The present study explored processing biases resulting from manipulating the temporal accessibility of relational schemas. By priming relational schemas, relationship-specific attachment styles were activated and their biasing effect on relevant information processing (namely recall for attachment-relevant words versus other words, interpersonal expectations, and affect) was examined. It was found that participants primed with a secure-style relational schema recalled more positive attachment words than those primed with an avoidant style. Although pre-priming endorsements of interpersonal expectations were influenced by global attachment style, once primed, participants showed primed-style-congruent responses. That is, primed secures showed higher endorsement of positive and lower endorsement of negative interpersonal expectations relative to the other primed style groups. Finally, primed secures reported more positive and less negative affect than the other primed style groups. Implications for understanding the way differential attachment experiences influence close relationships through life are considered.

Research shows that priming attachment security results in positive relationship expectations and affect (Rowe & Carnelley, 2003). We examined whether repetitive priming of attachment security (e.g., experimentally activating cognitive representations of attachment security) would have more lasting effects on relationship‐ and self‐views. Participants provided baseline measures at Time 1. On 3 occasions (across 3 days), we primed participants with attachment security or a neutral prime (Times 2–4). Two days later (Time 5), participants completed trait‐level measures not preceded by a prime. As expected, those repeatedly primed with attachment security reported more positive relationship expectations, more positive self‐views, and less attachment anxiety at Time 5 than at Time 1; those primed with neutral primes showed no change with time. These priming effects last longer than those typically found.

We examined the links among attachment, caregiving, and relationship functioning in both dating (Study 1) and married couples (Study 2), assessing both partners' perspectives. We found that (1) men and women generally evidenced caregiving characteristics similar to those of their parent% especially their same‐sex parent; (2) individuals who reported giving more care to their partner evidenced less fearful‐avoidant attachment (Studies 1 and 2) and less preoccupation with attachment (Study 2); and (3) individuals' own attachment models and their partner's attachment models and caregiving jointly predicted relationship functioning, but individuals' own attachment models remained strong predictors even after the partner's attachment and caregiving were taken into account. The results suggest that caregiving learned in childhood attachment relationships may be carried forward into adult romantic relationships, and they support the idea that attachment and caregiving are central components of romantic love.

Several theorists have proposed that differential socialization experiences lead men and women to differ in the importance they assign to relationships and in how they interpret and respond to relationships. To explore this idea, this study examined whether men and women who reported similar attachment experiences responded differently to information about the same kind of relationship. Men and women with secure, preoccupied, or avoidant models of attachment imagined themselves in a relationship with a hypothetical partner who displayed secure, preoccupied, or avoidant behavior. As predicted, avoidant men and preoccupied women, whose attachment models exaggerated gender‐role stereotypes, expressed the most negativity toward themselves and the relationship. Women also were more likely than men to apply specific information about the imagined relationship to general beliefs about their own relationships. In addition, men and women whose attachment models matched the partner's behavior responded more favorably to the relationship if they both expressed security, but less favorably if they both expressed avoidance. Findings for gender and partner matching closely paralleled those for couples in long‐term relationships and support the idea that the meaning and consequences of attachment models must be considered within the context of gender roles.