an attachment perspective of

“Don’t Stand So Close to Me”: An Attachment Perspective ofDisengagement and Avoidance in Marriage

Robin A. Barry and Erika LawrenceUniversity of Iowa

Theory and research support a link between disengaging or avoidant communication and global maritaldistress; however, questions remain regarding individual differences and situational influences associatedwith partners’ tendency to disengage. Guided by an attachment framework, this study addressed twoaims. The first aim was to replicate and extend previous research that has found mixed support for a linkbetween higher attachment avoidance and more disengaging or avoidant behaviors during conflictinteractions. To accomplish this aim, the authors examined two moderators of this link. The second aimwas to clarify the relation between avoidant attachment and disengaging behaviors across two relation-ship contexts central to both the attachment and marital literatures—couples’ conflictual and supportiveinteractions. In addressing these aims the authors proposed two hypotheses: first, spouses with higherattachment avoidance would be more disengaged during interactions in which their partners evidencedgreater negative affect; second, spouses with higher attachment avoidance would be more disengagedduring conflict interactions that they perceived as more destructive. Couples were assessed annually over5 years. Aims were addressed both cross-sectionally and longitudinally and via questionnaire andbehavioral observation data. During both conflictual and supportive interactions, wives’ negative affectpredicted husbands’ disengagement when husbands were higher on avoidant attachment. Longitudinally,the link between husbands’ perceptions of their couple conflict as destructive and husbands’ conflictavoidance was stronger for husbands who were higher on attachment avoidance. Theoretical and clinicalimplications are discussed.

Keywords: disengagement, avoidance, marriage, attachment theory

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032867.supp

Avoidant and disengaging behaviors1 represent an importantfacet of couple communication. Spouses who disengage duringmarital conflict are less maritally satisfied (Bowman, 1990; Smith,Vivian, & O’Leary, 1990) and generally experience declines insatisfaction over time (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; Smith et al.,1990). Moreover, disengaging behavior is part of the demand-withdraw pattern of couple communication, which occurs whenone partner makes demands or pursues discussion and the otherpartner withdraws from or behaves avoidantly during the interac-tion. This destructive pattern is characteristic of couples experi-

encing higher relationship distress and couples engaging in thispattern during conflict tend to experience declines in relationshipsatisfaction over time (see Eldridge & Christensen, 2002 for areview). Although previous research highlights the importance ofdisengagement during couple conflict, questions remain regardingthe individual differences and situational influences that lead someindividuals to disengage. Additionally, few studies have examineddisengagement occurring in contexts other than couple conflict.Couple conflict is an important focus of couples research andinterventions; nevertheless, researchers are increasingly recogniz-ing the importance of couples’ behavior within other contexts (e.g.,supportive and intimate contexts; for a review see Fincham &Beach, 2010). Attachment theory offers a unified frameworkwithin which to understand individual differences and situationalinfluences on disengaging behavior during different couple com-munication contexts. Thus, we framed our research within anattachment perspective.

Attachment Styles and Disengaging Behaviors

Attachment theorists posit that the primary function of closerelationships is to provide comfort, intimacy, and support, partic-

1 We conceptualize avoidant and disengaged behavior (refusing to talkabout an issue, appearing tired, quiet, or withdrawn) as similar constructsand use these terms interchangeably.

Robin A. Barry and Erika Lawrence, Department of Psychology, TheUniversity of Iowa.Robin A. Barry is now at the Department of Psychology, University of

Maryland Baltimore County.This research was supported by the American Psychological Association

Dissertation Research Award, the American Psychological FoundationRandy Gerson Memorial Grant, and by a research grant awarded by theExecutive Council of Graduate and Professional Students at the Universityof Iowa. We thank Drs. Rebecca Brock, Mali Bunde, Brian Gehl, AimeLanger, Eunyoe Ro, Jeung Eun Yoon, and the many undergraduate re-search assistants who assisted with data collection.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robin A.

Barry, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland BaltimoreCounty, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Family Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association2013, Vol. 27, No. 3, 484–494 0893-3200/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0032867

484

ularly during times of distress, illness, and threats to proximitywith one’s partner. The motivational system that promotes theelicitation of comfort, intimacy, and support during times of dis-tress is the attachment behavioral system. This system purportedlyinfluences individuals’ behavior in close relationships across thelife span. Nevertheless, individuals differ with regard to the func-tioning of their attachment behavioral system in part based on theirhistory with close relationship partners (Bowlby, 1962/1982). Var-ious conceptualizations and measures of individual differences inattachment functioning have emerged from different research tra-ditions, methodologies, and foci on different developmental peri-ods (Crowell, Fraley, & Shaver, 2008). Research suggests some ofthese measures capture relatively distinct constructs (Roisman etal., 2007). The present research utilized Fraley and Shaver’s(2000) conceptualization of adult attachment and measured attach-ment via self-report. Self-report measures of adult attachmentassess feelings and beliefs about attachment partners (Roisman etal., 2007).Individual differences in adult romantic attachment are often

described along two orthogonal dimensions: attachment anxietyand attachment avoidance. An individual’s standing on these twodimensions is often referred to as their attachment style. Theattachment anxiety dimension captures sensitivity to rejection andabandonment. The attachment avoidance dimension captures levelof discomfort with and disinclination for intimacy with partners(see Fraley & Shaver, 2000 for a review). Fraley and Shaver(2000) proposed that the two dimensions represent variability intwo somewhat interactional subsystems that organize functioningof the attachment system. The anxiety dimension captures varia-tion in an individual’s threshold for experiencing attachment-related distress whereas the avoidance dimension captures an in-dividual’s behavioral orientation toward the partner (i.e., approachvs. avoidance) in response to that distress.Based on Fraley and Shaver’s (2000) conceptualization, the

avoidant dimension should be particularly useful for predictingwhich individuals are more likely to disengage during coupleinteractions. Specifically, individuals higher on attachment avoid-ance should be more disengaged during couple interactions thatelicit greater distress compared with individuals who are lower onattachment avoidance.In contrast to the avoidant dimension, the role of attachment

anxiety in predicting disengagement during couple interactionsremains unclear. Attachment anxiety may moderate the effect ofattachment avoidance on disengagement during couple communi-cation. If the anxiety dimension captures one’s threshold forattachment-related distress and distress elicits attachment behav-iors such as disengagement, than individuals high on attachmentanxiety and attachment avoidance should evidence high levels ofdisengagement. In contrast, individuals low on anxiety (a highthreshold for distress) should not be highly disengaged even if theyare high on avoidance. However, Fraley and Shaver (2000) explainthat individuals high on attachment avoidance also disengage topreempt anticipated attachment-related distress. Thus, attachmentanxiety may not moderate the effect of avoidant attachment be-cause individuals higher on avoidant attachment may disengageduring interactions with partners regardless of their standing on theanxiety dimension. Alternatively, other theorists have argued thatindividuals high on avoidance but low on anxiety tend to be moredisengaged during couple communication compared with individ-

uals high on both dimensions because individuals high on bothdimensions should alternate between approach and avoidance (Pi-etromonaco, Greenwood, & Feldman Barrett, 2004). In sum, the-orists disagree about whether attachment anxiety moderates theeffect of attachment avoidance on individuals’ disengagement withpartners in times of distress.2

Couple Interaction Contexts

Although higher attachment avoidance predisposes one to dis-engage during couple interactions, theory suggests that attachmentbehaviors such as disengagement are heightened in times of dis-tress (e.g., Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Additionally, unlike parent–child relationships, adult romantic relationships are reciprocal innature. Partners both seek out care from each other when distressedand care for each other when they observe such distress (Hazan &Shaver, 1994). Thus, attachment avoidance should influence theextent to which an individual engages in care-seeking and care-giving behavior in times of heightened distress.A common situation in which a couple is likely to experience

increased distress is during an argument or conflict. Indeed, themajority of research examining the link between avoidant attach-ment and disengaging behavior during couple interactions hasbeen conducted in the context of couple conflict. Couple conflictis a relevant context for studying attachment-related behaviorbecause it is often stressful (e.g., Robles, Shaffer, Malarkey, &Kiecolt-Glaser, 2006) and often perceived as a threat to the rela-tionship. However, research examining the link between self-reported avoidant attachment and disengaging behavior duringcouple conflict has produced mixed findings.3 With one exception(Levy & Davis, 1988), studies using continuous measures ofattachment and self-reported conflict avoidance have found higherattachment avoidance to be associated with more conflict avoid-ance in romantic relationships (Cann, Norman, Welbourne, &Calhoun, 2008; Creasey & Hesson-McInnis, 2001; Creasey, Ker-shaw, & Boston, 1999; O’Connell Corcoran &Mallinckrodt, 2000;Shi, 2003). In contrast, studies using categorical measures ofattachment or behavioral measures of conflict avoidance haveyielded mixed results regarding this association (Bouthillier, Ju-lien, Dube, Belanger, & Hamelin, 2002; Pistole, 1989; Pistole &Arricale, 2003).In addition to couple conflict, interactions that typically elicit

caregiving behavior are also relevant attachment contexts.

2 Based on Fraley and Shaver’s (2000) conceptualization, we argue thatsecure individuals (i.e., individuals low on attachment avoidance andanxiety) should be less disengaged compared with individuals high onavoidance because of secure individuals’ low attachment avoidance.3 Research examining linkages between individual differences in adult

attachment and couple communication behavior has also been conductedusing the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI, Main & Goldwyn, 1998). TheAAI differs from self-report measures in that it infers attachment orienta-tions from narratives about childhood experiences with caregivers. Re-search suggests AAI classification is associated with couple conflict andsupportive behaviors in theoretically consistent ways (e.g., Bouthillier etal., 2002). However, to our knowledge, associations between the AAIdismissing classification (conceptually similar to avoidant attachment) anddisengaged couple communication have not been found. Meta-analysessuggest trivial to small associations between the presumably similar con-structs measured by the two methods (Roisman et al., 2007). For thisreason, and because our study uses a self-report method, we focus onself-report studies.

485DISENGAGEMENT AND AVOIDANCE IN MARRIAGE

Caregiving behaviors are elicited at times when one’s partner isdistressed or is seeking support. However, individuals higher onavoidant attachment tend to be less responsive and provide lesssupport to partners experiencing distress (Feeney & Collins,2001; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligen, 1992). Additionally,avoidantly attached individuals are less likely to seek supportfrom partners when experiencing distress (Simpson et al.,1992). Therefore, individuals high on avoidant attachmentshould be more disengaged from partners when in either care-giving or care-seeking roles. Only one study has explicitlyexamined the link between avoidant attachment and avoidantbehavior during couple supportive interactions. Using behav-ioral observation methods, dating couples were examined whenthe female partner was waiting to undergo an anxiety-provokingtask. The authors found a marginal association between indi-viduals’ avoidant attachment and their own avoidant behavior(Campbell, Simpson, Kashy, & Rholes, 2001). This study sug-gests avoidant attachment may be associated with avoidantbehavior in interactions in which couples have the opportunityto engage in caregiving and/or care-seeking.

Potential Moderators of the Effect of AvoidantAttachment on Disengagement During Conflictual andSupportive Interactions

The mixed evidence of a link between avoidant attachment anddisengagement during conflict interactions suggests that it may benecessary to examine potential moderators of the association.Theorists maintain that when individuals perceive situations asrelatively more distressing, the influence of their attachment styleson their behavior should intensify (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Al-though couple conflict is often experienced as distressing, the levelof stress experienced is likely to vary across couples and interac-tions based on many factors. One factor that should influence acouple’s distress level is how constructively the couple managesconflict (Robles et al., 2006). Thus, the tendency of individualshigher on attachment avoidance to disengage during conflict maybe intensified when conflict in their relationship is perceived asrelatively destructive.A second factor that is likely to influence an individual’s dis-

tress levels during either conflictual or supportive interactions isone’s partner’s behavior during the interaction. When one’s part-ner exhibits negative affect during an interaction (e.g., yelling,crying), any individual is likely to perceive the interaction as moredistressing, which should intensify the influence of one’s attach-ment style on his or her behavior. To date, interactions betweenavoidant attachment and partner behaviors in predicting disen-gagement have not been explicitly examined. However, researchon the demand–withdraw pattern of couple communication hasdemonstrated a temporal association between one partner’s nega-tive affect (i.e., demands during interaction) and the other partner’sdisengagement (i.e., withdrawal) during the interaction (Klinetob& Smith, 1996). Additionally, Collins and colleagues found thatadolescent males (but not females) higher on avoidant attachmentreported greater male-withdraw/female-demand during a conflictwith their romantic partner when assessed 6 years later (Collins,Cooper, Albino, & Allard, 2002). In sum, although support for anassociation between one’s partner’s negative affect and one’s own

avoidance during interactions has been found, the influence ofavoidant attachment on this link has received limited attention.

Disengaging Behaviors Across Interactions and Time

Although the studies reviewed above provide some support fora link between attachment avoidance and disengagement duringstressful and supportive interactions, with one exception (Collinset al., 2002), previous research on the link between avoidantattachment and disengaging communication behavior has beencross-sectional in nature. Additionally, we know of only one studythat examined disengaging communication in both conflictual andsupportive contexts (Eldridge, Sevier, Jones, Atkins, & Chris-tensen, 2007). Given that couple communication often differsacross situations (e.g., Eldridge et al., 2007) and changes over time(Fincham & Beach, 2010) investigation of disengaging behavior ata single time point or in a single context provides a limited andpotentially inaccurate picture. Additionally, disengaging during asingle interaction or point of time may have little impact on therelationship, whereas disengaging behavior that occurs frequentlyover time, or across types of interactions, is likely to interfere withthe positive provisions of close relationships such as intimacy andsupport.

Overview of the Present Study

The purpose of this study was to examine individual differencesand situational influences on an individual’s tendency to disengageduring couple conflict and support contexts from an attachmentperspective. Our first aim was to replicate and extend previousresearch that has found a link between attachment avoidance anddisengaging behavior during conflict interactions. We extendedthis research in two ways. First, we examined two heretoforeuntested moderators of this link: (a) individuals’ perceptions ofconflict in their relationships as destructive and (b) the partner’snegative behavior during the interactions. Perceptions of one’srelationship conflict as destructive and the partner’s negative be-havior are both likely to increase stress experienced during coupleinteractions. Increased stress heightens the influence of attachmentstyles on attachment-related behaviors such as disengagement.Second, we addressed a key methodological limitation present inthe majority of this research by examining conflict disengagementoccurring across multiple interactions within a given time pointand disengagement occurring longitudinally. This design shouldstrengthen tests of our hypothesis as well as identify disengage-ment that occurs more frequently, which is likely more detrimentalto marriage than low-frequency disengagement.The second aim was to clarify the relation between avoidant

attachment and disengaging behaviors within two important rela-tionship contexts: conflict and support. Attachment theorists assertthat one’s attachment style should influence care-seeking behav-iors during times of distress, and elicit caregiving behaviors duringtimes when one’s partner needs support or care. Care-seeking andgiving should occur during both conflict and supportive contexts.There have been several studies in which researchers have exam-ined attachment styles and disengaging behaviors during times ofdistress by examining spouses’ behaviors during couple conflict.However, these studies have yielded mixed results. In contrast, weknow of only one study in which the association between avoidant

486 BARRY AND LAWRENCE

attachment and avoidant behavior has been examined in the con-text of supportive interactions. In that study, researchers found amarginal effect of avoidant attachment on avoidant behavior(Campbell et al., 2001). In the present study we examined this linkin both conflictual and supportive couple interactions.In addressing our aims we proposed two main hypotheses. Our

first hypothesis was that spouses higher on avoidant attachmentwould be more disengaged during interactions in which theirpartners evidenced more negative affect. We examined this hy-pothesis cross-sectionally using behavioral observations of nega-tive affect and disengagement in both conflictual and supportiveinteractions. Our second hypothesis was that spouses higher onavoidant attachment would be more disengaged when they per-ceived their marital conflicts as more destructive. We examinedthis hypothesis longitudinally with self-reported perceptions of (a)the destructiveness of conflict and (b) spouses’ avoidant behaviorduring marital conflict. Finally, because theorists are equivocalabout the influence of attachment anxiety on avoidant behavior, wehad no specific hypotheses regarding attachment anxiety. How-ever, to facilitate exploratory analyses, and because both dimen-sions are necessary to describe individuals’ attachment styles, weincluded attachment anxiety—and the interaction between eachspouse’s own attachment avoidance and anxiety—in all analyses.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Husbands and wives were recruited through marriage licenserecords from cities, suburban communities, small towns, and ruralareas in the Midwest. Couples were mailed letters explaining thestudy and inviting them to participate. Interested couples werescreened to ensure they met eligibility requirements: both spouseswere over the age of 18, relatively fluent in English, married lessthan 6 months, and in their first marriages. Of the 358 couples whoresponded, the first 105 couples who met criteria and kept theirscheduled appointments were included in this study. One couplewas removed from the study because it was not the wife’s firstmarriage. Another couple was removed because the husband’sTime 1 data were deemed unreliable. Thus, the final sampleconsisted of 103 couples. Additionally, over the course of the5-year study, three couples withdrew from the study and 12 di-vorced or separated; however, all available data were included inthis study.Couples dated an average of 32 months (SD � 25) prior to

engagement, 44 months (SD � 27) prior to marriage, and 80%cohabited premaritally. At 3 to 6 months of marriage (Time 1),couples’ median annual joint income was between $40,001 and$50,000. Husbands’ and wives’ average ages were 26.4 (SD � 4.7)and 25.1 (SD � 4.3), respectively. Both spouses’ modal educationwas bachelor’s degree. Racial self-identifications for husbands andwives respectively were 87% and 91% Caucasian; 4% and 1%African American, 4% and 1% Asian American, 2% and 3%Latino/a, 1% of husbands identified as Middle Eastern, and 3% ofhusbands and 2% of wives did not provide an identification.Demographic variables were not associated with any study predic-tors, proposed moderators, or outcomes.Couples completed five waves of data collection: at 3–6 months

(Time 1), 12–15 months (Time 2), 21–24 months (Time 3), 30–33

months (Time 4), and 54–57 months (Time 5) of marriage. At allassessment points questionnaires were mailed to couples’ homes.Spouses were asked to complete questionnaires independentlyfrom each other, to seal them in the separate envelopes provided,and to return them to the laboratory. At Time 1, couples also cameinto the laboratory to participate in videotaped conflict and supportinteractions and other procedures beyond the scope of this study.Couples were paid between $25 and $100 at each time point.Questionnaires assessing attachment dimensions were adminis-tered at Time 1, questionnaires assessing perceptions of stressduring conflict were administered at all five time points, andquestionnaires assessing conflict avoidance were administered atall time points except Time 4.

Videotaped problem-solving/conflict interactions. To facil-itate the videotaped conflict interactions at Time 1, each spouseidentified a source of tension or disagreement in the marriageusing the Marital Problem Inventory (Geiss & O’Leary, 1981).Couples engaged in two 10-min discussions: one based on thehusband’s selected topic and one based on the wife’s selectedtopic. The order of these discussions was determined randomly. Inthe rare case in which both spouses chose the same topic, that topicwas assigned to the spouse who was selected to be first and theother spouse was asked to discuss their second-choice topic duringthe second discussion. Before each discussion, couples were in-structed to “discuss the topic for 10 minutes and try to work towarda mutually satisfying solution.”

Videotaped support interactions. A subset (n � 62) of cou-ples participated in two 10-min videotaped support interactions.Support interactions were the final activities couples completedduring a 3-hr lab visit; therefore, couples who were slow tocomplete other activities (procedures beyond the scope of thisstudy) did not complete support interactions. Before discussionstook place, each spouse selected a personal problem or issue thathe or she wanted to change and that was not a source of disagree-ment in the marriage (e.g., making a career change, losing weight).The order of discussions was randomly determined. Attachmentdimensions and demographics of the 62 couples who completedsupport discussions were compared with the 41 couples who didnot.4 Husbands who completed the task were less avoidantlyattached than husbands who did not, t(102) � �3.65, p � .001;and couples who completed the task were younger—husbands:t(102) � 2.17; wives: t(102) � 2.56—and less likely to havecohabited premaritally, �2 � .26, ps � .05.

Behavioral Observation Coding Systems

Spouses’ negative affect during conflictual discussions.Spouses’ negative affect during conflictual discussions was codedusing the Revised Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF-R; Coan& Gottman, 2007). The SPAFF-R contains five positive codes, oneneutral code, and the 10 negative codes examined in the presentstudy (disgust, contempt, belligerence, domineering, anger, defen-siveness, whining, sadness, fear/tension, and stonewalling). Codes

4 Because of differences in the subsample that completed both types ofinteractions, we analyzed conflict interaction data twice: once with the fullsample and once with the subsample. All hypothesized paths reported assignificant in the full sample remained significant in the subsample anal-ysis.


were assigned to each 5-s segment for each spouse for eachinteraction. Four research associates trained for 6 months. Nega-tive affect composites were created by summing negative codes(except stonewalling) within spouse, within each interaction, suchthat higher scores indicate higher negative affect. Stonewallingwas excluded because it overlaps conceptually with disengage-ment. Double-coding of 20% of interactions demonstrated ade-quate interrater reliability with intraclass correlations (ICCs) ofnegative codes above .79.

Spouses’ negative affect during supportive discussions.Spouses’ negative affect during supportive discussions were codedwith the Social Support Interaction Coding System (SSICS; Pasch,Harris, Sullivan, & Bradbury, 2002), which includes six codes forsupport provision (positive instrumental, positive emotional, pos-itive other, negative, neutral, or off-task) and four codes for sup-port solicitation (positive, negative, neutral, or off-task). Coderstrained for 3 months. Codes were assigned to each spouse for each5-s segment of each discussion. Only negative codes were used inthis study and were summed for each spouse for each discussion.Thus, higher scores indicated higher negative support provision orsolicitation. Examples of negative codes include criticizing one’spartner’s plan to accomplish change and accusing one’s partner ofnot giving appropriate support. Double-coding of 20% of interac-tions demonstrated adequate interrater reliability ICCs above .84.

Disengaging behaviors during the conflict and supportinteractions. Disengaging behaviors during the conflict and sup-port interactions were coded using the Romantic DisengagementBehavioral Coding System (Barry, Lawrence, Riesberg, Harms, &Hall, 2010), which comprises 17 codes based on behavioral de-scriptions of disengagement. Examples of disengaging behaviorsinclude remaining silent, denying the importance of an issue, andlooking away from the partner for an extended period of time. Thepresence of each behavior, for each spouse, was coded once duringeach 10-s segment if it occurred during that time. To form com-posite scores, within interaction type (conflict or support) eachcode was standardized across spouses and interactions thensummed within spouse and within interaction. This approach al-lowed us to compare level of disengagement across spouses andacross the two conflict interactions and two support interactions.Cronbach alphas (�s) ranged from .59 to .73 across spouses andcodes demonstrating the internal consistency of the measure. Eightcoders trained for 2 months. Double-coding of 20% of interactionsyielded ICCs above .74.

Self-Report Questionnaires

Adult attachment avoidance and anxiety. Adult attachmentavoidance and anxiety were measured with the Relationship ScalesQuestionnaire (RSQ; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994). The RSQassesses a variety of attachment style operationalizations usingitems adapted from several self-report attachment style measures.We used the RSQ items drawn from the avoidance (eight items,e.g., “I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others”) andanxiety (five items, e.g., “I often worry that romantic partnersdon’t really love me”) subscales created by Simpson and col-leagues (Simpson et al., 1992) because, compared with otheroperationalizations present in the RSQ, they have been found todemonstrate the strongest support (Kurdek, 2002). Respondentsare asked to consider how they feel about close relationships in

general on a 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me) scaleand �s were above .72 across spouses and dimensions.

Perceptions of couple conflict interactions as destructive.Perceptions of couple conflict interactions as destructive weremeasured using the Marital Satisfaction Inventory—Revised,Problem-Solving Communication (PSC) scale (Snyder & Aikman,1999). The PSC measures spouses’ perceptions that problem-solving discussions are ineffective and emotionally distressing forone or both partners (e.g., “Our arguments frequently end up withone of us feeling hurt or crying”; “Minor disagreements with mypartner often end up in big arguments”; and “When we disagree,my partner helps us to find alternatives that are acceptable to bothof us” reverse-coded). The PSC includes 19 items with a true orfalse response format, and �s ranged from .83 to .92 acrossspouses and time.

Conflict avoidance. Conflict avoidance was measured usingthe Marital Coping Inventory, Avoidance Subscale (MCI; Bow-man, 1990). Spouses note their “most serious recurring maritaldifficulty” and rate the seriousness of the problem. Next they rate thedegree to which they engaged in a variety of problem-solving strat-egies. The Avoidance Subscale includes 11 items (e.g., “Deny thatanything is wrong or change the subject if my partner brings up theproblem”) rated on a 1 (usually) to 5 (never) scale. Alphas rangedfrom .70 to .85 across spouses and time.

Data Analyses

Hypotheses were tested using actor–partner interdependencemodeling techniques for mixed independent variables. We used thetwo-intercept model to estimate separate intercepts and slopes forhusbands and wives within the same equations (see Kenny, Kashy,& Cook, 2006 for a review). In all models we estimated actoreffects and partner effects for both husbands and wives. Addition-ally, chi-square tests were used to assess the homogeneity ofhusbands’ and wives’ Level 1 variance for each baseline model.Multilevel modeling techniques were used to estimate all mod-

els using HLM6 software (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The firststage (Level 1) allows for the examination of within-couple dif-ferences on variables measured repeatedly. The outcome variableis described by two parameters: the intercept and slope. Additionalpredictors measured repeatedly are entered into the Level 1 equa-tions in order to determine their within- and/or cross-spouse asso-ciations with the outcome variable. The second stage (Level 2)allows for the examination of between-couple differences in asso-ciations between time-invariant predictors and outcomes. To ex-amine the significance of simple slopes when a significant inter-action was found, we used an online calculator created byPreacher, Curran, and Bauer (2006). High and low levels of themoderator were represented by one standard deviation above andbelow the mean score. We primarily report only significant results;however, full results and figures depicting hypotheses tested areavailable as supplementary materials. For all significant findings,we tested for sex differences using a Bonferroni correction toreduce inflated family wise error. No sex differences were signif-icant.

Results

Means and standard deviations for all repeated measures arepresented in Tables 1 and 2. On average, husbands and wives


reported moderate levels of attachment avoidance (Ms � 18.17,and 16.90; SDs� 5.18 and 5.69) and anxiety (Ms� 8.50 and 9.02;SDs � 3.62 and 3.60, respectively), moderate levels of conflictavoidance, and perceived conflict to be somewhat destructive.Cross-spouse correlations ranged from nonsignificant to strongacross variables and time.5 At Time 1, correlations between hus-bands’ and wives’ behaviors (negative affect and disengagement)within each type of interaction (conflict and support interactions)ranged from weak and nonsignificant to moderate and significant(rs ranged from .01, ns to .39, p � .01). Husbands’ and wives’attachment avoidance and anxiety scores did not correlate (rs �.02 and .05, respectively, both ns). Correlations between husbands’and wives’ perceptions of conflict ranged from nonsignificant tostrong over time (rs ranged from .19, ns to .48, p � .01). Corre-lations between husbands’ and wives’ reports of conflict avoidancewere nonsignificant (rs ranged from �.17 to .15, all ns). Signifi-cant correlations may reflect interdependence between spouses or,for constructs in which spouses report on the same interaction,agreement on dyadic processes (e.g., destructiveness of conflict).

Avoidant Attachment and Behavioral Disengagement:Does Partner Negative Affect Moderate This Link?

Baseline models for spouses’ disengagement during conflictinteractions and during support interactions were specified in twoseparate models. Both models included each spouse’s intercept (�1and �2) and whose topic was being discussed (�3 and �4):

Yij �DISENGAGE� � �1j �HUSBAND� � �2j �WIFE� � �3j �H TOPIC�

� �4j �W TOPIC� � rij

Behavioral disengagement codes were z-scored; as such, theirestimates did not differ from zero. The effects of whose topic wasdiscussed were not significant for either spouse in the model ofconflict, ts(96) � .02, or support, ts(60) � �.02, ns. Nevertheless,including these parameters improved model fit for conflict,�2(2) � 6.07, and support, �2(2) � 5.83, ps � .05, and weretherefore retained. Tests of homogeneity of Level 1 variance werenonsignificant for conflict, �2(94) � 17.04, and support, �2(58) �8.79, ns. Finally, variance components of model parameters weresignificant for conflict, �2s(96) � 151.33, and support, �2s(58) �107.72, ps � .001, suggesting it was appropriate to attempt topredict these parameters.For each model (disengagement during conflict discussions and

disengagement during support discussions), husbands’ and wives’

negative affect (NA) were entered as time-varying covariates atLevel 1 with the Level 1 equation used for these models specifiedas follows:

Yij �DISENGAGE� � �1j �HUSBAND� � �2j �WIFE� � �3j �H TOPIC�

� �4j �W TOPIC� � �5j �Actor effect of H NA� � �6j �Actor effect of W NA�

� �7j �Partner effect of H NA� � �8j �Partner effect of W NA� � rij

Level 2 models of conflict and support were identically speci-fied: husbands’ and wives’ attachment avoidance (AV), attach-ment anxiety (AX) and the interaction between the two wereentered into (a) the Level 2 equations for the intercepts (�1 and �2)of each model to control for the main effects and interaction ofeach spouses’ attachment avoidance and anxiety predicting eachspouse’s disengagement, and (b) the Level 2 equations for thepartner effects of each spouse’s negative affect (�7 and �8) toexamine whether attachment avoidance, anxiety, or their interac-tion moderated the effect of each partner’s negative affect on thespouse’s disengagement:

�1j �H INTERCEPT� � 10� 11 �H AV� � 12 �H AX�

� 13 �H AV x AX� � 14 �W AV� � 15 �W AX� � 16 �W AV x AX�

� u1j

�2j �W INTERCEPT� � 20� 21 �H AV� � 22 �H AX�


� u2j

�3j �H TOPIC� � 30

�4j �W TOPIC� � 40

�5j�Actor effect of H NA� � 50� u5j

� 6j�Actor effect of W NA� � 60� u6j

5 Different measures of negative affect were used in the conflict inter-actions and the support interactions. Nevertheless, we argue that theconstructs assessed in these two measures can be subsumed under thebroad definition of negative affect.

Table 1Means and Standard Deviations of Observed Disengagement and Negative Affect at Time 1

Conflict interactions Support interactions

Husbands’ topic Wives’ topic Husbands’ topic Wives’ topicM (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Husbands’ negative affect 7.61 (12.70) 7.12 (13.35) 5.29 (7.27) 5.56 (8.20)Wives’ negative affect 10.15 (20.17) 10.55 (15.86) 6.08 (7.83) 5.34 (6.28)Husbands’ disengagement .06 (.32) .06 (.37) �.04 (.23) .04 (.27)Wives’ disengagement �.04 (.24) �.02 (.29) �.03 (.27) �.05 (.24)

Note. M � Mean, SD � standard deviation. Negative affect was operationalized differently in conflictinteractions and support interactions.


�7j�Partner effect of H NA� � 70� 71 �H AV� � 72 �H AX�


� u7j

�8j�Partner effect of W NA� � 80� 81 �H AV� � 82�H AX�

� 83 �H AV x AX� � 84 �W AV� � 85�W AX� � 86 �W AV x AX�

� u8j

Conflict disengagement. We hypothesized that spouseshigher on avoidant attachment would be more disengaged duringconflict interactions in which their partners evidenced more neg-ative affect. We found support for this hypothesis for husbands,but not for wives. There was a significant interaction betweenhusbands’ avoidant attachment and wives’ negative affect predict-ing husbands’ conflict disengagement (b � .002, SE � .0005, p �.001). Examination of the simple slopes of the interaction betweenhusbands’ avoidant attachment and wives’ negative affect indi-cated that wives’ negative affect predicted husbands’ disengage-ment when husbands were high on attachment avoidance (b �.009, SE � .003, p � .01), but not when husbands were low onattachment avoidance (b � .000, SE � .003, ns).There was also a significant interaction between husbands’

attachment anxiety and husbands’ attachment avoidance on wives’disengagement (b � .004, SE � .001, p � .01). Examination of thesimple slopes indicated that husbands’ attachment anxiety pre-dicted wives’ disengagement when husbands were also high onattachment avoidance (b � .05, SE � .02, p � .01), but not whenhusbands were low on attachment avoidance (b � .01, SE � .01,ns). Thus, when husbands were high on both attachment avoidanceand anxiety, wives were more disengaged during conflict com-pared with when they were only high on attachment anxiety.

Support disengagement. We hypothesized that spouses whowere higher on avoidant attachment would be more disengagedduring support interactions in which their partners evidenced morenegative affect. We found support for this hypothesis for husbandsbut not for wives. Husbands’ attachment avoidance and wives’negative affect interacted to predict husbands’ disengagement (b �.002, SE � .001, p � .05). Examination of the simple slopesindicated that wives’ negative affect predicted husbands’ disen-gagement when husbands were high on attachment avoidance (b �.07, SE � .03, p � .05) but not when husbands were low onattachment avoidance (b � �.005, SE � .008, ns).This model also yielded an unexpected finding: husbands’ at-

tachment anxiety moderated the effect of wives’ negative affect on

husbands’ support disengagement (b � �.002, SE � .001, p �.05). Examination of the simple slopes indicated that wives’ neg-ative affect negatively predicted husbands’ support disengagementwhen husbands were higher on attachment anxiety (b � �.03,SE � .02, p � .05) but not when husbands were low on attachmentanxiety (b � .01, SE � .01, ns). Thus, husbands who were higheron attachment anxiety were less disengaged during support dis-cussions when their wives behaved more negatively.

Avoidant Attachment and Longitudinal ConflictAvoidance: Do Perceptions of Conflict as DestructiveModerate This Link?

For the following analyses, time was initially measured withnumber of months since the wedding. We then centered timearound the midpoint of the study so that husbands’ and wives’intercepts represented their levels of conflict avoidance at approx-imately 24 months of marriage (Time 3) and their slopes repre-sented their average rates of change in conflict avoidance overtime. Both linear and quadratic trajectories of change were exam-ined. Quadratic terms, created by squaring linear terms, did notimprove model fit and therefore were not included.We first examined the baseline trajectories for the two variables

measured longitudinally: (a) conflict avoidance and (b) percep-tions of problem-solving interactions as destructive. Linear modelsprovided the best fit for the data with the Level 1 equationsspecified as follows:

Yij �Outcome� � �1j�Husband� � �2j�Wife� � �3j�H Time� � �4j�W Time�

� rij

Next we conducted tests of the homogeneity of husbands’ andwives’ Level 1 variance for each baseline model. Results weresignificant for both models, suggesting that spouses’ variancecomponents were significantly heterogeneous—conflict avoid-ance: �2 (92) � 118.96, and perceptions of problem-solving dis-cussions: �2 (92)� 134.61, ps � .05. Therefore, we also predictedhusbands’ and wives’ Level 1 variance in the following analyses.Next we examined the results of the baseline models. Linear

slopes for husbands’ and wives’ marital conflict avoidance (b �.03, SE � .01, and b � .03, SE � .02, ns, respectively) andperceptions of marital conflict (b � .02, SE � .01, and b � .01,SE � .01, ns, respectively) did not demonstrate significant sys-tematic linear change over time. We also examined the between-subjects variability of the parameters (husbands’ and wives’ inter-cepts and slopes) for marital conflict avoidance (the outcome

Table 2Means and Standard Deviations of Spouses’ Perceptions of Conflict as Destructive and Conflict Avoidance Over Time

3–6 months 12–15 months 21–24 months 30–33 months 54–57 monthsM (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Husbands’ problem-solving communication 5.50 (4.41) 5.80 (4.87) 6.30 (5.18) 6.03 (5.18) 5.84 (4.68)Wives’ problem-solving communication 5.65 (4.08) 5.80 (4.56) 5.96 (4.87) 5.70 (5.05) 5.27 (4.59)Husbands’ conflict avoidance 28.01 (6.57) 27.28 (5.51) 27.76 (6.22) — 29.14 (5.93)Wives’ conflict avoidance 25.96 (5.85) 25.55 (5.94) 26.63 (6.42) — 26.97 (6.50)

Note. M � Mean, SD � standard deviation, months � months of marriage.


variable in subsequent analyses). We found significant variabilityin the parameters of these models (�2s ranged from 114.93 to260.74, ps � .05), suggesting that it was appropriate to predictthese parameters.We hypothesized that spouses who were higher on avoidant

attachment and who perceived marital conflict as destructivewould evidence greater conflict avoidance over time. To examinethis hypothesis, husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of the destruc-tiveness of marital conflict (PSC) were entered as time-varyingcovariates at Level 1 as follows:

Yij �CONFLICT AVOIDANCE� � �1j �HUSBAND� � �2j �WIFE�

� �3j �H TIME� � �4j �W TIME� � �5j �Actor effect of H PSC�

� �6j �Actor effect of W PSC� � �7j �Partner effect of H PSC�

� �8j (Partner effect of W PSC)� rij

We then entered husbands’ and wives’ attachment avoidance(AV), attachment anxiety (AX), and their interaction into the Level2 equations for husbands’ and wives’ intercepts and for the actoreffects of husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of problem-solving.Due to model complexity, it was necessary to fix the error termsfor the equations estimating the partner effects of spouses’ per-ceptions of problem-solving. Thus, the Level 2 equations werespecified as follows:

�1j �H INTERCEPT� � 10� 11 �H AV� � 12�H AX� � 13�H AV x AX�

� 13 �W AV� � 14�W AX� � 15�W AV x AX� � u1j

�2j �W INTERCEPT� � 20� 21 �H AV� � 22�H AX� � 23�H AV x AX�

� 24 �W AV� � 25�W AX� � 26�W AV x AX� � u2j

�3j �H TIME� � 30� u3j

�4j�W TIME� � 40� u4j

�5j �Actor effect of H PSC� � 50� 51 �H AV� � 52�H AX�

� 53�H AV x AX� � 53�W AV� � 54�W AX� � 56�W AV x AX�

� u5j

�6j �Actor effect of W PSC� � 60� 61 �H AV� � 62�H AX�

� 53�H AV x AX� � 63�W AV� � 64�W AX� � 66�W AV x AX� � u6j

�7j �Partner effect of H PSC� � 70

�8j �Partner effect of W PSC� � 80

We found that husbands’ attachment avoidance interacted withhusbands’ perceptions of conflict as destructive to predict hus-bands’ conflict avoidance (b � .01, SE � .003, p � .001). Simpleslopes examination suggested husbands’ perceptions of conflictmore strongly predicted husbands’ conflict avoidance when hus-bands were high on attachment avoidance (b � .40, SE � .08, p �.001) compared with when husbands were low on attachmentavoidance (b � .19, SE � .10, p � .05). There were also maineffects of husbands’ attachment avoidance predicting wives’

higher conflict avoidance (b � 1.14, SE � .53, p � .01) andhusbands’ higher anxiety predicting husbands’ lower conflictavoidance (b � �.33, SE � .16, p � .05).

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine individualdifferences and situational influences associated with individuals’tendency to disengage during couple communication. Guided byan attachment framework, we examined two aims. Our first aimwas to extend previous research that has found mixed evidence ofa link between attachment avoidance and disengagement duringcouple conflict. We extended this research by examining twospecific moderators of the link and by examining the link longi-tudinally. Our second aim was to examine two relationship con-texts that have the potential to elicit disengagement—conflictualand supportive interactions.

Summary and Interpretation of Results

Consistent with our aims, our first hypothesis was that spouseshigher on avoidant attachment would be more disengaged duringinteractions in which their partners evidenced greater negativeaffect. We expected this pattern of findings to emerge during bothconflictual and supportive interactions. Our hypothesis was sup-ported for husbands but not wives. Previous research using behav-ioral methods failed to find a link between avoidant attachmentand avoidant behavior during conflict (Bouthillier et al., 2002) andfound marginal evidence of a link during support interactions(Campbell et al., 2001). However, previous research examinedonly main effects. We argue that inclusion of a theoreticallyimportant moderator (partners’ negative affect) allowed us to findevidence for the proposed associations for husbands.Our second hypothesis was that spouses higher on avoidant

attachment would be more conflict avoidant over the early years ofmarriage to the extent that they perceived marital problem-solvingdiscussions as more destructive. We found support for this hypoth-esis for husbands but not wives. Previous research utilizing self-report questionnaires of conflict avoidance to examine these linksproduced mixed results and did not examine moderators of the linkor examined a single time point. Indeed, this is one of the firststudies to examine the link between avoidant attachment andconflict avoidance longitudinally.To summarize, our hypotheses were supported for husbands but

not wives. Nevertheless, tests of sex differences did not reachsignificance. Thus, we cannot conclude that our results indicatemeaningful differences between men and women.Interpretation of the results regarding associations between

husbands’ attachment avoidance and disengagement duringcouple communication is complicated by the reciprocal influ-ences of these constructs. Theory and research suggest thatattachment styles may change in response to life events orexperiences with intimate partners (for a review see Davila &Cobb, 2004). Thus, although the findings suggest that husbandshigher on avoidant attachment who perceive conflict as destruc-tive or whose wives engage in negative behavior during inter-actions are more disengaged with their wives, partners’ behav-iors and couples’ chronic difficulties resolving conflict shouldalso impact attachment styles.


Additionally, interpretation of our results depends upon one’sconceptualization of adult attachment styles, specifically whatit means to be higher on avoidant attachment. Theorists main-tain that an attachment style characterized by high avoidantattachment results from a history of consistently unsatisfactoryexperiences with attachment partners that cause individuals todisengage to deactivate attachment-related distress and protectthemselves from disappointment and rejection (see Crowell etal., 2008 for a review). It is tempting to interpret our results assupporting an explanation of disengaged couple communicationconsistent with these theoretical arguments: that individualsdisengage because they expect their partner to reject or disap-point them. However, these influences may operate outside ofawareness such that avoidant individuals would not explicitlyvoice unfavorable expectations about their partner’s behavior(Roisman et al., 2007). Thus, future research is needed toclarify why individuals higher on avoidant attachment disen-gage during couple communication.Although we had no specific hypotheses regarding the influence

of spouses’ attachment anxiety on disengagement, two findingsemerged. First, when husbands were higher on attachment anxietyand avoidance, their wives were more disengaged during observedconflict interactions compared with wives whose husbands werehigher on attachment anxiety but low on avoidance. Second,husbands who were higher on attachment anxiety were less dis-engaged during support interactions when their wives exhibitedmore negative affect. Given that we did not make a priori hypoth-eses about these associations, we suggest caution in interpretingthese findings without replication. Nevertheless, these results sug-gest that attachment anxiety may indeed influence a spouse’stendency to disengage during couple interactions.

Strengths, Limitations, and Implications of the PresentStudy

This study comprised several novel features that enhance itscontributions to the field. First, we examined multiple types ofcouple interactions (conflict and support). The majority ofresearch on disengagement during couple interactions has fo-cused on couple conflict. We know of only one other study thatexamined couples’ avoidant behavior across multiple types ofinteractions (Eldridge et al., 2007). Nevertheless, adults’attachment-related behaviors such as disengagement are elicitedin both care-seeking and caregiving contexts and couple re-search is increasingly expanding its focus beyond couple con-flict. Second, the research used multisource, multimethod data(self-report and third-person coded behavioral observations),increasing our confidence that the findings are not simply dueto common-method variance. Third, we examined disengage-ment and negative affect across four (two conflict and twosupport) interactions, and assessed conflict avoidance and per-ceptions of marital conflict repeatedly over 5 years of marriage,respectively, providing more robust tests of our hypotheses.Fourth, we controlled for and examined the interdependencebetween spouses via actor–partner interdependence modeling.Interpretation of the findings must also be qualified by several

limitations. First, not all couples completed support tasks andsupport tasks occurred at the end of lab sessions. Second, oursample was restricted to heterosexual couples who were newly-

weds at Time 1 and in their first marriages. These restrictionsyielded methodological advantages and drawbacks. The advantageis that it allowed us to hold constant several potential confoundingeffects (e.g., type of relationship, length of marriage) on theassociations studied. A drawback is that it limits the extent towhich the findings may generalize to other types of relationshipsand longer or higher-order marriages. Third, although our recruit-ment strategy—enrolling couples identified through marriage ap-plication records who responded to mailed invitations—yields amore generalizable sample than other recruitment methods (e.g.,advertising in newspapers; Karney & Bradbury, 1995), it still mayhave yielded a self-selected sample. Fourth, our sample was pre-dominantly Caucasian. Thus, we cannot conclude that these find-ings would generalize to ethnic minorities.The findings of the present study have theoretical and clinical

implications. With regard to theoretical implications, attach-ment researchers have called for a move away from simplydescribing and studying adult attachment as an individual dif-ferences phenomenon to recognizing the interpersonal and dy-namic nature of adult attachment processes (Fraley & Shaver,2000). We incorporated this shift into our design by examiningspouses’ individual differences in attachment dimensions andattachment-related behaviors over time. We also examined howattachment dimensions interacted with key moderating situa-tional factors to influence disengagement. As a result of theserefinements, we are able to offer two specific recommendationsfor elaborating adult attachment research. First, whereas muchof the prior research has focused solely on individual differ-ences in attachment in predicting relationship outcomes, werecommend that future studies shift focus to attachment behav-ioral processes. Viewing attachment as a system that motivatesattachment behaviors emphasizes the dynamic role that attach-ment processes play in ongoing close relationships. Second, werecommend that researchers incorporate both individual influ-ences and partner influences into their attachment models. Bothpartners in an attachment relationship influence the quality ofthe attachment bond and the functioning of attachment behav-ior. Only by modeling these mutual influences within couplescan we elucidate the role and meaning of attachment behaviorin marital relationships.This research also has important clinical implications. Previous

research has shown that disengaged conflict communication, eitherindividually or as part of a dyadic demand-withdraw conflictpattern, tends to be associated with relationship distress and de-cline. Our research elaborates these findings in two clinicallyrelevant ways. First, we found that husbands higher on attachmentavoidance are more likely to be disengaged during conflictual andsupportive interactions when wives behave more negatively andwhen husbands perceive couple conflict as destructive. Thus, ourresearch suggests that, at least for husbands, reducing the harmfuleffects of disengaging behavior on couple communication may beachieved either by interventions designed to reduce attachmentavoidance (e.g., Emotion Focused Couples Therapy; Greenberg &Johnson, 1988) or by interventions designed to reduce partnernegative behavior during communication (e.g., Integrated Behav-ioral Couples Therapy; Jacobson & Christensen, 1996). Second,because the pattern of findings also emerged during supportiveinteractions, these same interventions (and targets of intervention)


may improve disengaged husbands’ ability to effectively elicitsupport from and provide support to their wives.

References

Barry, R. A., Lawrence, E., Riesberg, K., Harms, A., & Hall, D. (2010).Romantic disengagement behavioral coding system. Unpublished codingmanual.

Bouthillier, D., Julien, D., Dube, M., Belanger, I., & Hamelin, M. (2002).Predictive validity of adult attachment measures in relation to emotionregulation behaviors in marital interactions. Journal of Adult Develop-ment, 9, 291–305. doi:10.1023/A:1020291011587

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment (2nd ed.).New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowman, M. L. (1990). Coping efforts and marital satisfaction: Measuringmarital coping and its correlates. Journal of Marriage and the Family,52, 463–474. doi:10.2307/353040

Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2001).Attachment orientations, dependence, and behavior in a stressful situa-tion: An application of the actor–partner interdependence model. Jour-nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 821–843. doi:10.1177/0265407501186005

Cann, A., Norman, M., Welbourne, J. L., & Calhoun, L. G. (2008).Attachment styles, conflict styles and humour styles: Interrelationshipsand associations with relationship satisfaction. European Journal ofPersonality, 22, 131–146. doi:10.1002/per.666

Coan, J. A., & Gottman, J. M. (2007). The Specific Affect Coding System(SPAFF). In J. A. Coan & J. J. B. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of emotionelicitation and assessment (pp. 106–123). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Collins, N. L., Cooper, L. M., Albino, A., & Allard, L. (2002). Psychos-ocial vulnerability from adolescence to adulthood: A prospective studyof attachment style differences in relationship functioning and partnerchoice. Journal of Personality, 70, 965–1008. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.05029

Creasey, G., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (2001). Affective responses, cognitiveappraisals, and conflict tactics in late adolescent romantic relationships:Associations with attachment orientations. Journal of Counseling Psy-chology, 48, 85–96. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.48.1.85

Creasey, G., Kershaw, K., & Boston, A. (1999). Conflict management withfriends and romantic partners: The role of attachment and negative moodregulation expectancies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 523–543. doi:10.1023/A:1021650525419

Crowell, J. A., Fraley, C. R., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Measurement ofindividual differences in adolescent and adult attachment. In J. Cassidy& P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research andclinical implications (pp. 599–634). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Davila, J., & Cobb, R. J. (2004). Predictors of change in attachmentsecurity during adulthood. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adultattachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 133–156).New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Eldridge, K. A., & Christensen, A. (2002). Demand-withdraw communi-cation during couple conflict: A review and analysis. In P. Noller & J. A.Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study ofcouple interaction (pp. 289–322). New York, NY: Cambridge Univer-sity Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511500077.016

Eldridge, K. A., Sevier, M., Jones, J., Atkins, D. C., & Christensen, A.(2007). Demand-withdraw communication in severely distressed, mod-erately distressed, and nondistressed couples: Rigidity and polarity dur-ing relationship and personal problem discussions. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 21, 218–226. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.218

Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adultintimate relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 80, 972–994. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.972

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (1999). Conflict in marriage: Implicationsfor working with couples. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 47–77.doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.47

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theo-retical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered ques-tions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132–154. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.132

Geiss, S., & O’Leary, K. (1981). Therapist ratings of frequency andseverity of marital problems: Implications for research. Journal of Mar-ital and Family Therapy, 7, 515–520. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1981.tb01407.x

Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction:A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57,47–52. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.57.1.47

Greenberg, L. S., & Johnson, S. M. (1988). Emotionally focused therapyfor couples. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measure-ment: The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman(Eds.), Attachment processes in adulthood: Advances in personal rela-tionships (pp. 17–52). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizationalframework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5,1–22. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1

Jacobson, N. S., & Christensen, A. (1996). Acceptance and change incouple therapy: A therapist’s guide to transforming relationships. NewYork, NY: Norton.

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course ofmarital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods and research.Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. (2006). The analysis of dyadicdata. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Klinetob, N. A., & Smith, D. A. (1996). Demand-withdraw communicationin marital interaction: Tests of interspousal contingency and gender rolehypotheses. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 945–957. doi:10.2307/353982

Kurdek, L. A. (2002). On being insecure about the assessment of attach-ment styles. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 811–834.doi:10.1177/0265407502196005

Levy, M. B., & Davis, K. (1988). Lovestyles and attachment styles com-pared: Their relations to each other and to various relationship charac-teristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 439–471.doi:10.1177/0265407588054004

Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1998). Adult attachment scoring and classifi-cation system. Unpublished manuscript, University of California atBerkeley.

O’Connell Corcoran, K., & Mallinkrodt, B. (2000). Adult attachment,self-efficacy, perspective taking, and conflict resolution. Journal ofCounseling & Development, 78, 473–483. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01931.x

Pasch, L. A., Harris, K. M., Sullivan, K. T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2002). Thesocial support interaction coding system. In P. Kerig & D. Baucom(Eds.), Couple observational coding systems (pp. 319–334). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum & Associates.

Pietromonaco, P. R., Greenwood, D., & Feldman Barrett, L., (2004).Conflict in adult close relationships: An attachment perspective. In W. S.Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research andclinical implications (pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pistole, M. C. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic relationships: Style ofconflict resolution and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships, 6, 505–510. doi:10.1177/0265407589064008

Pistole, M. C., & Arricale, F. (2003). Understanding attachment: Beliefsabout conflict. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 318–328.doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00259.x


Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational toolsfor probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevelmodeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behav-ioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear modeling:Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Robles, T. F., Shaffer, V. A., Malarkey, W. B., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K.(2006). Positive behaviors during marital conflict: Influences on stresshormones. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 305–325.doi:10.1177/0265407506062482

Roisman, G. I., Holland, A., Fortuna, K., Fraley, R. C., Clausell, E., &Clarke, A. (2007). The Adult Attachment Interview and self-reports ofattachment style: An empirical rapprochement. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 92, 678–697. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.678

Shi, L. (2003). The association between adult attachment styles and con-flict resolution in romantic relationships. The American Journal ofFamily Therapy, 31, 143–157. doi:10.1080/01926180301120

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seekingand support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: Therole of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,62, 434–446. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.434

Smith, D. A., Vivian, D., & O’Leary, K. D. (1990). Longitudinal predictionof marital discord from premarital expressions of affect. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 790–798. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.58.6.790

Snyder, D. K., & Aikman, G. G. (1999). Marital Satisfaction Inventory–Revised. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing fortreatment planning and outcomes assessment (2nd ed., pp. 1173–1210).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Received January 3, 2012Revision received January 22, 2013

Accepted February 5, 2013 �

Members of Underrepresented Groups:Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications andCommunications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to thepublications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&CBoard is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participatemore in this process.

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at [email protected] note the following important points:

• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. Theexperience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objectivereview.

• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are mostcentral to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recentlypublished research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submissionwithin the context of existing research.

• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information.Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) youare interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example,“social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitudechange” as well.

• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1–4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected toreview a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscriptthoroughly.

APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manuscripts. To learnmore about the course and to access the video, visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/review-manuscript-ce-video.aspx.


an attachment perspective of

Documents