Content uploaded by Michelle Givertz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michelle Givertz on Feb 08, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Longitudinal Impact of Communication Patterns
on Romantic Attachment and Symptoms of Depression
Michelle Givertz & Scott Safford
Published online: 15 May 2011
#
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract This study investigated how communication patterns, romantic attach-
ment, symptoms of depression, and perceptions of relations hip quality are related
concurrently and prospectively within monogamous dating relationships. Partic-
ipants completed two self-report assessments at six-month intervals. Hierarchical
regression analyses revealed that for males, mutual constructive communication was
associated with decreases in depressive symptoms, whereas demand-withdraw
communica tio n was associ ated with inc rease s in attach ment avoi dance an d
depressive symptoms from T1 to T2. The same variables were not associated with
changes in attachment or depressive symptoms for females. Mixed model ANOVAs
revealed insecure attachment, symptoms of depression, and negative perceptions of
relationship quality were significantly higher for broken up individuals than for
those whose relationships remained intact.
Keywords Communication patterns
.
Romantic attachment
.
Symptoms of depression
.
Perceived relationship quality
Attachment theory (Bowlby 1969, 1973, 1980) postulates the existence of a
complex, evolutionarily-derived, psychological-cognitive system that regulates how
individuals perceive and relate to significant others to maintain a sense of personal
safety. Based on early childhood experiences with primary caregivers, individuals
develop an attachment style that shapes how they interact with others. Some research
suggests that the attachment style developed during childhood is relatively stable
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172
DOI 10.1007/s12144-011-9106-1
M. Givertz (*)
Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, California State University, Chico, 400 W. First
Street, Chico, CA 95929-0502, USA
e-mail: mgivertz@csuchico.edu
S. Safford
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
across the lifespan (Allen and Land 1999; Shaver et al. 1996; Waters et al. 2000 ).
There is also evidence, however, that attachment style can change over time within
relationships (Bowlby 1973; Feeney and Noller 1996; Le Poire et al. 1999).
While the debate over the stability of attachment continues, the intrapsychic and
interpersonal consequences of attachment have been well documented. A wealth of
evidence has demonstrated that insecure attachment is associated with higher rates of
depression (Dozier et al. 1999; Gerlsma et al. 1990; Roberts et al. 1996), and there is
ample research demonstrating that attachment style impacts patterns of communication
and relationship quality (Godbout et al. 2009;Guerreroetal.2009; Heene et al. 2005;
Kane et al. 2007). Most of this research, however, is cross-sectional, making it difficult
not only to infer the direction of causality between variables (Guerrero and Bachman
2006; Hollist and Miller 2005), but also to assess variability in attachment over time.
This study sought to examine how communication patterns, attachment, symptoms of
depression, and perceptions of relationship quality are related both concurrently and
prospectively within monogamous dating relationships. Both attachment and depression
have been found to predispose particular patterns of communication, which likely
reinforces attachment and depression tendencies, impacting cognitions and perceptions
of relationship quality. Examining these variables over time in the context of relatively
new yet exclusive dating relationships provides an opportunity to investigate causal
order and assess the stability of attachment.
Romantic Attachment
Since its introduction, attachment theory has been extended to create a framework
for studying romantic love in adulthood (Hazan and Shaver 1987; Shaver et al.
1988). The attachment system continues to operate throughout one’s life, and for
most adults, one’s romantic partner becomes one’s primary attachment figure (Hazan
and Zeifman 1999). The extension of the theory also resulted in the creation of new
measures to s tudy it (e.g., Hazan and S haver 1987), and efforts to make
methodological and conceptual improvements to the measurement of romantic
attachment have been ongoing (Shaver and Mikulincer 2007). This has led to a
conceptualization of attachment styles as regions in a continuous two-dimensional
(anxiety-by-avoidance) space, which has demonstrated greater accuracy than
categorical representations (Frale y and Waller 1998).
Attachment avoidance reflects the extent to which an individual is uncomfortable
with closeness and depending on others and prefers emotional distance and self-
reliance. Attachment anxiety reflects the extent to which an individual craves
closeness and connection with others, but simultaneously worries about partner
unavailability or not be ing valued by the partner. People who score low on both
dimensions are said to have secure attachment; higher scores on either or both
dimensions reflects insecure attachment.
Relationship experiences with romantic partners who are available, sensitive, and
responsive in times of need are likely to lead to a sense of attachment security (i.e., felt
security; Sroufe and Waters 1977), whereas experiences that suggest partn er
unavailability or a lack of sensitivity and responsiveness are likely to lead to attachment
insecurity. One of the differences between the attachment orientations has to do with
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172 149149
strategies used to ameliorate felt insecurity, and insecure attachment is associated with
the strategies of hyperactivation and deactivation (Cassiday and Kobak 1988).
Similar to the distinction between fight versus flight responses, these strategies
correspond with the two dimensions of insecure attachment; anxious attachment
promotes hyperactivation, or a fight response, and avoidant attachment promotes
deactivation, or a flight response (Shaver and Mikulincer 2007). The implementation
of these strategies comes about as a result of prior relational experiences, that over
time, and through repeated experience lead to the formation of working models of
relationships, or mental representations (i.e., schemas, scri pts) of self and other
during attachment interactions (Shaver and Mikulincer 2006, 2007).
As a result of consistent patterns of interaction with primary caregivers early in
life, individuals develop chronically accessible working models of self and other.
Differences in internal working models lead to relatively stable individual
differences in attachment-system functioning, which shapes the attachment system
in adulthood, and predi sposes the individual to respond to attachment figures in
predictable ways. One’s attachment style then, is reflected in one’s “habitual pattern
of expectations, needs, emotions, and behavior in interpersonal interactions and
close relationships” (Shaver and Mikulincer 2007, p. 657).
Attachment and Depression
The ability to achieve satisfying relationships with attachment figures is critical to
psychological functioning across the lifespan, and numerous studies have demon-
strated an association between insecure attachment and depression (Heene et al.
2005, 2007; Scharfe 2007; Sutin and Gillath 2009). Whether the attachment
insecurity is based in anxiety or avoidance (or both), individuals high on either
dimension tend to experience greater psychological distress and psychopathology
(Sutin and Gillath 2009). Some research posits differential effects for anxiety and
avoidance. Whereas hypersensitivity to emotional cues mediates the relationship
between anxious attachment and depression, detachment and counter-dependence
mediates the relationship between avoidant attachment and depression (Wei et al.
2005).
The causal links between attachment and depression have also been explored, and
the evidence supports both a causal and dynamic view of the attachment-depression
association, such that insecure attachment is both a cause and a consequence of
depression (Scharfe 2007). Ultimately, research on depression and interpersonal
functioning consistently demonstrates an ass ociation between depression and
distressed interpersonal relationships; depressed individuals describe their relation-
ships more negatively than their own relational partners do, and not surprisingly,
report lower levels of relationship quality (Segrin et al. 2003).
Attachment and Communication
Given that communication is the means by whi ch attachments are formed, it is not
surprising that research has demonstrated significant differences between the
150 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172
communication behaviors of securely and insecurely attached individuals. One
difference has to do with emotion regulation and expression (Guerrer o et al. 2009;
Mikulincer and Shaver 2003). For example, the attachment strategies of hyper-
activation and deactivati on are thought to disrupt emotion regulation through
intensification and suppression, respectively, and although they lead to differences in
the expression of emotion, both result in dysfunctional emotional experiences
(Shaver and Mikulincer 2007). Regardless of the differences in strategies, insecure
attachment is associated with ineffective self-disclosure (Bradford et al. 2002;
Mikulincer and Nachson 1991), lower levels of supportive and responsive behavior
(Kane et al. 2007; Kobak and Hazan 1991), lower levels of positive affective
expression (Gu errero 2008; Guerrero et al. 2009; Noller 2006), and ineffective
caregiving (Millings and Walsh 2009).
Of particular importance to relationship adjustment is the ability to manage
conflict effectively, and insecure attachment has been associated with ineffective
conflict resolution strategies (Shaver and Mikulincer 2005; Heene et al. 2005, 2007).
For example, ineffective responses to conflict such as mutual avoidance and
demand-withdraw communication (i.e., one partner attempts to engage the other in a
discussion of an issue by criticizing, complaining, or suggesting change, while the
other partner atte mpts to terminate the discussion or avoid the topic by changing it,
staying silent, or leaving the room; Christensen 1988) are both associated with
relationship distress and dissatisfaction (Noller and Feeney 1998; Caughlin and Scott
2010), whereas mutual expression and negotiation during conflict episodes is
associated with relationship satisfaction and adjustment (Noller and Feeney 1998).
Overall, insecure attachment is associated with lower levels of constructive conflict
communication and higher levels of destructive conflict communication (Heene et al.
2005) as reflected in the attachment strategies of hyperactivation and deactivation.
Hyperactivation reflects an intense, insistent, and energetic response to gain the
partner’s attention, whereas deactivation reflects a distancing strategy geared toward
denying attachment needs and avoiding closeness.
Attachment and Relationship Quality
Numerous studies have examined th e relationship between attachment and
relationship quality, and collectively, they demonstrate that insecure attachment has
a negative impact on perceptions of relationship quality (Mikulincer et al. 2002).
Compared with secure counterparts, insecurely attached individuals have been found
to have more negative interpersonal cognitions (Pietromonaco and Carnelley 1994),
relationship expectations (Mikulince r and Arad 1999) and relationship beliefs
(Whisman and Allan 1996). They have also been found to hold more negative views
toward their romantic partners (Feeney and Noller 1991), to perceive their partners
as less supportive (Collins and Read 1990), and to provide more negative
explanations for a romantic partner’s behavior (Collins 1996). Overall, individuals
with insecure attachment report more negative relationship experiences in the areas
of relationship satisfaction, intimacy, commitment, and trust (Feeney 1999; Hazan
and Shaver 1994).
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172 151151
The Present Study
Because communicatio n patterns are thought to reinforce attachment and depression
tendencies, we predicted that destructive communication patterns would be
associated with increases in insecure attachment and depression over time, whereas
constructive communication patterns would be associated with decreases over time.
Likewise, we predicted that negative perceptions of relationship quality would be
associated with increases in insecure attachment and depression over time. We also
predicted that the corrosive effects of insecure attachment, symptoms of depression,
destructive communication practices, and perceptions of low relationship quality
would be associated with relationship termination over the course of the study.
Method
Participants
Dating couples were solicited to participate in the study through classroom
recruitment or by referral from students attending one of two mid-sized universities
located in the West and Northwest regions of the United States. Couples were invited
to participate if they had been in an exclusive dating relationship for at least three
months, but no more than two years. Students were offered extra credit toward their
course grade if they wanted to participate in the study with their dating partner, or if
they recruited a dating couple from their social network to participate.
Participants were invited to complete a web-survey, and were also asked to
provide contact information via email so that they could be contacted to participate
in a six-month follow-up assessment. A total of 248 subjects (136 females, 112
males) completed the web-survey, generating a sample of 112 couples eligible for
participation in the six-month follow-up. Data for the remaining 24 indi viduals was
excluded because only one member of the couple completed the web-survey. Based
on the date of completion of the web-survey, participants were contacted via email
six months later and invited to complete the same web-survey again. Participants
who completed the second assessment received a $10 Starbucks gift card as
compensation.
A total of 171 subjects (99 females, 72 males) completed the web-survey six
months after their initial participation, reflecting a response rate of 76%. Data for 33
(27 females, 6 males) individuals was discarded due to the fact that only one
member of the couple completed the second assessment. Data was also discarded for
one couple who responded differently to the question of whether or not the
relationship was ongoing, as well as for 5 same sex couples (8 females, 2 males),
whose numbers were too small to be able to analyze in a meaningful way. The final
sample included 63 heterosexual couples, 47 of which were still dating, and 16 of
which had broken up at some point between their initial participation and the six-
month follow up assessment.
At the time of the first assessment, participants ranged in age from 18 to 35 years,
with an average of 21.95 (SD=3.01) for males and 21.00 (SD=2.41) for females.
152 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172
The average length of relationship for couples at Time 1 was 11.22 months (SD=
6.64). Sixteen couples reported breaking up between Time 1 and 2, and the average
number of months since break up was 3.75 months (SD=1.48). Of the broken up
individuals, 3 males and 7 females reported that they were dating someone else, the
average duration of which was 1.50 months (SD=1.29) for males and 2.25 months
(SD=1.28) for females. Collectively, this sample was 69% White, 9.5% Hispanic,
15% Asian, 1% Native American, and 1% African American. The remaining 5%
reported their race/ethnicity as other.
Procedure
Once dating couples had been identifie d for participation in the study, they were
contacted via email individually, provided a unique user name and password, and a
link to the web-survey. When participants accessed the web-survey, they were
presented with a consent form and instructions on how to complete the survey.
Participants were instructed to complete the web-survey independently from their
partner. Six months after their initial participation, participants were contacted
individually via email and invited to complete the web-survey again. Once again
they were provided with the unique name and password they recei ved at the time of
initial participation, and were instructed to respond based on the relationship they
reported on in the first assessment, regardless of whether or not that relationship was
ongoing. Responses were identifiable only by code numbers for the purpose of
awarding extra credit at Time 1 and monetary compensation at Time 2. This process
yielded data for 63 couples, 16 of which were no longer dating at the time of the
second assessment.
Measures
Romantic Attachment was assessed using the Revised Experiences in Close
Relationships (ECR-R) Questionnaire. The ECR-R (Fraley et al. 2000) assesses
attachment style in relation to one’s romantic partner. It is a 36-item measure
composed of two subscales, anxiety and avoidance. Sample items include “I often
worry that my partner will not want to stay with me,”“I find it difficult to depend on
romantic partners,” and “I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners.”
Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed with the statements
using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = disagree strongly, 4 = neutr al, 7 = agree strongly).
The reliabil ity for this scale for males was α=.93 at T1 and α=.94 at T2; for
females, the reliability was α=.94 at T1 and T2.
Symptoms of Depression was assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI;
Beck et al. 1979), a 21-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure the affective,
cognitive, motivational, and physiological features of depression. Respondents are
asked to indicate the extent to which they have experienced particular symptoms of
depression over the past two weeks. The reliability for this scale for males was α=.84
at T1 and α=.83 at T2; for females, the reliability was α=.71 at T1 and α=.89 at T2.
Communication Patterns was asses sed using the Communication Patterns
Questionnaire (CPQ; Christensen and Sullaway 1984), a 35-item self-report measure
that assesses partners’ perceptions of dyadic communication patterns during three
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172 153153
stages of conflict: (1) when some problem in the relationship arises, (2) during an
argument or discussion of some relationship problem, and (3) after an argument or
discussion of some relationship problem. It is composed of three primary subscales:
Mutual Constructive Communication, Demand-Withdraw Communication, and
Mutual Avoidance and Withholding. Sample items of the respective scales include,
“When some problem in the relationship arises, both members try to discuss the
problem”; “During a discussion of a relationship problem, man/woman nags and
demands while woman/man withdraws, becomes silent, or refuses to discuss matter
further”, and “After a discussion of a relationship problem, neither party is giving to
each other after the discussion”. The subscales are comprised of seven, six, and three
items, respectively. The reli ability for the mutual constructive communication
subscale for males was α=.74 at T1 and α=.83 at T2; for females, the reliability was
α=.79 at T1 and α=.83 at T2. For the demand-withdraw communication subscale,
the reliability for males was α=.80 at T1 and α=.79 at T2; for females, the
reliability was α=.74 at T1 and T2. For the mutual avoidance and withholding
subscale, the reliability for males was α=.71 at T1 and α=.52 at T2; for females, the
reliability was α=.65 at T1 and α=.72 at T2. Although measurement error was high
on the mutual avoidance and withholding subscale for males at T2, it was retained to
preserve the longitudinal analysis.
Perceptions of Relationship Quality was assessed using the Perceived Relation-
ship Quality Components Inventory (PRQC; Fletcher et al. 2000), an 18-item self-
report measure of partners’ perceived relationship quality. It is comprised of 6
subscales reflecting the relationship quality components of relationship satisfaction,
commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, and love. Sample items include, “ How
satisfied are you with your relationship?”“How connected are you to your partner?”
and “How much to you trust your partner?” The reliability for this scale was α=.92
at T1 and α=.97 at T2 for both males and females.
Results and Discussion
This study investigated the concurrent and prospective associations between commu-
nication patterns, romantic attachment, symptoms of depression, and perceptions of
relationship quality within monogamous dating relationships. Although one’sattach-
ment style is thought to be relatively stable across the lifespan, there is also evidence
suggesting that attachment style can change over time within relationships. Hypothesis 1
received partial support; for males, mutual constructive communication was associated
with decreases in depressive symptoms from T1 to T2, whereas demand-withdraw
communication was associated with increases in both attachment avoidance and
symptoms of depression from T1 to T2. These same variables, however, were not
associated with changes in attachment or symptoms of depression for females.
In partial support of Hypothesis 2, insecure attachment and symptoms of
depression were associated with relationship termination, as were negative
perceptions of relationship quality. Overall, these results are consistent with previous
research, suggesting that communication reinforces attachment style, and as such,
communication acts as both a cause and a consequence of attachment (Guerrero
2008). The results also suggest a certain amount of variability in attachment,
154 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172
supporting the notion that attachment style can change over time in relationships
(Bowlby 1973). Finally, the results suggest that insecurely attached individuals are
less likely to maintain long lasting, satisfying romantic relationships than are
securely attached individuals (Mikulincer et al. 2002; Morgan and Shaver 1999).
Prior to testing the study’s predictions, correlations were calculated between all of
the variables. The results for males and females at Time 1 are presented in Table 1,
and the results for males and females at Time 2 are presented in Table 2. Means and
standard deviations for the 7 variables are also provided.
Predicting Change in Attachment and Depression
Hypothesis 1 examined how destructive communication patterns and negative
perceptions of relationship quality impact depression and insecure attachment over
time. Specifically, demand-withdraw communication and mutual avoidance and
withholding at Time 1 were predicted to be associated with increased levels of
anxiety, avoidance, and depression at Time 2. Likewise, mutual constructive
communication and positive perceptions of relationship quality at Time 1 were
predicted to be associated with dec reased levels of anxiety, avoidance, and
depression at time 2.
Hierarchical regression analyses were used to test the degree to which Time 1
communication patterns (i.e., mutual constructive communication, demand-withdraw
communication, and mutual avoidance and withholding) and perceptions of
relationship quality predicted change in anxiety, avoidance, and symptoms of
depression at Time 2. In the first step of each analysis, the attachment (i.e., anxiety
and avoidance) or depression variable at Time 1 was entered as a predictor of the
same variable at Time 2. In the second step, the communication pattern variables and
the perception of relationship quality variable were entered and tested for the extent
to which they contributed unique predictive power to the model. A significant effect
for the communication pattern variables and/or the perception of relationship quality
variable would indicate that it was significantly associated with change in the
attachment and/or depression variables. Due to the interdependence of relational
partners’ responses, these analyses were conducted separately for males and females.
Results of these analyses appear in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.
As indicated in Table 3, results suggest that for males, mutual constructive
communication (β=−.48, p<.01) and demand-withdraw communication (β=.40,
p<.01) at Time 1 were associated with change in depression at Time 2 (ΔR
2
=.14,
ΔF (4, 57)=3.41, p<.01). Additionally, demand-withdraw communication (β=.46,
p<.01) at Time 1 w as associated with change in avoidance at Time 2 (ΔR
2
=.11,
ΔF (4, 57)=2.64, p<.05). Although the communication pattern variables and
perceived relationship quality at Time 1 were not collectively associated with change in
anxiety at Time 2 (ΔR
2
=.08, ΔF(4, 57)=1.36, ns), demand-withdraw communication
(β=.36, p<.05) at Time 1 emerged as a significant predictor of anxiety at Time 2 for
males. As indicated in Table 4, results suggest that for females, neither the
communication pattern variables nor perceived relationship quality at Time 1 was
associated with change in depression (ΔR
2
=.07, ΔF(4, 57)=1.41, ns), anxiety
(ΔR
2
=.03, ΔF(4, 57)=.73, ns), or avoidance (ΔR
2
=.01, ΔF(4, 57)=.27, ns) at Time
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172 155155
Table 1 Time 1 intercorrelations between study variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Females Males
M (SD) M (SD)
1. Depression – .43** .34** −.31* .32* .36** −.32* 5.67 (4.10) 4.83 (4.85)
2. Anxious attachment .45** – .58** −.25* .31* .48** −.20 2.52 (0.91) 2.70 (1.02)
3. Avoidant attachment .25* .56** – −.14 .17 .46** −.48** 2.24 (0.88) 2.31 (0.75)
4. Mutual constructive communication −.25 −.60** −.63** – −.74** −.66** .49** 13.68 (7.89) 11.78 (7.95)
5. Demand-withdraw communication .21 .47** .41** −.64** – .61** −.38** 20.75 (9.50) 22.32 (10.09)
6. Mutual avoidance and withholding .14 .57** .50** −.72** .63** – −.46** 7.25 (4.30) 8.46 (4.34)
7. Perceived relationship quality −.15 −.29* −.47** .56** −.22 −.38** – 6.29 (0.70) 6.01 (0.76)
Correlations for females appear in upper portion of the matrix and correlations for males appear in the lower portion
*p<.05; **p<.01
156 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172
Table 2 Time 2 intercorrelations between study variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Females Males
M (SD) M (SD)
1. Depression – .57** .44** −.40** .24 .38** −.33** 5.60 (5.82) 5.14 (4.80)
2. Anxious attachment .47** – .48** −.54** .42** .48** −.39** 2.44 (1.08) 2.60 (1.08)
3. Avoidant attachment .23 .57** – −.43** .44** .55** −.53** 2.12 (0.88) 2.46 (0.94)
4. Mutual constructive communication −.40** −.64** −.62** – −.66** −.70** .57** 14.87 (7.85) 10.76 (8.79)
5. Demand-withdraw communication .38** .55** .51** −.74** – .58** −.40** 18.56 (9.08) 21.50 (10.53)
6. Mutual avoidance and withholding quality .40** .46** .53** −.68** .68** – −.53** 7.02 (4.09) 10.05 (4.41)
7. Perceived relationship −.31* −.62* −.59** .46** −.30** −.33** – 5.99 (1.08) 5.60 (1.35)
Correlations for females appear in upper portion of the matrix and correlations for males appear in the lower portion
*p<.05; **p<.01
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172 157157
2. That said, mutual avoidance and withholding (β=.35, p<.05) at Time 1 emerged as
a significant predictor of depression for females at Time 2.
In his original writings, Bowlby (1973) theorized that one’s working models of
attachment figures could be modified as a result of attachment interactions. The results
of this study demonstrated a change in both symptoms of depression and attachment
avoidance for males from T1 to T2, and the change was predicted by specific
communication patterns. With regard to demand-withdraw communication, previous
research has consistently demonstrated sex- dif ferences, with females being more like ly
to demand and males being more likely to withdraw (Klinetob and Smith 1996), and
these sex dif ferences have been found to be especially likely in distressed relationships
Table 3 Hierarchical regression analyses for predicting males’ depression, anxiety, and avoidance at Time
2 from communication patterns and perceived relationship quality at Time 1
Variable BSEBβ ΔR
2
ΔF
T2 depression
Step 1 .26 20.94***
T1 depression .50 .11 .51***
Step 2 .14 3.41**
T1 depression .49 .11 .49***
T1 MCC .29 .11 −.48**
T1 D-WC .19 .07 .40**
T1 MA&W .25 .17 .22
T1 PRQ −.67 .80 −.11
T2 anxiety
Step 1 .13 9.30**
T1 anxiety .38 .13 .36**
Step 2 .08 1.36
T1 anxiety .29 .16 .28
T1 MCC .02 .03 .16
T1 D-WC .04 .02 .36*
T1 MA&W .002 .05 .007
T1 PRQ −.05 .21 −.03
T2 avoidance
Step 1 .31 26.79***
T1 avoidance .69 .13 .55***
Step 2 .11 2.64*
T1 avoidance .70 .17 .56***
T1 MCC .04 .02 .33
T1 D-WC .04 .01 .46**
T1 MA&W −.02 .03 −.08
T1 PRQ −.14 .16 −.12
T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; MCC = Mutual Constructive Communication; D-WC = Demand-Withdraw
Communication; MA&W = Mutual Avoidance and Withdrawal; PRQ = Perceived Relationship Quality
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
158 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172
(Caughlin and Vangelisti 1999; Eldridge et al. 2007). Bearing that in mind, it is possible
that these results support those of Wei et al. (2005), who found that detachment (i.e.,
withdrawal) mediates the relationship between avoidant attachment and depression. These
data also fit with Scharfe’s(2007) dynamic and causal proposition about the nature of the
attachment-depression relationship, which suggests that whereas attachment anxiety is a
cause of depression, depression is a consequence of attachment avoidance.
The communication pattern variables were not as effective at predicting change in
attachment and symptoms of depression for females. Ultimately, the pattern of
association between variables is rather similar for males and females. The difference
seems to be that overall, the communication pattern variables, and especially the demand-
Table 4 Hierarchical regression analyses for predicting females’ depression, anxiety, and avoidance at
Time 2 from communication patterns and perceived relationship quality at Time 1
Variable BSEBβ ΔR
2
ΔF
T2 depression
Step 1 .22 17.16***
T1 depression .67 .16 .47***
Step 2 .07 1.41
T1 depression .57 .17 .40**
T1 MCC −.01 .14 −.01
T1 D-WC −.10 .11 −.16
T1 MA&W .47 .22 .35*
T1 PRQ .37 1.1 .04
T2 anxiety
Step 1 .50 60.77***
T1 anxiety .84 .11 .71***
Step 2 .03 .73
T1 anxiety .78 .13 .65***
T1 MCC −.02 .02 −.13
T1 D-WC −.01 .02 −.07
T1 MA&W .03 .04 .13
T1 PRQ .16 .17 .10
T2 avoidance
Step 1 .39 39.17***
T1 avoidance .63 .10 .63***
Step 2 .01 .27
T1 avoidance .64 .13 .63***
T1 MCC −.01 .02 −.13
T1 D-WC .00 .02 −.01
T1 MA&W .00 .03 .00
T1 PRQ .06 .17 .04
T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; MCC = Mutual Constructive Communication; D-WC = Demand-Withdraw
Communication; MA&W = Mutual Avoidance and Withdrawal; PRQ = Perceived Relationship Quality
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172 159159
withdraw pattern, were more effective at predicting change in attachment and depressive
symptoms for males than they were for females.
These results partially support Bowlby’s original theor izing; for males, the data
suggest that one’s working models of attachment figures can be modified as a result
of attachment interactions. Changes in working models manifest in movement along
the attachment dimensions of anxiety and avoidance, and for males, the results of
this study demon strate changes in attachment insecurity as a result of specific
communication patterns. This supports the notion that attachment style can change
(for better or worse) over time within relationships, which suggests that attachment
styles may not be as stable over time as has been suggested, but may be more
accurately characterized as having some level of variability.
Effects of Relationship Status
Hypothesis 2 predicted that levels of depression, anxie ty, avoidance, mutual
constructive communication, demand-withdraw communication, mutual avoidance
and withholding, and perceptions of relationship quality would differ as a function of
relationship status. To evaluate this hypothesis, a series of 2*2*2 mixed model
ANOVAs that treated the dyad as the unit of analysis were conducted, treating both
participant sex and time (i.e., Time 1 and 2 assessments) as within dyad factors, and
treating relationship status (i.e., intact or broken up) as the between dyads factor.
Insecure attachment, depression, communi cation patterns, and perceptions of
relationship quality were treat ed as the dependent variables in these analyses.
Results of these analyses appear in Tables 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9, 10 and 11. Paired t-tests were
conducted as a follow up to the mixed model ANOVAs to assess which means
differed from each other. Results of these analyses appear in Tables 12 and 13.
W ith regard to depression, as shown in Table 5, the main ef fect of relationship status
was significant F(1, 61)=6.91, p<.01, η
2
=.10, indicating that depression scores were
significantly higher for broken up individuals than for those whose relationship
remained intact. Table 6 displays the results for anxiety, and the main effect for
relationship status was significant F(1, 61)=12.51, p<.001, η
2
=.17, indicating that
anxiety scores were also significantly higher for broken up individuals. The interaction
between time and relationship status was also significant F(1, 61)=9.68, p<.01, η
2
=.14.
AsshowninTable12, females whose relationships remained intact demonstrated a
significant decrease in anxiety from T1 to T2, t (46)=2.60, p<.01.
In terms of avoidance, as shown in Table 7, the main effect of relationship status was
significant F(1, 61)=5.56, p<.05, η
2
=.08; avoidance scores were significantly higher
for broken up individuals. The interaction between time and relationship status was also
significant F(1, 61)=10.26, p<.01, η
2
=.14. As shown in Tables 12 and 13, females
whose relationships remained intact demonstrated a significant decrease in avoidance
fromT1toT2,t (46)=3.31, p<.01, whereas males whose relationships broke up
demonstrated a significant increase in avoidance from T1 to T2, t (15)=−2.19, p<.05.
The results for mutual constructive communication, demand-withdraw commu-
nication, and mutual avoidance and withholding are presented in Tables 8, 9, and 10,
respectively. With regard to each of the communication pattern variables, there were
no significant main effects for relationship status.
160 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172
Table 5 Means and standard deviations for depression by time, sex, and relationship status at time 2
Relationship status Significance Effect size (η
2
)
Intact Broken-up
Male Female Male Female
Variable Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
Depression 4.17 (4.00) 4.55 (4.74) 5.40 (3.80) 4.64 (4.57) 6.75 (6.54) 6.88 (4.69) 6.43 (4.91) 8.44 (8.05)
Relationship status F(1, 61)=6.91** .102
Sex F(1, 61)=.724ns .012
Time F(1, 61)=.541ns .009
Sex * Relationship status F(1, 61)=.001ns .000
Time * Relationship status F(1, 61)=1.12ns .018
Sex * Time F(1, 61)=.183ns .003
Sex * Time * Relationship status F(1, 61)=3.17ns .049
*p<.05; **p<.01
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172 161161
Table 6 Means and standard deviations for anxiety by time, sex, and relationship status at time 2
Relationship status Significance Effect size (η
2
)
Intact Broken-up
Male Female Male Female
Variable Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
Anxiety 2.58 (0.99) 2.32 (0.92) 2.46 (0.86) 2.22 (0.96) 3.02 (1.06) 3.45 (1.07) 2.70 (1.03) 3.07 (1.19)
Relationship status F(1, 61)=12.51*** .170
Sex F(1, 61)=2.09ns .033
Time F(1, 61)=.504ns .008
Sex * Relationship status F(1, 61)=.620ns .010
Time * Relationship status F(1, 61)=9.68** .137
Sex * Time F(1, 61)=.008ns .000
Sex * Time * Relationship status F(1, 61)=.046ns .001
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
162 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172
Table 7 Means and standard deviations for avoidance by time, sex, and relationship status at time 2
Relationship status Significance Effect size (η
2
)
Intact Broken-up
Male Female Male Female
Variable Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
Avoidance 2.22 (0.76) 2.26 (0.88) 2.25 (0.95) 1.97 (0.78) 2.57 (0.68) 3.04 (0.90) 2.20 (0.62) 2.55 (1.04)
Relationship status F(1, 61)=5.56* .083
Sex F(1, 61)=4.59* .070
Time F(1, 61)=2.97ns .046
Sex * Relationship status F(1, 61)=1.32ns .021
Time * Relationship status F(1, 61)=10.26** .144
Sex * Time F(1, 61)=2.25ns .036
Sex * Time * Relationship status F(1, 61)=.494ns .008
*p<.05; **p<.01
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172 163163
Table 8 Means and standard deviations for mutual constructive communication by time, sex, and relationship status at time 2
Relationship status Significance Effect
size (η
2
)
Intact Broken-up
Male Female Male Female
Variable Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
Mutual constructive communication 12.13 (7.65) 11.62 (8.57) 14.87 (7.55) 16.23 (6.65) 10.20 (8.97) 8.07 (9.24) 9.40 (7.67) 10.07 (9.59)
Relationship status F(1, 60)=6.85ns .102
Sex F(1, 60)=3.06ns .049
Time F(1, 60)=.027ns .000
Sex * Relationship status F(1, 60)=1.59ns .026
Time * Relationship status F(1, 60)=.380ns .006
Sex * Time F(1, 60)=2.71ns .043
Sex * Time * Relationship status F(1, 60)=.107ns .002
164 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172
Table 9 Means and standard deviations for demand-withdraw communication by time, sex, and relationship status at time 2
Relationship status Significance Effect
size (η
2
)
Intact Broken-up
Male Female Male Female
Variable Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
Demand-withdraw communication 21.79 (10.03) 21.30 (10.83) 19.85 (9.24) 17.60 (9.03) 24.60 (10.38) 22.13 (9.84) 24.40 (9.53) 21.33 (9.25)
Relationship status F(1, 60)=2.16ns .035
Sex F(1, 60)=.977ns .016
Time F(1, 60)=4.81* .074
Sex * Relationship status F(1, 60)=.477ns .008
Time * Relationship status F(1, 60)=.456ns .009
Sex * Time F(1, 60)=.580ns .010
Sex * Time * Relationship status F(1, 60)=.141ns .002
*p<.05
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172 165165
Table 10 Means and standard deviations for mutual avoidance and withholding by time, sex, and relationship status at time 2
Relationship status Significance Effect size (η
2
)
Intact Broken-up
Male Female Male Female
Variable Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
Mutual avoidance & withholding 8.15 (4.43) 9.80 (4.89) 6.89 (4.17) 6.72 (4.03) 9.67 (4.03) 10.80 (2.31) 8.67 (4.58) 8.13 (4.27)
Relationship status F(1, 60)=2.51ns .040
Sex F(1, 60)=8.51** .124
Time F(1, 60)=1.25ns .020
Sex * Relationship status F(1, 60)=.060ns .001
Time * Relationship status F(1, 60)=.226ns .004
Sex * Time F(1, 60)=6.61** .099
Sex * Time * Relationship status F(1, 60)=.014ns .000
*p<.05; **p<.01
166 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172
Table 11 Means and standard deviations for perceived relationship quality by time, sex, and relationship status at time 2
Relationship status Significance Effect
Intact Broken-up
Male Female Male Female
Variable Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
Perceived Relationship quality 6.15 (0.77) 6.07 (0.83) 6.36 (0.67) 6.24 (0.69) 5.92 (0.73) 4.02 (1.58) 6.01 (0.80) 5.37 (1.40)
Relationship status F(1, 59)=25.03*** .298
Sex F(1, 59)=13.74*** .189
Time F(1, 59)=40.35*** .406
Sex * Relationship status F(1, 59)=4.69* .074
Time * Relationship status F(1, 59)=29.80*** .336
Sex * Time F(1, 59)=7.93** .119
Sex * Time * Relationship status F(1, 59)=9.19** .135
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172 167167
As demonstrated in Table 11, with regard to perceived relationship quality, there
were significant main effects for relationship status F(1, 59)=25.03, p<.001, η
2
=.30,
such that perceptions of relationship quality scores were significantly lower for broken
Table 12 Paired t-tests of study variables from time 1 to time 2 for intact couples by sex
Variables Sex Mean difference
a
Degrees of freedom Paired t
Depression M −.383 (4.16) 46 −.631ns
F .766 (3.67) 46 1.43ns
Anxiety M .262 (1.10) 46 1.64ns
F .239 (0.63) 46 2.60**
Avoidance M −.342 (0.78) 46 −.300ns
F 0.28 (0.58) 46 3.31**
Mutual constructive communication M .511 (7.77) 46 .451ns
F −1.36 (5.44) 46 −1.72ns
Demand-withdraw communication M .489 (6.90) 46 .486ns
F 2.26 (7.61) 46 2.03*
Mutual avoidance and withholding M −1.66 (3.36) 46 −3.38***
F .170 (3.31) 46 .352ns
Perceived relationship quality M .073 (0.82) 46 .615ns
F .119 (0.40) 46 2.06*
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
a
Mean difference refers to the difference between Time 1 and Time 2 scores on each of the variables
Table 13 Paired t-tests of study variables from time 1 to time 2 for broken up couples by sex
Variables Sex Mean difference
a
Degrees of freedom Paired t
Depression M −.125 (6.48) 15 −.077ns
F −2.00 (8.36) 15 −.957ns
Anxiety M −.427 (1.31) 15 −1.31ns
F −.370 (1.00) 15 −1.49ns
Avoidance M −.467 (0.85) 15 −2.19*
F −.353 (1.02) 15 −1.39ns
Mutual constructive communication M 2.13 (9.86) 14 .838ns
F −.688 (11.77) 15 −.234ns
Demand-withdraw communication M 2.47 (9.57) 14 .998ns
F 2.00 (12.34) 15 .648ns
Mutual avoidance and withholding M −1.13 (3.36) 14 −.873ns
F .438 (5.45) 15 .321ns
Perceived relationship quality M 1.90 (1.77) 13 4.01***
F .826 (1.88) 15 1.76ns
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
a
Mean difference refers to the difference between time 1 and time 2 scores on each of the variables
168 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172
up individuals than for those whose relationships remained intact. There was also a
significant interaction between sex and relationship status F (1, 59)=4.69, p<.05,
η
2
=.07. As indicated in Tables 12 and 13, females whose relationships remained
intact demonstrated a significant decrease in perceptions of relationship quality from T1 to
T2, t (46)=2.06, p<.05, as did males whose relationships broke up t (15)=4.01, p<.001.
Overall, individuals whose relat ionships came to an end between T1 and T2
demonstrated higher levels of attachment anxiety and avoidance and symptoms of
depression, and lower levels of perceived relationship quality. These analyses also
revealed that for females whose relationships remained intact, there was a significant
decrease in both attachment anxiety and avoidance between T1 and T2. This pattern
of “earned-security” (Roisman et al. 2006) has been documented in other studies and
suggests that through positive relational experiences (i.e., constructive communica-
tion practices), individuals can revise working models and rise above negative
attachment histories. Contrary to the finding of eared-security for females whose
relationships remained intact ove r the course of the study, for males whos e
relationships broke-up, there was a significant increase in attachment avoidance
from T1 to T2. Together, these findings support the argument that attachment styles
can change over time within relationships, whic h in turn suggests a more variable
conceptualization of attachment styles.
Limitations and Future Directions
There are several limitations to this study that must be considered when interpreting
the results. First, the couples that participated in this study did not constitute a
random sample. Participan ts were either university students or were recruited by a
university student. This sample is likely skewed toward a middle or upper
socioeconomic status.
Use of a nonrandom sample also increases the likelihood of selection bias. It is
likely that the most insecurely attached and depressed individuals in the population
were underrepresented in this sample, either due to not being recruited or declining
to participate. On that same note, it is important to remember that although
symptoms of depression were assessed in this study, the sample was nonclinical, and
as such, results are best inte rpreted as increases in depressive symptoms, not as
clinical depression.
Another limitation lies in the measurement that classified the communication
pattern of mutual avoidance and withholding. This subscale had an internal
consistency of α=.65 at T1 for females and α=.52 at T2 for males. This level of
measurement error could impact accurate interpretation of results.
Conclusion
The results of this study support the notion that communication reinforces attachment
style and that communication acts as both a cause and a consequence of attachment
(Guerrero 2008). In this study, the demand-withdraw communication pattern was
particularly effective at predicting change over time in attachment and symptoms of
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172 169169
depression for males. An examination of which couples broke up over the course of
the study revealed that insecure attachment and symptoms of depression, along with
negative perceptions of relationship quality, differentiated those individuals whose
relationships terminated over the course of the study from those whose did not. This is
consistent with previous research, suggesting that insecurely attached individuals
experience less satisfaction and stability in their romantic relationships than do
securely attached individuals (Mikulincer et al. 2002).
Finally, there was evidence of a pattern of earned- security over the course of the
study. Females whose relationships remained intact demonstrated significant
decreases in both attachment avoidance and anxiety between assessment intervals.
Collectively, these results suggest that although attachment style may predispose
particular patterns of communication, these behaviors are not set in stone. One’s
attachment style may be fairly stable over the lifespan, however, these results
suggest that attachment style can change over time within relationships.
References
Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in Adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 319–335). New York:
Guilford.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York:
Guilford.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss, Vol. 3: Sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books.
Bradford, S. A., Feeney, J. A., & Campbell, L. (2002). Links between attachment orientations and
dispositional and diary-based measures of disclosure in dating couples; A study of actor and partner
effects. Personal Relationships, 9, 491–506.
Cassiday, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its relationship with other defensive processes. In J.
Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 300–323). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Caughlin, J. P., & Scott, A. M. (2010). Toward a communication theory of the demand/withdraw pattern
of interaction in interpersonal relationships. In S. W. Smith & S. R. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in
interpersonal communication research (pp. 180–200). Los Angeles: Sage.
Caughlin, J. P., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1999). Desire for change in one’s partner as a predictor of the demand/
withdraw pattern of communication. Communication Monographs, 66,66–89.
Christensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick
(Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 31–52). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Christensen, A., & Sullaway, M. (1984). Communication Patterns Questionnaire. Unpublished
manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.
Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810–832.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating
couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644–663.
Dozier, M., Stovall, K. C., & Albus, K. E. (1999). Attachment and psychopathology in adulthood. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications
(pp. 497–519). New York: Guilford.
Eldridge, K. A., Sevier, M., Jones, J., Atkins, D. C., & Christensen, A. (2007). Demand-withdraw
communication is severely distressed, moderately distressed, and nondistressed couples: rigidity and
polarity during relationship and personal problem discussions. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2),
218–226.
Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult romantic attachment and couple relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 355–377). New
York: Guilford.
170 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1991). Attachment style and verbal descriptions of romantic partners. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 187–215.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship
quality components: a confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 340–354.
Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological model. In J. A.
Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77–114). New York:
Guillford.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-reports
measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365.
Gerlsma, C., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., & Arrindell, W. A. (1990). Anxiety, depression, and perception of
early parenting: a meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 251–277.
Godbout, N., Dutton, D. G., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S. (2009). Early exposure to violence, domestic
violence, attachment representations, and marital adjustment. Personal Relationships, 16(3), 365–384.
Guerrero, L. K. (2008). Attachment theory: A communication perspective. In L. A. Baxter & D. O.
Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp.
295–307). Los Angeles: Sage.
Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. F. (2006). Associations among relational maintenance behaviors,
attachment-style categories, and attachment dimensions. Communication Studies, 57, 341–361.
Guerrero, L. K., Farinelli, L., & McEwan, B. (2009). Attachment and relational satisfaction: the mediating
effect of emotional communication. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 487–514.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52,511–524.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment theory as an organizational framework for research on
close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5,1–22.
Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1999). Pairbonds as attachments: Evaluating the evidence. In J. Cassidy & P.
R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 336–354).
New York: Guilford.
Heene, E. L. D., Buysse, A., & Van Oost, P. (2005). Indirect pathways between depressive symptoms and
marital distress: the role of conflict communication, attributions, and attachment style. Family
Process, 44, 413–440.
Heene, E. L. D., Buysse, A., & Van Oost, P. (2007). An interpersonal perspective on depression: the role
of marital adjustment, conflict communication, attributions, and attachment within a clinical sample.
Family Process, 46(4), 499–514.
Hollist, C. S., & Miller, R. B. (2005). Perceptions of attachment style and marital quality in midlife
marriage. Family Relations, 54,46–57.
Kane, H. S., Jaremka, L. M., Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2007). Feeling
supported and feeling satisfied: how one partner’s attachment style predicts the other partner
’s
relationship experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 535–555.
Klinetob, N. A., & Smith, D. A. (1996). Demand-withdraw communication in marital interaction: tests of
inter-spousal contingency and gender role hypotheses. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 945–958.
Kobak, R. R., & Hazan, C. (1991). Attachment in marriage: effects of security and accuracy of working
models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 861–869.
Le Poire, B. A., Shepard, C., & Duggan, A. (1999). Nonverbal involvement, expressiveness, and
pleasantness as predicted by parental and partner attachment style. Communication Monographs, 66,
293–311.
Mikulincer, M., & Arad, D. (1999). Attachment working models and cognitive openness in close
relationships: a test of chronic and temporary accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 710–725.
Mikulincer, M., & Nachson, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 321–331.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation,
psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53–152). New York: Academic.
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2002). Attachment security in couple relationships:
a systematic model and its implications for family dynamics. Family Process, 41,405–434.
Millings, A., & Walsh, J. (2009). A dyadic exploration of attachment and caregiving in long-term couples.
Personal Relationships, 16(3), 437–453.
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172 171171
Morgan, H. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Attachment processes and commitment to romantic relationships.
In J. M. Adams & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship
stability 9 (pp. 109–124). New York: Plenum.
Noller, P. (2006). Nonverbal communication in close relationships. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson
(Eds.), The sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 403–420). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Noller, P., & Feeney, J. A. (1998). Communication in early marriage: Responses to conflict, nonverbal
accuracy, and conversational patterns. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.), The developmental course of marital
dysfunction (pp. 11–43). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pietro monaco, P., & Carnelley, K. (1994). Gender and internal working models of attachment:
consequences for perceptions of self and romantic partners. Personal Relationships, 1,63–82.
Roberts, J. E., Gotlib, I. H., & Kassel, J. D. (1996). Adult attachment security and symptoms of
depression: the mediating roles of dysfunctional attitudes and low self-esteem. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 310–320.
Roisman, G. I., Fortuna, K., & Holland, A. (2006). An experimental manipulation of retrospectively
defined earned and continuous attachment security. Child Development, 77(1), 59–71.
Scharfe, E. (2007). Cause or consequence? Exploring causal links between attachment and depression.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(9), 1048–1064.
Segrin, C., Powell, H. L., Givertz, M., & Brackin, A. (2003). Symptoms of depression, relational quality,
and loneliness in dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 10,25–36.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment and Human
Development, 4, 133–161.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2006). Attachment theory, individual psychodynamics, and relationship
functioning. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal
relationships (pp. 251–271). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). Attachment theory and research: Core concepts, basic principles,
conceptual bridges. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of
basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 650–677). New York: Guilford.
Shaver, P. R., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment: the integration of three behavioral
systems. In R. J. Sternberg & M. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 68–99). New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Shaver, P. R., Collins, N., & Clark, C. L. (1996). Attachment styles and internal working models of self
and relationship partners. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close
relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 25–61). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 48,
1184–1199.
Sutin, A. R., & Gillath, O. (2009). Autobiographical memory phenomenology and content mediate
attachment style and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(3), 351–364.
Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy
and early adulthood: a twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71, 684–
689.
Wei, M., Vogel, D. L., Ku, T. Y., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attachment, affect regulation, negative
mood, and interpersonal problems: the mediating roles of emotional reactivity and emotional cutoff.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52,14–24.
Whisman, M. A., & Allan, L. E. (1996). Attachment and social cognition theories of romantic
relationships: convergent or complementary perspectives? Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 13, 263–278.
172 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:148–172
Copyright of Current Psychology is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
