The Journal of Psychology

Interdisciplinary and Applied

ISSN: 0022-3980 (Print) 1940-1019 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

Perceived Benefits and Costs of Romantic

Relationships for Young People: Differences by
Adult Attachment Style

Adelaida Monteoliva, J. Miguel A. García–Martínez & Antonia Calvo–Salguero

To cite this article: Adelaida Monteoliva, J. Miguel A. García–Martínez & Antonia Calvo–Salguero
(2016) Perceived Benefits and Costs of Romantic Relationships for Young People:
Differences by Adult Attachment Style, The Journal of Psychology, 150:8, 931-948, DOI:
10.1080/00223980.2016.1217190

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1217190

Published online: 07 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3234

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjrl20
THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
2016, VOL. 150, NO. 8, 931–948
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1217190

Perceived Benefits and Costs of Romantic Relationships for

Young People: Differences by Adult Attachment Style
Adelaida Monteoliva, J. Miguel A. Garc
ıa–Mart
ınez, and Antonia Calvo–Salguero
University of Granada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Bowlby’s attachment theory suggested that the attachment Received 17 October 2014
experiences of early childhood influence adult approaches to close Accepted 8 July 2016
relationships. As a result of these experiences, the child develops KEYWORDS
typical mental schemas or internal working models. The aim of this Adult attachment style;
study was to analyze how young people with different attachment behavioral beliefs; internal
styles perceive the benefits and costs involved in spending as much working models; intimate
time as possible with their partner, and to determine whether their relationships
beliefs reflect the internal working models associated with their
attachment style. A sample of 1,539 university students responded to
the Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowith, 1991), and
to a questionnaire about behavioral beliefs (perceived benefits and
costs). Results show that young people with different attachment
styles hold different beliefs about the consequences derived from
engaging in a specific behavior in romantic relationships. Secure and
preoccupied individuals perceived more benefits than costs associated
with the behavior, whereas dismissing and fearful individuals
perceived more costs than benefits. Furthermore, secure and
preoccupied individuals rated those behavioral consequences leading
to enhanced intimacy or closeness more positively than avoidant
individuals, whereas dismissing individuals rated more negatively
those consequences that involved a loss of independence. These
results confirm that a congruity exists between the beliefs associated
with the behavior studied and the internal working models related to
each adult attachment style.

Close relationships are essential in people’s lives. The development of intimate and satisfying
affectional bonds throughout adulthood has been linked to higher rates of health and happi-
ness, whereas a lack of close relationships predisposes people to experience problems such as
dissatisfaction, loneliness, or low levels of psychological well-being (Hendrick & Hendrick,
2005; Popovic, 2005; Reis, 1990). Social psychology has put forward different theories to try
and explain how we establish close or intimate relationships, and the reason for success in
such relationships. Currently, the model most used in research on intimate relationships is
the adult attachment theory (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), which

CONTACT Adelaida Monteoliva [email protected] Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Campus
Universitario La Cartuja, s/n, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
932 A. MONTEOLIVA ET AL.

stemmed from the infant attachment theory developed by Bowlby (1969; 1982). The study
presented herein is based on this perspective.
Infant attachment theory posits that the first affectional experiences that occur during
infancy, particularly between infants and their main caregivers, will affect the nature
and quality of subsequent interpersonal relationships in adulthood. These first interactions
give rise to the so-called internal working models, understood as the cognitive representa-
tions or schemas that infants gradually construct based on their cumulative knowledge
of self, their attachment figure, and the relations between the latter and self. The working
model of self would represent an individual’s beliefs about whether he/she is competent,
and worthy of love and care, whereas the working model of others would encompass
beliefs about whether the attachment figure is accessible, trustworthy, and sensitive to the
individual’s needs. Activation of these attachment schemas affects not only the way in
which individuals process information relative to their interpersonal relationships, but also
their attitudes and expectations about others, their feelings, and the way in which they
behave in such relationships (Bretherton & Munholland, 2008; Collins, Ford, Guichard, &
Allard, 2006; Feeney, 2002a). Attachment theory suggests that the cognitive models
or schemas that arise during the first years of life will probably continue to affect us
throughout life.
Hazan and Shaver (1987), pioneers in the development of adult attachment theory,
examined this hypothesis in romantic relationships and found an analogy between the
attachment types described for infant–caregiver relationships and the attachment types
found among adults “in love.” Based on the typology developed by Ainsworth, Blehar,
Waters and Wall (1978) for infant attachment, Hazan and Shaver defined three attachment
types in adults: secure, avoidant, and anxious–resistant. Subsequent studies showed that it
was more appropriate to conceptualize adult attachment style as regions in a bidimensional
space. Bartholomew (1990; Bartholomew & Horowith, 1991), for example, considered the
models of self and of others as two independent orthogonal dimensions with positive or
negative valences, representing respectively an individual’s overall expectations and beliefs
about self-worth, and about the availability of others (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994a).
The combination of each dimension and its corresponding valence would define four
attachment styles rather than three: secure (positive model of self and positive model of
others); avoidant–dismissing (positive model of self and negative model of others); preoc-
cupied (negative model of self and positive model of others); and avoidant–fearful (nega-
tive model in both cases), each duly reflecting individual differences in self-concept and
interpersonal functioning (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Griffin &
Bartholomew, 1994b).
Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000), however, posit
that there are two dimensions underlying the items used for the different measures of
attachment: “anxious attachment” (associated with a fear of separation, abandonment, or
not being loved enough), and “avoidant attachment” (associated with a feeling of discom-
fort with intimacy, dependency, and expressing feelings). People with low scores on
both dimensions are considered to be securely attached adults, and would be individuals
who have internalized a feeling of self-worth and feel comfortable in close or intimate rela-
tionships. In comparison, individuals who have high scores on anxiety and low scores on
avoidance (preoccupied) are characterized by a low level of self-confidence. However,
their positive model of others leads to their validating their low self-esteem through
 THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 933

excessive closeness in interpersonal relationships, causing themselves extreme suffering

when their needs for intimacy are unmet. Individuals who score low on anxiety and high
on avoidance (avoidant–dismissing) feel competent and self-sufficient, but do not trust
others. Lastly, individuals who score low on both dimensions (avoidant–fearful) are people
who are highly dependent on others to validate their own worth, although their negative
schema about others means that they reject intimacy in order to avoid the pain of possible
rejection or abandonment. Overall, secure people have a more favourable self-image and
hold more optimistic expectations about others and about the world than insecure people
(Baldwin, Fehr, Keedian, Seidel, & Thomson, 1993; Brennan & Bosson, 1998; Mikulincer,
1995); they also regulate their emotions better, which is central to mental health and social
adjustment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
Currently, the debate is still open on how adult attachment should be conceptualized
and measured. Although it seems to be widely accepted that attachment styles fall along a
continuum of two dimensions, and accordingly, that it is better to use dimensional rather
than categorical measures (Fraley, Hudson, Heffernan, & Segal, 2015; Shi, Wampler, &
Wampler, 2013), there is no clear agreement on how to conceptualize these dimensions.
Notably, a large number of researchers consider anxiety and avoidance to be the two main
dimensions underlying adult attachment (Feeney, 2002b; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

Attachment and Information Processing

As postulated by Bowlby in his theory of attachment, internal working models contain
beliefs and expectations about self, about others, and about the interaction between the two;
they also involve motivational, emotional, and cognitive functions.
Research in social psychology has highlighted the influence of prior knowledge
(schemas, expectations, etc.) in the processes of social perception and inference, affect-
ing the way in which an individual processes information and forms social judgements
(see Fiske & Taylor, 1991, for a review), and more specifically, the way in which indi-
viduals process information relating to their interpersonal relationships (Baldwin,
1992). Internal working models have been compared with certain knowledge structures
such as “cognitive scripts” and “social schemas,” which guide an individual’s percep-
tions, attributions, memory, and social behavior. Similarly to these mental structures,
internal working models act as filters in interpreting others’ intentions and behaviors
in close relationships, enabling individuals to simulate and predict the most likely con-
sequences of certain interpersonal behaviors (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Nonetheless,
some authors posit that internal working models are distinct mental structures, and
more extensive than cognitive schemas given that they encompass not only cognitive,
but also affective and defensive components (Bretherton & Munholland, 2008). Results
of different studies have confirmed the incidence of internal working models in infor-
mation processing, highlighting significant differences in the attributive styles found in
each type and in how they perceive and interpret the same situation in ways that are
consistent with their beliefs and expectations (Collins, 1996; Collins et al., 2006; Dwyer
et al., 2010; Ein–Dor, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2011; Gallo & Smith, 2001; Marks, Trafimow,
& Rice, 2013; Mikulincer & Arad, 1999; Simpson, Rholes, & Winterheld, 2010).
Thus, Collins (1996), for example, found that in hypothetical couple situations, and
once attachment systems were activated in the memory, participants made attributions
934 A. MONTEOLIVA ET AL.

that were consistent with the beliefs and expectations about self and others associated
with each attachment style. Specifically, the explanations given by secure individuals
reflected their positive models about self and others, were more optimistic, and
reflected greater confidence in the relationship and in the partner’s love; in contrast,
preoccupied and avoidant individuals generally gave more pessimistic explanations that
duly reflected a much more negative view of their partner, and a more negative percep-
tion of the situation.
Other studies have analyzed the congruity of each attachment style with regard to
the way in which hypothetical behaviors in couple relationships are interpreted, show-
ing that secure people process information in keeping with their scripts, whereas inse-
cure people, especially avoidant individuals, process information in an inconsistent way
(Marks et al., 2013).
Furthermore, Mikulincer and Arad (1999), while exploring the reactions of secure and insecure
individuals to partner behaviors that disconfirmed their expectations, found that secure individu-
als are more likely to change their perception of their partner than insecure individuals. They also
found that processing of the new information was biased by the mental attachment models for
each attachment style. As reported by Shaver et al. (1996), secure individuals exhibit positive
beliefs and expectations about human nature, and feelings of self–efficacy. In addition to this posi-
tive attitude, they also show a capacity or tendency to review their schemas in the face of new
information in an optimistic way, that is, a capacity to adapt to changes in and create positive
expectations about the relationship; accordingly, it is not surprising that these individuals exhibit
higher levels of satisfaction and adjustment in their relationships.
In this sense, a great deal of research has been reported that clearly reflects the relation-
ship between attachment style and the functioning and quality of romantic relationships, in
important aspects such as satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, or communication (Feeney,
2008; Simpson, Collins, & Salvatore, 2011).
Generally speaking, secure people have relationships that are characterized by intimacy,
satisfaction, trust, and stability, unlike people with an avoidant attachment style (either fear-
ful–avoidant or dismissing–avoidant), whose relationships are usually marked by low levels
of intimacy, commitment, trust, and satisfaction (Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Jin & Pe~ na,
2010; Monteoliva & Garc
ıa–Mart
ınez, 2005; Rholes, Peatzold, & Friedman, 2008; Schindler,
Fagundes, & Murdock, 2010). Furthermore, people with a preoccupied attachment style
report that their relationships are characterized by conflict, jealousy, and negative emotional
experiences (Collins & Read, 1990). Other studies show that secure individuals seem to be
more sensitive to their partner’s needs than avoidant or preoccupied individuals (Feeney,
1999; Mikulincer & Selinger, 2001), and tend to take more care of them and become
more involved in their romantic relationships (Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller,
1990), whereas avoidant individuals are less willing to share their free time with others
(Monteoliva, Garc
ıa–Mart
ınez, Calvo–Salguero, & Aguilar, 2008; Tidwell, Reis, & Shaver,
1996). In the case of interpersonal communication, results obtained by different studies
have highlighted that secure and preoccupied individuals are more willing to disclose
different types of personal information than avoidant individuals (Grabill & Kerns, 2000;
Tidwell et al., 1996).
Ultimately, it seems that the activation of attachment schemas influences the way in
which we process information relating to our interpersonal relationships. These schemas
affect our attitudes and expectations about others, our feelings, and the way in which we
 THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 935

behave in such relationships, and are an important predictor of the nature and quality of
interpersonal relationships (Simpson, Collins, Tran, & Haydon, 2007).

Objectives of This Study

As previously mentioned, people with different attachment styles also hold different cogni-
tive schemas about relationships, and therefore, exhibit different beliefs and expectations
about self and others. These beliefs are important in that they may affect the good function-
ing and quality of romantic relationships (Stackert & Bursik, 2003). Indeed, as some authors
have reported, (Fletcher, Overall, & Friesen, 2006), the way in which individuals think about
their partner and their relationship is linked to the way they feel and behave within the rela-
tionship, and in general, to the way in which interaction occurs. The work presented here
attempts to explore the beliefs exhibited by people with different attachment styles in their
couple relationships, and to examine how these beliefs affect the quality of their relation-
ships. A significant number of studies have focussed on aspects relating to information proc-
essing, depending on attachment styles, including how attachment schemas influence the
way in which individuals process attachment-related information, the cognitive process
when information is incongruent with their expectations, or their expectations about, and
attitudes toward, interpersonal relationships in general (Dwyer et al., 2010; Ein–Dor,
Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2011; Monteoliva, Garc
ıa–Mart
ınez, Calvo–Salguero, & Mart
ın, 2007;
Simpson et al., 2010). However, little research has been carried out on the consequences that
are perceived by individuals with different attachment styles when participating in typical
behaviors in couple relationships, and whether their beliefs about the consequences are con-
gruent with their attachment schemas. In other words: Does the perception of the conse-
quences of displaying a certain behavior in a couple relationship differ significantly
depending on an individual’s attachment style? Are such beliefs about these consequences
congruent with the internal working models for each attachment style? Does this perception
of benefits and costs in the relationship affect the quality of that relationship?
Based on these premises, and as previously stated, the purpose of this work is to examine
the beliefs that are held by young people with different attachment styles in their romantic
relationships, particularly, with regard to a specific type of behavior: “whenever possible, to
take my partner with me everywhere over the next 20 days,” and to determine whether their
beliefs reflect the internal working models associated with their attachment style.
This behavior has been chosen for several reasons: first, in the view of some authors (Feeney
& Noller, 1990), not all interpersonal behaviors are considered attachment behaviors. Behaviors
that might respond to the functions served by the attachment process include those that reflect
a desire to possess or depend on the partner; second, different studies have shown that aspects
such as the time we spend with others enhance the degree of intimacy or closeness between peo-
ple (e.g., Reis & Patrick, 1996). Specifically, research on adult attachment has shown that indi-
viduals with negative working models of self or others are less willing to share their free time
with others, unlike individuals with positive working models (Tidwell et al., 1996).
Based on the literature on adult attachment, and on the different internal working models
that characterize each style, the main hypotheses of this study are as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Of the four attachment styles, secure and preoccupied individuals will consider
that spending more time with their partner will be more likely to bring positive consequences
936 A. MONTEOLIVA ET AL.

than negative consequences, whereas dismissing and fearful individuals will perceive the oppo-
site to be the case. In other words, secure and preoccupied individuals will perceive more bene-
fits than costs in exhibiting the target behavior than dismissing and fearful individuals.
Hypothesis 2: Of the four attachment styles, secure and preoccupied individuals will rate more
favourably those consequences of spending more time with their partner that lead to enhanced
intimacy and affectional closeness in the relationship (consequences such as spending more
time together, sharing more things, or getting to know each other better).

Hypothesis 3: Compared to other attachment styles, individuals with a dismissing attach-

ment style will be those who rate more negatively those consequences that involve a
greater loss of independence (such as sharing more things, spending more time together,
or loss of independence).

Method
Participants and Procedure
The sample consisted of 1,539 undergraduate students from the Universities of Granada and Jaen
(Spain), of whom 912 (59.2%) had a partner at the time the research took place; the remaining
627 (40.7%) were not involved with anyone. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 30 years (M
D20.7). The data were collected by means of a questionnaire that was administered to groups of
25 to 40 students during class time. Student participation was voluntary and anonymous.

Pilot Study
Prior to administering the definitive questionnaire for this research, a pilot study was con-
ducted, following the procedure proposed by Ajzen (2002), in order to obtain behavioral
beliefs about the consequences of engaging in the behavior, and respondents’ evaluations of
such consequences. A questionnaire was administered to a similar sample to the main study
sample (N D 112) for the purpose of identifying the modal salient beliefs held by the future
study population. Salient beliefs are those beliefs which are more easily retrieved from mem-
ory. The questionnaire used to elicit these beliefs included open questions about the conse-
quences, or advantages and disadvantages of engaging in the target behavior: “whenever
possible, to take my partner with me everywhere over the next 20 days.” Specifically,
respondents were given a description of the behavior to be evaluated, and were asked the
question: “What do you believe are the benefits or advantages/costs or disadvantages of
engaging in such behavior?” A content analysis was made of the answers to these open ques-
tions, and the eight most frequent responses were selected. This number was chosen because,
according to Ajzen, although the number of salient beliefs that should be selected for a spe-
cific study may vary, the ideal number lies in the range of five to nine given that a person is
able to process only five to nine items of information at a time. Accordingly, the eight most
frequent responses obtained were used to construct an instrument that would subsequently
serve to evaluate behavioral beliefs in the main questionnaire.

Instruments

Adult Attachment Style. This variable was measured using the two versions of the Relation-
ship Questionnaire (RQ) developed by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991). The RQ
 THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 937

measures adult attachment style by presenting four short paragraphs that describe prototypi-
cal attachment models applied to close personal relationships in general. Two types of mea-
sure were used: a categorical measure whereby participants received the four descriptions
and had to choose which of the four best portrayed their behavior in intimate relationships;
a continuous measure, whereby participants scored their level of agreement with each of the
four descriptions on a scale of 7 (1 D wholly disagree, 7 D wholly agree). Following the rec-
ommendations of different authors, the order in which items were presented was counterbal-
anced (e.g., Hidalgo & Hern
andez, 2000).
Different studies have found that, compared to other measures of adult attachment, this
measure shows the highest correlations between the categorical measure and the continuous
measure (Tidwell et al., 1996). Generally speaking, the continuous measure has shown
greater reliability (reliability coefficient around .50 for the scales scoring each of the four
attachment models) than the categorical measure (kappa coefficient around .35) (Crowell,
Fraley, & Shaver, 1999). The RQ also had a convergent validity with other measures of adult
attachment such as Hazan and Shaver’s three-category measure (Scharfe & Bartholomew,
1994), or the Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994a). The
four–category model was used rather than a three–category model due to the fact that a large
number of studies have underlined the need to distinguish between the two avoidance styles
(Mikulincer & Arad, 1999; Tidwell et al., 1996).

Behavioral Beliefs (Perceived Benefits and Costs). For the purpose of evaluating behavioral
beliefs, participants were asked to indicate the probability of eight (four positive and four
negative) relevant consequences occurring if they were to exhibit the behavior “whenever
possible, to take my partner with me everywhere over the next 20 days.” These eight beliefs,
which were obtained from the previously described pilot study, were specifically four positive
consequences: a) sharing more things together; b) feeling more secure; c) spending more
time together; d) getting to know each better; and four negative consequences: e) losing other
relationships; f) the relationship becoming more monotonous and boring; g) a loss of inde-
pendence; and h) having more arguments. After participants had reported the perceived
probability of each behavioral consequence, they were asked to evaluate the degree to which
they felt that each of the eight consequences was positive or negative. Both the perceived
probability and the evaluation were measured using bipolar scales (¡3 to C3), the former
ranging from not at all likely to extremely likely, and the latter, from very negative to very
positive.

Results
Preliminary Analyses
In order to determine the distribution of adult attachment styles, a frequency analysis was
made using Bartholomew’s classification system (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) as a cate-
gorical measure. Results showed that 39.6% of participants considered themselves secure,
21% preoccupied, 20.3% avoidant–fearful, and 19.1% avoidant–dismissing in close relation-
ships, which distribution is similar to that found in previous studies (e.g., Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991; Brennan & Bosson, 1998). Nonetheless, it should be pointed out that in the
majority of studies in which this classification system was used with samples of university
938 A. MONTEOLIVA ET AL.

students in a similar age group to ours, the secure attachment style accounted for the largest
percentage, whereas the distribution of the three other styles was more variable.
Furthermore, following Bartholomew and Shaver’s procedures (1998; see also Griffin &
Bartholomew, 1994a), two attachment dimensions were then computed from the continuous
single item scales of the paragraph measure. These dimensions reflect self and other working
models that underlie the four prototypical attachment styles. The underlying attachment
dimensions can be derived from linear combinations of the prototype ratings obtained from
the RQ (or the composite attachment measure). The model of self (anxiety) dimension was
constructed as follows: [(secure C dismissing) – (fearful C preoccupied)], in which high
scores reflect high levels of attachment anxiety and a lack of confidence. The model of others
(avoidance) dimension was constructed as follows: [(secure C preoccupied) – (dismissing C
fearful)], in which high scores reflect high levels of attachment avoidance and discomfort
with closeness.

Beliefs Associated with Behavior depending on Attachment Style

The objective of this study was to analyze whether there were differences in how young peo-
ple with different attachment styles perceived the benefits and costs associated with “when-
ever possible, to take my partner with me everywhere over the next 20 days,” and to analyze
their evaluation of the consequences and determine whether such beliefs reflected the under-
lying internal working models for each type.
First, correlation analyses were performed to measure the relationship between the two
models (self and other), the four continuous measures of attachment, and all dependent var-
iables (see Tables 1 and 2). The results showed that the model of others was significantly cor-
related with all dependent variables on the perceived probability of the consequence
occurring, and also on the evaluation or weighting attached to each of the consequences (all
p values < .01). However, the model of self showed significant correlations with all perceived
consequences (all p values < .05), but not with the evaluation of each consequence.
Considering the type of behavior studied during this research, these results might have
been expected given that the model of others is characterized by how comfortable or uncom-
fortable an individual feels about depending on, or being close to his/her partner (low/high
avoidance). The model of self is characterized by worry and fear of rejection or abandon-
ment by partner (low/high anxiety) and, therefore, would be less associated with the behav-
ior being analyzed.

Table 1. Correlations Between Model of Self, Model of Other, Attachment Styles, and Perceived Probability
of each Behavioral Consequence (Perceived Benefits and Costs).
Sharing Spending More Getting to Having
more things Losing other Feeling more time monotonous know each A loss of more
together relationships more secure together and boring other better independence arguments

Self .052 ¡.142 ¡.076 .065 ¡.137 ¡.049 ¡.118 ¡.124

Other .243 ¡.201 .288 .211 ¡.315 .124 ¡.298 ¡.199
Secure .175 ¡.186 .135 .158 ¡.272 .090 ¡.244 ¡.180
Dismissing ¡.239 .161 ¡.282 ¡.146 .299 –.139 .280 .200
Preocupied ¡.006 .081 .143 .027 .077 .067 .053 .106
Fearful ¡.155 .201 ¡.110 ¡.149 .244 .004 .230 .191

p < .05.p < .01.
 THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 939

Table 2. Correlations Between Model of Self, Model of Other, and Evaluation of Behavioral Beliefs
(Perceived Benefits and Costs).
Sharing Spending More Getting to Having
more things Losing other Feeling more time monotonous know each A loss of more
together relationships more secure together and boring other better independence arguments

Self .044 ¡.026 ¡.050 .035 ¡.039 .032 ¡.079 ¡.050

Other .337 .073 .268 .382 ¡.093 .271 .125 ¡.106
Secure .241 .006 .144 .281 ¡.068 .178 .044 ¡.099
Dismissing ¡.283 ¡.091 ¡.260 ¡.353 .069 ¡.230 ¡.169 .067
Preocupied .063 .025 .114 .057 .015 .056 .077 .007
Fearful ¡.192 ¡.044 ¡.102 ¡.195 .078 ¡.158 ¡.008 .077

p < .05.p < .01.

Furthermore, these same tables show how the correlations between the continuous meas-
ures of attachment and the dependent variables follow a similar pattern overall to that found
for the models of self and other. These results were to be expected given that the continuous
measures of attachment were used to contruct the models of self and other.
To test the proposed three hypotheses, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs)
were carried out, followed by multiple post hoc comparisons (with Tukey’s HSD tests), using
participants’ beliefs about consequences and their evaluation of such consequences as depen-
dent variables, and adult attachment style as an independent variable. The results obtained
showed significant differences, depending on the attachment style, for the majority of varia-
bles analyzed.
The first hypothesis predicted that, in the case of secure and preoccupied individuals, pos-
itive consequences of “whenever possible, taking my partner with me everywhere over the
next 20 days” would be more likely than negative consequences, the opposite being the case
among dismissing and fearful individuals. The results of the MANOVA highlighted the sig-
nificant main effects for each adult attachment style on all behavioral beliefs measured, both
positive and negative (see Tables 3 and 4). As it can be seen, all p values < .001 and h2 values
between .011 –.139, except for “losing other relationships”: p < .196 and h2 D .003. As was
expected, post hoc comparisons showed that, of the four attachment styles, secure and preoc-
cupied individuals generally calculated a higher likelihood of all positive consequences
occurring than fearful and dismissing individuals, and the latter perceived the highest likeli-
hood of all negative consequences occurring (Table 5).

Table 3. Adult Attachment Style Differences in Perceived Probability of each Behavioral Consequence and
Results of the MANOVAs.
Consequences h2 >F >p

Sharing more things together .048 25.771 .000

Losing other relationships .046 24.500 .000
Feeling more secure .049 26.562 .000
Spending more time together .024 12.820 .000
The relationship becoming more .096 54.532 .000
monotonous and boring
Getting to know each better .012 6.304 .000
A loss of independence .079 43.593 .000
Having more arguments .049 26.155 .000
940 A. MONTEOLIVA ET AL.

Table 4. Adult Attachment Style Differences in Evaluation of Perceived Benefits and Costs and Results of
the MANOVAs.
Probability of consequences h2 F p

Sharing more things together .091 51383 .000

Losing other relationships .003 1.566 .196
Feeling more secure .050 26.904 .000
Spending more time together .139 82.391 .000
The relationship becoming more .011 5.463 .001
monotonous and boring
Getting to know each better .055 29.895 .000
A loss of independence .012 6.426 .000
Having more arguments .016 8.203 .000

Thus, secure and preoccupied individuals thought (and, compared to dismissing and fearful
individuals, considered much more likely) that taking their partner with them everywhere over
the next three weeks would lead to their sharing more things, feeling more secure and spending
more time together. Further, both avoidant styles considered that there was less probability of
each of the positive consequences occurring. Thus, in the case of the consequence spending more
time together, dismissing and fearful individuals alike had the lowest mean values. In the case of
sharing more things and feeling more secure, dismissing individuals had significantly lower mean
values than any other group. With regard to the consequence getting to know each other better,
only individuals with a dismissing attachment style showed significant differences compared to
secure and preoccupied individuals, but not when compared to fearful individuals, who showed
no significant differences compared to secure and preoccupied individuals.
In the case of negative consequences, compared to other attachment styles, secure indi-
viduals reported the lowest probability of all consequences occurring, followed by preoccu-
pied and fearful individuals, whereas dismissing individuals reported a greater likelihood on
all consequences. Nonetheless, it should be noted that no significant differences were found
between preoccupied and fearful individuals, nor between dismissing and fearful individuals,
with regard to the consequence having more arguments, nor between dismissing and fearful
individuals in the case of losing other relationships and losing my independence, although, in
the latter case, significance was marginal (p < .067).

Table 5. Average Scores for Each Attachment Style and Post-Hoc Comparisons (Tukey’s HSD Tests) Follow-
ing Multivariate Analyses of Variance for Probability of Perceived benefits and Costs of Romantic
Relationships.
Attachment Styles

Perceived Costs and Benefits Secure (a) Avoidant Dismissing (b) Preoccupied (c) Avoidant Fearful (d)

Sharing more things together 2.23b,d 1.62a,c,d 2.12b,d 1.84a,b,c

Losing other relationships ¡.62b,c,d .34a,c,d ¡.17a,b,d .29a,c
Feeling more secure .85b,d ¡.03a,c,d .99b,d .39a,b,c
Spending more time together 2.46b,d 2.10a,c 2.36b,d 2.11a,c
More monotonous and boring ¡1.12b,c,d .38a,c ¡.52a,b,d ¡.01a,c
Getting to know each better .71b 1.31a,c 1.75b 1.57
A loss of independence ¡.54b,c,d .87a,c .05a,b,d .49a,c
Having more arguments ¡.38b,c,d .63a,c .11a,b .35a

Note. Superscripts indicate statistically significant comparisons (p < .05) between each attachment style and the remaining
styles.
 THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 941

Table 6. Average Scores for Each Attachment Style and Post-Hoc Comparisons (Tukey’s HSD Tests) Follow-
ing Multivariate Analyses of Variance for Evaluation of Perceived Benefits and Costs of Romantic
Relationships.
Attachment Styles

Evaluated Costs and Benefits Secure (a) Avoidant Dismissing (b) Preoccupied (c) Avoidant Fearful (d)

Sharing more things together 2.53b,d 1.81a,c,d 2.39b,d 2.10a,b,c

Losing other relationships ¡1.77 ¡1.90 ¡1.70 ¡1.84
Feeling more secure 1.94b,d 1.17a,c,d 1.88b 1.66a,b
Spending more time together 2.29b,d 1.13a,c,d 2.14b,d 1.72a,b,c
More monotonous and boring ¡2.32b,d ¡2.02a,c ¡2.22b ¡2.12a
Getting to know each other better 2.45b,d 1.90a,c 2.43b,d 2.09a,c
A loss of independence ¡1.68b ¡1.99a,c,d ¡1.63b ¡1.62b
Having more arguments ¡2.02b,d ¡1.61a,c ¡1.87b ¡1.68a

Note. Superscripts indicate statistically significant comparisons (p < .05) between each attachment style and the remaining
styles.

With regard to our second hypothesis, we expected both secure and preoccupied individ-
uals to rate more favourably than dismissing and fearful individuals those consequences of
“whenever possible, to take my partner with me everywhere over the next 20 days” that
would lead to greater intimacy and affectional closeness in the relationship. Specifically, we
expected to find differences in the evaluation of the following consequences: spending more
time together, sharing more things, or getting to know each other better. Results of post hoc
comparisons showed that, as predicted, secure and preoccupied individuals rated these three
consequences more positively than fearful and dismissing individuals. The latter group rated
the three consequences more negatively than all the other groups, except in the case of get-
ting to know each other better, where, although they were not significantly different com-
pared to fearful individuals, significance was p < .078 (Table 6).
Lastly, our third hypothesis proposes that individuals with a dismissing attachment style
would be the group that rated most negatively those consequences involving a greater loss of
independence (such as losing my independence, sharing more things, and spending more time
together). As previously indicated, in the case of sharing more things, and spending more
time together, the results confirmed our predictions with regard to dismissing individuals. In
the case of the consequence losing my independence, post hoc comparisons only partially
confirmed our predictions (Table 6). Thus, the group of dismissing individuals rated losing
my independence, as a consequence of exhibiting the target behavior, more negatively than
the other three groups; no significant differences were found among the other three attach-
ment styles.

Discussion
The aim of this study was mainly to determine whether the benefits and costs perceived in
couple relationships differ, depending on adult attachment style. The objectives of the study
are based on attachment theory, which posits that differences in expectations, beliefs, atti-
tudes, and behavior in interpersonal relationships are, to a large extent, the result of adult
attachment style, that is, of specific cognitive schemas about relationships that guide not
only thoughts, but also feelings and behavior (Collins, 1996; Simpson, Collins, Tran, &
Haydon, 2007).
942 A. MONTEOLIVA ET AL.

The results of this study provide support for the idea that, as a result of the different inter-
nal working models involved, attachment styles reflect different beliefs in respect of the same
behavior in romantic relationships. An overall analysis of the results obtained for the
hypotheses shows that, as predicted, compared to all other attachment styles, secure individ-
uals perceived more benefits than costs relating to the behavior, whereas dismissing individ-
uals perceived more costs than benefits. In the insecure group, preoccupied individuals
showed a greater perception of benefits compared to costs associated with the behavior.
Further, and in line with our predictions, secure and preoccupied individuals rated those
behavioral consequences that led to greater intimacy or closeness more positively than avoi-
dant individuals. Those with a dismissing attachment style evaluated the consequences that
implied a loss of independence more negatively.
These findings confirm the results from other studies reporting the incidence of internal
working models on the way people think, feel, and behave in similar interpersonal situations
(Birnbaum, 2007; Collins, 1996; Dykas & Cassidy, 2011; Tidwell et al., 1996). For example,
Tidwell et al.) found that secure and preoccupied individuals spent more time interacting
with others (partners or friends) than avoidant individuals, or more frequently displayed
behaviors that could enhance closeness in their relationships. Furthermore, Collins found
that, once these working models were triggered in a person’s memory, they affected the pro-
cesses of social perception and attribution in a way that was consistent with the beliefs and
expectations about self and others associated with each attachment style. Thus, people with
a secure attachment style interpreted events in a way that minimized their negative effects,
whereas people with insecure styles maximized the impact of these effects.
In the case of this study, the data obtained for each attachment style group was congruent
with their working models. For example, a secure attachment style is characterized by feeling
comfortable with affectional closeness or intimacy, by the tendency to trust others when
needed, and by a perception of self as a person who is loved and valued. This positive vision
includes a perception of others as people in whom one can trust, and who are available
when needed. In contrast, a preoccupied attachment style is characterized by a high desire
for intimacy and closeness, largely disregarding the individual’s own independence. How-
ever, such individuals tend to be excessively preoccupied and anxious about rejection or
abandonment in the relationship (Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994). Therefore, it is only
logical that these two attachment style groups are those who perceived more advantages in
exhibiting such behavior, and who rated more positively those consequences that would lead
to greater closeness and intimacy in their couple relationship.
In the case of avoidant individuals, they are characterized basically by their avoidance of
intimacy. They try to keep some distance in their interpersonal relationships, and to avoid
allowing people to become too affectionally close to them, either through a fear of rejection
(fearful), or through their need for independence (dismissing). It is hardly surprising, there-
fore, that, in this study, avoidant individuals, and especially, dismissing individuals, who pre-
fer to avoid intimacy and to keep some emotional distance in their relationships, should be
those who perceived more drawbacks than advantages when thinking about spending as
much time as possible with their partner, and those who rated more negatively the conse-
quences involving greater intimacy in the relationship and a loss of independence.
This avoidant behavioral strategy has been reported by different authors for various situa-
tions. Some research on the type of everyday social interaction displayed by each attachment
style found that avoidant individuals participate in fewer social activities, keep an affectional
 THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 943

distance, and enjoy themselves less than individuals with other attachment styles (Bartholo-
mew & Horowitz, 1991; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Tidwell et al., 1996). Further studies have
shown that the lower the level of emotional intimacy perceived by individuals scoring high
on avoidant attachment, the greater their satisfaction in their relationship, unlike people
scoring low on avoidance (Dandurand & Lafontaine, 2013).
As predicted by the attachment theory, the goal of avoidant individuals seems to be that
of keeping control and independence in their closest relationships. The results of different
research show the existence of several indicators that reflect the tendency among avoidant
individuals to escape from intimacy: (1) they become less involved in stable romantic rela-
tionships; (2) they spend less time interacting with others (partner or friends); and (3) they
disclose less intimate or personal information. The latter two indicators seem to be factors
that lessen the probability of creating affectional bonds, or increasing the level of intimacy
(Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989; Reis & Patrick, 1996; Tidwell et al., 1996).
The results obtained from this study seem to confirm that internal working models repre-
sent an established cognitive system that predisposes an individual to perceive and interpret
experiences in a way that is consistent with such models. Authors such as Collins and Read
(1990; Collins, 1996), among others, suggest that these working models are used to filter and
interpret external social information. In this study, it was found that young people with dif-
ferent styles of attachment interpreted the same situation in different ways, consistent with
their beliefs and expectations.
In line with these results, it should be noted that theories on interpersonal relation-
ships, based on a social exchange approach (Burgess & Huston, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut,
1978), posit that the outcome of any interaction will be determined by the perceived
rewards and costs. Rewards would be the satisfaction and gratification that a person
obtains from displaying a behavior, whereas costs would be the negative consequences.
Rewards and costs depend on a person’s experiences, beliefs, and the attributions they
make about self and others. A relationship will last only if both partners perceive the
rewards involved to be greater than the costs, and the relationship is more highly val-
ued than alternative relationships (including not having a relationship). Thus, according
to this theoretical approach, the way in which each member of a couple evaluates the
benefits and costs perceived in their relationship will have an impact on their degree of
satisfaction and on the good functioning of their relationship. Bearing in mind the
high number of studies in the literature on attachment that have found that individuals
with a secure attachment style exhibit the highest rates of satisfaction, intimacy, and
perceived stability in their romantic relationships (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Collins,
1996; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994; Knobloch, Solomon, & Cruz,
2001; Monteoliva & Garc
ıa, 2005), the results of this study show, in keeping with social
exchange theories, that beliefs play an important role in explaining the link between
attachment style and relationship satisfaction. Thus, the way in which individuals think
about their partner and their relationships highly affects the functioning of their rela-
tionship. People who think that they are not worthy of love and affection, and/or that
others are not worthy of trust, perceive the consequences of being close to their partner
as being more negative than positive, and feel less satisfied than those who do feel wor-
thy of love and affection, and/or trust in others.
In conclusion, this study shows that the perception held about costs and benefits in a cou-
ple-relationship vary as a function of attachment style. It might be useful to identify these
944 A. MONTEOLIVA ET AL.

beliefs so that professionals working in the field of interpersonal relationships can design
programmes aimed at changing such beliefs and attitudes in order to foster trust and to
reduce perceived costs in relationships. We believe that identification of these aspects would
contribute to a better understanding of relationship problems and to greater satisfaction and
adjustment in couple relationships.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Before concluding, we should acknowledge some of this study’s limitations. One limitation
would be related to the instrument used to measure the adult attachment style. We have
used the two versions of the Relationship Questionnaire (categorical and continuous mea-
sure) proposed by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991), which, although it has proved to have
certain weaknesses from a methodological point of view, has been validated and extensively
used in previous studies. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to carry out future studies in
which other adult attachment measures are included, such as those used by Brennan et al.
(1998) (also see Fraley et al., 2000).
The findings of this study suggest some interesting implications in the area of interper-
sonal processes from both a psychosocial and clinical perspective. As previously described,
avoidant individuals display more negative beliefs toward behaviors that can lead to estab-
lishing a stronger affective bond. Research has repeatedly shown that a lack of intimacy and
of strong affective bonds affects an individual’s physical and psychological health, leading to
problems such as depression and loneliness, or increasing the likelihood of developing risk
behaviors such as alcoholism that can affect his/her health (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Reis &
Franks, 1994).
Given that research has found that, generally speaking, individuals with an avoidant
attachment style report less intimate or less close, and more unsatisfactory interpersonal
relationships, and seem to be more prone to interpersonal and mental health problems (Bar-
tholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992),
such individuals might be a risk group requiring further study to examine the consequences
of their fear of intimacy in greater detail, and subsequently, to create mechanisms that will
enable them to change their schemas about their relationships (e.g., their beliefs and
expectations).
In the field of couple therapy, for example, it might be interesting to identify such beliefs,
particularly in individuals with a history of insecure attachment. Knowledge about such
beliefs would enable interventions aimed at restructuring their internal working models, that
is, their view of self and of others, and thus, increase their trust in their partner and foster
their capacity for intimacy.
Further, according to the approach based on models of attitude-behavior relations such as
the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), behavioral beliefs are the foundations for
forming favourable or unfavourable attitudes to behavior, which, in turn, are considered
direct determinants of intention, and indirect determinants of future behavior. Based on this
theory, it would be interesting to evaluate the beliefs held by individuals with different
attachment styles about the consequences of engaging in certain interpersonal behaviors,
and whether these beliefs are good predictors of the intention to engage in such behaviors,
and of actual future behaviors, all of which could mean a major step forward in our knowl-
edge of interpersonal functioning.
 THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 945

It is recommended that further studies be made, basically with people who have insecure
attachment styles, in order to evaluate beliefs and expectations associated with behaviors
that increase intimacy in interpersonal relationships. An evaluation of these aspects might
prove helpful in changing their negative perception of intimacy and of the consequences of
having closer affectional bonds in their intimate relationships.

Author Notes
Adelaida Monteoliva, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor at the Department of Social Psychology, Univer-
sity of Granada (Spain). Her current research focuses on Values, Beliefs, Attitudes and Behavior; The-
ory of Planned Behavior; Adult Attachment Theory, Close Relationships, and Interpersonal Processes
and Environmental Psychology.

J. Miguel Angel Garcia–Martinez, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor (permanent position) at the Depart-
ment of Social Psychology, University of Granada (Spain). His research interests include Values,
Beliefs, Attitudes and Behavior; Theory of Planned Behavior; Adult Attachment Theory, Close Rela-
tionships and Interpersonal Processes; and Environmental Psychology and Sex Roles.

Antonia Calvo–Salguero, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor (permanent position) at the Department of

Social Psychology, University of Granada (Spain). Her research interests include Gender Differences
and Work–Family Conflict, Values, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Behavior and Environmental Psychology.

References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A study of the
strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire: Conceptual and methodolog-
ical considerations. Retrieved June 14, 2010, from http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.mea
surement.pdf.
Baldwin, M. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 112(3), 461–484.
Baldwin, M. W., Fehr, B., Keedian, E., Seidel, M., & Thomson, D. W. (1993). An exploration of the
relational schemas underlying attachment styles: self–report and lexical decision approaches. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 746–754.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships, 7(2), 147–178.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four–
category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244.
Bartholomew, K., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Methods of assessing adult attachment: Do they converge? In
J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment Theory and close relationships (pp. 25–45). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The Relationship closeness inventory: Assessing the
closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 792–
807.
Birnbaum, G. E. (2007). Attachment orientations, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction in a
community sample of women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 21–35.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
946 A. MONTEOLIVA ET AL.

Brennan, K. A., & Bosson, J. K. (1998) Attachment-style differences in attitudes toward and reactions
to feedback from romantic partners: An exploration of the relational bases of self–esteem. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(7), 699–714.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic attach-
ment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close
relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and romantic
relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 267–284.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborat-
ing a central construct in attachment theory. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment:
Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 102–127). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Burgess, R. L., & Huston, T. L. (1979). Social exchange in developing relationships: An overview. In R.
L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 3–28). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction:
A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15(8), 141–154.
Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion and
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 810–832.
Collins, N. L., Ford, M. B., Guichard, A. M. C., & Allard, L. M. (2006). Working models of attach-
ment and attribution processes in intimate relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 32(2), 201–219.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models and relationship quality in dat-
ing couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 644–663.
Crowell, J. A., Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Measurement of individual differences in adoles-
cent and adult attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: theory,
research and clinical applications (pp. 434–465). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Dandurand, C., & Lafontaine, M. F. (2013). Intimacy and couple satisfaction: The moderating role of
romantic attachment. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 5(1), 74–90.
Dwyer, K. M., Fredstrom, B. K., Rubin, K. H., Booth^a€“LaForce, C., Krasnor, L. R., & Burgess, K. B.
(2010). Attachment, social information processing, and friendship quality of early adolescent girls
and boys. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(1), 91–116.
Dykas, M. J., & Cassidy, J. (2011). Attachment and the processing of social information across the life
span: Theory and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 19–46.
Ein–Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011). Attachment insecurities and the processing of
threat-related information: Studying the schemas involved in insecure people’s coping strategies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 78–93.
Feeney, J. A. (1999). Issues of closeness and distance in dating relationships: Effects of sex and attach-
ment style. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(5), 571–590.
Feeney, J. A. (2002a). Attachment-related dynamics: What can we learn from self-reports of avoidance
and anxiety?. Attachment & Human Development, 4(2), 193–200.
Feeney, J. A. (2002b). Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction: A diary study.
Personal Relationships, 9(1), 39–55.
Feeney, J. A. (2008). Adult romantic attachment: Developments in the study of couple relationships. In
J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: theory, research and clinical applications
(2nd ed., pp. 456–481). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 281–291.
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment: Developments in the
conceptualization of security and insecurity. In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment
in adults: Theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 128–152). New York, NY: Guilford.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York, NY: Random House.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Overall, N. C., & Friesen, M. D. (2006). Social cognition in intimate relationships. In
A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, pp. 353–
368. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
 THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 947

Fraley, R. C., Hudson, N. W., Heffernan, M. E., & Segal, N. (2015). Are adult attachment styles cate-
gorical or dimensional?. A taxometric analysis of general and relationship-specific attachment ori-
entations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(2), 354–368.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report
measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365.
Gallo, L. C., & Smith, T. W. (2001). Attachment style in marriage: Adjustment and responses to inter-
action. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(2), 263–289.
Grabill, C. M., & Kerns, K. A. (2000). Attachment style and intimacy in friendship. Personal Relation-
ships, 7(4), 363–378.
Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994a). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underly-
ing measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 430–445.
Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994b). The metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult
attachment. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5.
Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 17–52). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.
Hendrick, S., & Hendrick, C. (2005). Love. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psy-
chology (pp. 472–484). Oxford, UK: University Press.
Hidalgo, M. C., & Hern
andez, B. (2000). Medici
on de los estilos de apego adulto. Efecto del orden de
presentaci
on [Measurement of adult attachment styles: Effect of order of presentation]. In D.
Caballero, T. M
endez & J. Pastor (Eds.), La mirada psicosociol
ogica: Grupos, procesos, lenguajes y
culturas (pp. 683–688). Madrid, Spain: Biblioteca Nueva.
Jin, B., & Pe~na, J. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationships: Mobile phone use, rela-
tional uncertainty, love, commitment, and attachment styles. Communication Reports, 23(1), 39–51.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender and relationship stability: A longi-
tudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 502–512.
Knobloch, L. K., Solomon, D. H., & Cruz, M. G. (2001). The role of relationship development and
attachment in the experience of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 8(2), 205–224.
Marks, M. J., Trafimow, D., & Rice, S. C. (2013). Attachment-related individual differences in the con-
sistency of relationship behavior interpretation. Journal of Personality, 82(3), 237–249.
Mikulincer, M. (1995). Attachment style and the mental representation of the self. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1203–1215.
Mikulincer, M., & Arad, D. (1999). Attachment working models and cognitive openness in close rela-
tionships: A test of chronic and temporary accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77(4), 710–725.
Mikulincer, M., & Selinger, M. (2001). The interplay between attachment and affiliation systems in
adolescents’ same–sex friendships: The role of attachment style. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 18(1), 81–106.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment patterns in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and
change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Monteoliva, A., & Garc
ıa–Mart
ınez, J. M. A. (2005). Adult attachment style and its effects on the qual-
ity of romantic relationships in Spanish students. Journal of Social Psychology, 145(6), 745–747.
Monteoliva, A., Garc
ıa–Mart
ınez J. M. A., Calvo–Salguero, A., & Aguilar, M. C. (2008). Adult attach-
ment styles and attitudes towards sharing time with one
s partner. International Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 43, 505.
Monteoliva, A., Garc
ıa–Mart
ınez J. M. A., Calvo–Salguero, A., & Mart
ın, I. (2007). Differences in the
attitudes towards satisfying desires with the couple according to the style of adult attachment.
Paper presented at the XTH European Congress of Psychology, Prague, Czech Republic.
Popovic, M. (2005). Intimacy and its relevance in human functioning. Sexual and Relationship Ther-
apy, 20(1), 31–49.
Reis, H. T. (1990). The role of intimacy in interpersonal relations. Journal of Social and Clinical Psy-
chology, 9(1), 15–30.
948 A. MONTEOLIVA ET AL.

Reis, H. T., & Franks, P. (1994). The role of intimacy and social support in health outcomes: Two pro-
cesses or one? Personal Relationships, 1(2), 185–197.
Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component processes. In E. T. Higgins
& A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 523–563). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rholes, W. S., Paetzold, R. L., & Friedman, M. (2008). Ties that bind: Linking personality to interper-
sonal behavior through the study of adult attachment style and relationship satisfaction. In F. Rho-
dewalt (Ed.), Personality and Social Interaction (pp. 117–148). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of adult attachment patterns. Personal
Relationships, 1(1), 23–43.
Schindler, I., Fagundes, C. P., & Murdock, K. W. (2010). Predictors of romantic relationship forma-
tion: Attachment style, prior relationships, and dating goals. Personal Relationships, 17(1), 97–105.
Shaver, P. R., Papalia, D., Clark, C. L., Koski, L. R., Tidwell, M., & Nalbone, D. (1996). Androgyny and
attachment security: Two related models of optimal personality. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22(6), 582–597.
Shi, L., Wampler, R., & Wampler, K. (2013). A comparison of self-report adult attachment measures:
How do they converge and diverge?. Universal Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 10–19.
Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., & Salvatore, J. E. (2011). The impact of early social experience on adult
romantic relationship functioning: Recent findings from the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk
and Adaptation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 355–359.
Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Haydon, K. C. (2007). Attachment and the experience and
expression of emotions in romantic relationships: a developmental perspective. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 92(2), 355–367.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within cou-
ples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 62(3), 434–446.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Winterheld, H. A. (2010). Attachment working models twist memo-
ries of relationship events. Psychological Science, 21(2), 252–259.
Stackert, R. A., & Bursik, K. (2003). Why am I unsatisfied? Adult attachment style, gendered irrational
relationship beliefs, and young adult romantic relationship satisfaction. Personality and Individual
Differences, 34(8), 1419–1429.
Tidwell, M. C. O., Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Attachment, attractiveness, and social interac-
tion: A diary study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 729–745.