Dyadic effects of attachment and relationship functioning

Abstract

Some scholars have proposed that people in couples in which at least one person is secure are just as satisfied as people in which both members are secure (i.e., buffering hypothesis). The present investigation tested this hypothesis by examining how relationship satisfaction varies as a function of the attachment security of both dyad members. Secondary analyses were performed using data from two studies (Study 1: 172 couples; Study 2: 194 couples) in which heterosexual dating couples were asked to complete self-reports of their own attachment style and relationship satisfaction. To evaluate the buffering hypothesis, we fit a standard APIM using SEM and added an actor × partner interaction term to our model. Contrary to expectations, our results suggested that secure partners do not “buffer” insecurely attached individuals. Moreover, partner attachment did not explain satisfaction much above and beyond actor effects. This work addresses a gap in the literature with respect to the dynamic interplay of partner pairing, allowing scholars to better understand attachment processes in romantic relationships.

Mate evaluation theory.

“…In initial attraction settings, similarity-matching effects of personality, demographic variables, and interests/values on romantic evaluations tend to be quite small (Luo & Zhang, 2009, Montoya et al, 2008Tidwell et al, 2013). In established relationships, similarity-matching on personality traits (e.g., the Big Five) typically explains less than 1% of the variance in relationship quality (Chopik & Lucas, 2019;Dyrenforth et al, 2010;Malouff et al, 2010;Solomon & Jackson, 2014;vanScheppingenetal.,2019), andthis same conclusion applies to demographicvariables,interests,attachment style, and values (Lozano et al, 2021;Luo, 2009;Watson et al, 2004). Relatedly, some studies have also examined whether people evaluate potential partners more positively to the extent that they are similar on traits that are classically related to the concept of mate value (e.g., attractiveness, popularity), but these studies have also documented very small effect sizes Luo & Zhang, 2009;Tidwell et al, 2013;Wurst et al, 2018).…”

Intimacy, attachment to the partner, and daily well-being in romantic relationships

“…4 Hypothesis 2. Drawing from attachment theory (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007) and previous research on attachment in couple relationships (e.g., Lozano et al, 2021), Hypothesis 2A proposed that people with more anxious attachments to their partners would benefit more from intimacy (both dimensions) than less anxious individuals, and conversely, 2B, more avoidant individuals would be unresponsive to daily fluctuations in intimacy. Model 2A tested interactions between intimacy and attachment anxiety, beginning with all of the predictors in Model 1 listed on pp.…”

Untitled

“…Мужчины, чьи партнерши проявляют ненадежную привязанность (тревожную или избегающую), чаще прибегают к продуктивному диадическому копингу, что позволяет справиться с негативными переживаниями и тревогой женщины (Lozano et al, 2021), снизить стресс в отношениях и стабилизировать их. Таким образом, продуктивный диадический копинг, проявляемый партнером, является одним из механизмов развития и поддержания отношений для женщин с ненадежной привязанностью.…”

“…Создаются и проходят адаптацию методы измерения привязанности (Sun et al, 2021), изучается связь стилей привязанности с качеством и динамикой близких отношений (Vicary, Fraley, 2007;Heffernan et al, 2012), проводится коррекция привязанности в отношениях (Hudson et al, 2014). Можно отметить и ряд других аспектов изучения данной темы: исследуется влияние привязанности на переживание ревности (Опекина, Голубева, 2020), изучаются близость в теории привязанности (Казанцева, 2010), сочетание стилей привязанности партнеров, негативных переживаний и удовлетворенности в близких отношениях (Lozano et al, 2021).…”