Although touch is common in romantic relationships and is generally beneficial, people differ in the extent to which they desire to give and receive touch. The current research identified individual and relationship characteristics that predict overall desire for touch and unique desire for overtly affectionate versus indirectly affectionate forms of touch. In both a sample of dating, engaged, and married individuals (Study 1) and a dyadic sample of married couples (Study 2), the strongest predictors of overall desire for touch were sex (being female) and high relationship quality (actor and partner). Attachment avoidance also predicted lower desire for touch overall (Study 1), and actor and partner attachment avoidance predicted lower desire for indirectly affectionate touch, in particular (Study 2). Finally, greater psychological distress predicted greater desire for indirectly affectionate touch in both studies. This novel descriptive information about desire for touch provides a foundation for future intervention work.

No abstract

Due to the personal and relationship costs associated with attachment anxiety, there has been substantial interest in identifying factors that reduce attachment anxiety over time and buffer attachment anxiety in the moment. We integrated the Attachment Security Enhancement Model (ASEM) and the dependency paradox based in attachment theory to derive novel predictions about how perceived partner support predicts attachment anxiety prospectively (one year later) and concurrently. Newlyweds ( N = 326) reported their perceptions that their partners support their personal goals (i.e., perceived support for independence needs) and their perceptions that their partners provide reassurance/responsiveness (i.e., perceived support for dependence needs). We found that greater perceived support for personal goals predicted decreases in attachment anxiety over one year only among people who also perceived high partner reassurance/responsiveness, consistent with the idea that support for independence is most effective when partners also support dependence needs. We also observed evidence that this pattern was most pronounced among people with higher attachment anxiety. Regarding concurrent links, we found that perceiving greater partner reassurance/responsiveness predicted lower concurrent attachment anxiety, whereas perceived support for independent goals did not. Together, these findings extend the ASEM by highlighting that attachment anxiety declines over time when partners are perceived to support one’s needs for independence and dependence simultaneously.

Past research suggests that attachment insecurity is associated with negative responses to support receipt. However, we propose that social support is evaluated more favorably when it is tailored to a support recipient’s relationship-specific (RS) attachment toward their support provider. In three pre-registered studies, we tested whether people have a relative preference for support strategies that match their RS attachment needs. Consistent with hypotheses, we found that greater RS attachment anxiety was associated with a stronger relative preference for emotion-laden support that affirms one’s relationship (safe strategies) over pragmatic support that de-emphasizes the emotional significance of stressors (soft strategies). Also consistent with hypotheses, greater RS attachment avoidance was associated with a stronger preference for soft strategies over safe strategies, especially when RS attachment anxiety was low. We conclude that people prefer social support matched to their RS attachment orientations and provide recommendations for future research.

No abstract