research paper about attachment style

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Attachment style predicts affect, cognitive appraisals, and social functioning in daily life.

• 1 Departament de Psicologia Clínica i de la Salut, Facultat de Psicologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
• 2 Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA
• 3 Sant Pere Claver – Fundació Sanitària, Barcelona, Spain
• 4 Centre for Biomedical Research Network on Mental Health, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
• 5 Red de Excelencia PROMOSAM (PSI2014-56303-REDT), MINECO, Spain

The way in which attachment styles are expressed in the moment as individuals navigate their real-life settings has remained an area largely untapped by attachment research. The present study examined how adult attachment styles are expressed in daily life using experience sampling methodology (ESM) in a sample of 206 Spanish young adults. Participants were administered the Attachment Style Interview (ASI) and received personal digital assistants that signaled them randomly eight times per day for 1 week to complete questionnaires about their current experiences and social context. As hypothesized, participants’ momentary affective states, cognitive appraisals, and social functioning varied in meaningful ways as a function of their attachment style. Individuals with an anxious attachment, as compared with securely attached individuals, endorsed experiences that were congruent with hyperactivating tendencies, such as higher negative affect, stress, and perceived social rejection. By contrast, individuals with an avoidant attachment, relative to individuals with a secure attachment, endorsed experiences that were consistent with deactivating tendencies, such as decreased positive states and a decreased desire to be with others when alone. Furthermore, the expression of attachment styles in social contexts was shown to be dependent upon the subjective appraisal of the closeness of social contacts, and not merely upon the presence of social interactions. The findings support the ecological validity of the ASI and the person-by-situation character of attachment theory. Moreover, they highlight the utility of ESM for investigating how the predictions derived from attachment theory play out in the natural flow of real life.

Introduction

Attachment theory ( Bowlby, 1973 , 1980 , 1982 ), along with its theoretical and empirical extensions (e.g., Main, 1990 ; Schore, 1994 ; Mikulincer and Shaver, 2003 ), is a useful and influential framework for understanding personality development, relational processes, and the regulation of affect. Over the past two decades, an increasing body of research has accrued on the origins and correlates of individual differences in adult attachment styles ( Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007 ). However, an important limitation of previous studies is that many failed to take into account the effect of context on the expression of attachment styles. This is surprising given that attachment theory is in essence a “person by situation” interactionist theoretical framework ( Campbell and Marshall, 2011 ; Simpson and Winterheld, 2012 ), and possibly derives from the scarcity of methods allowing for such a dynamic approach. Although significant insights have been obtained by focusing on individual differences in retrospective reports of the expression of attachment, at present there is scant knowledge regarding how attachment styles are expressed in the moment and how they play out in real-world settings ( Torquati and Raffaelli, 2004 ). The current study extends previous work by employing experience sampling methodology (ESM), a time-sampling procedure, to examine the daily life expression of adult attachment styles in a non-clinical sample of young adults.

Attachment theory is a lifespan approach that postulates that people are born with an innate motivational system (termed the attachment behavioral system) that becomes activated during times of actual or symbolic threat, prompting the individual to seek proximity to particular others with the goal of alleviating distress and obtaining a sense of security ( Bowlby, 1982 ). A cornerstone of the theory is that individuals build cognitive-affective representations, or “internal working models” of the self and others, based on their cumulative history of interactions with attachment figures ( Bowlby, 1973 ; Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991 ). These models guide how information from the social world is appraised and play an essential role in the process of affect regulation throughout the lifespan ( Kobak and Sceery, 1988 ; Collins et al., 2004 ).

The majority of research on adult attachment has centered on attachment styles and their measurement (for a review, see Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007 ). In broad terms, attachment styles may be conceptualized in terms of security vs. insecurity. Repeated interactions with emotionally accessible and sensitively responsive attachment figures promote the formation of a secure attachment style, characterized by positive internal working models and effective strategies for coping with distress. Conversely, repeated interactions with unresponsive or inconsistent figures result in the risk of developing insecure attachment styles, characterized by negative internal working models of the self and/or others and the use of less optimal affect regulation strategies ( Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007 ).

Although there is a wide range of conceptualizations and measures of attachment insecurity, these are generally defined by high levels of anxiety and/or avoidance in close relationships. Attachment anxiety reflects a desire for closeness and a worry of being rejected by or separated from significant others, whereas attachment avoidance reflects a strong preference for self-reliance, as well as discomfort with closeness and intimacy with others ( Brennan et al., 1998 ; Bifulco and Thomas, 2013 ). These styles involve distinct secondary attachment strategies for regulating distress – individuals with attachment anxiety tend to use a hyperactivating (or maximizing) strategy, while individuals with attachment avoidance tend to rely on a deactivating (or minimizing) strategy ( Cassidy and Kobak, 1988 ; Main, 1990 ; Mikulincer and Shaver, 2003 , 2008 ). Indeed, previous empirical studies indicate that attachment anxiety is associated with increased negative emotional responses, heightened detection of threats in the environment, and negative views of the self ( Griffin and Bartholomew, 1994 ; Mikulincer and Orbach, 1995 ; Fraley et al., 2006 ; Ein-Dor et al., 2011 ). By contrast, attachment avoidance is associated with emotional inhibition or suppression, the dismissal of threatening events, and inflation of self-conceptions ( Fraley and Shaver, 1997 ; Gjerde et al., 2004 ; Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007 ).

Relatively few studies have examined attachment styles in the context of everyday life. Most of these studies have used event-contingent sampling techniques, such as the Rochester Interaction Record (RIR; Reis and Wheeler, 1991 ), and have primarily focused on assessing how individual differences in self-reported attachment are related to responses to social interactions in general and/or to specific social interactions (e.g., with acquaintances, friends, family members, close others, same- and opposite-sex peers). Despite various methodological and attachment classification differences that complicate direct comparison of these findings, this body of research has shown that compared to secure attachment, anxious (or preoccupied) attachment is associated with more variability in terms of positive emotions and promotive interactions (a composite measure of disclosure and support; Tidwell et al., 1996 ), lower self-esteem ( Pietromonaco and Barrett, 1997 ), greater feelings of anxiety and rejection, as well as perceiving more negative emotions in others ( Kafetsios and Nezlek, 2002 ). In contrast, compared to secure attachment, avoidant (or dismissing) attachment has been associated with lower levels of happiness and self-disclosure ( Kafetsios and Nezlek, 2002 ), lower perceived quality of interactions with romantic partners ( Sibley and Liu, 2006 ), a tendency to differentiate less between close and non-close others in terms of disclosure ( Pietromonaco and Barrett, 1997 ), and higher negative affect along with lower positive affect, intimacy, and enjoyment, predominantly in opposite-sex interactions ( Tidwell et al., 1996 ).

Studies using event-contingent methods such as the RIR have shed light on how varying social encounters trigger differential responses as a function of attachment style; however, since the focus is on objectively defined interactional phenomena (e.g., interactions lasting 10 min or longer), these types of paradigms are unable to capture the wide range of naturally occurring subjective states and appraisals that take place as individuals navigate through their daily life. Unlike previous research, the current study used ESM, a within-day self-assessment technique in which participants are prompted at random or predetermined intervals to answer brief questionnaires about their current experiences. ESM offers several advantages compared to traditional laboratory or clinic-based assessment procedures (e.g., deVries, 1992 ; Hektner et al., 2007 ; Conner et al., 2009 ). These include: (1) ESM repeatedly assesses participants in their daily environment, thereby enhancing ecological validity, (2) it captures information at the time of the signal, thus minimizing retrospective recall bias, and (3) it allows for investigating the context of participants’ experiences.

To our knowledge, the work of Torquati and Raffaelli (2004) is the only ESM study that has assessed how daily life experiences of emotion differed as a function of attachment category (secure vs. insecure) and context (being alone or in the presence of familiar intimates). In a sample of undergraduate students, they found that both when in the presence of familiar intimates and when alone, the secure group reported higher levels of emotions relating to energy and connection than the insecure group. Additionally, when alone, securely attached individuals reported greater levels of positive affect than insecurely attached individuals. Moreover, although the two groups did not differ in the variability of their emotional states, participants with a secure style endorsed more extreme positive emotional states across all social contexts, whereas those with insecure styles endorsed more extreme negative emotional states, particularly when they were alone. Their results supported the notion that attachment styles exert a broad influence on affective experiences; nevertheless, an important limitation of this study was that it only reported findings comparing secure vs. insecure participants, and thus it did not provide information on how the subtypes of insecure attachment differ from the secure style. Therefore, further empirical research is needed to examine how attachment styles are expressed in the flow of daily life and whether the interplay between attachment styles and the features of the environment gives rise to different patterns of experiences in the moment. Demonstrating that attachment styles exhibit meaningful associations with real-world experiences in the domains that are theoretically influenced by an individual’s attachment style would provide evidence of the validity of the attachment style construct in the immediate context in which the person is embedded. Moreover, identifying attachment-style variations in how the social context relates to momentary experiences would enhance our understanding of how attachment styles operate in the immediate social milieu.

The Current Study

The present study examines the expression of secure, anxious, and avoidant attachment styles in daily life using ESM. It extends previous research in several ways. First, the current study employs an interview, rather than a self-report measure, to assess attachment styles. The Attachment Style Interview (ASI; Bifulco et al., 2002 ) is a semi-structured interview that belongs to the social psychology approach to attachment research and has the strength of utilizing contextualized narrative and objective examples to determine the individual’s current attachment style. Second, this study examines the expression of attachment styles at random time points across participants’ daily life, not just during particular events such as social interactions, and thus captures a more extensive profile of person-environment transactions. Third, this study examines the impact of two aspects of the social context on the expression of attachment styles in the moment: social contact and perceived social closeness when with others. None of the previous diary studies have examined attachment style differences in the effects of social contact and social closeness on participants’ subjective appraisals of themselves (e.g., their coping capabilities), their current situation (e.g., how stressful it is), or their social functioning (e.g., preference for being alone).

The first aim of this study was to examine the associations between attachment styles and measures of affect, cognitive appraisals (about the self, others, and the situation), and social functioning as they occur in daily life. Following attachment theory, it was hypothesized that compared to both insecure attachment groups, secure attachment would be associated with higher ratings of positive affect, self-esteem, feeling cared for, as well as with experiencing more closeness in social interactions. In terms of insecure attachment, a different pattern was predicted for the anxious and avoidant styles. We hypothesized that compared to securely attached participants, those with anxious attachment would endorse higher levels of negative affect, affect instability, subjective stress, feeling unable to cope, and perceived social rejection. We predicted that avoidant attachment, as compared with the secure style, would be associated with lower ratings of positive affect, a decreased desire to be with others when alone, and an increased preference for being alone when with others. In essence, this would provide evidence of ecological construct validity of the attachment styles.

The second aim of the current study was to investigate whether attachment styles moderate the associations of social contact and social closeness with momentary affect, appraisals, and social functioning. Given the lack of engagement and emotional distance that characterizes avoidant attachment, it was hypothesized that social contact would elicit less positive affect in avoidant participants as compared to their secure peers. Additionally, given that one of the most salient features of anxious individuals is that they desire closeness but fear rejection and abandonment, it was predicted that anxious participants would experience higher negative affect with people with whom they did not feel close, than would those with a secure attachment.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

Participants were 206 (44 men, 162 women) undergraduate students recruited from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona in Spain. The mean age of the sample was 21.3 years ( SD = 2.4). An additional eight participants enrolled in the study and completed the interview phase, but were omitted from the analyses due to failing to complete the ESM protocols. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the University Ethics Committee. Participants provided written informed consent and were paid for their participation.

Materials and Procedure

Participants were assessed with the ASI, along with other interview and questionnaire measures not used in the present study. The ASI is a semi-structured interview that measures current attachment style through questions that elicit the content and context of interpersonal attitudes and behaviors ( Bifulco, 2002 ). The interview is composed of two parts. In the first part, a behavioral evaluation of the ability to make and maintain relationships is made (on a 4-point scale from “marked” to “little/none”) on the basis of the overall quality of the person’s ongoing relationships with up to three supportive figures (referred to as “very close others”), including partner if applicable. The term “behavioral evaluation” denotes that ratings are based on descriptions of actual behavior (such as instances of recent confiding, emotional support received, and presence of tension/conflicts with each “very close other”). The second part of the ASI assesses individuals’ feelings and thoughts about themselves in relation to others. Specifically, ratings are obtained for seven attitudinal scales that reflect anxiety and avoidance in relationships. These scales are: fear of rejection, fear of separation, desire for company, mistrust, anger, self-reliance, and constraints on closeness. Ratings on the attitudinal scales are based on the intensity of the attitude and the level of generalization. Most of them are rated on 4-point scales from “marked” to “little/none.”

The scores obtained throughout the interview are combined to enable the classification of the person’s attachment profile, which encompasses both the attachment style categorization as well as the degree of severity for the insecure styles. Note that scoring the ASI and deriving the person’s attachment profile is done on the basis of prior training, according to established rating rules and benchmark thresholds. Further details on the scoring scheme and case examples can be found in Bifulco and Thomas (2013) . Previous studies have provided evidence for the reliability and validity of the ASI ( Bifulco et al., 2004 ; Bifulco and Thomas, 2013 ). In the present study, the three main attachment style categories (i.e., secure, anxious, and avoidant) were used for analyses.

Experience sampling methodology data were collected on palm pilot personal digital assistants (PDAs). The PDAs signaled the participants randomly eight times a day (between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m.) for 1 week to complete brief questionnaires. When prompted by the signal, the participants had 5 min to initiate responding. After this time window or upon completion of the questionnaire, the PDA would become inactive until the next signal. Each questionnaire took ∼2 min to complete.

The ESM questionnaire included items that inquired about the following domains: (1) affect in the moment, (2) appraisals about the self, (3) appraisals about others, (4) appraisals of the current situation, (5) social contact, and (6) social appraisals and functioning (see Table 1 for the English translation of the ESM items used in the present study). The social contact item (i.e., “Right now I am alone”) was answered dichotomously (yes/no), whereas the remaining items were answered using 7-point scales from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Note that for the sake of aiding the interpretation of the results we have made a distinction between affective states and cognitive appraisals; however, we recognize that such a distinction is not clear-cut and that affect and cognition are complexly intertwined processes. Likewise, we grouped appraisals as pertaining to the self, others, or the situation. This distinction is somewhat artificial but useful for organizing the presentation of the data. Note that, unlike most previous studies, the label “appraisals about others” does not refer to participants’ ratings of interaction partners, but to the manner in which participants’ experience others’ motives, actions, or esteem toward them.

TABLE 1. Direct effects of attachment style on daily life experiences.

Statistical Method

Experience sampling methodology data have a hierarchical structure in which daily life ratings (level 1 data) are nested within participants (level 2 data). Multilevel or hierarchical linear modeling techniques are a standard approach for the analysis of ESM data ( Nezlek, 2001 ; Bolger and Laurenceau, 2013 ). The multilevel analyses examined two types of relations between the attachment groups and daily life experiences. First, we assessed the independent effects of level 2 predictors (attachment style groups) on level 1 dependent measures (ESM ratings in daily life). Second, cross-level interactions (or slopes-as-outcomes) examined whether level 1 relationships (e.g., closeness and negative affect in the moment) varied as a function of level 2 variables (attachment groups). The analyses were conducted with Mplus 6 ( Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2010 ). To examine the effects of attachment, the analyses included two dummy-coded attachment style variables that were entered simultaneously as the level 2 predictors, following Cohen et al. (2003) . The first dummy code contrasted the anxious and secure attachment groups, and the second contrasted the avoidant and secure attachment groups. The secure attachment group was coded 0 in both codings. Note that direct comparisons of the anxious and avoidant attachment groups were not made, given that our hypotheses focused on differences between secure and insecure attachment. Level 1 predictors were group-mean centered ( Enders and Tofighi, 2007 ). The data departed from normality in some cases, so parameter estimates were calculated using maximum likelihood estimation with robust SEs.

Based upon the ASI, 119 (57.8%) of the participants were categorized as having secure attachment, 46 (22.3%) as having anxious attachment, and 41 (19.9%) as having avoidant attachment. These percentages are comparable to those reported in previous studies using the ASI in non-clinical samples (e.g., Conde et al., 2011 ; Oskis et al., 2013 ). The attachment groups did not differ in terms of age or sex. Participants completed an average of 40.8 usable ESM questionnaires ( SD = 9.1). The attachment groups did not differ on the mean number of usable questionnaires (Secure = 40.8, SD = 8.2; Anxious = 40.5, SD = 9.8; Avoidant = 41.1, SD = 10.9).

Expression of Attachment Styles in Daily Life

Table 1 presents the direct effects of attachment on daily life experiences. Compared to participants with a secure attachment, those with an anxious attachment reported higher negative affect, lower positive affect, as well as greater fear of losing control in daily life. As expected, the avoidant and secure groups did not differ in their ratings of negative affect, but avoidant participants reported feeling less happy than their secure counterparts. In addition to comparing the attachment groups on the experience of mean levels of affect in daily life, we also compared the groups on variance of affect using one-way ANOVAs. Note that this was not nested data because each participant had a single (within-person) variance score based upon their own distribution of happiness or negative affect. The ANOVA was significant for negative affect variance, F (2,203) = 5.58, p < 0.01. Post-hoc comparisons using Dunnett’s t -test indicated that the anxious attachment group exceeded the secure attachment group, p < 0.01. The avoidant and secure attachment groups did not differ. The ANOVA for happiness variance was not significant, F (2,203) = 0.48.

The attachment styles were also differentiated by their appraisals of the self, others, and the situation. Relative to both insecure groups, secure individuals endorsed more positive views on all items tapping appraisals about the self. That is, both anxious and avoidant participants perceived themselves in a more negative manner and were less confident in their coping capacities. Consistent with our hypotheses, individuals with an anxious or avoidant style reported feeling less cared for by others than did those with a secure attachment. Participants with an anxious style also differed from their secure peers in that they felt more suspicious and mistreated in the moment. In terms of appraisals about the situation, compared to secure attachment, anxious attachment was associated with expressing decreased enjoyment and competence regarding current activities, as well as with reports that the current situation was less positive and more stressful. Avoidant participants perceived their immediate situation as less positive, but not as more stressful, than secure participants.

Regarding social appraisals and functioning, the attachment groups did not differ in terms of how often they were with other people at the time of the signal (on average, secure participants were alone 42.6% of the time, anxious participants 41.9% of the time, and avoidant participants 48.1% of the time). Participants with a secure style reported greater feelings of closeness than did those with an anxious or avoidant style. As expected, anxiously attached individuals were more likely than secure ones to report that they were alone because others did not want to be with them (i.e., perceived social rejection). Moreover, as compared with secure individuals, those with an avoidant attachment showed a decreased desire to be with others when alone, and an increased preference to be alone when with others. Unexpectedly, compared with the secure group, the anxious group also displayed a higher preference for being alone when with others.

Moderating Effects of Attachment Style on the Association of Social Context with Daily Life Experiences

Two sets of cross-level interaction analyses were conducted to examine the extent to which participants’ social context impacted the expression of attachment styles in daily life. Specifically, we examined whether attachment styles moderated the association of social contact (alone = 1; with others = 2) and social closeness when with others (“I feel close to this person [people]”; ranging from 1 to 7) with measures of affect, appraisals, and functioning in the moment (Table 2 ). Overall, the report of being with other people at the time of the signal was significantly associated with experiencing greater happiness, decreased negative affect, having more positive self-appraisals, feeling more cared for by others, as well as with viewing one’s situation more positively. However, these associations were not moderated by attachment style, indicating that the impact of social contact on daily life experiences was not differentially expressed for the attachment groups.

TABLE 2. Cross-level interactions of social contact and social closeness with daily life experiences.

The closeness of social contacts in the moment was also associated with the momentary experience of affect, appraisals, and functioning. However, in contrast to social contact, the effects of social closeness on daily life experiences were significantly moderated by attachment style. When in the presence of people they did not feel close to, anxious participants reported more negative and less positive experiences than did those with a secure attachment. Specifically, as closeness diminished, anxious individuals experienced greater decreases in happiness and increased negative affect (Figure 1 ), appraised their current situation as less positive and more stressful (Figure 2 ), experienced greater decreases in their ability to cope, and reported a stronger preference for being alone than their securely attached peers. Cross-level analyses also revealed that as closeness diminished, avoidant participants felt less cared for by others than did those with a secure attachment (Figure 3 ).

FIGURE 1. Cross-level interaction of attachment style with social closeness and affective experiences in daily life .

FIGURE 2. Cross-level interaction of attachment style with social closeness and situation appraisals in daily life .

FIGURE 3. Cross-level interaction of attachment style with social closeness and feeling cared for by others in daily life .

To our knowledge, the current study is the first to examine how adult attachment styles, as measured by interview, are expressed in daily life using ESM in a sample of non-clinical young adults. As hypothesized, we found that participants’ momentary affective states, cognitive appraisals, and social functioning varied in meaningful ways as a function of their attachment style. These results support the construct and ecological validity of the ASI as a sensitive measure of attachment styles. Furthermore, they extend previous research by demonstrating that the effects of attachment style on daily life experiences are manifested across a variety of contexts and are not limited to interactional settings. In addition, the present study investigated the impact of the social context on the expression of attachment styles in the moment. The findings indicated that insecure individuals are especially reactive to the subjective nature of social contacts in their everyday life, not simply to the impact of whether they are alone or with others.

Attachment Strategies in Daily Life

Overall, the results regarding the daily life expression of attachment styles confirmed our theory-based predictions. Relative to both anxious and avoidant participants, those holding a secure style reported greater feelings of happiness, more positive self-appraisals, viewed their current situation more positively, felt more cared for by others, and felt closer to the people they were with. These findings are consistent with previous work showing that secure attachment is associated with a sense of self-efficacy, optimistic appraisals toward life in general, as well as positive interpersonal attitudes ( Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007 , 2008 ). Moreover, the pattern of positive momentary experiences reported by secure, as compared to insecure, participants supports the notion that attachment security allows individuals to engage with their environment in a way that fosters psychological and relational benefits ( Siegel, 2012 ).

In the present study, the most pronounced differences emerged between the secure and anxious attachment groups. These differences showed that the daily experiences of individuals with an anxious style were consistent with the use of hyperactivating strategies. That is, compared with their secure peers, anxious participants approached their daily person-environment transactions with amplification of distress (e.g., higher negative affect, greater fear of losing control, higher subjective stress), decreased positive affect, and greater variability in the experience of negative affect. These results support Mikulincer and Shaver ’s ( 2003 , p. 109) characterization of anxiously attached people as possessing a “chaotic emotional architecture” that contributes to the dysregulation of negative affect. We also found that anxiously attached participants endorsed more negative and less positive appraisals about themselves and their current situation than their secure counterparts, which supports the negative effects of hyperactivating strategies on people’s cognitive appraisals. Moreover, relative to secure participants, anxious ones felt less cared for by others, less close to the people they were with, more suspicious, more mistreated, and, when alone, were more likely to hold attributions of not being wanted. This pattern of findings provides strong empirical evidence that the appraisals that anxious individuals make in the realm of daily life are characterized by a hypervigilance to interpersonal sources of threat and hypersensitivity toward rejection. The results also revealed that when anxiously attached participants were with others, they displayed a stronger preference for being alone than their secure peers. Although this finding was not expected, the cross-level interactions seem to suggest that this is driven by a heightened discomfort that arises when anxious individuals are in the presence of people with whom they do not feel close.

In regards to avoidantly attached participants, the results showed that their daily life experiences were consistent with the reliance on deactivating strategies. As predicted, compared with secure subjects, avoidant ones endorsed a stronger preference for being alone when with others and a decreased desire to be with others when alone. Additionally, relative to their secure peers, they tended to approach their person-environment transactions with decreased happiness and less positive views of their situation, but not with amplification of negative states. Avoidant participants also felt less cared for by others and less close to the people they were with than did secure participants. This is consistent with their psychological barriers toward closeness and possibly indicates that their lack of involvement in relationships that elicit closeness and care may reinforce their underlying models in a self-perpetuating manner. Avoidant individuals also reported more negative views of themselves than did those with a secure attachment. Although avoidantly attached people have often been conceptualized as holding a positive self-model ( Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991 ), research suggests that their positive views of themselves reflect defensive processes of self-inflation ( Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007 ). It could be that when asked to report on their experiences in the moment, avoidant individuals are less capable of suppressing the vulnerable nature of their sense of self. Indeed, it has been posited that ESM assessments allow less room for people to resort to self-interpretation or use mental heuristics when reporting on their self-perceptions ( Delespaul, 1995 ).

The Impact of Social Context on the Expression of Attachment Styles

Contrary to our initial expectation, the impact of social context on the expression of attachment styles in the moment was only observed for social closeness and not for social contact. This finding is important because it highlights a boundary condition of the effects of attachment style in social contexts — namely, that the manifestation of attachment styles depends on the subjective appraisal of the closeness of social contacts, rather than on the simple presence of social interactions. The finding that it is social appraisals, not simply social contact, that interacts with attachment is compatible with the description of attachment as a “person by situation” interactionist theory that at its core involves appraisal of the social context.

Increased levels of perceived closeness were associated with differential responses for anxious and avoidant individuals. Compared with the secure group, the affective states, situation appraisals, coping capacities, and social functioning of the anxious group worsened as closeness diminished; or, seen from the opposite perspective, improved as closeness increased. This pattern of results may be interpreted to suggest that when in the presence of people they do not feel close to, anxious people’s preoccupation with rejection and approval is amplified and this permeates their subjective experiences. By contrast, increased levels of closeness might enhance their momentary sense of felt-security and provide them with the self-validation they long for, which in turn could bring about an improvement in their subjective experiences. The finding that greater closeness seemed to aid anxious participants with the regulation of various self-states (e.g., affect, coping, stress) resonates with the work of Pietromonaco and Barrett (2006) , who, using a variant of the RIR, concluded that individuals holding a preoccupied attachment valued their interacting partners more when the interactions had provided help with self-regulatory processess.

The results also demonstrated that as closeness diminished avoidant subjects felt less cared for by others than their secure peers. Because avoidant individuals approach their interpersonal interactions in a way that minimizes the possibility of frustration (in order to keep their attachment system deactivated), it may be that experiencing closeness disconfirms their low expectations (e.g., about others’ responsiveness) and thus makes them more perceptive to the caring attitudes of others. Notably, the fact that greater closeness affected appraisal about others, but not their self-states, is in line with the contention that avoidantly attached people resort to autoregulation (i.e., they turn to themselves to regulate their internal states; Solomon and Tatkin, 2011 ). Additional research is required to elucidate the specific psychological mechanisms that make up the experience of momentary closeness and how it is associated with beneficial effects for insecurely attached individuals.

Specificity of Attachment Processes in Daily Life

The results of this study are relevant to the broader debate in the attachment field regarding the specificity of attachment-related processes in adulthood (see Tidwell et al., 1996 ; Pietromonaco and Barrett, 1997 ; Torquati and Raffaelli, 2004 ). On the one hand, the fact that attachment styles predicted individual’s subjective experiences across the range of situations they encountered during the week, and not only those that were interaction-based, suggests that attachment styles are relevant features of personality functioning that have pervasive effects on how individuals experience their inner and outer worlds. On the other hand, the findings that attachment styles moderated the effects of perceived social closeness on daily life experiences (but not the effects of mere social contact on these experiences) highlights the fact that attachment styles are differentially expressed under relational circumstances that might bring attachment concerns to the fore. Thus, we believe that a richer understanding of attachment dynamics will come from efforts that examine their expression at both the individual and relational level.

Limitations and Future Directions

Additional research is warranted to address the limitations of the present study. First, we used a sample of college students with predominantly female participants. Future studies would benefit from assessing the expression of attachment styles in community samples with a wider age range and a more representative distribution in terms of gender. Second, it should be noted that the cross-level interactions of the effects of social closeness on the expression of attachment styles were interpreted in line with theoretical propositions from the attachment literature; nevertheless, given the correlational nature of these data, the opposite interpretation is also plausible (e.g., less coping capacity contributing to lower perceived closeness). Third, note that the attachment groups showed a broader pattern of significant results on the direct effects than the interactions. This likely demonstrates the robust nature of the direct effects and the fact that the interactions are computed over-and-above the direct effects. Thus, we want to be careful not to over-interpret the cross-level interaction effects. Nevertheless, we believe that the pattern of findings for the cross-level interactions indicates that anxious attachment (relative to secure attachment) is reactive to the nature of social contact, not simply any social contact; whereas avoidant attachment generally is not characterized by strong reactivity to social context (as measured in the current study). Fourth, this study focused exclusively on momentary appraisals of social closeness. Further research could expand upon the current findings by assessing the effects of variations in trait social closeness (e.g., Moore et al., 2014 ). Finally, it would also be important for future work to assess the extent to which our findings are generalizable across different cultures. Given that we found theoretically expected daily life correlates of attachment styles in a Spanish sample, the results would seem to fit with the notion that attachment strategies are universal characteristics ( van IJzendoorn and Sagi-Schwartz, 2008 ; van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2010 ). However, studies in different cultures are needed to establish the cross-cultural ecological validity of attachment styles.

The extent to which attachment style differences are expressed in real time as individuals navigate their real-life settings has remained an area largely untapped by research in the attachment field. The present investigation provided a novel contribution by using an interview-based measure to assess adult attachment styles and by employing a random time-sampling procedure that demonstrated that the hallmark features of secure, anxious, and avoidant individuals are reflected in their day-to-day person-environment transactions. The current study further extends the validity of the attachment style construct to the realm of everyday life and, moreover, points to the utility of employing ESM for obtaining a more finely grained understanding of how the predictions derived from attachment theory play out in the natural flow of real life.

Author Contributions

TS contributed to study design, data collection, data management, and writing of the manuscript. TK contributed to study conception, study design, data analyses, and writing of the manuscript. SB contributed to data collection and critically revised the manuscript. MM contributed to data collection and critically revised the manuscript. CC contributed to data analyses and critically revised the manuscript. PS contributed to study design, provided input regarding data analyses, and critically revised the manuscript. NB-V was the principal investigator, conceived the study and contributed to study design, data collection, and writing of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Plan Nacional de I+D PSI2011-30321-C02-01), Fundació La Marató de TV3 (091110), and Generalitat de Catalunya (Suport als Grups de Recerca 2014SGR1070). NB-V is supported by the Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA) Academia Award. We thank Agnès Ros-Morente and Erika Bedoya for their assistance with data collection and management.

Bartholomew, K., and Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 61, 226–244. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bifulco, A. (2002). Attachment style measurement: a clinical and epidemiological perspective. Attach. Hum. Dev. 4, 180–188. doi: 10.1080/14616730210157501

PubMed Abstract | Full Text | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bifulco, A., Figueiredo, B., Guedeney, N., Gorman, L. L., Hayes, S., Muzik, M.,et al. (2004). Maternal attachment style and depression associated with childbirth: preliminary results from a European and US cross-cultural study. Br. J. Psychiatry Suppl. 184, 31–37. doi: 10.1192/03-335

Bifulco, A., Moran, P. M., Ball, C., and Bernazzani, O. (2002). Adult attachment style. I: its relationship to clinical depression. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 37, 50–59. doi: 10.1007/s127-002-8215-0

Bifulco, A., and Thomas, G. (2013). Understanding Adult Attachment in Family Relationships: Research, Assessment, and Intervention . Abingdon: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Bolger, N., and Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive Longitudinal Methods: An Introduction to Diary and Experience Sampling Research . New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Separation: Anxiety and Anger . Attachment and Loss, Vol. 2. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Loss: Sadness and Depression. Attachment and Loss, Vol. 3. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1. Attachment , 2nd Edn. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., and Shaver, P. R. (1998). “Self-report measurement of adult attachment: an integrative overview,” in Attachment Theory and Close Relationships, eds J. A. Simpson and W. S. Rholes (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 46–76.

PubMed Abstract | Full Text | Google Scholar

Campbell, L., and Marshall, T. (2011). Anxious attachment and relationship processes: an interactionist perspective. J. Pers. 79, 1219–1250. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00723.x

Cassidy, J., and Kobak, R. R. (1988). “Avoidance and its relationship with other defensive processes,” in Clinical Implications of Attachment , eds J. Belsky and T. Nezworski (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 300–323.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., and Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd Edn. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collins, N. L., Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., and Feeney, B. C. (2004). “Working models of attachment: new developments and emerging themes,” in Adult Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Implications, eds W. S. Rholes and J. A. Simpson (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 196–239.

Conde, A., Figueiredo, B., and Bifulco, A. (2011). Attachment style and psychological adjustment in couples. Attach. Hum. Dev. 13, 271–291. doi: 10.1080/14616734.2011.562417

Conner, T. S., Tennen, H., Fleeson, W., and Barrett, L. F. (2009). Experience sampling methods: a modern idiographic approach to personality research. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 3, 292–313. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00170.x

Delespaul, P. (1995). Assessing Schizophrenia in Daily Life: The Experience Sampling Method . Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.

de Vries, M. (1992). The Experience of Psychopathology: Investigating Mental Disorders in their Natural Settings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., and Shaver, P. R. (2011). Attachment insecurities and the processing of threat-related information: studying the schemas involved in insecure people’s coping strategies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 78–93. doi: 10.1037/a0022503

Enders, C. K., and Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: a new look at an old issue. Psychol. Methods 12, 121–138. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121

Fraley, R. C., Niedenthal, P. M., Marks, M., Brumbaugh, C., and Vicary, A. (2006). Adult attachment and the perception of emotional expressions: probing the hyperactivating strategies underlying anxious attachment. J. Pers. 74, 1163–1190. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00406.x

Fraley, R. C., and Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of unwanted thoughts. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73, 1080–1091. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.1080

Gjerde, P. F., Onishi, M., and Carlson, K. S. (2004). Personality characteristics associated with romantic attachment: a comparison of interview and self-report methodologies. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30, 1402–1415. doi: 10.1177/0146167204264291

Griffin, D., and Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 430–445. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.430

Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience Sampling Method: Measuring the Quality of Everyday Llife . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kafetsios, K., and Nezlek, J. B. (2002). Attachment styles in everyday social interaction. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32, 719–735. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.130

Kobak, R. R., and Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Dev. 59, 135–146. doi: 10.2307/1130395

Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: recent studies, changing methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies. Hum. Dev. 33, 48–61. doi: 10.1159/000276502

Mikulincer, M., and Orbach, I. (1995). Attachment styles and repressive defensiveness: the accessibility and architecture of affective memories. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 68, 917–925. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.917

Mikulincer, M., and Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 35, 53–152. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01002-5

Mikulincer, M., and Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change . New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Mikulincer, M., and Shaver, P. R. (2008). “Adult attachment and affect regulation,” in Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, 2nd Edn, eds J. Cassidy and P. R. Shaver (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 503–531.

Moore, S. R., Fu, Y., and Depue, R. A. (2014). Social traits modulate attention to affiliative cues. Front. Psychol. 5:649. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00649

Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide , 6th Edn. Los Angeles , CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Nezlek, J. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event- and interval-contingent data in social and personality psychology research. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27, 771–785. doi: 10.1177/0146167201277001

Oskis, A., Clow, A., Hucklebridge, F., Bifulco, A., Jacobs, C., and Loveday, C. (2013). Understanding alexithymia in female adolescents: the role of attachment style. Pers. Individ. Differ. 54, 97–102. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.023

Pietromonaco, P. R., and Barrett, L. F. (1997). Working models of attachment and daily social interactions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73, 1409–1423. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1409

Pietromonaco, P. R., and Barrett, L. F. (2006). What can you do for me? Attachment style and motives underlying esteem for partners. J. Res. Pers. 40, 313–338. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.01.003

Reis, H. T., and Wheeler, L. (1991). Studying social interaction with the Rochester Interaction Record. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 24, 269–318. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60332-9

Schore, A. (1994). Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self: The Neurobiology of Emotional Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sibley, C. G., and Liu, J. H. (2006). Working models of romantic attachment and the subjective quality of social interactions across relational contexts. Pers. Relatsh. 13, 243–259. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00116.x

Siegel, D. (2012). The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are , 2nd Edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Simpson, J. A., and Winterheld, H. A. (2012). “Person-by-situation perspectives on close relationships,” in The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, eds K. Deaux and M. Snyder (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 493–516.

Solomon, M., and Tatkin, S. (2011). Love and War in Intimate Relationships: Connection, Disconnection, and Mutual Regulation in Couple Therapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Tidwell, M. C. O., Reis, H. T., and Shaver, P. R. (1996). Attachment, attractiveness, and social interaction: a diary study. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71, 729–745. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.729

Torquati, J. C., and Raffaelli, M. (2004). Daily experiences of emotions and social contexts of securely and insecurely attached young adults. J. Adolesc. Res. 19, 740–758. doi: 10.1177/0743558403260023

van IJzendoorn, M. H., and Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2010). Invariance of adult attachment across gender, age, culture, and socioeconomic status? J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 27, 200–208. doi: 10.1177/0265407509360908

van IJzendoorn, M. H., and Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2008). “Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: universal and contextual dimensions,” in Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, 2nd Edn, eds J. Cassidy and P. R. Shaver (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 880–905.

Keywords : adult attachment, Attachment Style Interview, experience sampling, ecological validity, individual differences

Citation: Sheinbaum T, Kwapil TR, Ballespí S, Mitjavila M, Chun CA, Silvia PJ and Barrantes-Vidal N (2015) Attachment style predicts affect, cognitive appraisals, and social functioning in daily life. Front. Psychol. 6:296. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00296

Received: 17 November 2014; Accepted: 02 March 2015; Published online: 18 March 2015

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2015 Sheinbaum, Kwapil, Ballespí, Mitjavila, Chun, Silvia and Barrantes-Vidal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Neus Barrantes-Vidal, Departament de Psicologia Clínica i de la Salut, Facultat de Psicologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | Psychology

Introduction to R

An informal workshop on the use of r for simulations and statistical modeling in psychological science 3, adult attachment theory and research.

A Brief Overview

Research on adult attachment is guided by the assumption that the same motivational system that gives rise to the close emotional bond between parents and their children is responsible for the bond that develops between adults in emotionally intimate relationships. The objective of this essay is to provide a brief overview of the history of adult attachment research, the key theoretical ideas, and a sampling of some of the research findings. This essay has been written for people who are interested in learning more about research on adult attachment.

Background: Bowlby's Theory of Attachment

The theory of attachment was originally developed by John Bowlby (1907 - 1990), a British psychoanalyst who was attempting to understand the intense distress experienced by infants who had been separated from their parents. Bowlby observed that separated infants would go to extraordinary lengths (e.g., crying, clinging, frantically searching) to prevent separation from their parents or to reestablish proximity to a missing parent. At the time of Bowlby's initial writings, psychoanalytic writers held that these expressions were manifestations of immature defense mechanisms that were operating to repress emotional pain, but Bowlby noted that such expressions are common to a wide variety of mammalian species, and speculated that these behaviors may serve an evolutionary function.

Drawing on ethological theory, Bowlby postulated that these attachment behaviors , such as crying and searching, were adaptive responses to separation from a primary attachment figure --someone who provides support, protection, and care. Because human infants, like other mammalian infants, cannot feed or protect themselves, they are dependent upon the care and protection of "older and wiser" adults. Bowlby argued that, over the course of evolutionary history, infants who were able to maintain proximity to an attachment figure via attachment behaviors would be more likely to survive to a reproductive age. According to Bowlby, a motivational system, what he called the attachment behavioral system , was gradually "designed" by natural selection to regulate proximity to an attachment figure.

The attachment behavior system is an important concept in attachment theory because it provides the conceptual linkage between ethological models of human development and modern theories on emotion regulation and personality. According to Bowlby, the attachment system essentially "asks" the following fundamental question: Is the attachment figure nearby, accessible, and attentive? If the child perceives the answer to this question to be "yes," he or she feels loved, secure, and confident, and, behaviorally, is likely to explore his or her environment, play with others, and be sociable. If, however, the child perceives the answer to this question to be "no," the child experiences anxiety and, behaviorally, is likely to exhibit attachment behaviors ranging from simple visual searching on the low extreme to active following and vocal signaling on the other (see Figure 1). These behaviors continue until either the child is able to reestablish a desirable level of physical or psychological proximity to the attachment figure, or until the child "wears down," as may happen in the context of a prolonged separation or loss. In such cases, Bowlby believed that young children experienced profound despair and depression.

Individual Differences in Infant Attachment Patterns

Although Bowlby believed that the basic dynamics described above captured the normative dynamics of the attachment behavioral system, he recognized that there are individual differences in the way children appraise the accessibility of the attachment figure and how they regulate their attachment behavior in response to threats. However, it wasn't until his colleague, Mary Ainsworth (1913 – 1999), began to systematically study infant-parent separations that a formal understanding of these individual differences was articulated. Ainsworth and her students developed a technique called the strange situation --a laboratory paradigm for studying infant-parent attachment. In the strange situation, 12-month-old infants and their parents are brought to the laboratory and, systematically, separated from and reunited with one another. In the strange situation, most children (i.e., about 60%) behave in the way implied by Bowlby's "normative" theory. They become upset when the parent leaves the room, but, when he or she returns, they actively seek the parent and are easily comforted by him or her. Children who exhibit this pattern of behavior are often called secure . Other children (about 20% or less) are ill-at-ease initially, and, upon separation, become extremely distressed. Importantly, when reunited with their parents, these children have a difficult time being soothed, and often exhibit conflicting behaviors that suggest they want to be comforted, but that they also want to "punish" the parent for leaving. These children are often called anxious-resistant . The third pattern of attachment that Ainsworth and her colleagues documented is called avoidant . Avoidant children (about 20%) don't appear too distressed by the separation, and, upon reunion, actively avoid seeking contact with their parent, sometimes turning their attention to play objects on the laboratory floor.

Ainsworth's work was important for at least three reasons. First, she provided one of the first empirical demonstrations of how attachment behavior is patterned in both safe and frightening contexts. Second, she provided the first empirical taxonomy of individual differences in infant attachment patterns. According to her research, at least three types of children exist: those who are secure in their relationship with their parents, those who are anxious-resistant, and those who are anxious-avoidant. Finally, she demonstrated that these individual differences were correlated with infant-parent interactions in the home during the first year of life. Children who appear secure in the strange situation, for example, tend to have parents who are responsive to their needs. Children who appear insecure in the strange situation (i.e., anxious-resistant or avoidant) often have parents who are insensitive to their needs, or inconsistent or rejecting in the care they provide. In the years that have followed, a number of researchers have demonstrated links between early parental sensitivity and responsiveness and attachment security.

Adult Romantic Relationships

Although Bowlby was primarily focused on understanding the nature of the infant-caregiver relationship, he believed that attachment characterized human experience from "the cradle to the grave." It was not until the mid-1980's, however, that researchers began to take seriously the possibility that attachment processes may play out in adulthood. Hazan and Shaver (1987) were two of the first researchers to explore Bowlby's ideas in the context of romantic relationships. According to Hazan and Shaver, the emotional bond that develops between adult romantic partners is partly a function of the same motivational system--the attachment behavioral system--that gives rise to the emotional bond between infants and their caregivers. Hazan and Shaver noted that the relationship between infants and caregivers and the relationship between adult romantic partners share the following features:

• both feel safe when the other is nearby and responsive
• both engage in close, intimate, bodily contact
• both feel insecure when the other is inaccessible
• both share discoveries with one another
• both play with one another's facial features and exhibit a mutual fascination and preoccupation with one another
• both engage in "baby talk"

On the basis of these parallels, Hazan and Shaver argued that adult romantic relationships, like infant-caregiver relationships, are attachments, and that romantic love is a property of the attachment behavioral system, as well as the motivational systems that give rise to caregiving and sexuality.

Three Implications of Adult Attachment Theory

The idea that romantic relationships may be attachment relationships has had a profound influence on modern research on close relationships. There are at least three critical implications of this idea. First, if adult romantic relationships are attachment relationships, then we should observe the same kinds of individual differences in adult relationships that Ainsworth observed in infant-caregiver relationships . We may expect some adults, for example, to be secure in their relationships--to feel confident that their partners will be there for them when needed, and open to depending on others and having others depend on them. We should expect other adults, in contrast, to be insecure in their relationships. For example, some insecure adults may be anxious-resistant : they worry that others may not love them completely, and be easily frustrated or angered when their attachment needs go unmet. Others may be avoidant : they may appear not to care too much about close relationships, and may prefer not to be too dependent upon other people or to have others be too dependent upon them.

Second, if adult romantic relationships are attachment relationships, then the way adult relationships "work" should be similar to the way infant-caregiver relationships work . In other words, the same kinds of factors that facilitate exploration in children (i.e., having a responsive caregiver) should facilitate exploration among adults (i.e., having a responsive partner). The kinds of things that make an attachment figure "desirable" for infants (i.e., responsiveness, availability) are the kinds of factors adults should find desirable in romantic partners. In short, individual differences in attachment should influence relational and personal functioning in adulthood in the same way they do in childhood.

Third, whether an adult is secure or insecure in his or her adult relationships may be a partial reflection of his or her experiences with his or her primary caregivers . Bowlby believed that the mental representations or working models (i.e., expectations, beliefs, "rules" or "scripts" for behaving and thinking) that a child holds regarding relationships are a function of his or her caregiving experiences. For example, a secure child tends to believe that others will be there for him or her because previous experiences have led him or her to this conclusion. Once a child has developed such expectations, he or she will tend to seek out relational experiences that are consistent with those expectations and perceive others in a way that is colored by those beliefs. According to Bowlby, this kind of process should promote continuity in attachment patterns over the life course, although it is possible that a person's attachment pattern will change if his or her relational experiences are inconsistent with his or her expectations. In short, if we assume that adult relationships are attachment relationships, it is possible that children who are secure as children will grow up to be secure in their romantic relationships. Or, relatedly, that people who are secure as adults in their relationships with their parents will be more likely to forge secure relationships with new partners.

In the sections below I briefly address these three implications in light of early and contemporary research on adult attachment.

Do We Observe the Same Kinds of Attachment Patterns Among Adults that We Observe Among Children?

The earliest research on adult attachment involved studying the association between individual differences in adult attachment and the way people think about their relationships and their memories for what their relationships with their parents are like. Hazan and Shaver (1987) developed a simple questionnaire to measure these individual differences. (These individual differences are often referred to as attachment styles , attachment patterns , attachment orientations , or differences in the organization of the attachment system .) In short, Hazan and Shaver asked research subjects to read the three paragraphs listed below, and indicate which paragraph best characterized the way they think, feel, and behave in close relationships:

A. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, others want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being. B. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me. C. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to get very close to my partner, and this sometimes scares people away.

Based on this three-category measure , Hazan and Shaver found that the distribution of categories was similar to that observed in infancy. In other words, about 60% of adults classified themselves as secure (paragraph B), about 20% described themselves as avoidant (paragraph A), and about 20% described themselves as anxious-resistant (paragraph C).

Although this measure served as a useful way to study the association between attachment styles and relationship functioning, it didn't allow a full test of the hypothesis that the same kinds of individual differences observed in infants might be manifest among adults. (In many ways, the Hazan and Shaver measure assumed this to be true.) Subsequent research has explored this hypothesis in a variety of ways. For example, Kelly Brennan and her colleagues collected a number of statements (e.g., "I believe that others will be there for me when I need them") and studied the way these statements "hang together" statistically (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Brennan's findings suggested that there are two fundamental dimensions with respect to adult attachment patterns (see Figure 2). One critical variable has been labeled attachment-related anxiety . People who score high on this variable tend to worry whether their partner is available, responsive, attentive, etc. People who score on the low end of this variable are more secure in the perceived responsiveness of their partners. The other critical variable is called attachment-related avoidance . People on the high end of this dimension prefer not to rely on others or open up to others. People on the low end of this dimension are more comfortable being intimate with others and are more secure depending upon and having others depend upon them. A prototypical secure adult is low on both of these dimensions.

Brennan's findings are critical because recent analyses of the statistical patterning of behavior among infants in the strange situation reveal two functionally similar dimensions: one that captures variability in the anxiety and resistance of the child and another that captures variability in the child's willingness to use the parent as a safe haven for support (see Fraley & Spieker, 2003a, 2003b). Functionally, these dimensions are similar to the two-dimensions uncovered among adults, suggesting that similar patterns of attachment exist at different points in the life span.

In light of Brennan's findings, as well as taxometric research published by Fraley and Waller (1998), most researchers currently conceptualize and measure individual differences in attachment dimensionally rather than categorically. That is, it is assumed that attachment styles are things that vary in degree rather than kind. The most popular measures of adult attachment style are Brennan, Clark, and Shaver's (1998) ECR and Fraley, Waller, and Brennan's (2000) ECR-R--a revised version of the ECR. [ Click here to take an on-line quiz designed to determine your attachment style based on these two dimensions. ] Both of these self-report instruments provide continuous scores on the two dimensions of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance. [ Click here to learn more about self-report measures of individual differences in adult attachment. ]

Do Adult Romantic Relationships "Work" in the Same Way that Infant-Caregiver Relationships Work?

There is now an increasing amount of research that suggests that adult romantic relationships function in ways that are similar to infant-caregiver relationships, with some noteworthy exceptions, of course. Naturalistic research on adults separating from their partners at an airport demonstrated that behaviors indicative of attachment-related protest and caregiving were evident, and that the regulation of these behaviors was associated with attachment style (Fraley & Shaver, 1998). For example, while separating couples generally showed more attachment behavior than nonseparating couples, highly avoidant adults showed much less attachment behavior than less avoidant adults. In the sections below I discuss some of the parallels that have been discovered between the way that infant-caregiver relationships and adult romantic relationships function.

Partner selection Cross-cultural studies suggest that the secure pattern of attachment in infancy is universally considered the most desirable pattern by mothers (see van IJzendoorn & Sagi, 1999). For obvious reasons there is no similar study asking infants if they would prefer a security-inducing attachment figure. Adults seeking long-term relationships identify responsive caregiving qualities, such as attentiveness, warmth, and sensitivity, as most "attractive" in potential dating partners (Zeifman & Hazan, 1997). Despite the attractiveness of secure qualities, however, not all adults are paired with secure partners. Some evidence suggests that people end up in relationships with partners who confirm their existing beliefs about attachment relationships (Frazier et al., 1997).

Secure base and safe haven behavior In infancy, secure infants tend to be the most well adjusted, in the sense that they are relatively resilient, they get along with their peers, and are well liked. Similar kinds of patterns have emerged in research on adult attachment. Overall, secure adults tend to be more satisfied in their relationships than insecure adults. Their relationships are characterized by greater longevity, trust, commitment, and interdependence (e.g., Feeney, Noller, & Callan, 1994), and they are more likely to use romantic partners as a secure base from which to explore the world (e.g., Fraley & Davis, 1997). A large proportion of research on adult attachment has been devoted to uncovering the behavioral and psychological mechanisms that promote security and secure base behavior in adults. There have been two major discoveries thus far. First and in accordance with attachment theory, secure adults are more likely than insecure adults to seek support from their partners when distressed. Furthermore, they are more likely to provide support to their distressed partners (e.g., Simpson et al., 1992). Second, the attributions that insecure individuals make concerning their partner's behavior during and following relational conflicts exacerbate, rather than alleviate, their insecurities (e.g., Simpson et al., 1996).

Avoidant Attachment and Defense Mechanisms According to attachment theory, children differ in the kinds of strategies they use to regulate attachment-related anxiety. Following a separation and reunion, for example, some insecure children approach their parents, but with ambivalence and resistance, whereas others withdraw from their parents, apparently minimizing attachment-related feelings and behavior. One of the big questions in the study of infant attachment is whether children who withdraw from their parents--avoidant children--are truly less distressed or whether their defensive behavior is a cover-up for their true feelings of vulnerability. Research that has measured the attentional capacity of children, heart rate, or stress hormone levels suggests that avoidant children are distressed by the separation despite the fact that they come across in a cool, defensive manner.

Recent research on adult attachment has revealed some interesting complexities concerning the relationships between avoidance and defense. Although some avoidant adults, often called fearfully-avoidant adults, are poorly adjusted despite their defensive nature, others, often called dismissing-avoidant adults, are able to use defensive strategies in an adaptive way. For example, in an experimental task in which adults were instructed to discuss losing their partner, Fraley and Shaver (1997) found that dismissing individuals (i.e., individuals who are high on the dimension of attachment-related avoidance but low on the dimension of attachment-related anxiety) were just as physiologically distressed (as assessed by skin conductance measures) as other individuals. When instructed to suppress their thoughts and feelings, however, dismissing individuals were able to do so effectively. That is, they could deactivate their physiological arousal to some degree and minimize the attention they paid to attachment-related thoughts. Fearfully-avoidant individuals were not as successful in suppressing their emotions.

Are Attachment Patterns Stable from Infancy to Adulthood?

Perhaps the most provocative and controversial implication of adult attachment theory is that a person's attachment style as an adult is shaped by his or her interactions with parental attachment figures. Although the idea that early attachment experiences might have an influence on attachment style in romantic relationships is relatively uncontroversial, hypotheses about the source and degree of overlap between the two kinds of attachment orientations have been controversial.

There are at least two issues involved in considering the question of stability: (a) How much similarity is there between the security people experience with different people in their lives (e.g., mothers, fathers, romantic partners)? and (b) With respect to any one of these relationships, how stable is security over time?

With respect to this first issue, it appears that there is a modest degree of overlap between how secure people feel with their mothers, for example, and how secure they feel with their romantic partners. Fraley, for example, collected self-report measures of one's current attachment style with a significant parental figure and a current romantic partner and found correlations ranging between approximately .20 to .50 (i.e., small to moderate) between the two kinds of attachment relationships. [ Click here to take an on-line quiz designed to assess the similarity between your attachment styles with different people in your life. ]

With respect to the second issue, the stability of one's attachment to one's parents appears to be equal to a correlation of about .25 to .39 (Fraley, 2002). There is only one longitudinal study of which we are aware that assessed the link between security at age 1 in the strange situation and security of the same people 20 years later in their adult romantic relationships. This unpublished study uncovered a correlation of .17 between these two variables (Steele, Waters, Crowell, & Treboux, 1998).

The association between early attachment experiences and adult attachment styles has also been examined in retrospective studies. Hazan and Shaver (1987) found that adults who were secure in their romantic relationships were more likely to recall their childhood relationships with parents as being affectionate, caring, and accepting (see also Feeney & Noller, 1990).

Based on these kinds of studies, it seems likely that attachment styles in the child-parent domain and attachment styles in the romantic relationship domain are only moderately related at best. What are the implications of such findings for adult attachment theory? According to some writers, the most important proposition of the theory is that the attachment system, a system originally adapted for the ecology of infancy, continues to influence behavior, thought, and feeling in adulthood (see Fraley & Shaver, 2000). This proposition may hold regardless of whether individual differences in the way the system is organized remain stable over a decade or more, and stable across different kinds of intimate relationships.

Although the social and cognitive mechanisms invoked by attachment theorists imply that stability in attachment style may be the rule rather than the exception, these basic mechanisms can predict either long-run continuity or discontinuity, depending on the precise ways in which they are conceptualized (Fraley, 2002). Fraley (2002) discussed two models of continuity derived from attachment theory that make different predictions about long-term continuity even though they were derived from the same basic theoretical principles. Each model assumes that individual differences in attachment representations are shaped by variation in experiences with caregivers in early childhood, and that, in turn, these early representations shape the quality of the individual's subsequent attachment experiences. However, one model assumes that existing representations are updated and revised in light of new experiences such that older representations are eventually "overwritten." Mathematical analyses revealed that this model predicts that the long-term stability of individual differences will approach zero. The second model is similar to the first, but makes the additional assumption that representational models developed in the first year of life are preserved (i.e., they are not overwritten) and continue to influence relational behavior throughout the life course. Analyses of this model revealed that long-term stability can approach a non-zero limiting value. The important point here is that the principles of attachment theory can be used to derive developmental models that make strikingly different predictions about the long-term stability of individual differences. In light of this finding, the existence of long-term stability of individual differences should be considered an empirical question rather than an assumption of the theory.

Outstanding Questions and Future Directions for Research on Adult Attachment

There are a number of questions that current and future research on attachment needs to address. For example, it is probably the case that, while some romantic relationships are genuine attachment relationships, others are not. It will be necessary for future researchers to find ways to better determine whether a relationship is actually serving attachment-related functions. Second, although it is clear why attachment behavior may serve an important evolutionary function in infancy, it is not clear whether attachment serves an important evolutionary function among adults. Third, we still don't have a strong understanding of the precise factors that may change a person's attachment style. In the interest of improving people's lives, it will be necessary to learn more about the factors that promote attachment security and relational well-being.

© 2018 R. Chris Fraley

To learn more about attachment theory and research, please check out the book Omri, Gery, and I wrote.

Adult Attachment Styles by Mary Ainsworth

This essay about Mary Ainsworth’s attachment theory explores adult attachment styles, such as secure, anxious-preoccupied, and avoidant-dismissive. It discusses their implications for relational dynamics, emotional well-being, and personal growth. By examining how attachment styles shape relationships and psychological resilience, the essay underscores the significance of understanding and addressing attachment patterns for fostering healthier and more fulfilling connections.

How it works

In the realm of psychological inquiry, few concepts have resonated as profoundly as Mary Ainsworth’s groundbreaking work on attachment theory. While her early investigations focused on the tender bonds between infants and caregivers, her enduring legacy extends to the nuanced exploration of attachment styles in adulthood. This essay embarks on a journey through the multifaceted landscape of adult attachment, as illuminated by Ainsworth’s pioneering insights, unraveling its significance for relational dynamics, emotional well-being, and personal evolution.

Deciphering Adult Attachment Styles: Drawing upon her seminal research, Mary Ainsworth delineated three distinct attachment styles that shape adult relational experiences: secure attachment, anxious-preoccupied attachment, and avoidant-dismissive attachment.

These intricate patterns of relating reflect the intricate tapestry woven by early caregiving experiences, manifesting in the realm of adult relationships.

Secure Attachment: Individuals endowed with secure attachment exhibit a harmonious interplay between intimacy and autonomy, underpinned by a profound sense of self-worth and trust in others. Their relational landscape is characterized by emotional openness, empathetic attunement, and a steadfast commitment to mutual growth. Grounded in the fertile soil of secure attachments, these individuals navigate the ebb and flow of relationships with grace and resilience, fostering a sanctuary of safety and acceptance for themselves and their partners.

Anxious-Preoccupied Attachment: In the labyrinth of anxious-preoccupied attachment, individuals find themselves ensnared by the tempestuous currents of longing and insecurity. Their relational terrain is fraught with the perpetual quest for validation and closeness, often tinged with an undercurrent of fear and mistrust. Driven by an insatiable hunger for connection, they teeter on the precipice of emotional tumult, oscillating between moments of fervent intimacy and paralyzing doubt.

Avoidant-Dismissive Attachment: For those harboring avoidant-dismissive attachment, emotional autonomy reigns supreme, serving as a protective fortress against the vulnerability of intimacy. Their relational script unfolds against the backdrop of self-sufficiency and detachment, veiled by a veneer of indifference. Beneath the guise of independence lies a poignant narrative of unmet needs and suppressed longing, as they navigate the labyrinthine corridors of solitude and isolation.

Implications for Relational Dynamics: The interplay of adult attachment styles reverberates throughout the tapestry of relational dynamics, sculpting the contours of intimacy, communication, and conflict resolution. Congruence in attachment styles often heralds a symphony of relational harmony, characterized by mutual understanding, emotional attunement, and unwavering support.

Conversely, the dissonance between disparate attachment styles may herald discord and disconnection within relationships. The anxious-preoccupied soul, yearning for reassurance and proximity, may find themselves adrift in the vast expanse of the avoidant-dismissive partner’s emotional detachment. Likewise, the avoidant-dismissive voyager, recoiling from the specter of vulnerability, may perceive the anxious-preoccupied seeker as suffocating and intrusive, retreating further into the recesses of solitude.

Yet, within the crucible of relational strife lies the crucible of transformation and growth. Through the alchemy of self-awareness and empathy, individuals can transcend the shackles of attachment insecurity, forging deeper connections rooted in authenticity and vulnerability. Therapy and relational interventions offer sanctuaries of healing and growth, nurturing the seeds of relational resilience and intimacy.

Exploring the Nexus of Emotional Well-Being: The shadow cast by adult attachment styles extends far beyond the realm of relational dynamics, permeating the fabric of emotional well-being and psychological resilience. Securely attached individuals bask in the warm embrace of self-assurance and emotional equilibrium, weathering the storms of adversity with grace and resilience.

Conversely, the anxious-preoccupied pilgrim traverses the treacherous terrain of emotional turbulence, ensnared by the tendrils of self-doubt and longing. The avoidant-dismissive wanderer, cloaked in the armor of detachment, grapples with the gnawing ache of solitude and disconnection, estranged from the balm of intimate connection.

Embracing the Path of Personal Evolution: Embarking on the journey of self-discovery and personal evolution entails confronting the specter of attachment insecurity with courage and compassion. Through the crucible of introspection and relational exploration, individuals can unearth the roots of attachment patterns, fostering a deeper understanding of self and other.

Therapeutic modalities, steeped in the wisdom of attachment theory, offer sanctuaries of healing and growth, catalyzing the alchemical transformation of attachment insecurity into relational resilience. Through the crucible of vulnerability and empathy, individuals can transcend the limitations of attachment insecurity, forging pathways of relational authenticity and emotional fulfillment.

Conclusion: In the tapestry of human experience, the legacy of Mary Ainsworth’s attachment theory casts a luminous beacon, illuminating the labyrinthine corridors of adult attachment. Through the kaleidoscope of secure, anxious-preoccupied, and avoidant-dismissive attachment styles, individuals navigate the intricate terrain of relational dynamics, emotional well-being, and personal evolution. Within the crucible of relational authenticity and vulnerability lies the promise of transformation and growth, heralding a renaissance of intimacy, resilience, and relational fulfillment.

Cite this page

Adult Attachment Styles By Mary Ainsworth. (2024, Apr 07). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/adult-attachment-styles-by-mary-ainsworth/

"Adult Attachment Styles By Mary Ainsworth." PapersOwl.com , 7 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/adult-attachment-styles-by-mary-ainsworth/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Adult Attachment Styles By Mary Ainsworth . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/adult-attachment-styles-by-mary-ainsworth/ [Accessed: 12 Apr. 2024]

"Adult Attachment Styles By Mary Ainsworth." PapersOwl.com, Apr 07, 2024. Accessed April 12, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/adult-attachment-styles-by-mary-ainsworth/

"Adult Attachment Styles By Mary Ainsworth," PapersOwl.com , 07-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/adult-attachment-styles-by-mary-ainsworth/. [Accessed: 12-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Adult Attachment Styles By Mary Ainsworth . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/adult-attachment-styles-by-mary-ainsworth/ [Accessed: 12-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

PSY322Week5ShortPaperInfo

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Exploring How UK Adults' Attachment Style in Romantic Relationships Affects Engagement in Controlling Behaviours

Associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Copious studies have identified a link between disorganised attachment and engagement in controlling caregiving or controlling punitive behaviours. Studies have suggested that consistently engaging in these behaviours can cause difficulties within relationships and contribute to the development of a personality disorder. Most of the literature thus far has focused on engagement in controlling behaviours by children with a disorganised attachment style, despite there being theoretical grounds to suggest they may also be used by adults and across all types of insecure attachment. This study aimed to address these gaps by looking at adult attachment style and engagement in controlling behaviours in romantic relationships, across all insecure attachment styles; avoidant, anxious and disorganised. The current study recruited a non-clinical sample; specifically, 149 English-speaking adults, living in the UK, between the ages of 18 and 77 years old ( M = 34.28, SD = 14.90). The participants answered an anonymous online questionnaire containing four self-report measures which assessed the participants' attachment security and organisation, caregiving style and engagement in punitive behaviours. The results indicated that participants who scored higher in disorganised attachment were more likely to use controlling punitive behaviours in their romantic relationships. Moreover, participants who reported a more insecure-anxious attachment style were more likely to use compulsive caregiving behaviours in their romantic relationships. In contrast, participants who reported a higher insecure avoidant attachment style were less likely to use compulsive caregiving behaviours in their romantic relationships. These results have implications for adult attachment theory and aid the understanding of some of the behaviours that can be harmful within romantic relationships. The findings could be used to help at-risk individuals develop healthy interpersonal relationship going forward.

Introduction

Several developmental theories illustrate the impact of early life experiences on an infant's development. One such theory, attachment theory, considers the attachment between infants and their primary caregivers to have a substantial effect on the infant's development. This theory defines attachment as a lasting experience of psychological connectedness between human beings (Bowlby, 1969 ). Bowlby suggested that infants are born with a pre-disposition to form attachments with their caregivers; they seek close proximity to a caregiver who can provide security and safety thus enhancing their chance of survival. Attachment theory provides the bedrock for the current study, which assessed the attachments made by adults in their romantic relationships. Bowlby ( 1969 ) theorised that adult attachments are greatly influenced by the first attachments made as an infant. Therefore, this paper begins by discussing the distinctions between the various types of attachment that infants can make to their caregivers.

Ainsworth et al. ( 1969 ) constructed the Strange Situation Classification to assess the type of attachment that infants made to their caregivers. Based on this research, three attachment styles were identified: secure, insecure avoidant and insecure ambivalent (anxious) (Ainsworth and Bell, 1970 ). Disorganised attachment style was later added as a fourth attachment style (Main and Solomon, 1990 ). These four attachment styles are believed to play an important role not only in childhood but also in adulthood (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007 ); hence the current study also used these categorisations of attachment style. Various methods have been used to assess adult attachment style. The Adult Attachment Interview has been widely used in existing literatures; however, this method involves lengthy interviews and a time-consuming coding process (Main et al., 1985 ; Scharfe, 2016 ). Social psychological studies have tended towards the use of self-report measures of adult attachment, such as the Experiences in Close Relationships scale and Adult Disorganised Attachment scale which have been found to have high internal consistency (Main et al., 1985 ; Brennan et al., 1998 ; Paetzold et al., 2015 ). However, these measures are specifically designed to measure either disorganised or insecure attachment and there is not currently a reliable self-report scale to measure the four categories of adult attachment (Scharfe, 2016 ).

In the Strange Situation Classification study, most of the children were classified as securely attached; they used their attachment figure as a safe base to explore from and were easily soothed by their attachment figure when distressed (Main and Cassidy, 1988 ). Children classified as insecure avoidant were very independent from their attachment figure, who was often unavailable and insensitive to their needs, and did not seek them when distressed (Behrens et al., 2007 ). Those with insecure anxious attachments often presented as dependent and clingy; they did not explore their environment and were not easily comforted by their caregiver. Finally, infants with a disorganised attachment style often had caregivers who were either frightened or frightening when the child was distressed, leaving them confused and inconsistently soothed (Lyons-Ruth et al., 1997 ). When the caregiver is a source of fear, the child faces an internal conflict between their innate need to seek safety and comfort and their defence system which encourages them to avoid the caregiver (Slade, 2014 ).

Attachment theory states that through the close early relationships with caregivers, infants develop an internal working model from which they make sense of themselves, their environment and other people's ability to provide care (Bowlby, 1973 ). Research has shown that attachment strategies learnt in infancy tend to remain stable across the lifespan, however in adulthood the primary attachment figure in adulthood is often close, romantic partners (Paetzold et al., 2015 ; De Carli et al., 2016 ). An individual's internal working model can affect how they form relationships throughout their life; for example, parents often treat their children in the way they themselves were treated as children (Hazan and Shaver, 1987 ; Feeney and Noller, 1990 ; Kirkpatrick and Davis, 1994 ; Howe, 1995 ). Securely attached children are likely to develop a positive internal working model of themselves as worthy of respect and loveable, and view others as trustworthy (Jacobsen and Hofmann, 1997 ). In contrast, children with attachment insecurity, particularly disorganised attachment, have an increased risk of developing a negative internal working model; which may contribute to social and behavioural problems, and psychopathology, such as a personality disorder (Bretherton and Munholland, 2008 ; McCarthy and Maughan, 2010 ). However, this link has not been widely explored in relation to adult attachment and caregiving behaviours towards a romantic partner, which the current study aims to rectify.

Personality disorders are deeply ingrained patterns of behaviour that deviate considerably from cultural expectations and can be highly problematic for individuals in their interpersonal relationships or functioning in society (American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ; Ekselius, 2018 ). Disorganised attachment style has been associated with many personality disorders, however, particularly Borderline Personality Disorder, which is characterised by instability in interpersonal relationships, as well as difficulties with self-identity, impulsivity and affect regulation (Fonagy, 1999 ; Leichsenring et al., 2011 ; American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ; Liotti, 2013 ). Insecure avoidant individuals are more likely to develop Cluster A personality disorders, such as Schizoid Personality Disorder, which often involve difficulty trusting others and maintaining close relationships (Troy and Sroufe, 1987 ; Sinha and Sharan, 2007 ). In contrast, those with an insecure anxious attachment style are more likely to develop personality disorders which involve neediness and dependency, such as Histrionic or Dependent Personality Disorder (Sinha and Sharan, 2007 ). Hence there are both theoretical reasons and some empirical research to suggest links between specific attachment styles and personality disorders. The current study cannot explain the development of personality disorders in adulthood as this pathway is complex and not yet fully understood. However, disturbances in interpersonal relationships are commonly found across a range of personality disorders and this study aims to explore the link between adult attachment and some behaviours which can impact the formation and maintenance of relationships.

Studies have explored the mechanisms linking attachment styles and personality disorders, to understand how interpersonal problems during development contribute to personality pathology (Lyddon and Sherry, 2001 ; Crawford et al., 2007 ). A wealth of literature has illustrated that children who are insecurely attached, particularly disorganised, are more likely to engage in rigid controlling behaviours in relationships with their attachment figures to help regulate their insecurity by making the other person subordinate or dependent (Hollidge and Hollidge, 2016 ). This study highlights that without the positive internal working model that attachment security brings, insecure people rely heavily on controlling behaviours to elicit a constant supply of external sourced self-esteem (Bowlby, 1973 ).

These controlling behaviours involve inborn tendencies like caregiving or competitive aggression (Liotti, 2017 ). Caregiving is illustrated by a tendency to nurture, whereas the goal of the competitive system is to control others by asserting dominance in social interactions (Liotti, 2017 ). Competitive aggression is generally termed controlling punitive behaviour within the literature and hence this term will be used by the current study. In children, controlling punitive behaviour often leads to bossy and aggressive behaviour toward the caregiver (Lyons-Ruth and Jacobvitz, 2008 ). Controlling punitive behaviour has been associated with externalising disorders, which generally involve problematic behaviour, aggression and impulsivity, and is more likely to occur when the infant's caregivers adopt a submissive attitude towards the infant (Hesse et al., 2003 ; Moss et al., 2004 ; Samek and Hicks, 2014 ).

Controlling caregiving behaviour, on the other hand, is frequently associated with a role reversal in caregiving, called inverted attachment, where children care for their vulnerable or helpless guardians instead of their guardians caring for them (Hesse et al., 2003 ; Liotti, 2011 ; Solomon and George, 2011 ; Lecompte and Moss, 2014 ). Controlling caregiving behaviour has been associated with internalising disorders such as anxiety and depression (Moss et al., 2004 ). The absence of attachment security can lead people to regulate their negative working model by engaging in controlling behaviours, either punitive or caregiving.

In children, there is a clear link between attachment style and engagement in controlling behaviours. A wealth of attachment literature has shown that disorganised infants have an increased tendency to control their guardians' attention using either punitive or caregiving behaviours (Main and Cassidy, 1988 ; Cassidy and Marvin, 1992 ; van IJzendoorn et al., 1995 ; Green and Goldwyn, 2002 ; Lyons-Ruth, 2007 ; Liotti, 2011 , 2017 ). It has been suggested that these controlling behaviours function to protect the child from their insecure attachment style, to help them to cope and organise their social interactions (Liotti, 2017 ).

Research suggests that whilst the controlling behaviours are in place, insecure attachment styles do not predict psychopathology in childhood (Liotti, 2011 ). However, there is a debate in the literature regarding whether insecure attachment styles predict engagement in controlling behaviours and psychopathology long-term. A longitudinal study concluded that engagement in controlling behaviours is consolidated by 5 years old, with other researchers also proposing that controlling behaviours stabilise over time and henceforth contribute to the development of a personality disorder (Brennan and Shaver, 1998 ; Moss et al., 2005 ; Solomon, 2018 ). Whilst previous studies seem to indicate that the behaviours associated with insecure, particularly disorganised, attachment in childhood remain fairly stable into adulthood, very few have directly explored attachment style and engagement in controlling behaviours in adulthood (Green and Goldwyn, 2002 ). The current study aimed to address this gap in the literature by exploring the link between attachment style and controlling behaviours in adult relationships.

Beeney et al. ( 2017 ) explored the association between disorganised adult attachment and personality disorder symptom severity. They concluded that disorganised attachment styles are linked to functional impairment in work, social and romantic functioning, identity and mentalisation. However, it was an exploratory study containing biases by the clinicians regarding the attachment ratings assigned due to a knowledge of diagnosis and severity. Whilst the association between attachment style and symptoms of personality disorders were considered, the study was exploratory and unable to draw a clear and direct pathway between disorganised attachment and the development of a personality disorder. Another recent study reviewed the state of research on the associations between romantic attachment insecurity and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) traits to help understand BPD symptoms further such as disordered romantic functioning (Smith and South, 2020 ). Deficits in interpersonal relationships which occur within personality psychopathology are widely theorised about, with many studies focussing on attachment as an explanation. However, the pathway from attachment to a personality diagnosis is not yet clear. For example, there is a debate in the literature regarding whether BPD symptoms are most consistent with insecure anxious or insecure avoidant attachment (Levy et al., 2015 ). Whilst others believe that there are strong links between disorganised attachment and BPD (Main et al., 1985 ; Selby et al., 2008 ; Beeney et al., 2017 ). Smith and South ( 2020 ) sought to summarise the often-conflicting literature surrounding the link between BPD traits and attachment style focussing on adult attachment in the context of romantic relationships. Their findings indicated that both forms of attachment insecurity were correlated with BPD traits, however a clear pathway was not determined. Similarly, the current study also focussed on romantic attachment and sought to explore the associations between insecure attachment styles and behaviours that can affect the development and maintenance of healthy interpersonal relationships. Whilst the existing literature contains much debate and uncertainties surrounding the pathway from attachment insecurity and personality psychopathology, the current study aimed to improve the understanding of some of the controlling and caregiving behaviours that are thought to contribute to the common symptom of various personality disorders, unstable relationships.

The current study distinguished from previous research in three respects. First, whereas previous research has documented the link between disorganised attachment style and controlling behaviours in childhood (Liotti, 2011 ), this study examined the same link in adulthood. Second, whereas previous research focuses on the link in relation to disorganised attachment style (Lyons-Ruth, 2007 ), the current study examined the full range of insecure attachment styles; disorganised, avoidant and anxious. This is important given the wealth of evidence highlighting the link between insecure attachment, both avoidant and anxious, and personality disorders (Sinha and Sharan, 2007 ). Third, whereas previous research has focused on the attachment between the child and caregiver (Liotti, 2017 ), the current study examined the attachment between two adults in a romantic relationship. This focus was considered to have applied implications given that personality disorders are frequently associated with dysfunction in romantic relationships (Selby et al., 2008 ; Ekselius, 2018 ). Additionally, the focus of exploring controlling and caregiving behaviours to help understand some of the behaviours that can impact relationships, was particularly relevant considering the recent Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic, lockdowns and socially distanced measures that have been implemented have greatly altered people's lives and social interactions (Pietromonaco and Overall, 2020 ). Research has shown that Covid-related stresses can be harmful to romantic relationships and undermine relationship quality and that these harmful effects are likely to be exacerbated by individual vulnerabilities such as attachment (Pietromonaco and Overall, 2020 ). Thus, illustrating the importance of the current study's focus, as insecurely attached individuals are more vulnerable to relationship breakdown and challenges in the event of external stressors such as the pandemic. It is necessary to gain a better understanding of the association between attachment and some of the behaviours that can be harmful within relationships, to help at-risk individuals to develop and maintain healthy relationships in the future.

To investigate the link between attachment style and controlling behaviours in adult romantic relationships the following hypotheses were proposed. Firstly, participants with higher levels of disorganised attachment would be more likely to engage in controlling caregiving behaviours in romantic relationships. This hypothesis was proposed from evidence that disorganised children tend to engage in controlling caregiving behaviours towards their caregivers (Liotti, 2011 , 2017 ). These behaviours are common in children who had a frightened or helpless guardian for whom the child provided care (inverted attachment) (Solomon and George, 2011 ). Studies have indicated that engagement in controlling caregiving behaviours may be an attempt to nurture the vulnerable guardian to re-establish them as the protective caregiver (George and Solomon, 2008 ). Therefore, disorganised individuals with an inverted attachment style, may be more likely to engage in controlling caregiving behaviours (as opposed to punitive). The current study aimed to replicate and extend this finding to the novel context of adult romantic relationships, where the caregiving system is two-sided. Romantic partners seek care from and provide care to one another (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007 ). Functional caregiving within adult romantic relationships is characterised by an awareness of a partners attachment behaviours, and an ability to respond with empathy to their distress signals (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2005 ). However, when this system is dysfunctional individuals may be either over or under sensitive to a partner's needs; both of which can have ramifications on the relationship quality (Gabbay and Lafontaine, 2017 ).

Secondly, it was hypothesised that participants with higher levels of disorganised attachment would be more likely to engage in controlling punitive behaviours in romantic relationships. This hypothesis drew on previous studies' conclusions that disorganised children were more likely to engage in controlling punitive behaviours, to organise their interactions with their caregivers (Lyons-Ruth, 2007 ; Liotti, 2011 , 2017 ). Using such behaviours demand the caregiver's attention and can help to mask pain through anger and detachment. Disorganised individuals may choose to engage in authoritarian, controlling punitive behaviours to become dominant and protect themselves (Forrest, 2008 ; Liotti, 2011 ). The purpose of this hypothesis was to explore whether the engagement in controlling punitive behaviours persists into adulthood in disorganised individuals.

The third hypothesis was; participants with a higher insecure avoidant attachment style would be more likely to engage in controlling punitive behaviours in romantic relationships. This hypothesis was based on the previous findings that individuals with an insecure avoidant attachment would use more competitive social dominance seeking behaviour and aggressive antisocial behaviour (Troy and Sroufe, 1987 ; Westen et al., 2006 ; Yip et al., 2018 ). Likewise controlling punitive behaviours are characterised by antisocial behaviour such as hostility or anger, used in an effort to compete for social dominance (Bureau et al., 2009 ; Hawley et al., 2009 ). For this reason, this study aimed to explore whether there was an association between the two.

The final hypothesis in this study was; participants with a higher insecure anxious attachment style would be more likely to engage in compulsive caregiving behaviour in romantic relationships. The rationale behind this hypothesis considered the previously identified association between insecure anxious attachment and histrionic or dependent personality disorder which are characterised by neediness and overdependence on others (Sinha and Sharan, 2007 ). Research has shown that adults' attachment patterns are closely linked to their caregiving responses towards others (Julal and Carnelley, 2012 ). Compulsive caregiving is defined as an over-involvement in a partner's problem-solving efforts and is often characterised by a persistent need to ignore own needs in favour of focussing on the needs of others (Kunce and Shaver, 1994 ; Feeney et al., 2001 ). Such individuals are very dependent on their partner for fulfilment which is also common in dependent and histrionic personality disorders (Beeney et al., 2017 ). The personality disorder tendency in insecure anxious individuals suggests that they may be more likely to engage in compulsive caregiving behaviours within their romantic relationships.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

Any English-speaking adult, over the age of 18, living in the UK, was eligible to partake in this study. In total, 188 adults were recruited; however due to attrition, only 149 participants were included in the analysis. The demographic characteristics of the sample can be seen in Table 1 . This study was reviewed and approved by the University of Bath Psychology Research Ethics Committee; reference number 20–171. The participants provided informed consent to participate online. As participants may have been concerned about disclosing information about their behaviour in relationships, the study was conducted anonymously.

Demographic characteristics of the participants.

The participants were recruited via an advert on the researcher's social media pages (Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn), with a request that people share the advert on their own pages to broaden the recruitment scope rather than limit the sample to the researchers' immediate circle. The participants were offered the opportunity to enter their email address into a prize draw to win a £50 Amazon voucher as an incentive for their participation.

A questionnaire battery consisting of four self-report measures, was built using Qualtrics. The participants were able to access the online questionnaire from any device with access to the internet, such as a phone, tablet or laptop.

Initially, the participants completed a demographics questionnaire to gather general characteristics of the participants such as age, gender, and relationship history. The participants were asked “Which gender do you identify as?” with the options Man (including transgender men), Women (including transgender women), Non-binary, Other, prefer not to say. However, every participant categorised themselves within either the Man (including transgender men) or Women (including transgender women) therefore only these categories were included in the subsequent analysis.

The first self-report measure was the Relationship Structures questionnaire (ECR-RS), which was used to measure adult attachment security providing an Insecure Anxious and Insecure Avoidant score (Fraley et al., 2011 ). This questionnaire consists of 9 items which require a response on a 7-point Likert scale to show how much the participants agree or disagree with each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). It was only answered in relation to romantic partners, rather than across different types of relationships. This measure has been found to be reliable and consistent both internally, α > 0.80, and with other similar measures such as the ECR-R based on a sample of over 21,000 individuals (Fraley et al., 2000 , 2011 ).

The second questionnaire measure was the 9-item Adult Disorganised Attachment scale (ADA), which was used to measure disorganised attachment in adult romantic relationships (Paetzold et al., 2015 ). For each item a response on a 7-point Likert scale is required to show how much the participants agree with each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) is required. This measure has high internal consistency, α = 0.91, and high sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.91); each item has also been found to have high face validity (Paetzold et al., 2015 ).

The 29-item Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire was used to measure controlling punitive behaviours; it contains four subscales, measuring physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger and hostility (Buss and Perry, 1992 ). The responses are measured via a 5-point Likert Scale to indicate how characteristic each of the statements is in describing the participant from 1 (extremely uncharacteristic of me) to 5 (extremely characteristic of me). Each subscale has been found to be stable over 7 months of testing, have moderate to high internal consistency and the scale also has sufficient construct validity (Harris, 1997 ).

Finally, the controlling caregiving and compulsive caregiving subscales from the 32-item Caregiving Questionnaire (CQ) were used to measure adults' approach to caregiving in relationships (Kunce and Shaver, 1994 ). These constructs were measured via a response of a 6-point Likert scale on which the participants indicated how descriptive each statement was of them ranging from 1 (not at all descriptive of me) to 6 (very descriptive of me). This measure has been found to be stable after a 1-month retest period, with each subscale having acceptable alpha reliability coefficients; α > 0.80 (Kunce and Shaver, 1994 ). The measure has also been found to have convergent validity with the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire and to be reliable for same sex, as well as heterosexual couples (Brennan et al., 1998 ; Bouaziz et al., 2013 ).

The current study contained four self-report measures presented in an anonymous online questionnaire battery. For the first hypothesis, the independent variable was Disorganised attachment and the dependent variable was controlling caregiving behaviours. For the second and third hypotheses, the independent variables were Disorganised attachment and Insecure Avoidant attachment, respectively, and the dependent variable was controlling punitive behaviours. Hypotheses 2 and 3 were tested within one model. For the fourth hypothesis the independent variable was Insecure Anxious attachment and the dependent variable was compulsive caregiving behaviours. The order in which the questionnaires were presented to the participants was randomised to counterbalance any effects of order on the results. As there were multiple questionnaire measures within this study, a progress bar was included to encourage participants to complete the study.

The participants accessed the experiment from a link in the advertisement of the study. Initially they read an information sheet and completed a consent form before progressing onto the demographics' questionnaire. Following these initial stages, the four self-report measures were presented to participants. They were asked to answer every question, on a Likert scale, in respect to their current or most recent romantic relationship. The questionnaire generally took the participants around 15 minutes to complete. Having completed the questionnaire measures, the participants were debriefed and thanked. They were then given the opportunity to enter their email address into a prize draw to win a £50 Amazon voucher.

Three simultaneous multiple regressions were run to test each of the dependent variables: controlling caregiving, punitive behaviour and compulsive caregiving. Each model also controlled for the other attachment styles, gender and the participants long-term relationship history. The correlations between each variable can be seen in Appendix A in Supplementary Material . No outliers were detected, and no problems with collinearity were identified via the VIF value. However, visual inspection of the distribution of standardised residuals against the standardised predicted values, for each regression model, suggested that the models suffered from violations of the assumption of normality and homoscedasticity. Therefore, the ordinal least squared estimates are complimented with 95% percentile bootstrapped confidence intervals (2,000 resamples).

Hypothesis One

Controlling caregiving ( M = 20.93, SD = 17.04) was regressed onto Disorganised attachment ( M = 37.11, SD = 6.98) to test the first hypothesis: participants with higher levels of Disorganised attachment would be more likely to engage in controlling caregiving behaviours in romantic relationships. As shown in Table 2 , none of the variables accounted for a statistically significantly proportion of the unique variance in controlling caregiving.

Summary of multiple regression analysis predicting controlling caregiving.

Ninety-five percentile bootstrap confidence intervals for B (2,000 samples) are shown in brackets. Correlations were significant at the level 0.05 .

Hypotheses Two and Three

Punitive behaviour ( M = 67.36, SD = 7.63) was regressed onto Disorganised attachment ( M = 37.11, SD = 6.98) and Insecure Avoidant attachment ( M = 27.16, SD = 3.22) to test two hypotheses: participants with higher levels of Disorganised attachment or Insecure Avoidant attachment would be more likely to engage in controlling punitive behaviours in romantic relationships. As shown in Table 3 , only Disorganised attachment and Insecure Anxious attachment accounted for a statistically significant proportion of the unique variance in punitive behaviours.

Summary of multiple regression analysis predicting punitive behaviour.

Ninety-five percentile bootstrap confidence intervals for B (2,000 samples) are shown in brackets. Correlations that are significant at the 0.01 level are shown with ** and those that are significant at the level 0.05 are shown with * .

Hypothesis Four

Compulsive caregiving ( M = 26.76, SD = 7.04) was regressed onto Insecure Anxious attachment ( M = 6.45, SD = 3.51) to test the fourth hypothesis: participants with a higher Insecure Anxious attachment style would be more likely to engage in compulsive caregiving behaviours in romantic relationships. As shown in Table 4 , Insecure Anxious and Avoidant attachment accounted for a statistically significant proportion of the unique variance in compulsive caregiving.

Summary of multiple regression analysis predicting compulsive caregiving.

Ninety-five percentile bootstrap confidence intervals for B (2,000 samples) are shown in brackets. Correlations that are significant at the level 0.05 are shown with * .

Controlling behaviours can cause difficulties within interpersonal relationships leaving people neglecting their own needs or the needs of their partner (Liotti, 2011 ). Therefore, the current study aimed to explore controlling behaviours and where they originate from, not to stigmatise individuals who rely on controlling behaviours but rather to understand them better and support healthy interpersonal relationships for individuals with insecure or disorganised attachment style. As it transpired, this focus was particularly relevant in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, as the importance of interpersonal relationships and support networks have become more apparent than ever before (Pietromonaco and Overall, 2020 ). Despite the fairly small effect sizes, the results revealed a significant positive relationship between disorganised attachment in adult romantic relationships and an engagement in controlling punitive behaviours. Additionally, participants higher in insecure anxious attachment were found to engage in more compulsive caregiving behaviours, whilst those higher in insecure avoidant attachment were found to engage in significantly less compulsive caregiving behaviours. An association was not found between disorganised attachment and controlling caregiving behaviours, nor insecure avoidant attachment style and controlling punitive behaviours.

Disorganised Attachment and Controlling Caregiving

In contrast to the first hypothesis, there was no significant relationship found between disorganised attachment and controlling caregiving behaviours in adult romantic relationships, meaning that there was insufficient evidence to accept the first hypothesis. Unlike this study, many previous studies have found an association between disorganised attachment and engagement in controlling caregiving behaviours (Green and Goldwyn, 2002 ; Lyons-Ruth, 2007 ; Liotti, 2011 , 2017 ). However, others have struggled to find a strong association (Bureau et al., 2009 ). In these studies, it was suggested that the lack of a relationship might be explained by the high attrition rate which meant that the most vulnerable children may have not completed the study, thus potentially impacting the results (Bureau et al., 2009 ). This could also have been the case for the current study.

To unpack this argument, it is important to examine the characteristics of the most vulnerable people. Whilst all insecure attachment styles have been associated with an increased risk for vulnerability and psychopathology, this is particularly true for those with a disorganised attachment style (Liotti and Gumley, 2008 ; Fearon et al., 2010 ). Previous studies have shown that individuals with a disorganised inverted attachment style, where the infant has cared for their guardian rather than the guardian caring for them, most often engage in controlling caregiving behaviours (Liotti, 2011 ; Hollidge and Hollidge, 2016 ). In such instances the guardian is often helpless or frightened and may seek comfort and protection from their child (Moss et al., 2005 ; Solomon and George, 2011 ). Disorganised attachment and caregiving role reversal can occur when caregivers experience violence and domestic abuse, drug or alcohol dependency or mental health difficulties that leave the infant vulnerable (Brandon et al., 2008 ). Therefore, due to the adverse childhood experiences and trauma, people with a disorganised inverted attachment style are generally more likely to engage in controlling caregiving behaviours and develop a mental health condition. Since these people represent the most vulnerable population, it reasonable to expect that such individuals may not be adequately represented in this study's non-clinical sample. Therefore, perhaps this study did not recruit participants from the type of population in which one is most likely to find an association between controlling caregiving and disorganised attachment; in turn, this could explain the null finding in the current study. As personality disorders are extremes of normal behaviours that exist across the population, such as engagement in controlling behaviours, this study looked at the prevalence of such behaviours across the general population rather than using a clinical sample. However, future research should recruit a clinical population to explore whether the relationship exists in this adult population, given its prevalence amongst children (Liotti, 2011 , 2017 ).

Disorganised Attachment and Controlling Punitive Behaviour

People with higher levels of disorganised attachment were significantly more likely to engage in controlling punitive behaviour, as measured by the Buss Perry Aggression Scale (Buss and Perry, 1992 ). On this basis, there was sufficient evidence to accept the second hypothesis, thus supporting a wealth of previous research that has found an association between the disorganised attachment style in children and adolescents and engagement in controlling punitive behaviour to organise interactions with their caregiver (Main and Cassidy, 1988 ; Cassidy and Marvin, 1992 ; van IJzendoorn et al., 1995 ; Green and Goldwyn, 2002 ; Moss et al., 2004 ; Lyons-Ruth, 2007 ; Lyons-Ruth and Jacobvitz, 2008 ; Liotti, 2011 , 2017 ).

This result suggests that engagement in such behaviours may stabilise into adulthood, as some studies have predicted (Brennan and Shaver, 1998 ; Moss et al., 2005 ; Solomon, 2018 ). Engagement in controlling punitive behaviours could cause difficulties in romantic relationships such as for conflict resolution and could even have legal ramifications (Brennan and Shaver, 1998 ; Shi, 2003 ; Paetzold et al., 2015 ; Solomon, 2018 ). Coercive control, for example, which is defined as controlling behaviour towards another to make them subordinate or dependent through threats, humiliation or intimidation has recently become a criminal offence under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act, 2015, in the context of two people who are personally connected (Hamberger et al., 2017 ; Walby and Towers, 2018 ; Stark and Hester, 2019 ; Storey, 2019 ). As the law now recognises the more psychological types of control within adult relationships, it was deemed important for this study to follow suit to help to gain a deeper understanding of these behaviours which can greatly impact vulnerable individuals' ability to function well in relationships.

It is also important to consider the applied implications of the current findings for clinical conditions like borderline personality disorder (BPD). Whilst many studies have shown that adverse childhood experiences and disorganised attachment are risk factors for BPD, the mechanisms linking childhood experiences and the development of BPD in adulthood have not yet been fully identified (Leichsenring et al., 2011 ). Disorganised attachment is generally the result of adverse early childhood experiences, such as trauma or neglect (Brandon et al., 2008 ). Therefore, although the current study cannot explain the complex pathway from disorganised attachment to a later diagnosis of BPD, it could inform future studies seeking to explore the link between adverse childhood experiences, attachment, and psychopathology further.

Insecure Avoidant Attachment and Controlling Punitive Behaviour

A significant relationship was not found between insecure avoidant attachment and controlling punitive behaviours; hence there was insufficient evidence to accept the third hypothesis. It was expected that people who scored higher in insecure avoidant attachment would engage in more controlling punitive behaviours, since insecure avoidant individuals have been found to display more dominance-seeking behaviour, use more antisocial behaviour and present with more externalising problems (Troy and Sroufe, 1987 ; Westen et al., 2006 ; Yip et al., 2018 ). As controlling punitive behaviours are also characterised by hostile and angry (antisocial) behaviours that are used to compete for social dominance, a positive relationship with avoidant attachment was expected (Hawley et al., 2009 ). However, the results revealed that the expected relationship was not found.

Previous research has documented inconsistent findings regarding avoidant attachment style; some studies suggests a greater association with externalising problems and aggressive antisocial behaviour whilst others have found that highly avoidant adults use defence mechanisms such as withdrawal and distance-seeking within relationships in order to deactivate their attachment system (Simpson et al., 1992 ; Creasey et al., 1999 ; Mikulincer and Shaver, 2003 ; Paetzold et al., 2015 ). This could explain the null finding for this hypothesis; insecure avoidant individuals may avoid conflict in romantic relationships and be more likely to engage in passive aggressive punitive behaviours rather than those measured by the Buss Perry Aggression Scale. It may be the case that an alternative measure would be more suitable for exploring controlling punitive behaviours among people with an insecure avoidant attachment; future research may wish to investigate alternative presentations of the insecure avoidant attachment style in adult romantic relationships.

Insecure Anxious Attachment and Compulsive Caregiving

Participants with higher levels of insecure anxious attachment reported engaging in more compulsive caregiving strategies; hence there was sufficient evidence to accept the fourth hypothesis. This finding contributes to attachment literature, as current studies considering the use of controlling behaviours have generally focused on disorganised attachment rather than all types of insecure attachment. The compulsive need to be needed and involved in a partners' problems is also a common characteristic of dependent personality disorder which has been linked with insecure anxious attachment in previous literature (Sinha and Sharan, 2007 ). Hence this result could help explain a mechanism linking insecure attachment style and personality disorders characterised by neediness and dependency.

This hypothesis was further supported by the finding that participants higher in insecure avoidant attachment were significantly less likely to engage in compulsive caregiving. This finding supports previous research, which states that highly avoidant adults seek distance when their partner is distressed and are less inclined to become involved in their problems (Groh et al., 2012 ; Paetzold et al., 2015 ).

These findings have implications for understanding interpersonal difficulties that insecurely attached adults can face. Insecure anxious adults frequently report resentment in relationships as they feel their own needs are not adequately met and avoidant adults seem to have less desire to support their partner when distressed or become entangled in their problems (Kunce and Shaver, 1994 ; Groh et al., 2012 ). Identifying these patterns of behaviour in relationships and the individuals who are at a higher risk of engaging in them, could help inform future interventions in the interest of promoting healthy interpersonal relationships.

This research has three main conclusions regarding the relationship between attachment style and controlling behaviours in adult romantic relationships. First, adults with a more disorganised attachment style in romantic relationships are more likely to engage in controlling punitive behaviours. Second, people with an insecure-anxious attachment style are more likely to engage in compulsive caregiving behaviours and in this way, become overinvolved in their partners' problems. Third, people with a more avoidant attachment style were less likely to engage in compulsive caregiving, indicating a tendency to withdraw from supporting their partners when in need. These tendencies can harm individual's ability to function well in interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, the associations with attachment style may help to explain some of the mechanisms that contribute to the development of personality disorders. In the future, this knowledge could aid the understanding of borderline personality disorder since the trajectory from attachment style to a later BDP diagnosis is not yet fully understood, with debate in existing literatures regarding which attachment style is most associated with BDP (Main et al., 1985 ; Selby et al., 2008 ; Levy et al., 2015 ; Beeney et al., 2017 ).

It is also important to note the limitations of the current study; the effect sizes were fairly small, the method for measuring the gender variable was simple and a large proportion of the sample identified as women which could have impacted on the results, as previous studies have found gender differences in caregiving and controlling behaviours (Fawson, 2015 ; O'Campo et al., 2017 ; Levendosky et al., 2018 ). Additionally, this study did not consider whether the participants had children which could have been a confounding variable, as being a parent could impact caregiving behaviours within relationships, future studies may wish to explore this further. Additionally, future research may wish to consider factors that mediate the relationship between attachment style and controlling behaviours, such as affect regulation which is well-documented to contribute to the development of personality disorders. Previous studies have found an association between an inability to regulate emotions effectively and disorganised attachment (Townshend and Caltabiano, 2019 ). Studies have suggested that trauma, coercive parenting, and a lack of maternal sensitivity can impact an infant's development of affect regulation, which in turn can affect the way traumatised people react when frustrated, leading to an increased in antisocial behaviour and aggression (Van Egeren et al., 2001 ; Dennis, 2006 ; Kim, 2010 ). Unstable affect regulation could be an underlying explanation for the use of aggression and hostile behaviours in disorganised individuals which might relate to the controlling punitive behaviours measured in the current study (Kim, 2010 ). Future research could explore whether there is a relationship between affect regulation and engagement in controlling behaviours. In turn, this could explain the use of controlling punitive behaviours among people with a disorganised attachment style, as found in the current study.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by The University of Bath Psychology Research Ethics Committee. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

MG developed the idea for the overall study and the research questioned, also designed the study and gained the appropriate ethical approval from the Department of Psychology at the University of Bath, responsible for recruiting participants according to the inclusion criteria, collecting, and all of the data, and reporting the results, and reviewed the relevant literature within the field and wrote the research paper. RB contributed guidance on the topic area and research questions followed by advise regarding the interpretation of the data and also provided feedback and advice on a draft copy of the report as well as some amendments. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

MG would like to thank the following people for their help during this project: Firstly, thank you to my supervisor Robert Blakey for his guidance, support and feedback. I would also like to thank all of the participants who took the time to answer my questionnaire. Additionally, thanks to The University of Bath Psychology Department. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their encouragement throughout the process.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.649868/full#supplementary-material

• Ainsworth M. D. S., Bell S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation . Child Dev. 49–67. 10.2307/1127388 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ainsworth M. D. S., Wittig B. A., Foss B. M. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behavior of one-olds in a strange situation, in Determinants of Infant Behavior , ed Foss B. M. (London: Methuen; ), 113–136. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , 5th Edn. Washington, DC: APA. 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beeney J. E., Wright A. G., Stepp S. D., Hallquist M. N., Lazarus S. A., Beeney J. R., et al.. (2017). Disorganized attachment and personality functioning in adults: a latent class analysis . Personal. Disord. 8 :206. 10.1037/per0000184 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Behrens K. Y., Hesse E., Main M. (2007). Mothers' attachment status as determined by the adult attachment interview predicts their 6-year-olds' reunion responses: a study conducted in Japan . Dev. Psychol. 43 :1553. 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1553 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bouaziz A. R., Lafontaine M. F., Gabbay N., Caron A. (2013). Investigating the validity and reliability of the caregiving questionnaire with individuals in same-sex couple relationships . J. Relat. Res. 4 , 5–6. 10.1017/jrr.2013.2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. (1969). Attachment and Loss v. 3 (Vol. 1) . London: Random House. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Volume II: Separation, Anxiety and Anger. London: The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis. p. 1–429. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brandon M., Belderson P., Warren C., Howe D., Gardner R., Dodsworth J., et al.. (2008). Analysing child deaths and serious injury through abuse and neglect: what can we learn? Biennial Anal. Serious Case Rev. 2003–2005 . Available online at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4156755.pdf
• Brennan K. A., Clark C. L., Shaver P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: an integrative overview, in Attachment Theory and Close Relationships , eds Simpson J. A., Rholes W. S. (The Guilford Press; ), 46–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brennan K. A., Shaver P. R. (1998). Attachment styles and personality disorders: their connections to each other and to parental divorce, parental death, and perceptions of parental caregiving . J. Pers. 66 , 835–878. 10.1111/1467-6494.00034 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bretherton I., Munholland K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: elaborating a central construct in attachment theory, in Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications , eds Cassidy J., Shaver P. R. (New York, NY: The Guilford Press; ), 102–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bureau J. F., Ann Easlerbrooks M., Lyons-Ruth K. (2009). Attachment disorganization and controlling behavior in middle childhood: maternal and child precursors and correlates . Attach. Hum. Dev. 11 , 265–284. 10.1080/14616730902814788 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buss A. H., Perry M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63 :452. 10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassidy J., Marvin R. S. (1992). The MacArthur Working Group on Attachment. Attachment Organization in Preschool Children: Coding Guidelines . Univeristy of Virginia. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crawford T. N., John Livesley W., Jang K. L., Shaver P. R., Cohen P., Ganiban J. (2007). Insecure attachment and personality disorder: a twin study of adults . Eur. J. Pers. 21 , 191–208. 10.1002/per.602 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creasey G., Kershaw K., Boston A. (1999). Conflict management with friends and romantic partners: the role of attachment and negative mood regulation expectancies . J. Youth Adolesc. 28 , 523–543. 10.1023/A:1021650525419 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Carli P., Tagini A., Sarracino D., Santona A., Parolin L. (2016). Implicit attitude toward caregiving: the moderating role of adult attachment styles . Front. Psychol. 6 :1906. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01906 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dennis T. (2006). Emotional self-regulation in preschoolers: the interplay of child approach reactivity, parenting, and control capacities . Dev. Psychol. 42 :84. 10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.84 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ekselius L. (2018). Personality disorder: a disease in disguise . Ups. J. Med. Sci. 123 , 194–204. 10.1080/03009734.2018.1526235 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fawson P. R. (2015). Controlling behaviors as a predictor of partner violence among heterosexual female and male adolescents . Partner Abuse 6 , 217–229. 10.1891/1946-6560.6.2.217 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fearon R. P., Bakermans-Kranenburg M. J., Van IJzendoorn M. H., Lapsley A. M., Roisman G. I. (2010). The significance of insecure attachment and disorganization in the development of children's externalizing behavior: a meta-analytic study . Child Dev. 81 , 435–456. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01405.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feeney J. A., Hohaus L., Noller P., Alexander R. P. (2001). Becoming Parents: Exploring the Bonds Between Mothers, Fathers, and Their Infants . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164511 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feeney J. A., Noller P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58 :281. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.281 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fonagy P. (1999). Attachment, the development of the self, and its pathology in personality disorders, in Treatment of Personality Disorders , eds Derksen J., Maffei C., Groen H. (Boston, MA: Springer; ), 53–68. 10.1007/978-1-4757-6876-3_5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Forrest L. (2008). The Three Faces of Victim: An Overview of the Drama Triangle . Available online at: https://www.lynneforrest.com/articles/2008/06/the-faces-ofvictim/
• Fraley R. C., Heffernan M. E., Vicary A. M., Brumbaugh C. C. (2011). The experiences in close relationships—relationship structures questionnaire: a method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships . Psychol. Assess. 23 :615. 10.1037/a0022898 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fraley R. C., Waller N. G., Brennan K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self- report measures of adult attachment . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78 :350. 10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabbay N., Lafontaine M. F. (2017). Understanding the relationship between attachment, caregiving, and same sex intimate partner violence . J. Fam. Violence 32 , 291–304. 10.1007/s10896-016-9897-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• George C., Solomon J. (2008). The caregiving system: A behavioral systems approach to parenting, in Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications , eds Cassidy J., Shaver P. R. (New York, NY: The Guilford Press; ), 833–856. [ Google Scholar ]
• Green J., Goldwyn R. (2002). Annotation: attachment disorganisation and psychopathology: new findings in attachment research and their potential implications for developmental psychopathology in childhood . J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 43 , 835–846. 10.1111/1469-7610.00102 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Groh A. M., Roisman G. I., van IJzendoorn M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg M. J., Fearon R. P. (2012). The significance of insecure and disorganized attachment for children's internalizing symptoms: a meta-analytic study . Child Dev. 83 , 591–610. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01711.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamberger L. K., Larsen S. E., Lehrner A. (2017). Coercive control in intimate partner violence . Aggress. Violent Behav. 37 , 1–11. 10.1016/j.avb.2017.08.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris J. A. (1997). A further evaluation of the aggression questionnaire: issues of validity and reliability . Behav. Res. Ther. 35 , 1047–1053. 10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00064-8 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hawley P. H., Shorey H. S., Alderman P. M. (2009). Attachment correlates of resource- control strategies: possible origins of social dominance and interpersonal power differentials . J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 26 , 1097–1118. 10.1177/0265407509347939 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hazan C., Shaver P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52 :511. 10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hesse E., Main M., Abrams K. Y., Rifkin A. (2003). Unresolved states regarding loss or abuse can have “second generation” effects: disorganization, role inversion, and frightening ideation in the offspring of traumatized, non-maltreating parents, in Healing Trauma: Attachment, Mind, Body, and Brain , eds Siegel D. J., Solomon M. F. (New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company; ), 57–106. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollidge C. F., Hollidge E. O. (2016). Seeking security in the face of fear: the disorganized dilemma . Psychoanal. Soc. Work 23 , 130–144. 10.1080/15228878.2016.1171789 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Howe D. (1995). Adoption and attachment . Adoption. Foster. 19 , 7–15. 10.1177/030857599501900403 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobsen T., Hofmann V. (1997). Children's attachment representations: longitudinal relations to school behavior and academic competency in middle childhood and adolescence . Dev. Psychol. 33 :703. 10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.703 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Julal F. S., Carnelley K. B. (2012). Attachment, perceptions of care and caregiving to romantic partners and friends . Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42 , 832–843. 10.1002/ejsp.1914 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim E. Y. (2010). An activating mechanism of aggressive behaviour in disorganised attachment: a moment-to-moment case analysis of a three-year-old . J. Child Psychother. 36 , 152–167. 10.1080/0075417X.2010.495038 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirkpatrick L. A., Davis K. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: a longitudinal analysis . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66 , 502–512. 10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.502 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kunce L. J., Shaver P. R. (1994). An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships, in Sections of this Chapter Were Presented at the 6th International Conference on Personal Relationships (Orono, ME: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Lecompte V., Moss E. (2014). Disorganized and controlling patterns of attachment, role reversal, and caregiving helplessness: links to adolescents' externalizing problems . Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 84 :581. 10.1037/ort0000017 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leichsenring F., Leibing E., Kruse J., New A. S., Leweke F. (2011). Borderline personality disorder . Lancet 377 , 74–84. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61422-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levendosky A. A., Bogat G. A., Bernard N., Garcia A. (2018). The effects of intimate partner violence on the early caregiving system, in Motherhood in the Face Trauma , eds Muzik M., Rosenblum K. (Cham, Springer; ), 39–54. 10.1007/978-3-319-65724-0_3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levy K. N., Johnson B. N., Clouthier T. L., Scala J., Temes C. M. (2015). An attachment theoretical framework for personality disorders . Can. Psychol. 56 :197. 10.1037/cap0000025 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liotti G. (2011). Attachment disorganization and the controlling strategies: an illustration of the contributions of attachment theory to developmental psychopathology and to psychotherapy integration . J. Psychother. Integr. 21 :232. 10.1037/a0025422 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liotti G. (2013). Disorganised Attachment in the Pathogenesis and the Psychotherapy of Borderline Personality Disorder. Attachment Theory in Adult Mental Health: A Guide to Clinical Practice. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. p. 113–128. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liotti G. (2017). Conflicts between motivational systems related to attachment trauma: key to understanding the intra-family relationship between abused children and their abusers . J. Trauma Dissociation 18 , 304–318. 10.1080/15299732.2017.1295392 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liotti G., Gumley A. (2008). An attachment perspective on schizophrenia: the role of disorganized attachment, dissociation and mentalization . Psychosis Trauma Dissociation 14 , 117–133. 10.1002/9780470699652.ch9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyddon W. J., Sherry A. (2001). Developmental personality styles: an attachment theory conceptualization of personality disorders . J. Counsell. Dev. 79 , 405–414. 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01987.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyons-Ruth K. (2007). The interface between attachment and intersubjectivity: perspective from the longitudinal study of disorganized attachment . Psychoanal. Inquiry 26 , 595–616. 10.1080/07351690701310656 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyons-Ruth K., Easterbrooks M., Cibelli C. D. (1997). Infant attachment strategies, infant mental lag, and maternal depressive symptoms: predictors of internalizing and externalizing problems at age 7 . Dev. Psychol. 33 :681. 10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.681 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyons-Ruth K., Jacobvitz D. (2008). Attachment disorganization: genetic factors, parenting contexts, and developmental transformation from infancy to adulthood, in Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications , eds Cassidy J., Shaver P. R. (New York, NY: The Guilford Press; ), 666–697. [ Google Scholar ]
• Main M., Cassidy J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6: predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1-month period . Dev. Psychol. 24 :415. 10.1037/0012-1649.24.3.415 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Main M., Kaplan N., Cassidy J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: a move to the level of representation . Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 50 , 66–104. 10.2307/3333827 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Main M., Solomon J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth strange situation, in Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention , eds Greenberg M. T., Cicchetti D. &, Cummings E. M. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press; ), 121–160. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCarthy G., Maughan B. (2010). Negative childhood experiences and adult love relationships: the role of internal working models of attachment . Attach. Hum. Dev. 12 , 445–461. 10.1080/14616734.2010.501968 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikulincer M., Shaver P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , Vol. 35 , ed Zanna M. P. (Elsevier Academic Press; ). 10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01002-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikulincer M., Shaver P. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events . Pers. Relatsh. 12 , 149–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikulincer M., Shaver P. R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change . New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moss E., Cyr C., Bureau J. F., Tarabulsy G. M., Dubois-Comtois K. (2005). Stability of attachment during the preschool period . Dev. Psychol. 41 :773. 10.1037/0012-1649.41.5.773 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moss E., Cyr C., Dubois-Comtois K. (2004). Attachment at early school age and developmental risk: examining family contexts and behavior problems of controlling- caregiving, controlling-punitive, and behaviorally disorganized children . Dev. Psychol. 40 :519. 10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.519 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Campo P., Zhang Y. J., Omand M., Velonis A., Yonas M., Minh A., et al.. (2017). Conceptualization of intimate partner violence: exploring gender differences using concept mapping . J. Fam. Violence 32 , 367–382. 10.1007/s10896-016-9830-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paetzold R. L., Rholes W. S., Kohn J. L. (2015). Disorganized attachment in adulthood: theory, measurement, and implications for romantic relationships . Rev. Gen. Psychol. 19 , 146–156. 10.1037/gpr0000042 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pietromonaco P. R., Overall N. C. (2020). Applying relationship science to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic may impact couples' relationships . Am. Psychol . 76 , 438–450. 10.1037/amp0000714 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Samek D. R., Hicks B. M. (2014). Externalizing disorders and environmental risk: mechanisms of gene-environment interplay and strategies for intervention . Clin. Pract. 11 :537. 10.2217/cpr.14.47 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scharfe E. (2016). Measuring what counts: development of a new four-category measure of adult attachment . Pers. Relatsh. 23 , 4–22. 10.1111/pere.12105 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selby E. A., Braithwaite S. R., Joiner T. E., JR, Fincham F. D. (2008). Features of borderline personality disorder, perceived childhood emotional invalidation, and dysfunction within current romantic relationships . J. Fam. Psychol. 22 :885. 10.1037/a0013673 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shi L. (2003). The association between adult attachment styles and conflict resolution in romantic relationships . Am. J. Fam. Ther. 31 , 143–157. 10.1080/01926180301120 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simpson J. A., Rholes W. S., Nelligan J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: the role of attachment styles . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 62 :434. 10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.434 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sinha P., Sharan P. (2007). Attachment and personality disorders . J. Indian Assoc. Child Adolesc. Mental Health 3 , 105–112. Available online at: https://jiacam.org/ojs/index.php/JIACAM [ Google Scholar ]
• Slade A. (2014). Imagining fear: attachment, threat, and psychic experience . Psychoanal. Dialogues 24 , 253–266. 10.1080/10481885.2014.911608 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith M., South S. (2020). Romantic attachment style and borderline personality pathology: a meta-analysis . Clin. Psychol. Rev. 75 :101781. 10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101781 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomon J., George C. (Eds.). (2011). Disorganized Attachment and Caregiving . New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomon R. M. (2018). 6 ways that giovanni liotti has impacted me . Cogn. Clin. 15 , 212–216. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stark E., Hester M. (2019). Coercive control: update and review . Violence Women 25 , 81–104. 10.1177/1077801218816191 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Storey T. (2019). Coercive control: an offence but not a defence: r v challen [2019] EWCA crim 916, court of appeal . J. Crim. Law 83 , 513–515. 10.1177/0022018319889168 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Townshend K., Caltabiano N. J. (2019). The extended nervous system: affect regulation, somatic and social change processes associated with mindful parenting . BMC Psychol. 7 :41. 10.1186/s40359-019-0313-0 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Troy M., Sroufe L. A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: role of attachment relationship history . J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 26 , 166–172. 10.1097/00004583-198703000-00007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Egeren L. A., Barratt M. S., Roach M. A. (2001). Mother–infant responsiveness: timing, mutual regulation, and interactional context . Dev. Psychol. 37 :684. 10.1037/0012-1649.37.5.684 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van IJzendoorn M. H., Juffer F., Duyvesteyn M. G. (1995). Breaking the intergenerational cycle of insecure attachment: a review of the effects of attachment-based interventions on maternal sensitivity and infant security . J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 36 , 225–248. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1995.tb01822.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walby S., Towers J. (2018). Untangling the concept of coercive control: theorizing domestic violent crime . Criminol. Crim. Justice 18 , 7–28. 10.1177/1748895817743541 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Westen D., Nakash O., Thomas C., Bradley R. (2006). Clinical assessment of attachment patterns and personality disorder in adolescents and adults . J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 74 :1065. 10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.1065 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yip J., Ehrhardt K., Black H., Walker D. O. (2018). Attachment theory at work: a review and directions for future research . J. Organ. Behav. 39 , 185–198. 10.1002/job.2204 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]