Daily Perceptions of Conflict and Support in Romantic Relationships: The Ups and Downs of Anxiously Attached Individuals

Daily Perceptions of Conflict and Support in Romantic Relationships T h e U p s a n d D o w n s o f A n x io u s ly A tta c h e d I n d iv id u a ls JEFFRY A. SIMPSON, LORNE CAMPBELL, and YANNAJ. WEISBERG A t times, romantic relationships are similar to emotional roller coasters in which partners experience euphoric emotional highs that are rapidly followed by dejecting lows. For many people, these (;ontrasting moments of joy and despair are experienced infrequently. For others, tumultuous emotional ups and downs are a habitual parr of life. Attachment theory offers a coherent framework for understanding why certain people are prone to experiencing sharp emotional swings and how these perceptions might then influence how romantic partners and relationships .are viewed. Bowlby (1973, 1980), in fact, conje(;tured that the working models of highly anxious people should strongly color and sometimes jade how these individuals perceive and evaluate their partners and relationships from day to day. In this chapter, which is a tribute to the life and work of Phil Shaver, we first review principles from attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1980) and from Fraley and Shaver's (2000) model of attachment anxiety that might bear on these processes. Following this, we review empirical evidence on the working models and interpersonal proclivities of people who score high in attachment anxiety. We then report new evidence from a daily diary and social interaction study that indicates that more anxiously attached people tend to perceive more frequent and severe daily conflict in their romantic relationships than do less anxious persons, that they report feeling more hurt by these conflicts, and that they believe that conflicts forecast a more negative future for their relationships. This new evidence also reveals that highly anxious individuals typically weigh daily relationship events more heavily when judging the daily quality of their relationships than do their less anxious counterparts. We also present a set of conceptually parallel findings from the social interaction portion of the study, which reveals that when highly anxious individuals actually discuss important relationship conflicts with their partners, they appear more distressed (rated by observers) and report feeling greater distress relative to less anxious people. Moreover, they remain more distressed, even when their partners are rated as behaving more positively toward them. We conclude the chapter1by integrating these findings and considering their broader theoretical implications. T H E O R E T IC A L F O U N D A T IO N S A tta c h m e n t T h e o r y Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) believed that early interactions with significant others instill expectations and beliefs that subsequently shape social perceptions and behavior about what relationships and relationship partners should be like during adulthood. These beliefs, which form a core component of working models, ostensibly involve "if-then" propositions that specify the behaviors and responses expected from attachment figUl;es in attachment-relevant situations (e.g., if I am upset, t h e n I can rely on my partner for comfort and attention). Research has revealed multiple ways in which working models influence information processing in close relationships. Working models can, for instance, influence whether and how individuals selectively attend to and perceive their partners, how they arrive at inferences and judgments about their partners' actions, and how they preferentially remember-or fail to remember-critical behaviors enacted by their partners (see Collins & Allard, 2001). Two relatively orthogonal dimensions define individual differences in adult attachment (see Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). The first dimension, labeled a v o id a n c e , reflects the degree to which individuals feel comfortable with closeness and emotional intimacy in relationships. People who score higher on avoidance tend to be less invested in their relationships and strive to remain psychologically and emotionally independent of their part- ners (Hazan & Shaver, 1994). The second dimension, termed a n x ie ty , taps the degree to which individuals worry and ruminate about being rejected or abandoned by their partners. Prototypically secure people typically score lower on both attachment dimensions. Fraley and Shaver (2000) have recently introduced a model that specifies the major interpersonal functions that could be served by each attachment dimension. They conjecture that the avoidance dimension primarily regulates attachment-relevant behavior, especially in anxiety-provoking situations (e.g., seeking support vs. retracting from attachment figures in distressing situations). The anxiety dimension, by comparison, entails an appraisaVmonitoring system that gauges the degree to which individuals are maintaining sufficient physical, psychological, or emotional closeness to their attachment figures. Fraley and Shaver (2000) claim that the appraisaV , monitoring system should be particularly sensitive to cues (inputs) that connote changes in the level of rejection and support from. attachment figures (e.g., romantic partners). This should be particularly true for highly anxious individuals, whose appraisaVmonitoring systems are likely to be set at lower activation thresholds and, hence, are more easily triggered by relationship threats (see Simpson & Rholes, 1994). Given the greater importance of identifying potentially negative events (Gaelick, Bodenhausen, & Wyer, 1985), however, highly anxious individuals might notice and place slightly greater weight on cues of rejection than on cues of support. One of the principal outputs of the anxiety system should be the level of felt security, which can range from extreme anxiety when rejection is perceived as high and support as low to extreme contentment when rejection is viewed as low and support as high. A tta c h m e n t A n x ie ty Several lines of research have examined how the working models of highly anxious individuals guide perceptions of romantic partners and relationships and the strong impact that perceptions of relationship-based conflict and support exert on highly anxious people. W o r k in g M o d e ls a n d R e la tio n s h ip P e r c e p tio n s In general, highly anxious individuals worry about being abandoned (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) and crave emotional support, closeness, and reassurance from their romantic partners (Collins & Read, 1990). These desires and worries motivate highly anxious persons to monitor their partners and relationships closely for signs of deficient or declining availability and emotional proximity (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994). Recent research has, in fact, documented that attachment figures tend to be more chronically accessible I in the minds of highly anxious people (e.g., Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002). The working models of highly anxious individuals also appear to bias how romantic partners and relationships are perceived. When asked to imagine their partners behaving negatively toward them, for example, highly anxious people typically make more negative attributions about their partners' behavior, believe that their partners are selfish and deliberately unresponsive to their needs, question their partners' love, feel less secure about the relationship, and feel greater anger toward their partners compared with less anxious people (Collins, 1996). These results imply that· the hypervigilance of anxiously attached individuals should elevate the monitoring and appraisal of relationshipthreatening cues in particular, perhaps motivating them to interpret information in a way that typically confirms their negative expectations of attachment figures (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). These proclivities could make highly anxious individuals even more vulnerable to experiencing distress and expressing concerns about the future stability of their relationships. To compound matters, highly anxious individuals typicaIiy rely on emotion-focused coping strategies when they are distressed, strategies that frequently amplify distress (Mikulincer & Florian, 1995, 1998). This tendency, in turn, might impel highly anxious individuals to perceive their partners and relationships even less positively. Many of these conjectures have been supported by cross-sectional studies revealing that highly anxious persons tend to experience stronger feelings and more variable "highs and lows" in their relationships than other people (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). They also report greater distress, anxiety, and impulsiveness in their social interactions (Shaver & Brennan, 1992); experience stronger negative emotions in their romantic relationships (Simpson, 1990); and tend to have stable but very dissatisfying relationships (Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994). Much less is known, however, about the day-to-day proximal variables that make. the relationships of highly anxious individuals so rocky. P e r c e p tio n s o f C o n flic t a n d S u p p o r t Bowlby (1973, 1980) claimed that perceptions of conflict and support in relationships should be central to how highly anxious individuals view themselves, their partners, and their relationships. Although highly anxious individuals crave comfort and support, they are unhappy with the degree of support available from significant others (Rholes, Simpson, Campbell, & Grich, 2001), and they tend to mistrust support providers (Bartholomew, Cobb, & Poole, 1997); Moreover, during social interactions, highly anxious individuals who are distressed perceive more hurtful intent when their part- ners provide "ambiguous" support. As a result, they remember their partners as behaving in a less supportive manner in a prior, unrelated videotaped interaction than neutral observers rated the partners (Collins & Feeney, 2004). Similar results have been discovered across chronically stressful life transitions. Prior to childbirth, for example, highly anxious women not only perceive less available emotional support from their husbands than do less anxious women, but they also perceive appreciably less support than their husbands report providing (Rholes et aI., 2001). When they believe that support is being offered, however, highly anxious individuals are inclined to acknowledge it, and their romantic relationships do n o t decline in satisfaction across time (Rholes et aI., 2001). In addition, when providing support to their romantic partners, highly anxious individuals perceive that their interactions are less warm and less supportive, and they presume that their partners are less satisfied with the support that they have provided than their partners truly are (Collins & Feeney, 2000). With respect to relationship-based conflicts, highly anxious people are aware of the negative as well as the positive opportunities that conflict can offer (Fishtein, Pietromonaco, & Feldman Barrett, 1999). Nevertheless, when conflicts arise, highly anxious individuals resort to emotion-focused coping strategies to regulate their negative affect (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998; Pistole, 1989), display dominating or coercive behaviors (Feeney, Noller, & Callan, 1994; Levy & Davis, 1988), and exhibit greater hostility and more relationship-damaging behaviors, especially when dealing with possible relationship threats (Simpson, Rholes,& Phillips, 1996). Ironically, these coercive and distrusting actions may produce what highly anxious individuals dread the most-alienation of their partners and eventual relationship loss. P r io r D ia r y S tu d ie s To date, only a few adult attachment diary studies have been conducted. Tidwell, Reis, and Shaver (1996) tested relations between adult attachment styles, daily patterns of social interaction, and emotional variability in social interactions involving same-sex peers, opposite-sex peers, mixed-sex peers, and larger groups across 1 week. They found that more anxiously attached individuals varied more than did either secure or avoidant persons in the amount of positive emotions and promotive interactions reported, but n o t in the amount of negative emotions or intimacy. It is important to note that Tidwell et al. (1996) did not focus on social interactions between individuals and their romantic partners, that is, persons more likely to be bona fide attachment figures. Pietromonaco and Feldman Barrett (1997) examined links between interaction quality, emotional reactions, and views of self and others for all social interactions lasting at least 10 minutes in a week-long diary study. Al- I though highly preoccupied (anxious) individuals did not display more extreme emotional responses across different types of relationship partners (e.g., strangers, friends, romantic partners), they did report more positive emotions, greater satisfaction, and more positive views of others, especially after high-conflict interactions. As noted earlier, high-conflict situations may provide these individuals with special opportunities to achieve two cherished goals-gaining their partners' attention and promoting greater intimacy and felt security. Finally, Bradford, Feeney, and Campbell (2002) explored interactions between romantic partners, focusing on their daily disclosures during 7 consecutive days. More anxious individuals were less satisfied with the disclosures they had with their partners, and more anxious women reported that their interactions were more negative. The partners of more anxiously attached individuals also reported disclosing less to them, and these partners also reported that their disclosures tended to be less intimate, more negative, and less satisfying. These theoretical considerations and empirical findings led us to derive three sets of hypotheses structured around perceptions of daily conflict in relationships, perceptions of daily conflict and support in relation to assessments of daily relationship quality, and perceptions of daily conflict and support in relation to judgments of one's p a r tn e r 's daily relationship quality. P e r c e p tio n s o f R e la tio n s h ip C o n flic t If, as Fraley and Shaver (2000) suggest, the appraisaVmonitoring system is designed to detect whether attachment figures are withdrawing, highly anxious individuals should be more inclined than other people to perceive heightened relationship conflict on a daily basis. In particular, given that highly anxious individuals rely more heavily on emotion-f~used coping (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998), attribute less positive intentions to their partners in ambiguous situations (Collins, 1996), and display less functional behaviors when trying to settle serious relationship conflicts (Simpson et aI., 1996), they should perceive more frequent and more severe daily relationship conflicts than less anxious individuals. To the extent that their working models bias perceptions of daily conflict, more anxious people should also perceive greater daily relationship-based conflict in their relationships than would be expected based on their p a r tn e r 's perceptions of daily relationship-based conflict. In addition, they should report that their daily conflicts are more likely to escalate or expand beyond the original source and, if so, their dating partners should confirm these perceptions. P e r c e p tio n s o f C o n flic t a n d S u p p o r t o f R e la tio n s h ip in R e la tio n to A s s e s s m e n ts Q u a lity According to Fraley and Shaver (2000), highly anxious people should rely more heavily on immediate cues of relationship conflict and support when making judgments of the daily quality and future well-being of their relationships, and their partners should also be aware of these stronger contingencies. Accordingly, highly anxious individuals and their romantic partners should both perceive that relationship-based confli<;ts are likely to have more deleterious effects on the future of their relationships. On the flip side, both might also perceive that supportive behaviors could have more positive long-term effects on their relationships. Effects involving perceptions of support, however, might be weaker than those involving conflict, given the greater importance and diagnostic value of negative events in most relationships. Finally, even though highly anxious individuals typically are involved in less satisfying relationships (Feeney, 1999), their level of relationship quality should be moderated by their perceptions of daily conflict and daily support. More specifically, on days when highly anxious individuals perceive greater daily conflict, they should report less relationship quality. However, on days when they perceive greater support, they should report greater relationship quality. P e r c e p tio n s o f C o n flic t a n d S u p p o r t o f P a r tn e r s ' R e la tio n s h ip in R e la tio n to P e r c e p tio n s Q u a lity More anxious individuals may also be more reactive to conflict than less anxious individuals when estimating how their p a r tn e r s feel about the relationship. Highly anxious individuals tend to project their own relationship feelings, insecurities, and worries onto their partners (Mikulincer & Horesh, 1999). Consequently, they should be more tempted to presume that their partners ar:e experiencing lower relationship quality on days when they (i.e., highly anxious individuals) perceive greater relationship conflict. By the same token, they may also presume that their partners are experiencing higher relationship quality on days when they perceive heightened relationship support. In view of the biasing effects of their working models (Collins & Allard, 2001), highly anxious individuals should also perceive that their partners are experiencing less relationship quality than should be expected according to their partners' actual reports of daily relationship quality. Finally, highly anxious individuals should be less confident about the future of their relationships, especially if they perceive greater relationship conflict in their daily interactions. The same basic pattern should hold when they perceive (or infer) their partners' amount of confidence regarding the future of the relationship. And highly anxious individuals should also per- ceive (or infer) that their partners hold a dimmer view about the future of the relationship than should be expected from their partners' own daily reports of the relationship's future. To test these sets of predictions, we conducted a two-part study (see Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005, for details). In the first part of the study, both partners in a large sample of long-term dating couples independently completed daily diaries for 14 consecutive days. In the second part, the same couples returned to the lab and were videotaped while trying to resolve the most important unresolved conflict that surfaced in the diary period. T h e D ia r y P h a s e o f th e S tu d y In the diary phase of the study, both members of 103 dating couples (mean length of relationship = 17.45 months) first completed background questionnaires and then kept daily diaries for 14 consecutive days. The background questionnaires assessed each participant's attachment orientations on the anxiety and avoidance dimensions (using the Adult Attachment Questionnaire; Simpson et aI., 1996), perceptions of the quality of the current relationship (using the Perceived Relationship Quality Components Scale; Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000), global self-esteem (using Rosenberg's, 1965, self-esteem measure), and neuroticism (using the Neuroticism subscale from the Big Five Inventory; John & Srivastava, 1999). Participants were then instructed how to complete the daily diaries, which partners completed independently and privately each evening for 14 straight days. Answering a series of face-valid items on 7-point scal~s, each participant reported his or her daily relationship closeness and satisfaction, his or her daily perceptions of the future happiness and stability of the relationship, and his or her daily perceptions of conflict and support associated with the partner or relationship. Each participant also reported the degree to which each daily conflict escalated or expanded beyond the original topic or issue that instigated the conflict. Because the data were hierarchically nested, a multilevel modeling approach guided by the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM; Kashy & Kenny, 2000) was used to analyze the diary data. The APIM recognizes that, because individuals are nested within different relationships, their responses and reactions depend on both their own and their p a r tn e r s ' unique characteristics and inputs. The findings summarized herein capture most of the major results. It is important to note at the outset that only one effect emerged for the avoidance attachment dimension and that few interactions with gender emerged. As anticipated, virtually all of the effects involved the attachment anxiety dimension. P e r c e p tio n s o f D a ily C o n flic t According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1980), individuals who scored higher in attachment anxiety should perceive more conflict in their relationships on a daily basis, and their perceptions of the severity of conflict should differ from those of persons who score lower in anxiety. Indeed, more anxiously attached individuals did perceive greater relationship conflict on average across the 2-week diary period. They also reported slightly more conflict episodes during the diary period, and they perceived greater conflict than would be expected from their partners' perceptions of the same conflict episodes. In addition, highly anxious individuals reported that their daily conflicts were more likely to expand beyond the original, agreedon discussion topic or issue than were the conflicts of less anxious individuals. Interestingly, the partners of more anxiously attached individuals also reported (confirmed) that their relationship conflicts were more likely to expand and escalate beyond the confines of the original topic or issue. Although women generally reported being more hurt by (;onflicts than men did, individuals perceived that their partners were more hurt by conflicts if their partners happened to be more anxiously attached. Finally, analyses that examined the attachment scores of both relationship partners revealed that daily conflicts had more pernicious effects on relationships (reported by b o th partners) when at least one partner was fairly anxious. P e r c e p tio n s o f D a ily S u p p o r t Because the appraisal/monitoring system might be more sensitive to detecting conflict than support in relationships, we were uncertain whether effects for anxious attachment would be evident on measures of daily perceived support. Indeed, neither an individual's own level of attachment anxiety nor his or her partner's level was associated with the amount of support perceived on a daily basis. However, women generally perceived more support and more frequent supportive events over the diary period than did men. More anxious individuals believed that supportive events (on days when they occurred) would have more positive implications for future relationship stability, and their partners reported similar perceptions. Finally, consistent with past research showing that highly avoidant people dislike giving or receiving support (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998), more avoidant individuals reported that supportive events in their relationships were a le s s positive experience for them than was true of less avoidant individuals. This, however, was the only avoidance effect that emerged in the entire study. I L in k s b e tw e e n C o n flic t a n d R e la tio n s h ip Q u a lity According to Fraley and Shaver (2000), more anxiously attached individuals should be more sensitive and reactive to conflicts, as revealed in daily judgments of relationship quality. On days when individuals in general reported more conflict, they also felt less relationship satisfaction and closeness. As displayed in Figure 9.1, however, the predicted interaction revealed that this effect was stronger for highly anxious people. I n addition, individuals who perceived greater daily conflict also held less optimistic views about the future of their relationships, with women being slightly more optimistic than men. Nevertheless, as shown in Figure 9.2, the predicted interaction indicated that more anxious individuals were appreciably less optimistic about the future stability of their relationships on days when they perceived greater relationship conflict. I n the full sample, people who perceived greater conflict also inferred that their partners were less satisfied or close. Importantly, however, highly anxious individuals believed that their partners were significantly less satisfied and less close on days when their own (i.e., anxious individuals') perceptions of conflict were higher. They also presumed that their partners were less satisfied and less close than would be expected from their partner's actual daily reports of satisfaction and closeness. I n general, individuals who perceived greater relationship conflict also perceived (or inferred) that their partners were less optimistic. As depicted in Figure 9.3, however, the predicted interaction indicated that more anx- ::: •• c :g o ~ 6.5 S 6.3 ~ J! ~ 6.1 --+ - ro w . h ig h a n x io u s a tta c h m e n t III II) - ••. a n x io u s a tta c h m e n t Co ~ 5.9 o i Gi 5.7 a:: ~ is 5.5 lo w P e r c e p tio n s h ig h o f th e E a c h D e g r e e o f C o n flic t D a y 9.1. The interaction of individuals' anxious attachment and overall perceptions of conflict across the diary period predicting daily relationship satisfaction/closeness. Regression lines are plotted for individuals scoring 1 SD above and 1 SD below the sample means on anxious attachment and daily perceived conflict. The scale on the y-axis ranged from 1 to 7. F IG U R E 226 6.8 GI 6.7 ='0 6.6 l!! .g Q. GI III 6.5 I&.:E 6.4 z: •• 0c '0'" 6.3 ~~ 00:: Q. __ lo w a n x io u s a tta c h m e n t .•••.. h lg h a n x io u s a tta c h m e n t 6.2 Gl 0:: ~ .!! Q 6.1 6 lo w P e r c e p tio n s h ig h o f th e D e g r e e o f C o n flic t E ach D ay FIGURE 9.2. The interaction of individuals' anxious attachment and overall perceptions of conflict across the diary period predicting daily reports of the future stability of the relationship. Regression lines are plotted for individuals scoring 1 S D above and 1 S D below the sample means on anxious attachment and daily perceived conflict. The scale on the y-axis ranged from 1 to 7. ious individuals perceived that their partners were less optimistic about the future of the relationship than was true of less anxious persons on days when their own (i.e., anxious individuals') perceptions of daily conflict were higher. More anxiously attached individuals also believed that their partners held a dimmer view about the future of the relationship than would be expected on the basis of their partners' actual reports. L in k s b e tw e e n S u p p o r t a n d R e la tio n s h ip Q u a lity On average, on days when individuals perceived greater support, they also reported being more satisfied or close, believed that their partners were more satisfied or close, were more optimistic about the future of the relationship, and presumed that their partners were more optimistic about the future of the relationship. In addition, more anxiously attached individuals were slightly more satisfied than less anxious persons on days when they perceived greater support. From a theoretical standpoint, this finding is important because it suggests that the appraisal/monitoring system may be attuned to both negative a n d positive relationship cues. T h e I m p a c t o f P o s itiv e B e h a v io r We also explored whether behaving in a more positive, supportive manner toward one's partner during conflicts attenuated the negative effects of daily i!! ~ 6.8 CD III f 5 6.7 ca= ~ ~ 6 .6 'ijll: :: ~ 6 .5 0 ••• {! ~ 6.4 8.~ ~ .r 6.3 __ lo w a n x io u s a tta c h m e n t ...• ... h ig h a n x io u s a tta c h m e n t >-CD 'i: ; 6.2 0 '0 ~ ~ 6.1 :I 0 :E ~ :6 ~ 6 .5:. 5.9 lo w P e r c e p tio n s h ig h o f D e g r e e o f C o n flic t E a c h D a y FIGURE 9.3. The interaction of individuals' anxious attachment and overall perceptions of conflict across the diary period predicting daily reports of their partners' perceptions of the future of the relationship. Regression lines are plotted for individuals scoring 1 SD above and 1 SD below the sample means on anxious attachment and daily perceived conflict. The scale on the y-axis ranged from 1 to 7. conflicts for people in general and for highly anxious people in particular. Overall, individuals felt less hurt during the diary period when their partners reported behaving more positively toward them during daily conflicts. In addition, individuals felt more comforted by their partners' positive behaviors during daily conflict episodes. As shown in Figure 9.4, however, more anxiously attached individuals thought that conflicts would have more damaging long-term consequences for their relationships, r e g a r d le s s of how positively their partners reported behaving toward them during daily conflicts. Less anxious individuals, on the other hand, were m o r e comforted by their partner's more positive behaviors. T h e S o c ia l I n te r a c tio n P h a s e o f th e S tu d y Once the diary phase of the study had been completed, we invited each couple to our lab to discuss and try to resolve the most important conflict they encountered during the 14-day diary period. Ninety-eight of the original 103 couples returned. When each couple arrived at the lab, they were instructed to "choose the most serious or prominent conflict that occurred during the 14-day diary period that w a s n 't completely resolved." After choosing a specific topic or issue, the partners were told that they had 7 minutes to discuss the conflict while being videotaped with their consent. Immediately after each discussion, both 'partners reported on 7-point scales how distressed and upset they felt during their discussion. Each discussion - + - Io w p a r tn e r p o s itiv e ••••. h ig h p o r tn e r p o s itiv e r e p o r ts of b e h a v io r r e p o r ts of b e h a v io r FIGURE 9.4. The interaction of individuals' anxious attachment and how positively their pattners reported behaving during conflicts during the diary period predicting perceived long-term consequences of conflict for the future stability of the relationship. Regression lines are plotted for individuals scoring 1 SD above and 1 SD below the sample means on anxious attachment and partner-reported positive behavior during conflicts. The scale on the y-axis ranged from 1 to 7. was then rated on several theoretically relevant dimensions by sets of trained coders. In addition to attempting to replicate the major findings in the diary data, we also wanted to confirm that highly anxious individuals would remain more distressed even when their partners actually behaved in a conciliatory and sympathetic manner (as evaluated by trained raters). G e n e r a l F in d in g s On average, women were rated by the trained observers as overreacting to and escalating the conflict more than men. Replicating the conflict escalation results found in the diary data, more anxious individuals were 'Catedas overreacting to and escalating the conflict more than their less anxious counterparts. As a group, women were rated as appearing more distressed during the discussion than men, and both more anxiously attached individuals a n d their partners were also rated as more visibly distressed or upset. These results also replicate findings from the diary data, which revealed that more ,anxiously attached people felt more hurt by daily conflicts and that both they and their partners believed the daily conflicts would have more negative consequences for the future stability of their relationships. Women on average also reported being more distressed than men during the discussions, and highly anxious individuals and their partners b o th reported feeling more distressed relative to other individuals. ~ Io w o b s e rv e r p a rtn e rs ' ..•.. h ig h o b s e rv e r p a rtn e rs ' lo w re p o rts p o s itiv e re p o rts p o s itiv e o f b e h a v io r o f b e h a v io r h ig h A n x io u s A tta c h m e n t F I G U R E 9.5. The interaction of individuals' anxious attachment and how positively their partners were observed to behave during the lab discussion predictin~ their self-reported distress. Regression lines are plotted for individuals scoring 1 SD above and 1 SD below the sample means on anxious attachment and observer-rated reports of the partner's positive behavior during the discussion. The scale on the y-axis ranged from 1 to 7. P o s itiv e B e h a v io r s a n d S e lf- R e p o r te d D is tr e s s During the conflict resolution discussions, individuals generally felt less distressed if their partners behaved more positively toward them (rated by observers). However, as predicted, more anxious individuals reported higher levels of distress r e g a r d le s s of how positively their partners actually behaved toward them during the discussion (see Figure 9.5). Less anxious individuals, in contrast, felt more distressed if their partners behaved less positively but significantly less distressed if their partners behaved more positively. BROADER AND T H E O R E T IC A L E M P IR IC A L IM P L IC A T IO N S How can this rich and diverse set of new findings be integrated and understood? Fraley and Shaver (2000) have proposed that the appraisaVmonitoring system might be a barometer of the degree to which individuals are maintaining sufficient psychological and emotional closeness to their attachment figures. This system should also be calibrated based on an individual's past attachment experiences. Given their history of receiving unpredictable or deficient support, highly anxious individuals ought to have relatively lower thresholds for perceiving threats to proximity maintenance (Simpson & Rholes, 1994). Given the nature of their working models, they should also be hypervigilant to cues of potential loss or rejection (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994), leading them at times to perceive and overestimate relationship conflicts when they may not truly exist. The diary phase of the research just reviewed confirmed that, during daily interactions with their romantic partners, more anxiously attached individuals perceived greater conflict in their relationships, greater than even their own partners did. They also thought that conflict was comparatively more detrimental to both the current and future quality of their relationships. Moreover, on days when they perceived greater relationship-based conflict, highly anxious individuals inferred that their romantic partners must have a less positive outlook on the relationship and its future, a view that was not necessarily shared by their partners. The social interaction phase of the research revealed that, when discussing a serious relationship, conflict, more anxious individuals appeared more distressed (as rated by , observers). They also reported feeling more distressed, regardless of how positively their partners actually behaved toward them {as rated by observers). We also examined a rather novel feature of Fraley and Shaver's (2000) model-that supportive events, which may signal that security goals are being met, might be perceived more positively by highly anxious than by less anxious people. Indeed, on days during the diary period when more support from partners was perceived, highly anxious individuals believed that they had a brighter relationship future. Highly anxious individuals also felt somewhat more satisfied and closer to their partners on days when they (highly anxious individuals) perceived greater support. It is important to note, however, that the positive impact of supportive events on highly anxious individuals was not evident when support occurred in the midst of relationship conflicts. Furthermore, even when their partners reported behaving more positively toward them (during the diary phase) and were rated by observers as behaving more positively toward them (during the conflict resolution task), highly anxious individuals continued to feel more distressed than less anxious individuals. Less anxious individuals, by comparison, felt less distressed Iollowing conflicts if their partners reported (in the diary) or were rated (in the conflict discussion) as behaving more positively toward them. Thus, for highly anxious individuals, the benefits of supportive experiences are noticeably diminished if they occur in connection with events that could portend eventual loss or rejection. Collectively, these findings suggest that highly anxious people rely more heavily on daily perceptions of relationship events to assess the current and future quality of their relationships. This pattern of results is consistent with Holmes and Rempel's (1989) model of dyadic trust, which proposes that when individuals are unsure about their partners' love and affection, they should try to discern whether or not their partner truly cares for them. As a result, greater meaning should be granted to daily events that might signal rejection or abandonment. Moreover, if individuals remain uncertain of their partners' affection, positive behaviors should also be interpreted very positively, especially if they reduce uncertainty. This tendency could be aggravated by the fact that highly anxious individuals tend to have a more tenuous and contingent sense of self-worth (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Crocker & Wolfe, 2001), one that is heavily based on how positively their romantic partners currently view them and how well their relationships are currently functioning. This rather myopic here-and-now focus on daily relationship events could partially explain why highly anxious individuals and their romantic partners commonly report very low levels of relationship satisfaction (Simpson, 1990), sharp emotional swings over short time periods (Tidwell et aI., 1996), and ardent beliefs that their relationships are always in flux (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). According to Kelley (1983), when individuals evaluate their relationships in response to the vicissitudes of daily relationship events and experiences rather than with reference to their longer term relationship goals and objectives, their relationships should feel and perhaps be more tumultuous. • In some ways, adopting a short-term focus toward daily relationship events may be an adaptive response to a history of receiving unpredictable or insufficient support (Bowlby, 1973), an interpersonal history that should motivate highly anxious people to pay more attention to, place greater weight on, and make stronger inferences about the implications of everyday relationship events. Over time, however, such a focus is likely to be maladaptive, especially when it is enacted by highly anxious people, whose working models may bias their perceptions of their partners and relationships toward overestimating the prevalence and negative impact of relationship-threatening events. Indeed, the new evidence we have presented suggests that these perceptual biases may extend even to the inferences that highly anxious individuals make about how their partners perceive the same potentially threatening events. A S y n th e s is o f th e F in d in g s Most of the central findings revolve around the tendency for highly anxious individuals and their dating partners to perceive more frequent, severe, and expanded relationship conflict and for highly anxious persons to evaluate both the current and the future state of their relationships less positively on days when they perceive relationship conflict as stronger. Interpersonal conflicts serve as one principal trigger of the attachment system (Kobak & Duemmler, 1994), particularly for highly anxious people (Simpson & Rholes, 1994). Not only do relationship conflicts ignite worries about possible loss or abandonment in highly anxious individuals, but they also evoke hypervigilance (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994), amplify emotion-focused coping (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998), and increase dysfunctional interaction be- haviors (Simpson et aI., 1996), all of which deepen and exacerbate relationship conflicts. The findings from the diary phase of our study also revealed that more anxious individuals perceive greater daily relationship conflict than less anxious people do, perceive more frequent daily conflicts, and acknowledge that daily conflicts are more likely to escalate and worsen. These findings are consistent with self-report studies showing that, when highly anxious individuals encounter negative relationship events, they feel more distressed and behave in ways that may instigate or aggravate relationship conflicts and may perpetuate them (Collins, 1996). These results fit with behavioral observation studies, which have demonstrated that highly anxious people display more destructive and relationship-damaging behaviors when they are trying to resolve serious relationship conflicts (Simpson et aI., 1996).1 Indirect evidence for the biasing effects of anxious working models comes from the fact that highly anxious people typically per<:eived more daily conflict than their romantic partners did. Two perceptual processes might explain this outcome. First, highly anxious individuals might be better at detecting negativity in relationships given their stronger motivation to identify and avert loss and rejection. Second, their threshold for detecting negativity could be so low that they overdetect possible signs of negativity, generating a negative perceptual bias. Although our research was not designed to distinguish these different processes, some of the results in the diary phase of the study hint that the "negative bias" interpretation might be more correct. In the diary phase, highly anxious individuals reported greater relationship conflict, even when their partners' reports of daily conflict were statistically controlled. Furthermore, attachment scores within couples were not highly correlated, meaning that highly anxious people were n o t on average dating other highly insecure people (who might also have biased working models). Other research has confirmed that highly anxious individuals are inclined to infer more relationship conflict than is warranted (Collins, 1996) and to appraise normal life events in more threatening terms (Mikulincer, Birnbaum, Woodis, & : Nachmais, 2000). Viewed together, this body of evidence suggests that highly anxious persons may occasionally "detect" daily relationship conflicts that do not exist. Several of the most novel results in our diary and social interaction study involved statistical interactions between attachment anxiety and perceptions of conflict. In the diary data, for example, highly anxious individuals reported lower satisfaction and closeness and more negative views about the future of their relationships compared with less anxious individuals on days when they perceived greater relationship conflict. This myopic focus on daily relationship events is likely to have destabilizing effects on relationships over time. Kelley (1983) has conjectured that the stability of relationships should hinge on two variables: (1) the degree to which the benefits in I a relationship typically exceed the costs and (2) the variance of this difference. For most relationships to be emotionally stable, therefore, the degree to which benefits outweigh costs must be great relative to the variability of the difference. In the case of highly anxious individuals, not only is the benefit-to-cost ratio likely to be lower, but it also should be more variable if highly anxious people continually evaluate their relationships in terms of daily relationship events. To complicate matters, highly anxious persons also presume that their partners are less satisfied or close and less optimistic on high-conflict days. On high-conflict days, highly anxious individuals might project their own pessimistic outlooks onto their partners. I n support of this interpretation, when highly anxious people are upset, they overestimate their similarity with others (Mikulincer, Orbach, & Iavnieli, 1998). Highly anxious individuals also believed that relationship conflicts during the diary period would have more negative long-term effects on their relationships, even when their partners reported behaving in a more positive and conciliatory fashion toward them during conflicts. Paralleling this result, highly anxious individuals in the social interaction phase of the study reported greater distress when they discussed the most impoitant unresolved conflict from the diary period, even when their partners were rated by observers as behaving relatively more positively toward them. Thus, unlike less anxious individuals, who tend to be more securely attached, highly anxious persons are less likely to adjust their relationship evaluations in response to their partners' actions. There could be several reasons for these "noncontingent" partner behavior effects. Given the dubious and selfprotective nature of their working models, highly anxious individuals might simply deny, dismiss, or discount their partners' positive overtures, particularly during conflict episodes in which positive gestures such as apologizing, showing remorse, or adopting a forgiving attitude could be interpreted as less than genuine. Highly anxious individuals might also become overwhelmed during relationship conflicts, limiting their capacity to monitor, notice, or give credit to their partners' positive overtures (Main, 1991). In line with this view, Mikulincer (1998) found that anger often overwhelms the cognitive system of highly anxious people, interfering with their ability to recruit resources to contain their negative feelings. Highly anxious individuals might also believe that, by giving their partners too much "credit" for their benevolent actions, they could be setting themselves up for major letdowns in the near future. Less anxious (more secure) people, in contrast, responded to their partners' behavior in a more situation ally contingent manner. Among others, Main (1991) has speculated that securely attached people perceive and evaluate relationship-relevant events in a more open and flexible manner than insecure persons do, chiefly because their working models do not distort attachment-relevant information. Similar situationally contingent effects of adult security have been found in other settings. Simpson, Rholes, Oriiia, and Grich (2002), for instance, found that more securely attached women (assessed by the Adult Attachment Interview) are more likely to give their distressed male dating partners more comfort and support (as rated by observers) than are less secure women if their partners request or appear to need it, but they actually provide less support if their partners do not need it. In the diary phase of our study, however, highly anxious individuals also felt better about the future of their relationships on days when they perceived greater support from their partners. This finding provides preliminary support for a central tenet of Fraley and Shaver's (2000) model of attachment anxiety-that perceptions of either greater relationship-based conflict or support ought to be more strongly linked to how highly anxious persons view and evaluate their relationships on a daily basis. Nevertheless, fewer effects emerged for perceptions of support than for perceptions of ' conflict. This is understandable when one considers that negative relationship events often have more important consequences for the well-being and stability of relationships than do positive events (see Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Gaelick et al., 1985). L in k s w ith O th e r T h e o r e tic a l M o d e ls Although the current results fit well with Fraley and Shaver's (2000) ideas about activation of the appraisaUmonitoring system, they can also be meaningfully understood and interpreted in terms of other theoretical models. Given the severe costs of social'rejection, for example, Leary and Baumeister (2000) contend that humans may possess an evolved internal regulatory system-a self-esteem sociometer-that is responsive to cues of rejection, that warns people about possible rejection threats, and that motivates them to take action to avert or minimize possible threats. The current findings fit well with several aspects of this model. In fact, we suspect that highly anxious individuals have sociometers that are hypersensitive and overreactive to potential signs or cues of rejection and its complement (acceptance), given that so much of their self-worth hinges on the adequate functioning of their relationships. Our results also fit well with findings from studies of dependency regulation and rejection sensitivity in relationships. Individuals with low selfesteem, many of whom are likely to be anxiously attached {Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994), tend to overinterpret relationship problems, often assuming that their partners' affection might be waning (Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, & Kusche, 2002). In addition, individuals who feel less positively regarded by their romantic partners-many of whom should be highly anxious-frequently read too much into relationship-threatening interactions, feel more hurt and worse about themselves on days after relationship-threatening interactions, and then behave more negatively to- I j ,6, I Ii!. . ward their partners in turn (Murray, Bellavia, Rose, & Griffin, 2003). Similarly, highly rejection-sensitive individuals, many of whom are likely to be anxiously attached, expect, perceive, and overreact to ambiguous cues of possible interpersonal rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996), and they tend to use conflict resolution tactics that exacerbate relationship difficulties and undermine their relationships (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998). It is important to note, however, that nearly all of the effects for attachment anxiety reported in this chapter remained significant when individuals' levels of chronic self-esteem a n d neuroticism were statistically controlled. Thus the unique variance that underlies attachment anxiety appears to playa distinct role in accounting for the findings discussed here. The current findings might also have some interesting implications for interdependence theory. To the extent that highly anxious people are more attuned to and dependent on their partners' decisions and actions (either actual or perceived), their outcomes in relationships might be more strongly affected by their partners' decisions or actions-actual or incorrectly perceived-in certain types of interpersonal situations (see Kelley et aI., 2003). This heightened "partner sensitivity" may be especially apparent when highly anxious individuals find themselves in situations that increase their dependence on their partners for good outcomes or in situations that make them feel uncertain or vulnerable about the stability and future wellbeing of their relationships. Future research should explore these issues . . In conclusion, the studies discussed here contribute to our understanding of why highly anxious people tend to have such tumultuous relationships. Not only does this research confirm that highly anxious individuals tend to perceive greater and more extensive daily conflict in their romantic relationships, but it also reveals that their working models may negatively bias their daily relationship perceptions and the inferences they make about the current and future well-being of their relationships. By basing their judgments of relationship quality on amplified perceptions of daily relationship conflict and strife, highly anxious individuals may unwittingly create what they fear the most-the destabilization of their romantic relationships. 1. In a week-long daily diary study, Pietromonaco and Feldman Barrett (1997) found that highly anxious individuals did not report experiencing more extreme emotions when interacting with different types of partners (e.g., strangers, friends, romantic partners). They contend that conflict may provide these individ- uals with an opportunity to achieve two deep-seated goals-to gain their partners' attention and to build greater intimacy and more felt security. On the surface, these findings seem to be at odds with those reported by Simpson et al. (1996), who found that more anxious individuals were rated by trained observers as displaying more dysfunctional conflict resolution tactics and more intense negative emotions when trying to solve major (but not minor) relationship-centered problems. In reality, the results of these studies are not inconsistent. When assigned to discuss a minor problem, more anxious individuals in the Simpson et al. (1996) study did not display either more negative emotions or more dysfunctional conflict resolution tactics than other individuals. Moreover, the major problem task and instructions used in Simpson et al.'s observational study were probably more threatening than the daily interactions investigated by Pietromonaco and Feldman Barrett (1997), many of which did not involve attachment figures (see also Pietromonaco, Greenwood, & Feldman Barrett, 2004). Bartholomew, K., Cobb, R. ]., & Poole, J. A. (1997). Adult attachment patterns and social support processes. In G. R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G. Sarason, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), S o u r c e b o o k o f s o c ia l s u p p o r t a n d p e r s o n a lity (pp. 359-378). New York: Plenum. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 61, 226-244. Bowlby,]. (1969). A tta c h m e n t a n d lo s s : V o l. 1. A tta c h m e n t. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby,]. (1973). A tta c h m e n t a n d lo s s : V o l. 2. S e p a r a tio n . New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1980). A tta c h m e n t a n d lo s s : V o l. 3. L o s s : S a d n e s s a n d d e p r e s s io n . New York: Basic Books. Bradford, S. A., Feeney, ]. 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. P e r s o n a l R e la tio n s h ip s , 9,491506. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), A tta c h m e n t th e o r y a n d c lo s e r e la tio n s h ip s (pp. 46-76), New York: Guilford Press. Campbell, L., Simpson,]. A., Boldry,]., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 88, 510-531. Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory and research. C h ild D e v e lo p m e n t, 65, 971-981. Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 71, 810832. Collins, N. L., & Allard, L. M. (2001). Cognitive representations of attachment: The content and function of working models. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), B la c k w e ll h a n d b o o k o f s o c ia l p s y c h o lo g y : I n te r p e r s o n a l p r o c e s s e s (pp. 60-85). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 78, 1053-1073. Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C (2004). Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 87, 363-383. Collins, N. L., & Read, S. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 5 8 , 644-663. Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. P s y c h o lo g ic a l R e v ie w , 1 0 8 ,5 9 3 - 6 2 3 . Downey, G., & Feldman, S. 1. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 7 0 , 1 3 2 7 1343. Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 75, 545-560. Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult romantic attachment and couple relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), H a n d b o o k o f a tta c h m e n t: T h e o r y , r e s e a r c h , a n d c lin ic a l a p p lic a tio n s (pp. 355-377). New York: Guilford Press. Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Callan, V. J. (1994). Attachment style, communication and satisfaction in the early years of marriage. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), A d v a n c e s in p e r s o n a l r e la tio n s h ip s : V o l. 5. A tta c h m e n t p r o c e s s e s in a d u lth o o d (pp. 269-308). London: Kingsley. Fishstein, J., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman Barrett, L. (1999). The contribution of attachment style and relationship conflict to the complexity of relationship knowledge. S o c ia l C o g n itio n , 17, 228-244. Fletcher, G. J. O. , Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y B u lle tin , 26, 340-354. Fraley, R. C, & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. R e v ie w o f G e n e r a l P s y c h o lo g y , 4, 132-154. Gaelick, K., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Wyer, R. S. (1985). Emotional communication in close relationships. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 49, 12461265. Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 67,430-445. Hazan, C, & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 52, 511-524. Hazan, C, & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. P s y c h o lo g ic a l I n q u ir y , 5, 1-22. Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C Hendrick (Ed.), R e v ie w o f p e r s o n a lity a n d s o c ia l p s y c h o lo g y (Vol. 10, pp. 187-220). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P.John (Eds.), H a n d b o o k o f p e r s o n a lity : T h e o r y a n d r e s e a r c h (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press. Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M.Judd (Eds.), H a n d b o o k o f r e s e a r c h m e th o d s in s o c ia lp s y c h o lo g y (pp. 451-477). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kelley, H. H. (1983). Love and commitment. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), C lo s e r e la tio n s h ip s (pp. 265-314). San Francisco: Freeman. Kelley, H. H., Holmes,]. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). A n a tla s o f in te r p e r s o n a l s itu a tio n s . New York: Cambridge University Press. Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. jo u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 66, 502-512. Kobak, R. R., & Duemmler, S. (1994). Attachment and conversation: Toward a dis- , course analysis of adolescent and adult security. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), A tta c h m e n t p r o c e s s e s in a d u lth o o d (pp. 121-149). London: Kingsley. Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), A d v a n c e s in e x p e r im e n ta l s o c ia l p s y c h o lo g y (Vol. 32, pp. 1-2). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Levy, M. B., & Davis, K. E. (1988). Lovestyles and attachment styles compared: Their relations to each other and to various relationship characteristics. J o u r n a l o f S o c ia l a n d P e r s o n a l R e la tio n s h ip s ,S , 4 3 9 -4 7 1 . Main, M. (1991). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring and singular (coherent) versus multiple (incoherent) models of attachment. InJ. S. StevensonHinde, C. M. Parkes, & P. Marris (Eds.), A tta c h m e n t a c r o s s th e life c y c le (pp. 127-159). London: Routledge. Mikulincer, M. (1998). Adult attachment style and individual differences in functional versus dysfunctional experiences of anger. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 74, 513-524. Mikulincer, M., Birnbaum, G., Woddis, D., & Nachmias, O. (2000). Stress and accessibility of proximity-related thoughts: Exploring the normative and intraindividuaJ.components of attachment theory. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 78, 509-523. Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1995). Appraisal and coping with a real-life stressful situation: The contribution of attachment styles. P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y B u lle tin , 21, 408-416. Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The relationship between adult attachment styles and emotional and cognitive reactions to stressful events. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), A tta c ; h m e n t th e o r y a n d c lo s e r e la tio n s h ip s (pp. 143-165). New York: Guilford Press. Mikulincer, M., Gillath, 0., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of the attachment system in adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of attachment figures. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 83,881-895. Mikulincer, M., & Horesh, N. (1999). Adult attachment style and the perception of others: The role of projective mechanisms. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 76, 1022-1034. Mikulincer, M., Orbach, 1., & Iavnieli, D. (1998). Adult attachment style and affect regulation: Strategic variations in subjective self-other similarity. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 75,436-448. Murray, S. L.,Bellavia, G.M.,Rose, P., & Griffin,D. W. (2003). Once hurt, twice hurtful: How perceived regard regulates daily marital interactions. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 84, 126-147. Murray, S. L., Rose, P., Bellavia, G. M., Holmes, J. G., & Kusche, A. G. (2002). When rejection stings: How self-esteem constrains relationship-enhancemtnt processes. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 83, 556-573. Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman Barrett, L. (1997). Working models of attachment and daily social interactions. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 7 3 , 1409-1423. 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.), A d u lt a tta c h m e n t: T h e o r y , r e s e a r c h , a n d c lin ic a l im p lic a tio n s (pp. 267299). New York: Guilford Press. Pistole, M. C. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic relationships: Style of cbnflict resolution and relationship satisfaction. J o u r n a l o f S o c ia l a n d P e r s o n a l R e la tio n s h ip s , 6, 505-512. Rholes, W. S., Simpson,J. A., Campbell, L., & Grich,J. (2001). Adult attachment and the transition to parenthood. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 81, 421-435. Rosenberg, M. (1965). S o c ie ty a n d th e a d o le s c e n t s e lf- im a g e . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment styles and the "big five" personality traits: Their connections with each other and with romantic relationship outcomes. P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y B u lle tin , 18, 536-545. Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. A tta c h m e n t a n d H u m a n D e v e lo p m e n t, 4, 133-161. Simpson, J. A. (1990). The influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 59, 971-980. Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (1994). Stress and secure base relationships in adulthood. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), A tta c h m e n t p r o c e s s e s in a d u lth o o d (pp. 181-204). London: Kingsley. Simpson,J. A., Rholes, W. S., Oriiia, M. M., & Grich,J. (2002). Working models of attachment, support giving, and support seeking in a stressful situation. P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y B u lle tin , 28, 598-608. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 71, 899914. Tidwell, M. C. 0., Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Attachment, attractiveness, and social interaction: A diary study. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a lity a n d S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y , 71, 729-745.