49 Mikulincer Florian & Cowans

8/12/2019 49 Mikulincer Florian & Cowans

1/30

Attachment Security in Couple Relationships:A Systemic Model and Its Implicationsfor Family Dynamics

MARIO MIKULINCER, Ph.D.VICTOR FLORIAN, Ph.D.PHILIP A. COWAN, Ph.D.

CAROLYN PAPE COWAN, Ph.D.

Theory and research on adult attachmentstyle emphasize the crucial role that thesense of attachment security plays in the formation and maintenance of couple re-lationships. In the present article, we reviewstudies that have examined the contribu-tion of adult attachment style to relationalcognitions, emotions, and behaviors as

well as to the formation, quality, and sta-bility of dating and marital relationships.We discuss some of the measurement anddesign issues raised by this research. Based on the reviewed ndings, we pro-vide an integrative, systemic theoreticalmodel delineating how the links between partners attachment security and thequality of their couple relationship occurs. Finally, we discuss the implications of this

model for the understanding of how at-

tachment style and couple relationshipscombine to affect the family system in general, and parent-child relationships andchildrens developmental outcomes, in particular.

Fam Proc 41:405434, 2002

I N the last two decades, the study of couple relationships and marital sat-isfaction has received ample attention inthe professional literature. Several stud-ies have attempted to identify the majorfactors that may contribute to the qualityof these relationships. One of the mostpromising and examined factors is thepattern of the individuals attachment or-

ganization. Specically, the sense of at-tachment security has been identied as amajor variable explaining variations inthe quality of dating and marital relation-ships (see Feeney, 1999a, Shaver &Hazan, 1993, for reviews). In this article,we review relevant published material onthe association between the sense of at-tachment security and quality of couplerelationships. Then we present a systemic

model, delineating the intervening pathsbetween these two constructs and the re-ciprocal inuences between the two part-

Both authors are Professors of Psychology, Dept.of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University and Co-Directorsof the Peleg-Bilig Center. Send correspondenceto Dr. Mikulincer, Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel; e-mail:[email protected] // Dr. Florians e-mail: oriav@ mail.biu.ac.il

Philip A. Cowan, Ph.D., Professor, e-mail:[email protected] and Carolyn PapeCowan, Adjunct Professor, e-mail: [email protected] are afliated with The Institute of Hu-man Development, Department of Psychology, Uni- versity of California, Berkeley CA.

405Family Process, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2002 FPI, Inc.


2/30

ners, and extending it to other aspects of the family system.

THE SENSE OF ATTACHMENT SECURITY

According to Bowlby s (1973) theory, in-teractions with signi cant others who areavailable and supportive in times of stress facilitate the formation of a sense of attachment security. Waters, Rodrigues,and Ridgeway (1998) viewed this sense asa set of expectations about others avail-ability and responsiveness in times of stress, which are organized around a ba-sic prototype or script. This script seemsto include the following if-then proposi-tions: If I encounter an obstacle and/orbecome distressed, I can approach a sig-ni cant other for help; I am a person wor-thy of receiving help; he or she is likelyto be available and supportive; I will ex-perience relief and comfort as a result of proximity to this person; I can then returnto other activities. In Bowlby s (1973)terms, the sense of attachment securityprovides an individual with a framework

for maintaining wellbeing, formulating effective emotion-regulation devices, de- veloping positive models of self and oth-ers, and engaging in exploration, af lia-tion, and caregiving activities.

Although the sense of attachment secu-rity may be formed during early interac-tions with primary caregivers, Bowlby(1988) contended that every meaning-ful interaction with signi cant others

throughout life may affect beliefs aboutothers availability and supportiveness.Moreover, although the sense of attach-ment security may be quite general, it isalso common for people to develop rela-tionship-speci c beliefs organized aroundactual experiences with a speci c partner.These beliefs do not necessarily t withthe global sense of attachment securityand may be in uenced by the quality of

the speci c relationship (Collins & Read,1994). In fact, like every mental represen-tation, the sense of attachment security

can be contextually activated by actual orimagined encounters with available g-ures, even in persons who have globaldoubts about others goodwill (Baldwin,Keelan, Fehr, et al., 1996).

In the last 15 years, numerous studieshave examined the sense of attachmentsecurity in adulthood. The most fre-quently used strategy is to examine as-sociations between the global sense of attachment security and theoretically rel-evant constructs. Speci cally, these stud-ies have focused on a person s attachmentstyle and compared persons whose re-ports suggest a secure style with thosewhose reports suggest more insecurestyles. This line of research has beenguided by two different conceptual andmethodological approaches (Hazan &Shaver, 1987; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy,1985) that use different assessment tech-niques and tap different aspects of attach-ment style. Main et al. s (1985) approachis based on a developmental perspectiveand assesses early attachment to parents

through an intensive, reliable, and well- validated interview (the Adult Attach-ment Interview AAI; George, Kaplan, &Main, 1985) that demands complex andskillful content and stylistic interpreta-tion of narrative accounts of relationshipqualities. Hazan and Shaver s (1987) ap-proach is based on a personality and so-cial psychology perspective and assessescurrent attachment orientations to signif-

icant others (not only parents but alsoromantic partners) through self-reportmeasures that have been found to be par-simonious and psychometrically sound.

Recent advances in the conceptualiza-tion and assessment of adult attachmentstyle indicate that this relational con-struct seems to be organized around twounderlying dimensions (Brennan, Clark,& Shaver, 1998). The rst dimension, typ-

ically called avoidance, re ects the ex-tent to which people distrust others good-will and strive to maintain emotional dis-

406 / FAMILY PROCESS


3/30

tance and remain independent from arelationship partner. The second dimen-sion, typically called anxiety, re ectsthe degree to which people worry that apartner might not be available or support-ive in times of need. Persons scoring lowon these two dimensions exhibit the se-cure style and are characterized by a pos-itive history of attachment interactionsand a global sense of attachment security.

Studies using both the AAI and self-report measures of attachment style havegenerally supported Bowlby s hypothesesabout the psychological correlates of thesense of attachment security. First, per-sons having a sense of attachment secu-rity tend to react to stressful events withlower levels of distress than persons whoscore high on avoidance or anxiety dimen-sions (B.C. Feeney & Kirkpatrick, 1996;Mikulincer & Florian, 2001). Second, per-sons who hold a sense of attachment se-curity are more likely to cope with stressby relying on support-seeking than dopersons who score high on avoidance or

anxiety dimensions (Fraley & Shaver,1998; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992).Third, securely attached persons holdmore positive expectations about relation-ship partners than persons who scorehigh on the avoidance dimension (Collins,1996; Collins & Read, 1990). Fourth, se-curely attached persons hold more posi-tive self-views than persons who scorehigh on the anxiety dimension (Bar-

tholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Mikulincer,1998). Fifth, persons who hold a sense of attachment security are more likely to en-gage in exploration and af liation activi-ties, and to be more sensitive and respon-sive to their partner s needs than personsscoring high on avoidance or anxiety dimen-sions (Feeney, 1996; Mikulincer, 1997;Mikulincer & Selinger, 2001).

In his writings, Bowlby (1979) also em-

phasized the possible implications of at-tachment security for couple relation-ships. In his own words, there is a strong

causal relationship between an individu-al s experiences with his parents and hislater capacity to make affectional bonds (p. 135). In particular, Bowlby (1979)highlighted marriage as the affectionalbond in which the in uence of attachmenthistory is most likely to be manifested.Following this theoretical formulation,studies have attempted to test empiri-cally whether relatively enduring differ-ences in attachment style would be man-ifested in the quality of adult couple rela-tionships and marriage.

In the next two sections, we (1) outlinebrie y some of the methodological issuesinvolved in examining links between at-tachment style and couple relationshipqualities, and (2) review the existing rel-evant studies. Based on the ndings, wethen present a systemic model to suggesthow the links between attachment andmarital quality occur. Moreover, we dis-cuss the implications of our formulationfor the understanding of how adult at-tachment and marital relationships com-

bine to affect parent-child relationshipsand children s developmental outcomes an endeavor that places attachment inthe context of the family system and givesa central role to couple relationships as apotential mechanism in the transmissionof attachment relationships across thegenerations.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

The Assessment of Attachment

As we noted above, two major methodsof measuring attachment style in adult-hood were developed in the 1980s. Mainand her colleagues (Main & Goldwyn,1994; George, Kaplan, & Main, 1985)have relied on a narrative approach toelicit working models of attachment. The 60- to 90-minute AAI (see Hesse,

1999, for a description) asks intervieweesto choose 5 adjectives to describe theirrelationships with mother and father, to

MIKULINCER, FLORIAN, P. COWAN, & C. COWAN / 407

Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002


4/30

supply anecdotes illustrating why theycharacterized each relationship with thoseadjectives, to speculate about why theirparents behaved as they did, and to de-scribe change over time in the quality of their relationships with parents.

Tracing their assumptions back to Ains-worth s early formulations describing in-fants attachments (Ainsworth, Blehar,Waters, & Wall, 1978), the creators of the AAI assumed that attachment patternswere best conceptualized as categories ortypes. Coding of the AAI is based on ananalysis of 5 continuous scales intendedto capture the quality of early experi-ences, separately with mother and withfather (e.g., loving, rejecting), and on 12scales that describe a person s currentstate of mind regarding those experiences(e.g., derogation of attachment, coherenceof the narrative). Based on a con gura-tional analysis of these scales, which arethought to represent dominant discoursestrategies (Main & Goldwyn, 1996), AAInarratives are coded as indicative of ei-

ther secure, insecure-dismissing, or inse-cure-preoccupied working models of at-tachment.*

The second main method of measuring adult attachment differs in three impor-tant ways from the AAI. First, the datacome primarily from questionnaires (butsee Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1995, for acomparison of questionnaire and interview methods). Second, the aim of these

questionnaires is not to examine working models of early parent-child relation-ships, but rather to assess styles of at-tachment in adult close relationships.Third, items in these questionnaires focusexplicitly on whether the self is worthy of love and whether the other will be avail-

able for support when the need arises.Initially, these questionnaires adopted acategorical approach (Hazan & Shaver,1987), asking individuals to choose among three brief prototypical descriptions of Se-cure, Avoidant, and Preoccupied attach-ment in adult intimate relationships.However, subsequent versions decon-structed the paragraphs into sentences(Collins & Read, 1990) and computed con-tinuous attachment scores (e.g., Fraley,Waller, & Brennan, 2000).

An enduring concern, which has notbeen given the attention it deserves, isthat there is not always correspondencebetween the narrative and questionnairemethods, or the categorical versus contin-uous scoring of questionnaires. Because themore intensive Adult Attachment Inter- view focuses on early parent-child rela-tionships and the various questionnaireattachment style measures focus on adult-adult intimate relationships, it should notbe surprising to nd that the overlap isquite low at best (Shaver, Belsky, & Bren-

nan, 2000; Cowan & Cowan, 2001). Com-paring the self-classi cation of attachmentcategories using the paragraph methodand the classi cation based on dimen-sional analysis of questionnaire responses,Brennan et al. (1998) found highly statis-tically signi cant results; yet, nearly half of the participants classi ed as secure onone measure were classi ed as insecureon the other. As we shall see, despite the

fact that there is often low agreement be-tween methods of measuring attachment,different studies using different methodstend to produce similar trends concerning the connections between partners attach-ment and marital quality.

A little-noted but important fact is thatmost of the items used to assess attach-ment are phrased in general terms ( I amsomewhat uncomfortable being close to

others ), but some investigators re-writethe items to focus on speci c relationships(I am somewhat uncomfortable being

* Two additional categories Unresolved as a re-sult of loss and Cannot Classify are part of the

system, but the three primary categories representthe major alternative strategies for dealing withthreats to attachment relationships.



5/30

close to my partner ). The two versionstend to be signi cantly correlated in the .3to .5 range (Cowan & Cowan, 2001). Thismodest correspondence leaves room forthe suggestive ndings described belowrevealing that self-reported attachmentstyle with one s partner shows higher cor-relations with marital satisfaction thanself-reported general attachment style inrelation to unspeci ed others.

Measurement of Marital Quality

Marital quality is measured in differentways in different studies. It is not prob-lematic that different studies use differ-ent questionnaires assessing marital sat-isfaction, since they all tend to be veryhighly correlated (Gottman, 1993). Whatis more at issue is that most researchersrely on an individual s self-report of thequality of his or her intimate relationship,while a few base their conclusions on ob-servations of marital interaction, often inlaboratory settings. Although signi cantcorrelations between self-reports and ob-

servations are consistently found, it israre that one measure explains more than25% of the variance in the other (cf. Lev-enson & Gottman, 1983).

Determining Sequence andCausal Connections

The question at the heart of this articleis whether attachment patterns can bedescribed as antecedent to marital qual-

ity, or, more strongly, as playing a causalrole in partners ability to establish a pos-itive couple relationship. As we shall see,this question is dif cult to answer fromthe data that are presently available. Oneobstacle to making causal inferences isthat most studies of attachment style andcouple relationship not only assess bothconstructs at the same time, but, as wehave indicated, both kinds of data are ob-

tained from the same person. Conclusionsabout the linkage between the two arethen confounded by the information

source a problem that Bank, Dishion,Skinner, and Patterson (1990) describecolorfully as glop. Our review will showthat this does not pose an insurmountableproblem, because studies with indepen-dent sources of attachment and couple re-lationship data support the hypothesisthat the two are functionally related.

More dif cult to deal with is the natureof the functional relationship. Many investigators assume that longitudinal de-signs will solve the problem, reasoning that if attachment measured at Time 1predicts couple relationship quality as-sessed at Time 2, we can determine thedirection of effects. But as two of us havenoted elsewhere (Cowan & Cowan, 2002),it is possible that earlier couple relation-ship qualities produce the Time 1 attach-ment results. That is, causal hypothesescan be supported but not proven by lon-gitudinal designs. What we need, then,are experimental and quasi-experimentallongitudinal designs in which earlier in-tervention-induced changes in attachment

style result in later changes in relation-ship quality, or vice versa. Having raiseda number of methodological concerns, wenow review ndings on attachment andcouple relationship.

A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

Relationship Expectations and Beliefs

Adult attachment studies have pro-

vided important information on the asso-ciation between the sense of attachmentsecurity and positive beliefs about couplerelationships. For example, Hazan andShaver (1987) found that participantswho classi ed themselves as securely at-tached scored higher than insecure per-sons in beliefs about (a) the existence of romantic love and (b) the possibility that,although romantic feelings wax and

wane, they may reach the intensity expe-rienced at the start of the relationship,and in some cases, never fade. Subse-




6/30

quent studies have reported that, as com-pared to more insecure people, securelyattached people held more optimistic be-liefs about love relationships and mar-riage (Carnelley & Janoff-Bulman, 1992;Pietromonaco & Carnelley, 1994; Whit-aker, Beach, Etherton, et al., 1999), weremore likely to use a positive frame inthinking about couple relationships (Boon& Grif n, 1996), and were less likely toevaluate negative relational outcomes(Feeney & Noller, 1992) and to endorsedysfunctional beliefs about couple rela-tionships (Whisman & Allan, 1996).

The formation and maintenance of long-term romantic relationships: Attach-ment studies have consistently reportedthat persons differing in attachment style vary in (a) the likelihood of being involvedin long-term couple relationships, and (b)the vulnerability of these relationships todisruption. For example, more securelyattached persons have been found among seriously committed dating couples ormarried couples than in samples of single

individuals (e.g., Kirkpatrick & Davis,1994; Kobak & Hazan, 1991; Senchak &Leonard, 1992). Accordingly, Hill, Young,and Nord (1994) found that persons whoreported a secure attachment style weremore likely to attain marriage/cohabita-tion and less likely to experience divorcethan insecure persons.

There is also extensive evidence thatsecure persons have more stable dating

relationships than insecure persons(Feeney & Noller, 1990, 1992; Hazan &Shaver, 1987; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994;Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994; Shaver &Brennan, 1992). This nding was repli-cated in both cross-sectional and longitu-dinal studies. For example, Kirkpatrickand Hazan (1994) found that secure per-sons relationships were more likely to beintact after 4 years than insecure persons

relationships. In contrast, avoidant per-sons were more likely 4 years later to beseeing more than one person or to be

not seeing anyone and not looking, whereas anxiously attached persons weremost likely to indicate that they were notseeing anyone and looking for a partner.

Conceptually similar ndings werefound by Klohnen and Bera (1998) among women who participated in a 31-year lon-gitudinal personality study. At ages 21,27, 43, and 52, information was collectedabout their marital status. Participantsalso provided information about theircommitment to marriage at age 21, mar-ital tensions at age 27, relationship satis-faction at age 43 and 52, and attachmentstyle at age 52. Women who endorsed asecure attachment style at age 52 showeda different relationship trajectory fromwomen with an insecure attachment stylebeginning as early as age 21. First, se-curely attached women were more likelyto be married at age 52 and reportedhigher relationship satisfaction thanwomen who endorsed an insecure style atthe same age. Second, securely attachedmid-life women had reported higher com-

mitment to getting married and starting afamily at age 21 than insecurely attachedwomen and this early difference seemedto have come true 6 years later at age27, when secure women were more likelyto be married and report fewer maritaltensions than women who endorsed aninsecure style. However, one should beaware of the retrospective nature of thisstudy as well as of the possibility that

variations in relationship trajectorymight have affected women s attachmentstyle at age 52.

In one of the only studies of attachmentand marital stability using the narrativeapproach, Crowell and Treboux (2001) as-sessed 146 premarital dating couples withthe AAI and with another interview fo-cused speci cally on their relationship asa couple the Couple Relationship Inter-

view (CRI). Five years later, they foundthat the AAI did not predict maritalbreakup, but couples in which both part-



7/30

ners were categorized as insecurely at-tached on the CRI were more likely tohave separated or divorced.

The sense of attachment security hasalso been found to be inversely associatedwith problems in relationship formationand maintenance (Bartholomew & Horo-witz, 1991; Bookwala & Zdaniuk, 1998;Doi & Thelen, 1993; McCarthy & Taylor,1999; Thelen, Sherman, & Borst, 1998).For example, Bartholomew and Horowitz(1991) assessed maladaptive interper-sonal behavior, as measured by the In- ventory of Interpersonal Problems, andfound that securely attached persons didnot score extremely high in any of theproblem scales. In contrast, whereas at-tachment anxiety was positively relatedto scores of hard to be sociable, hard tobe submissive, too responsible, and toocontrolling, attachment avoidance waspositively correlated with scores of hardto be intimate. These ndings were rep-licated in self-reports and friend-reports.

Overall, the ndings consistently show

that secure persons, as compared to inse-cure persons, (a) are more likely to beinvolved in long-term couple relation-ships, (b) have more stable couple rela-tionships, and (c) suffer from fewer dif -culties and/or disruptions in the relation-ship. The few longitudinal studies suggestthat attachment security antedates indi-ces of marital stability, but it is too earlyto claim that individuals attachment se-

curity plays a direct role in whether cou-ples stay together or break up. Attachment security as a mate selection

standard: Another relevant line of re-search has focused on mating preferenceand claimed that a person seeking to forma long-term couple relationship wouldprefer to mate with securely attachedpartners, because they hold a positive ori-entation towards this type of relationship.

In support of this view, Pietromonaco andCarnelley (1994) and Chappell and Davis(1998) found that participants, regardless

of their own attachment style, reportedmore positive emotions and less negativeemotions when imagining a relationshipwith a secure rather than an insecurepartner. Accordingly, Baldwin et al.(1996, Study 3), Frazier, Byer, Fischer, etal. (1996), and Latty-Mann and Davis(1996) constructed vignettes of potentialpartners differing in their attachment ori-entations and found that secure partnerswere preferred over insecure partners.

The Quality of Dating Relationships

The bulk of relevant data has been re-ported by studies that have focused on theassociation between attachment securityand quality of dating relationships. Spe-cically, these studies have tested the hy-pothesis that secure attachment would belinked to the formation of satisfactorydating relationships, which are character-ized by emotional involvement, intimacy,commitment, trust, friendly communica-tion patterns, and caring.

The hypothesized positive association

between the sense of attachment securityand satisfaction with dating relationshipshas been consistently documented in sev-eral cross-sectional studies using differ-ent measures of attachment style (e.g.,forced-choice tripartite categorization, Adult Attachment Interview, Relation-ship Questionnaire) and different scalesof relationship satisfaction (e.g., Relation-ship Rating Form, Dyadic Adjustment

Scale, Marital Satisfaction Index). Allthese studies have found that attachmentsecurity is signi cantly correlated withrelationship satisfaction, with securelyattached persons reporting the highestlevel of satisfaction and anxiously at-tached persons reporting the lowest level(for details of these studies in Table 1, see Appendix). Generally, this associationwas found in both men and women and

has been replicated in prospective longi-tudinal studies (see Table 1). Moreover,some studies have found that the associ-




8/30

ation between secure attachment and sat-isfaction with dating relationships cannotbe explained by other personality factors,such as the big ve factors, depression,dysfunctional beliefs, self-esteem, andsex-role orientation (e.g., Carnelley, Pie-tromonaco, & Jaffe, 1994; Jones & Cun-ningham, 1996; Shaver & Brennan, 1992;Whisman & Allan, 1996).

Using both global and relationship-spe-cic measures of attachment orientation,Cozzarelli, Hoekstra, and Bylsma (2000)found a signi cant positive associationbetween reports of secure attachmentwithin a speci c current dating relation-ship and reports of satisfaction with thatrelationship. Unexpectedly, reports of global attachment style in close relation-ships were not signi cantly related to re-ported satisfaction with a speci c dating relationship. The same pattern has alsobeen found in a study of married couples(Cowan & Cowan, 2001). It seems thatrelationship-speci c secure attachment ismore relevant to explain satisfaction with

a couple relationship than is a global mea-sure of attachment security.

The sense of attachment security hasalso been found to contribute to other ba-sic characteristics of dating relationships.For example, signi cant positive associa-tions have been found between reports of secure attachment and several measuresof involvement and interdependence indating relationships (e.g., Rubin s Love

scale, Dependency scale, Self-disclosurescale, Relationship Rating Form) in anumber of cross-sectional (Collins &Read, 1990; Feeney, 1999b; Feeney & Nol-ler, 1991; Feeney, Noller, & Patty, 1993;Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Hendrick & Hen-drick, 1989; Levy & Davis, 1988; Miku-lincer & Erev, 1991) and longitudinalstudies (e.g., Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994;Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994; Simpson,

1990). Accordingly, ratings of attachmentsecurity were signi cantly associatedwith greater commitment to a dating re-

lationship, and ratings of attachmentavoidance were signi cantly associatedwith lower levels of commitment (Hen-drick & Hendrick, 1989; Kirkpatrick &Davis, 1994; Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994;Levy & Davis, 1988; Mikulincer & Erev,1991; Pistole, Clark, & Tubbs, 1995; Pis-tole & Vocaturo, 1999; Shaver & Bren-nan, 1992; Simpson, 1990; Tucker & Anders, 1999).

In a study of the quality of dating rela-tionships over a period of 4 months,Keelan, Dion, and Dion (1994) found thatsecurely attached persons maintainedhigh stable levels of commitment andtrust in a dating relationship during thefollowup period. In contrast, insecure per-sons exhibited a decrease of commitmentand trust over the same period. Moreover,secure persons reported a constant lowlevel of perceived relationship costs (howmuch one invested in the relationship)over the 4-month period, whereas inse-cure persons showed increases in suchperceived costs over time. The ndings

imply that the relationship commitmentof insecure persons may deteriorate overtime and that time may exacerbate initialdifferences in relationship commitmentbetween attachment groups.

Persons differing in attachment stylehave been also found to differ in the qual-ity of their communication pattern with adating partner. For example, Fitzpatrick,Fey, Segrin, and Schiff (1993) found that

self-reports of secure attachment stylewere related to higher reported levels of positive mutual patterns of communica-tion and lower levels of demanding andwithdrawal patterns. Accordingly, Guer-rero (1996) videotaped dating couples whilediscussing important personal problemsand found that securely attached personsscored higher than avoidant persons inmeasures of trust-receptivity, gaze, facial

pleasantness, vocal pleasantness, generalinterest in the conversation, and atten-tiveness to partner s speech while dis-



9/30

cussing problems with their partners. Inaddition, secure people scored lower in vocal and physical signs of distress thananxiously attached people.

In the same vein, Tucker and Anders(1998) videotaped dating couples whilediscussing positive aspects of their rela-tionships and found that persons with amore secure attachment style tended tolaugh more, touch their partner more,gaze more, and smile more during theinteraction than insecure persons. Ac-cordingly, secure persons were rated assigni cantly more nonverbally expressiveand appeared to be experiencing more enjoyment than insecure persons. At a dy-adic level, couples in which both partnerswere securely attached were rated as ex-periencing more enjoyment during theconversation than couples in which atleast one partner was insecurely at-tached.

Importantly, similar patterns of nd-ings have been found in dyadic studiesthat examined the effects of a person s

secure attachment on his or her dating partner s reports of relationship satisfac-tion and quality (Collins & Read, 1990;Jones & Cunningham, 1996; Kirkpatrick& Davis, 1994; Mikulincer & Erev, 1991;Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1995; Shaver &Brennan, 1992; Simpson, 1990). In thesestudies, the two partners of dating cou-ples completed adult attachment scalesand reported on their satisfaction with,

and appraisal of the dating relationship.Generally, a person s secure attachmentstyle was signi cantly associated with thepartner s reports of relationship satisfac-tion and quality (e.g., intimacy, commit-ment). However, this dyadic effect wasstronger and more consistent for women sthan men s secure attachment. In addi-tion, both partners sense of attachmentsecurity made a signi cant contribution

to their joint relationship satisfaction. Infact, both partners were dissatis ed whenat least one of the partners scored high on

attachment anxiety or avoidance. Onlyone study (Whisman & Allan, 1996) foundthat a person s attachment style did notsigni cantly predict the partner s satis-faction.

Despite the strong evidence of associa-tion between security of attachment andrelationship quality in dating couples, ourcautionary notes at the beginning of thisarticle indicate that we cannot infer cau-sality from correlational data. For exam-ple, the nding that secure persons havepartners who report high levels of satis-faction may equally re ect the possibilitythat (a) the behavior and attitudes of se-cure persons reinforce their partner s sat-isfaction, (b) their partners high levels of satisfaction lead participants to feel moresecurely attached in the relationship, and(c) secure persons choose partners whoare able or willing to maintain long last-ing satisfactory relationships. Given theambiguity here, there are two alternativecourses of action with regard to the for-mation of theoretical models. One is to

wait until intervention studies establishthe direction of effects. A second alterna-tive is to question the linear causalpremise and wonder instead whether thelinkage is bidirectional, with attachmentand relationship quality involved in circu-lar patterns of in uence, as family systemtheories suggest (e.g., Wagner & Reiss,1995).

The Quality of Marital Relationships

Studies of married couples have alsoprovided strong supportive evidence onthe link between attachment security andrelationship satisfaction (see Table 2 inthe Appendix). In a study of newlywedcouples, Senchak and Leonard (1992)found that secure couples (both partnersdescribed themselves as securely at-tached) reported higher marital satisfac-

tion and intimacy than mixed (one spousechose the secure description and the otherde ned himself or herself as insecure)




10/30

and insecure couples (both partners de-scribed themselves as insecurely at-tached). No signi cant difference wasfound between mixed and insecure cou-ples, implying that the attachment inse-curity of one spouse may have an overrid-ing in uence on the quality of the mar-riage. However, because the couple wasused as the unit of analysis in this study,the actual effects of each partner s attach-ment style on relationship quality re-mained unassessed.

In dealing with this problem, Feeney(1994) and Feeney, Noller, and Callan(1994) analyzed the effects of a person sattachment security on his or her ownreports of marital satisfaction as well ason his or her partner s reports after 12and 21 months of marriage. Findings in-dicated that a person s attachment secu-rity was signi cantly associated with bothpartners reports of high marital satisfac-tion. These ndings have been replicatedand extended in a number of subsequentstudies (e.g., Davila, Bradbury, & Fincham,

1998; Feeney, 1999c; Lussier, Sabourin, &Turgeon, 1997; Mikulincer, Horesh, Levy-Shiff, et al., 1998). Importantly, Davila,Karney, and Bradbury (1999) replicatedthese ndings at ve points of measure-ments during 3 years (every 6 months) ina sample of newlywed couples. In addi-tion, they reported that changes in hus-bands and wives reports of secure at-tachment predicted concurrent changes

in the person s own and partner s reportsof marital satisfaction.Studies of marriage have also linked

the sense of attachment security with moremarital intimacy (Mayseless, Sharabany,& Sagi, 1997), less marital ambivalence(Volling, Notaro, & Larsen, 1998), andmore positive climate within the marriage(Diehl, Elnick, Bourbeau, & Labouvie- Vief, 1998). Furthermore, Mikulincer and

Florian (1999) found signi cant associa-tions between spouses attachment styleand their reports of marital cohesion and

adaptability (FACES III). Whereasspouses who endorsed a secure style re-ported relatively high family cohesion andadaptability, spouses who endorsed anavoidant style reported relatively low lev-els in these two dimensions, and spouseswho endorsed an anxious attachmentstyle reported high family cohesion butlow family adaptability. Attachment secu-rity has been also found to be associatedwith positive and constructive maritalpatterns of communication (Feeney, 1994;Feeney et al., 1994). Speci cally, bothwives and husbands reports of secure at-tachment were related to more satisfac-tion, disclosure, and involvement in vid-eotaped marital interactions as well as tomore mutual and less coercive patterns of communication during these interactions.In addition, secure spouses were more ac-curate than insecure spouses in the non- verbal communication of neutral and neg-ative message. Importantly, these ndingswere also found when communication pat-terns and communication accuracy were

measured nine months after the assess-ment of attachment style.

Two studies found positive associationsbetween attachment security and qualityof videotaped married couple interac-tions, one using the Adult Attachment In-terview, the other using a self-report Q-sort method. With attachment coded fromthe AAI, Cohn, Silver, C.P. Cowan, et al.(1992) found that, although the attach-

ment style classi cation was not signi -cantly related to self-reports of maritalsatisfaction, it was signi cantly associ-ated with observers ratings of couple in-teractions in a laboratory setting. Specif-ically, husbands classi ed as secure onthe AAI showed more positive and harmo-nious interactions with their wives thanhusbands classi ed as insecure. Thoughwives attachment classi cation was not

directly related to the quality of maritalinteraction, Cohn, Silver, et al. (1992)concluded that the potential detrimental



11/30

effect of wives attachment insecurity wasbuffered by husband s attachment secu-rity. Insecurely attached women marriedto securely attached men had more har-monious interactions than did insecurewomen married to insecure men. In an-other study, using an 84-item Q sort of attachment completed by each spouse,Kobak and Hazan (1991) examined therole that relationship-speci c attachmentrepresentations play during problem-solving and con ding (sharing a mar-riage-related disappointment with thepartner) interactions. Findings revealedthat husbands who held a more securerepresentation of marriage were less rejecting and more supportive during aproblem-solving interaction than insecurehusbands. Secure wives were less likelythan insecure wives to be rejected by theirhusbands in a con ding task.

A SYSTEMIC THEORETICAL MODEL

The reviewed data clearly indicate thatthe sense of attachment security is asso-

ciated with (a) positive beliefs about cou-ple relationships, (b) the formation of more stable couple relationships, (c) sat-isfaction with dating relationships andmarriage, (d) high levels of intimacy, com-mitment, and emotional involvementwithin the relationship, and (e) positivepatterns of communication and interac-tions in both dating and married couples.On this basis, one may wonder why and

how this relational construct is so relevant to couple relationships. In the nextparagraphs, we provide a systemic modelthat delineates the role of secure attach-ment in couple relationships (see the Fig-ure).

Our analysis indicates that three mainpaths may underlie the association be-tween a sense of attachment security andthe formation and maintenance of stable

and satisfying couple relationships. First,the affective consequences of secure at-tachment interactions with a signi cant

other distress alleviation due to themaintenance of proximity to attachmentgures would lead to a positive orienta-tion toward togetherness and foster theorganization of interaction goals aroundthe pursuit of intimacy and closeness,which, in turn, would encourage involve-ment in long-lasting couple relationships.Second, the positive mental representa-tions of self and others that characterizethe sense of attachment security wouldfoster the development of a cognitive-af-fective framework for the management of con ict and thus for maintaining satisfy-ing couple relationships. Third, the senseof attachment security would facilitatethe satisfaction of other basic psychologi-cal needs (e.g., exploration, af liation,caregiving) within the couple relation-ship, which, in turn, would further in-crease relationship satisfaction.

As can be seen in the Figure, our pro-posed model is derived from a systemictheoretical framework and ful lls the fourcriteria delineated by family system the-

orists (Wagner & Reiss, 1995). First, in-teractions between people are seen by ob-servers and also by family members aspatterned, with regularities that permitrules to be inferred. In our model, maritalinteractions are patterned along intrapsy-chic and interpersonal regularities re-lated to each partner s sense of attach-ment security. The arrows that connectthe different components of the model

represent these regularities.Second, the whole is greater than thesum of its parts. This means that thestructure or organization of the intrapsy-chic and interpersonal elements in thewhole system affects how any one elementinteracts with any other element. In ourmodel, the association between attach-ment security in one individual and his orher marital cognitions and behaviors de-

pends in part on the attachment securityof both partners. Accordingly, we proposethat the partners in uence one another in




12/30

complex, reciprocal and even cross-con-struct ways. For example, sense of attach-ment security in one partner can facilitatethe acceptance of autonomy needs in the

other, which, in turn, can foster that part-ner s sense of attachment security. Thebi-directional arrows connecting the wife s

and the husband s diagrams representthis reciprocal in uence (see Figure).

Third, intrapsychic and interpersonalin uences are circular rather than linear;

it is dif cult, if not impossible to tellwhere the rst cause of any behaviorlies. In the exposition of the model pre-

F IGURE . A Systemic model of attachment security in couple relationships.



13/30

sented in the Figure, we mainly discussthe path from attachment to intervening mechanisms, to the quality of couple in-teraction. This line seems reasonable inthe developmental lifespan sense thatchildren develop secure or insecure at-tachments long before they become involved in intimate couple relationships.But as Bowlby (1973) implied early on,the formation and maintenance of attach-ment is a lifelong dynamic process inwhich real relationships (marriage, ther-apy) sometimes alter people s schemasand expectations. Thus, we have drawntwo-headed arrows in the Figure to ac-knowledge that the connection betweenattachment and couple relationship qual-ity has a chicken and egg quality be-cause we do not always know whichcomes rst.

Fourth, family systems are self-regulat-ing. The domains of the family are dy-namically interconnected in the sensethat changes in any aspect of the systemcan lead to changes in other aspects. At-

tachment insecurity in one family mem-ber is likely to have ripple effects through-out the entire family system. Accordingly,changes that occur in some other aspectsof the family system (e.g., parent-childrelationship) can alter some aspect of theassociation between secure attachmentand couple relationship quality. We viewthis property as an extension of our modelto the family system and it is represented

by the insertion of the partners diagramswithin a larger family system framework.

Affect Regulation and Interaction Goals

Bowlby (1988) assumed that having asense of attachment security re ects ahistory of interactions with supportiveand loving others who bring comfort andrelief in times of stress. One implication of this assumption is that during these pos-

itive interactions, securely attached per-sons might have learned that proximitymaintenance is rewarding, that they can

rely on attachment behaviors as an effec-tive means of affect regulation, and thatthey could organize interpersonal behav-iors around the basic goal of the attach-ment system proximity maintenance. Asa result, these persons would be prone toforming close relationships, and would beparticularly ready to search for intimacyand interdependence in such relation-ships. Accordingly, they would put em-phasis on the bene ts of being togetherwith a romantic partner, be more likely todismiss potential relationship threats andwounds, and organize their interactiongoals around the attainment and mainte-nance of intimacy and closeness. In thisway, attachment security would enhancea person s motivation to be involved inlong-lasting stable couple relationships.This path is in line with Kirpatrick s(1998) contention that attachment secu-rity re ects a positive orientation towardlong-term mating strategies.

Insecure persons experiences with non-responsive others teach them that attach-

ment behaviors are painful and that otherinteraction goals and behaviors should bedeveloped as defenses against the distresscaused by attachment experiences (Bowlby,1988). In response to this distress, anx-iously attached persons seem to construetheir interaction goals around the hyper-activation of the attachment system andthe unful lled need for security. There-fore, these persons would view couple re-

lationships and partners as a means forachieving felt security via clinging andhypervigilant responses. Accordingly, al-though they would desire intimate rela-tionships, their tendency to hyperactivatethe attachment system may lead them tofeel a chronic sense of frustration and dis-satisfaction due to their unful lled needsfor demonstrations of love and security.That is, this anxious form of insecurity

would also motivate a move toward anattachment gure, but with a differentapproach than that of a person with a




14/30

secure working model of attachment. Incontrast, avoidant persons seem to reactto distress by organizing their interac-tion goals around the deactivation of theattachment system and a search for au-tonomy and control. As a result, whendistressed, these persons would takedistance from partners and be reluctantto form interdependent relationships(Bowlby, 1988).

These hypothesized attachment-styledifferences in interaction goals receivedstrong empirical support in Mikulincer s(1998, Studies 2 and 4) studies of thesense of trust in close relationships. Inthese studies, participants who classi edthemselves as securely attached tended toemphasize intimacy enhancement as themost important trust-related gain andto show relatively high accessibility of thoughts about intimacy in a trust-re-lated context. For these persons, episodesthat validate their sense of trust may con-tribute to the formation and maintenanceof intimate close relationships, while be-

trayal of trust may raise concerns aboutcloseness and intimacy.

Whereas anxiously attached personstended to emphasize security enhance-ment as the most important trust-relatedgain and to show relatively high accessi-bility of thoughts about security in atrust-related context, avoidant personstended to emphasize control goals and toshow high accessibility of thoughts about

control in trust-related contexts (Miku-lincer, 1998). For anxiously attached per-sons, security seeking seems to be a cen-tral component of their sense of trust. Ep-isodes in which partners behave in aresponsive way may be appraised as con-tributing to security feelings, while be-trayal of trust may be appraised as athreat to these feelings. Avoidant personsseem to organize their sense of trust

around concerns about control. For thesepersons, this pursuit of control seems tobe necessary to validate their sense of

self-reliance and to insure the attainmentof desired outcomes in the absence of con-dence that the partner will voluntarilyrespond to their needs. Avoidant personsmay perceive their partners responsive-ness as a validation of the control theyexert over partners behaviors, whereasbetrayal of trust may raise doubts aboutthe control they have in the relationship.

These ndings highlight the fact thatthe sense of attachment security is morerelated to relational goals of closeness andintimacy than to intrapersonal, egoisticneeds of security and control. It is possiblethat the internalization of the sense of attachment security satis es these in-trapersonal needs and frees cognitive andemotional resources for the regulation of relationship quality. On this basis, se-curely attached persons could develop amore open, sel ess, and caring attitudetoward their close relationship partners.They could become active agents respon-sible for their partners welfare and rela-tionship quality rather than passive re-

cipients of caring and comfort, and thuscould move from egocentric to more recip-rocal relationships. This is particularlyimportant in the realm of dating relation-ships and marriage, in which the attach-ment and caregiving systems shouldmaintain a balanced and dynamic equilib-rium, and both partners are equally re-sponsible for the maintenance of a satis-fying, stable relationship.

Securely attached persons desire for in-timate relationships is also manifested intheir proneness to disclose and share per-sonal information and feelings one of the most basic means for the formationof intimate relationships. In a series of studies, Mikulincer and Nachshon (1991)found that participants who classi edthemselves as securely attached personsreported that they tended to disclose more

personal information to relationship part-ners than avoidant persons, and showedmore disclosure exibility and reciprocity



15/30

than insecure persons. Moreover, securepersons were found to disclose more per-sonal information and to feel better inter-acting with a high than low discloser part-ner. In contrast, avoidant persons self-disclosure and emotional reactions werenot affected by their partners disclosures.These ndings have been replicated insubsequent studies (Keelan, Dion, & Dion,1998; Pistole, 1993; Tucker & Anders,1999).

It seems that secure persons are notonly able to disclose personal informationbut they are also highly responsive to oth-ers disclosure. In our view, self-disclosureis a necessary but not suf cient behaviorfor creating intimacy and closeness. A partner moving toward intimacy shouldbe responsive to the partner s communi-cation, reinforce the partner s con dencein their good intentions, and promotemore intimate disclosure. On this basis,we can conclude that secure persons re-sponsiveness to a partner s disclosureseems to be a suitable strategy for devel-

oping stable and satisfactory relation-ships. Overall, there is consistent evi-dence that the sense of attachment secu-rity is related to a positive orientationtoward togetherness and to the organiza-tion of interaction goals around the pur-suit of intimacy and closeness. In our view, this relational orientation wouldmotivate people to engage in intimate in-teractions and to invest efforts in re-

lationships that would be characterizedby intimacy, commitment, emotional involvement, trust, and supportiveness. Onthis basis, secure persons positive orien-tation toward togetherness would contrib-ute to the stability and quality of couplerelationships.

Mental Representations of Self and Others

Bowlby (1973) asserted that the attain-ment of a sense of attachment securitywould be manifested in the development

of a positive self-image. In Bowlby sterms, . . . the model of the attachmentgure and the model of the self are likelyto develop so as to be complementary andmutually con rming (Bowlby, 1973, p.205). When a person interacts with non-responsive and unavailable others, he orshe will likely experience himself or her-self as incompetent and unlovable. Bycontrast, when a person anticipates oth-ers availability and responsiveness, he orshe will consequently experience himself or herself as competent and valuable. Em-pirical research has consistently foundthat the sense of attachment security isrelated to high self-esteem (e.g., Bar-tholomew & Horowitz, 1991) and to theability to manage stressors while main-taining a sense of optimism and self-ef -cacy (see Mikulincer & Florian, 2001, fora review).

Self-representations and Couple Rela-tionships: In our view, these positive mod-els of self would also contribute to theformation and maintenance of stable and

satisfying couple relationships. Securelyattached persons feel accepted and lovedby their partners, which, in turn, wouldencourage them to reciprocate this loveand further strengthen their willingnessto care for the partner in times of need. Inaddition, these positive representationsinclude a sense of self-ef cacy in dealing with threats and life problems, whichmay lead to the adoption of a more con -

dent attitude toward relationship obsta-cles as well as to the adoption of moreconstructive interpersonal problem solv-ing strategies. On this basis, secure per-sons would be able to deal with interper-sonal con icts without appraising them ina catastrophic way and letting them leadto con ict escalation. This constructivecon ict management strategy would di-rectly contribute to the stability of couple

relationships. There is extensive evidenceof an association between secure attach-ment and the adoption of constructive




16/30

strategies as couples attempt to resolveproblems (Gaines, Reis, Summers, et al.,1997; Gaines, Granrose, Rios, et al., 1999;Levy and Davis, 1988; Lussier et al.,1997; Pistole, 1989; Scharfe & Bar-tholomew, 1995; Simpson, Rholes, & Phil-lips, 1996).

We are not aware of research that re-lates attachment styles or working mod-els directly to the emotion regulationstrategies that centrally affect both thequality and stability of marital relation-ships (Gottman, 1993). Cowan, Cohn,Cowan, and Pearson s (1996) nding that AAI-assessed attachment security in menand women was connected with low mar-ital con ict suggests that such a linkmight exist. Secure attachment itself canbe viewed as an emotion regulation strat-egy in which a person experiencing threator loss seeks out another for soothing andsupport. Also, the ability to maintain acoherent narrative during the AAI whendiscussing personal and often highly emo-tional issues is indicative of an ability to

regulate negative emotion in the serviceof problem solving. We speculate that inindividuals or pairs with secure models of attachment, the ability to regulate nega-tive emotion helps the partners avoid es-calating negative interchanges in a waythat leads to loss of control a patternthat is one of the major risks for bothdecline in marital satisfaction and mari-tal dissolution (Gottman & Levenson,

2000). Representations of Others and Couple Relationships: The sense of attachmentsecurity also includes positive models of others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) expectations that others will behave in acaring and benevolent manner. Thesepositive representations may contributedirectly to several positive aspects of closerelationships that could maintain and en-

hance relationship satisfaction over time.First, these representations would bemanifested in the sense of trust toward a

partner. According to Rempel, Holmes,and Zanna (1985), trust involves (a) theappraisal of a partner as reliable and pre-dictable, (b) the belief that a partner isconcerned with one s needs and can becounted on in times of need, and (c) feel-ings of con dence in the strength of therelationship. Data from several studiessupport this view, in that secure personshave been found to report higher levels of trust toward their partner than insecurepersons (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Miku-lincer, 1998; Simpson, 1990).

Second, the readiness to disclose one-self and share personal feelings with apartner may be fostered by the positivemodels of others that characterize se-curely attached persons. It demands a be-lief that the partner can be trusted andwould not abuse the disclosed emotions,thoughts, and information. Therefore, se-cure persons who hold such positive be-liefs about others intentions and goodwillwould be those who would be particularlyready to disclose personal feelings and

thoughts to their partner. As a result,these persons would tend to form rela-tionships characterized by openness andemotional involvement, which, in turn,may contribute to relationship satisfac-tion.

Third, the belief of the supportivenessof the partner would promote good feel-ings toward the partner, such as grati-tude, warmth, and love. Moreover, due to

their positive representations of others,secure individuals would interpret unex-pected behaviors by partners in less rela-tionship-threatening terms. In this way,they would avoid unnecessary con ictsand prevent escalation of negative emo-tions toward partners.

These relationship-enhancing apprais-als of partners behaviors were docu-mented by Collins (1996), who asked par-

ticipants to explain negative partner be-haviors and to report on the causes of these behaviors. Secure participants gave



17/30

generally more positive and relationship-enhancing explanations of negative rela-tional events. Compared to insecure per-sons, secure persons were less likely to view a partner s behavior as intentional,negatively motivated, stable over time,and global across relationship areas. Im-portantly, Collins also found that securepersons relationship-enhancing explana-tions of negative partner behaviors buff-ered negative affect toward a partner aswell as the arousal of relationship con- icts.

More direct support for the role of rep-resentations of others in the associationbetween attachment security and rela-tionship satisfaction is provided by Mor-rison, Urquiza, and Goodlin-Jones (1997)and Whisman and Allan (1996) who foundthat positive attributions for partner be-haviors appeared to mediate the associa-tion between the sense of attachment se-curity and relationship satisfaction indating couples.

Satisfaction of Other Basic NeedsBeyond emphasizing the psycho-evolu-

tionary nature of the attachment system,Bowlby (1969) identi ed other needs thatare also placed in an evolutionary contextand maintain a dynamic interplay withattachment needs. In Bowlby s (1969)terms, the experience of inner distressand the disruption of one s sense of at-tachment security may activate prox-

imity-related cognitions and behaviors,which, in turn, may inhibit the activationof cognitions and behaviors related toother basic needs (e.g., exploration, af- liation, caregiving). Moreover, becausethey are preoccupied with regulating their own distress, they may have feweravailable resources for engaging in af li-ation, exploration, and/or caregiving ac-tivities.

Persons who hold a sense of attachmentsecurity would have more available re-sources to engage in af liation, explora-

tion, and caregiving behaviors with theirpartners. Accordingly, these personswould hold a positive and accepting atti-tude toward these behaviors in their part-ner. Since they feel con dent in a part-ner s supportiveness, they would be sen-sitive to the partner s exploration andaf liation needs and tolerate his or herexplorative and af liative behaviors evenif these activities imply a momentary ab-sence of the partner as an attachmentgure. Moreover, since they rely on sup-port-seeking as an affect regulation device, they would accept and even encour-age a partner s caregiving behaviors.Overall, secure persons would feel that aclose relationship is an adequate inter-personal setting for satisfying not onlyattachment needs but also for accomplish-ing other important life tasks. As a result,the ful llment of these basic needs wouldfurther contribute to both partners satis-faction with their couple relationship.

Exploration Needs: In human develop-ment, one of the basic evolutionary needs

is to explore the environment and to learnnew abilities and skills (Bowlby, 1969). Inadulthood, this explorative activity ismanifested in career development, work-related activities, and the learning of newadaptive skills, which, in turn, may fur-ther develop a personal sense of auton-omy, mastery, achievement, and control.These activities demand energy and timethat otherwise might be spent with a close

relationship partner.In couple relationships, the need for ex-ploration can be encouraged or frustratedby the relational attitudes and behaviorsof both partners. When one feels con dentin the partner s availability and respon-siveness in times of need and/or the part-ner is attentive and supportive of one sneed for exploration, even when thiscomes at expense of time spent together,

the satisfaction of this need may be facil-itated. As a result, the individual wouldfeel free to develop his or her own poten-




18/30

tialities and be more willing to reciprocatehis or her partner s need for exploration.Mutual respect, understanding, and mar-ital satisfaction would thus be enhanced. Accordingly, partners would appraisetheir couple relationship as promoting rather than inhibiting their own sense of autonomy and their personal develop-ment. In the long run, the satisfaction of exploration needs could contribute to re-lationship stability and diminish unnec-essary con icts related to possible differ-ences in the partners trajectory of per-sonal development.

In contrast, the satisfaction of explora-tion needs would be frustrated when onepartner restrains the other s attempts tospend energy and time outside the rela-tionship and/or threatens with separationand divorce if his or her wishes and de-mands are not being ful lled. Accord-ingly, when a person is afraid of the part-ner s reactions and is not secure about hisor her availability and responsiveness, heor she may inhibit exploration in advance

and give up any attempt to develop anautonomous personality in order to pleasethe partner. In most of these cases, onemay expect that many nuclei of frustra-tion, tension, con ict, and dispute mayarise within the couple. Furthermore, theindividual may develop negative feeling toward the partner and the relationship,such as a sense of suffocation and coer-cion, a sense of limitation of personal

choices and activities, or a sense of self-derogation in order to satisfy a partner segoistic needs. As a result, marital satis-faction would decrease and the likelihoodof separation may increase.

Indeed, adult attachment studies havefound that securely attached personswere more likely than insecure persons toengage in exploration activities and toopen their cognitive structures to new ev-

idence (e.g., Green-Henessy & Reis, 1998;Mikulincer, 1997; Mikulincer & Arad,1999). Second, a person s sense of attach-

ment security would also encourage apartner s exploration attempts. On thisbasis, the sense of attachment securitywould contribute to the satisfaction of both partners exploration needs.

Af liation Needs: Af liation needs referto the phylogenetically evolved tendencyto be sociable with others (Bowlby, 1969).They drive people to spend time in thecompany of others, to be involved infriendships, and to engage in a wide vari-ety of social activities, such as play, alli-ance against outsiders, and squabbles(Weiss, 1998). In his taxonomy of socialinteractions, Weiss suggested that at-tachment and af liation behaviors differin the level of perceived exclusiveness,permanence, and emotionality. First, at-tachment behaviors demand exclusivityfrom the provider of a secure base, be-cause relationships between this providerand a third person may reduce his or heravailability when needed. In contrast, af-liation behaviors may not necessarilydemand exclusiveness. Rather, the incor-

poration of other persons in an af liationrelationship may be perceived as a posi-tive outcome because these persons canadvance common interests, facilitatelearning, and strengthen potential alli-ances (Weiss, 1998). Second, whereas at-tachment relationships may persist overtime, af liation relationships may beended with relative ease (Weiss, 1998).Third, attachment behaviors may involve

stronger emotions than af liation behav-iors. In attachment behaviors, people ex-perience a cycle of tension and relief, ac-companied by feelings of anxiety, fear,and gratitude (Bowlby, 1988). These emo-tions may be weaker or even irrelevantwhen people seek others for companion-ship or play (Weiss, 1998).

In couple relationships, af liation needscould be manifested in two different ways:

(1) a person s motivation to develop afriendship relationship with his or herpartner by attempting to engage in com-



19/30

mon activities and recreations and tospend time together with the same friends;(2) a person s motivation to maintain hisor her own separate network of friends,which sometimes may come at expense of the energy and time devoted to the part-ner. In this way, the satisfaction of af li-ation needs may contribute to both thesense of couple s togetherness and thesense of individuation and personalfreedom within the couple. The issue of balancing these two issues is at the heartof most theories of what makes for satis-fying couple relationships (Gottman, 1993).

We believe that the sense of attachmentsecurity would directly contribute to thesatisfaction of both partners af liationneeds. First, the sense of attachment se-curity would encourage af liative activi-ties within the couple relationship be-cause secure persons put strong emphasison togetherness. Moreover, the sense of attachment security would facilitate af- liative activities outside the couple rela-tionship because the person is con dent

that the partner would continue to lovehim or her even if energy and time isspent with other friends. Indeed, Miku-lincer and Selinger (2001) found that se-cure persons were more likely than inse-cure persons to engage in af liative activ-ities and to hold a exible balancebetween attachment and af liation goalsin close relationships.

Caregiving Needs: Caregiving needs are

designed to provide protection and sup-port to others who are either chronicallydependent or temporarily in need, andthey are guided by an altruistic orienta-tion the alleviation of others distress(Bowlby, 1969). These needs drive us tohelp, assist, and comfort signi cant oth-ers, and motivate us to protect these per-sons from any threat or danger. Thesecaregiving activities often entail personal

sacri ce in terms of time, resources, andmental efforts. Although caregiving needsin one individual are very responsive to

the arousal of attachment needs in his orher partner, Bowlby (1969) viewed themas two separate motivational systems.Whereas attachment needs imply thatthe person seeks support and protection,caregiving needs imply that the personseeks to be an active provider of supportand protection.

The satisfaction of caregiving needsseems to play an important role in couplerelationships. We hypothesize that inlong-lasting, satisfying relationships, peo-ple will be attentive to partners needsand to learning when, how, and in whichareas the partner wishes or expects sup-port and protection. In addition, personswould be expected to learn to accept thepartner s offer of support and comfort andto appraise it as a sign of love and caring,not as a sign of a patronizing or unequalrelationship. In other words, personswould be expected to learn to accept theirpartners caregiving efforts without feel-ing a loss of personal control or tensiondue to a power struggle.

In contrast, caregiving needs would befrustrated when the partner is not able orwilling to accept the other s assistanceand support or when he or she reacts withhostility, suspicions, or even rejection tothe partner s caring efforts. These needscan be also frustrated when the person,due to his or her personality or relationalhistory, is not attentive to the partner sneeds and is not able to relieve success-fully the partner s suffering and pain.These reactions can elicit interpersonalcon icts around issues of trust, coopera-tion, reciprocity, and the provision andreceipt of support. Furthermore, theymay lead to feelings of personal alien-ation, low self-esteem, neglect, and inferi-ority. Speci cally, the person may developa sense of being stuck in the unequal po-

sition of the weak, needy, and/or eter-nal infant. The most probable outcome of this kind of interaction is dissatisfaction




20/30

and a desire to leave the frustrating rela-tionship.

In our view, the sense of attachmentsecurity would contribute to the satisfac-tion of both partners caregiving needs.First, a person s sense of attachment se-curity would encourage his or her owncaregiving attempts, because he or shewould have available resources to attendto a partner s needs and provide adequatecare for alleviating distress. Moreover, se-cure persons positive models of otherswould be likely to foster the perception of others as deserving help, and motivatepeople to provide the necessary support torestore or maintain a partner s welfare.Indeed, adult attachment studies havefound that self-reports of attachment se-curity are associated with relatively highlevels of reported responsiveness to a ro-mantic partner s needs (e.g., Carnelley,Pietromonaco, & Jaffe, 1996; Feeney,1996; Kunce & Shaver, 1994). Accord-ingly, secure persons have been found tooffer spontaneously more comfort and re-

assurance to a romantic partner in timesof need than insecure persons (e.g., Col-lins & Feeney, 2000; Fraley & Shaver,1998; Simpson et al., 1992). Second, be-cause of their reliance on support seeking as an affect regulation device and theirhigh sense of self-esteem, secure personswould hold a positive and accepting atti-tude toward their partners supportiveand caring behaviors, thereby leading to

the satisfaction of the partner s caregiv-ing needs.

EXTENSION OF MODEL TO THEFAMILY SYSTEM

We have focused on couple relation-ships and only indirectly on the intergen-erational transmission of attachment.Given the space limitations here, we canoffer only a sketch of possible intergen-

erational linkages in the model we havepresented and how the dynamics mightplay out in the life of a family. A growing

body of research nds relatively high con-cordance between mothers working mod-els of attachment, based on their re-sponses to the Adult Attachment Inter- view, their infants security of attachmentafter a brief separation (Ainsworth et al.,1978; van IJzendoorn, 1995), and mea-sures of children s adaptation with peersin later years (Sroufe, Carlson, & Shul-man, 1993). These ndings have beenused to support hypotheses about the con-tinuity of relationship quality across thegenerations. The high degree of concor-dance between adults attachment stylesand their children s attachment stylesand peer relationship quality is especiallyimpressive because it occurs across meth-ods (adult narratives, observations of par-ent-child interaction, peer reports), acrossmeasurement contexts, and across time. And yet, we know surprisingly little aboutthe mechanisms that underlie this conti-nuity or how to explain what appears tobe a strong tendency to repeat relation-ship patterns from one generation to an-

other.It has been widely assumed that the

quality of parent-child relationships isthe linking mechanism that adults whoare themselves securely attached tend toprovide a secure base for their children and there is substantial evidence for thiskind of association in studies of infants(Haft & Slade, 1989), toddlers (Crowell &Feldman, 1988), and preschoolers (Cohn,

Cowan, Cowan, & Pearson, 1992). For ex-ample, Cohn and colleagues found thatfathers who gave coherent narratives of their early family relationships providedmore warmth and structure to their pre-schoolers during challenging tasks thanfathers whose narratives were not coher-ent.

We offer here the idea that the qualityof the relationship between the parents

plays a central role in the generationaltransmission of working models of attach-ment. Two studies of different samples of



21/30

fathers and mothers with preschoolersand kindergartners (Cohn et al., 1992;Cowan, Bradburn, & Cowan, in press)support this hypothesis. Based on the AAIcontinuous ratings of (a) whether the par-ents in the study described their own par-ents as loving, and (b) whether the par-ents were still angry with their parents(the children s grandparents) in waysthat disrupted their AAI narratives, lesssecurely-attached men and women werein marriages that tended to be more con- ictful (observational data) and in parent-child relationships with their own chil-dren that were less effective (observation-al data). In turn, when parents wereassessed as less securely attached whentheir children were preschoolers, the chil-dren were signi cantly more likely tobe seen by their kindergarten teachersas having internalizing or externalizing problems in school one and two yearslater. Over and above measures of parent-ing style, both attachment and maritaldata from the parents contributed signif-

icantly to predicting the children s adap-tation to school. Other analyses of datafrom the second Cowan et al. study(Cowan, Cowan, & Heming, in press) re- vealed that preventive interventions inthe form of couples groups designed tofoster more effective marital and parent-child relationships resulted in positiveoutcomes for the parents and for theirchildren.

These ndings lead us to conclude ten-tatively that marital quality may play acausal role in affecting parenting styleand children s adaptation. The questionremains: how does this occur? One possi-bility is that con icted parent-child rela-tionships spill over to interfere with therelationship between one or both parentsand the child. The second possibility, sug-gested by Davies and Cummings (1998),

is that marital con ict has a direct effecton the child, disrupting attachment rela-tionships and creating emotional insecu-

rity that plays out in the child s outside-the-family relationships.

Extrapolating from these ndings, andsubject to replication and extension of theresults, we conclude that the transmis-sion of attachment relationships fromgrandparents to parents to children is notsimply a matter of parenting. When a per-son learns early on that he or she is wor-thy of love, and that adults will be respon-sive and available in times of need, he orshe is more likely to establish satisfying relationships with other partners, and tohave the inclination and ability to worktoward solving relationship problems andregulating emotions so that they do notescalate out of control. The family envi-ronment established by couples who canregulate emotions and solve problems ef-fectively facilitates both mother-child andfather-child relationships that, in turn,foster a child s ability to explore new ideasand relationships (Byng-Hall, 1999). Allof these processes appear to foster thechildren s cognitive, social, and emotional

development.CONCLUDING REMARKS

The eld of family psychology stillstruggles with the eternal question of whysome couples succeed in maintaining along-lasting, satisfactory relationshipwhile others fail in this relational task.From our point of view, attachment the-ory is one of the main promising concep-

tual frameworks for raising and testing useful hypotheses concerning the psycho-logical and ecological factors that contrib-ute to positive relational outcomes. Thistheoretical framework allows the exami-nation of the role that inner resources,such as the sense of attachment security,may play in the dynamic relational pro-cesses that characterize the differentstages of marriage and family develop-

ment. New research is beginning to showthat the links between attachment andcouple relationships have consequences




22/30

for children s development. Because of theuniversality of attachment processes, thistheoretical framework could be used inexamining marital and family processesacross different ethnic, cultural, and reli-gious groups. Despite important differ-ences in methods of measuring attach-ment, and issues in the conceptualizationof attachment as a categorical or contin-uous phenomenon, the accumulation of knowledge that has been achieved in thelast two decades provides a clear, coher-ent picture of the consistent connectionsbetween a sense of attachment securityand the formation and maintenance of stable and satisfactory couple relation-ships. Furthermore, research has provided relevant empirical data on the psy-chological processes that help explain thepositive relational outcomes associatedwith a sense of security of attachment.

The model presented in this article sug-gests some of the mechanisms that mayunderlie these processes. Nevertheless,some important issues that have not been

addressed here could be examined in fu-ture studies. First, future studies shouldbe designed to expand and deepen ourunderstanding of (a) the interplay be-tween attachment processes and the sat-isfaction of other basic needs within cou-ple relationships, and (b) how this dy-namic interplay may contribute torelationship satisfaction and quality. Sec-ond, there is a need for additional empir-

ical efforts that attempt to integrate at-tachment theory and research with dataon family dynamic processes and mecha-nisms. Third, most of the existing re-search has focused on the early stages of couple relationships and marriage. For afuller understanding of the links betweensecurity of attachment and couple rela-tionship quality, it will be important toexamine the role that attachment pro-

cesses play in later stages of marriage andfamily development (e.g., in midlife andaging couples). Fourth, the emphasis in

this article has been on consistency andcoherence across domains, as if attach-ment operates as a template for the development of other intimate relation-ships. The correlations we reported arefar from perfect. More research is neededon the possible effects that speci c coupleand family relationships may have oneach partner s sense of attachment secu-rity.

More theoretical and empirical effortsshould be invested in applying the cumu-lative knowledge gleaned from adult at-tachment research to enhancing and im-proving interventions in marital and fam-ily therapy to nd modi able aspects of attachment that can facilitate family re-lationships and modi able aspects of fam-ily relationships that can enhance the se-curity of each individual s attachment.This endeavor is necessary not only toimprove the life of men, women, and chil-dren living in families. It is essential inthat it can provide crucial theoretical in-formation about the nature of the links

between attachment and marriage, andabout the causal connections between thetwo domains. We hope that our articlewill act as a stimulus and serve as aguideline for further theoretical and clin-ical debate, as well as for empirical stud-ies in attachment and couple relation-ships across the lifespan.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M.D., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., &Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation.Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates.

Baldwin, M.W., Keelan, J.P.R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cog-nitive conceptualization of attachment work-ing models: Availability and accessibility ef-fects. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 71: 94 109.

Bank, L., Dishion, T.J., Skinner, M., & Patter-son, G.R. (1990). Method variance in struc-tural equation modeling: Living with glop



23/30

(pp. 247 279). In G.R. Patterson (ed.), De- pression and aggression in family interac-tion. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). At-

tachment styles among young adults: A testof a four-category model. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology 61: 226 244.

Berman, W.H., Marcus, L., & Berman, E.R.(1994). Attachments in marital relations(pp. 204 231). In N.B. Sperlng & W.H. Ber-man (eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinicaland developmental perspectives. New York: Academic Press.

Bookwala, J., & Zdaniuk, B. (1998). Adult at-tachment styles and aggressive behaviorwithin dating relationships. Journal of So-cial and Personal Relationships 15: 175190.

Boon, S.D., & Grif n, D.W. (1996). The con-struction of risk in relationships: The role of framing in decisions about relationships. Personal Relationships 3: 293 306.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York:Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical ap- plications of attachment theory. London:Routledge.

Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P.R.(1998). Self-report measurement of adult at-tachment: An integrative overview (pp. 46 76). In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships.New York: Guilford Press.

Brennan, K., & Shaver, P.R. (1995). Dimen-sions of adult attachment, affect regulation,and romantic relationship functioning. Per-sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21:567 583.

Byng-Hall, J. (1999). Family couple therapy:Toward greater security (pp. 625 645). In J.Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinicalapplications. New York: Guilford Press.

Carnelley, K.B., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992).Optimism about love relationships: General vs speci c lessons from one s personal expe-

riences. Journal of Social and Personal Re-lationships 9: 520.

Carnelley, K.B., Pietromonaco, P.R., & Jaffe,K. (1994). Depression, working models of others, and relationship functioning. Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology 66:127 140.Carnelley, K.B., Pietromonaco, P.R., & Jaffe,

K. (1996). Attachment, caregiving, and rela-tionship functioning in couples. Personal Re-lationships 3: 257 277.

Chappell, K.D., & Davis, K.E. (1998). Attach-ment, partner choice, and perception of ro-mantic partners: An experimental test of theattachment-security hypothesis. Personal Relationships 5: 327 342.

Cohn, D.A., Cowan, P.A., Cowan, C.P., & Pear-son, J. (1992). Mothers and fathers working models of childhood attachment relation-ships, parenting styles, and child behavior. Development and Psychopathology 4: 417 431.

Cohn, D.A., Silver, D.H., Cowan, C.P., Cowan,P.A., & Pearson, J. (1992). Working modelsof childhood attachment and couple rela-tionships. Journal of Family Issues 13: 432 449.

Collins, N.L. (1996). Working models of attach-ment: Implications for explanation, emotion,and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 810 832.

Collins, N.L., & Feeney, B.C. (2000). A safehaven: An attachment theory perspective onsupport seeking and caregiving in intimaterelationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78: 1053 1073.

Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult at-tachment, working models, and relationship

quality in dating couples. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology 58: 644 663.Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1994). Cognitive

representations of attachment: The struc-ture and function of working models (pp.53 92). In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman(eds.), Attachment processes in adulthood.London: Jessica Kingsley.

Cowan, P.A., Bradburn, I., & Cowan, C.P. (inpress). Parents working models of attach-ment: the intergenerational context of prob-

lem behavior in kindergarten. In P.A.Cowan, C.P. Cowan, J. Ablow, V.K. Johnson,& J. Measelle (eds.). The family context of




24/30

parenting in children s adaptation to ele-mentary school. Monographs in Parenting.

Cowan, P.A., & Cowan, C.P. (2001). A coupleperspective on the transmission of attach-ment patterns. (pp. 62 82). In C. Clulow

(ed.). Adult attachment and couple psycho-therapy: The secure base in practice andresearch. London: Brunner-Routledge.

Cowan, P.A., Cowan, C.P., & Heming, T. (inpress). Two variations of a preventive intervention for couples: effects on parents andchildren during the transition to elementaryschool. In P.A. Cowan, C.P. Cowan, J. Ab-low, V.K. Johnson, & J. Measelle (eds.). Thefamily context of parenting in children s ad-aptation to elementary school. Monographsin Parenting.

Cowan, P.A., Cohn, D., Cowan, C.P., & Pear-son, J.L. (1996). Parents attachment histo-ries and children s internalizing and exter-nalizing behavior: Exploring family systemsmodels of linkage. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology 64: 53 63.

Cowan, P.A., & Cowan, C.P. (2002). What anintervention design reveals about how par-ents affect their children s academicachievement and behavior problems (pp.75 98). In J.G. Borkowski, S. Ramey, & M.Bristol-Power (eds.), Parenting and thechild s world: In uences on intellectual, ac-ademic, and social-emotional development.Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cozzarelli, C., Hoekstra, S.J., & Bylsma, W.H.(2000). General versus speci c mental mod-els of attachment: Are they associated withdifferent outcomes? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26: 605 618.

Crowell, J.A., & Feldman, S.S. (1989). Moth-ers working models of attachment relation-ships and mother and child behavior during separation and reunion. Developmental Psy-chology 27: 597 605.

Crowell, J., & Treboux, D. (2001). Attachmentsecurity in adult partnerships (pp. 28 42).In C. Clulow (ed.), Adult attachment andcouple psychotherapy: The secure base in practice and research. London: Brunner-Routledge.

Davies, P.T., & Cummings, E.M. (1998). Ex-ploring children s emotional security as amediator of the link between marital rela-

tions and child adjustment. Child Develop-ment 69: 124 139.

Davila, J., Bradbury, T.N., & Fincham, F.(1998). Negative affectivity as a mediator of the association between adult attachment

and marital satisfaction. Personal Relation-ships 5: 467 484.Davila, J., Karney, B.R., & Bradbury, T.N.

(1999). Attachment change processes in theearly years of marriage. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology 76: 783 802.

Diehl, M., Elnick, A.B., Bourbeau, L.S., &Labouvie-Vief, G. (1998). Adult attachmentstyles: Their relations to family context andpersonality. Journal of Pe

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	iulia-julia
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

49 Mikulincer Florian & Cowans

Documents