View source for Caring in intimate relationships

{{About|the practice of support giving within intimate relationships|information on individuals who care for someone requiring support as a result of disability, health problems, or old age|Caregiver|and|Personal Care Assistant}}
'''Caring in intimate relationships''' is the practice of providing care and support to an [[intimate relationship]] partner. Caregiving behaviours are aimed at reducing the partner's distress and supporting their coping efforts in situations of either threat or challenge. Caregiving may include emotional support (expressions of care, affection, sympathy, and encouragement) and/or instrumental support (provision of information, advice, and tangible resources).<ref name=CollinsGuichard2006>{{cite book|last=Collins|first=N. L.|title=Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, and sex |url=https://archive.org/details/dynamicsromantic00phdm|url-access=limited|year=2006|publisher=Guilford Press|location=New York|pages=[https://archive.org/details/dynamicsromantic00phdm/page/n162 149]–189|author2=Guichard, A.C.|author3=Ford, M.B.|author4=Feeney, B.C. |editor=Mikulincer, M. |editor2=Goodman, G. S.|chapter=An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships}}</ref> Effective caregiving behaviour enhances the care-recipient's psychological well-being, as well as the quality of the relationship between the caregiver and the care-recipient.<ref name=CollinsFeeney2000/> However, certain suboptimal caregiving strategies may be either ineffective or even detrimental to coping.<ref name=Coyne1988/>

==The caregiving behavioural system==

===Evolutionary origins===

[[Attachment theory]], an influential theoretical framework for the study of intimate relationships and personality development, argues that all humans are born with the capacity and motivation to engage in caregiving behaviours aimed at providing protection and support to close others.<ref name=Bowlby1969/><ref name=Bowlby1988/> These behaviours are organized by an innate behavioural system, called the ''caregiving system'', which is believed to have emerged over the course of primate [[evolution]] to ensure the survival of vulnerable offspring. That is, because infants in many primate species, including humans, are highly [[altricial]] (''i.e.'', developmentally immature and helpless at birth), they cannot survive without caregiver support and protection.<ref name=Bowlby1969/><ref name=Panksepp1998>{{cite book|last=Panksepp|first=J.|title=Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions|year=1998|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0-19-517805-0}}</ref> Attachment theory proposes that this evolutionary pressure favoured the emergence of the caregiving behavioural system, which functions to safeguard the vulnerable dependent from harm by providing them with protection, comfort, and help during times of threat or need.<ref name=CollinsFeeney2000>{{cite journal|last=Collins|first=N. L.|author2=Feeney, B. C.|title=A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support-seeking and caregiving in adult romantic relationships|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=2000|volume=78|issue=6|pages=1053–1073|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1053|pmid=10870908}}</ref><ref name=Bowlby1969/><ref name=CollinsFord2010>{{cite journal|last=Collins|first=N. L.|author2=Ford, M. B.|title=Responding to the needs of others: The caregiving behavioral system in intimate relationships|journal=Journal of Social and Personal Relationships|year=2010|volume=27|issue=2|pages=235–244|doi=10.1177/0265407509360907|s2cid=27557630 }}</ref><ref name=MikulincerShaver2009>{{cite journal|last=Mikulincer|first=M.|author2=Shaver, P. R.|title=An attachment and behavioral systems perspective on social support|journal=Journal of Social and Personal Relationships|year=2009|volume=26|pages=7–19|doi=10.1177/0265407509105518|s2cid=144670510 }}</ref> Although this system was first conceptualized in child–parent bonds, its operation has since been established in adult intimate relationships, where both partners may occasionally take on the role of caregiver.<ref name=CollinsFeeney2000/><ref name=CollinsFord2010/><ref name=MikulincerShaver2007>{{cite book|last=Mikulincer|first=M.|author2=Shaver, P R|title=Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change|year=2007|publisher=Guilford Press|location=New York|isbn=978-1606236109}}</ref><ref name=KunceShaver1994>{{cite book|last=Kunce|first=L. J.|title=Advances in personal relationships|year=1994|publisher=Jessica Kingsley|location=London|pages=205–237|author2=Shaver, P. R.|editor=Bartholomew, L. |editor2=Perlman, D.|chapter=An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships}}</ref>

===Functions of the caregiving system===

According to attachment theory, the two goals of the caregiving behavioural system are to protect close others from harm and decrease their suffering during times of threat, and to promote close others’ personal growth and exploratory behaviour.<ref name=CollinsGuichard2006/><ref name=Bowlby1969/><ref name=MikulincerShaver2007/><ref name=KunceShaver1994/> Attachment theorists call the former aspect of caregiving behaviour “providing a safe haven”, and the latter “providing a secure base”. The caregiving system is therefore likely to be activated when an individual perceives that a close relationship partner is experiencing danger or distress, or when the partner has an opportunity for exploration, learning, or mastery of a new skill, and could benefit from help in pursuing the opportunity or from celebration of their accomplishments and goal strivings.<ref name=CollinsGuichard2006/>

===Interrelation with attachment system===
{{See also|Attachment theory}}

Attachment theory also postulates that all humans possess an innate attachment behavioural system that motivates them to seek proximity to a caregiver (also called an attachment figure) during times of threat or need.<ref name=Bowlby1969/> Caregiving behaviour is therefore complementary to attachment behaviour. Furthermore, attachment theory argues that the effectiveness of the caregiving behaviour enacted determines the quality of the attachment bond between the caregiver and care-recipient, as well as shapes the care-recipient's general expectations of social support.<ref name=Ainsworth1978/> In this model, a history of receiving effective care from intimate others (whether parents in childhood or romantic partners in adulthood) promotes a sense of attachment security – an interpersonal orientation characterized by the expectation that other people may be relied on for support, and subsequent comfort with intimacy and emotional closeness. In contrast, a history of interactions with cold or rejecting caregivers promotes attachment avoidance – an interpersonal orientation marked by discomfort with intimacy, a reluctance to rely on others for support, and the tendency to suppress emotional distress. Care that is inconsistent or intrusive is believed to foster attachment anxiety, which is characterized by excessive preoccupation with intimate relationships and inability to effectively regulate one's own emotional distress.<ref name=MikulincerShaver2007/><ref name=Ainsworth1978/>

==Effective caregiving==

===Key concepts===

The central component of effective caregiving is the taking on of what Batson (1991) called an ''empathic stance''<ref name=Batson1991>{{cite book|last=Batson|first=C.D.|title=The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer|year=1991|publisher=Erlbaum|location=Hillsdale, NJ|isbn=978-0805802450}}</ref> toward another person's suffering or needs.<ref name=CollinsGuichard2006/><ref name=MikulincerShaver2007/> This means adopting the perspective, or "putting oneself in the shoes," of the partner in order to help lessen their distress in a stressful situation, or to help them pursue personal growth and development goals in challenging contexts. The empathic stance is characterized by two key, related components: ''sensitivity'' and ''responsiveness'' (although note that these terms are sometimes used interchangeably in the caregiving and social support literatures).<ref name=CollinsGuichard2006/><ref name=KunceShaver1994/><ref name=Neff2005>{{cite journal|last=Neff|first=L. A.|author2=Karney, B. R.|title=Gender differences in social support: A question of skill or responsiveness?|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=2005|volume=88|issue=1|pages=79–90|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.79|pmid=15631576}}</ref>  Sensitivity refers to the ability to effectively detect and interpret the partner's cues of distress, worry, or need, and to provide the type and amount of support that is well matched to the partner's wants and needs. This tailoring of caregiving efforts to the particular characteristics of the specific situation is essential for effective care.<ref name=Cutrona1990>{{cite journal|last=Cutrona|first=C.E.|title=Stress and social support - in search of optimal matching|journal=Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology|year=1990|volume=9|issue=1|pages=3–14|doi=10.1521/jscp.1990.9.1.3 }}</ref> Responsiveness is the ability to provide support in a way that makes the partner feel understood (i.e., the caregiver has accurately captured the speaker's problem, needs, and emotions), validated (i.e., the caregiver confirms that the care recipient is a valued individual and that the recpieint's feelings and responses in the situation are reasonable), and cared for (i.e., caregiver should communicate affection and concern).<ref name=CollinsGuichard2006/><ref name=Cutrona1996>{{cite book|last=Cutrona|first=C.E.|title=Social support in couples: Marriage as a resource in times of stress|year=1996|publisher=Sage|location=Thousand Oaks, CA|isbn=978-0803948846}}</ref><ref name=Reis1988>{{cite book|last=Reis|first=H. T.|title=Handbook of personal relationships|year=1988|publisher=Wiley|location=Chister, England|pages=367–389|author2=Shaver, P. R.|editor=Duck, S.|chapter=Intimacy as an interpersonal process}}</ref> Caregiving that lacks these two components may be ineffective or even detrimental to the care-recipient's well-being.<ref name=CollinsGuichard2006/><ref name=Coyne1988/><ref name=KunceShaver1994/> For example, a study investigating the adjustment of [[breast cancer]] patients found that these women varied in the types of the support they desired, and mismatches between the type of support wanted and the type of support received (i.e., low sensitivity to the partner's unique support needs) predicted worse adjustment.<ref name=Reynolds2004>{{cite journal|last=Reynolds|first=J. S.|author2=Perrin, N. A.|title=Mismatches in social support and psychosocial adjustment to breast cancer|journal=Health Psychology|year=2004|volume=23|issue=4|pages=425–430|doi=10.1037/0278-6133.23.4.425 |pmid=15264980}}</ref>  Unhelpful attempts at social support include: ''minimization'' (e.g., downplaying or denying the problem), ''maximization'' (e.g., catastrophizing, making the problem seem unwieldy or unresolvable), blaming or criticizing the partner for their misfortune, inducing feelings of guilt or indebtedness,  and overinvolvement (e.g., being overly protective, making the care-recipient feel incompetent, inserting oneself into the problem when the partner wishes to solve it independently).<ref name=CollinsGuichard2006/><ref name=Lehman1990>{{cite journal|last=Lehman|first=D. R.|author2=Hemphill, K. J.|title=Recipients' perceptions of support attempts and attributions for support attempts that fail|journal=Journal of Social and Personal Relationships|year=1990|volume=87|issue=4|pages=563–574|doi=10.1177/0265407590074012|s2cid=143993976 }}</ref><ref name=Lehman1986>{{cite journal|last=Lehman|first=D. R.|author2=Ellard, J. H.|author3=Wortman, C. B.|title=Social support for the bereaved - Recipients' and providers' perspectives on what is helpful|journal=Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology|year=1986|volume=54|issue=4|pages=438–446|doi=10.1037/0022-006x.54.4.438}}</ref><ref name=Dakof1990>{{cite journal|last=Dakof|first=G. A.|author2=Taylor, S. E.|title=Victims' perceptions of social support: What is helpful from whom?|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=1990|volume=58|issue=1 |pages=80–89|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.80|pmid=2308075 }}</ref><ref name=Wishnie1971>{{cite journal|last=Wishnie|first=H.A.|author2=Hackett, T.P.|author3=Cassem, N. H.|title=Psychological hazards of convalescence following myocardial infarction|journal=JAMA|year=1971|volume=215|issue=8|pages=1292–1296|doi=10.1001/jama.1971.03180210038007|pmid=5107558 }}</ref>

===Invisible support===

Even well-intentioned support can negatively impact the care recipient's psychological adjustment to stressful events if it is inappropriate or excessive,<ref name=Coyne1988>{{cite book|last=Coyne|first=J. C.|title=Advances in personal relationships|year=1988|publisher=Sage|location=Thousand Oaks, CA|pages=305–330|author2=Shaver, P. R.|editor=Gottlieb, B.|chapter=The other side of support: Emotional overinvolvement and miscarried helping}}</ref> or inadvertently highlights the fact that the care recipient does not have sufficient skills or resources to handle the stressor by themself.<ref name=Fisher1982>{{cite journal|last=Fisher|first=J.D.|author2=Nadler, A.|author3=Whitchler-Alagna, S.|title=Recipient reactions to stress|journal=Psychological Bulletin|year=1982|volume=91|pages=27–54|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.27}}</ref> Consequently, Niall Bolger and colleagues have put forward the idea that support is most effective when it is ''invisible'', or operates outside of the care-recipient's direct awareness.<ref name=Bolger2000>{{cite journal|last=Bolger|first=N.|author2=Zuckerman, A.|author3=Kessler, R. C.|title=Invisible support and adjustment to stress|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=2000|volume=79|issue=6|pages=953–961|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.953|pmid=11138764 |citeseerx=10.1.1.488.333}}</ref> To investigate this proposition, the researchers recruited couples in which one member was a law student preparing to undergo a highly stressful event, the New York State [[Bar Examination]], and had both members of the couple complete daily diary entries about given and received emotional support. They found that the law students exhibited ''heightened'' levels of depression on days they reported receiving support, but ''lowered'' levels of depression on the days when their partners reported providing more support than the law students reported receiving. That is, participants in this study gained most psychological benefits from support they were not explicitly aware of having received. However, other researchers have argued that the [[#Key concepts|''responsiveness'']] of enacted support is a more important factor than the visibility of the support.<ref name=Maisel2009>{{cite journal|last=Maisel|first=N. C.|author2=Gable, S. L.|title=The paradox of received social support|journal=Psychological Science|year=2009|volume=20|issue=8|pages=928–932|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02388.x|pmid=19549083|s2cid=5095380 }}</ref> One study examining the effects of visible and invisible support on emotional and relationship well-being showed that visible support was linked to neutral or positive outcomes when it was high in responsiveness, and invisible support was linked to negative outcomes when it was low in responsiveness.<ref name=Maisel2009/> That is, visible support is not always negative and invisible support is not always positive, but the effectiveness of both types of support hinges on responsiveness.

==Secure base function of caregiving==

{{See also|Michelangelo phenomenon}}

===Definition and functions===

In addition to giving support and reassurance during distress, another important function of caregiving within intimate relationships is the provision of support for a relationship partner's personal growth, exploration, and goal strivings.<ref name=Bowlby1969>{{cite book|last=Bowlby|first=J|title=Attachment and loss. Vol 1: Attachment|year=1969|publisher=Basic Books|location=New York|isbn=978-0-465-00543-7|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/attachmentloss00bowl}}</ref><ref name=Bowlby1988>{{cite book|last=Bowlby|first=J|title=A secure base|url=https://archive.org/details/securebase00john|url-access=registration|year=1988|publisher=Basic Books|location=New York|isbn=978-0-422-62230-1}}</ref><ref name=Feeney2004>{{cite journal|last=Feeney|first=B. C.|title=A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=2004|volume=87|issue=5|pages=631–648|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.631|pmid=15535776}}</ref><ref name=FeeneyThrush2010>{{cite journal|last=Feeney|first=B. C.|author2=Thrush, R. L.|title=Relationship influences on exploration in adulthood: The characteristics and function of a secure base|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=2010|volume=98|issue=1|pages=57–76|doi=10.1037/a0016961|pmid=20053031|pmc=2805473}}</ref><ref name=Brunstein1996/> In attachment theory, this type of support is called ''providing a secure base'' and is postulated to encourage the relationship partner's confident, autonomous exploration of the environment outside of the attachment relationship.<ref name=Bowlby1969/><ref name=Bowlby1988/><ref name=Ainsworth1978>{{cite book|last=Ainsworth|first=M. D. S.|title=Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation|year=1978|publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates|location=Hillsdale, NJ|isbn=978-0898594614|author2=Blehar, M. C.|author3=Waters, E.|author4=Wall, S.}}</ref> This phenomenon was originally observed in young children; children whose parents showed more intrusiveness were less likely to engage in play and exploration in a novel environment.<ref name=Ainsworth1978/>

===Components of the secure base===

Feeney and Thrush (2010) have identified three main functional components of secure base caregiving.<ref name=FeeneyThrush2010/> First, individuals can support their relationship partner's exploratory, autonomous behaviour by ''being available in case support is needed''. This can include actions such as removing obstacles to the partner's goal pursuit (for example, taking over some household chores to free up time for the partner to engage in a new activity), being sensitive and responsive to the partner's communications of distress, and communicating readiness to help in the event that support becomes needed. Second, effective caregiving does not ''unnecessarily interfere with exploration''. That is, effective caregivers do not provide support when it is neither needed nor desired, attempt to take over or control the activity, or disrupt the partner's goal strivings. Third, partners should communicate ''encouragement and acceptance of exploration'' (i.e., convey enthusiasm about the pursuit rather than suggest that it is not worthwhile or will somehow detract from the relationship). Individuals who perceive their partners to be available to help are more persistent in the performance of challenging activities, whereas individuals whose partners show more interference during an activity show less persistence at the task, poorer performance, less enthusiasm for the challenge, greater negativity/hostility toward their partner, and decreases in [[self-esteem]]. Partners' communications of enthusiasm are related to better performance, heightened enthusiasm, better mood, increases in state self-esteem, enhanced self-perceptions, greater enjoyment, and more positive feelings toward the partner.

===Dependency paradox===

All humans have a fundamental, evolutionarily-rooted need to feel socially connected to other people (i.e., to achieve "[[belongingness]]" or "relatedness").<ref name=BaumeisterLeary1995>{{cite journal|last=Baumeister|first=R. F.|author2=Leary, M. R.|title=The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation|journal=Psychological Bulletin|year=1995|volume=117|issue=3|pages=497–529|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497|pmid=7777651|s2cid=13559932 }}</ref><ref name=RyanDeci2000>{{cite journal|last=Ryan|first=R. M.|author2=Deci, E. L.|title=Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being|journal=American Psychologist|year=2000|volume=55|issue=1 |pages=68–78|doi=10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68|pmid=11392867 |citeseerx=10.1.1.529.4370|s2cid=1887672 }}</ref> Simultaneously, people also hold a need for "autonomy", or the desire to maintain a sense of independence and self-sufficiency.<ref name=RyanDeci2000/> While these two psychological needs may initially appear to be contradictory (that is, it is not readily apparent how people may reconcile their need for social connection with their need for independence), psychological research shows that individuals who are more dependent on their intimate partners for support actually experience ''more'' autonomy, rather than less (a phenomenon that has been labelled the "dependency paradox").<ref name=Feeney2007>{{cite journal|last=Feeney|first=B. C.|title=The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting dependence promotes independence|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=2007|volume=92|issue=2|pages=268–285|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.268|pmid=17279849}}</ref> For example, Feeney (2007) showed that individuals whose romantic partners were more comfortable with having their partner depend on them were more likely to ''independently'' pursue and achieve their personal goals over a period of 6 months (without their partner's direct assistance).<ref name=Feeney2007/> Such research is consistent with the idea that the most effective type of support for promoting personal growth (e.g., accepting challenges, trying new things, exploring) is support that involves simply communicating availability, and that individuals who feel confident in the availability of a ''secure base'' to fall back on in case their goal pursuits go wrong are less likely to actually over-rely on their secure base.<ref name=Feeney2004/><ref name=FeeneyThrush2010/>

==Capitalization==

In psychology, ''capitalization'' refers to the process of drawing additional benefits (e.g., increases in good mood) from a positive event by sharing it with other people.<ref name=Langston1994>{{cite journal|last=Langston|first=C. A.|title=Capitalizing on and coping with daily-life events: Expressive responses to positive events|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=1994|volume=67|issue=6|pages=1112–1125|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1112}}</ref> Research shows that individuals who share news of a positive event (such as, for example, acceptance to graduate school or a promotion at work) with a close other and receive a supportive response from that person, show increases in positive emotions and personal well-being above and beyond the boost given by the positive event itself.<ref name=Gable2004>{{cite journal|last=Gable|first=S. L.|author2=Reis, H. T.|author3=Impett, E.|author4=Asher, E. R.|title=What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=2004|volume=87|issue=2|pages=228–245|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228|pmid=15301629|s2cid=4609003 }}</ref><ref name=Lambert2013>{{cite journal|last=Lambert|first=N. M.|author2=Gwinn, A. M.|author3=Baumeister, R. F.|author4=Fincham, F. D.|author5=Gable, S. L.|author6=Strachman, A.|author7=Washburn, I. J.|title=A boost of positive affect: The perks of sharing positive and grateful experiences|journal=Journal of Social and Personal Relationships|year=2004|volume=30|pages=24–43|doi=10.1177/0265407512449400|doi-access=free}}</ref> Furthermore, support for positive event sharing has positive implications for relationship well-being. Specifically, receipt of such support increases feelings of trust and the endorsement of a more prosocial orientation (i.e., the willingness to respond positively in an unpleasant or conflict situation involving one's relationship partner).<ref name=Reis2010>{{cite journal|last=Reis|first=H. T.|author2=Smith, S. M.|author3=Carmichael, C. L.|author4=Caprariello, P. A.|author5=Tsai, F.|author6=Rodrigues, A.|author7=Maniaci, M. R.|title=Are you happy for me? How sharing positive events with others provides personal and interpersonal benefits|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=2010|volume=99|issue=2|pages=311–329|doi=10.1037/a0018344|pmid=20658846|s2cid=54514 }}</ref> Additionally, support for positive event sharing is more strongly linked to higher levels of relationship quality and lower likelihood of break-ups in the future than support extended during discussion of negative events.<ref name=Gable2006>{{cite journal|last=Gable|first=S. L.|author2=Gonzaga, G. C.|author3=Strachman, A.|title=Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=2006|volume=91|issue=5|pages=904–917|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.904|pmid=17059309|citeseerx=10.1.1.586.5657|s2cid=8879030 }}</ref>

Gable and colleagues<ref name=Gable2004/> have delineated four basic types of responses individuals may exhibit when a relationship partner shares a positive event with them. ''Active-constructive'' responses clearly communicate enthusiasm for the positive event, ''passive-constructive'' responses express support in a quiet, understated way, ''active-destructive'' responses squash the event and the partner's enthusiasm (e.g., by pointing out potential down sides of the positive event), and ''passive-destructive'' responses ignore and/or communicate disinterest in the event. Only active-constructive responses are associated with emotional and relationship well-being.<ref name=Gable2004/><ref name=Lambert2013/><ref name=Gable2006/>

==Variability in caregiving==

Although the tendency to care for intimate others is universal,<ref name=Bowlby1969/> there is wide variability in the quality and amount of caregiving that individuals enact.<ref name=FeeneyCollins2001/><ref name=Bolger1996>{{cite journal|last=Bolger|first=N.|author2=Foster, M.|author3=Vinokur, A. D.|author4=Ng, R.|title=Close relationships and adjustment to a life crisis: The case of breast cancer|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=1996|volume=70|issue=2|pages=283–294|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.283|pmid=8636883 }}</ref><ref name=Rini2006>{{cite journal|last=Rini|first=C. |author2=Dunkel Schetter, C. |author3=Hobel, C. J. |author4=Glynn, L. M. |author5=Sandman, C. A. |title=Close relationships and adjustment to a life crisis: The case of breast cancer|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=1996|volume=70|issue=2 |pages=283–294|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.283|pmid=8636883 }}</ref> This variability is determined by a multitude of factors, including characteristics of the caregiver, the care recipient, and the relationship.<ref name=Iida2008>{{cite journal|last=Iida|first=M.|author2=Seidman, G.|author3=Shrout, P. E.|author4=Fujita, K.|author5=Bolger, N.|title=Modeling Support Provision in Intimate Relationships|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=2008|volume=94|issue=3|pages=460–478|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.460|pmid=18284292|citeseerx=10.1.1.387.525}}</ref><ref name=DunkelSchetter1990>{{cite journal|last=Dunkel Schetter|first=C.|author2=Skokan, L. A.|title=Determinants of social support provision in personal relationships|journal=Journal of Social and Personal Relationships|year=1990|volume=7|issue=4|pages=437–450|doi=10.1177/0265407590074002|s2cid=144771953 }}</ref>

===Caregiver characteristics===

====Motivation====

As effective caregiving involves a great amount of responsibility, as well as the expenditure of cognitive, emotional, and/or tangible resources, caregivers must be sufficiently ''motivated'' in order to provide responsive support to their relationship partner.<ref name=FeeneyCollins2001>{{cite journal|last=Feeney|first=B. C.|author2=Collins, N. L.|title=Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=2001|volume=80|issue=6|pages=972–994|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.972|pmid=11414378 }}</ref><ref name=FeeneyCollins2003>{{cite journal|last=Feeney|first=B. C.|author2=Collins, N. L.|title=Motivations for caregiving in adult intimate relationships: Influences on caregiving behavior and relationship functioning|journal=Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin|year=2003|volume=29|issue=8|pages=950–968|doi=10.1177/0146167203252807|pmid=15189615|citeseerx=10.1.1.1022.6586|s2cid=22254162 }}</ref> That is, people who do not possess enough motivation to help will be less effective at providing care that is appropriate for their partner's needs. Furthermore, individuals may differ in the degree to which they hold ''[[altruistic]]'' versus ''[[Egotism|egoistic]]'' motivations for helping.<ref name=FeeneyCollins2003/> ''Altruistic'' motivations are centred on the desire to advance the significant other's welfare, whereas ''egoistic'' motivations are centred on the desire to gain benefits for oneself, or to avoid sanctions for not helping and/or other negative consequences to the self.<ref name=BatsonShaw1991>{{cite journal|last=Batson|first=C. D.|author2=Shaw, L. L.|title=Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives|journal=Psychological Inquiry|year=1991|volume=2|issue=2|pages=107–122|doi=10.1207/s15327965pli0202_1}}</ref> More altruistic and less egoistic motivations for caregiving are linked to better outcomes for the care recipient and enhanced relationship quality.<ref name=FeeneyCollins2003/>

Another relevant line of research inquiry has demonstrated that individuals in romantic relationships may hold either ''approach'' or ''avoidance'' motivations for making sacrifices for their partner, and the particular type of motivation endorsed influences personal well-being and relationship quality.<ref name=Impett2005>{{cite journal|last=Impett|first=E. A.|author2=Gable, S. L.|author3=Peplau, L. A.|title=Giving up and giving in: The costs and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=2005|volume=89|issue=3|pages=327–344|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.327|pmid=16248717|s2cid=18885020 }}</ref><ref name=Impett2010>{{cite journal|last=Impett|first=E. A.|author2=Gordon, A. M.|author3=Kogan, A.|author4=Oveis, C.|author5=Gable, S. L.|author6=Keltner, D.|title=Moving toward more perfect unions: Daily and long-term consequences of approach and avoidance goals in romantic relationships|year=2010|volume=99|issue=6|pages=948–963|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|doi=10.1037/a0020271|pmid=20658838|citeseerx=10.1.1.306.9571}}</ref>  Approach motivations are oriented toward ''gaining positive outcomes'', such as increases in intimacy or the partner's happiness. Avoidance motivations are oriented toward ''avoiding negative outcomes'', such as conflict or the partner's loss of interest in the relationship. Sacrifice for approach motives is associated with more positive emotions and greater life and relationship satisfaction for both partners, as well as less relationship conflict. In contrast, sacrifice for avoidance motives is linked to less life and relationship satisfaction for both partners, more negative emotions and conflict for the person making the sacrifice, less positive emotions for the sacrifice recipient, as well as greater likelihood of breaking up.<ref name=Impett2005/>

====Skills, abilities, and resources====

Effective caregiving requires knowledge about how to support others, as well as sufficient cognitive and self-regulatory resources.<ref name=CollinsFord2010/><ref name=MikulincerShaver2007/><ref name=FeeneyCollins2001/> For example, caregivers must be able to regulate the negative emotions aroused by witnessing another person in distress.<ref name=MikulincerShaver2007/> Failure of this emotional regulation may lead the caregiver to become overcome by their [[personal distress]], adopt the role of a needy person rather than the caregiver, or to distance themself from the partner as a way of regulating that distress.<ref name=MikulincerShaver2007/><ref name=Batson1991/> Research shows that particularly severe or chronic stressors may overwhelm the caregiver and decrease their ability to provide support to the partner. For example, Bolger, Foster, Vinokur, and Ng (1996) found that breast cancer patients who experienced the ''highest'' levels of distress in the month immediately following their diagnosis were ''less'' likely to receive support from their husbands over the following six months.<ref name=Bolger1996/>

Another relevant skill is called [[empathic accuracy]], which is defined as the “ability to accurately infer the specific content of another person's thoughts and feelings (Ickes, 1993, p.&nbsp;588).<ref name=Ickes1993>{{cite journal|last= Ickes |first=W.|title= Empathic accuracy|year=1993|volume=61|issue=4|pages=587–610|journal=Journal of Personality|doi=10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00783.x|s2cid=204959083 }}</ref> For example, caregivers higher on empathic accuracy tend to provide more instrumental support and less negative support (e.g., accusing or criticizing) to their spouse.<ref name=Verhofstadt2008>{{cite journal|last= Verhofstadt |first=L. L.|author2=Buysse, A.|author3=Ickes, W.|author4=Davis, M.|author5=Devoldre, I. |title= Support Provision in Marriage: The Role of Emotional Similarity and Empathic Accuracy|year=2008|volume=8|issue=6|pages=792–802|journal=Emotion|doi=10.1037/a0013976|pmid=19102590}}</ref>

====Attachment style====

Attachment theory postulates that the quality of caregiving an individual receives shapes many of the skills and motivations necessary for that individual to enact caregiving themself.<ref name=MikulincerShaver2007/> Indeed, research shows that personal attachment style (i.e., level of attachment security versus attachment avoidance or anxiety) is tightly linked to beliefs about, and strategies in, providing care to dependent others.<ref name=MikulincerShaver2007/><ref name=KunceShaver1994/> Attachment avoidance, which is characterized by discomfort with intimacy, is related to less support giving and with keeping distance from a partner in need, particularly when the partner is experiencing higher levels of distress.<ref name=KunceShaver1994/><ref name=FeeneyCollins2001/><ref name=Feeney1996>{{cite journal|last=Feeney|first=J. A.|title=Attachment, caregiving, and marital satisfaction|journal=Personal Relationships|year=1996|volume=3|issue=4|pages=401–416|doi=10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00124.x}}</ref> When avoidant individuals do provide support, they tend to be more controlling.<ref name=FeeneyCollins2001/> Attachment anxiety is related to controlling, overinvolved, intrusive, and compulsive caregiving (e.g., preoccupation with the fear that the partner will leave them if they do not provide adequate care).<ref name=KunceShaver1994/><ref name="Feeney1996"/> For example, anxiously attached individuals provide higher levels of support to partners who are about to engage in a stressful laboratory task, and this support is not matched to the level of need expressed by their partner.<ref name=FeeneyCollins2001/> Anxiously attached individuals also display more negative support behaviours, such as blaming.<ref name=CollinsFeeney2000/> Secure attachment is associated with more effective forms of caregiving (i.e., care that is responsive and not overinvolved).<ref name=FeeneyCollins2001/>

===Care recipient characteristics===

Because care-seeking and caregiving are highly interdependent, complementary processes, individuals are more likely to receive caregiving efforts from their partner when they experience and express higher levels of distress or need.<ref name=CollinsFeeney2000/><ref name=FeeneyCollins2001/><ref name=Iida2008/> More generally, psychology research on helping suggests that one of the strongest determinants of helping behaviour is the structure of the situation – more specifically, the degree to which potential helpers are able to notice that the need for help exists.<ref name=Darley1970>{{cite book|last=Darley|first=J. M.|author2=Latane, B.|title=The unresponsive bystander: why doesn't he help?|year=1970|publisher=Appleton Century Crofts|location=New York}}</ref>  In the context of romantic relationships, researchers have similarly argued that in order to enact caregiving, individuals must first realize that their partner requires care.<ref name=Pearlin1990>{{cite book|last=Pearlin|first=L. I.|author2=McCall, M. E.|title=Stress between work and family|url=https://archive.org/details/stressbetweenwor00ecke|url-access=limited|year=1990|publisher=Plenum Press|location=New York|pages=[https://archive.org/details/stressbetweenwor00ecke/page/n55 39]–60|editor=Eckenrode, J. |editor2=Gore, S.|chapter=Occupational stress and marital support: A description of microprocesses}}</ref> Therefore, one potential obstacle to caregiving behaviour is that the person in need of help may not actively seek support from the caregiver,<ref name=Pierce1997>{{cite book|last=Pierce|first=G. R.|author2=Lakey, B.|author3=Sarason, I. G.|author4=Sarason, B. R.|author5=Joseph, H.|title=Sourcebook of social support and personality
|year=1997|publisher=Plenum Press|location=New York|pages=3–18|editor= Lakey, B. |editor2=Sarason, I. G. |editor3=Sarason, B. R.|chapter= Personality and social support processes: A conceptual over-view}}</ref> or may communicate their need for support through indirect strategies (e.g., hinting, sulking, sighing) that are overly ambiguous.<ref name=CollinsFeeney2000/><ref name=Barbee1998>{{cite book|last=Barbee|first=A. P.|author2=Rowatt, T. L.|author3=Cunningham, R. R.|title=Handbook of communication and emotion|year=1998|publisher=Academic Press|location=San Diego|pages=281–301|editor=Anderson, P. A. |editor2=Gierrero, L. K. |chapter= When a friend is in need: Feelings about seeking, giving, and receiving social support}}</ref> However, while greater communications of need can effectively elicit support,<ref name=CollinsFeeney2000/> behaviours such as excessive reassurance seeking (a behavioural pattern in which individuals continue to seek support and reassurance even after such reassurance has already been provided) can strain the relationship and undermine helping.<ref name=Joiner1999>{{cite journal|last=Joiner|first=T. E.|author2=Metalsky, G. I.|author3=Katz, J.|author4=Beach, S. R. H.|title=Depression and excessive reassurance seeking|journal=Psychological Inquiry|year=1999|volume=10|issue=3|pages=269–278|doi=10.1207/s15327965pli1004_1}}</ref>

===Qualities of the relationship===

Researchers have argued that individuals in high quality relationships, in which partners feel attached and committed to each other, should evidence more motivation to provide responsive support to their partner.<ref name=Cutrona1996/> Indeed, one's own sense of relationship satisfaction<ref name=Acitelli1996>{{cite book|last=Acitelli|first=L. K.|title=Handbook of social support and the family|year=1996|publisher=Plenum Press|location=New York|pages=83–103|editor=Pierce, G. R. |editor2=Sarason, B. R. |editor3=Sarason, I. G. |chapter=The neglected links between marital support and marital satisfaction}}</ref>  and relationship interdependence<ref name=FeeneyCollins2001/> (the degree to which the caregiver feels close and committed to the partner) are positively related to the amount of support one provides. For example, daily diary studies of caregiving have observed that individuals tend to provide more support to their partners on days they feel more satisfied with their relationships (however, a reverse interpretation – that caregiving increases relationship satisfaction – is also possible).<ref name=Iida2008/> In addition, caregivers who are more satisfied with their relationships report more altruistic motives for providing support.<ref name=FeeneyCollins2003/>

==Benefits of caregiving==

Receipt of social support, or the perception that social support will be readily available when needed, is linked to a multitude of benefits, including improvements in mood and self-esteem.<ref name=CollinsFeeney2000/><ref name=Brunstein1996>{{cite journal|last=Brunstein|first=J. C.|author2=Dangelmayer, G.|author3=Schultheiss, O. C.|title=Personal Goals and Social Support in Close Relationships: Effects on Relationship Mood and Marital Satisfaction|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=1996|volume=71|issue=5|pages=1006–1019|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.1006}}</ref> Provision of effective care can also benefit the caregiver because it is likely to foster feelings of self-worth and efficacy, build confidence in one's interpersonal skills, promote the self-view that one is a moral person, and increase feelings of love and social connectedness.<ref name=MikulincerShaver2007/>  Research has also linked the provision of social support within intimate relationships to enhanced relationship satisfaction for the care recipient and caregiver.<ref name=CollinsFeeney2000/><ref name=Brunstein1996/><ref name=Kane2007>{{cite journal|last=Kane|first=H. S.|author2=Jaremka, L. M.|author3=Guichard, A. C.|author4=Ford, M. B.|author5=Collins, N. L.|author6=Feeney, B. C.|title=Feeling supported and feeling satisfied: How one partner's attachment style predicts the other partner's relationship experiences|journal=Journal of Social and Personal Relationships|year=2007|volume=24|issue=4|pages=535–555|doi=10.1177/0265407507079245|s2cid=611561 }}</ref>    For example, higher levels of support in newlywed couples predicted higher relationship satisfaction two years later.<ref name=PaschBradbury1998>{{cite journal|last=Pasch|first=L. A.|author2=Bradbury, T. N.|title=Social Support, Conflict, and the Development of Marital Dysfunction|journal=Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology|year=1998|volume=66|issue=2|pages=219–230|doi=10.1037/0022-006x.66.2.219|pmid=9583325 }}</ref> Responsive care is especially important for relationship satisfaction.<ref name=Feeney1996/>

==References==

{{reflist|30em}}
{{Care navbox}}

[[Category:Intimate relationships]]
[[Category:Attachment theory]]