participate in an activity that involves the completion of some puzzles. These are paper-and-pencil puzzles like mazes, finding hidden pictures, and so on. They’re fun and easy—you probably did similar puzzles when you were a child.

These puzzles were described such that it was clear to the participant that they would require very little thought or effort.

Then, the decision-maker was given a challenging opportunity to consider. A meaningful opportunity in a laboratory situation is one in which (a) an individual is given a choice to accept or decline it (with no pressure to accept or decline from the experimenter), (b) the opportunity involves some degree of challenge/effort such that the choice to accept/decline is a meaningful one, and (c) there is the potential that embracing the opportunity will be rewarding. Thus, we define an opportunity as something that is available and possible to embrace, and potentially beneficial, although the final outcome is uncertain. In the laboratory context, an opportunity to embrace a challenging activity for which one may or may not win a prize is analogous to a real-life context in which one may or may not get a promotion by pursuing a work opportunity, or one may or may not reap the reward of developing a close relationship by pursuing a social opportunity.

Thus, the decision-maker was presented with an opportunity that meets the specified criteria. Specifically, the experimenter said,

We’re going to give you a choice between two activities. You can pick either one—it doesn’t matter to us which one you choose. You can either choose to work on some puzzles that are similar to the ones your spouse will be working on, or you can choose to compete in a public speaking activity for a chance to win a prize.

The experimenter told the decision-maker that this opportunity was being offered to one member of each couple in the study, that this activity involved giving a speech that would be videotaped and rated by a group of judges, and that he or she would be competing with other couple-members in the study (who select this activity) to win one of three prizes. The decision-maker was shown a list of prizes worth up to US$200 in value.

This method is in contrast to laboratory stress tasks such as the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST; Kirschbaum, Pirke, & Hellhammer, 1993) aimed at inducing stress/anxiety and performance pressure by not giving participants a choice, by critically evaluating the participants’ performance as they are completing the activity, by implying that performance reflects one’s intelligence/abilities, and by the absence of a potential reward for engaging in the activity. Social evaluation and uncontrollability have been identified as the key components of stress induction by the TSST (Gruenewald, Kemeny, Aziz, & Fahey, 2004), and both of these elements were missing from our laboratory procedure that presents an opportunity. Our goal was not to create stress/anxiety or performance pressure but instead to mimic real-life opportunities that are challenging and require effort, yet are voluntary and potentially rewarding if embraced.

Experimental manipulation

To test hypotheses regarding the influence of partner motivations on support behavior, we experimentally manipulated whether the challenging opportunity was potentially rewarding for only the decision-maker or for the partner as well. We did this by showing the decision-maker, in the presence of the partner, one of two types of prize lists (which manipulated the potential benefit of the prize to the partner). In the individual prize condition, there was no potential benefit of the prizes for the partner. This list contained prizes that would be of interest only to the person given the challenging opportunity (e.g., gift certificates to women’s clothing stores and bath shops if the decision-maker was female, and gift certificates to men’s clothing stores and hardware stores if the decision-maker was male; all were heterosexual couples). In the joint prize condition, there was a potential benefit to the partner as the prizes could be of interest to both couple-members (e.g., gift certificates to movie theaters, restaurants, general interest stores, and cash prizes).

Assessments of opportunity-pursuit

The experimenter then left the room and unobtrusively videotaped the couple for 5 min as the decision-maker considered which activity to select. After 5 min, couple-members were escorted to separate rooms (for their individual activities) where they completed preactivity questionnaires. At this time, the decision-maker recorded his or her choice of activity and answered questions regarding his or her reasons for choosing the selected activity, perceptions of capability, and perceptions of the spouse’s support.

Specifically, decision-makers rated the extent to which they chose their selected activity for a variety of reasons using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = “I definitely did not pick the activity for this reason,” 7 = “I definitely did pick the activity for this reason”). Based on the results of a principal components analysis, we computed five composite subscales for use in data analysis representing reasons for selecting one’s activity, including Want to Win a Prize (three items; α = .93, for example, “I want to win a prize”), It’s Easier (four items; α = .89, for example, “It is easier”), Want to Be Challenged (two items; α = .72, for example, “It’s more challenging”), Will Enjoy It (three items; α = .80, for example, “I enjoy doing activities like the one I picked”), and Don’t Want to Disappoint Self or Partner (four items; α = .87, for example, “I would feel disappointed with myself if I didn’t do this one,” “My spouse would feel disappointed with me if I didn’t do this one”).

In addition, decision-makers rated their perceptions of their own capability for their selected activity (two items; α = .87, for example, “How capable are you of performing this activity well?”) and their perceptions that their spouse views them as capable (two items; α = .88, for example, “How capable does your spouse think you are of performing this activity well?”) on 7-point scales with appropriate anchors. Finally, decision-makers reported (on 5-point scales with appropriate anchors) their perceptions of the extent to which their spouses encouraged them to take the challenge (“To what extent did your spouse encourage you to pick the speech activity?”), encouraged them to choose the easier puzzle (“To what extent did your spouse encourage you to pick the puzzle activity?”), provided assistance (“To what extent did your spouse give you assistance or advice about how to perform either activity?”), provided emotional support (“To what extent did your spouse communicate emotional support? By emotional support, we mean affection, compassion, understanding, reassurance, compliments, etc.”), was negative/critical/unsupportive (“Overall, how negative, critical, or unsupportive was your spouse during the time you were together before deciding on an activity?”), and the extent to which the decision-maker sought support from the spouse during the waiting period (three items; α = .72, for example, “To what extent did you ask your spouse to help you decide which activity to pick?”).

After completing these questionnaires, decision-makers who selected the speech were informed that they would not actually give the speech, and all participants completed puzzles. The names of decision-makers who selected the challenge were entered into a random drawing for the prizes. Participants were fully debriefed and formally asked for permission to use their unobtrusive recordings for research purposes. All procedures were approved by the Carnegie Mellon University Institutional Review Board.

Observations of RC support

Independent observers who were blind to study hypotheses and trained to reliability watched each video of the 5-min (unobtrusively recorded) decision period and rated the extent to which the partner exhibited behaviors indicative of responsive RC support. These behaviors were selected to be representative of the theoretical components of RC support, which include nurturing a desire to create or seize opportunities, assisting in perceiving opportunities positively (e.g., as not too difficult to attain), and facilitating preparation for engagement in life opportunities. All behaviors were rated on scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal) in terms of both the frequency and intensity of occurrence. At least two observers (ratings were averaged, intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs] reported below) coded each behavior: (a) encouragement of the opportunity (expresses enthusiasm about the opportunity, ICC = .86), (b) confidence in the decision-maker (communicates confidence in the decision-maker’s ability to perform the challenge, ICC = .89), (c) promotion of challenge (suggests that the decision-maker should challenge himself or herself by choosing the speech, ICC = .72), (d) emotional support (validates and reassures the decision-maker, ICC = .88), (e) availability (shows acceptance of requests for support and provides requested support, ICC = .87), (f) persuasion (tries to motivate the decision-maker to try the challenging activity, ICC = .90), and (g) prize (discusses the potential benefits of the prize to the decision-maker, ICC = .89). A composite variable representing RC support was computed by averaging the ratings for each of these behaviors (α = .84). Theoretically, a partner who is functioning as an RC would be expected to exhibit all of these behaviors.

Independent observers also coded (on the same 5-point rating scales) a series of behaviors that represent the opposite of an RC. These include (a) discouragement (communicates that the opportunity is not valued, ICC = .88), (b) lack of confidence in the decision-maker (communicates a lack of confidence in decision-maker’s ability, ICC = .83), (c) controlling behaviors (tries to control the decision; demands which activity to choose and how to approach it, ICC = .90), (d) minimizing behavior (downplays importance of the decision and/or opportunity, ICC = .78), (e) maximizing behavior (catastrophizes obstacles/concerns related to the opportunity; imagines worst possible outcome, ICC = .54), (f) expressions of negative affect toward the decision-maker (e.g., hostility, ICC = .84), (g) avoidance (avoids discussing the opportunity with the decision-maker, ICC = .93), (h) self-focus (focuses the conversation on one’s own desires, needs, or concerns, ICC = .84), and (i) belittling the opportunity (puts down or makes fun of the activity, ICC = .46). A composite variable representing anti-RC support was computed by averaging the ratings for each of these behaviors. The purpose of creating this composite was to assess the extent to which any anti-RC behavior occurred (with higher scores indicating more intense and frequent occurrences). Because some of these unsupportive behaviors are opposites (e.g., minimizing and maximizing; controlling and avoidance behaviors), we did not compute a composite reliability index, as partners who exhibited some of these behaviors would be unlikely to exhibit others.

Follow-up assessment

Six months later, couple-members were contacted to complete follow-up assessments of outcomes relevant to thriving. Specifically, the decision-maker reported his or her growth/learning over the last 6 months as an index of eudaimonic well-being (two items; α = .77, for example, “Over the last 6 months, to what degree do you feel that you have learned new things and developed new competencies?”), as well as his or her happiness (two items; α = .70, asking how happy and how excited the decision-maker felt during the past 6 months) as an index of hedonic well-being. To assess the decision-maker’s positive self-regard (a component of psychological well-being), he or she completed assessments of perceived self-efficacy (a 15-item version of the Self-Efficacy Scale, Sherer et al., 1982; α = .93, for example, “When I make plans, I am certain I can make them work”) and perceptions of being smart/talented (five items; α = .82). The decision-maker also reported his or her relationship satisfaction (six items; α = .93, for example, “All things considered, how satisfied do you feel with your relationship?”) and communal relationship strength (Mills, Clark, Ford, & Johnson, 2004; 10 items; α = .89, for example, “How far would you be willing to go to help your spouse?”) as indicators of relationship thriving.

Results

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among all study variables are shown in Table 1. We first tested hypotheses regarding RC support predicting the pursuit of a challenging opportunity. Second, we tested whether the pursuit of the challenging opportunity predicted thriving outcomes. Finally, we tested hypotheses regarding predictors of RC support.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations for Major Study Variables.

Study Variables	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26
Spouse background
1. Altruistic motives	5.10 (0.61)	—
2. Egoistic motives	2.73 (0.84)	.19**	—
3. Needy motives	3.49 (1.15)	.08	.40***	—
4. Relationship satisfaction	6.39 (1.51)	.41***	−.32***	−.36***	—
5. Attachment security	4.84 (1.02)	.04	−.41***	−.26***	.45***	—
Observed support
6. RC support	2.03 (0.65)	.25***	−.10	.14^†	.14^†	.10	—
7. Anti-RC support	1.46 (0.32)	.02	.01	.07	−.06	−.10	−.25***	—
Opportunity decision
8. Choice	1.73 (0.45)	.02	−.13^†	.08	.01	.01	.32***	−.31***	—
DM reasons for choice
9. To win prize	4.43 (2.26)	.01	−.13^†	.09	−.03	.01	.26**	−.28***	.73***	—
10. To not disappoint	2.48 (1.85)	.04	−.05	.11	−.02	−.05	.39***	−.22**	.47***	.57***	—
11. It is easier	3.40 (1.93)	−.01	.12	.01	−.07	−.03	−.09	.21**	−.71***	−.59***	−.28***	—
12. To enjoy it	4.22 (1.78)	−.07	.10	.08	−.05	−.07	−.06	−.15^†	−.09	−.07	−.04	.28***	—
13. To challenge oneself	3.67 (1.86)	.03	.07	.18^†	.06	−.08	.10	−.19*	.50***	.37***	.36***	−.33***	.31***	—
DM perceived capability
14. Capable (self view)	4.81 (1.30)	.03	.01	−.04	−.01	−.01	−.03	−.07	−.11	.00	−.06	.14^†	.59***	−.03	—
15. Capable (partner view)	5.62 (1.16)	.12	.06	.07	.01	−.07	.23**	−.22**	.17*	.11	.07	−.08	.38***	.09	.60***	—
DM support perceptions
16. Encouraged opportunity	3.14 (1.58)	.13	.01	.10	−.05	−.03	.48***	−.09	.27***	.24**	.52***	−.18*	.02	.16*	.04	.19*	—
17. Encouraged easy activity	1.46 (0.97)	−.08	.03	.03	.04	.05	.00	.12	−.17*	−.10	.00	.13^†	−.05	−.01	−.07	−.15^†	.00	—
18. Gave assistance	3.11 (1.43)	.19*	−.02	.10	.05	.09	.36***	−.12	.25***	.20*	.13^†	−.17*	−.09	.10	−.03	.03	.44***	.06	—
19. Gave emotional support	3.80 (1.19)	.08	.05	.07	.03	.06	.32***	−.28***	.22**	.16*	.09	−.12	.09	.13	.13	.37***	.27***	.00	.41***	—
20. Negative/critical	1.33 (0.73)	−.06	.08	.05	−.06	−.17*	−.13	.22**	−.11	−.08	.03	.18*	.02	.07	−.16*	−.20**	−.04	.15^†	−.11	−.35***	—
21. DM sought support	2.73 (1.08)	.11	−.07	.13^†	.08	.05	.30***	−.14^†	.29***	.26***	.25***	−.21**	−.09	.12	−.06	.05	.41***	.07	.58***	.36***	−.06	—
Long-term thriving outcomes
22. Growth	3.38 (0.87)	−.02	.01	.06	−.07	.00	.13	−.06	.21*	.11	.03	−.22*	.06	.07	.02	.05	.19*	−.01	.22*	.14	−.10	.09	—
23. Happiness	3.64 (0.96)	.00	.00	.06	.13	.03	.02	−.15	.18^†	.14	−.03	−.14	.10	.09	.04	.01	−.02	.00	.05	.06	−.09	−.13	.51***	—
24. Self-efficacy	5.31 (0.94)	.06	−.03	−.16^†	.21*	.17^†	−.07	−.04	.23*	.12	−.04	−.17^†	.06	.19*	.10	.09	−.10	−.14	−.06	.06	.00	−.05	.32***	.33***	—
25. Feel smart/talented	5.86 (1.00)	.06	−.15	−.02	.08	.19*	−.03	−.10	.27**	.22*	.00	−.23**	−.03	.06	.15	.16^†	−.03	−.07	.01	.08	−.10	−.03	.46***	.46***	.66***	—
26. CRS	6.46 (1.50)	.16^†	−.05	.03	.13	.11	.13	−.13	.27**	.22*	.10	−.06	.01	.09	.04	.22*	−.03	−.26**	.06	.06	−.05	.04	.12	.17^†	.23**	.30***	—
27. Relationship satisfaction	8.63 (1.40)	.21*	−.14	−.12^†	.42***	.22*	.08	−.04	.02	−.05	.10	.02	.00	.02	−.04	.10	.10	−.13	.16^†	.31***	−.12	.18^†	.17^†	.27**	.37***	.38***	.47***

Note. Choice was coded as 1 (did not accept opportunity) or 2 (did accept opportunity). RC = relational catalyst; DM = decision-maker; CRS = communal relationship strength.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Does RC Support Predict the Pursuit of a Challenging Opportunity?

Choice of activity

We examined whether the partner’s RC support provision predicted the decision-maker’s choice of activity (a dichotomous variable) using both t tests and logistic regression analyses. We first compared the amount of RC support and anti-RC support that decision-makers received during the waiting period between those who accepted the opportunity and those who declined it. As shown in Table 2, decision-makers who accepted the opportunity had partners who provided more RC support than those who declined it. Similarly, decision-makers who declined the opportunity had partners who provided more anti-RC support than those who accepted it. A logistic regression analysis predicting activity choice from both RC and anti-RC behavior simultaneously confirmed that spouses’ RC and anti-RC behavior predicted the decision-maker’s choice of activity. Decision-makers who received more RC support were more likely to choose the opportunity (B = 1.20, SE = 0.40, Wald = 9.01, p < .01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.52, 7.23]), whereas those who received more anti-RC support were less likely to accept it (B = −0.65, SE = 0.64, Wald = 6.64, p = .01, 95% CI = [0.054, 0.673]).

Table 2.

Differences Between DMs Who Accepted and Did Not Accept the Opportunity.

	DMs who accepted	DMs who declined	Difference
Support and Pursuit Variables	M (SD)	M (SD)	t	Cohen’s d	95% CI of the difference
Observed support from spouse
RC support	2.14 (0.66)	1.65 (0.47)	t(148) = −4.14***	0.86	[−0.73, −0.26]
Anti-RC support	1.41 (0.30)	1.65 (0.33)	t(161) = 3.98***	0.76	[0.12, 0.35]
Reason for choice
To win a prize	5.41 (1.62)	1.60 (1.20)	t(156) = −13.87***	2.67	[−4.35, −3.27]
To not disappoint self or partner	3.93 (1.85)	1.87 (1.20)	t(157) = −6.71***	1.32	[−2.66, −1.45]
It is easier	1.69 (1.12)	4.67 (1.73)	t(158) = 12.79***	2.04	[2.52, 3.45]
To enjoy it	4.09 (1.82)	4.47 (1.67)	t(158) = 1.18	—	—
To challenge oneself	4.21 (1.71)	2.10 (1.34)	t(157) = −7.23***	1.37	[−2.69, −1.53]
Perceived capability
Spouse views DM as capable	5.73 (1.10)	5.28 (1.25)	t(161) = −2.22*	0.38	[−0.85, −0.05]
DM views self as capable	4.72 (1.32)	5.02 (1.22)	t(161) = 1.34	—	—
DM support perceptions and behavior
Spouse encouraged DM to embrace opportunity	3.39 (1.54)	2.43 (1.56)	t(161) = −3.54***	0.62	[−1.50, −0.43]
Spouse encouraged DM to choose the easier activity	1.36 (0.84)	1.73 (1.26)	t(161) = 2.13*	0.35	[0.03, 0.71]
Spouse provided assistance or advice	3.34 (1.39)	2.55 (1.41)	t(161) = −3.24***	0.56	[−1.29, −0.31]
Spouse provided emotional support	3.94 (1.13)	3.34 (1.28)	t(160) = −2.91**	0.50	[−1.01, −0.19]
Spouse was negative/critical or unsupportive	1.27 (0.67)	1.45 (0.85)	t(161) = 1.45	—	—
DM sought support from spouse	2.93 (1.06)	2.23 (1.04)	t(161) = −3.77***	0.67	[−1.07, −0.33]

Note. DM = decision-maker; CI = confidence interval; RC = relational catalyst.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Reasons for choosing activity

Next, we conducted simultaneous regression analyses to determine the extent to which RC behavior and anti-RC behavior predicted the decision-maker’s reasons for choosing the selected activity. RC support and anti-RC support were entered simultaneously as predictors of each of the reasons for selecting one’s chosen activity. As shown in Table 3, results indicated that individuals who received more RC support during the waiting period (as coded by independent observers) were more likely to report selecting their activity because they wanted to win a prize and because they did not want to disappoint themselves or their partners. In contrast, individuals who received more anti-RC behaviors during the waiting period were more likely to report choosing their activity because it is easier, and not because they wanted to win a prize, be challenged, thought they would enjoy it, or were concerned about disappointing themselves or their partners.

Table 3.

RC Support and Anti-RC Support Predicting Reasons for Choosing Activity and Perceived Capability.

Observed Support	Reasons for choosing activity					Perceived capability
	To win a prize	To not disappoint self or partner	It is easier	To enjoy it	To challenge oneself	Spouse views DM as capable	DM views self as capable
	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)
RC support	0.68* (0.28)[0.13, 1.23]	1.00*** (0.23)[0.54, 1.46]	−0.16 (0.22)[−0.60, .27]	−0.32 (0.23)[−0.77, 0.13]	0.09 (0.24)[−0.38, 0.56]	0.34* (0.14)[0.07, 0.62]	−0.09 (0.17)[−0.42, 0.24]
Anti-RC support	−1.69** (0.57)[−2.81, −0.56]	−0.85^† (0.48)[−1.79, 0.09]	1.07* (0.45)[0.18, 1.96]	−1.01* (0.47)[−1.93, −0.09]	−1.01* (0.49)[−1.97, −0.05]	−0.65* (0.29)[−1.22, −0.08]	−0.34 (0.34)[−1.02, 0.34]
R ²	.12***	.16***	.05*	.04^†	.04^†	.08**	.01

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients; 95% confidence intervals for all effects are shown in brackets. RC = relational catalyst; DM = decision-maker.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

These reasons were related to the activity decision-makers chose. As shown in Table 2, compared with decision-makers who declined the opportunity, decision-makers who chose the opportunity were significantly more likely to report that they wanted to win a prize, wanted to be challenged, and did not want to disappoint themselves or their partners. They were also significantly less likely to report that they selected their activity because it is easier. There were no significant choice differences in expectations for enjoying the activity.

Perceived capability

We conducted simultaneous regression analyses to determine the extent to which RC behavior and anti-RC behavior predicted the decision-maker’s perceptions that the partner viewed them as capable of succeeding at the challenge, as well as their own perceived capability. As shown in Table 3, results indicated that RC behavior was positively associated with the decision-maker’s perceptions that the partner viewed them as capable, and anti-RC behavior was negatively associated with these perceptions. RC behavior and anti-RC behavior were not associated with the decision-maker’s own perceived capability. Additional analyses examining choice differences in perceptions of capability revealed that decision-makers who chose the opportunity perceived that their partners viewed them as more capable than those who declined it (see Table 2). There were no significant choice differences for one’s own perceptions of capability.

Perceptions of support

Simultaneous regression analyses were conducted to examine the degree to which RC support and anti-RC support predicted decision-makers’ perceptions of partner support during the waiting period. As shown in Table 4, RC support predicted decision-makers’ perceptions that their spouse encouraged them to embrace the opportunity, gave assistance, gave emotional support, and that the decision-maker sought support from the spouse. Anti-RC support, in contrast, predicted decision-makers’ perceptions that the spouse did not give emotional support and that the spouse was negative and unsupportive. Neither RC nor anti-RC behavior predicted decision-makers’ perceptions that the spouse encouraged them to choose the easier activity.

Table 4.

RC and Anti-RC Support Predicting DMs’ Perceptions of Support During Waiting Period.

Observed Support	Spouse encouraged DM to embrace opportunity	Spouse encouraged DM to choose the easier activity	Spouse provided assistance or advice	Spouse provided emotional support	Spouse was negative, critical, or unsupportive	DM sought support from spouse
Observed Support	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)
RC support	1.19*** (0.18)[0.84, 1.54]	0.06 (0.12)[−0.17, 0.28]	0.76*** (0.17)[0.43, 1.10]	0.47*** (0.14)[0.19, 0.74]	−0.09 (0.09)[−0.28, 0.09]	0.47*** (0.13)[0.21, 0.72]
Anti-RC support	0.12 (0.36)[−0.60, 0.83]	0.26 (0.23)[−0.21, 0.72]	−0.11 (0.34)[−0.79, 0.57]	−0.80** (0.28)[−1.35, −0.24]	0.48** (0.19)[0.11, 0.85]	−0.21 (0.27)[−0.73, 0.32]
R ²	.24***	.01	.13***	.15***	.06**	.09***

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients; 95% confidence intervals for all effects are shown in brackets. DM = decision-maker; RC = relational catalyst.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Additional analyses revealed that these perceptions were related to decision-makers’ choice of activity (see Table 2). Decision-makers who chose the challenge (relative to those who declined) reported that they sought more support, and that the spouse provided greater encouragement for the opportunity, provided less encouragement for the easy puzzle activity, and gave more assistance and emotional support, during the waiting period. There were no choice differences in perceptions of the spouse as negative, critical, or unsupportive.

Does the Decision to Pursue a Challenging Opportunity Predict Thriving Over Time?

Long-term thriving outcomes

To test the hypothesis that embracing challenging opportunities contributes to long-term thriving, we next examined choice differences in decision-makers’ personal and relational outcomes indicative of thriving 6 months later. We did not hypothesize changes in thriving outcomes over 6 months, as we expected that the choice participants made in the lab (to embrace the opportunity or not) would be representative of the choices they typically make regarding life opportunities. Instead, our goal was to show the prospective predictability of choice on thriving outcomes (decisions made at Time 1 predicting thriving 6 months later) to establish that these choice points are predictive of thriving over time.

As shown in Table 5, decision-makers who accepted the opportunity reported significantly more growth and learning over the last 6 months (greater eudaimonic well-being) compared with those who had declined it, and there was a near-significant trend for decision-makers who chose the opportunity to report being happier 6 months later (greater hedonic well-being) than those who had declined it. In addition, with regard to psychological well-being, decision-makers who chose the opportunity reported significantly greater self-efficacy and feelings of being smart/talented than those who had declined it. With regard to relationship well-being over 6 months, results indicated that decision-makers who chose the opportunity reported significantly greater communal relationship strength than those who had declined. However, there was not a long-term difference in reports of relationship satisfaction for those who accepted versus declined the opportunity.

Table 5.

Choice Differences in Long-Term Thriving Outcomes.

	DMs who accepted	DMs who declined	Difference
Long-Term Thriving Outcomes	M (SD)	M (SD)	t	Cohen’s d	95% CI of the difference
Growth and learning (eudaimonic well-being)	3.77 (0.86)	3.34 (1.04)	t(114) = −2.28*	0.45	[−0.81, −0.06]
Happiness(hedonic well-being)	3.47 (0.83)	3.14 (0.83)	t(114) = −1.92^†	0.40	[−0.67, 0.01]
Self-efficacy (psychological well-being)	5.43 (0.88)	4.98 (0.84)	t(114) = −2.51*	0.52	[−0.81, −0.10]
Feeling smart/talented (psychological well-being)	6.03 (0.85)	5.45 (1.08)	t(114) = −3.01**	0.60	[−0.96, −0.20]
Communal relationship strength (relational well-being)	8.83 (1.04)	7.97 (2.08)	t(112) = −2.92**	0.52	[−1.44, −0.28]
Relationship satisfaction (relational well-being)	6.60 (1.33)	6.53 (1.38)	t(112) = −0.26	—	—

Note. DM = decision-maker; CI = confidence interval.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Taken together, the results of this investigation provide strong evidence that a partner’s provision of RC support is linked with the recipient’s decision to pursue a challenging opportunity, reasons for the decision, perceptions of one’s ability to do well, and long-term outcomes indicative of thriving. Thus, RC support is important in predicting recipients’ perceptions, behavior, and outcomes surrounding challenging opportunities. A next important question to address, then, is what predicts the provision of RC support for challenging opportunities? This question informs how RC support might be cultivated in relationships.

What Predicts the Support of Opportunity-Pursuit?

Do partners’ general motives predict their provision of RC support?

We first examined whether the partner’s general motivations for supporting goal-strivings (reported 1 week prior) predicted their RC support during the laboratory challenge. Specifically, we conducted a simultaneous multiple regression analysis predicting RC support from the three motive variables (egoistic, altruistic, and needy spouse motives). As shown in Table 6, results indicated that having more altruistic motives was predictive of greater observer-rated RC support provision while one’s partner was deciding whether to pursue a challenging opportunity. In contrast, having more egoistic motives was predictive of less/poorer RC support provision. Needy partner motives (although not specifically altruistic or egoistic) were predictive of greater RC support provision.

Table 6.

General Motivations Predicting Spouse’s RC Support and Predicted by Relationship Satisfaction and Attachment Security.

	RC support		Altruistic motives	Egoistic motives	Needy partner motives
Predictors	B (SE)	Predictors	B (SE)	B (SE)	B (SE)
Altruistic motives	0.29*** (0.08)[0.13, 0.44]	Relationship Satisfaction	0.20*** (0.03)[0.14, 0.26]	−0.12* (0.05)[−0.20, −0.03]	−0.25*** (0.06)[−0.36, −0.13]
Egoistic motives	−0.16** (0.06)[−0.28, −0.05]	Attachment Security	−0.11* (0.05)[−0.20, −0.02]	−0.28*** (0.07)[−0.41, −0.15]	−0.12 (0.09)[−0.29, 0.05]
Needy partner motives	0.11* (0.05)[0.02, 0.20]
R ²	.12***		.19***	.19***	.15***

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients; 95% confidence intervals for all effects are shown in brackets; RC = relational catalyst.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Do partners’ relationship satisfaction and attachment security predict general motives?

We next tested the hypothesis that partners’ relationship satisfaction and attachment security would predict altruistic motives for supporting one’s partner in contexts involving the embracing of life opportunities. First, we conducted correlational analyses to (a) examine associations between the predictors and motives without controlling for overlapping variance among predictors, and (b) establish that attachment avoidance and anxiety predict general altruistic versus egoistic motives in similar ways, thus justifying the use of an attachment security composite in data analyses. Results of the correlational analyses showed that greater partner relationship satisfaction was associated with more altruistic motives (r = .41, p < .001), less egoistic motives (r = −.32, p < .001), and less needy partner motives (r = −.36, p < .001) for supporting one’s spouse in exploration contexts. Partners’ attachment anxiety was unrelated to altruistic motives (r = .06, ns), and strongly positively associated with egoistic (r = .43, p < .001) and needy partner (r = .23, p < .001) motives. Partners’ attachment avoidance was marginally negatively related to altruistic motives (r = −.13+), and positively associated with both egoistic (r = .25, p < .001) and needy partner (r = .20, p < .01) motives. Because both forms of attachment insecurity were similarly linked with altruistic, egoistic, and needy partner motivations, we used the attachment security composite in subsequent analyses, which is correlated with the motivation variables as follows: r = .04, ns, with altruistic motives; r = −.41, p < .001, with egoistic motives; and r = −.26, p < .001, with needy partner motives.

Next, to examine the unique, nonoverlapping variance accounted for by each predictor variable, we conducted multiple regression analyses predicting each of the three motive variables from the partner’s relationship satisfaction and attachment security entered simultaneously into each analysis. As shown in Table 6, relationship satisfaction was strongly and positively predictive of altruistic motives, but when controlling for satisfaction, attachment security was negatively associated with altruistic motives. Both relationship satisfaction and attachment security also predicted unique variance in egoistic motives: Both predicted less egoistic motivation for supporting a partner in exploration contexts. Moreover, partners’ relationship satisfaction was negatively predictive of needy partner motives for supporting a spouse in exploration contexts, but the negative association for attachment security did not reach significance when controlling for relationship satisfaction (see Table 6).

Model testing of proposed pathways

Next, with structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS software and maximum likelihood estimation, we tested a model of the pathways by which partner characteristics may influence the provision of RC support. We used SEM so that multiple mediating variables could be predicted simultaneously. Specifically, we tested a model indicating that partner relationship satisfaction and attachment security would predict the three general motivations for providing support in exploration contexts (altruistic, egoistic, and needy partner motivations), and that these general motives would, in turn, predict RC support as it occurred during a later laboratory visit. Covariances between relationship satisfaction and attachment security, and among the motivation variables, were included in the model.

We evaluated the fit of the model by a joint consideration of the chi-square statistic, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Bentler–Bonett nonnormed fit index (NNFI), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; Bentler, 1990; Kline, 1998), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The goodness-of-fit statistics indicate that our model provided a strong fit to the data, CFI = 1.00, NNFI = .99, SRMR = .01, RMSEA = .00, χ²(2, N = 153) = 0.341, p = .843. Standardized path coefficients are displayed in Figure 1, demonstrating a pattern consistent with predictions. Partner relationship satisfaction predicted more altruistic, less egoistic, and less needy partner motives for supporting one’s partner in exploration contexts. Attachment security not only predicted less egoistic motives (as expected) but also predicted less altruistic motivation for supporting a partner in exploration contexts when controlling for relationship satisfaction. In turn, altruistic and needy partner motives predicted greater RC support, whereas egoistic motives predicted less RC support, as observed by independent raters during the laboratory session.

Figure 1.

Structural equation model predicting RC Support from partner characteristics.

Do experimentally manipulated motives make less satisfied and less secure people more likely to provide RC support?

We next tested the hypothesis that if we manipulate potential outcomes of embracing opportunities to be more personally rewarding for support-providers, then less satisfied and less secure partners (who are more egoistically motivated) will be more likely to support a partner’s challenging opportunity. We did not expect a main effect of prize condition because not everyone needs an incentive to be supportive. However, we expected less satisfied and less secure partners to be more supportive when given an external motivation.

We tested these hypotheses using hierarchical multiple regression analyses in which prize condition and relationship satisfaction or attachment style were entered on Step 1, and two-way interactions were entered on Step 2. As expected, there was no main effect of prize condition (B = −0.04, SE = 0.11, p = .614) on RC support—individual prize: M = 2.01, SD = 0.65; joint prize: M = 2.05, SD = 0.65, t(154) = 0.348, ns. The interaction between relationship satisfaction and prize condition was statistically significant (B = −0.14, SE = 0.07, p = .035, 95% CI = [−0.28, −0.01]), and the interaction between attachment security and prize condition (B = −0.18, SE = 0.10, p = .08, 95% CI = [−0.39, 0.02]) approached significance.

Follow-up analyses were conducted using the Hayes (2013) PROCESS macro for probing interactions and testing simple slopes. First, we conducted a moderated regression analysis in which relationship satisfaction was specified as the predictor variable, prize condition as the moderator, and RC support as the dependent variable. Tests of simple slopes, displayed in Figure 2, revealed that relationship satisfaction was positively associated with RC support in the joint prize condition (B = 0.13, SE = 0.05, p = .009, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.22]) but not in the individual prize condition (B = −0.02, SE = 0.05, ns, 95% CI = [−0.11, 0.08]). Thus, higher satisfaction predicted more support, and lower satisfaction predicted less support, in the joint prize condition. There was no relation between relationship satisfaction and RC support in the individual prize condition.¹

Figure 2.

Interaction between partner relationship satisfaction and prize condition predicting RC support.

Next, we conducted a moderated regression analysis in which attachment security was specified as the predictor variable, prize condition as the moderator, and RC support as the dependent variable. Tests of simple slopes, displayed in Figure 3, revealed that attachment security was positively associated with RC support in the joint prize condition (B = 0.17, SE = 0.08, p = .029, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.32]) but not in the individual prize condition (B = −0.02, SE = 0.07, ns, 95% CI = [−0.15, 0.13]). Thus, similar to results for relationship satisfaction, greater attachment security predicted more support, and lower attachment security predicted less support, in the joint prize condition. There was no relation between attachment security and RC support in the individual prize condition.²

Figure 3.

Interaction between partner attachment security and prize condition predicting RC support.

Although we hypothesized that the potential joint prize might motivate dissatisfied and insecure partners to provide more support than they would otherwise, results did not support this hypothesis. Instead, results suggest that the joint prize condition was especially motivating for highly satisfied and highly secure individuals, whereas this condition was particularly threatening or demotivating for less satisfied and less secure individuals.

Discussion

Predicting the Pursuit of Opportunities

This investigation focused the spotlight on relational support for thriving through embracing life opportunities. We tested important postulates of a theory of thriving through relationships (Feeney & Collins, 2015a, 2015b), which identifies opportunities for growth (e.g., engaging in challenging and potentially rewarding activities) as one important life context through which individuals may thrive. The theory states that people must fully embrace life and its opportunities to achieve optimal happiness, health, and well-being, and that close relationships are integral in this process and underlie one’s ability to embrace opportunities. We hypothesized that partners can serve as launchpads or catalysts for thriving by providing RC support that promotes the embracing of opportunities (Feeney & Collins, 2015a).

Consistent with hypotheses, results showed that RC support predicted the decision to pursue a challenging opportunity, one’s reasons for embracing or forgoing the opportunity, one’s perceptions that the support-provider views one as capable, and one’s perceptions/appraisals of support provided for the opportunity. In addition, choosing to pursue the opportunity (as a result of receiving RC support) predicted important long-term outcomes indicative of thriving including growth/learning (eudaimonic well-being), happiness (hedonic well-being), perceived self-efficacy and feelings of being smart/talented (psychological well-being), and communal relationship strength (relational well-being). This investigation fills an important empirical gap by providing novel evidence for how RC support influences decisions to pursue or forego challenging opportunities in the moment a decision is being made. The results provide evidence that relationships play an important role in promoting/hindering the pursuit of opportunities and long-term thriving. Because specific decisions to embrace/forego opportunities have important implications for long-term individual and relational thriving, much more research on this topic is warranted.

It is noteworthy that we found long-term choice differences in all of the thriving outcomes except for relationship satisfaction. Because we found significant choice differences in communal relationship strength, it is not the case that pursuing an opportunity is unrelated to relational outcomes. One possible explanation for null results with relationship satisfaction is that this sample of married couples was highly satisfied such that there was little variability in satisfaction in this sample. It is also possible that overall relationship satisfaction is less influenced by (or sensitive to) day-to-day choices to pursue life opportunities than other more specific indicators of a thriving relationship, such as how far one is willing to go to benefit one’s spouse (communal relationship strength). It will be important for future research to establish effects of these decisions (and RC support) on relationship satisfaction, as well as other relational and nonrelational thriving outcomes, in a variety of samples and over longer periods of time.

The idea tested in this investigation is that the specific, in-the-moment choice participants made regarding accepting/embracing the opportunity presented in the lab is representative of their typical approach to opportunities in their everyday lives (given stable patterns of RC support in long-married couples). And this representative choice should predict the extent to which participants are thriving over the 6-month assessment period. However, we cannot make any causal claims based on this investigation. To establish causality, it will be important for future research to include an experimental manipulation or intervention to change participants’ typical decisions (or an intervention to change the spouse’s typical RC support), and then predict changes over time in thriving outcomes as a result of the decision made.

More research also is needed on the specific mechanisms through which relationships (and RC support) influence the pursuit of challenging opportunities and subsequent thriving. For example, this study showed that RC support increased decision-makers’ views that their partner believed in them and viewed them as capable, but it did not increase the decision-makers’ views of their own capability, which is in contrast to prior work showing that RC support for self-selected personal goals increases feelings of capability (Tomlinson et al., 2015). This finding suggests that decision-makers did not embrace the challenge because they viewed themselves as more capable of succeeding after receiving RC support, but rather having a partner believe in them may be more important than believing in oneself when opportunities are not self-selected or planned as part of one’s personal goal-strivings. Perhaps RC support enables decision-makers to believe that the challenge might be worthwhile, even if they are not yet fully convinced that they can succeed. Moreover, additional mechanisms linking RC support to decision-maker’s choices to pursue life opportunities (e.g., emotional and biological responses, other cognitive appraisals) await further investigation (Feeney & Collins, 2015a).

In addition, it is noteworthy that the process we tested in this investigation (i.e., RC support predicting the pursuit of a challenging opportunity) represents a normative social support process. However, future research should consider individual difference factors that may influence or moderate this process, such as self-esteem, rejection sensitivity, dispositional optimism, and personality variables that reflect perseverance toward goals, such as conscientiousness, resilience, and grit. Our hope is that this work and the theoretical framework on which it is based will inspire researchers to explore a variety of important dispositional and situational influences on this support process.

Predicting the Support of Opportunity-Pursuit

Another important aspect of this investigation involved the identification of factors that predict or cultivate RC support. Unfortunately, relatively little theoretical or empirical work has focused on the factors that promote or hinder effective social support processes (see Feeney & Collins, 2001, 2003, 2015a; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992; Simpson, Rholes, Orina, & Grich, 2002; Simpson, Winterheld, Rholes, & Orina, 2007, for exceptions). In this investigation, we showed that general underlying motivations are significant predictors of RC support, and we showed that these motives provide a pathway through which relationship satisfaction and attachment security might exert effects on the provision of RC support. These findings are consistent with attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982, 1988), with prior work examining effects of attachment on support provision (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2000; Kunce & Shaver, 1994; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009; Simpson et al., 1992), and with prior research examining relationship motives (e.g., Feeney & Collins, 2003; Feeney et al., 2014; Park et al., 2011).

An unexpected and noteworthy finding, however, is that attachment security had a negative association with altruistic motivation when controlling for relationship satisfaction, and no association with altruistic motivation without controlling for relationship satisfaction. As indicated above, it is not the case that the attachment security composite obscured effects of particular types of insecurity as there were no significant overall relationships between either anxiety or avoidance and altruistic motives. When controlling for relationship satisfaction, there was still no significant link between partner avoidance and altruistic motives (β = .02, ns), but there was a significant positive association between attachment anxiety and altruistic motives (β = .26, p < .001). Thus, when controlling for relationship satisfaction, more anxious support-providers are more altruistically motivated toward their partners. Perhaps anxiously attached individuals, who tend to be compulsive over-caregivers and seek extreme levels of closeness to gain feelings of security (Feeney & Collins, 2001; Kunce & Shaver, 1994), derive satisfaction from attending to a partner’s needs despite the quality of the relationship. This must be explored in future work.

These findings also suggest the importance of considering the influence of decision-makers in determining their partners’ motives and support provision. Feeney and Collins (2015a) have noted that there is surprisingly little research on the support-recipients’ role in shaping their own support outcomes. Yet, there is some evidence that support-recipients can elicit positive or negative support outcomes (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2000; Mikulincer & Florian, 1995; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009; Ognibene & Collins, 1998; Simpson et al., 1992; Simpson et al., 2002), and that attachment security predicts reactions to support received from relationship partners (Simpson et al., 2007). This gap in the literature regarding the role of the support-recipient in cultivating/hindering effective support processes/outcomes will be important to address in future research.

We also examined whether we could experimentally manipulate reward motivations to make less satisfied and less secure individuals more supportive in this context. Interestingly, results indicated that less satisfied and less secure individuals provided less RC support when the potential prize could possibly benefit couple-members jointly, whereas more satisfied and more secure individuals provided more support when the prize could benefit both couple-members. It is possible that the joint prize condition represented a potential threat to dissatisfied and insecure individuals who either may be uncertain about whether the partner would include them in the prize (if won), or who may not want to engage in a prize activity with the partner for a variety of reasons (e.g., concern that it will incite conflict). The joint prize may signal an opportunity for increased closeness and interdependence in the relationship, which may be threatening to less satisfied and less secure individuals but especially motivating for more satisfied and more secure individuals (who enjoy intimacy/companionship in their relationship).

It is likely that the best means of generating RC support is to promote more altruistically (other-focused) and intrinsically rewarding motivations for providing support (e.g., providing support because one loves one’s spouse or enjoys helping). These motivations should produce the highest quality support provision (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Thus, the most responsive RC support-providers should be those who are more altruistically motivated by empathic concern (Batson & Shaw, 1991), more approach-oriented toward their partners (Impett, Gable, & Peplau, 2005), and more intrinsically motivated to care for their partners (Feeney & Collins, 2003, 2015a). This is consistent with research showing that altruistic motivations are linked with increased empathy, relatedness, and other-oriented goals, whereas egoistic concerns predict increased anger, aggression, self-image goals, and depressive symptoms (Park et al., 2011). Much research is needed on motivations underlying social behaviors and on how to shift/change those motives to benefit both individuals and relationships.

We believe that the opportunity presented to decision-makers in this investigation is a meaningful and externally valid one as it represents the typical day-to-day decisions people make with regard to pursuing opportunities that require effort yet could be rewarding. We defined a meaningful opportunity as one in which an individual is given a choice to accept/decline, the opportunity involves some degree of challenge/effort, and there is the potential that embracing the opportunity will be rewarding. Although the opportunity presented to participants met these criteria, it will be important for future research to provide converging evidence by testing these processes naturalistically in participants’ daily lives (e.g., via daily diary methods that assess the opportunities people embrace given support received). Moreover, the theoretical perspective underlying this work predicts that the processes tested should generalize to relationships of varying lengths and quality as this support function is important for enabling close relationships to thrive. However, future research is needed to establish the generalizability of this work across close relationships of varying types, lengths, and quality. Despite the limitations of this investigation into relational influences on decisions to embrace opportunities, it provides a rigorous initial test of these processes using a combination of experimental, observational, and longitudinal methods.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the goal of this investigation was to examine relational influences on decisions to pursue potentially rewarding opportunities. It tests an important component of a theoretical perspective that close relationships can serve as catalysts for embracing life opportunities and for thriving through those opportunities. It extends prior research regarding the important support functions that relationships serve (e.g., Feeney, 2007) and the growing body of research considering the importance of social support in positive life contexts (Feeney, 2004; Feeney & Thrush, 2010; Gable et al., 2006; Gable, Gosnell, Maisel, & Strachman, 2012; Rusbult, Finkel, & Kumashiro, 2009; Tomlinson et al., 2015). This work also contributes to the call of scholars who have urged researchers to consider the underlying processes through which social relations affect the individual (Antonucci & Akiyama, 1991; Uchino, Bowen, McKenzie, & Birmingham, 2012), that social relations can be both positive and negative (Rafaeli & Gleason, 2009; Rook, 1984), and specific interaction patterns when attempting to understand a phenomenon (Carstensen, Gottman, & Levenson, 1995). We hope this investigation will provide a springboard for future studies that consider relational influences on decisions to embrace life opportunities and thriving through the pursuit of those opportunities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIMH MH066119 and NIA 1R01AG032370 - 01A2) to the first author.

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available online.

Notes

References

Antonucci

Akiyama

(1991). Social relationships and aging well. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging, 15, 39-44.

Batson

C. D.

Shaw

L. L.

(1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107-122.

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Bowlby

(1982). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby

(1988). A secure base. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brennan

K. A.

Clark

C. L.

Shaver

P. R.

(1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Carstensen

L. L.

Gottman

J. M.

Levenson

R. W.

(1995). Emotional behavior in long-term marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10, 140-149.

Cohen

Wills

T. A.

(1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support-seeking and caregiving in adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1053-1073.

10.

Collins

N. L.

Guichard

A. C.

Ford

M. B.

Feeney

B. C.

(2006). Responding to need in intimate relationships: Normative processes and individual difference. In Mikulincer

Goodman

G. S.

(Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, and sex (pp. 149-189). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

11.

Collins

N. L.

Read

S. J.

(1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.

12.

Cutrona

C. E.

(1990). Stress and social support: In search of optimal matching. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 3-14.

13.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

14.

Elliot

A. J.

(2008). Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

15.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.

16.

Feeney

B. C.

(2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 631-648.

17.

Feeney

B. C.

(2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting dependence promotes independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 268-285.

18.

Feeney

B. C.

Collins

N. L.

(2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 972-994.

19.

Feeney

B. C.

Collins

N. L.

(2003). Motivations for caregiving in adult intimate relationships: Influences on caregiving behavior and relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 950-968.

20.

Feeney

B. C.

Collins

N. L

. (2014). A theoretical perspective on the importance of social connections for thriving. In Mikulincer

Shaver

(Eds.), Nature and development of social connections: From brain to group (pp. 291-314). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

21.

Feeney

B. C.

Collins

N. L.

(2015a). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 113-147.

22.

Feeney

B. C.

Collins

N. L.

(2015b). Thriving through relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 22-28.

23.

Feeney

B. C.

Collins

N. L.

Van Vleet

Tomlinson

J. M.

(2013). Motivations for providing a secure base: Links with attachment orientation and secure base support behavior. Attachment & Human Development, 15, 261-280.

24.

Feeney

B. C.

Thrush

R. L.

(2010). Relationship influences on exploration in adulthood: The characteristics and function of a secure base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 57-76.

25.

Gable

S. L.

Gonzaga

G. C.

Strachman

(2006). Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 904-917.

26.

Gable

S. L.

Gosnell

C. L.

Maisel

N. C.

Strachman

(2012). Safely testing the alarm: Close others’ responses to personal positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 963-981.

27.

Gable

S. L.

Reis

H. T.

(2010). Good news! Capitalizing on personal events in an interpersonal context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 195-257.

28.

Gruenewald

T. L.

Kemeny

M. E.

Aziz

Fahey

J. L.

(2004). Acute threat to the social self: Shame, social self-esteem, and cortisol activity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 915-924.

29.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

30.

Impett

E. A.

Gable

S. L.

Peplau

(2005). Giving up and giving in: The costs and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 327-344.

31.

Jakubiak

B. K.

Feeney

B. C.

(2016). Daily goal progress is facilitated by spousal support and promotes psychological, physical, and rational well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 317-340.

32.

Kirschbaum

Pirke

Hellhammer

D. H.

(1993). The “Trier Social Stress Test”—A tool for investigating psychobiological stress response in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28, 76-81.

33.

Kline

R. B.

(1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.

34.

Kunce

L. J.

Shaver

P. R.

(1994). An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships. In Bartholomew

Perlman

(Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 5, pp. 205-237). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

35.

Lakey

Orehek

(2011). Relational regulation theory: A new approach to explain the link between perceived social support and mental health. Psychological Review, 118, 482-495.

36.

Mikulincer

Florian

(1995). Appraisal of and coping with a real-life stressful situation: The contribution of attachment styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 406-414.

37.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2009). An attachment and behavioral systems perspective on social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 7-19.

38.

Mills

Clark

M. S.

Ford

T. E.

Johnson

(2004). Measurement of communal strength. Personal Relationships, 11, 213-230.

39.

Ognibene

T. C.

Collins

N. L.

(1998). Adult attachment styles, perceived social support and coping strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 323-345.

40.

Park

L. E.

Troisi

J. D.

Maner

J. K.

(2011). Egoistic versus altruistic concerns in communal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 315-335.

41.

Rafaeli

Gleason

M. J.

(2009). Skilled support within intimate relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 1, 20-37.

42.

Reis

(2012). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing theme for the study of relationships and well-being. In Campbell

Loving

T. J.

(Eds.), Interdisciplinary research on close relationships: The case for integration (pp. 27-52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

43.

Reis

H. T.

Clark

M. S.

Holmes

J. G.

(2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In Mashek

D. J.

Aron

(Eds.). Handbook of closeness and intimacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

44.

Rook

K. S.

(1984). The negative side of social interaction: Impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1097-1108.

45.

Rusbult

C. E.

Finkel

E. J.

Kumashiro

(2009). The Michelangelo phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 305-309.

46.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

47.

Sherer

Maddux

J. E.

Mercandante

Prentice-Dunn

Jacobs

Rogers

(1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671.

48.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Nelligan

J. S.

(1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434-446.

49.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Orina

M. M.

Grich

(2002). Working models of attachment, support giving, and support seeking in a stressful situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 598-608.

50.

Simpson

J. A.

Winterheld

H. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Orina

M. M.

(2007). Working models of attachment and reactions to different forms of caregiving from romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 466-477.

51.

Tomlinson

J. M.

Feeney

B. C.

Van Vleet

(2015). A longitudinal investigation of relational catalyst support of goal strivings. Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 1-12.

52.

Uchino

B. N.

Bowen

McKenzie

Birmingham

(2012). Psychological pathways linking social support to health outcomes: A visit with the “ghosts” of research past, present, and future. Social Science & Medicine, 74, 949-957.

53.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

Drigotas

S. M.

Arriaga

X. B.

Witcher

B. S.

Cox

C. L.

(1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1373-1395.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.58 MB