Attachment Theory

ebook
THE GUILFORD PRESS

ATTACHMENT THEORY AND RESEARCH
Also Available
Adult Attachment:
Theory, Research, and Clinical Implications
Edited by W. Steven Rholes and Jeffry A. Simpson
The Evolution of Mind:

Fundamental Questions and Controversies
Edited by Steven W. Gangestad and Jeffry A. Simpson
Attachment Theory
and Research
New Directions and Emerging Themes
edited by
Jeffry A. Simpson
W. Steven Rholes
The Guilford Press

New York London
© 2015 The Guilford Press
A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc.
370 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1200, New York, NY 10001
www.guilford.com
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording,
or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Attachment theory and research : new directions and emerging themes / edited by
Jeffry A. Simpson, W. Steven Rholes.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4625-1217-1 (hardback)
1. Attachment behavior. I. Simpson, Jeffry A. II. Rholes, W. Steven (William
Steven)
BF575.A86A8195 2015
155.9′2—dc23
2014044248
About the Editors
Jeffry A. Simpson, PhD, is Professor of Psychology and Director of the Doc-

toral Minor in Interpersonal Relationships (IREL) at the University of Minne-
sota. His research focuses on adult attachment processes, human mating, ide-
alization in relationships, empathic accuracy in relationships, social influence
in relationships, and how interpersonal experiences earlier in life affect adult
health and relationship outcomes. He has previously served as editor of the
journal Personal Relationships and as associate editor and editor for the Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal Relations and Group
Processes. In addition, he has served on grant panels at the National Science
Foundation (NSF), and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and
as chair of the Social, Personality, and Interpersonal Relations grant panel at
NIMH. Dr. Simpson is a recipient of the Berscheid–Hatfield Award for Mid-
career Achievement in the Study of Relationships from the International Asso-
ciation for Relationships Research and of the Carol and Ed Diener Award for
Midcareer Achievement in Social Psychology from the Society for Personality
and Social Psychology. He is also the president of the International Associa-
tion for Relationship Research. His programs of research have been funded by
grants from the NSF, NIMH, the National Institute on Aging, and the Mars-
den Foundation in New Zealand.
W. Steven Rholes, PhD, is Professor in the Department of Psychology at Texas

A&M University. He has conducted research in social cognition, children’s
social development, and adult attachment. In 1992, Dr. Rholes, with Jeffry A.
Simpson, published one of the first studies to confirm predictions about avoid-
ant attachment style, using behavioral observations as evidence. For more than
20 years, the impact of attachment styles on emotional support sought and
provided by members of romantic couples has been the central focus of his
research, with more recent research focusing on couples during the transition
to parenthood. Dr. Rholes has served as both department head and associate
dean during this period.
v
Contributors
Gurit E. Birnbaum, PhD, School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center

(IDC) Herzliya, Herzliya, Israel
Jude Cassidy, PhD, Department of Psychology, University
of Maryland, College Park, College Park, Maryland
Tracy L. Dalgleish, PhD, CPsych, Greenbelt Family Health Team,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Cassandra C. DeVito, MS, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts
Lisa M. Diamond, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Utah,
Salt Lake City, Utah
Guy Doron, PhD, School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center
Mary Dozier, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences,
University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware
Tsachi Ein-Dor, PhD, School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center
Brooke C. Feeney, PhD, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
R. Chris Fraley, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois
at Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, Illinois
Fiona Ge, MS, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences,
Omri Gillath, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kansas
vii
viii Contributors
Cindy Hazan, PhD, Department of Human Development, Cornell

University, Ithaca, New York
Brittany K. Jakubiak, MS, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon
Susan M. Johnson, EdD, CPsych, Emeritus, Department of Psychology,
University of Ottawa, and International Center for Excellence
in Emotionally Focused Therapy, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;
Marital and Family Therapy Program, Alliant University,
San Diego, California
Jason D. Jones, MS, Department of Psychology, University
Gery C. Karantzas, PhD, School of Psychology, Deakin University,
Burwood, Victoria, Australia
Marie-France Lafontaine, PhD, School of Psychology, University
of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Edward P. Lemay, Jr., PhD, Department of Psychology, University
Jana Lembke, BA, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences,
Sarah Merrill, PhD, Department of Human Development, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York
Mario Mikulincer, PhD, School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center
Nickola C. Overall, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand
Ramona L. Paetzold, DBA, Department of Management, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas
Paula R. Pietromonaco, PhD, Department of Psychological and
Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Amherst, Massachusetts
W. Steven Rholes, PhD, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas
Caroline K. P. Roben, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain
Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware
Glenn I. Roisman, PhD, Institute of Child Development,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Phillip R. Shaver, PhD, Department of Psychology,
University of California, Davis, Davis, California
Contributors ix
Jeffry A. Simpson, PhD, Department of Psychology, University

of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Meredith Van Vleet, PhD, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon
Vivian Zayas, PhD, Department of Psychology, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York
Contents
Introduction: New Directions and Emerging Themes 1

in Attachment Theory and Research
W. Steven Rholes and Jeffry A. Simpson
1 Early Attachment Experiences and Romantic Functioning: 9

Developmental Pathways, Emerging Issues, and Future Directions
R. Chris Fraley and Glenn I. Roisman
2 The Neuroscience of Attachment: Using New Methods to Answer 39

Old (and New) Questions
Omri Gillath
3 Fooled Around and Fell in Love: The Role of Sex in Adult Romantic 68
Attachment Formation
Vivian Zayas, Sarah Merrill, and Cindy Hazan
4 Stress and Attachment 97

Lisa M. Diamond
5 Boosting Attachment Security in Adulthood: The “Broaden-and-Build” 124

Effects of Security-Enhancing Mental Representations
and Interpersonal Contexts
Mario Mikulincer and Phillip R. Shaver
6 Attachment and Dyadic Regulation Processes 145

Nickola C. Overall and Edward P. Lemay, Jr.
xi
xii Contents
7 On the Convergence of Sexual Urges and Emotional Bonds: 170

The Interplay of the Sexual and Attachment Systems
during Relationship Development
Gurit E. Birnbaum
8 An Attachment-Theoretical Perspective on Optimal Dependence 195

in Close Relationships
Brooke C. Feeney, Meredith Van Vleet,
and Brittany K. Jakubiak
9 Adult Attachment Style and Parenting 234

Jason D. Jones, Jude Cassidy,
and Phillip R. Shaver
10 Attachment Theory in Organizational Settings 261

Ramona L. Paetzold
11 Health and Attachment Processes 287

Paula R. Pietromonaco, Cassandra C. DeVito,
Fiona Ge, and Jana Lembke
12 Attachment and Aged Care 319

Gery C. Karantzas and Jeffry A. Simpson
13 Psychopathology and Attachment 346

Tsachi Ein-Dor and Guy Doron
14 Attachment-Related Preventive Interventions 374

Mary Dozier and Caroline K. P. Roben
15 Attachment: A Guide to a New Era of Couple Interventions 393

Susan M. Johnson, Marie-France Lafontaine,
and Tracy L. Dalgleish
Author Index 423
Subject Index 441

Introduction
New Directions and Emerging Themes
in Attachment Theory and Research
W. Steven Rholes
Jeffry A. Simpson
F ew theories and areas of research have been more prolific during

the past decade than the attachment field. John Bowlby’s (1969/1982, 1973,
1980, 1988) comprehensive theory explaining the conditions under which
parents and children, romantic partners, and close friends form, build,
maintain, and sometimes dissolve attachment bonds “from the cradle to
the grave” (Bowlby, 1979, p. 129), and the ensuing flood of research that
now supports major principles of attachment theory, rank among the most
important intellectual achievements in the psychological sciences today.
This volume showcases the latest theoretical and empirical work from some
of the field’s top scholars, who are tackling a wide variety of important
questions and issues from an attachment theory perspective. As you will
see, the chapters in this book span a breathtaking panorama of different
models, processes, topics, and outcomes, all of which are grounded in key
principles, hypotheses, and/or findings associated with Bowlby’s highly
generative theory or recent conceptual extensions of it.
When authors were asked to contribute chapters to this book, we
requested that each chapter be organized to address three sets of issues.
First, we wanted each chapter to highlight the most important principles,
ideas, and/or findings within the realm of the topic or issue that the chapter
was intended to address. Second, we asked authors to identify the most
important and novel emerging themes relevant to their specific topic or
1
2 Introduction
issue. Third, we requested that authors propose new, promising directions

toward which future research should be directed. As editors, we viewed
this third theme as particularly important, because we wanted this volume
to serve as a roadmap for future theory and research within each domain
canvassed in this book. The final outcome of this enterprise—the com-
prehensiveness, novelty, and sheer quality of the chapters that this cast of
authors produced—more than met our high expectations. We believe that
you will agree once you read the groundbreaking chapters in this book.
Two Core Themes

Though the issues and topics covered by the chapters in this volume are
diverse, they cluster around two core themes: (1) classic, long-standing
themes and issues that have defined attachment theory and research since
Bowlby, Ainsworth, Main, Hazan, Shaver, and others opened the theoreti-
cal floodgate that has produced the rich empirical terrain of the current
attachment field; and (2) novel extensions of attachment theory and its
basic principles to new domains and outcomes of inquiry. We now discuss
where and how each chapter fits within these two core themes.
Classic Themes
One long-standing theme in the attachment field is whether and how early
experiences with caregivers affect social development into adulthood, espe-
cially romantic relationships. In Chapter 1, Fraley and Roisman explore
how early attachment experiences shape differences in the way in which
people feel, think, and behave in romantic relationships in early adult-
hood. They focus on two developmental pathways that may connect early
attachment experiences with romantic relationship functioning in early
adulthood: (1) the development of social competence and (2) the forma-
tion of intimate friendships. They also discuss several emerging themes
in developmental research, such as identifying the developmental factors
that link early social experiences with later developmental outcomes, dis-
tinguishing different mediation pathways between early experiences and
later outcomes, and using multiple-wave studies to test whether and how
associations between early experiences and later outcomes either decay or
stabilize over time.
Another perennial theme is how attachment processes are implicated
in the development of sexual pair bonding in adult romantic relationships.
In Chapter 3, Zayas, Merrill, and Hazan note that romantic partners often
act as both attachment figures and sexual partners, yet research on sex
and adult attachment have advanced independently. As a consequence, not
much is known about whether and how the sexual mating system interfaces
Introduction 3
with the development of attachment-based pair bonds in romantic relation-

ships. Zayas and her colleagues suggest that the neural and physiological
systems operative during sexual intercourse overlap with those underly-
ing attachment bonds, which partially explains why sexual interactions
produce physiological and endocrinological states that evoke attachment
security. They suggest that if sex occurs repeatedly across time with the
same partner, these systems become “conditioned,” thereby explaining the
formation of pair bonds.
A third mainstay theme is whether and how attachment and depen-
dence operate (either independently or jointly) to affect romantic relation-
ship functioning and outcomes. In Chapter 8, Feeney, Van Vleet, and Jaku-
biak propose that virtually all partners in close relationships must deal
with dependence issues, regardless of whether they are conscious versus
unconscious, deliberate versus accidental, or explicit versus implicit. They
then address several critical questions: Is dependence good or bad for part-
ners and relationships? Is there an optimal level of dependence that one
should strive for in close relationships? And if so, what affects the attain-
ment of optimal dependence? Feeney and her colleagues answer these ques-
tions from an attachment perspective and then highlight some promising
avenues for future research on optimal dependence in close relationships.
Another classic theme is whether and how different forms of stress
influence the development and expression of basic attachment processes and
outcomes. Diamond opens Chapter 4 by noting that the attachment system
purportedly evolved to regulate responses to danger and threat in the service
of facilitating infant survival. She then reviews evidence concerning how
early caregiving may shape “enduring profiles” of stress reactivity in the
autonomic system and the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical (HPA)
axis of the endocrine system. Following this, she examines whether the
quality of infant–caregiver attachment affects the development of these sys-
tems independently of other contextual influences, such as infant adversity,
poverty, maltreatment, and neglect. She then explores connections between
attachment theory and adaptive calibration principles, which propose that
children who display stronger physiological stress reactivity (in response to
early life adversity) should show certain beneficial outcomes if they experi-
ence more nurturance or support later in life. Diamond concludes by dis-
cussing this model’s implications for understanding stress-related plasticity
and adaptation in attachment insecurity across the life course.
A fifth key theme in the attachment literature is whether and how
attachment security can be instilled in people. In Chapter 5, Mikulincer
and Shaver suggest that feeling secure is a “resilience resource” and a build-
ing block of good mental health and social adjustment. They first review
what is known about contextually boosting a person’s sense of security in
laboratory experiments and field studies; they then describe their model
of attachment system activation and functioning in adulthood. Following
4 Introduction
this, Mikulincer and Shaver review research revealing that experimentally

induced security has positive effects on emotion regulation, self- and other-
appraisals, mental health, and prosocial behavior. They conclude by dis-
cussing studies showing that real-life interpersonal contexts that strengthen
a person’s sense of attachment security can produce beneficial changes in
psychological functioning.
Novel and Emerging Themes

One emerging theme in the attachment field is the integration of neurosci-
ence methods and theories with the traditional approaches to the study of
close relationships and the body of knowledge that has grown from such
traditional methods. Chapter 2 addresses this theme: Gillath argues that
incorporating natural science methods into social science has facilitated an
interdisciplinary transformative approach to understanding the function-
ing of close relationships. In his chapter, he reviews principles of neuro-
science that are relevant to attachment, as well as the tools and methods
used in neuroscience. He also discusses the growing efforts to synthesize
traditional research on close relationships with neuroscience research. He
then discuses several theoretical advances and emerging themes and models
in the field of attachment neuroscience, and proposes new and promising
directions for future research.
A second group of emerging themes concerns how people regulate their
romantic relationships, express their sexuality, and parent their children.
In Chapter 6, Overall and Lemay explore multiple ways in which dyadic
regulation processes may operate within romantic relationships. They first
discuss regulation processes that focus on threat (e.g., inducing guilt to
obtain reassurance), along with those that focus on being highly attentive
to the needs and fears of insecurely attached persons. Overall and Lemay
conclude that both types of processes can generate beneficial outcomes
or can produce costs in romantic relationships. They end their chapter by
highlighting the various benefits and costs of dyadic regulation processes,
and illustrating how damaging effects can occur.
In Chapter 7, Birnbaum addresses how the sexual and attachment
systems interface within romantic relationships. She begins by reviewing
literature that has examined the reciprocal link between the attachment
system and the sexual system. Following this, she describes how relation-
ship quality may be affected by sexuality and the quality of sex. Birnbaum
concludes her chapter with a discussion of the dual role of sex—as a factor
that holds relationships together, and as a force that encourages people to
contemplate and sometimes pursue alternative partners in a world of rap-
idly changing societal trends.
Jones, Cassidy, and Shaver address the important topic of parenting
from an attachment perspective in Chapter 9. They begin by discussing
Introduction 5
attachment theory, especially connections between the attachment and

caregiving behavioral systems. They then summarize the theoretical and
empirical links between parents’ self-reported attachment styles and parent-
ing variables, focusing on three features of parenting: parental behaviors,
emotions, and cognitions. This is followed by a detailed description some
of their own recent research on attachment and parenting. They conclude
the chapter by proposing several promising directions for future research.
Another major new theme is how attachment principles can be used
to understand what happens in organizational and work settings. In Chap-
ter 10, Paetzold surveys approximately 20 years of attachment research
in organizational settings. Her review shows that attachment anxiety and
avoidance are associated with a number of workplace difficulties, including
negative health outcomes, problematic team and leader–follower interac-
tions, and increased turnover intentions. The chapter also considers mea-
surement issues and unresolved conceptual issues for better understanding
the impact of attachment processes on organizations.
Still another growing area of research centers on relations between
attachment and health. In Chapter 11, Pietromonaco, DeVito, Ge, and
Lembke propose a framework in which attachment-based regulatory strat-
egies and relationship behaviors produce health-related reactions ranging
from the physiological level to the behavioral level, which in turn affect the
probability of disease. The authors then review relevant literature that has
evaluated the tenability of the predictions generated by their framework.
With respect to suggestions for future research, Pietromonaco and col-
leagues emphasize the need to test additional behavioral and physiological
moderators of disease effects.
Remaining within the health sphere, Karantzas and Simpson discuss
applications of attachment theory to the emerging field of aged care. In
Chapter 12, they explain key concepts from attachment theory and then
discuss their application to the aged-care context. The primary concepts
discussed include felt security, proximity seeking, and the stress–diathesis
model. They also review the relatively small literature on attachment and
aged care. The authors discuss in detail the issue of measuring attach-
ment orientations among the elderly. They conclude their chapter with an
extended discussion of the new directions for attachment research with
elderly populations.
The final novel theme addressed in this volume is how attachment
principles might be used to understand psychotherapy, improve therapy,
and develop more effective interventions. Ein-Dor and Doron point out in
Chapter 13 that while attachment anxiety and avoidance are associated
with vulnerability to a wide range of mental disorders, attachment theory
has had relatively little to say about how insecure attachment orientations
result in such a wide variety of different disorders (multifinality). The the-
ory also has trouble explaining why a person with one attachment profile
6 Introduction
develops one disorder, whereas another person with the same profile devel-
ops another disorder or no disorder at all (divergent trajectories). Ein-Dor
and Doron develop and present a transdiagnostic model to address these
issues. Within the context of this model, they discuss contexts and mediat-
ing processes that may explain multifinality and divergent trajectories.
Two chapters address psychotherapy issues. In Chapter 15, Johnson,
Lafontaine, and Dalgleish describe how and why attachment theory serves
as the basis for emotionally focused therapy (EFT). The authors then review
then empirical studies that provide support for some of EFT’s core prin-
ciples. Among other things, they explore changes in attachment responses
and styles, and examine how strengthening the attachment bond can affect
other important aspects of the relationship. The authors also describe ways
in which therapists can use attachment theory to guide their understanding
of their clients’ communications during therapy sessions. A brief case study
is included to illustrate the change processes that can be produced by EFT.
In Chapter 14, Dozier and Roben discuss attachment-based interven-
tions with at-risk infants and young children. The authors then cover three
major issues regarding interventions. The first centers on foundational
issues needed to create successful attachment-based interventions. The sec-
ond involves a description of several current attachment-based intervention
programs; this section shows a remarkable variety of programs all based
to a greater or lesser degree on attachment theory. The third addresses dis-
semination of successful programs from the laboratory to field settings,
and explains the great difficulties in crossing this boundary.
Conclusion
As the chapters in this book confirm, one of the most dramatic changes
in the past decade has been the rapid extension of attachment principles,
ideas, processes, and findings to myriad topics in areas outside develop-
mental and social/personality psychology (where attachment theory and
research originally flourished). Core attachment principles, hypotheses,
and ideas—those stemming from both the normative and the individual-
difference components of attachment theory—have infiltrated areas within
the neurosciences, family social science, the health sciences, the clinical sci-
ences (including therapy and intervention work), the scientific study of sex
and sexuality, and even the organizational sciences. Attachment theory and
its empirical findings, in other words, are now being more broadly applied
to address significant questions, issues, and problems in a wide variety of
areas within the purview of the psychological sciences. This is an important
new direction, because many of these areas can benefit from a comprehen-
sive lifespan theory that explains not only how normative principles and
processes, but also how individual variations around normative principles
Introduction 7
and processes, can help us to better understand why people think, feel, and
behave as they do in different situations and at different stages of life. The
next decade is likely to reveal how well attachment theory and its core prin-
ciples are able to clarify, resolve, and answer some of these long-standing
questions, and where other theories, models, or principles are needed to
more fully explain certain phenomena or outcomes more fully. If Bowlby
were alive today, we suspect that he would be pleased to see his grand
theory being incorporated into so many different fields that are attempting
to solve so many diverse and important problems and issues.
In conclusion, when we started planning this book, our aspiration was
that the authors of each invited chapter would provide broad and com-
prehensive coverage of the most important theories, models, principles,
and research findings relevant to the topic focused on by each chapter. In
addition, we hoped that the authors would offer useful “roadmaps” that
future researchers interested in each topic could navigate. As editors, we are
delighted with what this outstanding set of authors has delivered. We sin-
cerely hope that you—the reader of this novel and cutting-edge volume—
will concur.
References
Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. New York:
Methuen.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.
1
Early Attachment Experiences
and Romantic Functioning
Developmental Pathways, Emerging Issues,
and Future Directions
R. Chris Fraley
Glenn I. Roisman
S ome adults are involved in well-functioning romantic relation-

ships. They are able to provide support for their partners, resolve conflict
effectively, and generally find their relationships satisfying and rewarding.
In contrast, other people’s romantic relationships are characterized by con-
flict, dissatisfaction, and regret. Why is it that some relationships flourish,
whereas others fail to do so?
In this chapter, we examine the ways in which early attachment expe-
riences help to organize individual differences in the way people feel, think,
and behave in romantic relationships. First, we draw briefly upon Bowl-
by’s attachment theory to review what is known about the developmental
antecedents of romantic relationship functioning. In the next part of the
chapter, we discuss two of the major developmental pathways that connect
attachment experiences early in life with romantic relationship functioning
in adulthood: the development of social competence and the formation of
intimate friendships. We review research on how early attachment experi-
ences help support the development of these interpersonal resources. In
addition, we review research that shows how these resources, in turn, sup-
port the development of romantic functioning in adulthood.
9
10 ATTACHMENT THEORY AND RESEARCH
In the final portion of the chapter, we discuss ongoing issues and

debates in research on early experience and development. Specifically, we
explain some of the inferential ambiguities that can arise when research-
ers investigate the legacy of early experiences per se. We also outline some
potential problems that can emerge when investigators are trying to trans-
late theoretical ideas about developmental processes into testable statisti-
cal models. Throughout our discussion, we highlight not only what we
consider the important challenges in this area of work, but what we con-
sider promising directions for future research. We begin by reviewing some
of the foundational ideas in attachment theory, focusing on some of the
basic ideas that framed Bowlby’s understanding of how early experiences
become entrenched in human development.
Early Attachment Experiences and the Canalization

of Developmental Pathways
Bowlby was interested in understanding the nature of the bond that devel-
ops between infants and their caregivers, and the implications of that bond
for social and personality development across the lifespan. He and his col-
leagues (Bowlby, Robertson, & Rosenbluth, 1952) noticed that children
who had been separated from their primary caregivers frequently expressed
intense anxiety and despair, often vigorously trying to regain their missing
caregivers by crying, clinging, and searching. To explain these behaviors,
Bowlby (1969/1982) drew extensively from ethological theory, arguing that
such “protest” reactions function to restore and maintain proximity to a
primary attachment figure—a strategy that would be adaptive for infants
born without the capacity to defend or care for themselves.
The Attachment Behavioral System

Bowlby (1969/1982) posited that such reactions are regulated by an innate
motivational system—the attachment behavioral system—organized by
natural selection to promote the safety and survival of infants. According
to Bowlby (1969/1982), the internal dynamics of the attachment system
are similar to those of a homeostatic control system, in which a set goal is
maintained by the constant monitoring of signals with continuous behav-
ioral adjustment. In the case of the attachment system, the set goal is physi-
cal or psychological proximity. When a child perceives the attachment fig-
ure to be nearby and responsive, he or she is generally playful, uninhibited,
and sociable. However, when he or she perceives a threat to the relationship
or his or her well-being, the child seeks the attention and comfort of the pri-
mary caregiver. From an evolutionary perspective, these dynamics facilitate
proximity between child and caregiver, which helps to ensure the child’s
Early Attachment and Romantic Functioning 11
safety and protection, and ultimately his or her reproductive fitness (also
see Zayas, Merrill, & Hazan, Chapter 3, this volume).
During the early months of life, the degree of security an infant experi-
ences is believed to depend largely on exogenous signals, such as the proxi-
mate availability and responsiveness of primary caregivers. Over repeated
interactions, however, children develop a set of knowledge structures, or
internal working models, that represent those interactions and contrib-
ute to the endogenous regulation of the system (Bretherton & Munhol-
land, 1999). These representations enable a child to simulate a variety of
response options to determine which course of action might best facilitate
certain goals (e.g., regaining the attention of the caregiver).
Importantly, these cognitive structures also reflect what the child has
learned about the responsiveness and availability of caregivers over the
course of repeated interactions. If caregivers are generally warm, respon-
sive, and consistently available, the child learns that others can be counted
on when needed. Consequently, he or she is likely to explore the world
confidently, initiate warm and sociable interactions with others, and find
security in the knowledge that a caregiver is available if needed. In short,
the child has developed a secure working model of attachment. If attach-
ment figures are cold, rejecting, unpredictable, frightening, or insensitive,
however, the child learns that others cannot be counted on for support and
comfort, and this knowledge is embodied in insecure working models of
attachment. The child is likely to regulate his or her behavior accordingly—
either by excessively demanding attention and care, or by withdrawing
from others and/or attempting to achieve a high degree of self-sufficiency
(DeWolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997).
The Canalization of Developmental Trajectories

Importantly, Bowlby believed that the transactions between children and
their social environments have a reinforcing effect on the working models
that children construct. Drawing on Waddington’s (1957) ideas about cell
development (see Fraley & Brumbaugh, 2004, for a review), Bowlby argued
that an individual’s developmental pathway becomes increasingly canalized
or buffered over time, such that minor disturbances only temporarily nudge
an individual off his or her developmental course; the individual gradually
reverts to the trajectory that was previously established.
Bowlby found the concept of canalization useful in his theorizing
about personality development. He often wrote of degrees of canalization
as a way to reconcile the ideas that natural selection may favor developmen-
tal processes that unfold in a relatively deterministic way on the basis of
predictable features of the environment, but that ultimately organisms need
to be flexible enough to adapt to varying ecologies by calibrating them-
selves against early environmental inputs. In the context of personality
development, Bowlby believed that several processes function to canalize

developmental pathways to varying degrees. He separated these into two
classes. The first were concerned with the caregiving environment itself.
Specifically, Bowlby argued that if the individual’s caregiving environment
is relatively stable, it is unlikely that the child’s developing models of the
world will be disconfirmed. The powerful nature of these constraints was
emphasized by Bowlby’s (1973) observation that a child is typically born
into a family in which he or she has the same parents, the same neighbor-
hood, and the same ecology for long periods of time. In fact, empirical
research demonstrates that the quality of the caregiving environment is
relatively stable across time (Fraley, Roisman, & Haltigan, 2013). Bowlby
believed that in the absence of significant transitions (e.g., parental divorce,
moving to a new town, loss of an attachment figure), the caregiving envi-
ronment itself will be sufficiently stable to support the canalization of spe-
cific developmental pathways.
The second kind of canalization process involves social-cognitive
mechanisms. One reason Bowlby believed that developmental pathways
become increasingly canalized over time is that the basic cognitive processes
underlying relational cognition are self-confirming. If a child has learned
over the course of his or her interactions with primary caregivers that other
people are generally responsive and well intentioned, the child, when pre-
sented with a potentially ambiguous social interaction, is likely to interpret
this interaction in a way that is consistent with the working models he or
she already holds. Moreover, as those expectations and norms become rein-
forced over time, they become increasingly resistant to change. In other
words, the developing child functions much like a Bayesian: As he or she
accumulates evidence in favor of specific assumptions, some assumptions
are weighted more and others are weighted less. As a result, it takes increas-
ingly strong and persistent feedback to undermine those assumptions, and
the child’s developmental pathway becomes more entrenched over time.
Two Major Pathways between Early Attachment Experiences

and Romantic Functioning
One of the central ideas in attachment theory is that early attachment expe-
riences set the stage for the way people think, feel, and behave in their
romantic relationships in adulthood. Indeed, emerging evidence from longi-
tudinal studies suggests that the way people function in their romantic rela-
tionships may have its roots in early attachment experiences. For example,
Roisman, Collins, Sroufe, and Egeland (2005) studied a sample of young
adults from the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation
(MLSRA) who had participated in the Strange Situation with their pri-
mary caregivers as infants. They found that young adults who had secure
attachment histories were more likely to produce coherent discourse regard-

ing their romantic relationship in the Current Relationship Interview (CRI;
Crowell & Owens, 1996) and had higher-quality romantic functioning
as observed in standard conflict and collaboration tasks. Using data from
the same sample, Simpson, Collins, Tran, and Haydon (2007) found that
early attachment experiences, as indexed by Strange Situation classifica-
tions at 12 months of age, predicted the extent to which people experienced
negative emotions in their romantic relationships at ages 20–21. Similarly,
Salvatore, Kuo, Steele, Simpson, and Collins (2011) found that individu-
als who had been securely attached at 12–18 months of age were able to
recover from conflict more effectively than those with insecure attachment
histories. (See also Salo, Jokela, Lehtimäki, & Keltikangas-Järvinen, 2011,
and Zayas, Michel, Shoda, & Aber, 2011, for additional research on early
parental experiences and romantic functioning.)
Although there are various perspectives on how early experiences
are transformed into patterns of adaptive and less adaptive functioning in
romantic relationships, one theme is that early attachment experiences have
their effects via at least two major pathways by facilitating (1) the develop-
ment of social competence, and/or (2) the development of close friendships.
In the next sections, we review research on each of these pathways. Spe-
cifically, we review research suggesting that early attachment experiences
are associated with the development of both social competence and close
friendships. In addition, we review research indicating that these two path-
ways, in turn, are associated with relationship functioning in adulthood.
Early Attachment Experiences and Social Competence

Broadly defined, social competence refers to the set of social, emotional,
and cognitive skills needed for adaptation to a broad array of developmen-
tal contexts and challenges (Waters & Sroufe, 1983). A guiding theme in
attachment theory is that the development of social competence is funda-
mental for navigating romantic relationships effectively. For one person to
serve as an attachment figure for another person—or to use him or her as
an attachment figure—one must be able to take the other person’s perspec-
tive, have empathy, and be able to resolve conflict in effective ways.
Bowlby believed that supportive and responsive interactions between
parents and their children are crucial for children’s development of these
broad skills. For example, he believed that a child’s sense of self (i.e.,
whether the child perceives him- or herself as lovable) is rooted in the his-
tory of transactions between parents and children. In addition, the child’s
ability to regulate emotions in an appropriate way is rooted in early rela-
tional experiences. In the following sections, we review research that has
addressed the pathways between (1) early experience and social compe-
tence, and (2) social competence and romantic functioning.
Pathways between Early Attachment and Social Competence

An important line of work in attachment research concerns the relations
among early attachment histories and emotional understanding and per-
spective-taking skills. Laible and Thompson (1998), for example, had
young children watch three puppets enact a variety of vignettes; at the end
of each story, each child was queried about the protagonist puppet’s feel-
ings. They found that children with secure attachment histories exhibited
greater emotional understanding than children without secure attachment
histories. This suggests that the ways in which children had internalized
their histories of attachment experiences may have influenced their ability
to understand another’s point of view of others and their own emotional
view of the world.
Research has also found that children with secure attachment histories
are more empathic than others. Kestenbaum, Farber, and Sroufe (1989), for
example, studied children’s free-play interactions and coded cases in which
a child was visibly distressed and how he or she behaved. They found that
children with secure attachment histories were more likely than those with
avoidant histories to behave in empathic ways in the presence of distressed
children.
Children with histories of insecure attachment have been found to
behave with more anger, greater aggression and hostility, and less empathy
in both structured and more naturalistic situations. For example, Troy and
Sroufe (1987) found that children with avoidant attachment histories were
more likely to victimize their peers. McElwain, Cox, Burchinal, and Macfie
(2003) found that children with insecure attachment histories were more
likely to exhibit instrumental aggression when interacting with peers at 36
months of age.
In summary, these findings are consistent with the notion that early
attachment experiences provide a framework for the development of social
competence. Children who have secure attachment histories are more likely
than those who do not to exhibit the kinds of competencies that might
enable them to successfully negotiate a variety of interpersonal tasks. Com-
pared to children with insecure attachment histories, children with secure
histories exhibit greater emotional understanding, are better able to take
the perspective of other individuals, are more empathic, and express less
anger and hostility.
Pathways between Social Competence and Romantic Functioning

In social-psychological research, the association between social compe-
tence and relationship functioning has primarily been investigated by using
concurrent assessments. Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991), for example,
found that individuals who had higher self-confidence and who expressed
greater interpersonal warmth were more likely to hold secure working

models of close relationships in adulthood. Research has also found that
individuals who are more empathically accurate in their relationships
(Simpson et al., 2011) or who are better able to seek and provide support
during stressful and challenging situations (Collins & Feeney, 2000) are
more likely to have securely functioning romantic relationships.
There is also longitudinal research linking social competence to rela-
tionship functioning. Simpson and his colleagues (2007), for example,
examined peer competence and romantic functioning, using data from
the MLSRA. Peer competence was assessed at grades 1, 2, and 3 by using
teacher ratings of how well target children resembled a prototypical child
who “was well liked and respected by peers, had mutual friendships, dem-
onstrated understanding of other children’s perspectives and ideas, and
constructively engaged peers in activities” (p. 359). Romantic functioning
was assessed in a number of ways at ages 20–23, including the emotional
tone of the relationship (i.e., the relative balance of positive to negative
affect) and behavioral observations of couple behavior. They found that
individuals who had higher peer competence ratings in childhood had
higher romantic relationship process scores, less negative affect, and a
higher ratio of positive to negative emotional experiences.
Using longitudinal data from the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth
Development (SECCYD), we (Fraley, Roisman, & Haltigan, 2013) exam-
ined trajectories of social competence from early childhood (54 months)
through age 15 years. We found that individuals who exhibited greater
social competence in early childhood (rated by parents and teachers) were
more likely to be secure at age 18 on measures of self-reported attach-
ment styles, compared to those who exhibited less social competence in
early childhood. In addition, children who became more socially competent
across time were more likely to be secure at age 18. Taken together, these
studies indicate that social competence, assessed in a variety of ways in
early childhood and adolescence, is associated with romantic functioning
in adulthood.
Early Attachment Experiences and Close Friendship Relationships

The individual projects his/her representation of relationships onto future
social contacts, leading to a repetition and confirmation of expected cycles
of behavior. All in all, this process leads to the carry-over of basic relationship
styles into future relationships.
—Shulman, E licker , and Sroufe (1994, p. 343)
A key idea in Bowlby’s theory is that early attachment experiences set the
stage for the way in which the child navigates interpersonal contexts. This
includes not only the child’s interactions with primary attachment figures,
but other contexts in which issues concerning trust and intimacy emerge,
including relations with teachers and mentors (Ainsworth, 1989), siblings
(Teti & Ablard, 1989), and, importantly, close friends.
Close friendships serve a number of important developmental func-
tions. For example, friendships can provide a context in which one
explores new skills and interests, builds alliances, bolsters self-esteem,
and reinforces emerging identities (Shulman et al., 1994). The process
of forming and maintaining a close friendship, however, is not a triv-
ial matter. One must be capable of managing conflict, offering support,
adopting the other’s perspective, and engaging in appropriate levels of
self-disclosure and reciprocity. Indeed, research indicates that these kinds
of social competencies play a role in facilitating the development of well-
functioning friendships (e.g., Boling, Barry, Kotchick, & Lowry, 2011;
Simpson et al., 2007).
Close friendships are also of special interest from an attachment per-
spective because they are some of the first extrafamilial contexts in which
issues concerning intimacy, trust, and support are explored. According to
some theorists, close friendships are often testing grounds for transferring
attachment-related features and functions away from parents (Zeifman &
Hazan, 2008). As such, the experiences that take place in the context of
friendship relationships may constitute a key “transfer station” in shaping
the development of expectations for trust, intimacy, and support in roman-
tic relationships.
According to attachment theorists, repeated experiences of supportive,
responsive care in early attachment relationships may support the develop-
ment of the skills necessary for developing and maintaining high-quality
friendships. In the sections below, we review research on the pathways
between early attachment experiences and the quality of friendship rela-
tionships in childhood and adolescence. In addition, we examine research
on how friendship experiences and perceptions are related to views of
romantic relationships and relationship functioning.
Pathways between Early Attachment Experiences and Friendship

Research suggests that early attachment experiences may play an impor-
tant role in shaping the quality of peer interactions and close friendships.
Children classified as secure in the Strange Situation are more likely to have
stable play partners, demonstrate greater reciprocity, and exhibit empa-
thy toward peers during the preschool years (Kestenbaum et al., 1989).
Research has also found that secure infant–parent attachment is related
to lower levels of child–friend aggression at age 3 (McElwain et al., 2003)
and fewer negative interactions with close friends at age 5 (Youngblade &
Belsky, 1992).
There are many potential pathways through which early attachment

experiences may shape the functioning of friendship relationships. One
pathway that has been investigated extensively by McElwain and her col-
leagues concerns mental state talk. To be effective in their friendships, chil-
dren need to take into consideration their friends’ beliefs, desires, and feel-
ings. One way in which children can acquire these competencies is through
supportive exchanges with caregivers—that is, exchanges in which they
communicate about psychological states in a supportive, uncritical man-
ner. McElwain, Booth-LaForce, and Wu (2011) examined the association
between early attachment experiences and the nature of mind talk in par-
ent–child interactions at 24 months of age. They found that children with
secure attachment histories were more likely to have mothers who engaged
in cognitive talk (i.e., they were more likely to reference feelings, desires,
and plans appropriately). In turn, children whose mothers engaged in more
cognitive talk at 24 months of age were more likely to have high-func-
tioning friendships at 54 months, as indexed by more positive friendship
interactions across time.
Nonetheless, questions remain about whether early attachment secu-
rity is uniquely associated with the quality of friend relationships or with
social competence more generally. On the one hand, Schneider, Atkinson,
and Tardif (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of research on the associa-
tion between child–parent attachment and children’s peer relations; they
found that the small to moderate associations they observed were larger for
children’s close friendships than for their relations with other peers. On the
other hand, a more recent meta-analysis by Groh et al. (2014) observed that
while early attachment significantly contributed to children’s social compe-
tence with friends and nonfriends, the magnitude of the effect was larger
for nonfriends than friends. In short, the assumption that close friendship
functioning, in particular, is more strongly linked to children’s attachment
histories than the way they relate to and are viewed by their peers more
generally is not supported by the most recent meta-analytic evidence.
Pathways between Friendship Functioning and Romantic Functioning

Research also indicates that the functioning of relationships with friends
may shape the way in which romantic relationships function. According to
Furman, Simon, Shaffer, and Bouchey (2002), adolescents develop expec-
tations for and assumptions about romantic relationships based, in part,
on their experiences in close friendships. Consistent with this assumption,
adolescents who hold relatively secure views of their parents are also likely
to hold secure views of close friendships and romantic relationships (Fur-
man et al., 2002). Importantly, however, individual differences in the views
people hold of their friendships are associated with views of romantic rela-
tionships even when variations in parental representations are taken into
account. Thus, although it is possible that early attachment experiences

help set the stage for the functioning of friendship relationships, the unique
experiences that adolescents have in those friendships also play a role in
shaping expectations and attitudes toward emerging romantic relation-
ships. Indeed, Furman et al. (2002) conclude that “views of friendships may
mediate the links between views of relationships with parents and those of
romantic relationships” (p. 250).
Prospective data that bear on this issue come again from the study by
Simpson et al. (2007). Simpson and his colleagues assessed the quality of
friend relationships in adolescence in the MLSRA through an interview in
which participants discussed their close friendships, how much they trusted
and disclosed to their friends, and the extent to which they felt that their
friends were authentic. They found that the quality of those friendships was
positively correlated with various indices of romantic relationship function-
ing in early adulthood.
In addition, an analysis of data from the SECCYD (Fraley, Roisman,
Booth-LaForce, Owen, & Holland, 2013) examined children’s perceptions
of friendship quality with their self-identified best friend. The Friendship
Quality Questionnaire (FQQ; Parker & Asher, 1993) was administered at
grades 3, 4, 5, and 6 and at age 15 years. The FQQ assesses various aspects
of friendship quality, including validation and caring, conflict resolution,
help and guidance, and intimate exchange. Using growth curve modeling,
we found that individuals who had high-quality friendships early in life
were more likely to report security in their romantic relationships at age
18 years. In addition, individuals whose friendship relationships increased
in quality over time were more likely to report security in their romantic
relationships at age 18.
Emerging Themes, Conceptual Challenges, and Directions

for Future Research
As we have seen, attachment theory suggests that two important paths
bridge early attachment experiences and adaptive functioning in close rela-
tionships: the development of social competence and the development of
close friendships. Although this particular portrayal of developmental pro-
cesses is useful, it is obviously incomplete for the purposes of explaining
the full range of factors that lead to variation in romantic functioning. We
now discuss some of the ambiguities involved in understanding the rela-
tions among these central theoretical constructs. In addition, we discuss
some broader issues and debates involved in the study of developmental
pathways. Part of our goal is to highlight what we consider to be some of
the emerging issues in this area. However, we also hope to call attention
to what we consider to be some interesting directions for future research.
Ambiguities Concerning the Causal Structure of Developmental Pathways

One of the challenges in uncovering the antecedents of romantic function-
ing is that it is not clear what kinds of developmental models are necessary
for modeling the relations among the variables of interest. Our review is
implicitly guided by the first panel of Figure 1.1. This model assumes that
FIGURE 1.1. Alternative ways of organizing the pathways among early caregiving
experiences, social competence, friendship quality, and romantic functioning.
early attachment experiences help shape romantic functioning via two key
processes: the development of social competence and the development of
close friendships. But there are alternative ways to arrange the pieces of
this map, and, conceptually, these are equally compelling. For example, the
second panel of Figure 1.1 illustrates a model articulated by Simpson et al.
(2007). This model is similar to the first, with one exception. Namely, it
holds that the development of social competence also shapes the develop-
ment of close friendships. Simpson and his colleagues (2007) refer to this
as a “double mediation model,” because it assumes two mediational steps
in the link between early experiences and romantic relationship function-
ing. A different way to organize these variables is to assume that each one
has the potential to influence romantic functioning, but without specifying
any explicit causal relations among them. The third panel of Figure 1.1
illustrates a basic model assuming that all three factors may contribute
to variation in romantic functioning, and that the three predictors may
be related to one another for unspecified reasons. A fourth way to frame
these relations is to assume that they are all causally related to one another
within the constraints provided by the temporal ordering of the variables.
The fourth panel of Figure 1.1 illustrates a case in which each temporally
prior variable influences all the variables that follow it in time. Romantic
functioning is affected by social competence both directly and indirectly
through its influence on friendship quality.
Which of these models is the most appropriate way to conceptual-
ize the pathways that lead from early attachment experiences to romantic
functioning? We are not sure that this question can be answered adequately
on the basis of existing research. Simpson and his colleagues have advo-
cated for the double mediation model illustrated in the second panel of
Figure 1.1. They also examined some alternative models, including the one
illustrated in the third panel. From their analyses, they concluded that the
double mediation model best fits the data. Drawing upon data from the
same sample, Englund, Kuo, Puig, and Collins (2011) examined a direct
path between early attachment and friendship functioning, but did not find
statistically significant paths between early attachment and social compe-
tence or between social competence and friendship quality in the context of
the other constructs in the model. We and our colleagues (Fraley, Roisman,
Booth-LaForce, et al., 2013) have adopted the third model because we feel
that it makes the fewest assumptions. However, we did not find an asso-
ciation between early caregiving experiences and friendship relationships.
That said, we found that increases in the quality of caregiving over time
were associated prospectively with increases in the quality of friendships.
In summary, the jury is still out regarding the optimal way to model
the relations among these various factors. We believe that resolving these
issues is a valuable direction for future research. Having said that, we wish
to emphasize two caveats. First, the specific models under discussion do
not take time into account explicitly. Children’s attachment experiences

are not constrained to the first few years of life, and if their attachment-
related experiences with parents have an impact on their subsequent rela-
tionships, it is the cumulative history of those experiences rather than the
early history alone that may be relevant (Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Col-
lins, 2005). The models we have illustrated depict variables that reflect a
“snapshot in time,” without regard for how they continue to evolve and
interact with one another. The second point is that these models do not
take into consideration a host of other factors that are likely to be relevant
for understanding the ways in which early attachment experiences translate
into romantic functioning. A useful direction for future research involves
articulating what kinds of factors have been omitted and uncovering their
contributions to the developmental processes of interest.
Alternative Mediational Structures and Their Implications for Understanding

Developmental Pathways
A second major issue concerns the conceptualization of the junctures in
these developmental pathways. One way to conceptualize resources (e.g.,
the development of social competence) is that they provide scaffolding or
support for the developmental pathway on which an individual is traveling.
In other words, they can serve as agents of canalization. A child with a
secure attachment history, a high degree of social competence, and intimate
friendships, for example, may be more likely to exhibit well-functioning
romantic relationships than someone who lacks this developmental history.
But these kinds of processes are also discussed as transition points in
the developmental literature. They represent junctures at which people can
potentially deviate from pathways they have already established. Although
a person with a secure attachment history is more likely than someone with
an insecure attachment history to develop high levels of social competence,
this process is probabilistic, not deterministic (Sroufe, 1997). Thus some
children with secure attachment histories will not develop adequate social
skills; conversely, some children with insecure attachment histories will
develop appropriate social competence. These developmental junctures can
either reinforce a specific developmental trajectory or alter it. What are the
implications for that distinction for testing theories and building statistical
models of developmental processes?
Let us consider a simplified version of the problem. Let us assume
that romantic functioning (y) is a function of early attachment experiences
(x) and various residual factors, with a regression weight of b = .30. If
we assume that the variances of each variable are 1.00, the expected cor-
relation between x and y is equal to b or .30. Now let us make the model
slightly more complex. Let us assume that x has its influence on y, in part,
due to z1 (e.g., social competence). And for the sake of simplicity, let us
assume that the value of the paths (b) are equivalent and are equal to .30.
Using covariance algebra, we find in this simple three-variable model that
the expected association between x and y is now .30 × .30 = .09. If we
hold everything constant, adding a single juncture or mediator reduces the
expected correlation between x and y. If we add a second mediator (e.g., a
double mediation model) such that x → z1 → z 2 → y, the expected correla-
tion grows even smaller (i.e., .30 × .30 × .30 = .027). These dynamics are
illustrated in the upper portion of Figure 1.2.
In short, if we attempt to flesh out the developmental pathway between
early attachment experiences and romantic functioning in adulthood by
adding mediators along a common developmental pathway, the expected
association between early experiences and later outcomes necessarily
decreases. In fact, if we assume that we do not adjust the value of the paths,
the expected correlation between x and y approaches zero as the number
of mediators increases. We refer to such mediational chains as horizontally
Horizontally Mediated Pathways

Expected
correlation
Causal structure between x and y
x y rxy = b
x z1 y rxy = b2
x z1 z2 y rxy = b3
x z1 z2 z3 y rxy = b4
Vertically Mediated Pathways

Expected
correlation
Causal structure between x and y
z1
x y rxy = b2
z1
x y rxy = b2 + b2
z3
z1
x z2 y rxy = b2 + b2 + b2
z3
FIGURE 1.2. Horizontally mediated and vertically mediated pathways.

mediated pathways from this point forward. This result implies that a
model positing various junctures along a common pathway is more likely
to create discontinuities in development than to create sustained effects
of early experiences. Horizontally mediated pathways are incompatible
with the theoretical assumption that these various mechanisms sustain the
effects of early experiences across time.
There is an alternative way to specify mediators, however. Consider
the lower portion of Figure 1.2. These diagrams illustrate models in which
the mediators are added vertically. As such, we refer to such chains as verti-
cally mediated pathways. Notice that as we add mediators vertically, the
expected association between early attachment experiences and romantic
functioning increases. For example, if we assume that all the paths are
equal to .30 in the four-variable model, the expected correlation between
early experience and adult functioning is .09 + .09 = .18. If we make the
same assumptions for the five-variable model, the expected correlation rises
to .09 + .09 + .09 = .27. Why do vertically mediated pathways make the
expected correlation between x and y more robust? In this kind of model,
early experiences play an organizing role across multiple life domains,
including social competence, peer relations, and a variety of other factors.
If those domains also influence the outcome of interest, then those mecha-
nisms buffer the relationship between x and y.
In summary, there are alternative ways to formalize developmental
pathways. When one adds horizontally mediated pathways to a model,
one is implicitly claiming that such factors function to reduce the expected
association between early experiences and romantic functioning. When
one adds vertically mediated pathways, in contrast, one is implicitly claim-
ing that such factors serve to buttress or support the association between
early experiences and romantic functioning. Statistically, these additions
provide multiple pathways through which the indirect effects of early expe-
rience can accumulate and shape later outcomes. By calling attention to this
issue, we hope not only to make researchers aware of the difference, but to
alert researchers to the possibility of alternative developmental models that
can be examined.
Developmental Cascades
Developmental cascades “refer to the cumulative consequences for develop-
ment of the many interactions and transactions occurring in developmental
systems that result in spreading effects across levels, among domains at
the same level, and across different systems or generations” (Masten &
Cicchetti, 2010, p. 491). Developmental cascades represent one process
by which the effects of one variable may become manifest in various out-
comes downstream. The middle panel of Figure 1.3 represents an example
of potential cascade effects that could exist among the kinds of variables
care1 care2 care3 care4 care5
socc1 socc2 socc3 socc4 socc5
peer1 peer2 peer3 peer4 peer5
care1 care2 care3 care4 care5
socc1 socc2 socc3 socc4 socc5
peer1 peer2 peer3 peer4 peer5
care1
socc2 socc4 socc5
peer3
FIGURE 1.3. Developmental cascades and their effects on promoting the associa-
tions between developmental outcomes. Abbreviations: care, caregiving envi-
ronment; socc, social competence; peer, quality of peer friendships. The vari-
ous subscripts refer to different time points.
discussed in this chapter. According to this model, early caregiving expe-

riences have their effects on social competence downstream via multiple
routes. For example, there is a direct effect of early caregiving on social
competence. In addition, that particular effect passes on to friendship qual-
ity, which feeds back into social competence at a later point in time. The
net result of this cascade is that the association between caregiving and
social competence at later points in time is stronger than it would be in the
absence of such cascades; such pathways potentially enable the effects of
certain experiences to accumulate.
For the sake of discussion, we focus on the way in which the associa-
tion between caregiving and social competence evolves over time. Let us
assume that each of the three variables of interest (i.e., caregiving, social
competence, and friendship quality) is relatively stable over time, such
that the autoregressive paths between each variable and itself (e.g., care 1
→ care 2) is equal to .60. Moreover, let us assume that the three variables
are correlated with one another at the initial assessment (r = .30). In the
absence of any cascading effects, the expected correlations among the three
variables are .30 at the first time wave, .11 at the second, .04 at the third,
.01 at the fourth, and .01 at the fifth (see the top panel of Figure 1.3).
Now assume that the quality of the caregiving environment at the first
wave predicts social competence at the second wave, such that the regres-
sion coefficient is .30. In addition, using the same magnitude of coefficient,
let us assume that social competence, in turn, influences friendship func-
tioning, and eventually trickles back to social competence downstream.
Now the correlation between caregiving and social competence in the first
wave is .30, .29 in the second, .10 in the third, .05 in the fourth, and .02
in the fifth. In other words, compared to a situation in which there are no
cascading effects, the presence of developmental cascades helps to boost the
association between the two variables of interest.
One reason why the concept of developmental cascades is important is
that cascade effects, if specified correctly, function as vertically mediated
pathways. If early experiences are modeled such that they organize mul-
tiple potential constructs (e.g., social competence and friendship quality),
those factors will help sustain certain effects for a longer period of time
than they would subsist in the absence of such effects. However, cascade
effects alone, when specified in this fashion, cannot sustain coordinated
effects indefinitely. As the predicted associations reveal, the shared asso-
ciations among caregiving and social competence gradually decrease and
will continue to do so unless there are ongoing and persistent transactional
pathways among the constructs. Moreover, in such a model, the effects of
early experiences will eventually wash out. This kind of model, while build-
ing in vertically mediated pathways, also includes horizontally mediated
pathways and their respective consequences compete with one another (see
below).
There is a lot to be learned about developmental pathways by studying
cascade effects across time. Moreover, although the concept of developmental
cascades has been discussed most extensively in the developmental literature
(e.g., Masten et al., 2005), there is potentially a lot of value in studying cas-
cades in intensive longitudinal studies in the social-psychological literature.
Adopting such models, for example, would allow researchers to investigate
the ways in which conflicts in romantic relationships exert downstream
effects indirectly via their influence on other resources (e.g., time spent
apart, verbal communication).
The Legacy of Early Experiences

One of the challenges of understanding the way in which early attachment
experiences translate into subsequent adaptation has to do with issues
of developmental timing. Specifically, when most scholars speak of the
potential impact of early attachment experiences on subsequent outcomes,

they implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) are suggesting that experiences
that take place early in life are more influential in shaping personality
development than comparable experiences that take place later in time.
Nonetheless, it is not as straightforward as it might seem to test the
hypothesis that early experiences per se play a unique role in development.
There are two obstacles to studying these issues. First, many longitudinal
analyses do not take into consideration the idea that multiple assessment
waves are needed to separate alternative models of how early experiences
influence subsequent outcomes. Second, many studies do not distinguish
timing from time.
Do Early Experiences Have Enduring or Transient Effects on Developmental Outcomes?

The traditional methodological approach to studying development is, para-
doxically, incapable of answering this basic question. A typical prospective,
longitudinal study measures experiences at some point during childhood
and assesses the consequences of those experiences at a later point in time.
If childhood experiences are related to later outcomes, researchers conclude
that those experiences played a role in organizing development. If they are
only weakly related or unrelated to later outcomes, researchers assume that
those experiences were largely inconsequential (see Fraley, Roisman, &
Haltigan, 2013).
Some of our theoretical work, however, indicates that the size of a
single association is not informative with respect to the potential effects of
early experiences. It is possible for early experiences to relate to an outcome
later in time because they matter early in life and the outcome itself is stable.
If this is the case, the association between measures of early experience and
measures of subsequent adaptation will get increasingly small across time,
approaching zero in the limit (see panel A of Figure 1.4). Alternatively, if
early experiences continue to play an ongoing role in adaptation due to a
canalization-like process, the association between early experiences and
subsequent outcomes may decay at first, but should stabilize at a nonzero
value (see panel B of Figure 1.4).
Notice that the difference between alternative developmental models
lies in their asymptotic predictions about the patterning of effects across
time. A single effect size can be accommodated by both predictions. For
example, the association of .22 between early experiences and adaptation
at age 7 illustrated in panels A and B of Figure 1.4 neatly falls on both
trajectories. As such, the only way to test alternative developmental models
concerning the legacy of early experiences is to examine the associations
between early experiences and subsequent outcomes across multiple occa-
sions across time.
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
Coefficient
Coefficient
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age Age
1.0
1.0
Correlation (Early, Later Outcome)
Correlation (Early, Later Outcome)

0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0 50 100 150 0 10 15 20 25 30
Age (months) Age (years)
FIGURE 1.4. Alternative ways of conceptualizing the legacy of early experiences

in interpersonal functioning. Panel A (top left) illustrates a situation in which
the effects of early experiences on an outcome of interest decay across time,
approaching zero in the limit. Panel B (top right) illustrates a situation in which
the effects of early experiences on an outcome of interest are sustained across
time, approaching a nonzero value across increasing intervals. Panel C (bottom
left) represents the empirical correlations between early sensitivity and moth-
ers’ reports of social competence across various ages, based on data from the
NICHD SECCYD as reported in the Fraley, Roisman, and Haltigan (2013)
study. Panel D (bottom right) illustrates the empirical correlations between
early caregiving and social competence across various ages, based on data from
the MLSRA as reported in the Raby, Roisman, Fraley, and Simpson (in press)
study.
We have explored these ideas with data from the NICHD SECCYD.
For example, we (Fraley, Roisman, & Haltigan, 2013) examined whether
the long-term effects of early maternal sensitivity on social competence and
academic ability were more likely to fade gradually over time (suggesting
that early caregiving supports development early in life, but does not have
canalizing effects) or to stabilize at a nonzero value as children aged (sug-
gesting canalization effects). We found that variation in early parental sen-
sitivity predicted social competence in a relatively stable way across time
(see panel C of Figure 1.4).
Although the Fraley, Roisman, and Haltigan (2013) analyses illustrate
the potential value in examining the implications of alternative models of
developmental pathways, the research was not able to examine the associa-
tion between early experiences and attachment functioning in adulthood per
se. In a project better suited for that purpose, we (Raby, Roisman, Fraley, &
Simpson, in press) used data from the MLSRA to determine whether early
caregiving experiences were prospectively related to measures of social
competence—including romantic functioning in adulthood—across mul-
tiple assessment occasions. Parental sensitivity was assessed as a composite
of sensitive parenting coded from parent–child interactions across several
occasions when children were between the ages of 3 and 42 months. Social
competence was assessed by using teachers’ rankings of target children’s
social competence on multiple occasions between kindergarten and age 16.
Importantly, measures of romantic functioning at ages 23 and 32 years
were used as indicators of social competence in adulthood. This is based
on the developmental view that part of what early attachment experiences
help to organize is optimal functioning for age-appropriate developmental
tasks. In young and middle adulthood, that includes functioning in roman-
tic relationships. These analyses revealed that early caregiving experiences
predicted social competence in an enduring manner over time. Specifically,
children who had supportive caregiving experiences early in life were more
likely than those who did not to have well-functioning romantic relation-
ships in adulthood. And, importantly, those effects were more consistent
with a developmental model assuming that the effects of early experiences
become canalized than with a model not making that assumption.
Separating Timing from Time

A second way to explore the potential role of early experiences in particular
is by attempting to separate timing from time. To clarify this distinction, let
us consider the timing of parental divorce. Parental divorce is a prototypi-
cal example of the disruption of family and attachment relationships—one
that has the potential to have complex and negative consequences for child
development. Does the timing of parental divorce matter in shaping the
development of interpersonal functioning? Namely, are the downstream
consequences of parental divorce greater if the divorce takes place early in

a child’s life as opposed to later? A traditional way of addressing this ques-
tion is to study a sample of children of a common age (e.g., 14–16 years
old) and split children from divorced families into two groups: those whose
parents divorced when a child was under the age of 5, and those whose
parents divorced when a child was 5 or older. The key limitation of this
approach is that the two groups differ not only in the age at which their
parents divorced (i.e., the timing of parental divorce), but in the amount of
time that has transpired since the divorce. The first group, for example, has
had more time for the potential negative consequences of divorce to mani-
fest and accumulate. Although the accumulation of negative consequences
is a legitimate pathway through which early parental divorce could have its
effects on developmental outcomes, one might expect such effects to exist
regardless of whether the divorce took place early or later in the child’s life.
The evidence for canalization effects per se would be stronger if the timing
of the event (age of parental divorce) could be separated from the effects
of time per se (i.e., the amount of time that has transpired since the event).
One way to untangle these distinct effects is by studying people who
vary in the age at which their parents divorced (i.e., developmental timing)
and the length of time that has transpired since the divorce took place (i.e.,
time). Fraley and Heffernan (2013) examined this issue by assessing the
attachment security of adults with the Experiences in Close Relationships—
Relationship Structures (ECR-RS)—a self-report measure of attachment
styles that can be used to assess security in a variety of relational domains
(e.g., parental, romantic). They found that that people who reported that
their parents had divorced when they were younger were more insecure in
their relationships with their parents now than people whose parents had
divorced when they were older. Importantly, this association was observed
even after Fraley and Heffernan statistically controlled for the amount of
time that had passed since the divorce. The timing of parental divorce mat-
tered. These findings are consistent with the view that attachment disrup-
tions that take place early in life can be uniquely influential in shaping
developmental outcomes.
Fraley and Heffernan (2013) did not find that the timing of parental
divorce per se had an impact on people’s security in their romantic rela-
tionships. People whose parents had divorced, however, were slightly more
likely to be insecure in their romantic attachment styles. Our point is not
to dwell on these findings in particular, but to highlight the import of the
methodological strategy itself. Specifically, one potentially valuable way
to address the question of whether early experiences in particular leave a
relatively enduring residue on interpersonal functioning is by identifying
specific events of interest and examining their timing while taking into con-
sideration the amount of time that has transpired since the event in ques-
tion. Without taking the amount of time that has transpired into account,
one cannot separate the potential effects of early experience per se from the
amount of time that has elapsed since the event took place.
Separating the Unpredictability and Valance of Early Caregiving Environments

as a Way of Understanding Relationship Functioning
According to life history theory (e.g., Stearns, 1992), organisms of most
species have to allocate effort to potentially competing life tasks, such as
growth and reproduction. Importantly, some of these tasks exist in compe-
tition with one another due to limited resources. For example, an organism
cannot easily invest its energy in reproduction while simultaneously invest-
ing its energy in somatic growth. As such, organisms often make tradeoffs
with respect to their development.
Historically, life history theory was often used to understand differ-
ences between species with respect to reproductive behavior. In recent
years, however, a number of evolutionary biologists and psychologists have
begun to use the theory as a way of understanding the way in which indi-
vidual organisms within a species may make these tradeoffs as a function
of their developmental ecology (Kaplan & Gangestad, 2004). People’s life
history strategies are believed to fall along a dimension that can be charac-
terized as running from slow to fast. Individuals who adopt slower strate-
gies are more likely to invest in stable sexual relationships, to have fewer
children, and to invest more time and resources in each child. In contrast,
individuals who follow faster life history strategies are more likely to have
multiple sexual partners, to have greater numbers of children, and to invest
less time and energy in each child.
According to life history theory, one factor that shapes the develop-
ment of slow versus fast strategies is the predictability of the early care-
giving environment. Specifically, it is assumed that developing organisms
take cues from their early caregiving environment about whether the envi-
ronment is predictable, sustainable, and safe. When the environment is
relatively difficult, natural selection may favor organisms that reproduce
sooner and which invest fewer resources in individual offspring. When the
environment is less difficult, natural selection may favor organisms that
have fewer children and invest more heavily in the ones that they do.
According to Ellis, Figueredo, Brumbach, and Schlomer (2009), diffi-
cult environments can be characterized with respect to two distinct dimen-
sions. The first, harshness, refers to the overall quality of the caregiving
environment, which can be indexed by socioeconomic status (SES). The
second, unpredictability, refers to the instability of the early environment.
An unpredictable or unstable environment, for example, may be character-
ized by frequent changes in parental employment, residential mobility, and
parental divorce and remarriage.
Simpson, Griskevicius, Kuo, Sung, and Collins (2012) recently
presented analyses that highlight the importance of this distinction, using

longitudinal data from the MLSRA. They operationalized harshness as
SES, as coded across three time points early in a child’s life. Unpredict-
ability was operationalized by different measures, including changes in the
mother’s employment status, changes in residence, and changes in cohabi-
tation status. A variety of outcome variables were examined, including the
number of sexual partners that individuals reported when they were 23
years old, aggressive behavior at age 23, criminal activities and behavior at
age 23, and age of first intercourse. They found that one of the strongest
predictors of sexual and risky behavior at age 23 was having an unpredict-
able environment between the ages of 0 and 5 years. Specifically, people
who had less predictable and rapidly changing environments early in life
exhibited a faster life history strategy at age 23 by having more sexual
partners, as well as engaging in more aggressive and delinquent behaviors.
We believe that the distinction between valence and predictability is a
potentially valuable one for future research. Moreover, it provides a useful
way to bridge variation in early experiences with individual differences in
romantic functioning. We hope future researchers can explore these dis-
tinctions in more depth.
Genetic Influences and Gene × Environment Interactions

on Relationship Functioning
There is a growing body of research on how individual differences in basic
personality traits, such as neuroticism, are related to romantic function-
ing. For example, individuals who score higher on neuroticism are more
likely than others to report dissatisfaction in their marriages (Karney &
Bradbury, 1997) and to report negativity (Caughlin, Huston, & Houts,
2000). These findings have led some scholars to question whether the kinds
of developmental processes we have discussed might be better understood
as potentially heritable dispositional effects instead of developmental ones.
Thus another valuable direction for future research involves untangling the
relative contributions of heritable and experiential factors in shaping inter-
personal development. Because this research area is likely to evolve in inter-
esting directions as researchers move from classic twin designs to designs
involving specific genetic variants, we now outline some current trends,
highlight some future directions, and emphasize some caveats.
Heritability and the Quality of Parent–Child Relationships

Empirical research based on twin designs suggests that there is not strong
evidence for the heritability of the quality of infant–caregiver relationships.
Some of our research has addressed this issue by analyzing the twin subsam-
ple of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—a nationally representative
and longitudinal study of children. In one study (Roisman & Fraley, 2006),
for example, we used standard behavior genetic models to partition the
variance in the observed quality of infant–caregiver relationships when
children were 9 months of age. We found that the estimated contribution of
additive genetic effects to the quality of infant–caregiver relationships was
close to zero. In contrast, the estimated contribution of shared environment
effects was close to 40%, and the estimate of the nonshared environmental
effects was 59%.
In follow-up analyses from this sample, we (Roisman & Fraley, 2008)
found that infant attachment security observed at 24 months was largely
a function of shared and nonshared environmental influences; the esti-
mated additive genetic variance in security was close to zero. In addition,
the estimated additive genetic variance in parenting quality rated at 24
months was also close to zero. This study further decomposed the covaria-
tion between parenting quality and attachment security, and found that
the association between these two variables was largely due to shared and
nonshared environmental influences (Roisman & Fraley, 2008; see also
Fearon et al., 2006).
In summary, although it is premature to rule out the hypothesis that
heritable factors might explain some of the variation in early attachment
experiences, the findings to date suggest that this hypothesis does not offer
a viable account for variation in the quality of early parent–child relation-
ships or in the security of a child’s attachment pattern. Moreover, analyses
do not support the assumption that additive genetic factors account for the
covariation between parenting quality and attachment security. Although
heritable factors might explain some portion of individual differences in
romantic functioning later in life (e.g., Donnellan, Burt, Levendowsky, &
Klump. 2008), they do not appear to confound the inference that parent–
child experiences also contribute to interpersonal development.
Molecular Genetic and Gene × Environment Research

One of the exciting developments in the last decade has been the study of
specific genetic variants (e.g., single-nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs] and
variable number tandem repeats) and their relation to various phenotypes,
either as genetic effects or in interaction with environmental effects (e.g.,
gene × environment [G × E] interactions). Some of this research suggests
that there may be specific genetic variants underlying some of the variation
in romantic functioning. For example, Gillath, Shaver, Baek, and Chun
(2008) found that anxious attachment in adulthood was associated with a
polymorphism of the HTR2A serotonin receptor gene.
Although we find much of this research fascinating, we offer several
caveats. One of the most important issues to consider is that there are
many intervening processes between genes and interpersonal behavior. For
example, genes code for the production of mRNA, which plays a role in
the development of proteins, which play a role in the organization of the
nervous system, and so on (Slavich & Cole, 2013). Effects at any of these
junctures can be modulated by various factors that influence transcription
and methylation. The existence of so many links (i.e., horizontally mediated
links) makes it unlikely a priori that the association between any one genetic
variant and a specific, multiply determined outcome will be very large.
Indeed, there is a growing consensus in the study of molecular genetics that
the association between specific polymorphisms and phenotypic outcomes
is extremely small—smaller, in some cases, than a Pearson correlation of
.02 (see Gibson, 2012). Thus the only way to reliably detect such findings
in the context of null hypothesis significance testing is to use extremely
large sample sizes—sample sizes that far exceed what is routine in social,
developmental, and personality research. To detect an effect of .02 with
80% power, for example, one would need at least 15,455 participants. (And
that estimate does not account for the alpha adjustments that one might
wish to use for testing multiple genetic variants instead of a single variant.)
Moreover, with small sample sizes, it is easy to falsely detect an association
that does not exist (e.g., Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011; Roisman,
Booth-LaForce, Belsky, Burt, & Groh, 2013). Thus, even if bivariate genetic
effects are really small, it should not be surprising if there are a few sizable
ones reported in the literature. Nonetheless, the point is that nonreplicated
findings of genetic associations are not particularly informative. If research-
ers are to pursue the way in which specific genetic variants shape romantic
functioning, we strongly recommend the use of large sample sizes.
Another exciting direction is the examination of G × E interactions.
One reason why G × E research has the potential to be valuable for studying
the ways in which early experiences might shape interpersonal functioning
later in life is that such models treat both genetic and environmental factors
as legitimate contributors to phenotypic variation. In contrast, biometric
models based on twin designs often pit genetic and environmental factors
against one another, such that higher variance estimates of one component
necessitate lower variance estimates for other components.
One emerging area of investigation in G × E research involves the
examination of alternative interaction models. The classic model, often
referred to as a dual-risk or a diathesis–stress model, assumes that some
individuals possess vulnerabilities that may make them more susceptible to
negative environmental experiences (e.g., neglectful caregiving) than other
individuals. In the context of G × E research, these vulnerabilities are often
construed as genetic risk factors, but historically they have often been stud-
ied as cognitive risk factors (e.g., Abramson et al., 2002). Another model
that has been gaining attention in recent years is differential susceptibility
theory (e.g., Belsky & Pleuss, 2009) or the theory of biological sensitiv-
ity to context (e.g., Boyce & Ellis, 2005). According to these frameworks,
many of the factors that investigators have identified as potential risk fac-
tors are not risk factors per se, but are better construed as plasticity fac-
tors. In other words, although some individuals might be at greater risk for
developing poor interpersonal skills in difficult caregiving environments,
those same people are more likely than others to thrive in supportive care-
giving environments. They are differentially susceptible to environmental
influences, for better and for worse.
Salo et al. (2011) found an interaction between variation in HTR2A
and maternal nurturance, such that individuals who carried two T alleles of
the HTR2A rs6313 SNP exhibited a stronger inverse association between
maternal nurturance at age 10 and avoidant attachment measured 21–27
years later. These individuals were more likely both to benefit from early
maternal nurturance and to be harmed by the relative lack of nurturance.
We (Fraley, Roisman, Booth-LaForce, et al., 2013) found a similar effect—
that increases in maternal sensitivity over childhood and adolescence pre-
dicted lower levels of avoidance at age 18 among individuals who carried
two T alleles of HTR2A than among C allele carriers. However, we found
that even C carriers exhibited a negative association between increases in
maternal sensitivity and avoidance, suggesting that the basic effect held for
people with both genetic variants.
We believe that this kind of work has the potential to be of great inter-
est in the near future, but again we offer some caveats. As in the molecular
genetic work discussed previously, there is a lot of room for “discovering”
things that are not replicable. Specifically, the number of genetic variants
that can be studied is large, and the set of G × E interactions that can be
tested is even larger. Because this work is relatively new, it is difficult to
articulate and defend strong predictions a priori. This makes it particularly
important that researchers think carefully about sample sizes and attempt
to replicate any findings that they uncover before weaving those findings
into the knowledge base of psychology.
References
Abramson, L. Y., Alloy, L. B., Hankin, B. L., Haeffel, G. J., MacCoon, D. G., &
Gibb, B. E. (2002). Cognitive vulnerability–stress models of depression in a
self-regulatory and psychobiological context. In I. H. Gotlib & C. L. Hammen
(Eds.), Handbook of depression (pp. 268–294). New York: Guilford Press.
Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist,
44, 709–716.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults:
A test of the four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 61, 226–245.
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility
to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885–908.
Boling, M. W., Barry, C. M., Kotchick, B. A., & Lowry, J. (2011). Relations among
early adolescents’ parent–adolescent attachment, perceived social compe-
tence, and friendship quality. Psychological Reports, 109, 819–841.
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger.
New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J., Robertson, J., & Rosenbluth, D. (1952). A two-year-old goes to the hos-
pital. In R. S. Eisler, A. Freud, H. Hartmann, & E. Kris (Eds.), Psychoanalytic
study of the child (Vol. 7, pp. 82–94). New York: International Universities
Press.
Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: A. An evolu-
tionary–developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity.
Development and Psychopathology, 17, 271–301.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment
relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Hand-
book of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89–111).
New York: Guilford Press.
Caughlin, J. P., Huston, T. L., & Houts, R. M. (2000). How does personality mat-
ter in marriage?: An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity,
and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,
326–336.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory per-
spective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1053–1073.
Crowell, J., & Owens, G. (1996). Current Relationship Interview. Unpublished
manuscript, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
DeWolff, M., & van IJzendoorn, M. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-
analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development,
68, 571–591.
Donnellan, M. B., Burt, S. A., Levendosky, A., & Klump, K. (2008). Genes, per-
sonality, and attachment in adults: A multivariate behavioral genetic analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 3–16.
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer, G. L. (2009). Funda-
mental dimensions of environmental risk. Human Nature, 20, 204–268.
Englund, M. M., Kuo, S. I., Puig, J., & Collins, W. A. (2011). Early roots of adult
competence: The significance of close relationships from infancy to early
adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 490–496.
Fearon, R. M. P., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Fonagy, P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.
J., Schuengel, C., & Bokhorst, C. L. (2006). In search of shared and non-
shared environmental factors in security of attachment: A behavior-genetic
study of the association between sensitivity and attachment security. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 42, 1026–1040.
Fraley, R. C., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2004). A dynamical systems approach to
understanding stability and change in attachment security. In W. S. Rholes &
J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical impli-
cations (pp. 86–132). New York: Guilford Press.
Fraley, R. C., & Heffernan, M. E. (2013). Attachment and parental divorce: A test
of the diffusion and sensitive period hypotheses. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 39, 1199–1213.
Fraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I., Booth-LaForce, C., Owen, M. T., & Holland, A. S.
(2013). Interpersonal and genetic origins of adult attachment styles: A lon-
gitudinal study from infancy to early adulthood. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 104, 817–838.
Fraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I., & Haltigan, J. D. (2013). The legacy of early
experiences in development: Formalizing alternative models of how early
experiences are carried forward over time. Developmental Psychology, 49,
109–126.
Furman, W., Simon, V. A., Shaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. A. (2002). Adolescents’
working models and styles with parents, friends, and romantic partners.
Child Development, 73, 241–255.
Gibson, G. (2012). Rare and common variants: Twenty arguments. Nature Reviews
Genetics, 13(2), 135–145.
Gillath, O., Shaver, P. R., Baek, J. M., & Chun, S. D. (2008). Genetic correlates
of adult attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34,
1396–1405.
Groh, A. M., Fearon, R. P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M.
H., Steele, R. D., & Roisman, G. I. (2014). The significance of attachment
security for children’s social competence with peers: A meta-analytic study.
Attachment and Human Development, 16(2), 103–136.
Kaplan, H. S., & Gangestad, S. W. (2005). Life history theory and evolutionary
psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology
(pp. 68–95). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the
trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 72, 1075–1092.
Kestenbaum, R., Farber, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1989). Individual differences in empa-
thy among preschoolers’ concurrent and predictive validity. In N. Eisenberg
(Ed.), New Directions for Child Development: No. 44. Empathy and related
emotional responses (pp. 51–56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Laible, D., & Thompson, R. (1998). Attachment and emotional understanding in
preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1038–1045.
Masten, A. S., & Cicchetti, D. (Eds.). (2010). Developmental cascades [Special
issue]. Development and Psychopathology, 22(3), 491–715 (Part 1); 22(4),
717–983 (Part 2).
Masten, A. S., Roisman, G. I., Long, J. D., Burt, K. B., Obradović, J., Riley, J.
R., et al. (2005). Developmental cascades: Linking academic achievement and
externalizing and internalizing symptoms over 20 years. Developmental Psy-
chology, 41, 733–746.
McElwain, N. L., Booth-LaForce, C., & Wu, X. (2011). Infant–mother attachment
and children’s friendship quality: Maternal mental-state talk as an interven-
ing mechanism. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1295–1311.
McElwain, N. L., Cox, M. J., Burchinal, M. R., & Macfie, J. (2003). Differenti-
ating among insecure mother–infant attachment classifications: A focus on
child–friend interaction and exploration during solitary play at 36 months.
Attachment and Human Development, 5, 136–164.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle
childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and
social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611–621.
Raby, K. L., Roisman, G. I., Fraley, R. C., & Simpson, J. A. (in press). The endur-
ing predictive significance of early sensitivity: Social and academic compe-
tence through age 32 years. Child Development.
Roisman, G. I., Booth-LaForce, C., Belsky, J., Burt, K. B., & Groh, A. M. (2013).
Molecular-genetic correlates of infant attachment: A cautionary tale. Attach-
ment and Human Development, 15, 384–406.
Roisman, G. I., Collins, W. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2005). Predictors
of young adults’ representations of and behavior in their current romantic
relationship: Prospective tests of the prototype hypothesis. Attachment and
Human Development, 7, 105–121.
Roisman, G. I., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). The limits of genetic influence: A behavior-
genetic analysis of infant–caregiver relationship quality and temperament.
Roisman, G. I., & Fraley, R. C. (2008). A behavior-genetic study of parenting qual-
ity, infant attachment security, and their covariation in a nationally represen-
tative sample. Developmental Psychology, 44, 831–839.
Salo, J., Jokela, M., Lehtimäki, T., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2011) Serotonin
receptor 2A gene moderates the effect of childhood maternal nurturance on
adulthood social attachment. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 10, 702–709.
Salvatore, J. E., Kuo, S. I., Steele, R. D., Simpson, J. A., & Collins, W. A. (2011).
Recovering from conflict in romantic relationships: A developmental perspec-
tive. Psychological Science, 22, 376–383.
Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, C. (2001). Child–parent attachment and
children’s peer relations: A quantitative review. Developmental Psychology,
37, 86–100.
Shulman, S., Elicker, J., & Sroufe, L. A. (1994). Stages of friendship growth in pre-
adolescence as related to attachment history. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 11, 341–361.
Simmons, J., Nelson, L., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology:
Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allow presenting any-
thing as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.
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 Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
355–367.
Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., Kuo, S. I., Sung, S., & Collins, W. A. (2012). Evo-
lution, stress, and sensitive periods: The influence of unpredictability in early
versus late childhood on sex and risky behavior. Developmental Psychology,
48, 674–686.
Simpson, J. A., Kim, J. S., Fillo, J., Ickes, W., Rholes, W. S., Oriña, M. M., et al.
(2011). Attachment and the management of empathic accuracy in relation-
ship-threatening situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37,
242–254.
Slavich, G. M., & Cole, S. W. (2013). The emerging field of human social genom-
ics. Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 331–348.
Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Psychopathology as an outcome of development. Develop-

ment and Psychopathology, 9, 251–268.
Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, W. A. (2005). The develop-
ment of the person: The Minnesota Study of Risk and Adaptation from Birth
to Adulthood. New York: Guilford Press.
Stearns, S. C. (1992). The evolution of life histories. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Teti, D. M., & Ablard, K. E. (1989). Security of attachment and infant–sibling
relationships: A laboratory study. Child Development, 60, 1519–1528.
Troy, M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: The role of
attachment relationship history. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 166–172.
Waddington, C. H. (1957). The strategy of the genes. London: George Allen &
Unwin.
Waters, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Social competence as a developmental con-
struct. Developmental Review, 3, 79–97.
Youngblade, L. M., & Belsky, J. (1992). Parent–child antecedents of 5-year-olds’
close friendships: A longitudinal analysis. Developmental Psychology, 28,
700–713.
Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Aber, J. L. (2011). Roots of adult attach-
ment: Maternal caregiving at 18 months predicts adult attachment to peers
and partners. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 289–297.
Zeifman, D., & Hazan, C. (2008). Pair bonds as attachments: Reevaluating the
evidence. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: The-
ory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 436–455). New York:
Guilford Press.
2
The Neuroscience of Attachment
Using New Methods to Answer Old
(and New) Questions
Omri Gillath
W hat can electrical activity along the scalp, blood flow to specific
brain areas, levels of chemicals in a synapse or the bloodstream, and the
structure of one’s double helix tell us about abstract concepts such as love,
security, and attachment? If we consider the recent upsurge in research
focusing on the micro-level analysis of attachment, the answer is—a lot.
Building on the knowledge base and methods developed within cogni-
tive psychology, neuroscience, psychophysiology, genetics, endocrinology,
and immunology, scholars have started to provide a new and exciting set
of answers to fundamental questions related to attachment theory and
research. Issues such as “How do attachment bonds develop?”, “Why do
people have a specific attachment style?”, “What is attachment security?”,
and “Is attachment an emotion or a motivation?” have gained renewed
interest while being considered from new angles. Research can now begin
to answer questions such as these by examining the systems and processes
underlying attachment.
Neuroscience is an interdisciplinary area, which builds on and
exchanges ideas with such fields as psychology, computer science, psycho-
neuroimmunology, neuroendocrinology, and genetics. In the current chap-
ter, I start with a brief summary of the leading principles and ideas relevant
to attachment and its investigation via neuroscientific tools. I follow this
summary with a literature review that highlights different techniques (such
39
as brain imaging and genetic mapping) and different sources of information

(such as animal models and computer simulations used to study attach-
ment processes). These examples represent current endeavors to fill impor-
tant gaps in attachment theory and research. I then discuss some of the
theoretical advancements and emerging themes and models in this area of
investigation, and finish the chapter by proposing some new and promising
directions for future research.
Leading Principles and Ideas

Attachment theory (e.g., Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby,
1969/1982) and the extensive literature it has spawned (for reviews, see Cas-
sidy & Shaver, 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a) grew out of Bowlby’s
psychoanalytic training and practice. It involves an innovative integration
of psychoanalytic object relations theories with cognitive and developmen-
tal psychology, cybernetic systems theory, and primate ethology (Bowlby,
1969/1982). From its conception, Bowlby (1969/1982) described attach-
ment by using biological and neural terms, such as the behavioral system.
A behavioral system is a biologically based, evolved inborn program in an
individual’s central nervous system that governs the selection, activation,
and termination of behavioral sequences. These behavioral sequences pro-
duce a predictable and generally functional change in the person–environ-
ment relationship that results in a set goal being met (e.g., getting access to
resources, avoiding harm).
The main function of the attachment behavioral system is to promote
survival by motivating proximity-seeking behaviors, especially when an
individual faces threats or stressors (Bowlby, 1969/1982). The system’s set
goal is a state of safety and security. Threats or stressors can interfere with
the set goal, which in turn activate the attachment system. Once activated,
the system motivates people to regain safety and security. The primary
strategy to do that is via seeking proximity to a stronger, wiser other—usu-
ally a primary caregiver or a relationship partner—whom Bowlby termed
an attachment figure. When proximity is obtained and safety regained,
people tend to feel relieved and secure. Repeatedly experiencing this sce-
nario typically results in the development of secure mental representations
or internal working models (IWMs) of oneself (as being worthy of love and
care) and others (as caring and likely to help in times of need). These mental
representations, once solidified and relatively stable, play a role in multiple
domains such as emotion regulation, close relationship functioning, and
the operation of other behavioral systems (e.g., exploration and caregiving).
Thus attachment security broadens people’s perspectives or skills, which in
turn foster better mental health and self-actualization (see Mikulincer &
Shaver, Chapter 5, this volume).
The Neuroscience of Attachment 41
Not all interactions with attachment figures are positive and result in a
sense of greater attachment security. According to Ainsworth et al. (1978),
there are significant individual differences in attachment system dynamics
and functioning, based on the repeated interactions people experience with
their attachment figures. When attachment figures are sensitive, available,
and responsive in times of need, people feel they can confidently rely on
them. This, in turn, facilitates the development of a sense of connectedness
and security. In contrast, when attachment figures are not reliably available
and supportive, people are likely to feel a sense of attachment insecurity.
Being chronically insecure, in turn, is associated with pursuing secondary
attachment strategies—those that deactivate or hyperactivate the attach-
ment system—instead of the primary strategy of proximity seeking.
Ainsworth et al. (1978) identified two types of insecurity. When care-
givers tend to be cold and rejecting in times of need, people who seek prox-
imity and support from them are likely to develop an avoidant attachment
style characterized by distrust of relationship partners, strong striving for
independence, and emotional distancing. People high on attachment avoid-
ance tend to downplay the importance of emotions and relationship-related
issues and to use deactivating strategies. These strategies involve dismissal
of threat and attachment-related cues and suppression of attachment-
related thoughts, emotions, and memories.
When caregivers tend to be intrusive and to provide inconsistent and
insensitive support, people are likely to develop an anxious attachment style
characterized by chronic worries related to relationship partners not being
available in times of need. People high on attachment anxiety tend to per-
ceive themselves as worthless and helpless, are hypervigilant to relationship-
related cues, and use hyperactivating secondary strategies. These strategies
include high sensitivity to signs of rejection, intense appeals to attachment
figures, and obsessive reliance on them as a source of safety and support.
Attachment styles, which are often conceptualized in terms of a two-
dimensional space with attachment anxiety and avoidance as its axes, can
be assessed with reliable and valid self-report scales such as the Experiences
in Close Relationships (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). In studies
using such measures, attachment styles have been associated in theoretically
predictable ways with relationship variables such as quality and length,
affect regulation strategies, and many other outcomes (for reviews, see Cas-
sidy & Shaver, 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a). People who score low
on both attachment dimensions tend to be secure or have a secure attach-
ment style. Attachment security is associated with greater self-confidence,
better personal adjustment, more effective emotion regulation, good com-
munication with relationship partners, generous and helpful behavior, and
more satisfying relationships. When I refer to people as anxious, avoidant,
or secure throughout this chapter, I mean that they score relatively high on
attachment anxiety or avoidance, or they score low on both (secure).
Though individual differences are important, and numerous studies

have examined the correlates of attachment styles, a full understanding of
attachment requires an understanding of its normative processes (Bowlby,
1969/1982; Zayas & Hazan, 2015). This aspect of attachment includes
processes such as activation of the attachment system, the formation and
maintenance of attachment bonds, and the functioning of attachment secu-
rity. To study these processes, researchers have used experimental manip-
ulations to activate particular attachment IWMs (e.g., Baldwin, Keelan,
Fehr, Enns, & Koh Rangarajoo, 1996). Using this approach, it was found
that subtle experimental manipulations can increase or decrease a person’s
sense of attachment security and insecurity, which in turn affects cogni-
tions, physiology, and behavior (for reviews, see Gillath, Selcuk, & Shaver,
2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b).
For example, researchers have found that words such as love, hug,
and affection; memories of social and emotional support from loving rela-
tionship partners; the names of a person’s security-providing attachment
figures; or drawings/photographs depicting a parent’s love for a child all
tend to increase people’s short-term sense of security and decrease their
short-term anxiety and avoidance (e.g., Gillath, Hart, Noftle, & Stock-
dale, 2009). These changes affect other behavioral systems as well. For
example, enhancement of attachment security results in increases in
authenticity, prosocial tendencies, and exploration (e.g., Elliot & Reis,
2003; Gillath, Sesko, Shaver, & Chun, 2010). Furthermore, the effects
of security primes remain statistically significant even when researchers
control for dispositional neuroticism, positive affect, and self-esteem (e.g.,
Mikulincer, Hirschberger, Nachmias, & Gillath, 2001). Although these
findings focus on temporary changes in attachment, there is evidence to
suggest that similar processes can have long-lasting effects (for a review,
see Gillath et al., 2008).
The majority of research on attachment has dealt with its macro-level
processes (Levinger, 1994). Research and analysis at the macro level have
focused on the associations that environment, context, and experience
(e.g., dyad, family, society, culture) have with, or their effects on, attach-
ment processes and outcomes. For example, how does growing up in a
poor, dangerous neighborhood affect one’s attachment style (Del Giudice,
2009)? Conversely, research and analysis at the micro level have focused
on the associations that neurons, hormones, genetics, and so on have with,
or their effects on, attachment processes and outcomes. For example, how
does hippocampus size or blood flow correlate with people’s attachment
style scores? To fully understand attachment, one must look beyond (or
below) the macro-level processes and into the micro-level processes (Lev-
inger, 1994), which is now being done in research on the neuroscience of
attachment.
Investigating the Neuroscience of Attachment

To study attachment at the micro level, researchers have used the meth-
ods and knowledge base developed within cognitive psychology (attention,
memory, control, inhibition, etc.), psychophysiology (including animal
models), and social/affective neuroscience. Researchers engaged in such
investigations seek answers to questions such as “Do people have an innate
tendency to develop a specific attachment style?”, “How and when do
attachment bonds and styles develop?”, “Is attachment based on a unique
neural or cognitive system, or are people using existing systems (such as
thought control or emotion regulation) and applying general skills and ten-
dencies to the specific domain of attachment?”, and “What is attachment
security and how does it work?” To answer these questions, researchers
use a diverse set of methods and techniques ranging from brain activa-
tion to levels of oxytocin in the blood or saliva. Below I briefly review
some answers that research using micro-level strategies or methods has
provided.
Tools, Methods, and Techniques

There are different ways to study brain functioning, including functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG), near
infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), positron emission tomography (PET) or
computed tomography (CT) scans, and transcranial magnetic stimulation
(TMS). To date, researchers have mainly used fMRI and EEG to study the
underlying mechanisms of attachment (e.g., Canterberry & Gillath, 2012;
Zhang, Li, & Zhou, 2008). Neuroimaging can help researchers achieve
a better understanding of issues that cannot be clarified by using non-
neuroscientific methods, and it tests models and hypotheses about attach-
ment that are otherwise difficult to test. For that to happen, an exten-
sive mapping of the brain regions and processes involved in attachment
needs to occur, and the contribution of each region or neural system/pro-
cess must be identified. With such mapping, researchers can understand
how general processes take place and their contribution to attachment. For
example, how do people form new social ties and based on that how they
form attachment bonds. In turn researchers can examine ways to change
or improve attachment-related processes such as bonding or emotion regu-
lation. Likewise, knowing which brain regions or processes are involved
in certain attachment-related behaviors allows for comparisons between
people who have different attachment styles and helps us better understand
the sources of the differences between them, as demonstrated below. Next I
provide a few examples of research focused on central topics in the attach-
ment literature that have used neuroscientific methods.
Brain Imaging: fMRI, EEG, and Volumetry

As mentioned above, the IWM is a central construct in attachment theory.
According to Bowlby (1969/1982), who created the construct to capture
people’s different attachment-related mental representations, IWMs allow
people to understand the past and plan/prepare for the future (e.g., Brum-
baugh & Fraley, 2006). This conceptualization suggests that attachment
includes a top-down regulation process that modulates people’s emotions,
thoughts, and behavior. Despite ample work on IWMs (e.g., Bretherton
& Munholland, 2008), our understanding of them has changed very little
beyond Bowlby’s original conceptualization. For example, it is still unclear
what mechanisms allow the formation of IWMs and their updating over
time, how IWMs differ from other cognitive structures and processes such
as schemas, and how their top-down cognitive process differs from gen-
eral top-down processes. Using neuroimaging can help provide answers to
some of these questions that have not been answered by more traditional
methods.
For example, in one of the first studies to examine the neural correlates
of attachment style, we (Gillath, Bunge, Shaver, Wendelken, & Mikulincer,
2005) found that regulation of attachment-related thoughts was associated
with activation in the prefrontal cortex (PFC)—an area involved in vari-
ous cognitive processes that are not necessarily related to attachment (e.g.,
Miller & Cohen, 2001). Thus, when people were trying to stop thinking
about rejection and separation from a romantic partner, we found acti-
vation in brain areas associated with attention, conflict monitoring, and
working memory (e.g., the dorsolateral PFC, the medial PFC, and the ante-
rior cingulate cortex [ACC]; see also Anderson et al., 2004). These patterns
of activation are similar to the ones identified when people suppress non-
attachment-related thoughts, suggesting that IWMs and their associated
top-down regulatory mechanisms are manifestations of general regulatory
processes used to cope with attachment-related material (for a fuller discus-
sion, see Gillath, Giesbrecht, & Shaver, 2009).
Neuroimaging studies not only shed light on the processes associated
with the attachment system; they also allow the comparison of these pro-
cesses among people who have different attachment styles. For example,
in the same study (Gillath et al., 2005) we found that while most par-
ticipants exhibited activation in the medial PFC and ACC when suppress-
ing attachment-related thoughts (which is similar to the activation pattern
viewed when suppressing other general thoughts, such as “white bears”),
avoidantly attached people showed a different pattern of activation. Specif-
ically, whereas less avoidant people deactivated various brain regions such
as the subgenual cingulate cortex (SCC; known to be associated with the
regulation of emotion; Anderson et al., 2004; Drevets, 2000), when sup-
pressing attachment-related thoughts, avoidantly attached people did not.
We interpreted this lack of deactivation as related to the constant suppres-

sion that highly avoidant people engage in—suppression of emotions and
relationship-related thoughts.
Neuroimaging methods have also provided insight into another central
component of attachment theory: the formation of attachment bonds and
identification of attachment figures. Specifically, two brain areas appear
to be involved in these processes—the amygdala and hippocampus. The
attachment system, as mentioned above, is activated when people feel
threatened. When the system is active, people look for help and for some-
one who can provide safety and security, such as an attachment figure. To
do that, people need to quickly process information, identify the risk and
a potential solution, and learn to associate a specific person with this solu-
tion—that is, with the provision of help or soothing.
The amygdala underlies all these processes. Activation in the amyg-
dala is associated with processing of emotional or salient material, pay-
ing attention to novel stimuli, and consolidation of new memories through
tagging (i.e., labeling something as important or meaningful; see Phelps
& LeDoux, 2005). For example, when a child experiences stress and then
receives help, these events are associated with heightened activation in the
amygdala. The amygdala is thought to tag such events as meaningful and
the people who provided help as important, making recall of these people
more likely in the future (Lemche et al., 2006). Lemche and colleagues
(2006) demonstrated that when people were exposed to cues of insecurity,
the amygdala was indeed active—presumably as people processed the risk
and retrieved images to help them cope. Other studies have found neigh-
boring brain regions, such as the anterior temporal pole—known to be
associated with emotion perception and response—to be activated when
people are exposed to attachment-insecurity-related cues (e.g., Gillath et
al., 2005; Vrticka & Vuilleumier, 2012).
Retrieval of images or scenarios is thought to take place in the hip-
pocampus, which is also involved in creating associations between inter-
nal states (e.g., feeling secure or distressed) and cues in the environment
(e.g., having a caregiver around; Kennedy & Shapiro, 2004), and with
the consolidation of memories. Together, the amygdala and hippocampus
allow the formation of an association between close others and meaningful
events and experiences, which contributes to the perception of these others
as attachment figures (e.g., Buchheim et al., 2006; Lemche et al., 2006;
Vrticka, Andersson, Grandjean, Sander, & Vuilleumier, 2008).
The attachment system recruits these general abilities to generate life-
long associations regarding the roles of others in one’s life (e.g., caregiver,
stranger) and to tag specific people as more significant than others—as
attachment figures. By better understanding the mechanisms involved in
the conditioning and processing of emotional information in the amygdala,
the temporal pole, and the hippocampus, we might be able to help people
form better attachment bonds and help those who have problems with cre-
ating such bonds (e.g., Romanian orphans; Chisholm, 1998).
A third example of the value of neuroscience to the understanding of
attachment involves emotion regulation. People who have different attach-
ment styles cope differently and exhibit different emotion regulation strat-
egies (e.g., suppression, enhancement). For example, anxiously attached
people tend to be highly emotional and overwhelmed by their emotions,
whereas securely attached people have a weaker emotional reaction to dis-
tressing information (Nash, Prentice, Hirsh, McGregor, & Inzlicht, 2014).
A number of explanations have been suggested for these behaviors, but
it remains unclear why anxiously attached people manifest emotions so
intensely—is it due to higher sensitivity? Lower ability to control? Or both?
Using neuroimaging, we (Gillath et al., 2005) have found that when people
are asked to suppress their negative thoughts and emotions during an emo-
tion regulation task, anxiously attached people exhibit lower activation in
the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). The OFC is associated with emotion regu-
lation skills, the lower activation found in anxiously attached people could
hence be interpreted as lesser engagement of this area in the process among
anxiously attached people. This, in turn, suggests that the extreme emo-
tional reactions of anxiously attached people are due to their lack of ability
to regulate emotions (Gillath et al., 2005; Warren et al., 2010).
A final example involves our understanding of security priming.
Whereas most of the research on attachment in general, and attachment
neuroscience more specifically, has focused on attachment styles (anxiety
and avoidance), less is known about the enhancement of attachment secu-
rity and especially its underlying neural mechanisms. To address this gap,
we (Canterberry & Gillath, 2012) recently examined people’s brain activa-
tion as we exposed them to attachment-security-related primes. Behavioral
studies have provided ample evidence to suggest that the enhancement of
attachment security has a host of beneficial outcomes for personal and rela-
tional well-being (for reviews, see Gillath et al., 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007b). In our study we suggested and tested the proposal that the benefits
associated with security are the outcome of three processes—cognitive,
affective, and behavioral. Indeed, we found that security priming led to dis-
tributed, co-occurring activation in brain areas reflective of these cognitive,
affective, and behavioral processes (e.g., the PFC, parahippocampus, and
temporal and parietal gyri). These patterns of activation related to security
were moderated by attachment styles. For example, attachment avoidance
was associated with activation in areas related to encoding and retrieval
(parahippocampal gyrus), suggesting that avoidantly attached people were
making increased memory retrieval attempts during the exposure to the
prime, perhaps reflecting a lack of easily accessible secure models.
These findings, while consistent with the existing attachment literature,
go beyond behavioral findings to demonstrate that all three components
(cognitive, affective, and behavioral) operate simultaneously. Thus secu-

rity seems to act as a mental resource derived from multiple sources that
facilitates pro-relational and prosocial tendencies. Furthermore, the find-
ings provide support for the idea that security priming is not merely a shift
in the cognitive accessibility of security-related concepts. Rather, it seems
to activate a system of emotions, cognitions, and motives all contributing
to growth and well-being (see also Eisenberger et al., 2011; Karremans,
Heslenfeld, van Dillen, & Van Lange, 2011).
These are only a few examples of the rapidly growing literature on
brain regions and mechanisms involved in bonding and attachment pro-
cesses (see also Coan, 2008). There are additional regions involved in
attachment processes, such as the nucleus accumbens (e.g., Aron et al.,
2005), the ACC (dorsal ACC; e.g., DeWall et al., 2012; Warren et al., 2010,
and rostral ACC; Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2004), the dorsolateral PFC
(e.g., Gillath et al., 2005; Warren et al., 2010), and the insula (e.g., DeWall
et al., 2012). These areas are thought to be involved in emotions related
to attachment and bonding, such as love and desire (reward) or rejection
and fear (punishment), and their regulation. Knowing which brain regions
are involved in each of these processes and how they work together can
improve the design of attachment-related interventions. For example, one
reason why anxiously attached people show lower activation in the OFC
when trying to suppress thoughts may have to do with specific neurotrans-
mitters and receptors in the OFC. If this is the case, neurotransmitters
could be modulated with chemical or pharmaceutical interventions. This,
in turn, could potentially assist anxiously attached people to cope better
with their emotions and feel less insecure.
A different approach for using neuroscience to better understand the
attachment system and attachment styles is to focus on brain laterality
and brain structure or volume. For example, using EEG, Dawson and col-
leagues (2001) found that insecurely attached infants, as compared with
secure ones, exhibited reduced left frontal brain activity. Reduced activity
in the left frontal brain is associated with negative emotions and depression
(Hellige, 1993). Dawson et al. suggested that the reduced activation they
found among insecure infants represents a greater tendency to use with-
drawal-type emotion regulation strategies (turning away from the external
environment) and a failure to use appropriate approach regulation strate-
gies (e.g., approaching an attachment figure when needed).
Cohen and Shaver (2004) using a divided visual field task found sim-
ilar differences in brain laterality among adults. Specifically they found
that avoidantly attached adults as compared with nonavoidant adults made
more errors when judging positive attachment-related words presented to
the right hemisphere (which is often associated with negative emotions;
e.g., Ahern & Schwartz, 1985). These findings suggest that attachment
history and style may affect the way people process attachment-related
information in the brain. Cohen and Shaver suggest that because avoid-
antly attached people have less experience with positive attachment-related
information, they are more likely to make more errors, especially in the
hemisphere that has less to do with processing of positive information.
EEG can also be used to study specific neural reactions to events by
investigating event-related potentials (ERPs), such as P3 or N1 (the letter
represents positive–negative polarity, and the number represents the latency
in hundreds of milliseconds from the event). ERPs are caused by cognitive
processes that involve, among others, memory, expectation, attention, and
change in mental states. For example, when Zhang et al. (2008) examined
people’s reactions to facial expressions, they found that attachment styles
were related to differences in several components (N1, N2, P2, and N400),
suggesting that people who had different attachment styles differed in terms
of both early automatic encoding and late elaborative retrieval of emotional
content. Thus avoidant participants showed a less negative N1 and N400
compared to anxious and secure participants. N1 is thought to represent
level of attention (Hillyard, Teder-Sälejärvi, & Münte, 1998). From these
results, one might conclude that avoidant individuals devote less attention
to emotional stimuli than secure or anxious people do.
In a similar manner, Dan and Raz (2012) found differences on C1 (C
for Component; it can be either positive or negative; C1 is the first visual
ERP component that peaks between 50–100ms) and P1 mean amplitudes
at occipital and posterior-parietal channels in response to angry faces ver-
sus neutral faces, but only among people high on avoidance. The processing
biases toward angry faces (in the P1 component) and toward neutral faces
(in the C1 component) among avoidant people suggest that only avoidant
participants have the capacity to identify cues at such early stages of infor-
mation processing, which allows them to apply their deactivating strategies
(also see Niedenthal, Brauer, Robin, & Innes-Ker, 2002). Focusing on anx-
ious individuals, Zayas, Shoda, Mischel, Osterhout, and Takahashi (2009)
and Zilber, Goldstein, and Mikulincer (2007) demonstrated attachment
anxiety to be associated with later ERP components, such as N400 and
the late positive potential (LPP). For example, Zayas et al. (2009) found
that when participants were exposed to attachment-related cues, rejection-
related words (e.g., dismissing) elicited greater N400 amplitudes than
acceptance-related words (e.g., supporting) among women high on anxiety
and low on avoidance. N400 is thought to reflect the amount of semantic
processing elicited by a stimulus. People tend to process more when the
stimulus is unexpected or have a greater personal significance. Zayas et al.
concluded that anxiously attached women perceive rejection cues as more
personally significant, posing greater threat to the self.
In addition to looking at brain activation, either per region (fMRI),
per hemisphere (in laterality studies), or at a specific time point (ERPs),
researchers have also investigated brain structure or volume. For instance,
we (Quirin et al., 2010) found that attachment insecurity is associated with

a smaller hippocampal cell density. This finding is compatible with a neuro-
toxic model of stress-induced cell reduction in the hippocampus. According
to this model, unresponsive and insensitive caregiving promotes insecure
attachment and simultaneously induces high stress for long periods of time.
In turn, chronic high stress and high levels of cortisol (stress-related hor-
mone) result in smaller hippocampus size. Benetti and colleagues (2010)
found similar results, such that attachment anxiety was associated with a
decrease in gray matter in the anterior temporal pole. Activations in this
area and the anatomically adjacent hippocampus were found to be asso-
ciated with greater attachment anxiety (Gillath et al., 2005), providing
convergent validity for the relevance of these brain areas for attachment
anxiety.
Tharner and colleagues (2011) also examined brain volume. However,
they did it by using a different methodology and a longitudinal rather than
a cross-sectional design, which currently is extremely rare in attachment
neuroscience. Utilizing ultrasound imaging, they assessed infants’ brain
volumes when they were 6 weeks old, followed them until they were 14
months old, and then used the Strange Situation (see Ainsworth et al.,
1978) to assess their attachment pattern (style). They found that infants
who had a larger gangliothalamic ovoid, which comprises the basal ganglia
(including the caudate, putamen, nucleus accumbens) and the thalamus,
were at lower risk of developing attachment disorganization—regardless
of their general brain development/maturity. The basal ganglia are thought
to connect higher cortical regions, such as the PFC and lower motor areas,
and are believed to be involved in voluntary motor action and learning
(e.g., Redgrave, Prescott, & Gurney, 1999). To achieve the set goals of
the attachment system, specific behaviors such as crawling, reaching out,
and crying must take place. The inability to select and execute such goal-
directed attachment behavior is a salient characteristic of attachment dis-
organization (Main & Solomon, 1990). The smaller volume of these brain
structures may contribute to this inability and, in turn, to the development
of disorganized attachment. Tharner and colleagues suggest that either
intrauterine influences (e.g., stress) or genetics (e.g., a dopamine receptor
gene, DRD4) may underlie the subcortical volume differences they identi-
fied in their study.
Together, the findings described above emphasize the importance of
investigating brain volume separately and with other sources of informa-
tion (e.g., brain functioning and genetics) to achieve a full understanding
of how attachment develops over time and functions. The existing findings
suggest that attachment styles are associated with differences in brain vol-
ume, and that smaller volume in specific areas is related to disorganized
(basal ganglia) or anxious attachment (hippocampus). More research is
needed to understand how these structural differences come to be. Are they
innate? Do they develop in response to environmental cues? As suggested

by Tharner et al. (2011), probably both are true. No study to date, however,
has examined this.
Although they are not the focus of this chapter, it is important to note
that physiological correlates (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, skin conduc-
tance, and glucocorticoid levels) can also shed light on the neuroscience
of attachment (e.g., Powers, Pietromonaco, Gunlicks, & Sayer, 2006; see
Diamond & Fagundes, 2010, for a review). For example, we (Quirin et
al., 2010) have made claims, based on our findings of brain volume dif-
ferences, regarding the association between attachment insecurity and the
hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical (HPA) axis system. These claims
have received ample support from studies using physiological markers
(e.g., heart rate, blood pressure), which have repeatedly found associations
between attachment insecurity and stronger physiological reaction (e.g.,
higher HPA activity), especially following relational stressors (e.g., Pow-
ers et al., 2006). These findings, which demonstrate regulation failures or
deficits among insecurely attached people, can be explained in terms of the
decreased volume or increased activity in specific brain areas. To do that,
studies that combine neural and physiological indices should be carried
out. Such studies will allow scholars to tie the relatively new and sometimes
unclear neural findings with the broad knowledge base on human physiol-
ogy. As suggested by Tharner et al. (2011), an additional needed step is to
connect the neural (and physiological) findings with genetics.
Genes, Neurotransmitters, and Hormones

There are different ways to utilize knowledge about genes, neurotrans-
mitters, and hormones to investigate attachment. First, researchers can
use behavioral genetic methods to estimate genetic and environmental
contributions to attachment anxiety, avoidance, and security. Second,
using molecular genetic methods, investigators can examine correlations
between attachment cognitions and behaviors on the one hand, and poly-
morphisms1 on genes that regulate the release, reuptake, or degradation
of hormones and neurotransmitters or affect the density of receptors of
these hormones and neurotransmitters on the other. Third, researchers can
correlate the blood or saliva levels of neurotransmitters or hormones with
people’s attachment-related behaviors or styles. Finally, going back to brain
structure and functioning discussed above, researchers can use the distri-
bution of receptors for neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine,
oxytocin, and vasopressin in the brain to identify brain regions most likely
to be associated with attachment processes and outcomes. For example, the
1 Polymorphisms can be homozygous (having identical alleles at corresponding chromo-
somal loci) or heterozygous (having dissimilar alleles).

nucleus accumbens, which is rich in all of these neurotransmitter receptors,

plays a role in various processes associated with attachment and bonding
(e.g., Young & Wang, 2004). In what follows, I focus mainly on the first
two methods.
Whereas some early studies using behavioral genetics found little evi-
dence for heredity or genetic influence, and more support for shared envi-
ronment influence on infant attachment (e.g., O’Connor & Croft, 2001),
more recently researchers have started to provide evidence to support the
influence of genetics on adult attachment styles. For example, Crawford et
al. (2007) found that 40% of the variance in adult attachment anxiety was
accounted for by genetic influences, and Donnellan, Burt, Levendosky, and
Klump (2008) found that additive genetic effects accounted for 45% of the
variability in attachment anxiety and 39% of the variability in avoidance.
These findings suggest that a person’s attachment style is at least partially
the outcome of his or her genetics, and that this genetic contribution to
attachment manifests itself mainly in adulthood.
To turn to molecular genetics, the three main genetic candidates that
scholars have been studying with regard to attachment are dopamine,
serotonin, and oxytocin (but see Troisi et al., 2012, for findings on mu-
opioid). Dopamine is involved in the motivation–reward system and in
goal-related behavior (e.g., Berridge, 2007) as well as in social and rela-
tional behaviors (e.g., Schneier et al., 2000). We (Gillath et al., 2008) found
that attachment anxiety was associated with polymorphisms of dopamine
(DRD2), and Lakatos and colleagues (2002) found an association between
dopamine (DRD4, the 7-repeat allele) and the likelihood of disorganized
attachment. Bakermans-Kranenburg and van IJzendoorn (2011) highlight
the interactions of dopamine (receptor DRD2, DRD4, and transporter
DAT) with environmental conditions to affect attachment outcomes. For
example, children who have less efficient dopamine-related genes do worse
in negative environments than those without genetic risk, and they are
more likely to be disorganized or insecure with regard to their attachment
style. However, children with these genes have also been found to profit
more from nurturing environmental conditions.
Serotonin, the second gene candidate, also influences affect (Gross
et al., 2002) and social behavior (Raleigh, Brammer, & McGuire, 1983).
In line with this research, serotonin was associated with greater attach-
ment avoidance by Gillath and colleagues (2008) and with greater anxiety
by Salo, Jokela, Lehtimäki, and Keltikangas-Järvinen (2011) and Fraley,
Roisman, Booth-LaForce, Owen, and Holland (2013). Both Salo et al. and
Fraley et al. found that this association was moderated by environmen-
tal factors (defined as either maternal nurturance or maternal sensitivity).
Caspers et al. (2009) found an association between the serotonin short
5HTTLPR allele and increased risk for disorganized attachment. They
interpreted this as being consistent with the role of serotonin in modulating
the frontal–amygdalar circuitry (see also Cicchetti, Rogosch, & Toth,

2011).
Oxytocin also plays a central role in social behavior and specifically in
attachment. Costa and colleagues (2009) found associations between the
GG genotype of OXTR single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs; 6930G
>A or 9073G >A) and scores on the Attachment Style Questionnaire fac-
tors, such that it was negatively associated with Confidence (attachment
security) and positively associated with Need for Approval (anxiety) and
Relationship as Secondary (avoidance). In contrast, Chen and Johnson
(2012) found (only among females) that those who had at least one copy of
the A allele of OXTR rs2254298 reported greater attachment anxiety than
females who had two copies of the G allele. However, neither we (Gillath et
al., 2008) nor Fraley et al. (2013) found an association between attachment
and OXTR (see also Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2014).
Together, these findings suggest that despite Bowlby’s (1982) concep-
tualization of attachment style as a blank slate at birth (i.e., the view that
people have an equal or similar potential to develop a secure or insecure
attachment style, based on their interactions and the environment), some
people might be more predisposed than others to develop (in)secure attach-
ment styles. Combining the findings just described with those from the
previous section on neuroimaging, I suggest that specific polymorphisms
may affect the development and function of specific brain areas, which in
turn are associated with certain attachment styles (see Figure 2.1).
A major problem with many of these findings, however, is their reli-
ance on correlational designs. To deal with this issue, researchers have
recently started to use experimental methods to study the links between
neurotransmitters and attachment variables, mainly focusing on oxy-
tocin. To do so, they have examined the effects of intranasal oxytocin
(compared with placebo) on attachment-related behaviors. For example,
Bartz et al. (2010) found that oxytocin affected attachment cognitions
(e.g., remembering one’s mother as being more caring and close), but that
these effects were moderated by attachment styles. Thus people low on
attachment anxiety remembered their mothers as more close and caring
after oxytocin induction (vs. placebo), whereas people high on attachment
anxiety remembered their mothers as less caring and close after the same
manipulation. Similarly, while oxytocin induction increased the ease of
imagining a secure-script scenario (someone else being deeply compas-
sionate to the self), this was moderated by attachment styles, with insecure
individuals having less positive experiences after the induction (Rockliff
et al., 2011). De Dreu (2012) also found that oxytocin interacted with
attachment styles; however, it interacted mainly with avoidance. Specifi-
cally, among people who scored higher on avoidance, oxytocin induction
reduced betrayal aversion, and increased trust and cooperation compared
to the placebo group.
Neurotransmitters/
hormones
Brain structure/ Attachment

Genes
function behavioral system
Cognitive abilities/
mechanisms
FIGURE 2.1. Attachment as a function of genes and brain structure and function.
Genes include dopamine (DRD2, DRD4, DAT), serotonin (5HT), oxytocin
(OXTR), and catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), among others. Brain
structure/function includes volume, connectivity, and mechanisms in areas
such as the hippocampus, amygdala, dorsal ACC, SCC, and OFC. Cognitive
abilities/mechanisms include attention, emotion regulation, thought control,
self-regulation, and IWMs.
Animal Models
There is a very broad literature on animal models of bonding, attachment,
and close relationships (e.g., Carter et al., 2005), which I only briefly touch
upon. Animal models constitute a powerful method for studying the social
brain and the neurobiological mechanisms underlying social relationships,
attachment included (e.g., Bales, Maninger, & Hinde, 2012). For instance,
oxytocin, which is thought to be a central player in human attachment and
bonding, was first examined in animal models (see Carter et al., 2005;
Insel & Young, 2001). In studies using animal models, researchers use
observational methods to identify bonding (social or pair-bonding) behav-
iors such as separation distress and soothing, or relationship/attachment
styles. Animal models of attachment and pair bonding created by Michael
Meaney and others are crucial in our understanding of the roles epigenetics
and neural mechanisms play in these systems and behaviors (see Bagot et
al., 2009; Bales et al., 2012; Carter et al., 2005; Lim & Young, 2006).
Meaney’s work demonstrated that parental behavior affects gene expres-
sion in the rat pup, which in turn affects the future parenting behavior of
the pup when it reaches adulthood. The major advantages of this approach
over work based on humans are the abilities to (1) study intergenerational
effects in much shorter time frames, (2) use genetic or chemical manipula-
tions that would be hard or impossible to use in humans, (3) inflict lesions,
and (4) perform postmortem analysis that would be prohibited, more dif-
ficult, or unethical in humans—all of which permit clearer inferences about
causality. Thus animal models provide additional angles that permit better
and deeper understanding of the structures, mechanisms, and functions
involved in attachment processes and outcomes in ways that typically are
not possible with human participants.
Theoretical Models
Although the research in the domain of attachment neuroscience is rela-
tively young, important findings have started to accumulate, and research-
ers have developed preliminary conceptual models to organize these
findings. For example, Fonagy, Luyten, and Strathearn (2011) suggest a
developmental, biobehavioral switch model, not focused specifically on
attachment, but rather on its associations with mentalization (i.e., the abil-
ity to understand the mental state of oneself and others) and stress. The
model is based on early work by Panksepp (1998) and Insel (e.g., Insel &
Young, 2001). The work, focusing on animal models, links attachment
bonds with substance dependence and opioids, suggesting that attachment
might be based on the same mechanisms as addictive disorders (Burkett
& Young, 2012). These mechanisms involve two neural systems, which
are the same systems that Fonagy et al. focus on in their model: (1) the
dopaminergic system (Ferris et al., 2005; Strathearn, Fonagy, Amico,
& Montague, 2009), and (2) the oxytocinergic system (Bartels & Zeki,
2004; Champagne, Diorio, Sharma, & Meaney, 2001; Feldman, Weller,
Zagoory-Sharon, & Levine, 2007). The dopaminergic system is associ-
ated with sensitivity to cues, and both the dopaminergic and oxytocinergic
systems are associated with responding to social cues and with rewarding
social and relational behaviors.
Tying their model to personality disorders, Fonagy et al. (2011) sug-
gest that complex interactions among environmental, biological, and psy-
chosocial factors affect the two neural systems, which in turn shape the
attachment system, and more specifically its threshold of activation. These
interactions also affect people’s ability to differentiate the mental states of
self and others, which decreases the sensitivity and susceptibility to conta-
gion from other people’s mental states, reduces integration of cognitive and
affective aspects of mentalization, and increases dysfunctions in stress reg-
ulation systems. These, in turn, affect the ability of people to regulate their
behavior. Together, the changes in threshold level and regulation or control
can lead to the development of insecure or even disorganized attachment.
Fonagy et al.’s model focuses on attachment and its association with mental
disorders. It draws a lot of its evidence from findings relevant to mothers’
behaviors in response to their offspring, which are more closely related
to the activation of the caregiving system than to that of the attachment
system (for similar models, see Atzil, Hendler, & Feldman, 2011; Galynker
et al., 2012). Hence I turn next to Vrticka and Vuilleumier’s (2012) model,
which focuses less on mental disorders and the caregiving system.
Vrticka and Vuilleumier (2012) suggest that individual differences in
attachment styles correlate with various affective and cognitive processes,
particularly in attachment-relevant or social contexts. Their model of the
influence of adult attachment on social processing, which incorporates
Fonagy et al.’s (2011) model, involves two core networks: one network that
is associated with affective evaluation processes (such as threat or reward),
and includes approach and avoidance components; and another network
that is associated with cognitive control and mentalizing abilities, and
includes emotion regulation and mental state representation components).
Their model is similar to the attachment model suggested by Pietromonaco
and Barrett (2000) in terms of its affective and emotion regulation compo-
nents, and to more general models of social cognition and emotion process-
ing (e.g., Lieberman, 2007).
When describing the neuroscientific aspect of their model, Vrticka
and Vuilleumier (2012) add the serotonergic and cortisol systems to the
dopaminergic and oxytocinergic systems suggested by Fonagy et al. (2011),
and discuss a set of specific brain regions for each network’s component:
approach (the ventral tegmental, hypothalamus, striatum, and ventral
medial OFC), avoidance (the amygdala, hippocampus, insula, ACC, and
anterior temporal pole), emotion regulation (the dorsolateral PFC and lat-
eral OFC), and mental state representation (the medial PFC, posterior cin-
gulate cortex, precuneus, posterior superior temporal sulcus, temporopari-
etal junction, and anterior superior temporal gyrus).
Vrticka and Vuilleumier (2012) further suggest that there is a dynamic
balance between the threat-sensitive system motivating social aversion and
the attachment system that promotes a sense of safety via close relation-
ships and approach (MacDonald & MacDonald, 2011). According to this
explanation, attachment bonds serve as social rewards in the approach sys-
tem. Both approach and aversion are thought to be shaped by genes and the
environment, and modulated by attachment avoidance and anxiety. Thus
people high on attachment avoidance are thought to have weaker brain
activation in areas related to both the approach and the avoidance systems,
in line with their use of deactivating strategies; by contrast, people high
on anxiety are thought to have stronger brain activation, but mainly with
regard to the aversion system and the processing of negative social cues,
in line with their use of hyperactivating strategies. People who are low on
both dimensions are thought to have weaker reactions as compared with
anxiously attached individuals, but due to their effective regulation rather
than their deactivation of the attachment system (for a similar model and
findings, see Warren et al., 2010).
Coan (2010) suggests a different model—one that focuses on the
regulatory role of the attachment system via overt emotional and social
behavior. His model describes the neural systems involved in the forma-
tion and maintenance of adult attachment relationships and the way the
brain supports attachment behaviors. As Vrticka and Vuilleumier (2012)
do, Coan (2010) builds on research regarding the neural systems support-
ing emotion, emotion regulation, motivation, and social behavior. He also
introduces the social baseline model of social affect regulation. The model
integrates existing models of attachment with a neuroscientific principle—
economy of action—in the management of metabolic resources devoted to
emotional and social behavior. According to the model, adult attachment
relationships conserve brain metabolic resources, especially those of the
PFC.
Coan’s (2010) model, which is an attempt to bridge the gap between
the broad animal literature on bonding and the extended work on human
attachment behavior, depicts the attachment behavioral system as a higher-
order construct. This construct includes basic behaviors, such as recog-
nition and familiarity, proximity seeking, separation distress, soothing
behaviors, and maternal caregiving. Like Vrticka and Vuilleumier (2012)
and Fonagy et al. (2011), Coan talks about emotion and emotion regula-
tion systems used for attachment behaviors, the relevance of threat- and
reward-related systems, and associations between attachment and cognitive
processes, such as attention and memory. However, he adds an economic
aspect above and beyond these other models. Accordingly, attachment is
tied to the brain’s energy expenditure management, and being together
or feeling securely attached “saves” brain energy. Being alone is straining
and costly (Beckes & Coan, 2011), whereas interacting with others—the
default setting of human existence, according to Coan—is less effortful.
Being with others allows people to spend fewer resources on activities such
as threat detection and emotion regulation, because it involves load sharing
via familiarity, interdependence, and interpersonal conditioning.
Summary and Future Directions

The three theoretical models reviewed above have a few things in common.
They all discuss two aspects or systems underlying attachment styles, which
broadly represent (1) threshold or sensitivity and (2) regulation, and involve
both automatic and controlled processes. This is in line with both non-
neuroscientific models of attachment (e.g., Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2000),
and with non-attachment-related models in neuroscience (e.g., Lieberman,
2007). All three models also connect attachment with broader literatures,
whether these are the temperament or personality literature, or the cognitive
literature on affect regulation and thought control. The models use find-
ings from these broader literatures to explain attachment-related processes,
and identify brain systems or genes relevant to attachment. Finally, all the
models highlight similar neurotransmitters (e.g., dopamine, oxytocin, and

serotonin) and their role in animal and human attachment (although this is
less central in Coan’s [2010] model).
However, there are a few things still missing in current models of
attachment neuroscience. First, there is a need for an integrative expla-
nation that describes how the various aspects reviewed above (e.g., brain
structure and function, genes, neurotransmitters) fit into a comprehensive
model. Second, existing neuroscientific models focus on the micro level
of attachment (intraindividual factors) without connecting it to the macro
level (e.g., context, culture). Third, most models (and the attachment lit-
erature more broadly) focus on explaining attachment insecurity, and less
attention is given to the underlying mechanisms of attachment security.
Below, I suggest some solutions to start bridging these theoretical gaps.
A model of attachment neuroscience should integrate all the compo-
nents reviewed above (and potentially others not reviewed here) into a com-
prehensive explanation that takes advantage of the unique contributions of
each method or approach and integrates them into an overall picture. This
idea is not unique to the neuroscience of attachment, and is related to data
fusion and analytical approaches that deal with fusion (Calhoun, Liu, &
Adali, 2009). For example, in many recent studies, researchers collect mul-
tiple types of imaging data from the same participants (fMRI, ERPs, etc.).
Each imaging method focuses on a limited domain (e.g., near-scalp elec-
trical activity) and provides both common and unique information about
the issue being studied. For instance, ERPs reveal the exact when, whereas
fMRIs reveal the where of a phenomenon. Combining them in the same
study can provide a fuller picture than getting answers in different studies.
Statistical approaches such as independent component analysis (ICA) allow
one to put these pieces (brain imaging, electrophysiology, genetics, etc.)
together. Beyond the mathematical or statistical level represented by ICA,
there is also a need to provide a theoretical framework that connects all
the informational dots. We (Gillath, Canterberry, & Collins, 2012) have
started this task (see Figure 2.1), connecting genetics, specific brain struc-
ture/volume and functioning, connectivity between the areas of activation,
and attachment behaviors. For example, attachment anxiety is associated
with polymorphisms of dopamine (fewer D2 receptors); decreased hippo-
campal volume; higher activation of the hippocampus, ATP, dorsal ACC,
and a few other areas; lower activation of the OFC; negative correlations
between these activations; and higher sensitivity to attachment-related
information. Conversely, avoidant attachment is associated with polymor-
phisms of serotonin (fewer 5HT receptors), increases in early brain waves
(C1 and P1), higher activation in dorsolateral PFC, and higher ability to
suppress attachment-related cues. Future research should further test the
associations among the components of the framework we have suggested
by including different methodologies in the same study, and by adding
more components (or puzzle pieces) as the evidence for their role accumu-
lates.
While neuroscience provides researchers with a preview of the micro
level of attachment, combining micro-level research with the macro-level
studies will be necessary for a full understanding of the attachment system
(see Figure 2.2, and Gillath et al., 2012). For instance, adopting a cultural
perspective can allow researchers to grasp how the brain adapts to fit bet-
ter with specific contexts or demands (e.g., Wilson, 2010). Understanding
the functions of attachment in the culture-ready brain (Whitehead, 2010)
can position attachment at the forefront of the new domain of cultural neu-
roscience (Chiao, 2010). Some preliminary work in this direction already
exists. For example, Eisenberg et al. (2010) describe the role of D4 dopa-
mine receptors in pair-bonding processes across different cultures/con-
texts, and Ray et al. (2010) describe differences in neural representations of
self and other (specifically, the mother) as a function of a specific cultural
context—interdependent self-construal.
Any model that seeks to explain the neuroscience of attachment should
also deal with the construct of attachment security and its underlying mech-
anisms. As mentioned above, we (Canterberry & Gillath, 2012) recently
conducted a study focusing on this aspect, showing that security involves
affective (increased positive mood and relaxation), cognitive (increased self-
and emotion regulation), and behavioral (prosocial tendencies) components.
Macro Micro
(interindividual) (intraindividual)
Context Neuroscience
Environment of Developmental
Current Brain Brain Hormones/
Culture evolutionary environment Genes
environment volume activation neurotransmitters
adaptedness (prenatal)
Attachment
system
Cognitive Regulatory
Behavior Attitudes Emotions
mechanisms mechanisms
FIGURE 2.2. Combining the micro and macro levels to gain a better understand-
ing of attachment.
In a different study (Gillath, Atchley, Imran, & El-Hodiri, 2014), using

cognitive methods and ERPs, we showed that priming attachment secu-
rity increased the tendency to behave generously, and affected the reactions
people had to their generosity’s being reciprocated or not. Examining FN
(feedback negativity) and P3 ERP components, we also found that security
buffers emotional reactions to loss, especially among insecurely attached
people, potentially making them focus on the importance of social cues
(other people) rather than financial ones (possessions). In yet another study,
exposing people to an attachment security prime resulted in increased glu-
cose levels, supporting the idea that security provides resources to people,
which in turn allows them to deal with stress and react more efficiently and
flexibly to threats (Gillath, Pressman, Stetler, & Moskovitz, 2014).
While providing initial information on security, these studies do not
deal with the association between security and insecurity. Right now, for
example, it is unclear whether the two constructs represent two different
systems (i.e., attachment and security) or two sides of the same system/
dimension (see Figure 2.3). More work is needed to answer such ques-
tions as “What happens when people are exposed to an insecurity prime?”
We know that the attachment system is activated (Mikulincer, Gillath, &
Shaver, 2002), and that people seek proximity to regain security, but what
is the end result of this process with regard to the system? Is it “returning
to baseline” (its zero or default state)? Or, because security is achieved or
regained, are people “above baseline” in a state that is closer to how they
would feel (or would experience) when primed with a security prime? Using
Security
Security enhancement  Growth
Baseline
Back to baseline  Regaining security

Insecurity
FIGURE 2.3. The relations between attachment security and insecurity. The
dashed lines represent alternatives to the insecurity–security continuum, and
more generally the potential for two separate processes or systems for security
and insecurity.
neuroscience techniques and comparing activation when security versus

insecurity is primed can help answer these important questions. From our
own findings, it seems that security priming brings people into a higher
state of growth or flow, each of which is associated with different brain
mechanisms from those associated with insecurity. Another question has to
do with state versus trait differences in attachment (e.g., Gillath, Hart, et
al., 2009). For example, what happens when a dispositionally insecure per-
son is primed with security? These issues should be tested and integrated
into the suggested framework of attachment, while keeping other models of
attachment in mind; for example, how does security fit into models depict-
ing attachment (and love) as an addiction (Burkett & Young, 2012)?
In summary, the domain of attachment neuroscience, though young,
is growing rapidly and continually contributing to our understanding of
attachment. Although adult attachment has been studied for almost 30
years, and attachment in general has been studied for more than 50 years,
there is still much to learn, and many open questions remain. Neuroscience
is an essential approach to finding answers to these questions. In this chap-
ter, I have reviewed some of the key findings obtained in research using
various methods of neuroscience, have described some of the models sug-
gested to explain the neuroscience of attachment, and have provided a few
directions for future investigations. I am looking forward enthusiastically
to seeing what new technologies, approaches, and models will tell us about
attachment.
References
Ahern, G. L., & Schwartz, G. E. (1985). Differential lateralization for positive and
negative emotion in the human brain: EEG spectral analysis. Neuropsycho-
logia, 23, 745–755.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Anderson, M. C., Ochsner, K. N., Kuhl, B., Cooper, J., Robertson, E., Gabrieli,
S. W., et al. (2004). Neural systems underlying the suppression of unwanted
memories. Science, 303, 232–235.
Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H. F., & Brown, L. L. (2005).
Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense
romantic love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94, 327–337.
Atzil, S., Hendler, T., & Feldman, R. (2011). Specifying the neurobiological basis
of human attachment: Brain, hormones, and behavior in synchronous and
intrusive mothers. Neuropsychopharmacology, 36, 2603–2615.
Bagot, R. C., van Hasselt, F. N., Champagne, D. L., Meaney, M. J., Krugers, H. J.,
& Joels, M. (2009). Maternal care determines rapid effects of stress mediators
on synaptic plasticity in adult rat hippocampal dentate gyrus. Neurobiology
of Learning and Memory, 92, 292–300.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2011). Differential

susceptibility to rearing environment depending on dopamine-related genes:
New evidence and a meta-analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 23,
39–52.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2014). A sociability
gene?: Meta-analysis of oxytocin receptor genotype effects in humans. Psy-
chiatric genetics, 24, 45–51.
Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh Rangarajoo, E. (1996).
Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availabil-
ity and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
94–109.
Bales, K. L., Maninger, N., & Hinde, K. (2012). New directions in the neurobiol-
ogy and physiology of paternal care. In O. Gillath, G. Adams, & A. Kun-
kel (Eds.), Relationship science: Integrating evolutionary, neuroscience, and
sociocultural approaches (pp. 91–111). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic
love. NeuroImage, 21, 1155–1166.
Bartz, J. A., Zaki, J., Ochsner, K. N., Bolger, N., Kolevzon, A., Ludwig, N., &
Lydon, J. E. (2010). Effects of oxytocin on recollections of maternal care
and closeness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 107,
21371–21375.
Beckes, L., & Coan, J. A. (2011). Social baseline theory: The role of social prox-
imity in emotion and economy of action. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 5, 976–988.
Benetti, S., McCrory, E., Arulanantham, S., De Sanctis, T., McGuire, P., &
Mechelli, A. (2010). Attachment style, affective loss and gray matter vol-
ume: A voxel-based morphometry study. Human Brain Mapping, 31(10),
1482–1489.
Berridge, K. C. (2007). The debate over dopamine’s role in reward: The case for
incentive salience. Psychopharmacology, 191, 391–431.
Basic Books.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of
adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W.
S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New
York: Guilford Press.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attach-
ment relationships. Elaborating a central construct. In J. Cassidy & P. R.
Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical appli-
cations (2nd ed., pp. 102–127). New York: Guilford Press.
Brumbaugh, C. C., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). Transference and attachment: How do
attachment patterns get carried forward from one relationship to the next?
Buchheim, A., Erk, S., George, C., Kächele, H., Ruchsow, M., Spitzer, M., et al.
(2006). Measuring attachment representation in an fMRI environment: A
pilot study. Psychopathology, 39, 144–152.
Burkett, J. P., & Young, L. J. (2012). The behavioral, anatomical and
pharmacological parallels between social attachment, love and addiction.

Psychopharmacology, 224, 1–26.
Calhoun, V. D., Liu, J., & Adali, T. (2009). A review of group ICA for fMRI data
and ICA for joint inference of imaging, genetic, and ERP data. NeuroImage,
45, S163–S172.
Canterberry, M., & Gillath, O. (2012). Neural evidence for a multifaceted model of
attachment security. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 88, 232–240.
Carter, C. S., Ahnert, L., Grossmann, K. E., Hrdy, S. B., Lamb, M. E., Porges, S.
W., et al. (Eds.). (2005). Attachment and bonding: A new synthesis (Dahlem
Workshop Reports No. 92). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Caspers, K. M., Paradiso, S., Yucuis, R., Troutman, B., Arndt, S., & Philibert,
R. (2009). Association between the serotonin transporter promoter polymor-
phism (5-HTTLPR) and adult unresolved attachment. Developmental Psy-
chology, 45(1), 64–76.
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Champagne, F., Diorio, J., Sharma, S., & Meaney, M. J. (2001). Naturally occur-
ring variations in maternal behavior in the rat are associated with differences
in estrogen-inducible central oxytocin receptors. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA, 98, 12736–12741.
Chen, F. S., & Johnson, S. C. (2012). An oxytocin receptor gene variant predicts
attachment anxiety in females and autism-spectrum traits in males. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 93–99.
Chiao, J. Y. (2010). At the frontier of cultural neuroscience: Introduction to the
special issue. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 109–110.
Chisholm, K. (1998). A three year follow-up of attachment and indiscriminate
friendliness in children adopted from Romanian orphanages. Child Develop-
ment, 69, 1092–1106.
Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., & Toth, S. L. (2011). The effects of child maltreat-
ment and polymorphisms of the serotonin transporter and dopamine D4
receptor genes on infant attachment and intervention efficacy. Development
and Psychopathology, 23, 357–372.
Coan, J. A. (2008). Toward a neuroscience of attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R.
Coan, J. A. (2010). Adult attachment and the brain. Journal of Social and Personal
Cohen, M. X., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Avoidant attachment and hemispheric later-
alization of the processing of attachment- and emotion-related words. Cogni-
tion and Emotion, 18, 799–813.
Costa, B., Pini, S., Gabelloni, P., Abelli, M., Lari, L., Cardini, A., et al. (2009).
Oxytocin receptor polymorphisms and adult attachment style in patients with
depression. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34, 1506–1514.
Crawford, T. N., Livesley, W. J., Jang, K. L., Shaver, P. R., Cohen, P., & Gani-
ban, J. (2007). Insecure attachment and personality disorder: A twin study of
adults. European Journal of Personality, 21, 191–208.
Dan, O., & Raz, S. (2012). Adult attachment and emotional processing biases: An
event-related potentials (ERPs) study. Biological Psychology, 91, 212–220.
Dawson, G., Ashman, S. B., Hessl, D., Spieker, S., Frey, K., Panagiotides, H., et al.
(2001). Autonomic and brain electrical activity in securely- and insecurely-
attached infants of depressed mothers. Infant Behavior and Development,
24, 135–149.
De Dreu, C. K. (2012). Oxytocin modulates the link between adult attachment and
cooperation through reduced betrayal aversion. Psychoneuroendocrinology,
37, 871–880.
DeWall, C. N., Masten, C. L., Powell, C., Combs, D., Schurtz, D. R., & Eisen-
berger, N. I. (2012). Do neural responses to rejection depend on attachment
style?: An fMRI study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 184–
192.
Del Giudice, M. (2009). Sex, attachment, and the development of reproductive
strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 1–21.
Diamond, L. M., & Fagundes, C. P. (2010). Psychobiological research on attach-
ment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 218–225.
Donnellan, M. B., Burt, S. A., Levendosky, A. A., & Klump, K. L. (2008). Genes,
personality, and attachment in adults: A multivariate behavioral genetic anal-
ysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 3–16.
Drevets, W. C. (2000). Neuroimaging studies of mood disorders. Biological Psy-
chiatry, 48, 813–829.
Eisenberg, D. T. A., Apicella, C. L., Campbell, B. C., Dreber, A., Garcia, J. R., &
Lum, J. K. (2010). Assortative human pair-bonding for partner ancestry and
allelic variation of the dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene. Social Cognitive
and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 194–202.
Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2004). Why rejection hurts: A common
neural alarm system for physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive Sci-
ences, 8, 294–300.
Eisenberger, N. I., Master, S. L., Inagaki, T. K., Taylor, S. E., Shirinyan, D., Lieber-
man, M. D., et al. (2011). Attachment figures activate a safety signal-related
neural region and reduce pain experience. Proceedings of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences USA, 108, 11721–11726.
Elliot, A. J., & Reis, H. T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 317–331.
Feldman, R., Weller, A., Zagoory-Sharon, O., & Levine, A. (2007). Evidence for a
neuroendocrinological foundation of human affiliation plasma oxytocin lev-
els across pregnancy and the postpartum period predict mother–infant bond-
ing. Psychological Science, 18, 965–970.
Ferris, C. F., Kulkarni, P., Sullivan, J. M., Harder, J. A., Messenger, T. L., & Febo,
M. (2005). Pup suckling is more rewarding than cocaine: Evidence from func-
tional magnetic resonance imaging and three-dimensional computational
analysis. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 149–156.
Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., & Strathearn, L. (2011). Borderline personality disorder,
mentalization, and the neurobiology of attachment. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 32, 47–69.
Galynker, I. I., Yaseen, Z. S., Katz, C., Zhang, X., Jennings-Donovan, G., Dash-
naw, S., et al. (2012). Distinct but overlapping neural networks subserve
depression and insecure attachment. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuro-
science, 7, 896–908.
Gillath, O., Atchley, R., Imran, A., & El-Hodiri, M. (2014). Attachment, game
theory, and neuroscience: Examining the enhancement and experience of
generous behavior. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Gillath, O., Bunge, S. A., Shaver, P. R., Wendelken, C., & Mikulincer, M. (2005).
Attachment-style differences in the ability to suppress negative thoughts:
Exploring the neural correlates. NeuroImage, 28, 835–847.
Gillath, O., Canterberry, M., & Collins, T. J. (2012). A multilevel multimethod
interdisciplinary approach to the understanding of attachment? In O. Gillath,
G. Adams, & A. D. Kunkel (Eds.), Relationship science: Integrating evolu-
tionary, neuroscience, and sociocultural approaches (pp. 219–240). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gillath, O., Giesbrecht, B., & Shaver, P. R. (2009). Attachment, attention, and cog-
nitive control: Attachment style and performance on general attention tasks.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 647–654.
Gillath, O., Hart, J., Noftle, E. E., & Stockdale, G. D. (2009). Development and
validation of a state adult attachment measure (SAAM). Journal of Research
in Personality, 43, 362–373.
Gillath, O., Pressman, S., Stetler, D., & Moskovitz, J. (2014). Attachment security
and metabolic energy: Enhancement of security results with increased blood
glucose. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Gillath, O., Selcuk, E., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Moving toward a secure attachment
style: Can repeated security priming help? Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 2(4), 1651–1666.
Gillath, O., Sesko, A. K., Shaver, P. R., & Chun, D. S. (2010). Attachment, authen-
ticity, and honesty: Dispositional and experimentally induced security can
reduce self- and other-deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 98, 841–855.
Gross, C., Zhuang, X., Stark, K., Ramboz, S., Oosting, R., Kirby, L., et al. (2002).
Serotonin 1A receptor acts during development to establish normal anxiety-
like behavior in the adult. Nature, 416, 396–400.
Hellige, J. B. (1993). Hemispheric asymmetry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Hillyard, S. A., Teder-Sälejärvi, W. A., & Münte, T. F. (1998). Temporal dynamics
of early perceptual processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 8, 202–
210.
Insel, T. R., & Young, L. J. (2001). The neurobiology of attachment. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 129–136.
Karremans, J. C., Heslenfeld, D. J., van Dillen, L. F., & Van Lange, P. A. (2011).
Secure attachment partners attenuate neural responses to social exclusion: An
fMRI investigation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 81, 44–50.
Kennedy, P. J., & Shapiro, M. L. (2004). Retrieving memories via internal context
requires the hippocampus. Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 6979–6985.
Lakatos, K., Nemoda, Z., Toth, I., Ronai, Z., Ney, K., Sasvari-Szekely, M., et al.
(2002). Further evidence for the role of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4)
gene in attachment disorganization: Interaction of the exon III 48-bp repeat

and the 521-C/T promoter polymorphisms. Molecular Psychiatry, 7, 27–31.
Lemche, E., Giampietro, V. P., Surguladze, S. A., Amaro, E. J., Andrew, C. M.,
Williams, S. C. R., et al. (2006). Human attachment security is mediated by
the amygdala: Evidence from combined fMRI and psychophysiological mea-
sures. Human Brain Mapping, 27, 623–635.
Levinger, G. (1994). Figure versus ground: Micro- and macro perspectives on the
social psychology of personal relationships. In R. Erber & R. Gilmour (Eds.),
Theoretical frameworks for personal relationships (pp. 1–28). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core pro-
cesses. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 259–289.
Lim, M. M., & Young, L. J. (2006). Neuropeptidergic regulation of affiliative
behavior and social bonding in animals. Hormones and Behavior, 50, 506–
517.
MacDonald, K., & MacDonald, T. M. (2011). The peptide that binds: A systematic
review of oxytocin and its prosocial effects in humans. Harvard Review of
Psychiatry, 18, 1–21.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorga-
nized-disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Green-
berg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool
years: Theory, research and intervention (pp. 121–160). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of the attachment
system in adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of men-
tal representations of attachment figures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 881–895.
Mikulincer, M., Hirschberger, G., Nachmias, O., & Gillath, O. (2001). The affec-
tive component of the secure base schema: Affective priming with representa-
tions of attachment security. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81, 305–321.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007a). Attachment in adulthood: Structure,
dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007b). Boosting attachment security to pro-
mote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychologi-
cal Inquiry, 18, 139–156.
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex
function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202.
Nash, K., Prentice, M., Hirsh, J., McGregor, I., & Inzlicht, M. (2014). Muted neu-
ral response to distress among securely attached people. Social Cognitive and
Affective Neuroscience, 9(8), 1239–1245.
Niedenthal, P. M., Brauer, M., Robin, L., & Innes-Ker, A. H. (2002). Adult attach-
ment and the perception of facial expression of emotion. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology 82, 419–433.
O’Connor, T. G., & Croft, C. M. (2001). A twin study of attachment in preschool
children. Child Development, 72, 1501–1511.
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and ani-
mal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Phelps, E. A., & LeDoux, J. E. (2005). Contributions of the amygdala to emotion

processing: From animal models to human behavior. Neuron, 48, 175–187.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (2000). Internal working models: What do we
really know about the self in relation to others? Review of General Psychol-
ogy, 4, 155–175.
Powers, S. I., Pietromonaco, P. R., Gunlicks, M., & Sayer, A. (2006). Dating
couples’ attachment styles and patterns of cortisol reactivity and recovery in
response to a relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 90, 613–628.
Quirin, M., Gillath, O., Eggert, L., Pruessner, J., Kuestermann, E., & Kuhl, J.
(2010). Attachment insecurity and cell density in the hippocampus. Social
Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 39–47.
Raleigh, M. J., Brammer, G. L., & McGuire, M. T. (1983). Male dominance, sero-
tonergic systems, and the behavioral and physiological effects of drugs in ver-
vet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus). In K. A. Miczek (Ed.), Etho-
pharmacology: Primate models of neuropsychiatric disorders (pp. 185–197).
New York: Alan R. Liss.
Ray, R. D., Shelton, A. L., Hollon, N. G., Matsumoto, D., Frankel, C. B., Gross,
J. J., et al. (2010). Interdependent self-construal and neural representations
of self and mother. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(2–3),
318–323.
Redgrave, P., Prescott, T. J., & Gurney, K. (1999). The basal ganglia: A vertebrate
solution to the selection problem? Neuroscience, 89, 1009–1023.
Rockliff, H., Karl, A., McEwan, K., Gilbert, J., Matos, M., & Gilbert, P. (2011).
Effects of intranasal oxytocin on “compassion focused imagery.” Emotion,
11, 1388–1396.
Salo, J., Jokela, M., Lehtimäki, T., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2011). Serotonin
receptor 2A gene moderates the effect of childhood maternal nurturance on
adulthood social attachment. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 10, 702–709.
Schneier, F. R., Liebowitz, M. R., Abi-Dargham, A., Zea-Ponce, Y., Lin, S. H., &
Laruelle, M. (2000). Low dopamine D2 receptor binding potential in social
phobia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 457–459.
Strathearn, L., Fonagy, P., Amico, J., & Montague, P. R. (2009). Adult attachment
predicts maternal brain and oxytocin response to infant cues. Neuropsycho-
pharmacology, 34, 2655–2666.
Tharner, A., Herba, C. M., Luijk, M. P., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-
Kranenburg, M. J., Govaert, P. P., et al. (2011). Subcortical structures and the
neurobiology of infant attachment disorganization: A longitudinal ultrasound
imaging study. Social Neuroscience, 6, 336–347.
Troisi, A., Frazzetto, G., Carola, V., Di Lorenzo, G., Coviello, M., Siracusano, A.,
et al. (2012). Variation in the µ-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) moderates the
influence of early maternal care on fearful attachment. Social Cognitive and
Affective Neuroscience, 7, 542–547.
Vrticka, P., Andersson, F., Grandjean, D., Sander, D., & Vuilleumier, P. (2008).
Individual attachment style modulates human amygdala and striatum activa-
tion during social appraisal. PLoS ONE, 3, e2868.
Vrticka, P., & Vuilleumier, P. (2012). Neuroscience of human social interactions
and adult attachment style. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 212.
Warren, S. L., Bost, K. K., Roisman, G. I., Silton, R. L., Spielberg, J. M., Engels,
A. S., et al. (2010). Effects of adult attachment and emotional distractors on
brain mechanisms of cognitive control. Psychological Science, 21, 1818–1826.
Whitehead, C. (2010). The culture ready brain. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 5, 168–179.
Wilson, M. (2010). The re-tooled mind: How culture re-engineers cognition. Social
Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 180–187.
Young, L. J., & Wang, Z. (2004). The neurobiology of pair bonding. Nature Neu-
roscience, 7, 1048–1054.
Zayas, V., & Hazan, C. (Eds.). (2015). Bases of adult attachment: Linking brain,
mind, and behavior. New York: Springer.
Zayas, V., Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., Osterhout, L., & Takahashi, M. (2009). Neural
responses to partner rejection cues. Psychological Science, 20, 813–821.
Zhang, X., Li, T., & Zhou, X. (2008). Brain responses to facial expressions by
adults with different attachment-orientations. NeuroReport, 19, 437–441.
Zilber, A., Goldstein, A., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). Adult attachment orienta-
tions and the processing of emotional pictures–ERP correlates. Personality
and Individual Differences, 43, 1898–1907.
3
Fooled Around and Fell in Love
The Role of Sex in Adult Romantic
Attachment Formation
Vivian Zayas
Sarah Merrill
Cindy Hazan
A central proposition of Bowlby’s ethological attachment theory

is that attachment is integral to human behavior throughout the lifespan,
“from the cradle to the grave” (1979, p. 129). The theory provides a com-
prehensive and detailed account of the evolutionary roots, ontogeny, and
developmental sequelae of infant–caregiver bonds. Although in adulthood
individuals may be attached to multiple individuals (e.g., parents, friends,
siblings; Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr, Enns, & Koh-Rangarajoo, 1996), the the-
ory posits that pair bonds, or relationships between romantic partners, are
the prototypical instantiation of attachment in adulthood.
Whether in infancy or adulthood, the features that distinguish attach-
ment bonds from other types of social ties are the same (Hazan & Shaver,
1987). Specifically, attachments are characterized by proximity seeking/
maintenance (the tendency to stay in touch), safe haven (the tendency to
turn to attachment figures for comfort or reassurance), separation distress
(the tendency to resist and be upset by unwanted or prolonged separations),
and secure base (the tendency to explore because one is emboldened by
knowing that support is available when needed).
Despite these similarities in attachment relationships, infant–caregiver
relationships and adult romantic relationships differ in important ways.
68
Sex and Romantic Attachment Formation 69
In particular, infant–caregiver relationships are typically complementary.

That is, infants seek security and comfort from, but do not intention-
ally provide security or comfort to, attachment figures. In contrast, adult
romantic relationships are reciprocal: Partners serve as both recipients and
providers of security and comfort. In addition, and most relevant to the
present chapter, adult romantic relationships are typically sexual in nature.
In other words, adult attachment bonds involve the integration of three
distinct behavioral systems: attachment, caregiving, and sexual mating.
It is thus somewhat surprising how very little adult attachment research
has addressed the sexual mating system. Indeed, the fields of sex research
and adult attachment research have progressed quite independently.
Although sex can be an entirely casual or even solo activity, most sexual
interactions occur within the context of an ongoing romantic relationship
(Impett, Muise, & Peragine, 2013). The specific question that we address
in the present chapter is what role sex may play in the formation of an adult
attachment bond. For the purposes of this chapter, we are defining sexual
interactions as any behaviors that are motivated by an urge to gratify sex-
ual motivation, including (but not limited to) sexual touch, sexual kissing,
rubbing or stimulation of the genitals, nipples, or other erogenous zones,
cunnilingus, fellatio, and vaginal and anal penetration.
The process by which two individuals go from being relative strang-
ers to having developed a full-fledged attachment bond is still not well
understood (Zayas & Hazan, 2015). Nonetheless, there is good reason to
think about the role of sex in adult attachment. We propose that the sexual
mating system is first involved in sparking initial attraction and interest in,
and promoting proximity toward, one person (over all other potential part-
ners). But also, critically, once a relationship is under way, repeated sexual
activity with the same partner is expected to condition basic physiological
and endocrinological systems; this conditioning, in turn, distinguishes this
relationship from others and serves to promote a pair bond.
In particular, in initial stages of relationship formation, the sexual
mating system is involved in attraction, and this has important implications
for attachment formation. As noted above, a defining feature of attach-
ment is proximity seeking. Humans are an altricial species, and offspring
are born in a state of extreme immaturity and dependence. As a result of
evolutionary processes, human infants are born with an attachment sys-
tem that promotes seeking and maintaining proximity to important others
(adult caregivers) who are able to provide protection, support, and comfort
(Bowlby, 1982). But what motivates mature members of the human spe-
cies to seek proximity to each other? One major force is sexual attrac-
tion. Infants are drawn to conspecifics in early life because their very lives
depend on seeking protection and care, but adults are motivated to seek
proximity to and contact with others for reasons of sexual interest. By fos-
tering physical intimacy and triggering associated neurochemical systems,
this initial sexual attraction sets the stage for potentially developing a full-
fledged attachment relationship.
Moreover, as the relationship gets under way, the sexual mating sys-
tem plays a key role in transforming the relationship from one of simple
attraction between two strangers to one between two attached partners.
In this respect, there are two issues of central importance. First, although
the sexual mating and attachment systems are distinct and independent,
and have evolved to serve different functions (Diamond, 2004), there is
still considerable overlap in basic structures of the two systems (Diamond
& Dickenson, 2012). Second, having sex repeatedly with the same person
engages these specific (and overlapping) brain structures and activates spe-
cific neurochemical systems that facilitate the formation of an adult attach-
ment bond. In what follows, we focus specifically on the dopaminergic
reward system and the oxytocinergic/opioid arousal-relieving systems. The
take-home message of the extant findings, which are discussed below, is
that through repeated sexual exchanges with the same person, these sys-
tems become conditioned. The effect of the conditioning is that this other
person, whether physically present or just mentally conjured, can automati-
cally activate these systems. This process of the conditioning of specific
reward and relief neural systems, in our view, is the core of adult attach-
ment formation.
First, a few caveats. Exactly how sex affects adult attachment is com-
plicated, and is likely to vary as a function of multiple individual and
group, and possibly gender, factors. We intentionally suspend commentary
on these possible variations (although we return to them at the end of the
chapter) in order to focus attention on a set of processes and mechanisms
that have yet to be articulated or explored in the attachment literature, and
that hold promise for shedding light on the role of sexual intercourse in the
formation of adult attachment bonds.
The chapter is organized as follows. We begin by providing a brief
summary of the behavioral, psychological, physiological, and neural corre-
lates assumed to characterize an adult attachment bond. We then describe
the basic physiological and neural processes involved in sexual intercourse,
and highlight systems that overlap with the attachment system. We con-
clude by raising many interesting, but as yet unanswered, questions with
regard to personal and situational moderators of the purported model that
we hope will fuel future investigations.
The Adult Attachment System

In adulthood, long-term pair bonds confer a number of psychological and
physical benefits. Partners are capable of regulating each other’s physio-
logical systems, daily mood and affective states, and eating and sleeping
patterns (Selcuk, Zayas, & Hazan, 2010). There is a rich literature delin-
eating the precise psychological and neural systems that underlie adult pair
bonds and give rise to attachment-related behaviors (proximity mainte-
nance, safe haven, secure base, and separation distress) (see Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007, for review).
These manifestations of adult pair bonds in terms of physiology,
emotion, and behavior are assumed to reflect the functioning of mental
representations, or internal working models. A core idea of attachment
theory is that the residue of past interactions with the particular part-
ner, as well as of interactions in other past and present relationships, is
stored in memory (e.g., Bowlby, 1973, 1982; Bretherton & Munholland,
2008; Collins, Guichard, Ford, & Feeney, 2004; Pietromonaco & Barrett,
2000; Zayas, Mischel, Shoda, & Aber, 2011). Mental representations con-
sist of detailed memories of interactions with, and conscious and noncon-
scious affective evaluations of, attachment figures (e.g., Zayas & Shoda,
2005, 2014), as well as strategies to regulate negative affect (e.g., turning
to attachment figures to alleviate negative affect, or turning away from
attachment figures and coping through other means; e.g., Zayas, Shoda,
Osterhout, Takahashi, & Mischel, 2009) in stressful and threatening situ-
ations (e.g., Collins et al., 2004; Pietromonaco, Barrett, & Powers, 2006).
Mental representations are impactful because they implicitly affect percep-
tions and expectations about likely events (e.g., “If I seek help, then I will
be supported”; see, e.g., Baldwin et al., 1993; Zayas et al., 2009), which
in turn affect physiology, emotion, and behavior, and may do so without a
person’s having any conscious awareness of the process (Günaydin, Zayas,
Selcuk, & Hazan, 2012).
Dopaminergic Reward System and Proximity Seeking

People move toward (approach) aspects of their environment that are
rewarding, and move away from (avoid) those aspects that are not. The
extent to which mental representations are associated with positive (or neg-
ative) evaluations in memory is assumed to guide approach and avoidance
behaviors. A straightforward hypothesis is that various behaviors aimed
at promoting proximity seeking (i.e., preferring one’s partner over oth-
ers) and desire for closeness reflect underlying partner representations that
are laden with positive affect and hugely rewarding. Indeed, research has
found that partner representations automatically activate strong positive
reactions (Zayas & Shoda, 2005), and that individual differences in the
strength of the automatic evaluations predict relationship closeness, sat-
isfaction, relationship length (Zayas & Shoda, 2005) and breakup (Lee,
Rogge, & Reis, 2010), even among newlyweds (McNulty, Olson, Meltzer,
& Shaffer, 2013).
Studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have
shown that activating the mental representations of a one’s partner—for

example, by viewing a photograph of the partner—recruits the dopami-
nergic system (Aron et al., 2005; Bartels & Zeki, 2004). Dopamine-rich
neural structures, such as the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and nucleus
accumbens shell (NAS), are activated by stimuli with rewarding proper-
ties (e.g., food, sex, drugs, and neutral stimuli paired with reward) and are
implicated in various manifestations of appetitive motivation and approach
behaviors. Specifically, encountering a rewarding stimulus leads to a release
of dopamine in the VTA, which projects to other structures in the limbic
system such as the NAS (Fisher, Aron, & Brown, 2005; Bartels & Zeki,
2004). The activation of this pathway has been associated with subjec-
tive feelings of elation, excitement, desire, and wanting; with promoting
approach behaviors through activation of locomotion in the motor system;
and with physiological changes, such as increases in heart rate and blood
pressure, via activation of the sympathetic nervous system (Balfour, Yu,
& Coolen, 2004). Thus findings that adult romantic partners activate this
dopaminergic/reward system suggest that these individuals too are subjec-
tively rewarding and that such neural activation promotes and maintains
approach-related interpersonal behaviors, such as proximity seeking.
Oxytocinergic/Opioid Arousal-Relieving Systems and Safe-Haven Functions

Pair bonds are not simply defined by the experience of pleasure and joy they
confer. One feature that distinguishes attachment figures from other person-
ally close individuals is that they serve as a safe haven. Attachment figures
provide a source of relief from distress. A person who feels distressed—as a
result of appraising the environment as threatening or the self as in need of
help—seeks proximity to his or her attachment figure. If the attachment fig-
ure is available and responsive, the resulting contact is expected to alleviate
the distress and restore emotional and physiological balance.
What is critical in order for the distress-relieving properties to emerge
is the sheer repetition of interactions. Repeated positive interactions with
attachment figures during times of stress reinforce the association in long-
term memory between bids for support and stress reduction (e.g., Miku-
lincer & Shaver, 2003, 2007; Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003; Sroufe &
Waters, 1977). At a cognitive level, these repeated interactions are encoded
in mental representations as “if–then” contingencies, such as “If I turn to
my partner, then I will feel safe” (e.g., Baldwin, Fehr, Keedian, Seidel, &
Thomson, 1993). At a physiological level, through processes of condition-
ing, the person providing the comfort eventually acquires properties that
signal safety and relief (e.g., Beckes, Simpson, & Erickson, 2010). Thus,
eventually, simply the mental representation of the attachment figure, even
in the absence of the attachment figure’s actual presence, becomes capable
of activating psychological and physiological states of safety and calmness
originally induced by actual interactions with the figure (e.g., Depue &
Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005; Uvnäs-Moberg, 1998).
Indeed, numerous studies provide support for the proposition that
partners enhance affect regulation (for reviews, see Sbarra & Hazan, 2008;
Selcuk et al., 2010). For instance, intimate and supportive interactions
with a romantic partner, compared to nonsupportive interactions with a
partner or with being alone, lead to greater calmness while anticipating a
stressor (e.g., Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992); smaller elevations in
self-reported anxiety and physiological reactivity (i.e., systolic blood pres-
sure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and cortisol level; e.g., Collins
& Ford, 2010; Ditzen et al., 2007; Grewen, Anderson, Girdler, & Light,
2003); attenuation of neural threat responses while experiencing a stressor
(e.g., Coan, Schaefer, & Davidson, 2006); and faster emotional recovery
following a stressor (e.g., Collins & Ford, 2010). Moreover, some of the
distress-relieving benefits are realized simply by activating the mental rep-
resentation of the partner, even in the absence of his or her actual presence.
For example, simply viewing a photograph of one’s partner diminishes the
experience of a mildly painful stimulus (Eisenberger et al., 2011; Master et
al., 2009) and lessens the deleterious affective and cognitive consequences
of relieving a distressing autobiographical memory (Selcuk, Zayas, Günay-
din, Hazan, & Kross, 2012).
A growing body of research has focused on identifying the neural and
endocrinological mechanisms that confer these distress-alleviating effects.
This work, from both the human and animal literatures, converges on the
idea that interactions with attachment figures, whether actual or symbolic,
increase activity of two neurotransmitter systems: oxytocin, which pro-
motes feelings of trust, love, security, and affiliation; and endogenous opi-
oids such as beta-endorphins, which promote relaxation and well-being,
and (most importantly) decrease the experience of physical and emotional
pain (Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005; Sbarra & Hazan, 2008; Young
& Wang, 2004; Zak, Kurzban, & Matzner, 2005). The release of these
neurotransmitters, in turn, serves to down-regulate threat-related reactiv-
ity of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical (HPA) axis and the auto-
nomic nervous system (ANS) (Diamond, 2001; McCubbin, 1993; Uvnäs-
Moberg, 1998).
The threat response of the HPA axis and ANS has been well docu-
mented. In response to an external or internal threat, the hippocampus,
involved in memory, and the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) of
the amygdala, an important brain region in the anxiety pathway, become
activated and trigger a cascade of physiological responses to signal potential
danger. In particular, the BNST, which provides threat feedback to the hip-
pocampus, produces corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH)—a precursor
to cortisol, the stress hormone (Aguilera & Liu, 2012). This activates an
ANS response by releasing cortisol (a glucocorticoid) into the bloodstream.
This pathway occurs in a feedback loop that causes enduring hyperexcit-

ability until the potential danger passes.
Oxytocin and mu-opiates serve as an anxiolytic and essentially down-
regulate this HPA activation (Scantamburlo et al., 2007; Taylor et al.,
2006; Wiedenmayer & Barr, 2000; Windle, Shanks, Lightman, & Ingram,
1997). Both neurotransmitters are released in response to various affilia-
tive and social cues. For example, oxytocin is released in response to hug-
ging, physical touch, sexual interactions, and orgasm (Insel, 1992), and
mu-opiates are released in response to caressing touch, ventro-ventral con-
tact, and sexual activity, especially genital stimulation (Insel, 1997; Nelson
& Panksepp. 1998; Silk, Alberts, & Altmann, 2003). To the extent that
past experiences with partners involved these interactions, these physiolog-
ical states are encoded into the mental representation of the current part-
ner; eventually, simply bringing the representation of the partner to mind,
even in his or her physical absence, is sufficient to trigger their release
(Carter, 1992).
Once released, oxytocin and opiates serve to down-regulate the HPA
threat response. Oxytocin circulates centrally through the paraventricular
nucleus (PVN) of the hypothalamus and has a negative influence on a num-
ber of areas involved in the detection and processing of threat—such as
the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which is implicated in stress and emo-
tional processing, as well as the BNST, amygdala, and hippocampus. The
negative influence on the BNST subsequently reduces the amount of CRH
produced, and thus cortisol, effectively reducing the duration of the stress
response (Liberzon & Young, 1997; Oliet, Oliva, Castro, & Pérez-Segarra,
2007; Aguilera & Liu, 2012).
The Sexual Mating System

The sexual mating and attachment systems are distinct and independent,
and have evolved to serve different functions (Diamond, 2004). Nonethe-
less, we propose that sexual intercourse activates several physiological and
neural systems that overlap considerably with the attachment behavioral
system. One correlate of our argument is that if sex is repeated with the
same partner over time, neural and physiological states of sexual activity
will become conditioned to the partner, and to the extent that these pro-
cesses overlap with those underlying the attachment system, sex is expected
to promote feelings of attachment security and facilitate the formation of
the pair bond.
In what follows, we briefly describe the neural and hormonal systems
associated with two constituent parts of sexual activity: the incentive/moti-
vation reward system implicated in the appetitive phase (also known as the
approach phase), which regulates sexual motivation, sexual desire, sexual
arousal, and courtship behavior (Woolley, Sakata, Gupta, & Crews, 2001);
and the consummatory system implicated in the consummatory phase,
which is involved in feelings of satiation and sedation following attainment
of the goal (Hinde, 1970).
To illustrate the basic activation of the sexual mating system (and later
how it may promote adult attachment) in the sections that follow, we refer
to a hypothetical scenario in which two individuals, Sam and Alex, meet
for the first time and experience sexual attraction. A number of cues, such
as facial shape and appearance, scent, body posture, and so on, will affect
whether Sam will find Alex attractive.
The Appetitive Phase

The Role of the Dopaminergic Reward System
The appetitive phase in initial attraction and romantic interest is governed
by the same incentive/motivation reward system active in many other fun-
damental behaviors, such as eating, sleeping, and drinking (Depue & Col-
lins, 1999; Gray, 1973; Panksepp. 1986). This system is active in sexual
motivation and the anticipation of sexual interaction. Moreover, both the
incentive/motivation reward system and the consummatory system (dis-
cussed next) play prominent roles during actual sexual intercourse. The
two systems overlap during intercourse, so that once distal cues (the possi-
bility of sex) give way to proximal cues, as well as the incentive and possible
anticipatory release of dopaminergic reward that precedes various sexual
behaviors (e.g., orgasm) during the sexual encounter.
Similar to other approach behaviors, the incentive/reward motivation
system is involved in the appetitive phase of sexual activity involving sexual
desire and motivation. Sexual desire characterizes the myriad of behaviors
that can be referred to as “courtship” and lead up to the goal of actually
having sex. Thus approach behaviors range in their proximity to the goal,
from seemingly distal behaviors, such as a phone call, glance of the eyes,
or touch of the hand, to more proximal actions such as kissing, undressing
the partner, and foreplay. All of these phases are considered appetitive in
that they still involve approaching actual sexual interaction, but not having
them.
In all varied aspects of these approach-related behaviors, the incentive/
motivation system is at work and reflects the dopaminergic reaction in
the mesolimbic reward centers of the brain (e.g., VTA, NAS) triggered in
response to a rewarding stimuli. When Sam meets Alex for the first time, a
number of cues, such as facial shape and appearance, scent, body posture,
and so on, will affect whether Sam will find Alex attractive. Research
shows not only that initial evaluations of attraction based on a photograph
activate dopaminergic reward areas, but that initial evaluations of interest
are strong predictors of actual behavioral intentions to date the person later
(in a speed-dating paradigm; Cooper, Dunne, Furey, & O’Doherty, 2012).
So, for Sam, cues associated with Alex—someone Sam inherently finds
physically attractive—serve to activate the appetitive neural and behav-
ioral systems. Subjectively, Sam’s simply seeing Alex is likely to elicit an
ecstatic high from dopamine release, which is a subjective high associated
with stimuli that are the most rewarding. This actually occurs before Sam
reaches Alex, in anticipation of the reward Sam will receive by interacting,
possibly successfully, with an attractive potential mate. Behaviorally, this
anticipatory dopaminergic reward occurs in order to propel an individual
toward a rewarding stimulus, not to receive the reward itself (Depue & Col-
lins, 1999). Sam will probably desire to engage in a number of approach-
oriented behaviors, such as physically get closer to, talk with, and maintain
eye contact with Alex (Breiter, Aharon, Kahneman, Dale, & Shizgal, 2001;
Aharon et al., 2001).
Magnitude of Affiliative Reward

Although the reward system is involved in the processing of a wide range of
rewarding stimuli, one difference in processing underlying affiliative inter-
actions with a potential partner as compared to the processing of other
rewarding stimuli (e.g., food) is in the magnitude of the neural activation
and subsequent response (Meston & Frohlich, 2000). The incentive/moti-
vation system responds proportionally to the magnitude of the perceived
reward (Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005). For example, the amount of
dopamine released by the VTA is directly dependent on how rewarding the
experience is expected to be, as the appetitive reward is of an anticipatory
nature. If the stimulus is more or less rewarding when experienced, then the
incentive/motivation system adjusts, through feedback from the consum-
matory opioid reward system, to this difference and adjusts the expected
reward accordingly (Depue & Collins, 1999). In this regard, sex (or the
possibility of it) is one of the most powerful rewarding stimuli (Meston &
Buss, 2007; Pfaff, 1999), triggering a large amount of dopaminergic action
in the NAS (Pfaus, Damsma, Wenkstern, & Fibiger, 1995). To return to
Sam and Alex, the appetitive phase is characterized by a highly excited state
as they approach one another and engage in a variety of sexual behaviors.
Moreover, the highest dopaminergic release during sexual activity happens
approximately 2 minutes before the point of orgasm, when a large amount
of dopamine is released in expectation of the impending reward stimulus
(Young & Wang, 2004). Therefore, there is a dopaminergic reward deliv-
ered in anticipation of achieving the goal of sexual activity, as well as a
separate dopaminergic reward delivered in anticipation of achieving the
separate goal of orgasm.
Potentiation of Reward Processing via Oxytocin Activation

Relatedly, a second way in which the processing of affiliative stimuli dif-
fers from the processing of rewarding stimuli in other domains is due to
the interactions between dopamine system functioning and oxytocin, vaso-
pressin, and mu-opiates (Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005). Dopamine
in the NAS may increase sexual arousal and penile erections, through the
release of increasing central oxytocinergic activity when presented within
the behavioral context of responding to a sociosexual stimulus (Argiolas,
1999). Similarly, oxytocin increases the dopamine release in VTA to the
NAS, which leads to increased dopaminergic activity and increased sexual
motivation (Melis, Enrico, Peana, & Diana, 2007). Studies in mice, rats,
and prairie voles have found that oxytocin’s ability to innervate dopamine
neurons in the VTA sensitizes the reward system to dopamine (Kovács,
Sarnyai, & Szabó, 1998; Shahrokh, Zhang, Diorio, Gratton, & Meaney,
2010). This makes the incentive reward of sexual stimuli greater in magni-
tude, since the amount of dopamine being released in the brain increases.
One important implication of the interactions between oxytocin and
dopamine is with the formation and development of mental representa-
tions. It has been hypothesized that these interactions during the appetitive
phase enhance the encoding of social contextual ensemble (e.g., partner
scent, touch, facial structure) and reward associations that are defining
features of mental representations (Argiolas, 1999). Subsequently, this may
be one pathway by which sex facilitates the process of transforming repre-
sentations of a stranger to the representation of a partner, and thus creating
a lasting pair bond (Lim & Young, 2006).
The Consummatory Phase

If dopamine is released prior to the reward (during goal pursuit), this raises
a question: What happens once Sam and Alex have actually reached their
goal of sexual activity? That is, in this example, what happens neurologi-
cally to Sam and Alex, beginning during their sexual encounter and con-
tinuing once they have finished copulating and their orgasms have (ide-
ally) taken place? The answer is that now that they are in close proximity
to their goal—in this case, a sexual interaction with a sexually desirable
mate—the appetitive reward phase moves on to the consummatory reward
phase (Herbert, 1993). Some examples of what constitute a proximal cue,
as opposed to a distal cue, that signals the consummatory phase would be
sexual touch, gentle stroking, and running one’s hands through the part-
ner’s hair, as well as genital stimulation and orgasm. Essentially, whereas
appetitive reward is delivered before and during sex, consummatory reward
is delivered during and after sex.
While appetitive reward is characterized by desire and arousal, con-

summatory reward is characterized by feelings of liking, pleasure, and
gratification (Smillie, 2013). Similarly, whereas appetitive reward triggers
approach-oriented action, consummatory reward triggers a cessation of
approach behavior—namely, sedation and rest (Hilliard, Domjan, Nguyen,
& Cusato, 1998). Thus consummatory reward reinforces the behaviors ini-
tiated and sustained by appetitive reward (Porges, 1998, 2001).
In the case of Sam and Alex, the consummatory reward system becomes
active once they have become proximal to their goal, which is in this case
to engage in sexual touch and activity with one another. During the sexual
encounter, the consummatory reward overlaps with the incentive/motiva-
tion system. This is because the incentive/motivation system is still driving
Sam and Alex toward orgasm, which is a separate, though often associated,
reward goal (Berridge, 1999). At the end of this sexual interaction, Sam and
Alex should feel gratified, calm, satiated, and lethargic.
Opioid System and Consummatory Phase

Consummatory reward is characterized by endogenous endorphin and
opioid action in the brain. The involvement of this system in pair-bond
maintenance in nonhuman primates has been confirmed, and it may be
even more important in humans (Machin & Dunbar, 2011). In the case of
sociosexual interactions, beta-endorphins are released and interact pref-
erentially with mu-opioid receptors (Keverne, Martensz, & Tuite, 1989).
Beta-endorphins are actually the most potent endogenous opioid peptides,
with 80 times the analgesic potency of morphine, which also binds to the
mu-opioid receptors. Regardless of the potency of beta-endorphins, the
number of mu-opioid receptors directly affects the subjective experience of
consummatory reward, and the prevalence of these receptors in the brain is
affected by age and early life experiences (Machin & Dunbar, 2011). Acti-
vation of these mu-opioid receptors in the central nervous system causes a
decrease in heart rate and blood pressure, as well as feelings of euphoria
and sedation, all of which are mediated by increases in inhibitory parasym-
pathetic activity (Irnaten et al., 2003). This opiate receptor activity also
increases pain thresholds, and may be responsible for the elevated pain
thresholds that are seen in concert with romantic relationships and during
orgasm (Younger, Aron, Parke, Chatterjee, & Mackey, 2010; Whipple &
Komisaruk, 1985). The magnitude of opiate receptor activation, which is
the incentive value of the stimuli, is encoded along with the sensory cues of
the immediate surrounds, associated feelings, and distinct characteristics
of the sexual stimuli (usually the partner) in frontal cortex and hippo-
campus. This information is then used to determine the expected magni-
tude of the reward the next time this contextual ensemble takes place, and
the subsequent appropriate anticipatory reward to incentivize individuals

toward the sexual stimulus (Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005).
With regard to the consummatory phase, when the potential reward
is proximal to the person, beta-endorphin-related opiate peptides (mostly
mu-opiates, but also sometimes delta-opiates) are released in response to
introceptive (internal cues, such as emotions, feelings, or arousal) and
proximal exteroceptive (external cues, such as physical manifestations of
a close reward goal or objective) stimuli (Hilliard et al., 1998; Depue &
Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005).
Beta-endorphin-related opiate peptides are also active in the VTA
and NAS pathway, similar to dopamine. People who were given an opiate
antagonist reported that their orgasms were less pleasurable than those of
participants on a placebo (Murphy, Checkley, Seckl, & Lightman, 1990).
Essentially, the role of opiates in sexual experiences is to enhance the sub-
jective experience of pleasure, satiation, and calm arousal relief. After
sexual activity, mu-opiates are activated—especially in an important area
for sexual reward processing, the medial preoptic area—within about 30
minutes after coitus, and are internalized continuously for approximately 6
hours (Coolen, Fitzgerald, Yu, & Lehman, 2004). However, in high doses,
mu-opiates have an inhibitory effect on the appetitive process and lead to
reduced sexual desire, making it more difficult (along with prolactin) to
have consecutive, repeated sexual encounters. This is because it is very
unusual for both the appetitive and consummatory reward processes to be
active at the same time, just by virtue of their respective functions, with the
exception of the crossover during sexual activity. Therefore, the interneu-
rons in the dopaminergic pathway between the VTA and NAS are regu-
lated by mu-opioid receptor activation that can inhibit dopamine receptors
from firing (Balfour et al., 2004).
Oxytocin during the Consummatory Phase

Murphy et al. (1990) also suggest that mu-opiates are related to its inter-
action with the release of oxytocin. An important interaction that can be
found between oxytocin and the endogenous opiate/endorphin system is
that oxytocin inhibits the development of a tolerance to opiates (Machin
& Dunbar, 2011; Kovács et al., 1998). This has the very important effect
of preventing the magnitude of the consummatory reward from decreasing
over time. Whereas the incentive motivation dopaminergic reward is sensi-
tized by oxytocin and then habituates over time, the consummatory opioid
reward stays constant due to the effects of oxytocin.
Cantor, Binik, and Pfaus (1999) found that oxytocin is necessary for
ejaculation to take place. This is not surprising, given that orgasm, often
associated with ejaculation in both men and women, causes an increase in
oxytocin from around the time of orgasm until about 5 minutes afterward
(Carmichael et al., 1987). Though the exact role, magnitude, and longevity
of oxytocin release during and after orgasm have been matters of debate
in the literature, especially in regard to male participants (Kruger et al.,
2003; Murphy, Seckl, Burton, Checkley, & Lightman, 1987), there is gen-
eral agreement that oxytocin levels do increase due to orgasm in men and
women (Blaicher et al., 1999; Caldwell, 2002). However, it is also true that
oxytocin is released throughout most sexual activity due to the physical
intimacy of sexual intercourse (Meston & Frohlich, 2000).
The Role of Sex in Adult Attachment Formation

We propose that the sexual mating system, which governs attraction, flirt-
ing, desire, and sexual behavior, plays a critical role in adult attachment
formation. Specifically, we argue that through repeated sexual interactions
with the same partner, the physiological and endocrinological states that
sex engenders become encoded into the mental representation of the part-
ner. By doing so, it promotes the development of this mental representation
from one of an attractive but unknown stranger to one that is reward-
ing and complex, and that ultimately underlies a full-fledged attachment
bond.
There are multiple social, cognitive, behavioral, and neural pathways
through which sex may affect attachment processes. Here we focus on the
overlap between attachment and sexual mating system in the dopaminergic
and oxytocinergic/opioid mechanisms, and how via shared neural mecha-
nisms, sexual activity may promote the formation of an adult attachment
bond. We focus specifically on two aspects of the sexual mating system that
are likely to have profound effects on the development of the attachment
bond: (1) the reward-related dopaminergic and opioid activity associated
with sexual activity; and (2) the negative reinforcement properties associ-
ated with sexual interactions.
Reward-Related Dopaminergic and Opioid Activity Associated with Sex

Sex is a powerful reward. Not surprisingly, individuals who are perceived
as sexually attractive (and thus as potential future sexual partners) or have
been sexual partners in the past are associated with rewards, and thus trig-
ger dopaminergic reward processing (as described in the previous section).
The sheer magnitude of the reward response triggered by sexual partners
(future or actual) has several implications for the development of an attach-
ment bond.
First, such reward processing promotes proximity seeking and
maintenance. Not only is proximity an important factor contributing to

initial attraction (Berscheid & Walster, 1969), but sustained proximity
is necessary for the formation of pair bonds (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994).
Given that aspects of the environment (e.g., certain groups or particular
people, objects, and places) that are highly positive and associated with
reward lead to more approach behavior, it is self-evident that the promise
of sexual reward is a motivator for initiating and promoting proximity-
seeking behaviors early in a relationship. Indeed, physical attractiveness
has long been identified as a key factor in initial attraction and relationship
initiation, motivating individuals to approach certain persons (those who
are attractive) and desire to spend time with them.
Second, the combination of dopaminergic, oxytocinergic, and opioid
activity during sex has implications for memory and encoding, and spe-
cifically for building a robust, context-independent, chronically accessible
mental representation of the partner, which is a defining cognitive feature
of an attachment bond (Zayas, Günaydin, & Shoda, 2015). In this manner,
partner representations can be easily activated in a number of situations
and used to guide behaviors and color experience.
Specifically, dopamine, oxytocin, glutamate, and mu-opioid activation
(especially in the brain’s reward pathway and medial orbital 13 region) dur-
ing sex plays critical roles in encoding information about the partner (e.g.,
the partner’s smell, touch, sound, and appearance) into an ensemble of cues
(Luu & Malenka, 2008; Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005). The strong
activation of the dopaminergic, oxytocinergic, and mu-opioid systems by
sex and a sexual partner suggests a neural pathway by which mental repre-
sentations may become richer and more elaborated more quickly than if the
sexual mating system were not activated. It also provides a neural mecha-
nism for how the representation of the partner may become chronically
accessible (always on one’s mind or brought to mind with little effort) and
contextually independent. To return to our hypothetical scenario, the high
dopaminergic, oxytoncergic, and opioid activity during sex makes it likely
that Sam and Alex will readily encode each other’s cues into their respective
mental representations.
Another way in which attachment representations may develop more
quickly is through behavioral mechanisms differentially triggered by
neural activity. That is, positive, rewarding stimuli are more salient, and
more likely to grab attention, than less positive or neutral stimuli. Thus,
behaviorally, an individual is more likely to form richer representations of
any information involving a potential sexual partner, simply because the
potential partner is the most rewarding and salient aspect of the environ-
ment. Indeed, in parent–child and sexual relationships, individual char-
acteristics (e.g. scent, facial features), are very closely investigated (Del
Cerro, 1998).
Negative Reinforcement Properties Associated with Sexual Interactions

There are certainly important differences between the cognitive and behav-
ioral components of distress-relieving processes and those associated with
relieving arousal during sexual activity. Still, there are a number of simi-
larities.
First, negative reinforcement is common in both. In distress relief, a
person feels anxiety, and another person who provides comfort will even-
tually become associated via conditioning with relaxation. Thus, later,
even in the absence of actual physical comfort, the mere thought of the
partner gives rise to feeling and physiological states of security. Likewise,
during sexual encounters there is a period of sustained positive arousal
during the appetitive phase (occurring before and during sexual activity),
which is then followed by relief and satiation during the consummatory
phase (occurring during and after sexual activity). The arousal associated
with the appetitive phase is excitatory and anticipatory—activating the
ANS and thus increasing heart rate and vasocongestion, and even acti-
vating the BNST of the extended amygdala, which releases extracellular
dopamine (Phillips-Farfán & Fernández-Guasti, 2007; Eiler et al., 2007).
However, after sex (and orgasm) there is a large release of oxytocin and
mu-opiates that signals sexual satiety. In this state, the BNST is not acti-
vated and a peaceful, almost lethargic, state of calm sets in (Phillips-
Farfán & Fernández-Guasti, 2007). This deactivation of the ANS is also
evident in poistcoital bradycardia, when the heart drops below 60 beats
per minute (Carter, 1992). Thus sexual encounters mimic distress relief
in this respect.
Moreover, the neural and hormonal systems underlying distress relief
and those underlying the arousal relief characteristic of sexual encoun-
ters show considerable overlap. Most important, both distress relief and
sex involve the release of oxytocin. In distress relief, oxytocin receptors in
the hippocampus are regulated by the release of glucocorticoids. Specifi-
cally, the feedback of glucocorticoids, such as cortisol, released by stress
increases oxytocin receptor binding (Liberzon & Young, 1997). Increased
glucocorticoid receptors in the hippocampus are associated with increased
oxytocin receptor binding in that area, which, through the action of
gamma-aminobutyric acid, has an excitatory effect on the paramedial
BNST, which in turn reduces the release of PVN CRH and, through that
action, cortisol. Therefore, it is through the release of stress hormones that
oxytocin receptors are up-regulated, which in turn enhances the action
of oxytocin released through physical touch, such as ventro-ventral con-
tact, eye contact, or the accessing of a mental representation. In sexual
interactions, a powerful release of oxytocin is associated with breast and
genital stimulation, uterine contractions, contractions of the reproductive
tract, sexual arousal, the act of coitus, and, most potently, orgasm (Carter,
1992). The other acts that release comparable amounts of oxytocin are
lactation, parturition, and regulation of maternal behavior (Carter, 1992).
Given the large role that oxytocin plays in sexual functioning and
release, along with its interaction with dopamine in the NAS, it is reason-
able to hypothesize that the anxiolytic and intimacy-promoting effect of
oxytocin is amplified during positive sexual encounters—especially ones
resulting in orgasm for one or both of the partners. This continued distress
relief and increase in trust and intimacy from repeated sexual encounters
may then act to create the adult attachment bond, much as distress relief
does in infancy.
Ingredients Necessary for an Attachment Relationship:

Dopamine, Opioids, and Oxytocin
Thus far, we have discussed dopamine, oxytocin, and opioids as function-
ing relatively independently. However, it is possible that a true bond cannot
be formed without a combination of these neurochemicals. Studies done by
Young and Wang (2004) with prairie voles have found that blocking either
the dopamine or the oxytocin receptors in prairie voles prevented their
ability to form a pair. Even when a D2 receptor agonist was used to induce
partner preferences in the prairie voles, no preferences were formed when
there was also a blockade of oxytocin receptors.
Various findings suggest that the formation of pair bonds involves
the presence of both dopamine and oxytocin (as well as vasopressin). Spe-
cifically, the release of oxytocin in the dopaminergic pathway, primarily
oxytocin in the NAS and vasopressin in the ventral palladium, appears to
enhance the reward processing and memory formation needed for acquiring
mate preferences (Argiolas & Gessa, 1991; Sarnyai & Kovács, 1994). Con-
sistent with this proposition, in mammals (sheep, voles, and rats), oxytocin
antagonists and PVN lesions prevent the formation of partner preferences,
as well as the onset of maternal behaviors (Ostrowski, 1988). Interestingly,
they do not stop sexual or maternal behaviors after these behaviors have
already been established.
This work suggests that oxytocin (as well as vasopressin) affects the
formation of mate preferences and the development of mental representa-
tions by acting as a catalyst in the appetitive reward system. Specifically,
oxytocin increases sensitivity to the huge release of dopamine that antici-
pates and accompanies sexual behavior, making sex more rewarding than
food or cocaine (Kovács et al., 1998; Shahrokh et al., 2010). This inter-
action between oxytocin and dopamine also characterizes the infatuation
phase of relationship development.
However, it is important to note that the relative potency of neuro-
hormones varies as the relationship progresses. Over time, as a result of
habituation, the dopaminergic response associated with sex is expected to
decrease. Critically, however, even though dopaminergic reward becomes

less and less intense, the opiate release associated with consummatory
reward during and after sex does not lessen, as oxytocin, importantly,
inhibits the development of tolerance to these opiates (Kovács et al., 1998).
This opiate-consummatory release, coupled with the tolerance-inhibiting
effects of oxytocin, is what is expected to maintain feelings of attachment
even after the dopaminergic high elicited by the sexual system declines.
Unanswered Questions and Future Directions

When does having sex hinder the formation of an attachment bond?:
Integration with the relationship literature findings
We have proposed that sexual interactions with the same partner over time
are likely to promote the formation of an attachment bond. But are there
instances in which sex might impede the formation of pair bonds? Just as
there is an absence of theorizing on the broader issue of the role of sex in
adult attachment formation, there is no work directly examining the ques-
tion of whether sex may hinder attachment formation. However, the rela-
tionship literature looking at the role of sex in relationship outcomes (e.g.,
satisfaction vs. breakup) may shed some light.
The extant, and relatively recent, findings in the relationship literature
suggest that the timing of sex during relationship formation is a critical
factor in determining whether sex predicts positive or negative relation-
ship outcomes. In a national sample of 2,035 married individuals, Busby,
Carroll, and Willoughby (2010) found that spouses who waited until mar-
riage to have sex, compared to those who started having sex early in their
relationship, reported higher marital satisfaction, better communication
patterns, fewer thoughts of divorce, and better sexual quality. Spouses who
became sexually involved later when dating, but prior to marriage, fell
somewhere in between—showing better relationship outcomes than those
who had sex early in the relationship, but worse outcomes than those who
waited until marriage. Moreover, these results held even when the research-
ers statistically controlled for several other variables (e.g., number of sex-
ual partners, relationship length, religiosity, education). Another study by
Busby and colleagues (Willoughby, Carroll, & Busby, 2014) reported simi-
lar findings. However, before we draw any conclusions, it is important to
keep in mind that relationship stability, which is typically the focus of rela-
tionship researchers, is not the same as the quality of an attachment bond
(Selcuk et al., 2010). That is, behaviors that characterize the attachment
bond—such as partners’ providing each other with a subjective sense of
felt security, regulating each other’s affective and physiological states, and
facilitating each other’s functioning outside the relationship—occur inde-
pendently of the level of satisfaction experienced in the marriage. Indeed,
such attachment behaviors may even occur when the marital relationship
itself is not very satisfying. Thus the specific question of whether timing
of sex plays a role in moderating the hypothesized effect of sex on adult
attachment formation requires empirical investigation. Future work, ide-
ally using a longitudinal framework, should be used to examine more pre-
cisely how the timing of sexual intercourse affects subsequent components
of the attachment bond (e.g., alleviation distress).
How do attachment bonds differ as a function of whether a relationship is sexual

or platonic?
This model effectively describes the formation of any affiliative bond; how-
ever, the key difference made by the contribution of sex is twofold: the mag-
nitude of the dopaminergic and opiate rewards, and the administration of
oxytocin. While platonic affiliative bonds and social-contextual ensembles
can be created without sex by this approach–consummatory reward sys-
tem, the presence of sex and sexual motivation is what makes a traditional,
sexual pair bond so special. It would take a great magnitude of reinforce-
ment (both positive in the form of reward, and negative in the form of
arousal and distress alleviation) for a peer to replace one’s caregiver in the
attachment hierarchy. Therefore, it is possible—with the inclusion of soft
touch, mutual eye gaze, and ventro-ventral contact, in order to release mu-
opioids and oxytocin—for platonic bonds to be formed. However, it is far
more likely, given the unconditioned reward that sexual pleasure presents
and the vast differences in the magnitude of reward coupled with oxytocin-
ergic activity elicited by sexual encounters, that an adult’s primary attach-
ment relationship will be with a sexual partner.
Does the proposed model work for people who engage in casual sex or who are
serial monogamists?
We speculate that both people who engage in casual sex or who are serial
monogamists may find the incentive motivation dopaminergic reward to
be more valuable than the consummatory opioid reward. A preference for
dopamine-related activities over opioid-related ones may reflect individual
differences. For example, people who prefer casual sex or the beginning of
relationships may be more sensitive to dopaminergic (vs. opioid) rewards,
which would promote a preference for high-dopaminergic activities, such
as sex, compared to high-opioid activities associated with longer relation-
ships. Additionally, they may have fewer mu-opioid receptors due to early
life experiences. In fact, people who prefer casual or brief encounters may
be the neurochemical opposites of people who identify as asexual—that
is, who experience consummatory reward, but have no sexual incentive
motivation.
Moreover, those who prefer casual sex or who are serial monogamists
may have a preference for dopamine-related activities over opioid-related
ones because of the release of oxytocin. Although oxytocin is released by
touch, orgasm, sexual intercourse, nipple stimulation, and similar intimate

behaviors, sexual encounters consisting of fewer of these actions will trig-
ger less oxytocin release. For example, perhaps people who prefer casual
sex also tend to have less nipple stimulation, less ventro-ventral contact,
less consistent orgasms, less soft touch, and so on. If this is the case, less
oxytocin will be released, and while the dopaminergic reward will not be as
sensitized, there will also be less inhibiting of opioid habituation. If that is
the case, then once they have habituated to the dopaminergic reward, they
will also have habituated to the opioid reward, thus receiving what subjec-
tively feels like, and what neuroendocrinologically is, less reward. Instead
of moving from an exciting, sexually motivating reward to a peaceful, grat-
ifying reward, these people may be feeling very little reward. Examining
the role of sex and attachment formation for people who prefer almost
exclusively causal sex or who are only interested in the infatuation stage of
a relationship would be a promising way of examining the function of sex
in attachment formation.
Does the proposed model work for asexual individuals?

Asexual individuals do not experience sexual attraction to others. On a
sexual orientation (romantic/erotic response) spectrum with “attracted to
women” on one end and “attracted to men” on the other, asexuality rests
at the midpoint along with bisexuality and pansexuality. Approximately
1% of the population self-identifies as asexual. Among asexual persons,
there is a further distinction between a romantic and an aromantic orienta-
tion. Romantic asexuals enjoy the physical intimacy of nonsexual touch,
whereas aromantic asexuals typically find even nonsexual physical inti-
macy aversive. Given our theorizing, we predict that adult attachment for-
mation among asexual persons would be driven primarily or exclusively by
the oxytocinergic and opioid systems, and not the dopaminergic (wanting,
desiring, sexual motivation) system.
Orgasm and Gender Differences

It is well documented that when men and women have sex, men are far
more likely than women to achieve sexual orgasm, especially in the form of
sexual intercourse. Does this mean that women’s attachments to their part-
ners form more slowly, less strongly, and/or less often? There is also evi-
dence that female same-sex couples are less sexually active but cuddle more
than male same-sex couples. Does this mean that lesbians are less or differ-
ently attached to their partners than gay males are attached to theirs? On
the basis of these findings and our theorizing, we hypothesize that the pri-
mary difference in the relationship between sex and attachment in women
versus men is the balance of dopaminergic to oxytocinergic rewards. In
other words, men on average tend to enjoy sexual novelty more than do
women, and women on average tend to enjoy sexual intimacy more than
do men. We can see this sex difference in interactions with sexual stimuli
in a study by Festjens, Bruyneel, and Dewitte (2013), in which heterosexual
men and women were presented with underwear or a t-shirt of the opposite
sex and were allowed either to touch or only to look at them. Men exhibited
more reward seeking after both visual and tactile cues of women’s under-
wear. However, women only exhibited reward seeking after being allowed
to touch the men’s underwear, as visual cues alone were unable to elicit an
appetitive response. This sex difference is perhaps due to a difference in the
dopaminergic threshold that is required to experience sexual motivation;
that is, perhaps having an additional sensory experience was necessary for
the women in the study to reach this threshold. Alternatively, given the
behavioral conditioning response associated with the reward system, per-
haps the majority of women in this study had experientially learned not to
associate male undergarments with the magnitude of anticipatory reward
that men had learned in regard to female undergarments. This experiential
learning could stem from the saturation of sexualization of women and
women’s underwear in mainstream culture, or even from an antiquated yet
still pervasive view of women not acting as sexual aggressors.
Another possibility for the sex differences we find between men and
women’s sexual inclinations toward novelty versus intimacy, respectively,
may be due to the gender difference in internal hormonal milieu. The ste-
roid/peptide theory of social bonds (van Anders, Goldey, & Kuo, 2011)
calls attention to the seemingly opposing processes of oxytocin and testos-
terone in social bonding: Whereas oxytocin promotes trust, testosterone
inhibits it; whereas oxytocin promotes empathy, testosterone inhibits it;
whereas oxytocin inhibits stress, testosterone promotes it (Bos, Panksepp,
Bluthé, & Honk, 2012). van Anders et al. (2011) even go so far as to say
that testosterone and oxytocin seem to act as hormonal antagonists to
one another. From this antagonistic relationship between testosterone and
oxytocin presented in the steroid/peptide theory, it would be reasonable to
extrapolate that because men have more testosterone than women do, men
may need a larger amount of oxytocin in order for the neurotransmitter to
have the same effect in promoting pair bonding as it does in women. This
may be one reason why, separate from social-constructionist viewpoints, it
is more common for men to reach orgasm during a sexual experience than
women, as it may allow for a more equitable action of oxytocin in the two
partners. Future research might investigate sex differences in hormone and
neurotransmitter interactions and their effects on attachment formation.
Individual Differences in Sex and Attachment

There will be, of course, individual differences in how sex affects attachment
formation and maintenance. To name only a few, these include individual
differences in thresholds for experiencing incentive dopaminergic reward
or opioid consummatory reward, in the number of oxytocin and glucocor-

ticoid receptors in the hippocampus, or in the attachment styles that shape
individuals’ expectations and behaviors within relationships. Most relevant
is empirical work by Gurit Birnbaum and her colleagues (Birnbaum, 2007,
2010; Birnbaum, Reis, Mikulincer, Gillath, & Orpaz, 2006; Birnbaum &
Reis, 2012) investigating how individual differences in adult attachment
relate to the experience of sex. For example, securely attached people prefer
their sexual interactions to be committed romantic relationships, and find
these sexual experiences with their partners mutually satisfying and inti-
mate. Avoidantly attached individuals tend to engage in less frequent sex-
ual activities with relationship partners (Birnbaum, 2010), dislike and are
uncomfortable with the physical and emotional intimacy that accompanies
sex in relationships, and prefer to detach the physical intimacy of sex from
the its psychological intimacy implications (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
Not surprisingly, then, avoidant people feel disconnected from their part-
ners during sexual experiences and display less physical affection (Birn-
baum & Reis, 2006). Finally, anxiously attached individuals look to sex
in particular to fulfill other deficits in attachment-related needs, leading to
a promotion of attachment-related reasons for engaging in sexual activity,
and of the paramount importance of the affection-related aspects of sex
over even the sex itself (Birnbaum, 2010).
On the basis of this literature, we speculate that it may be difficult for
people with an avoidant attachment style to receive the same magnitude
of oxytocin release associated with physical touch, as well as psychologi-
cal trust and intimacy, in their relationships as securely attached people
receive. If so, this should subsequently affect the formation and mainte-
nance of attachment bonds on both a neurological and a cognitive level for
people who are avoidantly attached.
With respect to anxiously attached persons, we predict that the
relationship-based anxieties that such individuals feel may lead them to
deny their own sexual desires and needs in order to please their partners.
If so, this should prevent them from getting the magnitude and type of
neural/endocrinological rewards that they desire (and possibly need to feel
secure in their attachment); it should also increase their anxiety in general
(Birnbaum et al., 2006).
Conclusion
Although it is the norm that romantic partners function as attachment fig-
ures and sex partners, and pair bonds in theory are characterized by an
integration of the attachment and sexual mating systems, sex has largely
been ignored by researchers focusing on adult romantic attachment. Birn-
baum and colleagues’ (Birnbaum & Reis, 2006; Birnbaum, 2010) work,
though its focus is on individual differences and not the role of sex in
attachment formation, is a notable exception.
From the evidence reviewed above, it is clear that the neural and physi-
ological systems operating during sexual exchanges overlap significantly
with those underlying attachment bonds. Notably, oxytocin is released
most strongly in the context of the two types of interpersonal relationships
that typically function as primary attachments—that is, infant–caregiver
bonds in early life (including parturition and lactation) and romantic/sex-
ual bonds in adulthood.
The neural systems that motivate us to engage in sexual interactions
and then reward us so intensely for doing so appear to play a central role
in adult attachment formation. Specifically, repeated sexual contact with
the same individual over time conditions these systems to a rich mental
representation of this individual that includes facial and bodily features,
voice, smell, touch, and so forth. In the normal course of romantic rela-
tionship development, the dopaminergic reward declines in intensity—but,
thanks to oxytocin, the opiate reward does not. Indeed, the point of “clear-
cut” attachment in adulthood (i.e., the marker of a qualitative change from
infatuation to full-blown attachment) may be when an opioid-based sense
of calm and satiety overtakes dopamine-driven feelings of desire. Further-
more, the action of oxytocin in preventing habituation to the rewarding
effects of opioids is what helps maintain pair bonds over the long term.
We hope the ideas presented in this chapter will inspire adult attach-
ment researchers to tackle the many fascinating and empirically testable
questions that the proposed model suggests, and thereby help move the
field of adult attachment theory forward.
References
Aguilera, G., & Liu, Y. (2012). The molecular physiology of CRH neurons. Fron-
tiers in Neuroendocrinology, 33, 67–84.
Aharon, I., Etcoff, N., Ariely, D., Chabris, C. F., O’Connor, E., & Breiter, H. C.
(2001). Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evi-
dence, Neuron, 3(8), 537–551.
Argiolas, A. (1999). Neuropeptides and sexual behaviour. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 23, 1127–1142.
Argiolas, A., & Gessa, G. L. (1991). Central functions of oxytocin. Neuroscience
and Biobehavioral Reviews, 15, 217–231.
Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D., Strong, G., Li, H., & Brown, L. (2005). Reward,
motivation and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic
love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 93, 327–337.
Baldwin, M. W., Fehr, B., Keedian, E., Seidel, M., & Thomson, D. W. (1993).
An exploration of the relational schemata underlying attachment styles: Self-
report and lexical decision approaches. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 19, 746–754.
Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996).
94–109.
Balfour, M. E., Yu, L., & Coolen, L. M. (2004). Sexual behavior and sex-associ-
ated environmental cues activate the mesolimbic system in male rats. Neuro-
psychopharmacology, 29, 718–730.
Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic
love. NeuroImage, 21, 1155–1166.
Beckes, L., Simpson, J. A., & Erickson, A. (2010). Of snakes and succor: Learning
secure attachment associations with novel faces via negative stimulus pair-
ings. Psychological Science, 21, 721–728.
Berridge, K. C. (1999). Pleasure, pain, desire, and dread: Hidden core processes of
emotion. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The
foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 525–557). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1969). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Birnbaum, G. E. (2007). Attachment orientations, sexual functioning, and rela-
tionship satisfaction in a community sample of women. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 24, 21–35.
Birnbaum, G. E. (2010). Bound to interact: The divergent goals and complex inter-
play of attachment and sex within romantic relationships. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 27, 245–252.
Birnbaum, G. E., & Reis, H. T. (2006). Women’s sexual working models: An evolu-
tionary-attachment perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 328–342.
Birnbaum, G. E., & Reis, H. T. (2012). When does responsiveness pique sexual
interest?: Attachment and sexual desire in initial acquaintanceships. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 946–958.
Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A. (2006). When
sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientations, sexual experience, and rela-
tionship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 929–943.
Blaicher, W., Gruber, D., Bieglmayer, C., Blaicher, A. M., Knogler, W., & Huber,
J. C. (1999). The role of oxytocin in relation to female sexual arousal. Gyne-
cologic and Obstetric Investigation, 47, 125–126.
Bos, P. A., Panksepp, J., Bluthé, R. M., & Honk, J. V. (2012). Acute effects of
steroid hormones and neuropeptides on human social–emotional behavior:
A review of single administration studies. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology,
33, 17–35.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavis-
tock.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Jour-
nal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 664–678.
Breiter H. C., Aharon, I., Kahneman, D., Dale, A., & Shizgal, P. (2001). Functional
imaging of neural responses to expectancy and experience of monetary gains
and losses. Neuron, 30(2), 619–639.

ment relationships: Elaborating 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: Guilford Press.
Busby, D. M., Carroll, J. S., & Willoughby, B. J. (2010). Compatibility or restraint:
The effects of sexual timing on marriage relationships. Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 24, 766–774.
Caldwell, J. D. (2002). A sexual arousability model involving steroid effects at the
plasma membrane. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 26, 13–30.
Cantor, J. M., Binik, Y. M., & Pfaus, J. G. (1999). Chronic fluoxetine inhibits
sexual behavior in the male rat: Reversal with oxytocin. Psychopharmacol-
ogy, 144, 355–362.
Carmichael, M. S., Humbert, R., Dixen, J., Palmisano, G., Greenleaf, W., & David-
son, J. M. (1987). Plasma oxytocin increases in the human sexual response.
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 64, 27–31.
Carter, C. S. (1992). Oxytocin and sexual behavior. Neuroscience and Biobehav-
ioral Reviews, 16, 131–144.
Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand: Social regu-
lation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17, 1032–1039.
Collins, N. L., & Ford, M. (2010). Responding to the needs of others: The inter-
play of the attachment and caregiving systems in adult intimate relationships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 235–244.
Collins, N. L., Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working
models of attachment: New developments and emerging themes. In W. S.
Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clini-
cal implications (pp. 196–239). New York: Guilford Press.
Coolen, L. M., Fitzgerald, M. E., Yu, L., & Lehman, M. N. (2004). Activation of µ
opioid receptors in the medial preoptic area following copulation in male rats.
Cooper, J. C., Dunne, S., Furey, T., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2012). Dorsomedial pre-
frontal cortex mediates rapid evaluations predicting the outcome of romantic
interactions. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 15647–15656.
Del Cerro, C. R. (1998). Role of the vomeronasal input in maternal behavior. Psy-
choneuroendocrinology, 23, 905–926.
Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality:
Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 22, 491–517.
Depue, R. A., & Morrone-Strupinsky, J. V. (2005). A neurobehavioral model of
affiliative bonding: Implications for conceptualizing a human trait of affilia-
tion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 313–349.
Diamond, L. M. (2001). Contributions of psychophysiology to research on adult
attachment: Review and recommendations. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Review, 5, 276–295.
Diamond, L. M. (2004). Emerging perspectives on distinctions between roman-
tic love and sexual desire. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13,
116–119.
Diamond, L. M., & Dickenson, J. (2012). The neuroimaging of love and desire:
Review and future directions. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9, 39–46.
Ditzen, B., Neumann, I. D., Bodenmann, G., von Dawans, B., Turner, R. A.,
Ehlert, U., et al. (2007). Effects of different kinds of couple interaction on
cortisol and heart rate responses to stress in women. Psychoneuroendocrinol-
ogy, 32, 565–574.
Eiler, W. J., Hardy, L., Goergen, J., Seyoum, R., Mensah-Zoe, B., & June, H. L.
(2007). Responding for brain stimulation reward in the bed nucleus of the
stria terminalis in alcohol-preferring rats following alcohol and amphetamine
pretreatments. Synapse, 61, 912–924.
Festjens, A., Bruyneel, S., & Dewitte, S. (2013). What a feeling!: Touching sexually
laden stimuli makes women seek rewards. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
24(3), 387–393.
Fisher, H., Aron, A., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Romantic love: An fMRI study of a
neural mechanism for mate choice. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 493,
58–62.
Gray, J. A. (1973). Causal theories of personality and how to test them. In J. R.
Royce (Ed.), Multivariate analysis and psychological theory (pp. 409–463).
New York: Academic Press.
Grewen, K. M., Anderson, B. J., Girdler, S. S., & Light, K. C. (2003). Warm part-
ner contact is related to lower cardiovascular reactivity. Behavioral Medi-
cine, 29, 123–130.
Günaydin, G., Zayas, V., Selcuk, E., & Hazan, C. (2012). I like you but I don’t
know why: Objective facial resemblance to significant others influences snap
judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 250–353.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bar-
tholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5.
Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 151–178). London: Jessica Kings-
ley.
Herbert, J. (1993). Peptides in the limbic system: Neurochemical codes for co-ordi-
nated adaptive responses to behavioural and physiological demand. Progress
in Neurobiology, 41, 723–791.
Hilliard, S., Domjan, M., Nguyen, M., & Cusato, B. (1998). Dissociation of con-
ditioned appetitive and consummatory sexual behavior: Satiation and extinc-
tion tests. Animal Learning and Behavior, 26, 20–33.
Hinde, R. A. (1970). Animal behaviour: A synthesis of ethology and comparative
psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Impett, E. A., Muise, A., & Peragine, D. (2014). Sexuality in the context of rela-
tionships. In L. M. Diamond & D. L. Tolman (Eds.), APA handbook of sexu-
ality and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 269–316). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Insel, T. R. (1992). Oxytocin—a neuropeptide for affiliation: Evidence from behav-
ioral, receptor autoradiographic, and comparative studies. Psychoneuroendo-
crinology, 17, 3–35.
Insel, T. R. (1997). A neurobiological basis of social attachment. American Journal

of Psychiatry, 154, 726–735.
Irnaten, M., Aicher, S. A., Wang, J., Venkatesan, P., Evans, C., Baxi, S., et al.
(2003). µ-opioid receptors are located postsynaptically and endomorphin-1
inhibits voltage-gated calcium currents in premotor cardiac parasympathetic
neurons in the rat nucleus ambiguus. Neuroscience, 116, 573–582.
Keverne, E. B., Martensz, N. D., & Tuite, B. (1989). Beta-endorphin concentra-
tions in cerebrospinal fluid of monkeys are influenced by grooming relation-
ships. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 14, 155–161.
Kovács, G., Sarnyai, Z., & Szabó, G. (1998). Oxytocin and addiction: A review.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 945–962.
Kruger, T. H., Haake, P., Chereath, D., Knapp, W., Janssen, O. E., Exton, M. S., et
al. (2003). Specificity of the neuroendocrine response to orgasm during sexual
arousal in men. Journal of Endocrinology, 177, 57–64.
Lee, S., Rogge, R. D., & Reis, H. T. (2010). Assessing the seeds of relationship
decay: Using implicit evaluations to detect the early stages of disillusionment.
Psychological Science, 21, 857–864.
Liberzon, I., & Young, E. A. (1997). Effects of stress and glucocorticoids on CNS
oxytocin receptor binding. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 22, 411–422.
Lim, M. M., & Young, L. J. (2006). Neuropeptidergic regulation of affiliative
behavior and social bonding in animals. Hormones and Behavior, 50, 506–
517.
Luu, P., & Malenka, R. C. (2008). Spike timing-dependent long-term potentiation
in ventral tegmental area dopamine cells requires PKC. Journal of Neuro-
physiology, 100, 533–538.
Machin, A. J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). The brain opioid theory of social attach-
ment: A review of the evidence. Behaviour, 148, 9–10.
Master, S. L., Eisenberger, N. I., Taylor, S. E., Naliboff, B. D., Shirinyan, D., &
Lieberman, M. D. (2009). A picture’s worth: Partner photographs reduce
experimentally induced pain. Psychological Science, 20, 1316–1318.
McCubbin, J. A. (1993). Stress and endogenous opioids: Behavioral and circulatory
interactions. Biological Psychology, 35, 91–122.
McNulty, J. K., Olson, M. A., Meltzer, A. L., & Shaffer, M. J. (2013). Though they
may be unaware, newlyweds implicitly know whether their marriage will be
satisfying. Science, 342, 1119–1120.
Melis, M., Enrico, P., Peana, A. T., & Diana, M. (2007). Acetaldehyde mediates
alcohol activation of the mesolimbic dopamine system. European Journal of
Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 36, 477–507.
Meston, C. M., & Frohlich, P. F. (2000). The neurobiology of sexual function.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 1012–1030.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in
adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In
M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35,
pp. 53–152). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure,
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect
regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of
attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77–102.
Murphy, M. R., Checkley, S. A., Seckl, J. R., & Lightman, S. L. (1990). Naloxone
inhibits oxytocin release at orgasm in men. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology
and Metabolism, 71, 1056–1058.
Murphy, M. R., Seckl, J. R., Burton, S., Checkley, S. A., & Lightman, S. L. (1987).
Changes in oxytocin and vasopressin secretion during sexual activity in
men. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 65, 738–741.
Nelson, E. E., & Panksepp, J. (1998). Brain substrates of infant–mother attach-
ment: Contributions of opioids, oxytocin, and norepinephrine. Neuroscience
and Biobehavioral Reviews, 22, 437–452.
Oliet, C., Oliva, A., Castro, J., & Pérez-Segarra, C. D. (2007). Parametric studies
on automotive radiators. Applied Thermal Engineering, 27, 2033–2043.
Ostrowski, N. L. (1998). Oxytocin receptor mRNA expression in rat brain: Impli-
cations for behavioral integration and reproductive success. Psychoneuroen-
docrinology, 23, 989–1004.
Panksepp, J. (1986). The anatomy of emotions. In R. Plutchik & D. Kellerman
(Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research and experience (Vol. 3, pp. 91–124). New
York: Academic Press
Pfaff, D. W. (1999). Drive: Neurobiological and molecular mechanisms of sexual
motivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pfaus, J. G., Damsma, G., Wenkstern, D., & Fibiger, H. C. (1995). Sexual activity
increases dopamine transmission in the nucleus accumbens and striatum of
female rats. Brain Research, 693(1), 21–30.
Phillips-Farfán, B. V., & Fernández-Guasti, A. (2009). Endocrine, neural and
pharmacological aspects of sexual satiety in male rats. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 33, 442–455.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (2000). The internal working models concept:
What do we really know about the self in relation to others? Review of Gen-
eral Psychology, 4, 155–175.
Pietromonaco, P. R., Barrett, L. F., & Powers, S. I. (2006). Adult attachment the-
ory and affective reactivity and regulation. In D. K. Snyder, J. A. Simpson, &
J. N. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation in families and close relationships:
Pathways to dysfunction and health (pp. 57–74). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Porges, S. W. (1998). Love: An emergent property of the mammalian autonomic
nervous system. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 837–861.
Porges, S. W. (2001). The polyvagal theory: Phylogenetic substrates of a social ner-
vous system. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 42, 123–146.
Sarnyai, Z., & Kovács, G. L. (1994). Role of oxytocin in the neuroadaptation to
drugs of abuse. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 19, 85–117.
Sbarra, D. A., & Hazan, C. (2008). Coregulation, dysregulation, self-regulation:
An integrative analysis and empirical agenda for understanding adult attach-
ment, separation, loss, and recovery. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 12, 141–167.
Scantamburlo, G., Hansenne, M., Fuchs, S., Pitchot, W., Maréchal, P., Pequeux,
C., et al. (2007). Plasma oxytocin levels and anxiety in patients with major
depression. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32, 407–410.
Selcuk, E., Zayas, V., Günaydin, G., Hazan, C., & Kross, E. (2012). Mental rep-
resentations of attachment figures facilitate emotional recovery following
upsetting autobiographical memory recall. Journal of Personality and Social
Selcuk, E., Zayas, V., & Hazan, C. (2010). Beyond satisfaction: The role of attach-
ment in marital functioning. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 258–
279.
Shahrokh, D. K., Zhang, T. Y., Diorio, J., Gratton, A., & Meaney, M. J. (2010).
Oxytocin–dopamine interactions mediate variations in maternal behavior in
the rat. Endocrinology, 151, 2276–2286.
Silk, J. B., Alberts, S. C., & Altmann, J. (2003). Social bonds of female baboons
enhance infant survival. Science, 302, 1231–1234.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support
giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attach-
ment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434–446.
Smillie, L. D. (2013). Extraversion and reward processing. Current Directions in
Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct.
Taylor, S. E., Gonzaga, G. C., Klein, L. C., Hu, P., Greendale, G. A., & Seeman,
T. E. (2006). Relation of oxytocin to psychological stress responses and hypo-
thalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical axis activity in older women. Psychoso-
matic Medicine, 68, 238–245.
Uvnäs-Moberg, K. (1998). Antistress pattern induced by oxytocin. Physiology,
13(1), 22–25.
van Anders, S. M., Goldey, K. L., & Kuo, P. X. (2011). The steroid/peptide theory
of social bonds: Integrating testosterone and peptide responses for classifying
social behavioral contexts. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 1265–1275.
Whipple, B., & Komisaruk, B. R. (1985). Elevation of pain threshold by vaginal
stimulation in women. Pain, 21, 357–367.
Wiedenmayer, C. P., & Barr, G. A. (2000). Mu opioid receptors in the ventrolateral
periaqueductal gray mediate stress-induced analgesia but not immobility in
rat pups. Behavioral Neuroscience, 114, 125–136.
Willoughby, B. J., Carroll, J. S., & Busby, D. M. (2014). Differing relationship
outcomes when sex happens before, on, or after first dates. Journal of Sex
Research, 51, 52–61.
Windle, R. J., Shanks, N., Lightman, S. L., & Ingram, C. D. (1997). Central oxyto-
cin administration reduces stress-induced corticosterone release and anxiety
behavior in rats: 1. Endocrinology, 138, 2829–2834.
Woolley, S. C., Sakata, J. T., Gupta, A., & Crews, D. (2001). Evolutionary changes
in dopaminergic modulation of courtship behavior in Cnemidophorus whip-
tail lizards. Hormone and Behavior, 40, 483–489.
Young, L. J., & Wang, Z. (2004). The neurobiology of pair bonding. Nature Neu-
roscience, 7, 1048–1054.
Younger, J., Aron, A., Parke, S., Chatterjee, N., & Mackey, S. (2010). Viewing
pictures of a romantic partner reduces experimental pain: Involvement of neu-

ral reward systems. PLoS ONE, 5, e13309.
Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R., & Matzner, W. T. (2005). Oxytocin is associated with
human trustworthiness. Hormones and Behavior, 48, 522–527.
Zayas, V., Günaydin, G., & Shoda, Y. (2015). From an unknown other to an attach-
ment figure: How do mental representations change with attachment forma-
tion? In V. Zayas & C. Hazan (Eds.), Bases of adult attachment: Linking
brain, mind, and behavior (pp. 157–183). New York: Springer.
Zayas, V., & Hazan, C. (Eds.). (2015). Bases of adult attachment: Linking brain,
mind, and behavior. New York: Springer.
Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Aber, J. L. (2011). Roots of adult attach-
ment: Maternal caregiving at 18 months predicts adult attachment to peers
and partners. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 289–297.
Zayas, V., & Shoda, Y. (2005). Do automatic reactions elicited by thoughts of
romantic partner, mother, and self relate to adult romantic attachment? Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1011–1025.
Zayas, V., & Shoda, Y. (2014). Love you? hate you? maybe it’s both: Evidence that
significant others trigger bivalent-priming. Social Psychological and Person-
ality Science. Epub ahead of print.
Zayas, V., Shoda, Y., Osterhout, L., Takahashi, M. M., & Mischel, W. (2009).
Neural responses to partner rejection cues. Psychological Science, 20, 813–
821.
4
Stress and Attachment
Lisa M. Diamond
A lthough attachment theory is often considered a theory of inter-

personal functioning, Bowlby (1977) placed considerable emphasis on the
role of the attachment system in governing overall responses to danger
and threat, given that its evolutionary function is infant survival. Hence
researchers investigating both infant and adult attachment have devoted
increasing attention to understanding how the attachment system relates
to individuals’ affective, behavioral, and physiological responses to stress
(Hostinar & Gunnar, 2013b; Nolte, Guiney, Fonagy, Mayes, & Luyten,
2012; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). Much of this research focuses on the
underlying biological mechanisms of stress reactivity, given that the pro-
cesses by which attachment figures regulate their infants’ ongoing emo-
tional experiences are now understood to play a central role in “tuning”
stress regulatory systems in the orbitofrontal cortex (Schore, 2001; Siegel,
2001).
The goal of this chapter is to review this body of research, focusing spe-
cifically on the implications of attachment for stress reactivity in the auto-
nomic nervous system (ANS) and the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical
(HPA) axis of the endocrine system. I first provide a brief review of these
systems, followed by evidence for the critical role of early caregiving in estab-
lishing enduring reactivity profiles. I then consider whether the quality of
infant–caregiver attachment influences the development of these systems
independently of other known contextual influences, such as infant adver-
sity, poverty, maltreatment, and neglect, and I discuss the implications of
this question for our basic understanding of links between attachment and
stress regulation. The final part of the chapter is devoted to exploring links
97
between attachment theory and the adaptive calibration model outlined by

Del Giudice, Ellis, and Shirtcliff (2011), which argues that children with
exaggerated physiological stress reactivity, engendered by early exposure to
adversity, may show disproportionate benefits when exposed later to con-
ditions of high nurturance and support. I consider the implications of this
model for considering stress-related plasticity and adaptation in attachment
insecurity over the life course.
The HPA Axis

Our bodies regulate responses to psychological stress through two primary
pathways: the HPA axis, characterized by activation of the pituitary gland
and release of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) and cortisol, and the
sympathetic–adrenal medullary (SAM) axis, characterized by activation of
the adrenal medulla (which is part of the ANS), release of catecholamines
(such as norepinephrine and epinephrine), and immediate effects on car-
diovascular functioning. Hence both HPA and ANS activation are markers
of stress reactivity, but they represent distinct “channels” through which
stress is regulated in the body, with different antecedents, different effects
on other stress-induced biological processes (such as cellular immune func-
tion), and different long-term consequences for physical and mental health
(Cacioppo, 1994). Research has found that the manner in which individu-
als appraise the stressor at hand shapes the degree to which their physi-
ological response is characterized by combined SAM–HPA activation as
opposed to SAM activation alone (Cacioppo, 1994).
In cases where stressors are primarily appraised as challenges (i.e., in
which one’s resources are viewed as adequate for meeting the demand),
the hypothalamus activates the adrenal medulla to release catecholamines,
which activate the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and inhibit the para-
sympathetic nervous system (PNS), producing increased heart rate, blood
pressure, and respiration. In cases where stressors are primarily appraised
as threats (i.e., in which one’s resources are not viewed as adequate for
meeting the demand), the hypothalamus activates the anterior pituitary in
addition to the adrenal medulla. The pituitary is then signaled to release
ACTH, which in turn triggers the release of glucocorticoid hormones (pri-
marily cortisol) into the bloodstream. The release of cortisol facilitates the
body’s response to stress by regulating glucose metabolism, inflamma-
tory responses, localized blood flow, and the maturation of lymphocytes.
Although most responses to stress involve combined patterns of HPA and
SAM activation, the differences between the antecedents and consequences
of these two different stress pathways make it important to discuss each
system separately.
Studies examining patterns of HPA reactivity to stress have generally
Stress and Attachment 99
followed two different approaches. The first involves measurement of

increases in cortisol in response to a standard laboratory stress task, rela-
tive to a pretask baseline (for a comprehensive review of published research
using such paradigms, and a synthesis of the task characteristics most
strongly associated with reactivity, see Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004). Yet
studies have also investigated how acute and chronic stressors influence
sustained patterns of cortisol release over 1 day or more. Cortisol release
follows a diurnal pattern in most people, peaking in the first half hour after
waking and then declining over the rest of the day.
Extensive research has found that exposure to major and minor stress
can produce both transient and lasting alterations in this pattern of secre-
tion (see Miller, Chen, & Zhou, 2007). Importantly, whereas laboratory
studies of momentary HPA reactivity typically detect transient increases
in cortisol in response to psychological stress, studies of longer-term pat-
terns of cortisol release have found that sustained exposure to stress can
elicit chronic increases or decreases in cortisol. Hence stress-related dys-
regulation of the HPA axis appears to take two forms: exaggerated cortisol
release (hyperreactivity), paralleling the transient increases found in labora-
tory studies; and dampened or blunted cortisol release (hyporeactivity), in
which the pattern of diurnal secretion lacks the pronounced morning rise
or the evening fall that characterizes normal HPA functioning.
Exaggerated HPA activity is believed to result from stress-related dis-
ruption of the normal feedback processes through which HPA activation
is typically “shut down” once sufficient levels of cortisol are present in the
bloodstream to meet environmental demands. Flattened or blunted HPA
activity, in contrast, has been interpreted as a potentially adaptive mech-
anism for protecting the brain from the detrimental effects of sustained
stress-related exposure to cortisol. Awareness of both patterns of dysregu-
lation is important, given that both patterns have been linked to early stress
and caregiving experiences (Miller, Chen, & Parker, 2011).
The Autonomic Nervous System

The classic “fight-or-flight” response to stress, with its well-known mani-
festations of increased heart rate, blood pressure, and sweat production, is
part of a larger syndrome of physiological changes produced by the ANS,
including increased cardiac output, widespread vasoconstriction, and
changes in blood flow to the skeletal muscles, myocardium, brain, kidneys,
gastrointestinal tract, and skin. All of these changes serve the purpose of
redistributing metabolic energy throughout the body so that the organism
can either “fight” or “flee” threats.
The ANS has two branches, the PNS and the SNS, which have antago-
nistic effects on autonomic functioning. Heightened activation of the SNS
produces the physiological changes most commonly associated with fight-

or-flight responses (acceleration in heart rate, increased blood pressure,
increased sweating, etc.). In contrast, the PNS is responsible for maintain-
ing normal growth and restoration of internal organs—processes that are
suspended in times of intense stress. Thus stress-induced activation of the
SNS is usually accompanied by some degree of “withdrawal” or “suppres-
sion” in the PNS, which functions to redistribute metabolic resources to
cope with the external threat. Poststress reengagement of the PNS chan-
nels metabolic energy back toward normal maintenance of internal organs
and reestablishes homeostasis. Thus PNS engagement produces the types of
physiological changes associated with relaxation rather than arousal, such
as decreased heart rate and blood pressure.
PNS activity is typically indexed by measuring the degree of heart
rate variability that occurs in response to respiration (known as respira-
tory sinus arrhythmia, or RSA). To explain briefly, heart rate accelerates
slightly with each inhalation and decelerates slightly with each exhalation.
This regular oscillation reflects the repeated withdrawal and subsequent
reinstatement of parasympathetic influence. The greater the parasympa-
thetic regulation of metabolic activity, the more the heart rate will accel-
erate and decelerate in response to inhalation and exhalation, producing
an RSA waveform with a larger amplitude. Baseline-to-task changes in
RSA reflect task-related changes in PNS activity. SNS activity is commonly
assessed with measures of electrodermal activity (also called skin conduc-
tance), although assessments of preejection period (PEP) provided through
impedance cardiography provide a more specific (although less common)
measure.
Each and every stress-related change in ANS activity reflects changes
in both parasympathetic and sympathetic influence, but the specific bal-
ance of changes (activation of the SNS, withdrawal of the PNS, or some
combination of the two) varies across stressors (Berntson, Cacioppo, &
Fieldstone, 1996) and persons (Cacioppo, Uchino, & Berntson, 1994). ANS
stress responses that involve a greater degree of PNS withdrawal than SNS
activation appear to be more rapid, more flexible, and easier to disengage
than SNS-dominated responses (Saul, 1990; Spear, Kronhaus, Moore, &
Kline, 1979). As a result, individuals who have more parasympathetically
mediated patterns of cardiovascular reactivity are conceptualized as having
nervous systems that more flexibly react to and recover from environmen-
tal stressors than those with sympathetically mediated patterns (Calkins,
1997; Porges, 1992; Porges, Doussard-Roosevelt, & Maiti, 1994). Consis-
tent with this view, studies suggest that individuals who have greater reduc-
tions in RSA during stress have more adaptive patterns of emotional and
interpersonal functioning (El-Sheikh & Whitson, 2006; Hessler & Katz,
2007; Moore & Calkins, 2004).
Yet it is not quite appropriate to characterize stress-related reductions in
PNS as “the” singular adaptive pattern of PNS activity during stress, given
that an increasing body of research has found that PNS activity sometimes
increases during stress, especially in tasks that call for active regulatory
effort (Beauchaine, 2001; Segerstrom & Nes, 2007; Thayer & Lane, 2000).
It has been theorized that this pattern of increased PNS activity may serve
to facilitate attention and vigilance to environmental demands by slowing
down cardiovascular activity. Hence both PNS increases and decreases in
response to stress can be viewed as adaptive responses, depending on the
conditions, and researchers have not yet identified a stable set of criteria by
which we might view one pattern or the other as “more appropriate.”
In addition to situational variation in PNS responses to stress, there
also appear to be individual differences. Katz (2007) has argued that indi-
viduals exposed to chronically stressful environments may develop an
enduring pattern of PNS engagement during stress, which may help them
to monitor their environment and maintain control over their emotions and
behavior. Although such a pattern may prove adaptive in the short term,
it may prove taxing over the long term. Many researchers have begun to
conceptualize regulatory capacity as being relatively finite, analogous to a
muscle that tires upon repeated use (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Hence
individuals who show chronic patterns of increased RSA in response to
stress may experience chronic regulatory “fatigue,” leaving them vulnerable
to frequent failures of self-control (Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005).
This may explain why individuals who show heightened RSA during stress
also show multiple indicators of emotion dysregulation, such as depression,
anxiety, and hostility (Hessler & Katz, 2007; Neumann, Sollers, Thayer,
& Waldstein, 2004).
Early Caregiving and HPA and ANS Reactivity

Multiple studies of animals and humans have documented stable individual
differences in both HPA and ANS stress reactivity that appear to have both
genetic and environmental determinants (Kirschbaum, Wust, Faig, & Hell-
hammer, 1992; Snieder, Boomsma, Van Doornen, & De Geus, 1997). For
both systems, one of the major environmental determinants is the quality
of early caregiving. With respect to HPA functioning, inadequate parental
care appears to have enduring detrimental effects on HPA regulation and
broader neurodevelopment (Buss et al., 2007; Heim & Nemeroff, 1999;
Heim, Newport, Mletzko, Miller, & Nemeroff, 2008)—particularly dur-
ing the earliest years of life, when brain systems such as the hippocampus
and prefrontal cortex, which play key roles in the regulation of the HPA
axis, undergo major development (Sanchez, Ladd, & Plotsky, 2001; Teicher
et al., 2003). Notably, significant effects have been detected for both mater-
nal and paternal care. Recent studies have found that paternal negativity
is associated with heightened cortisol release to stress in infancy (Mills-

Koonce, Garrett-Peters, et al., 2011) and with heightened basal and reac-
tive cortisol (in response to peer interactions) in adolescence (Byrd-Craven,
Auer, Granger, & Massey, 2012). Maltreatment and prolonged foster care
have been associated with blunted cortisol levels, suggesting dysregula-
tion of the normal diurnal cycle of HPA activity (see Hostinar & Gunnar,
2013c). In contrast to the detrimental effects of inadequate parental care,
high levels of physical affection and warmth between a caregiver and his
or her infant during stressful circumstances have been tied to normal HPA
activation profiles in response to environmental demands (Gunnar, 1998;
Spangler, Schieche, Ilg, Maier, & Ackerman, 1994), which are thought to
promote overall biobehavioral regulation and well-being (Gunnar & Don-
zella, 2002).
Regarding ANS activity, studies have found that individual differences
in PNS reactivity to stress in children are associated with the quality of
parenting practices (Blandon, Calkins, Keane, & O’Brien, 2010; Calkins,
Smith, Gill, & Johnson, 1998). In infants, PNS reactivity is associated with
the degree of synchrony and symmetric responsiveness of mother–infant
interaction (Moore & Calkins, 2004) and with the quality of maternal
emotional support (Perry et al., 2013). Foster children who have experi-
enced extreme neglect show heightened SNS stress reactivity to separations
from their caregivers (Oosterman, De Schipper, Fisher, Dozier, & Schuen-
gel, 2010), and children who have experienced caregiver maltreatment
show lower PNS regulation (Skowron et al., 2011). Other aspects of the
home environment, such as marital conflict, are also significantly associ-
ated with PNS functioning (Porter, Wouden-Miller, Silva, & Porter, 2003).
Links between early caregiving and ANS functioning appear to be pre-
served into adolescence and adulthood. For example, Luecken (1998) found
elevated blood pressure reactivity in young adults who had undergone the
loss of a parent as children (coupled with poor relationship quality in the
family), and other work has documented interaction effects between paren-
tal loss and parental caring in predicting adult blood pressure reactivity
and recovery (Luecken, Rodriguez, & Appelhans, 2005).
Early Adversity and HPA and ANS Reactivity

Paralleling the findings on early caregiving, numerous studies have docu-
mented associations between individuals’ HPA and ANS functioning and
their exposure to environmental stress and adversity in early life. (Many of
these studies include caregiving deficits as a form of adversity, but I con-
sider them separately because of their differential relevance in the context
of attachment processes.) Hunter, Minnis, and Wilson (2011) recently
reviewed the literature linking early adversity to HPA functioning, focusing
specifically on evidence for HPA dysregulation observed within the first 5

years of life. Of the 30 studies they identified that measured infants’ expo-
sure to stress (including conditions such as maternal anxiety and depres-
sion, maternal history of childhood abuse, low income, psychosocial risk,
placement in foster care, maternal attachment insecurity, and maternal
insensitivity) and the infants’ HPA reactivity to stress between 0 and 5
years of age, 27 studies found significant associations between exposure
to adversity and children’s baseline or stress-induced HPA functioning.
However, the effects were relatively heterogeneous across different types
of stressors and different types of HPA responses. For example, although
13 studies found that children exposed to infant adversity had heightened
HPA stress reactivity, 3 studies found that children exposed to infant adver-
sity had significantly dampened HPA stress reactivity (paralleling similar
patterns in adults, in which chronic stress is sometimes associated with
hyperreactivity in the HPA axis and sometimes associated with hypore-
activity; see Miller et al., 2007). Hunter and colleagues also found that
3 studies reported elevated baseline HPA activity in children exposed to
infant adversity, whereas 2 studies reported lowered baseline HPA activity
in such children.
Hunter et al. (2011) concluded that the accumulated evidence clearly
supports an influence of early adversity on the development and function-
ing of the HPA axis between birth and 5 years. They also emphasized
the correspondence between their findings and those of studies focusing
on HPA functioning during later childhood, adolescence, and adulthood
(Hostinar & Gunnar, 2013b; Miller et al., 2007). Yet they also pointed
out that the correspondence between the findings of studies focusing on
different stages of the lifespan does not provide reliable evidence that adver-
sity-related disruptions in HPA functioning are permanent. Rather, differ-
ent types of adversity, experienced at different points during infancy and
childhood, may have differential effects on HPA functioning and differ-
ent time courses for expression (see also Glover, O’Connor, & O’Donnell,
2010; Gunnar, Frenn, Wewerka, & Van Ryzin, 2009). For example, severe
child abuse appears to consistently predict a flattening of the overall cor-
tisol cycle as opposed to hyperreactivity in responses to stress (Cicchetti,
Rogosch, Gunnar, & Toth, 2010). Hunter and colleagues also noted the
possibility that early adversity may “prime” the HPA system to be differen-
tially sensitive to later-occurring stressors, so that the strongest alterations
of the HPA response may be observed in children who have experienced
repeated or sustained stressors over time. This is consistent with research
showing that preschoolers in foster care who had experienced the greatest
degree of previous neglect had the greatest HPA dysregulation, in the form
of blunted morning levels (Bruce, Fisher, Pears, & Levine, 2009).
There is less evidence for links between infant/child exposure to pov-
erty and subsequent ANS functioning, but the pattern of results is consistent
with that regarding the HPA axis: Early adversity predicts poorer stress-
related regulation in the PNS (Lengua, 2012; Propper, 2012) as well as
heightened SNS stress reactivity (Gunnar et al., 2009; Oosterman et al.,
2010), and the specific postnatal neural mechanisms underlying these asso-
ciations have been well elaborated by Rinaman, Banihashemi, and Koehnle
(2011). It also bears noting that there is extensive evidence for links between
ANS stress reactivity and early child health indicators, such as low birth
weight, poor maternal nutrition, preterm birth, and poor rate of growth
(see Kajantie & Räikkönen, 2010), suggesting that health-related correlates
of adversity may prove particularly important for tuning the ANS.
What Does Attachment Contribute?

The literature linking early stress exposure to later physiological stress
reactivity has focused on a broad range of early stressors, such as poverty,
marital conflict, parental mental health, abuse, neglect, early illness, and
inadequate parental care. Many of these stressors occur in tandem, but not
uniformly so. Hence it is worth considering whether “attachment-relevant”
forms of stress such as maternal insensitivity have appreciably different
consequences from those of “environmental” stressors such as poverty
and household disruption. Even when focusing solely on caregiving-related
adversity, such as parental neglect, researchers have questioned whether
attachment insecurity influences stress dysregulation independently of
other basic caregiving deficits. In other words, does insecure attachment
(or, more specifically, the poor caregiving that leads to insecure attach-
ment) constitute a unique form of childhood burden that has independent
effects on a child’s developing profile of stress regulation, or is it simply
another form of overall adversity that has only incremental importance?
According to Gunnar and colleagues (see Gunnar, 2005), there is
currently insufficient evidence to conclude that attachment relationships
have regulating influences on the development of stress regulation that
are independent of the overall effects of other social relationships, which
are likely to include other environmental stressors. Other studies, how-
ever, have found independent contributions of disorganized attachment,
rather than attachment insecurity. Disorganized attachment represents a
breakdown of the infant’s capacity for dyadic stress regulation (Main &
Solomon, 1990). It is thought to result from cases in which the attach-
ment figure is a source of fear as well as distress alleviation (Hesse &
Main, 2006; Madigan et al., 2006), which explains why there are asso-
ciations with caregiver maltreatment (Stronach et al., 2011). One study
of foster children found that those who had disorganized patterns of
attachment to their foster caregivers showed elevated SNS reactivity and
poorer PNS regulation during and after brief separations from the foster
caregivers (Oosterman et al., 2010). Notably, one large-scale study of 450

mother–infant dyads found that disorganized attachment moderated the
association between early caregiving deficits and later PNS functioning.
Specifically, infants who had depressed mothers showed low levels of tonic
PNS regulation only if they also exhibited a disorganized pattern of attach-
ment (Tharner et al., 2013).
The best way to examine the unique contribution of attachment secu-
rity to physiological stress regulation is to examine children who show
varying levels of correspondence between early adversity and attachment
insecurity longitudinally. Such variation has in fact been documented:
Although many forms of childhood adversity (such as poverty, household
conflict, maternal depression, or maternal stress) can strain caregivers’
ability to provide consistently sensitive, responsive care (Mills-Koonce,
Appleyard, et al., 2011), children exposed to such stressors do not always
develop insecure attachments. Numerous studies have found that house-
hold poverty does not consistently predict either maternal insensitivity or
infant insecurity (Mills-Koonce, Appleyard, et al., 2011; Susman Stillman,
Kalkose, Egeland, & Waldman, 1996). Rather, it appears to be the com-
bination of poverty with other simultaneous stressors that predicts infant
insecurity, reflecting a cumulative risk model (Cicchetti, Rogosch, & Toth,
1998; Shaw & Vondra, 1993). Hence, whereas economically disadvantaged
infants may not uniformly develop attachment insecurity, those for whom
the stress of economic disadvantage is combined with maltreatment face
heightened risk for insecurity (Stronach et al., 2011). It is not entirely clear
whether this reflects the impact of cumulative risk on an infant’s need for
security, the effect of cumulative risk on a mother’s ability to provide secu-
rity, or (most likely) both.
Attachment Insecurity and HPA–ANS Functioning

If sensitive and responsive caregiving is responsible both for the develop-
ment of attachment security and for the calibration of the stress regulation
functions of the HPA axis and the ANS, one might expect that individual
differences in attachment styles relate directly to the functioning of these
systems from childhood into adulthood. Research increasingly supports this
view. Children who have insecure patterns of attachment show heightened
HPA responses to acute stress (Nachmias, Gunnar, Mangelsdorf, Parritz,
& Buss, 1996; van Bakel & Riksen-Walraven, 2004). A recent study found
that attachment insecurity in adolescence is also linked to heightened basal
levels of cortisol (Oskis, Loveday, Hucklebridge, Thorn, & Clow, 2011). As
for adults, Quirin, Pruessner, and Kuhl (2008) found that adults’ attach-
ment anxiety was associated with heightened HPA reactivity to a standard-
ized laboratory stressor, and both attachment anxiety and avoidance have
been found to be associated with lower vagal tone (Diamond & Hicks,
2005; Maunder, Lancee, Nolan, Hunter, & Tannenbaum, 2006).
One shortcoming of this body of research is that few studies assess or
control for childhood exposure to adversity, which (as noted above) may
partially explain the shared variance between attachment insecurity and
stress dysregulation. One exception is a study by Pierrehumbert, Torrisi,
Ansermet, Borghini, and Halfon (2012), which evaluated HPA stress reac-
tivity by using the Trier Social Stress Test in a sample of adults, more than
half of whom had experienced some form of childhood adversity (such
as abuse, trauma, or life-threatening illness). Independently of adversity
exposure, those who had been classified as dismissing according to the
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)—an interview method for discerning
individuals’ childhood attachment security on the basis of their narra-
tive recollections and reconstructions in adulthood (Hesse, 1999; Main,
Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985)—reported moderate levels of subjective stress
but significantly elevated levels of HPA activity, whereas those classified as
preoccupied on the AAI did not show elevated HPA activity. Notably, those
classified as unresolved on the AAI (a pattern often associated with child-
hood trauma) reported significantly elevated levels of subjective stress and
dampened levels of HPA activity.
A number of studies have investigated links between attachment inse-
curity and HPA or ANS stress reactivity in adulthood. For example, Powers,
Pietromonaco, Gunlicks, and Sayer (2006) found that insecurely attached
individuals showed greater HPA reactivity to laboratory-induced roman-
tic conflict than did securely attached individuals. Specifically, attachment
avoidance in female participants was related to increased HPA reactivity to
couple conflict, whereas men showed elevated reactivity if they had high
levels of anxiety combined with high avoidance. Individuals who had high
attachment anxiety also showed poorer recovery of HPA levels after the
conflict (Laurent & Powers, 2007). Dewitte, De Houwer, Goubert, and
Buysse (2010) led participants to believe that each was going to have to
watch a tape of his or her partner being interviewed about previous sexual
and romantic relationships by an attractive opposite-sex experimenter.
Participants who had higher attachment anxiety showed heightened HPA
reactivity while anticipating this stressful event, with the largest increases
found in women who were highly anxious and avoidant. Finally, during an
actual 4- to 7-day physical separation from their romantic partners, indi-
viduals who had high attachment anxiety showed tonically elevated levels
of cortisol (Diamond, Hicks, & Otter-Henderson, 2008).
All of these findings are consistent with the notion that anxiety is
associated with a lower threshold for attachment-related threats (conflict,
partner unavailability, jealousy, etc.; see Simpson & Rholes, 1994), which
manifests itself in heightened physiological response. Yet it is also possible
that insecurely attached individuals possess a generalized predisposition
for heightened HPA or ANS stress reactivity (to both relationship-specific

as well as other stressors), and that this heightened reactivity contributes
to the development of their attachment insecurity over the course of their
social development. This interpretation is consistent with the limited body
of findings cited above on associations between attachment security and
overall patterns of ANS and HPA functioning (Diamond & Hicks, 2005;
Maunder et al., 2006; Oskis et al., 2011; Quirin et al., 2008), but con-
siderably more research is needed. In particular, future research should
conduct comprehensive comparisons between anxious and avoidant indi-
viduals’ physiological, cognitive, and emotional reactivity to relationship-
related stressors as well as generalized stressors at multiple time points, to
determine the degree to which patterns of reactivity reflect stable features
of individuals (which “travel” from relationship to relationship and from
situation to situation) versus the degree to which they reflect features of
individuals’ current relationship experiences (i.e., the degree of hostility or
avoidance or support in this particular interaction with the current part-
ner).
Another important area for future research concerns plasticity in both
stress reactivity and attachment insecurity. The degree to which changes
in a child’s caregiving environment or in the quality of an adult’s roman-
tic ties can produce corresponding changes in attachment styles has long
been a topic of theoretical debate and empirical research (see Davila, Kar-
ney, & Bradbury, 1999; Fraley, 2007; Hamilton, 2000; Lopez & Gormley,
2002; Mitchell, 2007; Roisman, Collins, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2005; Waters,
Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000; Weinfield, Sroufe, &
Egeland, 2000; Zhang & Labouvie-Vief, 2004). Similarly, the stability of
individual differences in HPA and ANS reactivity, and the potential sensi-
tivity of these patterns to developmental change and environmental influ-
ence, have also received significant attention (see Alkon, Boyce, Davis, &
Eskenazi, 2011; Diamond & Cribbet, 2013; Hinnant, Elmore-Staton, &
El-Sheikh, 2011; Salomon, 2005; Vasilev, Crowell, Beauchaine, Mead, &
Gatzke-Kopp. 2009). One intriguing new direction in this line of inquiry
comes from the adaptive calibration model proposed by Del Giudice et al.
(2011), which is an extension of related models of biological sensitivity
to context (Boyce & Ellis, 2005) and differential susceptibility (Belsky &
Pluess, 2009). What is novel about this perspective is its contention that
adversity-related profiles of stress hyperreactivity, which have been shown
to augment children’s vulnerability to social and environmental deficits,
simultaneously augment children’s sensitivity to social and environmental
strengths. In other words, heightened stress reactivity may be better con-
ceptualized as heightened susceptibility to social–environmental influence,
whether that influence is positive or negative. In recasting “vulnerability”
factors as potential sources of resilience, this model offers provocative new
ways of framing the implications of early stress exposure for long-term
social and emotional development. The implications of the adaptive calibra-

tion model for conceptualizing links between stress exposure and attach-
ment processes have been largely unexplored. I consider these implications
below after briefly outlining the key features of the model.
Differential Susceptibility and Adaptive Calibration

Historically, research on links between individual differences in ANS and
HPA functioning and socioemotional development has adopted a diathe-
sis–stress perspective, positing that children with heightened ANS and
HPA responses to stress are disproportionately vulnerable to stressful rear-
ing environments because of their deficits in stress regulation (see Boyce
& Ellis, 2005). Yet differential susceptibility models (Belsky, Bakermans-
Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007; Belsky & Pluess, 2009; Del Giudice
et al., 2011; Ellis, Boyce, Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzen-
doorn, 2011) posit that the same factors that render children highly reac-
tive to negative environments also render them highly reactive to positive
and nurturant environments. Hence, whereas both the diathesis–stress per-
spective and the differential susceptibility perspective predict that children
who have exaggerated ANS and HPA stress reactivity will show dispropor-
tionately negative outcomes in negative environmental contexts (as shown
by Boyce, Chesney, Alkon, & Tschann, 1995; Bubier, Drabick, & Breiner,
2009; Cummings, El-Sheikh, Kouros, & Keller, 2007; El-Sheikh et al.,
2009; Katz, 2007), the differential susceptibility perspective additionally
predicts that such children will show disproportionately positive outcomes
in positive environments (see Belsky et al., 2007; Belsky & Pluess, 2009),
and should be more likely to benefit socioemotionally if their general envi-
ronment or the quality of their caregiving drastically improves.
The theoretical basis for this prediction of heightened benefit and risk
is the premise that the early “programming” of the ANS and PNS by early
adversity and early caregiving is evolutionarily adaptive, acting to calibrate
individuals’ stress response systems to “match” their local environments.
As set forth in the adaptive calibration model (hereafter abbreviated as
ACM; Del Giudice et al., 2011), humans evolved to encode critical features
of the local environment at an early age (e.g., its adversity, danger, unpre-
dictability, and nurturance), and these features trigger the development of
specific patterns of stress responsivity (interacting with genetic predisposi-
tions, as shown by Frigerio et al., 2009; Gilissen, Bakermans-Kranenburg,
van IJzendoorn, & Linting, 2008), which in turn maximize an individual’s
survival in that particular environment.
Both early adversity and poor caregiving serve as indicators to the
infant’s developing stress regulation system that the local environment is
harsh and/or unpredictable. In such conditions, survival is facilitated by
a stress response system that responds quickly and robustly to potential

sources of threat, given that (1) the local environment contains many such
threats, and (2) caregivers may not be reliable protectors. Hence a hyper-
vigilant, hyperreactive profile of stress reactivity (entailing both cognitive
sensitivity to signs of threat and robust physiological response to these signs)
should facilitate quick and effective self-defense. Although this heightened
defensiveness has cumulative psychological and physiological costs over the
long run, and although it may prove maladaptive in benign environments,
it proves protective and survival-enhancing in harsh and threatening con-
texts.
The notion that early life experiences “program” the developing organ-
ism in an adaptive, environmentally tailored fashion is commonly referred
to as developmental plasticity, which is presumed to operate via multiple
mechanisms through which information about the external environment is
internalized and shapes the developing organism (Bateson et al., 2004). The
ACM proposes that there may be several developmental periods of height-
ened plasticity. Though the initial calibration of HPA and ANS functioning
may take place during infancy, this process is not wholly deterministic.
Rather, Del Giudice and colleagues propose that the stress response system
may undergo several subsequent periods of heightened plasticity, such as
middle childhood and puberty, during which individuals’ stress response
systems are recalibrated to current threats and resources to maintain an
optimal “match” to current conditions.
What Counts as Adaptive?

The ACM represents a notable departure from the classic diathesis–stress
model, which posits heightened stress reactivity as a uniform risk factor
for maladjustment. As outlined by Hostinar and Gunnar (2013a), it also
diverges from the allostatic load model (ALM), which posits that early
adversity leads to long-term health problems because heightened stress
reactivity creates chronic “wear and tear” on the stress regulatory systems
(McEwen, 1998; McEwen & Stellar, 1993). According to the ALM, early
deficits in caregiving set in motion a chain of stress-regulating patterns that
engender chronic social deficits and maladaptive overactivation of the HPA
axis and ANS (Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002). As summarized by Hos-
tinar and Gunnar (2013a), these models focus on the proximal processes
linking early adversity to stress regulation through which early adversity
confers disadvantage. According to the ACM, early deficits in caregiving
set in motion a chain of stress-regulating patterns that are adaptive in an
adverse environment, but maladaptive in a benign one. Hence, whereas the
ALM frames the problem as cumulative overload, the ACM poses the prob-
lem as a mismatch between the individual and his or her current context.
Thus the very features of HPA and ANS functioning that have historically
been viewed as risk factors from the perspective of the ALM are viewed
as either risk or resiliency factors from the perspective of the ACM. This
implies that we can no longer casually use the word adaptive: Adaptive is
a fundamentally relative construct, defined with respect to the challenges
and environments at hand.
Scholars considering these two models generally concur that there is
insufficient empirical evidence to determine whether the effects of early
adversity are best conceptualized in terms of cumulative risk or adaptive
calibration (Hostinar & Gunnar, 2013a; O’Connor & Spagnola, 2009).
However, a growing body of findings suggests that heightened physiologi-
cal stress reactivity is associated with differential risk in adverse condi-
tions, but (in some cases and for some outcomes) differential benefit in
highly nurturant conditions (see Belsky et al., 2007; Conradt, Measelle, &
Ablow, 2013; Del Giudice, Hinnant, Ellis, & El-Sheikh, 2012; Diamond,
Fagundes, & Cribbet, 2012; Pluess & Belsky, 2009, 2010, 2013). Overall,
the pattern of findings of differential risk is more robust than the pattern of
findings of differential benefit (Belsky & Pluess, 2012; Boyce et al., 1995;
Cummings et al., 2007; Diamond et al., 2012; El-Sheikh et al., 2009; Katz,
2007); this difference is partially attributable to the fact that most studies
examining stress reactivity as a moderator of children’s vulnerability to
environmental deficits have not even tested whether stress reactivity simul-
taneously moderates the benefits of enhanced environments.
Is Attachment Insecurity a Form of Adaptive Calibration?

The ACM suggests two intriguing reframings of the association between
stress exposure and attachment security, both of which warrant future
study. First, just as physiological hyperreactivity may represent a beneficial
adaptation to harsh and/or predictable environments, attachment insecu-
rity (i.e., high anxiety or high avoidance) may also be reframed as survival-
promoting adaptations to caregiver insensitivity, rather than uniform risk
factors for mental and interpersonal shortcomings. This is not a new idea
(see Chisholm, Quinlivan, Petersen, & Coall, 2005; Crittenden, 2000;
Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1990; Main, 1981; Simpson & Belsky, 2008),
but over the years the negative ramifications of attachment insecurity for
stress regulation and socioemotional functioning over the life course have
received substantially more attention than their potential adaptive conse-
quences under adverse conditions. As summarized by Crittenden (2000),
a prototypically secure attachment strategy of open emotional experience
and interpersonal trust should prove beneficial only in relatively safe and
nurturant environments in which stressors are manageable and reliable
caregiving is available. In adverse and dangerous environments, in which
caregivers cannot be relied upon to provide adequate protection, both the

anxious strategy of hypervigilance to threat and the avoidant strategy of
excessive self-reliance should prove to be more effective and adaptive.
Of course, these strategies entail a cost, as extensively documented by
decades of research on the detrimental psychosocial correlates of attach-
ment insecurity (see Mikulincer & Florian, 2004; Shaver & Mikulincer,
2007). Hence we must take care to make determinations of “adaptation” in
the appropriate context. As noted by Frankenhuis and Del Giudice (2012),
traits or behaviors that are adaptive from the perspective of natural selec-
tion (i.e., promoting survival and reproduction) may not be adaptive from
the perspective of developmental psychology (i.e., promoting subjective
well-being, emotional stability, and social competence). Although “strate-
gies” such as attachment anxiety or avoidance may have a range of det-
rimental psychosocial “side effects” in benign environments, they should
successfully promote infant survival and protection in stressful environ-
ments. Humans evolved in environments that varied widely with respect
to environmental danger and caregiver availability, and the attachment
system should have evolved to respond flexibly to such variation, directing
an infant’s development along the path most likely to ensure safety and
survival. As Crittenden (2000) has argued, “There are many ways to do
it right. But in all cases ‘it’ is the same: to protect self and progeny. The
appropriate strategy depends on the context and the individual’s matura-
tion” (p. 383).
What remains unknown, however, is whether the ACM’s key predic-
tion of heightened benefit in nurturant environments applies to the case of
attachment insecurity. There is currently no evidence suggesting that inse-
cure children, upon making a transition into extremely nurturant environ-
ments in which caregiver insensitivity is completely supplanted by caregiver
responsiveness and attentiveness, differentially “absorb” these positive fea-
tures and show enhanced subsequent functioning. One of the reasons this
is a difficult question to answer is that most caregiving environments are
relatively stable. Hence it is unlikely that an insecure child’s caregiver sud-
denly becomes unusually responsive. Studies of children in foster care show
that children who have been exposed to extreme adversity can in fact mani-
fest notable benefits when the caregiving environment is radically improved
(see Hostinar & Gunnar, 2013c), but it is not known whether such children
respond to such improvements significantly more strongly than children
whose early rearing has provided more security.
The time course for such sensitivity is also unknown. The ACM pre-
dicts that there may be several postinfancy periods of heightened sensitivity
to environmental influence, such as middle childhood and puberty; this
suggests that insecure children may be most likely to benefit from enhanced
caregiving during these periods. One possibility is that such caregiving
could be provided outside the home, perhaps by nurturant teachers, athletic
coaches, or relatives. The possibility that insecurely attached children may

benefit disproportionately from nurturance provided by such nonfamilial
sources is worth exploring.
Does Stress Reactivity Render Some Children More Susceptible

to Attachment Insecurity?
A second possible implication of the ACM for attachment theory casts
attachment security as the outcome of a child’s differential sensitivity,
rather than as one of the sources of differential sensitivity. In other words,
it may not be the case that insecure children are differentially likely to show
links between caregiving quality and later socioemotional adjustment.
Rather, it may be that highly stress-reactive children are differentially likely
to show links between caregiving quality and attachment security. Accord-
ingly, perhaps children who have reactive HPA and ANS functioning are
more likely to show changes in attachment security when the caregiving
context changes.
This possibility may help to explain the considerable variation
observed in links between childhood maltreatment and later attachment
disturbances. As reviewed by O’Connor and Spagnola (2009), studies of
institutionalized, neglected, and maltreated children reliably find that they
have higher rates of attachment disorders—but there are sizable individual
differences in this link, so that only a minority of neglected and maltreated
children show severe disturbances in attachment. O’Connor and Spagnola
(2009) note that an important emerging direction in this area of research
is investigating specific “phenotypes” that confer high susceptibility to the
attachment-related consequences of early caregiving deficits, potentially
manifested in biological profiles of stress response. Yet they also raise impor-
tant cautions about whether research on links between child maltreatment
and attachment disorders can be generalized to nonclinical populations of
children who show normative variation in both caregiving and attachment
security. As they point out, in the case of maltreated, neglected, or insti-
tutionalized children, the key issue may not be attachment insecurity, but
the formation of any functional attachment bond, and the relative roles of
these two scenarios for long-term stress regulation remain unknown.
Another pressing question concerns change in attachment security
between infancy/childhood and adulthood. Bowlby’s (1973) “prototype
hypothesis” specified that early attachment security lays the foundation
for adult romantic security by fundamentally shaping individuals’ expec-
tations and beliefs about love relationships. This claim has been called
the “boldest assertion of attachment theory,” serving as “a lightning rod
of controversy” among developmental psychologists (Roisman, Collins,
Sroufe, & Egeland, 2005, p. 105). The strictest, most “trait-like” version
of the prototype hypothesis maintains that infant–caregiver attachment
patterns are laid down during the first year of life and largely “grow up”
into adult romantic attachment styles, establishing robust working models
of adult love dynamics before an individual has even had his or her first
romantic relationship. From this perspective, subsequent romantic experi-
ences usually strengthen and confirm the individual’s initial attachment
style because working models function as self-fulfilling prophecies, reli-
ably altering individuals’ selection of romantic partners and their ongoing
appraisals of partners’ responsiveness and availability.
The evidence for this “strong trait” perspective is mixed, given that
longitudinal studies have detected varying degrees of continuity in attach-
ment styles from childhood to adulthood (Hamilton, 2000; Lewis, Feiring,
& Rosenthal, 2000; Roisman et al., 2005; Waters et al., 2000; Weinfield
et al., 2000) and over adulthood from relationship to relationship (Bald-
win & Fehr, 1995; Davila, Burge, & Hammen, 1997; Davila et al., 1999;
Fraley, 2007; Klohnen & Bera, 1998; Lopez & Gormley, 2002; Mitch-
ell, 2007; Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1995; Zhang & Labouvie-Vief, 2004).
Many researchers have sidestepped this debate by gravitating toward a
“two-pronged” conceptualization of adult attachment styles, in which indi-
viduals have both a global working model (which is carried forward from
childhood) that provides a general, trait-like template for an individual’s
relationship expectations, and also a relationship-specific model based on
particular attachment figures, such as current or recent romantic partners
(Baldwin & Fehr, 1995; Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr, Enns, & Koh-Rangarajoo,
1996; La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000). This perspective
takes more seriously the phenomenon of reciprocal influence between prior
and current attachment expectations and experiences, and hence it holds
more promise for the development of lifespan models of attachment that
take into account an individual’s entire cumulative trajectory of attach-
ment-relevant experiences.
The unique contribution of the ACM is the notion that cumulative
trajectories of attachment-relevant experiences may be more influential for
some individuals than others due to individual differences in stress reactiv-
ity, which render certain individuals disproportionately sensitive to envi-
ronmental and interpersonal threats and resources. Hence an intriguing
direction for future research involves longitudinal assessment of individual
differences in stress reactivity as predictors of the correspondence between
changes in social–environmental conditions and concurrent changes in psy-
chosocial functioning.
Conclusion
The increasing body of psychobiological research on attachment and stress
regulation underscores the critical role of attachment relationships in fos-
tering psychological, physical, and interpersonal functioning at all stages
of the life course. Understanding the role of early attachment relationships

in calibrating critical stress-regulating systems, and the long-term impli-
cations of these systems for well-being, provides important new ways to
understand the fundamental functions of attachment over the life course.
The development of integrative, lifespan, biobehavioral models of the
attachment system remains a priority for future research. The quality of
an individual’s parental attachments clearly has critical implications for
subjective and physiological aspects of stress regulation as well as for long-
term social and psychological functioning, opening up a host of fascinat-
ing questions regarding our inherently social nature. Future research on
the mutual, cascading relations between stress exposure and attachment
processes from childhood to adulthood will contribute to our increasingly
sophisticated understanding of the fundamental role of attachment rela-
tionships for psychological and physical well-being over the life course.
References
Alkon, A., Boyce, W. T., Davis, N. V., & Eskenazi, B. (2011). Developmental
changes in autonomic nervous system resting and reactivity measures in
Latino children from 6 to 60 months of age. Journal of Developmental and
Behavioral Pediatrics, 32, 668–677.
Baldwin, M. W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings.
94–109.
Bateson, P., Barker, D., Clutton-Brock, T., Deb, D., D’Udine, B., Foley, R. A., et al.
(2004). Developmental plasticity and human health. Nature, 430, 419–421.
Beauchaine, T. P. (2001). Vagal tone, development, and Gray’s motivational theory:
Toward an integrated model of autonomic nervous system functioning in psy-
chopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 183–214.
Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). For
better and for worse: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 300–304.
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility
to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885–908.
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2012). Differential susceptibility to long-term effects of
quality of child care on externalizing behavior in adolescence? International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 36, 2–10.
Berntson, G. G., Cacioppo, J. T., & Fieldstone, A. (1996). Illusions, arithmetic, and
the bidirectional modulation of vagal control of the heart. Biological Psychol-
ogy, 44, 1–17.
Blandon, A. Y., Calkins, S. D., Keane, S. P., & O’Brien, M. (2010). Contributions
of child’s physiology and maternal behavior to children’s trajectories of tem-
peramental reactivity. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1089–1102.
Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds: I. Aetiology and
psychopathology in the light of attachment theory. British Journal of Psychia-
try, 130, 201–210.
Boyce, W. T., Chesney, M., Alkon, A., & Tschann, J. M. (1995). Psychobiologic
reactivity to stress and childhood respiratory illnesses: Results of two pro-
spective studies. Psychosomatic Medicine, 57, 411–422.
Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolu-
tionary-developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity.
Bruce, J., Fisher, P. A., Pears, K. C., & Levine, S. (2009). Morning cortisol levels
in preschool-aged foster children: Differential effects of maltreatment type.
Developmental Psychobiology, 51, 14–23.
Bubier, J. L., Drabick, D. A. G., & Breiner, T. (2009). Autonomic functioning mod-
erates the relations between contextual factors and externalizing behaviors
among inner-city children. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 500–510.
Buss, C., Lord, C., Wadiwalla, M., Hellhammer, D. H., Lupien, S. J., Meaney,
M. J., & Pruessner, J. C. (2007). Maternal care modulates the relationship
between prenatal risk and hippocampal volume in women but not in men.
Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 2592–2595.
Byrd-Craven, J., Auer, B. J., Granger, D. A., & Massey, A. R. (2012). The father–
daughter dance: The relationship between father–daughter relationship
quality and daughters’ stress response. Journal of Family Psychology, 26,
87–94.
Cacioppo, J. T. (1994). Social neuroscience: Autonomic, neuroendocrine, and
immune responses to stress. Psychophysiology, 31, 113–128.
Cacioppo, J. T., Uchino, B. N., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Individual differences
in the autonomic origins of heart rate reactivity: The psychometrics of respi-
ratory sinus arrhythmia and preejection period. Psychophysiology, 31, 412–
419.
Calkins, S. D. (1997). Cardiac vagal tone indices of temperamental reactivity and
behavioral regulation in young children. Developmental Psychobiology, 31,
125–135.
Calkins, S. D., Smith, C. L., Gill, K. L., & Johnson, M. C. (1998). Maternal inter-
active style across contexts: Relations to emotional, behavioral, and physi-
ological regulation during toddlerhood. Social Development, 7, 350–369.
Chisholm, J. S., Quinlivan, J. A., Petersen, R. W., & Coall, D. A. (2005). Early
stress predicts age at menarche and first birth, adult attachment, and expected
lifespan. Human Nature, 16, 233–265.
Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., Gunnar, M. R., & Toth, S. L. (2010). The differ-
ential impacts of early physical and sexual abuse and internalizing problems
on daytime cortisol rhythm in school-aged children. Child Development, 81,
252–269.
Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., & Toth, S. L. (1998). Maternal depressive disorder
and contextual risk: Contributions to the development of attachment insecu-
rity and behavior problems in toddlerhood. Development and Psychopathol-
ogy, 10, 283–300.
Conradt, E., Measelle, J., & Ablow, J. C. (2013). Poverty, problem behavior, and
promise: Differential susceptibility among infants reared in poverty. Psycho-
logical Science, 24, 235–242.
Crittenden, P. M. (2000). A dynamic-maturational exploration of the meaning of
security and adaptation. In P. M. Crittenden & A. H. Claussen (Eds.), The
organization of attachment relationships: Maturation, culture, and context
(pp. 358–383). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cummings, E. M., El-Sheikh, C. D., Kouros, C. D., & Keller, P. S. (2007). Chil-
dren’s skin conductance reactivity as a mechanism of risk in the context of
parental depressive symptoms. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
48, 436–445.
Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 826–838.
Davila, J., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Attachment change processes
in the early years of marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76, 783–802.
Del Giudice, M., Ellis, B. J., & Shirtcliff, E. A. (2011). The adaptive calibration
model of stress responsivity. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35,
1562–1592.
Del Giudice, M., Hinnant, J. B., Ellis, B. J., & El-Sheikh, M. (2012). Adaptive
patterns of stress responsivity: A preliminary investigation. Developmental
Dewitte, M., De Houwer, J., Goubert, L., & Buysse, A. (2010). A multi-modal
approach to the study of attachment-related distress. Biological Psychology,
85, 149–162.
Diamond, L. M., & Cribbet, M. R. (2013). Links between adolescent sympathetic
and parasympathetic nervous system functioning and interpersonal behavior
over time. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 88, 339–348.
Diamond, L. M., Fagundes, C. P., & Cribbet, M. R. (2012). Individual differences
in adolescent sympathetic and parasympathetic functioning moderate asso-
ciations between family environment and psychosocial adjustment. Develop-
mental Psychology, 48, 918–931.
Diamond, L. M., & Hicks, A. M. (2005). Attachment style, current relationship
security, and negative emotions: The mediating role of physiological regula-
tion. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 499–518.
Diamond, L. M., Hicks, A. M., & Otter-Henderson, K. A. (2008). Every time you
go away: Changes in affect, behavior, and physiology associated with travel-
related separations from romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social
Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses:
A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological
Bulletin, 130, 355–391.
El-Sheikh, M., Kouros, C. D., Erath, S., Cummings, E. M., Keller, P., Staton, L.,
et al. (2009). Marital conflict and children’s externalizing behavior: Inter-
actions between parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous system activity.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 74(1, Serial
No. 292), 1–79.
El-Sheikh, M., & Whitson, S. A. (2006). Longitudinal relations between marital
conflict and child adjustment: Vagal regulation as a protective factor. Journal

of Family Psychology, 20, 30–39.
Ellis, B. J., Boyce, W. T., Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzen-
doorn, M. H. (2011). Differential susceptibility to the environment: An evolu-
tionary-neurodevelopmental theory. Development and Psychopathology, 23,
7–28.
Fraley, R. C. (2007). A connectionist approach to the organization and continuity
of working models of attachment. Journal of Personality, 75, 1157–1180.
Frankenhuis, W. E., & Del Giudice, M. (2012). When do adaptive developmental
mechanisms yield maladaptive outcomes? Developmental Psychology, 48,
628–642.
Frigerio, A., Ceppi, E., Rusconi, M., Giorda, R., Raggi, M. E., & Fearon, P. (2009).
The role played by the interaction between genetic factors and attachment in
the stress response in infancy. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
50, 1513–1522.
Gilissen, R., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Linting,
M. (2008). Electrodermal reactivity during the Trier Social Stress Test for
Children: Interaction between the serotonin transporter polymorphism and
children’s attachment representation. Developmental Psychobiology, 50,
615–625.
Glover, V., O’Connor, T. G., & O’Donnell, K. (2010). Prenatal stress and the pro-
gramming of the HPA axis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35,
17–22.
Gunnar, M. R. (1998). Quality of early care and buffering of neuroendocrine stress
reactions: Potential effects on the developing human brain. Preventive Medi-
cine, 27, 208–211.
Gunnar, M. R. (2005). Attachment and stress in early development: Does attach-
ment add to the potency of social regulators of infant stress? In C. S. Carter,
L. Ahnert, K. E. Grossmann, S. B. Hrdy, M. E. Lamb, S. W. Porges, et al.
(Eds.), Attachment and bonding: A new synthesis (pp. 245–255). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Gunnar, M. R., & Donzella, B. (2002). Social regulation of cortisol levels in early
human development. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 27, 199–220.
Gunnar, M. R., Frenn, K., Wewerka, S. S., & Van Ryzin, M. J. (2009). Moderate
versus severe early life stress: Associations with stress reactivity and regula-
tion in 10–12-year-old children. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34, 62–75.
Hamilton, C. E. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy
through adolescence. Child Development, 71, 690–694.
Heim, C., & Nemeroff, C. B. (1999). The impact of early adverse experiences on
brain systems involved in the pathophysiology of anxiety and affective disor-
ders. Biological Psychiatry, 46, 1509–1522.
Heim, C., Newport, D. J., Mletzko, T., Miller, A. H., & Nemeroff, C. B. (2008).
The link between childhood trauma and depression: Insights from HPA axis
studies in humans. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 33, 693–710.
Hesse, E. (1999). The Adult Attachment Interview: Historical and current perspec-
tives. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (pp. 395–433). New York: Guilford Press.
Hesse, E., & Main, M. (2006). Frightened, threatening, and dissociative parental
behavior in low-risk samples: Description, discussion, and interpretations.

Hessler, D. M., & Katz, L. F. (2007). Children’s emotion regulation: Self-report
and physiological response to peer provocation. Developmental Psychology,
43, 27–38.
Hinde, R. A., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1990). Attachment: Biological, cultural and
individual desiderata. Human Development, 33, 62–72.
Hinnant, J. B., Elmore-Staton, L., & El-Sheikh, M. (2011). Developmental trajec-
tories of respiratory sinus arrythmia and preejection period in middle child-
hood. Developmental Psychobiology, 53, 59–68.
Hostinar, C. E., & Gunnar, M. R. (2013a). The developmental effects of early life
stress: An overview of current theoretical frameworks. Current Directions in
Hostinar, C. E., & Gunnar, M. R. (2013b). The developmental psychobiology of
stress and emotion in childhood. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner,
M. A. Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol.
6. Developmental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 121–141). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hostinar, C. E., & Gunnar, M. R. (2013c). Future directions in the study of social
relationships as regulators of the HPA axis across development. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 42, 564–575.
Hunter, A. L., Minnis, H., & Wilson, P. (2011). Altered stress responses in children
exposed to early adversity: A systematic review of salivary cortisol studies.
Stress: International Journal on the Biology of Stress, 14, 614–626.
Kajantie, E., & Räikkönen, K. (2010). Early life predictors of the physiological
stress response later in life. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35,
23–32.
Katz, L. F. (2007). Domestic violence and vagal reactivity to peer provocation.
Biological Psychology, 74, 154–164.
Kirschbaum, C., Wust, S., Faig, H. G., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1992). Heritability
of cortisol responses to human corticotropin-releasing hormone, ergometry,
and psychological stress in humans. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and
Metabolism, 75, 1526–1530.
Klohnen, E. C., & Bera, S. (1998). Behavioral and experiential patterns of avoid-
antly and securely attached women across adulthood: A 31-year longitudinal
perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 211–223.
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-
person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory per-
spective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384.
Laurent, H., & Powers, S. (2007). Emotion regulation in emerging adult couples:
Temperament, attachment, and HPA response to conflict. Biological Psychol-
ogy, 76, 61–71.
Lengua, L. J. (2012). Poverty, the development of effortful control, and children’s
academic, social, and emotional adjustment. In V. Maholmes & R. B. King
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 491–
511). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, M., Feiring, C., & Rosenthal, S. (2000). Attachment over time. Child
Development, 71, 707–720.
Lopez, F. G., & Gormley, B. (2002). Stability and change in adult attachment style
over the first-year college transition: Relations to self-confidence, coping, and
distress patterns. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 355–364.
Luecken, L. J. (1998). Childhood attachment and loss experiences affect adult car-
diovascular and cortisol function. Psychosomatic Medicine, 60, 765–772.
Luecken, L. J., Rodriguez, A. P., & Appelhans, B. M. (2005). Cardiovascular stress
responses in young adulthood associated with family-of-origin relationship
experiences. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 514–521.
Madigan, S., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Moran, G.,
Pederson, D. R., & Benoit, D. (2006). Unresolved states of mind, anomalous
parental behavior, and disorganized attachment: A review and meta-analysis
of a transmission gap. Attachment and Human Development, 8, 89–111.
Main, M. (1981). Avoidance in the service of attachment: A working paper. In K.
Immelmann, G. Barlow, L. Petrinovich, & M. Main (Eds.), Behavioral devel-
opment: The Bielefeld interdisciplinary project (pp. 651–693). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood,
and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E.
Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Mono-
graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1–2, Serial No.
209), 66–104.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorga-
nized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Green-
berg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool
years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121–160). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Maunder, R. G., Lancee, W. J., Nolan, R. P., Hunter, J. J., & Tannenbaum, D.
W. (2006). The relationship of attachment insecurity to subjective stress and
autonomic function during standardized acute stress in healthy adults. Jour-
nal of Psychosomatic Research, 60, 283–290.
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic
load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 840, 33–44.
McEwen, B. S., & Stellar, E. (1993). Stress and the individual: Mechanisms leading
to disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 153, 2093–2101.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2004). Attachment style and affect regulation:
Implications for coping with stress and mental health. In M. B. Brewer &
M. Hewstone (Eds.), Applied social psychology (pp. 28–49). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Miller, G. E., Chen, E., & Parker, K. J. (2011). Psychological stress in childhood
and susceptibility to the chronic diseases of aging: Moving toward a model of
behavioral and biological mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 959–997.
Miller, G. E., Chen, E., & Zhou, E. S. (2007). If it goes up, must it come down?:
Chronic stress and the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical axis in
humans. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 25–45.
Mills-Koonce, W. R., Appleyard, K., Barnett, M., Deng, M., Putallaz, M., & Cox,
M. (2011). Adult attachment style and stress as risk factors for early maternal
sensitivity and negativity. Infant Mental Health Journal, 32, 277–285.
Mills-Koonce, W. R., Garrett-Peters, P., Barnett, M., Granger, D. A., Blair, C., &
Cox, M. J. (2011). Father contributions to cortisol responses in infancy and

toddlerhood. Developmental Psychology, 47, 388–395.
Mitchell, V. (2007). Earning a secure attachment style: A narrative of personality
change in adulthood. In R. Josselson, A. Lieblich, & D. P. McAdams (Eds.),
The meaning of others: Narrative studies of relationships (pp. 93–116). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Moore, G. A., & Calkins, S. D. (2004). Infants’ vagal regulation in the still-face
paradigm is related to dyadic coordination of mother–infant interaction.
Developmental Psychology, 40, 1068–1080.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited
resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126,
247–259.
Nachmias, M., Gunnar, M. R., Mangelsdorf, S., Parritz, R. H., & Buss, K. (1996).
Behavioral inhibition and stress reactivity: The moderating role of attachment
security. Child Development, 67, 508–522.
Neumann, S. A., Sollers, J. J., Thayer, J. F., & Waldstein, S. R. (2004). Alexi-
thymia predicts attenuated autonomic reactivity, but prolonged recovery to
anger recall in young women. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 53,
183–195.
Nolte, T., Guiney, J., Fonagy, P., Mayes, L. C., & Luyten, P. (2012). Interpersonal
stress regulation and the development of anxiety disorders: An attachment-
based developmental framework. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 5,
1–21.
O’Connor, T. G., & Spagnola, M. E. (2009). Early stress exposure: Concepts, find-
ings, and implications, with particular emphasis on attachment disturbances.
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 3, 24.
Oosterman, M., De Schipper, J. C., Fisher, P., Dozier, M., & Schuengel, C. (2010).
Autonomic reactivity in relation to attachment and early adversity among fos-
ter children. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 109–118.
Oskis, A., Loveday, C., Hucklebridge, F., Thorn, L., & Clow, A. (2011). Anx-
ious attachment style and salivary cortisol dysregulation in healthy female
children and adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52,
111–118.
Perry, N. B., Nelson, J. A., Swingler, M. M., Leerkes, E. M., Calkins, S. D., Marco-
vitch, S., et al. (2013). The relation between maternal emotional support and
child physiological regulation across the preschool years. Developmental Psy-
chobiology, 55, 382–394.
Pierrehumbert, B., Torrisi, R., Ansermet, F., Borghini, A., & Halfon, O. (2012).
Adult attachment representations predict cortisol and oxytocin responses to
stress. Attachment and Human Development, 14, 453–476.
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2009). Differential susceptibility to rearing experience:
The case of childcare. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 396–
404.
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2010). Differential susceptibility to parenting and quality
child care. Developmental Psychology, 46, 379–390.
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2013). Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in
response to positive experiences. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 901–916.
Porges, S. W. (1992). Autonomic regulation and attention. In B. A. Campbell, H.
Hayne, & R. Richardson (Eds.), Attention and information processing in

infants and adults (pp. 201–223). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Porges, S. W., Doussard-Roosevelt, J. A., & Maiti, A. K. (1994). Vagal tone and
the physiological regulation of emotion. In N. Fox (Ed.), The development of
emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3, Serial No. 240),
167–186.
Porter, C. L., Wouden-Miller, M., Silva, S. S., & Porter, A. E. (2003). Marital har-
mony and conflict: Linked to infants’ emotional regulation and cardiac vagal
tone. Infancy, 4, 297–307.
ogy, 90, 613–628.
Propper, C. (2012). The early development of vagal tone: Effects of poverty and
elevated contextual risk. In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 103–123). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Quirin, M., Pruessner, J. C., & Kuhl, J. (2008). HPA system regulation and adult
attachment anxiety: Individual differences in reactive and awakening cortisol.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 33, 581–590.
Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: Family social
environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 330–366.
Rinaman, L., Banihashemi, L., & Koehnle, T. J. (2011). Early life experience shapes
the functional organization of stress-responsive visceral circuits. Physiology
and Behavior, 104, 632–640.
Roisman, G. I., Collins, W. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2005). Predictors
of young adults’ representations of and behavior in their current romantic
relationship: Prospective tests of the prototype hypothesis. Attachment and
Salomon, K. (2005). Respiratory sinus arrhythmia during stress predicts resting
respiratory sinus arrhythmia three years later in a pediatric sample. Health
Sanchez, M. M., Ladd, C. O., & Plotsky, P. M. (2001). Early adverse experience as
a developmental risk factor for later psychopathology: Evidence from rodent
and primate models. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 419–449.
Saul, J. P. (1990). Beat-to-beat variations of heart rate reflect modulation of cardiac
autonomic outflow. News in Psychological Science, 5, 32–37.
Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1995). Accommodation and attachment repre-
sentations in young couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
12, 389–401.
Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain
development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental
Health Journal, 22, 7–66.
Segerstrom, S. C., & Nes, L. S. (2007). Heart rate variability reflects self-regula-
tory strength, effort, and fatigue. Psychological Science, 18, 275–281.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). Attachment theory and research: Core
concepts, basic principles, conceptual bridges. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T.

Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed.,
pp. 650–677). New York: Guilford Press.
Shaw, D. S., & Vondra, J. I. (1993). Chronic family adversity and infant attach-
ment security. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 1205–1215.
Siegel, D. J. (2001). Toward an interpersonal neurobiology of the developing mind:
Attachment relationships, “mindsight,” and neural integration. Infant Mental
Simpson, J. A., & Belsky, J. (2008). Attachment theory within a modern evolution-
ary framework. In P. R. Shaver & J. Cassidy (Eds.), Handbook of attachment:
Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 131–157). New York:
Guilford Press.
Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (1994). Stress and secure base relationships in
adulthood. Advances in Personal Relationships, 5, 181–204.
Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2012). Adult attachment orientations, stress, and
romantic relationships. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in experi-
mental social psychology (Vol. 45, pp. 279–328). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Skowron, E. A., Loken, E., Gatzke-Kopp, L. M., Cipriano-Essel, E. A., Woehrle,
P. L., Van Epps, J. J., et al. (2011). Mapping cardiac physiology and parenting
processes in maltreating mother–child dyads. Journal of Family Psychology,
25, 663–674.
Snieder, H., Boomsma, D. I., Van Doornen, L. J. P., & De Geus, E. J. C. (1997).
Heritability of respiratory sinus arrhythmia: Dependency on task and respira-
tion rate. Psychophysiology, 34, 317–328.
Spangler, G., Schieche, M., Ilg, U., Maier, U., & Ackerman, C. (1994). Maternal
sensitivity as an external organizer for biobehavioral regulation in infancy.
Developmental Psychobiology, 27, 425–437.
Spear, J. F., Kronhaus, K. D., Moore, E. N., & Kline, R. P. (1979). The effect of
brief vagal stimulation on the isolated rabbit sinus node. Circulation Research,
44, 75–88.
Stronach, E. P., Toth, S. L., Rogosch, F., Oshri, A., Manly, J. T., & Cicchetti, D.
(2011). Child maltreatment, attachment security, and internal representations
of mother and mother–child relationships. Child Maltreatment, 16, 137–145.
Susman Stillman, A., Kalkose, M., Egeland, B., & Waldman, I. (1996). Infant tem-
perament and maternal sensitivity as predictors of attachment security. Infant
Behavior and Development, 19, 33–47.
Teicher, M. H., Andersen, S. L., Polcari, A., Anderson, C. M., Navalta, C. P.,
& Kim, D. M. (2003). The neurobiological consequences of early stress and
childhood maltreatment. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 27,
33–44.
Tharner, A., Dierckx, B., Luijk, M. P. C. M., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-
Kranenburg, M. J., van Ginkel, J. R., et al. (2013). Attachment disorganiza-
tion moderates the effect of maternal postnatal depressive symptoms on infant
autonomic functioning. Psychophysiology, 50, 195–203.
Thayer, J. F., & Lane, R. D. (2000). A model of neurovisceral integration in emo-
tion regulation and dysregulation. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61, 201–
216.
van Bakel, H. J. A., & Riksen-Walraven, J. M. (2004). Stress reactivity in 15-month-

old infants: Links with infant temperament, cognitive competence, and attach-
ment security. Developmental Psychobiology, 44, 157–167.
Vasilev, C. A., Crowell, S. E., Beauchaine, T. P., Mead, H. K., & Gatzke-Kopp,
L. M. (2009). Correspondence between physiological and self-report mea-
sures of emotion dysregulation: A longitudinal investigation of youth with
and without psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
50, 1357–1364.
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and self-
presentation: Regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management
and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 88, 632–657.
Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attach-
ment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal
study. Child Development, 71, 678–683.
Weinfield, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy
to early adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity, and their
correlates. Child Development, 71, 695–702.
Zhang, F., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (2004). Stability and fluctuation in adult attach-
ment style over a 6-year period. Attachment and Human Development, 6,
419–437.
5
Boosting Attachment Security in Adulthood
The “Broaden-and-Build” Effects of Security-Enhancing
Mental Representations and Interpersonal Contexts
Mario Mikulincer
Phillip R. Shaver
A ttachment theory conceptualizes the effects of experiences in close

relationships on the development of both favorable and (in the case of non-
optimal relationships) unfavorable personality characteristics. In his expo-
sition of attachment theory, John Bowlby (1969/1982, 1973, 1980, 1988)
explained why the availability of caring, supportive relationship partners,
beginning in infancy, is so important to developing a sense of attachment
security—confidence that one is competent and lovable, and that caregiv-
ers will be responsive and supportive when needed. This sense of security
is a resilience resource in times of need and a building block of mental
health and social adjustment. Adult attachment researchers have found
that a person’s sense of attachment security is associated with self-esteem,
emotional stability, constructive coping strategies, and mutually satisfying
relationships throughout life (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003, 2007a; Shaver
& Mikulincer, 2002).
In this chapter, we move beyond the well-researched correlates of dis-
positional measures of attachment security (which attachment researchers
call attachment styles or orientations) to review what has been learned
during the last decade about the causal effects of contextually boosting a
person’s sense of security in laboratory experiments as well as field stud-
ies. The chapter begins with a brief account of attachment theory and then
124
Boosting Attachment Security in Adulthood 125
explains our model of attachment processes in adulthood (Mikulincer &

Shaver, 2007a), which is an extension of Bowlby’s theory, now supported
by over 25 years of research by personality and social psychologists. Next,
we focus on the anchoring of attachment security in expectations concern-
ing relationship partners’ sensitivity and responsiveness (expectations orga-
nized within a secure-base script), and review findings from laboratory
studies showing that experimentally augmented security (based on priming
mental representations of security) has positive effects on emotion regula-
tion, appraisals of self and others, mental health, and prosocial behavior.
Finally, we review findings from laboratory and field studies showing that
real-life interpersonal contexts that strengthen a person’s sense of attach-
ment security (e.g., being in a relationship with a responsive and supportive
partner) bring about beneficial changes in psychological functioning. The
findings provide strong support for Bowlby’s ideas about the plasticity of
the attachment system across the lifespan and the growth-enhancing con-
sequences of secure attachments.
Attachment Theory: Basic Concepts

Bowlby (1969/1982) began with the observation that human infants are
unusually vulnerable because of their prematurity (compared with other
mammalian offspring) but are born with a repertoire of attachment behav-
iors, selected during evolution because they assured proximity to support-
ive others (attachment figures) as a means of protection (from predation,
starvation, injuries, etc.). When attachment behaviors repeatedly achieve
their psychobiological goal of safety and security, they contribute to a gen-
eral sense of felt security (Sroufe & Waters, 1977), which makes explo-
ration, learning, and participation in social relationships easier and more
successful.
Security-promoting attachment behaviors are organized by an innate
attachment behavioral system, which Bowlby (1969/1982) characterized as
a cybernetic program that includes detection of threats, the ability to signal
a need for help from attachment figures, and actions to establish contact
with these figures and allow reliance on them for reassurance and safety.
Although the attachment system is most important early in life, Bowlby
(1988) viewed it as active across the human lifespan, as indicated by emo-
tional bonds with close friends and romantic partners, and by intense grief
reactions when an emotional bond is broken due to separation, divorce, or
the death of a close other.
Bowlby (1973) also described important individual differences in
attachment system functioning. In his view, these individual differences are
rooted in the reactions of one’s relationship partners to bids for proximity
and support in times of need, and in the incorporation of such reactions
into working models of self and relationships. Interactions with attachment

figures who are available, sensitive, and supportive in times of need facili-
tate the smooth, normative functioning of the attachment system; promote
a sense of connectedness and security; and contribute to positive work-
ing models of self and others. When a person’s attachment figures are not
reliably available and supportive, however, a pervasive, dispositional sense
of security is not attained; worries about one’s social value and others’
intentions are strengthened; and strategies of affect regulation other than
normal proximity seeking are adopted (these are termed secondary attach-
ment strategies, characterized by anxiety or defensive avoidance).
When studying individual differences in attachment system function-
ing in adults, attachment researchers have focused on attachment ori-
entations or styles—patterns of relational expectations, emotions, and
behaviors that result from internalizing a particular history of attachment
experiences (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). Research, beginning with Ain-
sworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) and continuing through scores of
more recent studies by social and personality psychologists (reviewed by
Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a), indicates that attachment styles are located
in a two-dimensional space defined by roughly orthogonal factors that we
call attachment-related anxiety and avoidance (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver,
1998; Fraley & Waller, 1998). The avoidance dimension reflects the extent
to which a person distrusts relationship partners’ goodwill and defensively
strives to maintain behavioral and emotional independence and distance.
The anxiety dimension reflects the extent to which a person worries that a
partner will not be available in times of need, partly because of the person’s
self-doubts about his or her worthiness. People who score low on both
dimensions are relatively secure with respect to attachment. A person’s
location in the two-dimensional space can be measured with reliable and
valid self-report scales (e.g., Brennan et al., 1998) and is associated in theo-
retically predictable ways with a wide variety of measures of relationship
quality and psychological adjustment (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a, for
a review).
Although attachment orientations are initially formed during child-
hood in relationships with parents and other early caregivers (Cassidy &
Shaver, 2008), Bowlby (1988) believed that important interactions with
relationship partners beyond childhood can alter a person’s working mod-
els and move him or her from one region of the two-dimensional anxiety
× avoidance space to another. Moreover, although a person’s attachment
style is often conceptualized as a single global orientation toward relation-
ships (which can be measured as such and has been shown to have reliable,
predictable correlates), it is an emergent property of a complex network of
cognitive and affective processes, which include many episodic, context-
relative, and relationship-specific memories and schemas (Bowlby, 1988:
Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Many studies indicate that a person’s attach-
ment orientation can change, depending on context and recent experiences
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b); this makes it possible to study the causal
effects of an experimentally primed sense of security within the confines
of a social psychological laboratory, or to examine the long-term effects of
real-life security-enhancing interpersonal contexts.
We (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a) have proposed that individuals’ loca-
tion in the two-dimensional anxiety × avoidance space reflects both their
sense of attachment security and the way they deal with threats and stress-
ors. People who score low on the two insecurity dimensions are generally
secure, hold positive working models of self and others, and tend to employ
constructive and effective affect regulation strategies. Those who score high
on either attachment anxiety or avoidance suffer from attachment insecuri-
ties, worries about self-worth, or distrust of others’ goodwill and respon-
siveness in times of need. Moreover, insecure people tend to use secondary
attachment strategies that we, following Cassidy and Kobak (1988), char-
acterize as attachment system hyperactivation or deactivation when coping
with threats, frustrations, rejections, and losses. People who score high on
attachment anxiety rely on hyperactivating strategies—energetic attempts
to achieve support and love, combined with lack of confidence that these
resources will be provided and with feelings of anger and despair when they
are not provided (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988). In contrast, people who score
high on attachment-related avoidance tend to use deactivating strategies—
trying not to seek proximity to others when threatened, denying vulnerabil-
ity and needs for other people, and avoiding closeness and interdependence
in relationships.
With these ideas in mind, we can provide an overview of the cogni-
tive, affective, and relational outcomes associated with attachment system
functioning in adulthood. On the one hand, interactions with security-
enhancing attachment figures contribute to a stable and solid sense of
attachment security, which is an important aspect of healthy personality
development, favorable psychological functioning, and good social and
personal adjustment (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a, for a review). On
the other hand, adoption of hyperactivating or deactivating strategies influ-
ences the specific defenses used by insecure people to regulate distress and
manage doubts about their self-worth and others’ availability, sensitivity,
and responsiveness. Adoption of a particular insecure strategy also shapes
the different emotional and relational problems that result from anxious
and avoidant forms of attachment. In the next section, we summarize the
positive effects of attachment security and related mental representations
on a person’s social motives, cognitions, and behaviors.
Mental Representations of Attachment Security

According to our model of adult attachment system functioning (Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2003, 2007a), appraisal of the availability and supportiveness
of an attachment figure in times of need automatically activates mental

representations of attachment security. These representations include both
declarative and procedural knowledge organized around a relational proto-
type or secure-base script (Waters & Waters, 2006), which contains some-
thing like the following “if–then” propositions: “If I encounter an obstacle
and/or become distressed, I can approach a significant other for help; he
or she is likely to be available and supportive; I will experience relief and
comfort as a result of proximity to this person; I can then return to other
activities.” Having many experiences that contribute to the construction of
this script makes it easier for a person to confront stressful situations with
optimistic expectations, which in turn helps the person maintain relative
calm and optimistic hope while coping with problems.
There is evidence for the psychological reality of the secure-base script
in young adults. For example, we and our colleagues (Mikulincer, Shaver,
Sapir-Lavid, & Avihou-Kanza, 2009) found that people who scored lower
on self-report scales tapping attachment anxiety or avoidance (i.e., more
secure participants) were more likely than those who scored higher to
include elements of the secure-base script (e.g., support seeking, support
provision, distress relief) when writing about projective test pictures of
a troubled person. Moreover, the two kinds of insecurity—anxiety and
avoidance—were associated with different types of gaps in the script. Peo-
ple who scored relatively high on the anxiety scale tended to omit or deem-
phasize the final step in the script (relief and return to other activities),
whereas those who scored relatively high on the avoidance scale tended to
omit the part about seeking and benefiting from others’ support. That is,
anxious participants more often wrote about an injured protagonist who
was seeking support and not achieving relief, whereas avoidant participants
more often wrote about a person achieving relief without seeking or receiv-
ing support. These results were not explained by alternative predictor vari-
ables, such as neuroticism, extraversion, or verbal ability.
Attachment figure availability also fosters what we, following Fred-
rickson (2001), call a broaden-and-build cycle of attachment security,
which increases a person’s resilience and expands his or her perspectives,
coping flexibility, and skills and capabilities. The most immediate psycho-
logical effects of attachment figure availability are effective management
of distress and restoration of emotional equanimity. According to attach-
ment theory, interactions with available and supportive attachment figures,
by imparting a pervasive sense of safety, assuage distress and elicit posi-
tive emotions such as relief, satisfaction, and gratitude. Secure people can
therefore remain relatively unperturbed in times of stress and experience
longer periods of positive affect, which in turn contribute to their sustained
emotional well-being and mental health.
Experiences of attachment figure availability also contribute to a reser-
voir of core cognitive representations, which play a central role in maintain-
ing emotional stability and personal adjustment. During positive interactions
with sensitive and available attachment figures, individuals learn that dis-
tress is manageable, that external obstacles can be overcome, and that the
course and outcome of most threatening events are at least partially con-
trollable. Adult attachment studies provide extensive evidence that secure
individuals, as identified by self-report measures, appraise a wide variety of
stressful events in less threatening terms than insecure people (either anx-
ious or avoidant) do, and that they hold more optimistic expectations about
their ability to cope with stressors (e.g., Berant, Mikulincer, & Florian,
2001; Mikulincer & Florian, 1995; Radecki-Bush, Farrell, & Bush, 1993).
In addition, during interactions with supportive attachment figures,
individuals learn about others’ potential sensitivity, responsiveness, and
goodwill. They also learn to view themselves as active, strong, and com-
petent because they can effectively mobilize a partner’s support and over-
come threats that activate attachment behavior. Moreover, they perceive
themselves as valuable, lovable, and special, thanks to being valued, loved,
and regarded as special by caring attachment figures. Research has consis-
tently shown that such positive mental representations of self and others
are characteristic of secure persons (e.g., Baldwin, Fehr, Keedian, Seidel,
& Thomson, 1993; Collins, 1996; Collins & Read, 1990; Cooper, Shaver,
& Collins, 1998; Mickelson, Kessler, & Shaver, 1997; Mikulincer, 1995;
Simpson, 1990).
The broaden-and-build cycle of attachment security is renewed every
time a person notices that an actual or imaginary caring and loving attach-
ment figure is available in times of stress. To examine the psychological
reality of this cycle, we cannot rely solely on correlational studies examin-
ing cross-sectional or even prospective longitudinal associations between
dispositional measures of attachment orientations and measures of psycho-
logical functioning and mental health. Rather, we need to test whether
momentary or more prolonged experiences with actual or imaginary
responsive and supportive attachment figures, which we expect to increase
a person’s sense of security even if he or she is dispositionally insecure, can
activate the broaden-and-build cycle of attachment security and its positive
effects on psychological functioning. In the following sections of this chap-
ter we review studies that examined the psychological effects of momentary
or more prolonged boosts in attachment security. We first review findings
from laboratory experiments in which the security-enhancing mental rep-
resentations were primed in various ways. We then review findings from
both laboratory and field studies that have examined the effects of security-
heightening interpersonal experiences.
Evidence for the Effects of Security-Enhancing Mental Representations

In several laboratory experiments, we and other attachment researchers
have examined the psychological effects of temporarily activating mental
representations of security by exposing people to security-related stimuli (a

process known as security priming). These experiments use well-validated
social-cognitive research techniques to activate mental representations of
security and measure their psychological effects. These techniques include
presentation (either explicit/supraliminal or implicit/subliminal presenta-
tion) of pictures suggesting attachment figure availability (e.g., a Picasso
drawing of a mother cradling an infant in her arms; a couple holding hands
and gazing into each other’s eyes); presentation of the names of actual peo-
ple designated by participants as security-enhancing attachment figures;
guided imagery concerning the availability and supportiveness of an attach-
ment figure; visualization of the faces of security-enhancing attachment
figures; and viewing the photograph of an attachment figure. The effects
of these primes have usually been compared with the effects of emotionally
positive but attachment-unrelated stimuli (e.g., pictures of a large amount
of money, the names or faces of acquaintances who are not attachment
figures) or emotionally neutral stimuli (e.g., pictures of furniture, neutral
words, faces, or names).
With regard to the emotional effects of experimentally induced security
primes, research consistently indicates that portrayals of attachment figure
availability improve participants’ moods, and that they do so more reliably
and powerfully than other positive stimuli (e.g., Mikulincer, Hirschberger,
Nachmias, & Gillath, 2001; Mikulincer, Gillath, et al., 2001; Mikulincer
et al., 2003; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001). Mikulincer, Hirschberger, et
al. (2001) also found that priming representations of supportive attach-
ment figures infused neutral stimuli with more positive affect, even when
the priming was done subliminally. For example, subliminal presentation
of the names of people who were designated by participants as security-
enhancing attachment figures, compared with the names of close others or
mere acquaintances who were not nominated as attachment figures, led to
greater liking of previously unfamiliar Chinese ideographs. Moreover, sub-
liminally priming mental representations of available attachment figures
induced more positive evaluations of neutral stimuli even in threatening
contexts, and eliminated the detrimental effects that threats otherwise had
on liking for neutral stimuli. Thus temporary priming of mental representa-
tions of security-enhancing attachment figures appears to have a calming,
soothing effect.
There is also evidence that the symbolic presence of a responsive
attachment figure is a modulator of emotional responses to specific dis-
tress-eliciting experiences. For example, Selcuk, Zayas, Günaydin, Hazan,
and Kross (2012) found that both explicit and implicit priming of attach-
ment figure representations speeded up emotional recovery and reduced
negative thoughts after participants recalled an upsetting experience.
Eisenberger and colleagues (Eisenberger et al., 2011; Master et al., 2009)
found that viewing a photograph of a romantic partner (vs. a stranger or an
object) reduced participants’ subjective experience and neural representa-

tion of pain in response to heat stimuli. Younger, Aron, Parke, Chatterjee,
and Mackey (2010) replicated these findings in a functional magnetic reso-
nance imaging (fMRI) study, finding that greater analgesia while viewing
pictures of a romantic partner was associated with increased activity in
several reward-processing brain regions, such as the nucleus accumbens,
lateral orbitofrontal cortex, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
Along with these findings, we (Mikulincer, Shaver, & Horesh, 2006)
examined whether the soothing effects of security priming mitigate the
emotional damage caused by traumatic experiences, such as war, acts of
terrorism, hurricanes, rape, and witnessing violent domestic disputes. In
this study, we focused on a well-known cognitive manifestation of posttrau-
matic responses—longer reaction times when naming the colors in which
trauma-related words were printed (Emilien et al., 2000). The participants
were Israeli undergraduates who reported high or low levels of posttrau-
matic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms related to terrorist attacks. They
performed a computerized Stroop color-naming task that included, among
other words, 10 terror-related words. During the task, the students were
subliminally primed with an attachment security word (the Hebrew word
for “being loved”), a positively valenced but attachment-unrelated word, or
a neutral word. The results showed that a higher level of PTSD symptoms
was associated with longer color-naming latencies for terror-related words,
indicating greater automatic accessibility of the words. However, this asso-
ciation was significant only when participants were subliminally primed
with a neutral or positive word. The effect was not significant following
the priming of an attachment security representation. That is, symbolic
mobilization of attachment security representations (“being loved”) during
the Stroop task had a soothing effect, lowering the accessibility of trauma-
related thoughts.
Laboratory experiments have also provided support for the hypoth-
esized effects of security priming on mental representations of self and oth-
ers. For example, Baccus, Baldwin, and Packer (2004) showed that experi-
mental priming with loving and accepting faces automatically increased the
primed persons’ sense of self-worth, even when they were unaware of the
faces. Two other experimental studies showed that security priming can
instill a sense of self-worth that renders defensive self-inflation unnecessary
(Arndt, Schimel, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 2002; Schimel, Arndt, Pyszc-
zynski, & Greenberg, 2001). In these studies, thoughts about either attach-
ment figure availability (e.g., thinking about an accepting and loving other)
or neutral thoughts were encouraged, and participants’ use of particular
self-enhancement strategies was then assessed. These strategies included
self-enhancing biases in social comparison (Schimel et al., 2001) and defen-
sive self-handicapping (Arndt et al., 2002). In both studies, momentary
strengthening of mental representations of attachment figure availability
weakened the tendency to make self-enhancing social comparisons or self-

handicapping attributions.
Attachment researchers have also found that security priming has ben-
eficial effects on expectations of a partner’s behavior (Carnelley & Rowe,
2007; Pierce & Lydon, 1998; Rowe & Carnelley, 2003). In Rowe and
Carnelley’s (2003) study, for example, participants who were primed with
representations of attachment figure availability (writing for 10 minutes
about a past relationship in which they felt secure) reported more positive
expectations for the current relationship than those who were primed with
insecure representations. In Pierce and Lydon’s (1998) study, young women
who were subliminally exposed to security-related words (compared to
those exposed to neutral words) were more likely to rely on support seeking
as a way of coping with a hypothetical scenario in which they unexpectedly
became pregnant.
Carnelley and Rowe (2010) examined how individuals experience
security priming and how its effects differ from those produced by other
positive-affect-related or relationship-related primes. Specifically, they
analyzed the written protocols produced by participants in different prim-
ing conditions and found that security primes, as compared to other posi-
tive primes, led to more thoughts related to felt security, positive care, a
sense of merging with another, positive emotion, and communion. In a
further examination of the effects of security priming, Canterberry and
Gillath (2013) scanned the brains of participants during rapid exposures to
security-related words. Compared to a neutral prime, security priming was
associated with widespread activation in the medial frontal and prefrontal
cortical areas, which are associated with cognitive control and self-regula-
tion. Additionally, security priming was uniquely associated with activa-
tion in the striatum (e.g., the putamen, globus pallidus, caudate), insula,
and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC)—areas associated with positive affect
and approach motivation.
There is also accumulating evidence that exposing people to security-
related symbolic stimuli in the laboratory allows them to engage confi-
dently in attachment-unrelated activities, such as exploring the environ-
ment, considering possible goals for the future, or caring for a needy other.
For example, we (Mikulincer, Shaver, & Rom, 2011) examined the effects
of security priming on exploration and learning. In two experiments, par-
ticipants were primed with security-related or neutral stimuli, and their
creative problem solving was assessed with the Remote Associates Test. In
the first experiment, implicit security priming (subliminal presentation of
attachment figures’ names) led to more creative problem solving (compared
with control conditions), regardless of participants’ dispositional attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance. In the second study, the effects of explicit
security priming (recalling experiences of being cared for) were moder-
ated by dispositional attachment anxiety and avoidance. That is, explicit
priming of attachment security led to better performance on the Remote

Associates Test only among those who scored lower on measures of dispo-
sitional attachment insecurity.
Security priming also facilitates effective provision of care and sup-
port to needy others. In two experiments, Mikulincer, Gillath, et al. (2001)
and Mikulincer et al. (2003) found that subliminal priming with names of
security providers, as compared with neutral priming, increased empathic
concern for a suffering stranger and endorsement of prosocial values (con-
cern for close others and for all of humanity). In another experimental
study, we (Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005, Study 1) exam-
ined the effects of security priming on the decision to help or not help a
person in distress. Participants watched a confederate while she performed
a series of aversive tasks. As the study progressed, the confederate became
increasingly distressed, and the participant was given an opportunity to
take her place, in effect sacrificing self for the welfare of another. Shortly
before being exposed to the person’s distress, participants were sublimi-
nally primed with either the name of a security provider (security priming)
or a neutral name (neutral priming). We found that security priming, as
compared with neutral priming, increased participants’ compassion and
willingness to take the distressed person’s place. This effect occurred in
both Israel and the United States, and occurred not only with subliminal
primes but also when the priming was done supraliminally by asking par-
ticipants to think of a familiar security provider (Mikulincer et al., 2005,
Study 2).
In two additional studies, we (Mikulincer et al., 2005, Studies 3–4)
tested whether contextual activation of mental representations of attach-
ment security override egoistic motives for helping, such as mood enhance-
ment (Schaller & Cialdini, 1988) and empathic joy (Smith, Keating, &
Stotland, 1989). Study participants were randomly assigned to one of two
priming conditions (security priming, neutral priming); read a true newspa-
per article about a woman in dire personal and financial distress; and then
rated their emotional reactions to the article in terms of compassion and
personal distress. In one study, half of the participants anticipated mood
enhancement by means other than helping (e.g., expecting, immediately
after this part of the experiment, to watch a comedy film). In the other
study, half of the participants were told that the needy woman was chroni-
cally depressed and that her mood might be beyond their ability to improve
it (the “no empathic joy” condition). Schaller and Cialdini (1988) and Smith
et al. (1989) have previously found that these two conditions reduce egoistic
motivations for helping, because a person gains no special mood-related
benefit from helping the needy person. In our studies, however, these condi-
tions failed to inhibit security-induced altruistic motives for helping, which
were expressed even when the manipulated egoistic motives were absent
(Batson, 1991).
The findings indicated that expecting to improve one’s mood by means

other than helping, or expecting not to be able to share a needy person’s joy
following the provision of help, reduced compassion and willingness to help
in the neutral priming condition, but not in the security priming condition.
Instead, security priming led to greater compassion and willingness to help
even when there was no egoistic reason for helping (i.e., no empathic joy or
no mood relief).
In sum, the combined evidence from our experimental studies indi-
cates that attachment security makes compassion and altruism more
likely. Although there are other reasons for helping, the prosocial effects
of attachment security do not depend on alternative egoistic motives, such
as a person’s desire to improve his or her mood or the desire to share a suf-
fering person’s relief. We infer that a sense of attachment security reduces
one’s need for defensive self-protection and allows one to direct attention
to others’ needs, feel compassion toward a suffering other, and engage in
altruistic behavior with the primary goal of benefiting others.
This reasoning received further support in a recent experiment in which
we (Mikulincer, Shaver, Sahdra, & Bar-On, 2013) tested two hypotheses:
(1) Contextually augmented attachment security would foster effective care
provision toward a romantic partner who disclosed a personal problem;
and (2) increased security would overcome barriers to responsive caregiv-
ing induced by mental depletion. Dating couples came to the laboratory
and provided names of people (other than their dating partners) who acted
as security providers for them. Each couple was then informed that the
partners would be video-recorded during an interaction in which one of
them (“the care seeker”) disclosed a personal problem to the other (“the
caregiver”). One partner was randomly preassigned to the care seeker’s
role, and the other to the caregiver’s role. Care seekers chose and wrote
about a personal problem they were willing to discuss (except ones that
involved conflict with the partner). While this was happening, caregivers
were taken to another room, where they performed a Stroop color-naming
task in which we manipulated mental depletion and subliminally exposed
them to either the names of security providers or names of unfamiliar per-
sons. Following these manipulations, the members of each couple were
video-recorded while they talked for 10 minutes about the problem the care
seeker wanted to discuss. Independent judges then viewed the video record-
ings and coded participants’ degree of responsiveness and supportiveness to
their disclosing partners.
We found that security priming was associated with greater respon-
siveness and supportiveness toward a dating partner who was sharing a
personal problem. Moreover, security priming overrode the detrimental
effects of mental depletion on responsiveness and supportiveness. These
effects were remarkably consistent across Israeli and American samples,
and were unexplained by relationship satisfaction. Overall, these findings
indicate that attachment security facilitates effective caregiving, and that

experimental enhancement of security can counteract dispositional and
situational barriers to compassion and helping.
Evidence Regarding the Effects of Security-Enhancing

Interpersonal Contexts
Beyond examining the effects of security-enhancing mental representa-
tions, adult attachment researchers have examined whether the same
broaden-and-build effects occur within interpersonal contexts in which
an actual relationship partner’s responsiveness and supportive behaviors
augment one’s sense of security. Such behavior on the part of a relation-
ship partner, therapist, or leader may enhance a person’s confidence in the
availability and responsiveness of his or her social interaction partners, set-
ting in motion the broaden-and-build cycle of attachment security. In other
words, a relationship partner who acts as a reliable security provider can
reactivate the secure-base script and help a person function more securely.
There is extensive evidence showing that proximity to a romantic part-
ner can alleviate distress and contribute to emotional stability. In a natural-
istic study of cohabiting and married couples, Gump, Polk, Kamarck, and
Shiffman (2001) asked participants’ partners to wear ambulatory blood
pressure monitors for a week, report what they were doing and feeling,
and indicate whether anyone was with them each time their blood pressure
was recorded. Blood pressure was lower when participants were interacting
with their romantic partners than when they were interacting with other
people or were alone. Additionally, in an observational study of dating
couples who were each video-recorded while one partner disclosed a per-
sonal concern to the other, Collins and Feeney (2000) found that observed
supportiveness from partners reduced the distress reported by the support
recipients. That is, people whose romantic partners provided more respon-
sive support (as judged by independent coders) felt better after disclosing a
personal problem than they did before doing so. In another observational
study of dating couples who were video-recorded while trying to resolve
their most important relationship problem, Simpson, Winterheld, Rholes,
and Oriña (2007) found that participants were rated as calmer during peak
distress points in the discussion if their partners were coded as more sup-
portive. Interestingly, whereas securely attached individuals were rated as
calmer when their partners provided more emotional care, avoidant indi-
viduals were rated as calmer when their partners provided more instrumen-
tal support.
In addition to these correlational studies, several experimental studies
have shown that a romantic partner can be a source of distress regulation
and emotional equanimity. For example, Coan, Schaefer, and Davidson
(2006) examined brain responses (via fMRI) of married women who under-
went a laboratory stressor (the threat of electric shock) while each one was
holding her husband’s hand, holding the hand of an unfamiliar male experi-
menter, or holding no hand at all. Holding a spouse’s hand reduced activa-
tion in brain regions associated with stress and distress (i.e., the right ante-
rior insula, superior frontal gyrus, and hypothalamus). The stress-reducing
effects of hand holding were greater for women who were more satisfied
with their marriages, probably because of the stronger sense of security
induced by physical contact with a responsive and supportive husband. In
another study, Master et al. (2009) found that holding the hand of a roman-
tic partner reduced perceptions of pain in response to heat stimuli.
Following this line of research, Kane, McCall, Collins, and Blascovich
(2012) asked young adults to complete a threatening cliff-walking task in
an immersive virtual environment. In this virtual world, each participant’s
romantic partner was, in three different experimental conditions, absent
from the virtual world; present in the world and attentive to the participant
during the task (waving, clapping at successes, head nodding, and actively
orienting his or her body toward the participant); or present but inattentive
(looking away from the participant). Participants in the attentive-partner
condition experienced the task as less stressful than those who were alone;
they also reported feeling more secure during the task and were less vigilant
of their partners’ behavior, compared to those in the inattentive-partner
condition. These findings suggest that a romantic partner can alleviate dis-
tress, particularly if he or she acts in an attentive and responsive manner—
that is, as a security-enhancing attachment figure.
Conceptually similar findings were reported by Guichard and Col-
lins (2008), who manipulated the quality of a romantic partner’s support
by having the partner send messages (actually written by the researchers)
before and after the focal person participated in a stressful speech-deliver-
ing task. Participants who received highly supportive messages were in a
better mood after their speech, had higher state self-esteem, and felt more
satisfied with their relationships, compared to those who received low-
support messages or no message from their partners. In a similar study,
Collins, Jaremka, and Kane (2009) found that experimentally manipulated
supportive messages from a romantic partner during a stressful speech task
(as compared to low-support messages) yielded lower cortisol levels and
more rapid emotional recovery from the stressful task.
There is also evidence that a responsive and supportive romantic
partner can enhance a person’s autonomous exploration and goal pursuit,
which is a component of the broaden-and-build cycle of attachment secu-
rity. According to Bowlby (1988), an important function of an attachment
figure is to provide a secure base from which another person can “make
sorties into the outside world” (p. 11), with confidence that he or she can
return for assistance and comfort if obstacles arise. Indeed, Feeney (2007)
found that participants’ perceptions of their romantic partners’ availability
and assistance in removing obstacles to goal pursuit were associated with

a stronger sense of independence, greater self-efficacy in goal achievement,
and deeper engagement in autonomous exploration. Moreover, during cou-
ples’ discussions of future personal goals, participants were more likely to
engage in exploration of these goals (as coded by external judges) when
their partners were coded as communicating more availability and respon-
siveness in relation to the exploratory efforts.
Using longitudinal data, Feeney (2007) also found that individu-
als whose partners were more responsive to their needs for support (as
reported by the partners or coded by external judges) reported increases
in autonomous exploration over a 6-month period and were more likely to
have achieved at least one personal goal that they had identified 6 months
earlier. In another laboratory study, Feeney and Thrush (2010) found that
when spouses were coded by external judges as more available during a
video-recorded exploration task, as less interfering with their partners’
exploration, or as more accepting of this activity, the exploring partners
persisted longer at the activity and reported heightened self-esteem and a
better mood following the exploration task. Similarly, Overall, Fletcher,
and Simpson (2010) found that participants whose romantic partners were
more responsive to their self-improvement desires during a laboratory dis-
cussion showed more self-improvement during the following year.
These broaden-and-build effects of security-enhancing interpersonal
contexts have also been found in studies examining other kinds of rela-
tionships, including leader–follower and therapist–client relationships. For
example, we (Davidovitz, Mikulincer, Shaver, Ijzak, & Popper, 2007) con-
ducted two field studies examining the extent to which a military offi-
cer’s responsiveness and supportiveness contributed to his soldiers’ military
performance and mental health. In one study, Israeli soldiers in regular
military service from 60 different military units who were participating in
a leadership workshop rated their instrumental and socioemotional func-
tioning within their units. The 60 direct officers also completed ratings
describing their own attachment orientations and their efficacy in provid-
ing support to their soldiers. Soldiers’ instrumental and socioemotional
functioning within their units was positively associated with officers’ self-
reported sense of attachment security (lower scores on the avoidance and
anxiety dimensions) and officers’ appraisal of their efficacy in supporting
soldiers’ emotional needs. Moreover, these officers’ effects were not moder-
ated by soldiers’ own attachment insecurities.
In a second study (Davidovitz et al., 2007), we approached Israeli mili-
tary recruits and their 72 direct officers at the beginning of a 4-month
period of intensive combat training and asked them to report their attach-
ment styles. At the same time, soldiers completed a self-report scale mea-
suring their baseline mental health. Two months later, soldiers reported
their mental health again and provided appraisals of their officers as pro-
viders of security (i.e., the officers’ ability and willingness to be available
in times of need, and to accept and care for their soldiers rather than
rejecting and criticizing them). Two months after that (i.e., 4 months after
combat training began), soldiers once again evaluated their mental health.
The findings indicated that appraisals of officers as security providers (by
their soldiers) predicted desirable changes in soldiers’ mental health dur-
ing combat training. At the beginning of training, baseline mental health
was exclusively associated with soldiers’ own level of attachment security.
However, appraisals of officers’ provisions of security during combat train-
ing produced significant changes in soldiers’ mental health across the train-
ing (taking the baseline assessment into account). The higher the officers
were appraised by their soldiers as being more sensitive and responsive, the
more the soldiers’ mental health improved over 2 and 4 months of intensive
combat training. These findings highlight the important effects of lead-
ers’ functioning as security providers on their followers’ mental health and
emotional well-being under stressful conditions.
This research has been conceptually extended from the military set-
ting to other organizational settings. For example, Ronen and Mikulincer
(2012) collected data from subordinates and their direct managers in a
variety of business organizations and found that managers’ responsive-
ness and supportiveness as caregivers (as measured by a self-report scale)
predicted lower job burnout and higher job satisfaction among subordi-
nates. Importantly, these effects were not moderated by subordinates’ own
attachment insecurities.
There is also evidence that a counselor’s functioning as a security pro-
vider has beneficial effects on a client’s outcomes during and after career
counseling. In a 3-session career counseling study, Littman-Ovadia (2008)
found that counselees’ appraisal of their counselors as security-enhancing
attachment figures (following the second session) was a significant predic-
tor of heightened career exploration following counseling compared to
baseline career exploration, even after the researcher controlled for coun-
selees’ own attachment orientations. This appraisal of the therapist as a
security-enhancing attachment figure also mitigated the detrimental effects
of attachment anxiety and avoidance on career exploration. In another
study based on data from the National Institute of Mental Health Treat-
ment of Depression Collaborative Research Program, Zuroff and Blatt
(2006) found that a client’s positive appraisals of his or her therapist’s sensi-
tivity and supportiveness significantly predicted relief from depression and
maintenance of therapeutic benefits 18 months later. And these results were
not attributable to patient characteristics or severity of depression.
Conclusions
In line with Bowlby’s theorizing, the diverse research findings reviewed
in this chapter indicate that attachment security is key to the optimal
functioning not only of the attachment behavioral system, but also of other
behavioral systems such as exploration and caregiving. This research also
shows that a person’s sense of security, which allows creative, undefensive
interactions with other people and fosters accurate perception of and effec-
tive reactions to others’ needs, is an important asset in both personal and
organizational relationships.
Fortunately, research conducted to date suggests that a person’s attach-
ment system, along with his or her core sense of security, can be changed for
the better. Moreover, the change can occur both immediately (and presum-
ably temporarily) and more permanently, and can occur both consciously
and unconsciously. The strong emphasis in the attachment research field on
individual differences—including much of our own work—may have made
those differences seem too deep-seated and robust to alter, even though the
documented benefits of good relationships and skilled psychotherapy have
always indicated that change for the better is possible. Fortunately, in both
behavioral and neuroscience research, it is becoming increasingly possible
to measure positive changes in systematically coded interpersonal behavior
and in functional brain images. This is therefore a hopeful time for testing
the efficacy of a variety of security-enhancing procedures.
One of the key remaining questions concerns how best to conceptual-
ize the sense of security and its role in mental and social processes. Is it a
“feeling,” an emotion, a background mood? How is it sustained when a
person is under pressure or suffering injuries or losses? How does it regu-
late defenses, allowing a person to be generous and supportive even when
mentally depleted—a process with important implications for parents, lov-
ers, teachers, and care providers of all kinds? More specifically, how does a
subliminal security prime, presumably acting through associative networks
in memory, alter a person’s sense of security, reduce defenses, and counter
compassion fatigue? Are its effects mainly cognitive, emotional, or neuro-
chemical? The well-documented effects reviewed in this chapter are major
discoveries, in our opinion, but their nature is still largely mysterious at
several different levels of analysis.
Acknowledgment
Preparation of this chapter was facilitated by a grant from the Fetzer Institute.
References
Erlbaum.
Arndt, J., Schimel, J., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2002). The intrinsic
self and defensiveness: Evidence that activating the intrinsic self reduces
self-handicapping and conformity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-

tin, 28, 671–683.
Baccus, J. R., Baldwin, M. W., & Packer, D. J. (2004). Increasing implicit self-
esteem through classical conditioning. Psychological Science, 15, 498–502.
Baldwin, M. W., Fehr, B., Keedian, E., Seidel, M., & Thomson, D. W. (1993).
An exploration of the relational schemata underlying attachment styles: Self-
report and lexical decision approaches. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 19, 746–754.
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological
answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berant, E., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2001). The association of mothers’
attachment style and their psychological reactions to the diagnosis of infants’
congenital heart disease. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 208–
232.
Basic Books.
tock.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Sadness and depression. New
York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. Lon-
don: Routledge.
adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes
(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York:
Guilford Press.
Canterberry, M., & Gillath, O. (2013). Neural evidence for a multifaceted model
of attachment security. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 88, 232–
240.
Carnelley, K. B., & Rowe, A. C. (2007). Repeated priming of attachment security
influences immediate and later views of self and relationships. Personal Rela-
tionships, 14, 307–320.
Carnelley, K. B., & Rowe, A. C. (2010). Priming a sense of security: What goes
through people’s minds. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27,
253–261.
Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its relationship with other
defensive processes. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications
of attachment (pp. 300–323). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand: Social
regulation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17, 1–8.
Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explana-
tion, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
71, 810–832.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory
perspective on support-seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Jour-

Collins, N. L., Jaremka, L. M., & Kane, H. (2009). Social support buffers stress,
promotes emotional recovery, and enhances relationship security. Unpub-
lished manuscript, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and rela-
tionship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 58, 644–663.
Cooper, M. L., Shaver, P. R., & Collins, N. L. (1998). Attachment styles, emotion
regulation, and adjustment in adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 1380–1397.
Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Ijzak, R., & Popper, M. (2007).
Leaders as attachment figures: Their attachment orientations predict leader-
ship-related mental representations and followers’ performance and mental
health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 632–650.
Emilien, G., Penasse, C., Charles, G., Martin, D., Lasseaux, L., & Waltregny, A.
(2000). Post-traumatic stress disorder: Hypotheses from clinical neuropsy-
chology and psychopharmacology research. International Journal of Psychia-
try in Clinical Practice, 4, 3–18.
Feeney, B. C. (2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting
dependence promotes independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 92, 268–285.
Feeney, B. C., & Thrush, R. L. (2010). Relationship influences on exploration in
adulthood: The characteristics and function of a secure base. Journal of Per-
Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the
typological model. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment the-
ory and close relationships (pp. 77–114). New York: Guilford Press.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology:
The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist,
56, 218–226.
Guichard, A., & Collins, N. (2008, February). The influence of social support and
attachment style on performance, self-evaluations, and interpersonal behav-
iors. Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Personality and Social
Psychology, Albuquerque, NM.
Gump, B. B., Polk, D. E., Kamarck, T. W., & Shiffman, S. M. (2001). Partner
interactions are associated with reduced blood pressure in the natural envi-
ronment: Ambulatory monitoring evidence from a healthy, multiethnic adult
sample. Psychosomatic Medicine, 63, 423–433.
Kane, H., McCall, C., Collins, N., & Blascovich, J. B. (2012). Mere presence is
not enough: Responsive support in a virtual world. Journal of Experimental
Littman-Ovadia, H. (2008). The effect of client attachment style and counselor func-
tioning on career exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 434–439.
Master, S. L., Eisenberger, N. I., Taylor, S. E., Naliboff, B. D., Shirinyan, D., &
Lieberman, M. D. (2009). A picture’s worth: Partner photographs reduce
experimentally induced pain. Psychological Science, 20, 1316–1318.
Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment in a
nationally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 73, 1092–1106.
Mikulincer, M. (1995). Attachment style and the mental representation of the self.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1995). Appraisal of and coping with a real-life
stressful situation: The contribution of attachment styles. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 406–414.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Halevy, V., Avihou, N., Avidan, S., & Eshkoli, N.
(2001). Attachment theory and reactions to others’ needs: Evidence that acti-
vation of the sense of attachment security promotes empathic responses. Jour-
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Sapir-Lavid, Y., Yaakobi, E., Arias, K., Tal-Aloni, L.,
et al. (2003). Attachment theory and concern for others’ welfare: Evidence
that activation of the sense of secure base promotes endorsement of self-tran-
scendence values. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 299–312.
Mikulincer, M., Hirschberger, G., Nachmias, O., & Gillath, O. (2001). The affec-
tive component of the secure base schema: Affective priming with representa-
tions of attachment security. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81, 305–321.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup bias:
Evidence that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to
out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 97–115.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. A. (2005). Attachment,
caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion
and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 817–839.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Horesh, N. (2006). Attachment bases of emotion
regulation and posttraumatic adjustment. In D. K. Snyder, J. A. Simpson, &
J. N. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation in families: Pathways to dysfunction
and health (pp. 77–99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
tion.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Rom, E. (2011). The effects of implicit and
explicit security priming on creative problem solving. Cognition and Emo-
tion, 25, 519–531.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Sahdra, B. K., & Bar-On, N. (2013). Can
security-enhancing interventions overcome psychological barriers to respon-

siveness in couple relationships? Attachment and Human Development, 15,
246–260.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Sapir-Lavid, Y., & Avihou-Kanza, N. (2009). What’s
inside the minds of securely and insecurely attached people?: The secure-base
script and its associations with attachment-style dimensions. Journal of Per-
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2010). Helping each other
grow: Romantic partner support, self-improvement, and relationship quality.
Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. (1998). Priming relational schemas: Effects of contextually
activated and chronically accessible interpersonal expectations on responses
to a stressful event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1441–
1448.
Radecki-Bush, C., Farrell, A. D., & Bush, J. P. (1993). Predicting jealous responses:
The influence of adult attachment and depression on threat appraisal. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 569–588.
Ronen, S., & Mikulincer, M. (2012). Predicting employees’ satisfaction and burn-
out from managers’ attachment and caregiving orientations. European Jour-
nal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 828–849.
Rowe, A., & Carnelley, K. B. (2003). Attachment style differences in the processing
of attachment-relevant information: Primed-style effects on recall, interper-
sonal expectations, and affect. Personal Relationships, 10, 59–75.
Schaller, M., & Cialdini, R. B. (1988). The economics of empathic helping: Sup-
port for a mood management motive. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 24, 163–181.
Schimel, J., Arndt, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2001). Being accepted for
who we are: Evidence that social validation of the intrinsic self reduces general
defensiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 35–52.
Selcuk, E., Zayas, V., Günaydin, G., Hazan, C., & Kross, E. (2012). Mental repre-
sentations of attachment figures facilitate recovery following upsetting auto-
biographical memory recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
103, 362–378.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics.
Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships.
Simpson, J. A., Winterheld, H. A., Rholes, W. S., & Oriña, M. M. (2007). Work-
ing models of attachment and reactions to different forms of caregiving from
romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 466–
477.
Smith, K. D., Keating, J. P., & Stotland, E. (1989). Altruism revisited: The effect
of denying feedback on a victim’s status to an empathic witness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 641–650.
Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct.
Waters, H. S., & Waters, E. (2006). The attachment working models concept:
Among other things, we build script-like representations of secure base expe-

riences. Attachment and Human Development, 8, 185–198.
Younger, J., Aron, A., Parke, S., Chatterjee, N., & Mackey, S. (2010). Viewing pic-
tures of a romantic partner reduces experimental pain: Involvement of neural
reward systems. PLoS ONE, 5, e13309.
Zuroff, D. C., & Blatt, S. J. (2006). The therapeutic relationship in the brief treat-
ment of depression: Contributions to clinical improvement and enhanced
adaptive capacities. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 199–
206.
6
Attachment and Dyadic Regulation Processes
Nickola C. Overall
Edward P. Lemay, Jr.
A nnette loves her partner, David, but worries about whether David
truly loves her. Annette’s fears are particularly acute when David
appears to be unhappy with her in some way, such as when they dis-
agree. During these times, Annette’s distress can be overwhelming,
and she can’t stop thinking about what David’s reactions mean in
terms of his feelings toward her. She becomes propelled to ensure that
David still loves her, and often expresses to David how much she is
hurting and how much she needs him. David typically responds by
comforting and reassuring Annette, which helps her feel better and
more secure. Over the course of their relationship, David learns that he
needs to be careful not to trigger Annette’s fears, and so he sometimes
hides his negative feelings and makes a special effort to be affection-
ate and loving. This helps Annette feel happier and more confident in
David’s commitment to her.
Annette is high in attachment anxiety. Research investigating the
effects of attachment anxiety suggests that the difficulties Annette has
in regulating her emotions will cause problems in her relationship.
However, Annette and David’s responses to each other also involve
dyadic regulation. Annette’s efforts to draw David closer and gain
reassurance involve Annette trying to influence or regulate how David
is feeling, thinking, and behaving. Similarly, David’s efforts to soothe
Annette’s concerns and help her feel loved involve David trying to reg-
ulate Annette’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior.
145
In this chapter, we outline why dyadic regulation processes are so

important, present recent research examining how insecure individuals
and their partners regulate one another, and show how dyadic regulation
is central to understanding how attachment insecurity is manifested in and
affects adult relationships.
Attachment and Regulation Processes

Regulation processes are at the core of attachment dynamics. When indi-
viduals are threatened or challenged, the attachment system becomes
activated and triggers efforts to alleviate distress and restore felt-security
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). The particular
ways this goal is managed depend on people’s expectations regarding
whether close others will be a reliable source of support. Attachment secu-
rity arises when proximity-seeking efforts have typically been successful
in gaining responsive care. Knowing that they can trust their partners,
secure people seek physical and psychological proximity to their partners
when threatened (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan,
1992) and use constructive, problem-focused modes of emotion regulation
(Shaver & Mikulincer, 2007).
Attachment anxiety arises when attachment figures have sometimes
responded to bids for support with love and care, but at other times
responded with anger or rejection (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973, 1980).
These experiences create intense fears of abandonment, a profound hunger
for closeness, and a hyperactived attachment system reflected by chronic
attempts to secure the closeness highly anxious individuals crave (Miku-
lincer & Shaver, 2003). Hyperactivation is characterized by excessive prox-
imity seeking (Shaver, Schachner, & Mikulincer, 2005) and intense, rumi-
native reactions to distressing situations (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2007).
Attachment avoidance occurs when people have encountered persistent
rejection from past attachment figures (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973, 1980),
which produces a deep-seated distrust of others and entrenched beliefs that
partners cannot be relied on to be loving caregivers. To prevent the pain of
expected rejection, avoidant individuals defensively avoid dependence and
suppress their attachment needs. When threatened, avoidant individuals
manage negative emotions by suppressing their feelings, disengaging from
their partners, and rejecting offers of support (Diamond, Hicks, & Otter-
Henderson, 2006; Collins & Feeney, 2000; Simpson et al., 1992).
These different regulation patterns are most often conceptualized and
studied as individual-based internal strategies, such as excessively seeking
reassurance or suppressing emotions. But relationships involve two people,
as does the set goal of the attachment system. In fact, a primary way an
individual regulates felt-security involves manipulating closeness with the
Attachment and Dyadic Regulation Processes 147
partner, which is a dyadic state. Pursuing proximity or creating distance

inherently involves attempts to regulate the partner’s thoughts, emotions,
and behaviors, such as trying to get the partner to express love and provide
reassurance (as Annette does in the chapter-opening example) or trying
to get the partner to provide space and accept less intimacy. The way the
partner reacts to these regulation attempts should determine the success
and costs of insecure reactions to threat. Moreover, to manage and sustain
the relationship, the partner needs to engage in counterregulation strate-
gies of his or her own to down-regulate the insecure reactions enacted by
the highly anxious or avoidant individual (just as David tries to soothe
Annette’s anxieties). If successful, the partner’s regulation efforts could
offset the destructive outcomes typically associated with attachment inse-
curity.
In the next sections, we describe and evaluate these dyadic regulation
processes, using the examples summarized in Table 6.1. We first consider
how highly anxious individuals regulate closeness and felt-security by try-
ing to influence their partners’ cognitions, emotions, and behaviors, and
the consequences of these regulation attempts (see top left of Table 6.1). We
then examine what the partners of anxious individuals might do to help
anxious individuals feel more secure and behave more constructively (see
top right of Table 6.1). The remaining sections consider the same dyadic
regulation processes in relation to attachment avoidance, including explor-
ing the ways highly avoidant individuals might cope with dependence by
regulating their partners’ power (see bottom left of Table 6.1) and how
partners can overcome these defensive strategies (see bottom right of Table
6.1). In each section, we show that a dyadic regulation perspective recon-
ciles inconsistencies in the literature, expands our understanding of how
attachment insecurity shapes relationships, and pushes research in new
directions.
TABLE 6.1. Examples of the Regulation Strategies Enacted by Insecurely Attached Individuals
and Their Partners
Regulation of the partner Regulation by the partner
Regulation Potential Potential Regulation Potential Potential
strategies benefits costs strategies benefits costs
Anxiety Guilt Reassurance Partner Exagger- Reassurance Partner
induction of partner’s dissatisfaction ated of partner’s dissatisfac-
love and and rejection affection love and tion and
commitment commitment rejection
Avoidance Disengage- Restoration Partner Softening Reduced Less change

ment and of power dependence influence disengage- and partner
withdrawal and control and ment and dissatisfac-
dissatisfaction withdrawal tion
Attachment Anxiety and Regulation of the Partner

People high in attachment anxiety intensely desire closeness and intimacy,
but fear that their partners may reject or abandon them (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2003). This combination produces an acute sensitivity to rejection.
For example, anxious individuals experience more pronounced feelings of
rejection, stress, and hurt during relationship-threatening interactions such
as conflict (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005; Overall & Sibley,
2009; Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996; Tran & Simpson, 2009). Prior
studies also suggest that this affective reactivity often leads to more hostile,
punishing responses toward their partners (e.g., Creasy, 2002; Overall &
Sibley, 2009; Simpson et al., 1996). However, hostile reactions to conflict
also tend to incite rejection and dissatisfaction in partners (Lemay, Overall,
& Clark, 2012)—reactions that are incongruent with the principal goal of
anxious individuals to secure intimacy and sustain closeness. Moreover,
several studies have found no associations between attachment anxiety
and observer-rated hostility during conflict (e.g., Bouthillier, Julien, Dube,
Belanger, & Hamelin, 2002; Campbell et al., 2005; Roisman et al., 2007;
Simpson et al., 1996). We think that this is because anxious reactions are
not as hostile as often assumed, and because the behaviors measured in
prior research may not capture the specific proximity-seeking strategies
used by highly anxious individuals.
Regulating the Partner by Inducing Guilt

The yearning for proximity at the core of attachment anxiety should pro-
duce behaviors specifically designed to obtain care and attention from
the partner, which involve attempts to regulate the partner’s emotions
and behaviors. For example, the emotionally charged responses displayed
during conflict by many highly anxious individuals most likely represent
forms of “protest” at the potential loss of the relationship bond and subse-
quent attempts to ensure that partners attend to the self and modify hurt-
ful behaviors (Bowlby, 1973; Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Rholes, Simpson,
& Oriña, 1999). One proximity-maintaining strategy that should achieve
these goals, and has been theorized to operate in infancy (Cassidy & Ber-
lin, 1994), adolescence (Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming, & Gamble,
1993) and adulthood (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2007), involves exaggerated
emotional displays that emphasize dependence and vulnerability. When
individuals express hurt feelings, they convey commitment and dependence
to their partners, and in turn elicit guilt and caring responses (Lemay et al.,
2012). Given that these partner reactions are exactly what highly anxious
individuals desire, they may exaggerate expressions of hurt to extract guilt
and care from their partners.
Guilt induction strategies are commonly employed in close relationships
to influence others (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994; Vangelisti,

Daly, & Rudnick, 1991). These strategies involve conveying or amplifying
emotional expressions of hurt (e.g., tears, sulking, making a sad face, pout-
ing); emphasizing the negative impact a partner’s behavior or the situation
is having on the self (“how much it hurts me”); or appealing to a partner’s
love, concern, and relationship obligations (Overall, Fletcher, Simpson, &
Sibley, 2009). All of these tactics involve emphasizing hurt, dependence,
and vulnerability to induce guilt and motivate the partner to take respon-
sibility and soothe the individual’s hurt feelings. Moreover, because guilt
powerfully motivates people to make amends, guilt induction tactics tend
to be successful in getting close others to apologize, cease hurtful behav-
ior, and express commitment, empathy and concern (e.g., Baumeister et
al., 1994; Tangney, Wagner, Hill-Barlow, Marschall, & Gramzow, 1996;
Vangelisti et al., 1991).
In a recent set of studies, we (Overall, Girme, Lemay, & Hammond,
2014) tested whether highly anxious individuals engage in guilt induction
strategies in response to conflict. The first study involved couples’ recording
their daily experiences for 3 weeks. Highly anxious participants reported
more pronounced hurt feelings on days they reported conflict or their part-
ners reported behaving in a critical or hurtful manner. On those “hurt-felt”
days, the partners of anxious individuals also overestimated the intensity
of anxious individuals’ hurt feelings. These biased perceptions indicate that
anxious individuals were exaggerating how hurt they were, which led the
partners to perceive more hurt than anxious individuals were actually feel-
ing.
In a second study (Overall et al., 2014), we directly measured the
degree to which guilt induction tactics were exhibited during couples’
video-recorded conflict discussions. Trained coders independently rated
the extent to which individuals exhibited guilt induction tactics, such as
using or exaggerating emotional expressions of hurt (e.g., sulking, making
a sad face); appealing to their partners’ love, concern, or relationship obli-
gations; or portraying themselves as needing help or being less capable or
powerful than their partners. Coders also rated the degree to which partici-
pants exhibited hostile communication, such as derogating their partners
or expressing threats or anger. As predicted, individuals higher in anxiety
engaged in more observer-rated guilt induction strategies, but they did not
exhibit greater hostile behavior. These results provide evidence that highly
anxious individuals are not lashing out with hostility, but instead engage
their hurt feelings as a tool to influence their partners and restore proximity.
The Benefits and Costs of Guilt Induction Strategies

Guilt induction tactics are an effective way of altering a partner’s emotions
and motivations while limiting the risk of immediate partner reactance
and rejection. Illustrating this point, in both studies, we (Overall et al.,

2014) gathered ratings of partners’ feelings of guilt. As predicted, anxious
individuals’ guilt induction attempts successfully produced higher levels of
partner guilt. As outlined above, guilt typically triggers empathy, apolo-
gies, and other amends-making efforts. Moreover, because guilt induction
tactics work only if a partner cares about and is committed to the relation-
ship, guilt also provides evidence of the partner’s caring (Baumeister et al.,
1994). Accordingly, partner guilt, even in the absence of reparative actions,
can improve the hurt person’s emotional state because guilt conveys con-
cern and commitment.
Intriguingly, given that the principal goal of anxious individuals is to
obtain love and acceptance, successfully inducing guilt may provide them
the evidence they need to feel somewhat secure and satisfied in their rela-
tionships. We tested this possibility (Overall et al., 2014) by examining
whether guilt experienced by a partner during a couple’s daily life (Study
1) and conflict-related discussions (Study 2) predicted longitudinal changes
in perceptions of the partner’s commitment and satisfaction. When their
partners reported higher levels of guilt, highly anxious individuals reported
more positive evaluations of the partners’ commitment and relationship
quality across time. In contrast, anxious individuals experienced signifi-
cant declines in perceived commitment and relationship quality across time
when their partners reported lower levels of guilt, consistent with the det-
rimental outcomes typically associated with attachment insecurity. These
novel results demonstrate that the partner regulation strategies engaged by
highly anxious individuals actually do produce the reassurance they crave,
and in turn bolster their feelings of security and relationship satisfaction.
Unfortunately, our research (Overall et al., 2014) also demonstrated
that the benefits of partner guilt for anxious individuals had a substan-
tial drawback. In both studies, the greater guilt felt by partners of highly
anxious individuals was associated with declines in partners’ satisfaction
across time. We think that this detrimental outcome occurs because the
guilt experienced by the partners of anxious individuals is “pulled” from
them rather than intrinsically generated, and any resulting pro-relationship
behavior is thus designed to minimize and prevent conflict rather than to
create intimacy and closeness. Indeed, even positive behaviors motivated by
these types of avoidance goals are associated with lower relationship sat-
isfaction (Impett et al., 2010). Feeling guilty also leads people to prioritize
making amends and reassuring insecure individuals instead of pursuing
their own personal needs (Baumeister et al., 1994). This shift in partners’
goal pursuit often involves partners’ suppressing negative emotions and
desires, which impedes closeness and satisfaction (Gross & John, 2003;
Lemay & Dudley, 2011), generates resentment and distress, and impairs
satisfaction (Clark, Graham, Williams, & Lemay, 2008; Jones & Kugler,
1993).
Implications and Future Research Directions

The results of our research demonstrate that understanding how attach-
ment anxiety influences relationship functioning involves identifying the
specific ways individuals regulate their partners’ emotions and behaviors in
desired ways, and thereby successfully forge feelings of closeness (at least
in the minds of anxious individuals). Rather than simply identifying “nega-
tive” reactions to threat and classifying them as destructive, it is necessary
to explore how anxious individuals’ threat regulation strategies pay off by
creating a sense of being loved and cared for. Anxious individuals may
garner evidence of their partners’ commitment and love when their part-
ners feel hurt, experience jealousy or engage in mate guarding, seek reas-
surance, or feel insecure in other ways, and thus they may purposely try
to elicit these states in their partners or be less discouraging of them when
they occur. As with guilt induction tactics, these regulation attempts may
bolster security but undermine the partner’s satisfaction.
Other partner regulation strategies that anxious individuals enact to
achieve closeness may yield a different distribution of benefits and costs.
Murray and colleagues (2009) found that people with low self-worth, who
underestimate the extent to which they are valued by their partners, try to
be invaluable in their relationships to increase their partners’ commitment
and dependence. Thus highly anxious individuals may try to emphasize the
rewards (e.g., being a good support provider) or novel experiences (e.g.,
great sex, fun activities) that they can offer to their partners. These regula-
tion strategies may produce benefits for partners, although some tactics may
be costly for anxious individuals (e.g., focusing too much on the partners’
sexual needs rather than their own). Other proximity-seeking strategies
may sustain both individuals’ own and their partners’ levels of satisfaction.
For example, anxious individuals display greater relationship-oriented dis-
closure during conversations with their partners, which enhances relation-
ship quality over time (Tan, Overall, & Taylor, 2012). Such relationship-
strengthening behaviors may help counteract the damage of the reactions
enacted by highly anxious individuals in threatening contexts that tend to
harm partner satisfaction.
Our analysis has important therapeutic implications. The relative
benefits of partner guilt highlight that attempting to alter what might be
considered dysfunctional behavior could have unexpected and potentially
damaging consequences if the underlying needs associated with that behav-
ior are not addressed. Trying to reduce the use of guilt induction strategies
may produce more constructive problem solving and bolster the satisfac-
tion of the partners, but it also removes a central route by which anx-
ious individuals can draw reassurance and security from their relationship.
Similarly, fostering potentially positive behavior in the partners, such as by
quelling the hyperactivating strategies of anxious individuals, could have
unintended consequences. For example, we found that partners of anxious

individuals who did not feel guilty maintained stable levels of satisfaction,
but that this undermined anxious individuals’ feelings of relationship-
specific security and satisfaction (Overall et al., 2014). Consequently, any
intervention aimed at altering the experience and use of guilt induction
strategies (or other potentially maladaptive regulation strategies) needs to
devise alternative, ultimately more constructive methods of gaining and
providing reassurance to ensure that concerns about the partners’ commit-
ment are not left unabated.
Attachment Anxiety and Regulation by the Partner

The security benefits of guilt induction strategies highlight an impor-
tant point: Attachment anxiety does not have blanket destructive effects.
Indeed, there is growing evidence that when partners clearly demonstrate
they are available and supportive, anxious individuals’ typically negative
expectations and evaluations are neutralized. When partners are more
supportive, for example, highly anxious people tend to be more optimistic
about their relationships (Campbell et al., 2005; Rholes, Simpson, Camp-
bell, & Grich, 2001). Satisfying sex also attenuates the lower marital sat-
isfaction typically associated with attachment anxiety, in part because sex
bolsters the perceived availability of the partner (Little, McNulty, & Rus-
sell, 2010). These reassuring partner behaviors may not simply be hap-
penstance; just as anxious individuals try to purposely pull reassurance
from their partners, their partners may also learn to approach anxious
individuals in ways that ease their insecurities and compensate for their
heightened reactions to threat. This involves partners’ regulating the inse-
curities and reactivity of anxiously attached individuals (see top right of
Table 6.1).
This central idea is laid out by Lemay and Dudley (2011) in their model
of interpersonal insecurity compensation. Lemay and Dudley (2011) have
proposed that partners learn quickly about the insecurities of their mates
because of the strong affective and behavioral reactivity to threat that is
displayed by highly anxious individuals. Experiencing the difficulties that
attachment anxiety can generate in relationships should lead partners to
become vigilant to signs of anxious individuals’ distress and insecurity, and
thus enact behaviors intended to avoid or alleviate their distress and inse-
curity. Lemay and Dudley (2011) have described this process as partners’
“walking on eggshells,” such as exaggerating their affection and conceal-
ing their negative feelings in order to prevent activating the insecurities of
highly anxious individuals and help them feel more secure. In three stud-
ies, Lemay and Dudley (2011) found evidence for this process across vari-
ous indices of interpersonal insecurity, including high attachment anxiety,
low self-esteem, and high proneness to hurt feelings. We focus here on the
analyses examining attachment anxiety.
In their first study, Lemay and Dudley (2011) asked friends and roman-
tic partners to privately rate each other’s attachment anxiety and senti-
ments toward each other. Consistent with their prediction that partners
can and do detect insecure individuals’ high anxiety, there was a significant
link between the partners’ perceptions of individuals’ attachment anxiety
and individuals’ reports of their own attachment anxiety. To test whether
perceiving individuals’ anxiety led partners to conceal their negative feel-
ings about those individuals, toward the end of the experimental session
participants were unexpectedly asked to report their feelings toward each
other again. This time, however, half of the participants were assigned to a
“public” condition in which they were told that they would see each other’s
responses. As expected, partners who believed their responses would be
public and perceived they were in relationships with highly anxious individ-
uals concealed their negative evaluations by providing more positive ratings
than they had first provided. In contrast, partners who perceived they were
in relationships with individuals low in anxiety exhibited very few differ-
ences between their private and public responses, illustrating that they did
not attempt to conceal negative feelings.
A follow-up diary study with romantic couples provided further sup-
port that partners detect and regulate anxious individuals’ insecurity dur-
ing their daily interactions (Lemay & Dudley, 2011, Study 3). Replicating
their first study, partners accurately detected when they were involved in
relationships with anxious individuals. This detection of anxiety in turn
predicted efforts to regulate the insecurity of highly anxious individuals.
Across their daily interactions, partners who detected individuals’ attach-
ment anxiety reported more vigilance about upsetting anxious individuals
and greater motivations to up-regulate their feelings of relationship security.
Self-reports of vigilance were also corroborated by partners demonstrating
greater accuracy in anxious individuals’ daily sentiments. In particular,
partners who reported greater vigilance about upsetting their mates were
more accurate at detecting and remembering anxious individuals’ feelings
about their relationships. Thus partners’ vigilance appeared to optimize
detection of anxious individuals’ feelings of insecurity.
Lemay and Dudley (2011) also found that individuals who perceived
their partners to be more anxious reported a series of behaviors intended
to regulate their partners’ feelings of security, including concealing nega-
tive sentiments about anxious partners, exaggerating affection and positive
sentiments, and providing unmitigated forms of caregiving that involved
attending to the needs of anxious individuals at the expense of their own
needs. These regulation strategies were also effective; highly anxious
individuals felt more secure in their partners’ care and regard when their
partners enacted these daily regulation behaviors. Combined, the results
reported by Lemay and Dudley (2011) provide strong evidence that (1)
partners try to avoid triggering anxious individuals’ insecurities by cau-
tiously camouflaging discontent and accentuating how positive they feel in
their relationships, and (2) these regulation strategies are effective at help-
ing insecure individuals feel more valued and regarded.
The novel results reported by Lemay and Dudley (2011) highlight that
the impact of attachment insecurity on relationships depends on whether
and how successfully partners regulate the insecurity of anxious individu-
als. Their findings also show that partners’ regulation efforts appear to be
intentional and calibrated to the assessed need for regulation. In particular,
partners attempted to conceal negative feelings and reassure anxious indi-
viduals when they detected feelings of insecurity and when they encoun-
tered situations that were likely to exacerbate those anxieties, such as expo-
sure to negative evaluations. Simpson and Overall (2014) also highlight
that partners may be most likely to enact regulation behaviors in stressful
contexts that activate the attachment system, and in turn the rejection sen-
sitivity and emotion-focused strategies arising from attachment anxiety.
For example, confronting the pronounced distress and guilt induction strat-
egies that highly anxious individuals exhibit during conflict should initiate
counterattempts by their partners to down-regulate these potentially dam-
aging emotions and behaviors.
A study by Tran and Simpson (2009) provides further support for the
role partners play in down-regulating insecurities in conflict situations.
Tran and Simpson (2009) video-recorded couples discussing areas of rela-
tionship conflict, gathered measures of emotional reactions during the dis-
cussion, and objectively coded the presence of accommodation behaviors.
Accommodation involves resisting hurtful impulses and instead trying to
resolve a problem in a calm, forgiving, and supportive manner (Rusbult,
Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991). Accommodation is good for
relationships, but it is hard to do; it requires self-control and high levels
of commitment (Arriaga & Rusbult, 1998; Finkel & Campbell, 2001).
Because of this, accommodation also conveys the qualities that highly
anxious individuals desire—love, commitment, and trustworthiness (Wie-
selquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999)—all of which should soothe
anxious reactivity.
As expected, Tran and Simpson (2009) found that highly anxious indi-
viduals felt less accepted, reported more negative emotions, and in turn
behaved in less accommodating ways during the discussion. The partners
of highly anxious individuals also tended to respond with greater negative
emotions and less accommodation. However, when partners were highly
committed, they were able to prevent the reactivity of their highly anxious
mates from infecting their own responses and displayed more accommo-
dation. Additional dyadic analyses reported by Tran and Simpson (2011)
indicated that partners’ accommodation helped to counteract the effects
of attachment anxiety. For example, when partners were highly commit-

ted, highly anxious individuals felt greater acceptance and behaved as pos-
itively as less anxious or more secure individuals. Moreover, across the
sample, greater accommodation repaired feelings of rejection and elicited
more positive emotions. This overall pattern indicates that partners who
are committed to their relationships and try to accommodate the destruc-
tive reactions of their anxious mates may help anxious individuals respond
more constructively during conflict.
The Benefits and Costs of Regulating Insecurities

By allaying rejection concerns and reducing threat-based reactions, the
regulation by partners of highly anxious individuals should have important
benefits. First, anxious individuals should feel more accepted and valued,
which may help them develop a stronger sense of trust and more secure
beliefs across the course of their relationships (Lemay & Dudley, 2011;
Tran & Simpson, 2011; Simpson & Overall, 2014). Second, through this
down-regulating of potentially damaging reactions within threatening
contexts, a couple should negotiate challenging dilemmas more effectively.
This should not only build greater commitment and satisfaction in both
partners, but protect the relationship from the toll that poor conflict man-
agement takes on relationships. In short, attachment insecurity does not
destine relationships to failure; partners’ security regulation can contain
the reactivity of highly anxious individuals and prevent such difficulties
from spreading through their relationships.
Regulating the insecurities of anxious individuals, however, may not
always be easy and may have unintentional detrimental effects if it is not
done skillfully. Lemay and Clark (2008a, 2008b) have found that insecure
people are more likely to perceive that their partners sometimes deliver
inauthentic and exaggerated expressions of regard, in part because of biases
related to insecurity and in part because people tend to detect their part-
ners’ deceptive communications. Instead of perceiving the partners’ regu-
lation efforts as a sign of care, detecting these efforts can problematically
fuel doubts about the authenticity of their expressions of regard. Doubting
the veracity of the partners’ expressions can in turn increase feelings of
rejection and diminish trust (Lemay & Clark, 2008a). One way partners’
positive evaluations may be perceived as more authentic is if partners also
show a willingness to express dissatisfaction about relatively trivial or non-
threatening domains, thereby revealing their honesty without the risk of
eliciting distress and feelings of rejection in insecure individuals (Lemay &
O’Leary, 2012). Thus regulation by the partners may need to strike a bal-
ance between positivity and credibility.
Partners of insecure individuals may also tire of having to continually
regulate the insecurity of their mates. Censoring complaints, exaggerating
affection, and accommodating hurt reactions take a great deal of effort,

and regulating anxious individuals’ reactivity may run the risk of damag-
ing the partners’ relationship evaluations. Lemay and Dudley (2011) pro-
vide mixed support for this possibility: Partners viewed their relationships
more negatively on days they reported engaging in more exaggerated affec-
tion, but they did not report more negative evaluations the following day.
We think this pattern indicates that insecurity regulation by partners can
produce dissatisfaction and resentment, but it can also yield benefits that
offset these costs, including having happier and more secure mates. Such
benefits may also be more acutely appreciated by committed partners who
are invested, prioritize relationship maintenance, and value the salubrious
effects of their regulation efforts. In fact, people whose self-concept is intri-
cately tied to their relationships report greater satisfaction when they sup-
press their emotions while sacrificing for their partners, whereas people
who do not strongly identify with their relationships report the reverse (Le
& Impett, 2013).

The way in which highly anxious individuals manage threat (regulation
of the partner) and the ways in which partners try to manage the insecure
reactions of these individuals (regulation by the partner) emphasize the
dyadic nature of attachment dynamics (see also Overall & Simpson, 2013).
The manifestation, impact, and stability of attachment anxiety depend on
whether and how well anxious individuals successfully evoke signs of com-
mitment from their partners, as well as how effectively partners behave
in ways that contain anxious fears and bolster felt security. Indeed, these
co-occurring processes probably work in unison (see top row of Table 6.1).
For example, the exaggerated expressions of hurt that anxious individuals
use to induce guilt probably constitute a key way in which their partners
learn about anxious individuals’ insecurity, which should in turn trigger
regulation efforts by the partners to soothe expressed hurt and insecurity.
Moreover, as partners acquire knowledge of anxious individuals’ insecuri-
ties and feel responsible for compensating for them, partners may be more
vigilant, preemptively try to avoid triggering insecurities, and become more
responsive to anxious individuals’ reassurance-seeking efforts. Thus what
we have considered regulation by partners is intricately linked to, and may
even arise from, anxious individuals’ regulation of partners.
The coordinated regulation of highly anxious individuals and their
partners also implies that regulation by partners does not simply occur
because highly anxious individuals happen to stumble into partners and
relationships that adequately regulate them. Instead, partners appear to be
trying to provide anxious individuals exactly what they want and need (e.g.,
reassurance of love and commitment) exactly when they need it (e.g., when
anxious individuals feel insecure, encounter threatening contexts, or try

to pull reassurance from their partners). Nonetheless, some partners may
be better able than others to respond to the needs of their anxious mates,
such as those who are secure, are strongly invested, have high self-control,
or believe that people can grow and change. Moreover, we have only just
begun to identify the regulation processes that are effective in bolstering
security. For example, partners may more effectively foster security if inse-
curity management behaviors are enacted only when they are truly needed
and are complemented by other, less reactive security-building behaviors,
such as facilitating anxious individuals’ personal achievements and thriv-
ing outside the relationship (Arriaga, Kumashiro, Finkel, VanderDrift, &
Luchies, 2014). Identifying the different ways partners can counteract the
insecurity of highly anxious individuals, and in turn foster security and
relationship stability over time, is an important goal for future research.
Finally, the ways in which anxious individuals’ regulation of their
partners intersects with the regulation by their partners imply a form of
collaboration in building more secure, happy, and well-functioning rela-
tionships. However, the research we have presented indicates that the sub-
sequent benefits and costs are distributed unevenly, in that these dyadic
regulation processes primarily help anxious individuals feel more secure
in their relationships, but they often breed dissatisfaction in their partners.
Future longitudinal research, however, may reveal other patterns. Anxious
people may, for instance, perceive the toll it takes on their partners and try
to balance or repair these costs. And if partners’ regulation efforts are suc-
cessful and anxious individuals do become more secure, this should both
modify how anxious individuals manage threat and allow partners to dis-
continue the more costly behaviors they need to enact in order to sustain
their relationships. In sum, the manner in which regulation cycles across a
dyad (and the consequences that ensue) are critical to understanding how
attachment anxiety shapes, and is shaped by, relationships. These dyadic
processes should be central to future investigations.
Attachment Avoidance and Regulation of the Partner

Dyadic regulation processes should also be central to understanding the
reactions and relationship consequences associated with attachment avoid-
ance. Highly avoidant individuals believe they cannot trust and depend on
others, so they defensively avoid closeness and strive to maintain indepen-
dence (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). To achieve these goals, highly avoidant
individuals simply ignore threatening relationship information (Dykas &
Cassidy, 2011; Simpson et al., 2011) and deactivate the attachment system
by disengaging from intimacy and support (e.g., Tan et al., 2012; Collins &
Feeney, 2000; Simpson et al., 1992). However, these preemptive strategies
are difficult to maintain during the interdependent context of relation-

ship exchanges, when avoidant individuals have to confront their partners’
needs, emotions, and desires. In these “interdependent” situations, such as
when their partners need support or are trying to influence them during
conflict, highly avoidant individuals exhibit greater anger, hostility, and
withdrawal (e.g., Rholes et al., 1999; Simpson, Rholes, Oriña, & Grich,
2002; Overall & Sibley, 2009; Simpson et al., 1996); these reactions create
emotional distance, reduce how much partners can encroach on and hurt
the highly avoidant individuals, and thus down-regulate negative affect and
reestablish a sense of personal control.
Importantly, applying our dyadic regulation perspective highlights
that the ways these distancing strategies influence or regulate their partners
is crucial to whether highly avoidant people achieve their goals. Defensive
distancing is enacted in the service of restoring the “security” that avoid-
ant individuals feel when they are safe from the vulnerability of being too
close to, dependent on, and susceptible to influence by others. This sense
of safety and independence is most effectively achieved by regulating their
partner in ways that encourage emotional distance and minimize their
partners’ influence, such as getting their partners to back off, cease seek-
ing support or change, or accept less intimacy. We can therefore consider
deactivating strategies to be dyadic, as they involve avoidant individuals
trying to regulate their own sense of autonomy and safety by affecting their
partner’s emotions and behaviors (see bottom left of Table 6.1).
Regulating the Partner by Reducing Power

There is solid evidence that highly avoidant individuals engage in distanc-
ing behaviors (e.g., Fraley & Shaver, 1998; Simpson et al., 1992; Simpson,
Winterheld, Rholes, & Oriña, 2007), but whether these halt the partner’s
influence has received little attention. In a recent study, Overall, Simpson,
and Struthers (2013) assessed the degree to which highly avoidant indi-
viduals enacted withdrawal and disengagement during video-recorded dis-
cussions in which relationship partners (couples) were trying to produce
desired changes in each other’s thoughts or behaviors. Independent coders
rated the degree to which individuals attempted to deactivate attachment
concerns and maintain independence by avoiding or dismissing the prob-
lem, disengaging from their partners, and/or withdrawing from the conver-
sation. To test whether these strategies were effective in thwarting the part-
ner’s influence, Overall et al. (2013) asked both members of each couple
to report how successful the partner was in producing the changes he or
she desired. Highly avoidant individuals displayed greater withdrawal and
disengagement when their partners were trying to influence them, which
reduced the degree to which partners generated desired change.
Disengagement and withdrawal display to the partner that avoidant
individuals cannot be influenced, do not need their partners’ love, and

are not wholly invested in their relationships. For these reasons, distanc-
ing strategies are likely to have far-reaching effects beyond undercutting
their partners’ influence in specific interactions. In particular, such tactics
should create wider asymmetries in power and dependence by parading
avoidant individuals’ lower levels of commitment. According to the prin-
ciple of least interest (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Waller & Hill, 1951), the
partner who is less committed, and thus less affected if a relationship ends,
has relatively greater power in the relationship. In contrast, the partner who
is more committed, and whose happiness and goals are more dependent on
the relationship, possesses less power. By conveying relative disparities in
commitment and diluting the partner’s influence, an avoidant individual’s
distancing may engineer larger power imbalances within the relationship—
making the partner feel less powerful, lowering his or her expectations, or
resigning the partner to what the avoidant mate wants.
Reducing their partners’ perception of power should be satisfying for
avoidant individuals because it minimizes the degree to which avoidant
individuals must adjust their autonomous desires and goals to coincide with
those of their partners. People who have (or perceive they have) less power
expend more effort in trying to understand their partners’ perspective
(Gordon & Chen, 2013), which often leads to greater accommodation of
negative and hurtful behavior (Arriaga & Rusbult, 1998). People higher in
dependence (or lower in power) may also be more willing to sacrifice their
own goals and desires, conform to the wishes of their partners, and avoid
causing friction in their relationships (Simpson, Farrell, Oriña, & Roth-
man, 2014). Thus, expecting that influence attempts will be futile, partners
may be forced to concede during conflict and also more generally succumb
to what they believe their avoidant mates want.
The Benefits and Costs of Power-Reducing Strategies

Strategies that minimize their partners’ power may appear ideal for highly
avoidant people to use, but they have important disadvantages. Inequities
in power are unlikely to remain stable because partners will try to redress
their lack of control in the relationship. Withdrawal from conflict is often
met with greater demanding behavior (Christensen & Heavey, 1990), and
feeling less power in relationship interactions tends to trigger anger and
hostility (Overall & Sibley, 2009). Even if partners learn that more direct
attempts to restore power exacerbate the distancing of avoidant individu-
als, they are unlikely to cease efforts to equalize power. Instead, partners
may engage more indirect strategies, such as trying to be valuable and
desirable partners. Feeling unable to control potential rejection should also
spark reassurance seeking, which conveys desired support and can make
avoidant individuals feel uncomfortable. Ultimately, therefore, avoidant
individuals’ attempts to protect their own autonomy by trying to attain

interpersonal power may exacerbate their partners’ dependence needs and
generate power-balancing strategies by their partners that will be very aver-
sive to highly avoidant individuals.
The difficulties produced by avoidant distancing may also undermine
their partners’ satisfaction. People who possess lower power are less happy
in their relationships (Sprecher, Schmeeckle, & Felmlee, 2006), and even
if partners manage to regain a sense of control, the lack of responsive-
ness communicated by avoidant tactics is likely to erode feelings of regard,
trust, commitment, and satisfaction (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). These
consequences might account for why greater avoidance is associated with
reductions in partners’ satisfaction (Tan et al., 2012) and higher rates of
relationship dissolution (Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994).
Finally, by reducing the satisfaction and commitment of their partners,
avoidant individuals are ironically eroding an important source of their
relative power—their partners’ dependence on them. Avoidant individuals’
potential power is derived from conveying less commitment than their part-
ners do. However, this also means that behaving in ways that reduce the
partners’ commitment could ultimately transfer some power from avoidant
individuals to their partners, leaving avoidant individuals in the predica-
ment of having to express ever-decreasing levels of commitment in order to
maintain power over partners who are always just one step behind. Such
a process, if left unfettered, should contribute to relationship decline and
dissolution.

Applying a dyadic regulation perspective to understanding the way avoid-
ant individuals manage relationships enhances our understanding of
how avoidance shapes relationships. First, this perspective outlines inter-
personal mechanisms that explain the development and maintenance of
avoidance strategies; these strategies should weaken a partner’s power and
sustain an individual’s own desired autonomy, and thus these tactics will
be reinforced across time. Second, distancing strategies may paradoxically
elicit insecurity and dependence-balancing reactions in a partner, which
heighten an avoidant individual’s need to create distance. Although these
partner responses have not been investigated, they are likely to create self-
perpetuating cycles that exacerbate the dependence-based challenges faced
by avoidant individuals and their partners in their relationships. Third,
these dynamics undoubtedly contribute to poorer relationship outcomes.
By undermining their partners’ satisfaction and commitment, distancing
strategies will reduce avoidant individuals’ power-regulating capabilities,
destabilize their relationships, and confirm their expectations that people
cannot be trusted to remain loving partners.
We have conceptualized avoidant distancing strategies as dyadic

because highly avoidant individuals need to modify their partners’ behav-
ior, desires, and influence in order to comfortably attain the autonomy and
distance they desire. Regulating the partner’s power may arise from pur-
poseful attempts to change the partner’s behavior and influence, or it may
simply by a by-product of the deactivation strategies that highly avoidant
individuals engage in to manage their own negative emotions. We suspect
that both are true, because the inevitable interdependence of relationship
interactions means that avoidant individuals must manage both their own
emotions and their partners’ emotions and behaviors, particularly if they
want to protect themselves from being susceptible to influence and hurt by
their partners. Nonetheless, even when avoidant individuals are trying to
alter their partners’ behavior and motivations, it is unlikely to be the con-
cept of “power” that these individuals are trying to manipulate; rather, they
are probably trying to alter the behaviors, emotions, and dyadic dynamics
arising from the power that intimates have over one another.
Many of these propositions require further testing, but they do high-
light a much-needed approach to investigating attachment dynamics in
relationships. In particular, future research should consider how the regula-
tion strategies associated with avoidance—often conceptualized as “inter-
nal”—involve dyadic processes. Highly avoidant individuals need to man-
age the desires, dependence, and influence of their partners, not just their
own reactions to threat and dependence. And the partners’ responses ulti-
mately shape the use, effectiveness, and consequences of distancing strate-
gies. Although we have focused on the detrimental outcomes for partners
on the “receiving end” of avoidant distancing, certain partners may be able
to respond in ways that curtail the destructive cycles we have hypothesized.
Indeed, because avoidant individuals defensively disengage and may lack
motivation to maintain relationships, their partners probably need to play
a significant role in regulating their reactivity in order to sustain their rela-
tionships. We turn to this topic next (see bottom right of Table 6.1).
Attachment Avoidance and Regulation by the Partner

Partners’ attempts to regulate the defenses of highly avoidant individuals
must be responsive to the underlying concerns and vulnerabilities that trig-
ger the avoidant individuals’ distance-based coping strategies (Overall &
Simpson, 2013; Simpson & Overall, 2014). Overall et al. (2013) identi-
fied two main ingredients of partner behavior that should down-regulate
avoidant individuals’ defenses: (1) behaviors that are sensitive to the auton-
omy needs of avoidant targets, and (2) behaviors that contradict the nega-
tive expectations avoidant individuals hold of their partners (cf. Bowlby,
1973). When avoidant individuals are targets of their partners’ influence,
for example, partners may be able to curtail the anger and withdrawal
that highly avoidant individuals typically display by “softening” their com-
munication through (1) reducing direct influence attempts that challenge
avoidant targets (by downplaying problem severity, acknowledging prog-
ress made, and validating targets’ point of view); and (2) offering clear
evidence that avoidant targets are valued (by reducing friction, inhibiting
negativity, and expressing positive regard). In the study described above,
Overall et al. (2013) measured these types of softening behaviors. Avoidant
targets whose partners displayed more softening communication exhibited
less anger and withdrawal, which in turn generated more success in resolv-
ing the relationship problems couples discussed.
These types of softening behaviors should be particularly effective at
alleviating avoidant defenses because they are less autonomy-threatening
and they contradict the hostile intentions that avoidant individuals often
anticipate from their partners. Other research also shows that behaviors
sidestepping the emotional dependence that highly avoidant individuals
find disconcerting help in down-regulating avoidant reactivity. Simpson et
al. (2007) assessed the degree to which individuals were visibly calmed by
different types of caregiving at moments during conflict discussions when
individuals were most visibly upset. Individuals low in avoidance (i.e.,
those who were more securely attached as assessed by the Adult Attach-
ment Interview) were rated as more calmed when their partners gave them
more emotional care, such as encouraging them to talk about their emo-
tions/experiences; by contrast, individuals high in avoidance were more
calmed when their partners delivered instrumental caregiving, such as giv-
ing specific advice and concrete solutions to problems (see also Mikulincer
& Florian, 1997). Although high levels of emotional caregiving may coun-
teract avoidant individuals’ negative expectations, the emotionally laden
and intimacy-inducing nature of this type of caregiving requires too much
vulnerability and intimacy for highly avoidant people to lower their self-
protective defenses. Thus partners of avoidant individuals need to convey
their trustworthiness and availability, while simultaneously being sensitive
to the avoidant individuals’ needs to maintain emotional independence and
autonomy.
Salvatore, Kuo, Steele, Simpson, and Collins (2011) also demon-
strated that recovery following couples’ conflict interactions is important
in minimizing the damage that insecure attachment can cause to relation-
ships. Salvatore et al. (2011) examined conflict recovery during a 4-minute
“cool-down” task that immediately followed adult couples’ discussions of
a major relationship problem. Better conflict recovery was evident when
partners focused on the positive aspects of their relationships and were
responsive to each other’s repair attempts. Attachment insecurity (primar-
ily avoidance) during infancy as assessed in the Strange Situation approxi-
mately 20 years earlier predicted poorer conflict recovery, and insecure
individuals whose partners could not “move beyond the conflict” were
less likely to be together 2 years later. In contrast, insecure participants
involved with partners who exhibited better conflict recovery were more
likely to be together 2 years later. As with softening and instrumental care-
giving behaviors, recovering from conflict should signal that their partners
can be trusted to let go of negativity, which should provide avoidant indi-
viduals with the room they need to restore comfortable levels of autonomy.
These critical ingredients are what may have helped couples maintain their
relationships.

The defensiveness of highly avoidant individuals is likely to escalate rela-
tionship problems and, in turn, increase dissatisfaction and instability in
most relationships over time. Thus finding a way around avoidant defenses
is crucial for partners involved with avoidant intimates if they want to
develop and maintain successful relationships. By bypassing reactance and
being responsive to the broader needs and goals associated with avoidance,
partner softening may help to build greater trust and commitment in avoid-
ant people (Simpson & Overall, 2014). However, as with regulating anx-
ious insecurities, softening avoidant defenses may incur costs for a partner.
Soft, loyal responses during conflict can downplay the need for change in
a relationship and be less effective in generating improvement in it across
time (Overall et al., 2009; Overall, Sibley, & Travaglia, 2010). The effort
and motivation required to deliver influence and support attempts in ways
that bypass avoidant reactivity may also generate resentment if desired
changes are not made or if avoidant individuals’ reactions do not improve.
In addition, softening involves inhibiting or suppressing negativity, which,
as described earlier, can be a source of dissatisfaction. On the other hand,
experiencing success in down-regulating avoidant defenses during impor-
tant interactions may be enough to maintain satisfaction in partners, par-
ticularly if avoidant intimates show positive change. Again, future longi-
tudinal research is needed to track the ways in which dyadic regulation
shapes the manifestation and consequences of attachment insecurity.
Some partners will be better at regulating avoidant defenses, and
skillful regulation may be particularly crucial with avoidant individuals.
Avoidant individuals’ deep-rooted distrust of others often causes them to
perceive their partners’ actions as intentionally controlling or undermin-
ing (Mikulincer, 1998; Rholes et al., 1999). Their goal to resist depen-
dence and maintain control may also make highly avoidant individuals
more vigilant to their partners’ regulation efforts. These concerns and this
“myopic focus” could result in highly avoidant individuals’ interpreting
their partners’ regulation attempts as manipulative, only exacerbating their
defenses. If their partners’ softening and other regulation efforts contradict
avoidant expectations, however, avoidant individuals’ focus on their part-

ners’ motives may enhance the effectiveness of their partners’ regulation
attempts (Overall et al., 2013). Identifying the characteristics of fluid and
persuasive partner regulation is an important aim for future research.
Finally, the regulation attempts of avoidant individuals and the reg-
ulation attempts of their partners target the same underlying needs and
concerns (see the bottom row of Table 6.1), most likely operate in unison,
and probably reciprocally influence each other. In particular, the ways in
which an avoidant individual tries to sustain power and control (regu-
lation of the partner) are balanced by the partner being sensitive to the
individual’s autonomy needs and contradicting the individual’s underly-
ing fears that trigger distancing (regulation by the partner). And effective
regulation by the partner probably develops across time as the partner
encounters avoidant reactions in threatening contexts and learns how to
bypass such defenses or soothe them when they arise. Some partners may
be less able to adjust to avoidant reactivity, such as those who are highly
anxious or experience acute rejection and felt dependence in response to
avoidant distancing tactics. In contrast, partners who are secure or highly
invested may develop successful regulation repertoires more quickly. More-
over, once partners learn to be sensitive to the autonomy needs of their
avoidant mates and repeatedly demonstrate that they are trustworthy, this
should provide the safety avoidant individuals need to commit and invest
in their relationships fully, reduce avoidant distancing, and in turn reduce
the need for their partners to regulate them. Thus, to reiterate a central
point, understanding how members of dyads regulate and influence one
another provides a clearer picture of how avoidance affects and is affected
by intimate relationships.
Themes and Conclusions

The aim of this chapter has been to illustrate how a dyadic regulation per-
spective enhances our understanding of the ways in which attachment inse-
curity shapes and is shaped by intimate relationships. We close by briefly
reiterating three important themes that illustrate the importance of a dyadic
regulation approach. First, the threat management strategies arising from
attachment anxiety and avoidance involve influencing or regulating part-
ners’ emotions and behavior, such as trying to induce guilt and obtain reas-
surance (anxiety) or reduce the partner’s power and restore independence
(avoidance). Importantly, the ways these strategies influence the partner,
and in turn fulfill the specific needs and motives of anxious and avoidant
individuals, highlight why these regulation strategies emerge and are sub-
sequently reinforced. The partner regulation strategies enacted by highly
anxious individuals elicit the reassurance they need to feel more secure
and satisfied in their relationships. Similarly, distancing strategies protect

highly avoidant individuals by minimizing their partners’ power to hurt or
influence them.
Second, regulation of the partner by an insecure individual operates
within a dyadic system involving regulation by the partner (see Table 6.1).
Most prior research has focused on how anxiety and avoidance can dam-
age relationships. Not only can insecure individuals’ own regulation strate-
gies produce reinforcing benefits, but their partners can also recognize and
regulate the concerns and defenses of highly anxious and avoidant people
in ways that match and satisfy their specific needs. As highly anxious indi-
viduals try to elicit reassurance from their partners, their partners vigi-
lantly try to avoid triggering anxious worries and soothe rejection-sensitive
reactions. Successful regulation by the partners circumvents the destructive
interaction cycles that can be produced by anxiety and can promote greater
security. Similarly, by minimizing the threat of dependence, partners who
soften their influence can reduce avoidant distancing, foster more effective
emotion regulation in highly avoidant people, and thus help sustain close
relationships.
Third, these dyadic regulation processes highlight that attachment
insecurity does not destine relationships to failure and dissatisfaction.
Instead, couples may often collaborate to manage, contain, and perhaps
even alter levels of attachment insecurity. Nonetheless, we do not think that
regulating insecurity is easy, and it may not be sustainable if the burden
of caring for insecure individuals outweighs the security-enhancing ben-
efits. We need to know more about the dyadic processes that reinforce and
perpetuate the regulation strategies enacted by insecure individuals, and
we need to identify the factors that optimize partners’ attempts to down-
regulate and buffer these responses. Indeed, understanding the benefits
and costs of the regulation strategies enacted by insecure individuals and
their partners is essential for a full understanding of attachment dynamics.
We hope this chapter motivates attachment researchers to consider dyadic
regulation processes more seriously in the future.
References
Arriaga, X. B., Kumashiro, M., Finkel, E. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Luchies, L. B.
(2014). Filling the void: Bolstering attachment security in committed relation-
ships. Social Psychological and Personal Science, 5(4), 398–406.
Arriaga, X. B., & Rusbult, C. E. (1998). Standing in my partner’s shoes: Partner
perspective taking and reactions to accommodative dilemmas. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 927–948.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interper-
sonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267.
Bouthillier, D., Julien, D., Dube, M., Belanger, I., & Hamelin, M. (2002). Predictive
validity of adult attachment measures in relation to emotion regulation behav-

iors in marital interactions. Journal of Adult Development, 9, 291–305.
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Basic Books.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of con-
flict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment:
Theory and research. Child Development, 65, 971–981.
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the
demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and
Clark, M. S., Graham, S. M., Williams, E., & Lemay, E. P. (2008). Understanding
relational focus of attention may help us understand relational phenomena. In
J. P. Forgas & J. Fitness (Eds.), Social relationships: Cognitive, affective, and
motivational processes (pp. 131–146). New York: Psychology Press.
Creasey, G. (2002). Associations between working models of attachment and con-
flict management behavior in romantic couples. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 49, 365–375.
Diamond, L. M., Hicks, A. M., & Otter-Henderson, K. (2006). Physiological
evidence for repressive coping among avoidantly attached adults. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 205–229.
Dykas, M. J., & Cassidy, J. (2011). Attachment and the processing of social infor-
mation across the life span: Theory and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 137,
19–46.
Finkel, E. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Self-control and accommodation in close
relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Airport separations: A naturalistic study of
adult attachment dynamics in separating couples. Journal of Personality and
Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2013). Does power help or hurt?: The moderating
role of self–other focus on power and perspective-taking in romantic relation-
ships. Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1097–1110.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation
processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of
Impett, E. A., Gordon, A. M., Kogan, A., Oveis, C., Gable, S. L., & Keltner, D.
(2010). Moving toward more perfect unions: Daily and long-term conse-
quences of approach and avoidance goals in romantic relationships. Journal
Jones, W. H., & Kugler, K. (1993). Interpersonal correlates of the guilt inventory.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 61, 246–258.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of inter-

dependence. New York: Wiley.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relation-
ship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 66, 502–512.
Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, W. S., & Gamble, W. (1993).
Attachment and emotion regulation during mother–teen problem solving: A
control theory analysis. Child Development, 64, 231–245.
Le, B. M., & Impett, E. A. (2013). When holding back helps: Suppressing negative
emotions during sacrifice feels authentic and is beneficial for highly interde-
pendent people. Psychological Science, 24, 1809–1815.
Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Clark, M. S. (2008a). “Walking on eggshells”: How expressing
relationship insecurities perpetuates them. Journal of Personality and Social
Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Clark, M. S. (2008b). “You’re just saying that”: Contingencies
of self-worth, suspicion, and authenticity in the interpersonal affirmation pro-
cess. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1376–1382.
Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Dudley, K. L. (2011). Caution: Fragile! Regulating the inter-
personal security of chronically insecure partners. Journal of Personality and
Lemay, E. P., Jr., & O’Leary, K. (2012). Alleviating interpersonal suspicions of low
self-esteem individuals: Negativity as honesty credentials. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 31, 251–288.
Lemay, E. P., Jr., Overall, N. C., & Clark, M. S. (2012). Experiences and inter-
personal consequences of hurt feelings and anger. Journal of Personality and
Little, K. C., McNulty, J. K., & Russell, M. (2010). Sex buffers intimates against
the negative implications of attachment insecurity. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 36, 484–498.
Mikulincer, M. (1998). Adult attachment style and individual differences in func-
tional versus dysfunctional experiences of anger. Journal of Personality and
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1997). Are emotional and instrumental supportive
interactions beneficial in times of stress?: The impact of attachment style.
Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 10, 109–127.
Murray, S. L., Aloni, M., Holmes, J. G., Derrick, J. L., Stinson, D. A., & Leder,
S. (2009). Fostering partner dependence as trust insurance: The implicit con-
tingencies of the exchange script in close relationships. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 96, 324–348.
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). Regu-
lating partners in intimate relationships: The costs and benefits of different
communication strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96,
620–639.
Overall, N. C., Girme, Y. U., Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Hammond, M. T. (2014). Attach-
ment anxiety and reactions to relationship threat: The benefits and costs of
inducing guilt in romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 106, 235–256.
Overall, N. C., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). Attachment and dependence regulation
within daily interactions with romantic partners. Personal Relationships, 16,
239–261.
Overall, N. C., Sibley, C. G., & Travaglia, L. K. (2010). Loyal but ignored: The
benefits and costs of constructive communication behavior. Personal Rela-
tionships, 17, 127–148.
Overall, N. C., & Simpson, J. A. (2013). Regulation processes in close relation-
ships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close
relationships (pp. 427–451). New York: Oxford University Press.
Overall, N. C., Simpson, J. A., & Struthers, H. (2013). Buffering attachment avoid-
ance: Softening emotional and behavioral defenses during conflict discus-
sions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 854–871.
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness
as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J.
Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–
225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Grich, J. (2001). Adult attachment
and the transition to parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 81, 421–435.
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Oriña, M. M. (1999). Attachment and anger in an
anxiety-provoking situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76, 940–957.
Roisman, G. I., Holland, A., Fortuna, K., Fraley, R. C., Clausell, E., & Clarke, A.
(2007). The Adult Attachment Interview and self-reports of attachment style:
An empirical rapprochement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92, 678–697.
Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991).
Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary
empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78.
Salvatore, J. E., Kuo, S. I., Steele, R. D., Simpson, J. A., & Collins, W. A. (2011).
tive. Psychological Science, 22, 376–383.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). Adult attachment strategies and the reg-
ulation of emotion. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation
(pp. 446–465). New York: Guilford Press.
Shaver, P. R., Schachner, D. A., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Attachment style, exces-
sive reassurance seeking, relationship processes, and depression. Personality
Simpson, J. A., Farrell, A., Oriña, M. M., & Rothman, A. J. (2015). Power and
social influence in relationships. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. A. Simpson,
& J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology:
Vol. 3. Interpersonal relations (pp. 393–420). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Simpson, J. A., Kim, J. S., Fillo, J., Ickes, W., Rholes, W. S., Oriña, M. M., et al.
(2011). Attachment and the management of empathic accuracy in relation-
ship-threatening situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37,
242–254.
Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2014). Partner buffering of attachment insecu-

rity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 54–59.
romantic relationships. In T. Devine & A. Plante (Eds.), Advances in experi-
mental social psychology (Vol. 45, pp. 279–328). New York: Elsevier.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support-seeking and sup-
port-giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of
attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434–
446.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Oriña, M. M., & Grich, J. (2002). Working models
of attachment, support giving, and support seeking in a stressful situation.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships:
An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
899–914.
Simpson, J. A., Winterheld, H. A., Rholes, S., & Oriña, M. (2007). Working mod-
els of attachment and reactions to different forms of caregiving from romantic
partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 466–477.
Sprecher, S., Schmeeckle, M., & Felmlee, D. (2006). The principle of least inter-
est: Inequality in emotional involvement in romantic relationships. Journal of
Family Issues, 27, 1255–1280.
Tan, R., Overall, N. C., & Taylor, J. K. (2012). Let’s talk about us: Attachment,
relationship-focused disclosure, and relationship quality. Personal Relation-
ships, 19, 521–534.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., Hill-Barlow, D., Marschall, D. E., & Gramzow, R.
(1996). Relation of shame and guilt to constructive versus destructive
responses to anger across the life-span. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 70, 797–809.
Tran, S., & Simpson, J. A. (2009). Pro-relationship maintenance behavior: The
joint roles of attachment and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social
Tran, S., & Simpson, J. A. (2011). Attachment, commitment and relationship
maintenance: When partners really matter. In L. Campbell, J. La Guardia, J.
Olson, & M. Zanna (Eds.), The Ontario Symposium: Vol. 10. The science of
the couple (pp. 95–117). New York: Psychology Press.
Vangelisti, A. L., Daly, J. A., & Rudnick, J. R. (1991). Making people feel guilty in
conversations: Techniques and correlates. Human Communication Research,
18, 3–39.
Waller, W. W., & Hill, R. (1951). The family: A dynamic interpretation. New
York: Dryden Press.
Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commit-
ment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of
7
On the Convergence of Sexual Urges
and Emotional Bonds
The Interplay of the Sexual and Attachment Systems
during Relationship Development
Gurit E. Birnbaum
S ex is typically perceived as an integral aspect of romantic love and

adult attachment relationships (e.g., Regan & Berscheid, 1999; Shaver,
Hazan, & Bradshaw, 1988). Sexual urges and emotional attachments,
however, are not necessarily interrelated. A person can feel emotionally
attached to someone without being sexually attracted to him or her, and
vice versa; sexual partners may have sex without being emotionally attached
to each other, such as in the case of one-night stands. Indeed, attachment
and sexual mating are distinct behavioral systems that evolved to serve dif-
ferent goals (maintaining proximity to a caregiver and gene reproduction,
respectively); as such, their behavioral manifestation may occur in isolation
(Bowlby, 1969/1982; Diamond, 2003). Still, sex does not generally occur
in a “relational vacuum,” and romantic partners are usually both attracted
to and attached to each other. Thus, when it comes to romantic relation-
ships, the attachment and sexual systems mutually influence one another
and operate jointly to affect relationship quality (Birnbaum, 2010; Hazan
& Zeifman, 1994).
The attachment system is the earliest-developing social behavioral
system in humans. As such, it shapes the regulatory functioning of the
later-developing sexual system (Bowlby, 1969/1982; Shaver et al., 1988).
170
Convergence of Sexual Urges and Emotional Bonds 171
Specifically, attachment processes may influence the way in which adoles-

cents and adults construe their sexual interactions (e.g., Birnbaum, 2010;
Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012). Nevertheless, the sexual behavioral system
may also influence attachment by serving as a powerful motivational
force across different stages of relationship development (Birnbaum, 2014;
Hazan & Zeifman, 1994). Sexual attraction is often what brings poten-
tial partners together initially, and it helps determine whether subsequent
interactions will occur. In later stages, as relationships progress from initial
encounters to serious dating, sex may foster emotional bonding between
sexual partners and strengthen their emerging relationship (Hazan & Zeif-
man, 1994, 1999). Yet, toward the end of a weakening relationship, sexual
desire—or, more specifically, the lack of it—may be what makes partners
grow apart.
In this chapter, I review research that points to a reciprocal relation
between the attachment and sexual systems. The chapter begins with an
overview of the literature on the contribution of attachment orientations to
the appraisal of sexual interactions. In doing so, I discuss the role of attach-
ment processes in linking sexuality with relationship quality and in shaping
sexual responses to relationship-threatening events. I then focus on the role
of sex as a promoter of emotional bonds, and review research indicating
that sexual desire may be a mechanism that keeps sexual partners attached
to each other. I also introduce a model of the functional significance of sex
at different stages of relationship development, and present initial findings
that support this model. I conclude by discussing the need for more research
exploring the dual role of sex as a relationship maintenance mechanism and
as a force motivating people to pursue alternative partners in a world of
changing societal trends.
Contribution of Attachment Processes to the Construal

of Sexual Interactions
According to Bowlby’s (1969/1982, 1973) attachment theory, the attach-
ment behavioral system evolved to increase the infant’s survival chances
and future reproductive success by maintaining proximity to supportive
figures. Over the course of development, the quality of repeated interac-
tions with these attachment figures gradually shapes chronic patterns of
relational cognitions and goals. Interactions with attachment figures who
are responsive to one’s bids for proximity facilitate optimal functioning of
the attachment system and promote a sense of attachment security. This
sense of felt security provides confidence that one is worthy of others’ love
and that significant others will be supportive when needed, thereby lead-
ing to the consolidation of interpersonal goals aimed at forming nurtur-
ing intimate relationships. Recurrent failure to attain the primary goal of
felt security results in the adoption of alternative regulatory strategies for

dealing with the ensuing insecurity: hyperactivation and deactivation of
the attachment system (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b). Hyperactivation
strategies, which characterize anxious attachment, are intended to moti-
vate attachment figures, who are perceived as insufficiently responsive, to
pay attention and provide relief from stress. Deactivation strategies, which
characterize avoidant attachment, are intended to maintain emotional dis-
tance and self-reliance in close relationships (Main, 1990; Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007b).
Early-developing attachment strategies are theorized to play a central
role in molding a person’s cognitive models of social life. These mental
models guide interpersonal interactions over the entire lifespan by shap-
ing relationship goals and affecting desired levels of intimacy and inde-
pendence with adult romantic partners. Accordingly, they may influence
the sexual system, which matures later in life (Shaver et al., 1988). Indeed,
empirical evidence has supported the view that these different interpersonal
goals and strategies explain variations in the functioning of the sexual sys-
tem in romantic relationships (see Birnbaum, 2010; Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007a). In particular, people who are secure with respect to attachment
tend to pursue committed intimate relationships and are thus likely to seek
fulfillment of their sexual needs within such relationships (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007a). In line with their intimacy goals, they engage in sex mainly
to promote emotional bonding (e.g., to express love for their partners;
Tracy, Shaver, Albino, & Cooper, 2003) and are less likely than less secure
individuals to engage in casual sex (e.g., Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Paul,
McManus, & Hayes, 2000; Stephan & Bachman, 1999).
Beyond encouraging the channeling of sexual desires into a committed
intimate relationship, smooth functioning of the attachment system pro-
motes a secure state of mind that facilitates relaxed engagement in sexual
activities. Securely attached people, as compared to their less secure coun-
terparts, are less likely to be preoccupied with attachment concerns and
with worries about their sexual performance, and are generally more com-
fortable with their sexuality (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a). Specifically,
they have more positive sexual self-schemas (Cyranowski & Andersen,
1998); they are less erotophobic (i.e., they experience fewer negative affec-
tive–evaluative responses to sexual cues); and they experience fewer nega-
tive emotions and more positive, passionate emotions during sexual activity
(e.g., Birnbaum, Reis, Mikulincer, Gillath, & Orpaz, 2006; Tracy et al.,
2003). This relaxed and confident approach to sexuality allows securely
attached people to respond to partners’ sexual preferences without com-
promising their own needs, and to enjoy affectionate and exploratory sex-
ual activities that foster mutual sexual satisfaction (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007a; Shaver et al., 1988). Overall, securely attached individuals’ sense of
sexual confidence, comfort with sexual intimacy, and enjoyment of sexual
interactions with their long-term partners contribute to maintaining satis-

fying romantic relationships (Birnbaum et al., 2006).
Chronic dysfunctions of the attachment system may distort the acti-
vation of the sexual system and interfere with sexual activities (Bowlby,
1969/1982). In other words, to the extent that a person feels chronically
insecure about being loved, whether this is manifested in relational worries
or in being uncomfortable with intimacy, it is unlikely that this person’s
sexual system will function optimally. Consistent with this contention,
research has shown that even though anxious and avoidant attachment are
associated with different approaches to sex, they both bias the functioning
of the sexual system (see reviews by Birnbaum, 2010; Stefanou & McCabe,
2012).
Anxiously attached people are preoccupied with rejection fears (Bar-
tholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b). These fears
may motivate them to use sex, which is a prominent route for seeking prox-
imity, to serve their unmet attachment needs for love and security (e.g.,
Davis, Shaver, & Vernon, 2004). The resulting subordination of sexual
activity to the attachment system may account for diverse sexual motives,
thoughts, and behaviors. For example, anxiously attached people tend
to engage in sex for attachment-related reasons (e.g., achieving intimacy,
approval, and reassurance; Birnbaum, Mikulincer, & Austerlitz, 2013;
Impett, Gordon, & Strachman, 2008; Schachner & Shaver, 2004) and to
be attracted to partners who seem willing to provide the sense of reassur-
ance that they crave (Birnbaum & Reis, 2012; Holmes & Johnson, 2009;
Wei, Mallinckrodt, Larson, & Zakalik, 2005). Along with this motivation,
they prefer the affectionate aspects of sex (e.g., holding, cuddling, kissing)
rather than sex per se (Hazan, Zeifman, & Middleton, 1994), and they fan-
tasize about giving and receiving affection during sexual activity. It is inter-
esting that their sexual fantasies also involve submission themes that may
serve the need for experiencing the power of their partners and eliciting
caregiving (Birnbaum, 2007b; Birnbaum, Mikulincer, & Gillath, 2011).
Ironically, anxiously attached individuals channel not only their rela-
tional expectations into the sexual realm, but also excessive relational
worries (Birnbaum et al., 2006). In particular, anxiously attached people
fear disappointing their partners and engage in sex to avoid abandonment
(Davis et al., 2004; Schachner & Shaver, 2004). Accordingly, they tend
to please their partners during sexual intercourse, to inhibit the expres-
sion of their own sexual needs (e.g., Davis et al., 2006), and to succumb
to unwanted sexual advances (Feeney, Peterson, Gallois, & Terry, 2000;
Gentzler & Kerns, 2004; Impett & Peplau, 2002).
The overall construal of highly anxiously attached people’s sexuality
is therefore quite ambivalent. On the one hand, the erotophilic tendencies
that lead them to channel relational goals into the sexual route (Bogaert &
Sadava, 2002) may intensify the pleasurable aspects of sex (Birnbaum et
al., 2006). On the other hand, attachment-related worries may lead simul-
taneously to aversive feelings during sexual intercourse (Birnbaum, 2007a).
Indeed, when describing their experiences of sexual intercourse, anxiously
attached people report relatively high levels of a “letting go” state of mind
and desire for emotional involvement, warmth, and attention from their
partners. At the same time, they also report negative emotions and doubts
about being loved (Birnbaum et al., 2006). Unsurprisingly, this pattern of
sexual experiences often fail to meet their unrealistic relationship expecta-
tions, resulting in frustrated attachment needs and sexual disappointment
(Birnbaum, 2007a; Birnbaum et al., 2006).
More avoidant individuals, in contrast, feel uncomfortable being close
to others (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b) and may thus be threatened by
the demand for personal disclosure implied by sexual interactions. These
intimacy fears may motivate them either to abstain from sexual activity
altogether (or at least delay its onset; Gentzler & Kerns, 2004; Kalichman
et al., 1993; Tracy et al., 2003) or to approach sex in various distancing
ways. Avoidant people typically downplay sexual motives associated with
the promotion of emotional closeness and instead pursue self-serving goals,
such as having sex to feel good about oneself (see Cooper et al., 2006;
Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a, for reviews). Consequently, they are less
likely than less avoidant people to be sexually interested in potential part-
ners who want to be close, and are more likely to be attracted to partners
with similar needs for independence (Birnbaum & Reis, 2012; Holmes &
Johnson, 2009).
Avoidant people are also more likely than less avoidant people to be
promiscuous and nonexclusive in intimate relationships. They hold more
permissive attitudes about casual sex and are more likely to engage in
uncommitted sex with different partners (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Fee-
ney, Noller, & Patty, 1993; Gentzler & Kerns, 2004). Consistent with this
pattern, they tend to respond favorably to mate-poaching attempts (i.e.,
attempts to lure them away from their current partners) in a short-term con-
text, but not when the poaching is for a long-term relationship (Schachner
& Shaver, 2002). As might be expected, avoidant people’s tendency to have
sex outside their relationships is explained by low levels of commitment to
their relationship partners (DeWall et al., 2011) and is reinforced by their
primary partners’ desire for intimacy (Beaulieu-Pelletier, Philippe, Lecours,
& Couture, 2011).
Avoidant people distance themselves from their partners not only by
engaging in extradyadic sex, but also by relying on the solitary sexual activ-
ity of masturbation (Bogaert & Sadava, 2002) and by having less frequent
sex with their partners (Brassard, Shaver, & Lussier, 2007). When avoid-
ant people do have sex with their partners, they display relatively low lev-
els of physical affection and experience difficulties in attending to their
partners’ needs. In addition, they experience relatively strong feelings of
estrangement and alienation (Birnbaum & Reis, 2006; Birnbaum et al.,

2006), which may impair their sexual functioning (e.g., Birnbaum, 2007a;
Cohen & Belsky, 2008). These aversive experiences migrate into their sex-
ual fantasy lives in the form of interpersonal distance and hostility themes,
which may serve the goal of self-reliance and control in close relationships
(Birnbaum, 2007b; Birnbaum, Mikulincer, et al., 2011). Viewed together,
avoidant individuals’ detached stance may impede the experience of gen-
uine intimate interactions, often resulting in sex lives that are devoid of
affectional bonding, even within the context of their ongoing romantic
relationships.
Gender Differences in the Sexual Manifestations of Attachment Insecurities

Attachment dynamics in the sexual arena may differ for men and women,
as they experience sexual activity somewhat differently (e.g., Birnbaum &
Laser-Brandt, 2002). These differences are congruent with both evolution-
ary models (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Ellis & Symons, 1990) and social
approaches (DeLamater, 1987; Gagnon & Simon, 1973) to gender differ-
ences in human sexuality. Both perspectives agree, though for different rea-
sons (evolutionary vs. cultural socialization processes), that women develop
a more emotional/interpersonal orientation toward sexuality than do men.
For example, women are more concerned with their romantic relationships
during sexual intercourse and tend to be more affectionate and nurtur-
ing. Men, by comparison, tend to adopt a more individualistic/recreational
orientation. For example, men are more likely to be active, to take the ini-
tiator role, and to focus on satisfying their partners during sexual activity
(Birnbaum & Laser-Brandt, 2002; Byers & Heinlein, 1989; Carroll, Volk,
& Hyde, 1985; O’Sullivan & Byers, 1992).
Given that men and women diverge in their approach to sex, it is hardly
surprising that they also express attachment insecurities differently in the
sexual domain. Specifically, both avoidant men and women tend to restrict
expressions of intimacy in sexual interactions (e.g., Birnbaum et al., 2006;
Cooper et al., 2006). However, the avoidant effect is more marked in men’s
sexuality than in women’s. For example, avoidant men, but not avoidant
women, are less likely to experience sexual fantasies that involve romantic
themes (Birnbaum, 2007b). Avoidant men are also more inclined to engage
in extrapair sex and to use sex for relationship-irrelevant reasons (e.g., cop-
ing with upset feelings) as compared to avoidant women (e.g., Birnbaum,
Hirschberger, & Goldenberg, 2011; Cooper et al. 2006). It is possible that
male sex-role norms, which emphasize the quest for sexual conquering and
restrict the expression of vulnerability, exacerbate the destructive effects of
avoidance on expressions of intimacy, whereas women’s habitual nurturing
tendencies mitigate these effects.
Gender differences in the sexual manifestations of attachment anxiety
are more salient. Among men, attachment anxiety is associated with rela-
tively restricted sexual expression. For example, anxiously attached men
are less likely than less anxiously attached men to have sex to bolster their
self-esteem or to cheat on their partners (Cooper et al., 2006), and they
have fewer sex partners overall (Gentzler & Kerns, 2004). At the same
time, they are particularly likely to exert pressure on their current partners
to have sex (Brassard et al., 2007). Among women, attachment anxiety
is associated with unrestricted and risky sexual behaviors. For example,
anxiously attached women are inclined to engage in extrapair sex (Bogaert
& Sadava, 2002; Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997), as well as in unprotected
and consensual unwanted sex (e.g., Feeney & Noller, 2004; Impett & Pep-
lau, 2002). Expectedly, they also report higher rates of unplanned preg-
nancy than less anxiously attached women do (Cooper, Shapiro, & Powers,
1998).
These findings suggest that the same relational worries that inhibit
initiating sex with new partners among men and lead them to invest more
in current relationships also lead men to use coercive sex as a means for
regaining proximity to partners who are perceived as unresponsive. Similar
relational worries appear to create difficulty in negotiating sexual encoun-
ters among women and lead them to secure alternatives to their current
partners, both in the real and in the virtual worlds. Indeed, a corresponding
pattern emerges in the content of sexual fantasies: More anxiously attached
women are more likely than less anxiously attached women to experience
fantasies that involve unrestricted sex and are less likely to fantasize about
their current partners. More anxiously attached men, by comparison, are
more likely than less anxiously attached men to experience sexual fanta-
sies that involve romantic themes and to express the desire to satisfy their
partners (Birnbaum, 2007b). The content of these fantasies seems to reflect
the typical defense mechanisms employed by anxiously attached men and
women, further supporting the notion that sexual expressions constitute
a route by which men and women uniquely cope with their attachment
insecurities.
The Contribution of Attachment and Sex to Relationship Well-Being

Both attachment anxiety and avoidance are positively associated with aver-
sive sexual experiences among men and women, regardless of whether or
not gender-specific construal of sex buffers the adverse effects of attach-
ment insecurities on sexual expressions. Nevertheless, attachment anxiety
and avoidance represent two extremes relevant to the potential effects of
sex on relationship well-being: Attachment anxiety may intensify the asso-
ciation between sexual experiences and the quality of relationship interac-
tions, whereas attachment avoidance may inhibit this association. In partic-
ular, anxiously attached individuals tend to conflate sex and intimacy, such
that their perception of relationship quality relies heavily on their sexual

experiences. Hence they are likely to equate gratifying sexual experiences
with a sense of being loved, and to perceive negative sexual experiences as
an indicator of their partners’ rejection or of overarching relational diffi-
culties. Conversely, avoidant people tend to isolate sexuality from psycho-
logical intimacy, and are thus prone to experience a sense of disconnection
between sexual activity and relationship quality. Within this conceptualiza-
tion is embedded the assertion that optimal functioning of the attachment
system—such as in the case of securely attached partners—involves inter-
mediate levels of interdependence between sexual and emotional aspects of
a relationship, rather than high or low levels of dependence between these
two aspects (Birnbaum, 2010, 2014; Birnbaum et al., 2006).
Several dyadic studies support this conceptualization. We (Birnbaum
et al., 2006), for example, had both members of heterosexual cohabit-
ing couples reported on their attachment orientations and provide daily
diary measures of relationship quality and sexual activity for 42 consecu-
tive days. In addition, each time they had sex, participants reported their
feelings and cognitions during that sexual episode (e.g., “During or after
sexual intercourse, I felt some frustration and disappointment,” “During
sexual intercourse, I felt passionately attracted to my partner”). The find-
ings showed that attachment anxiety amplified the effects of positive and
negative sexual experiences on relationship quality, implying that sex is
most beneficial, but also most detrimental, to the relationships of couples
with an anxiously attached partner. Attachment avoidance, in contrast,
inhibited both the detrimental relational effects of negative sexual interac-
tions and the positive relational effect of having sex. Hence couples with an
avoidant partner neither suffer the adverse effects of bad experiences nor
enjoy the beneficial effects of positive sexual experiences.
The latter conclusion is qualified by a more recent diary study of new-
lywed couples (Little, McNulty, & Russell, 2010). The surprising results of
this study revealed that under nonthreatening circumstances, frequent and
satisfying sex may benefit not only the relationships of anxiously attached
spouses, but those of avoidant spouses as well. In particular, engaging in
highly frequent and satisfying sexual activity may lead to positive expec-
tancies for partner availability, thereby attenuating the adverse relational
effects of attachment insecurities. Gratifying sex can therefore make both
anxiously and avoidantly attached partners feel more satisfied in their rela-
tionships, as long as it helps them perceive their partners as more available
and responsive.
The Coordination of Attachment and Sex during Relationship-Distressing Events

Of course, the sexual expressions of attachment dynamics and their rela-
tional outcomes may change in relationship-threatening circumstances
(e.g., insecurity regarding the love of one’s partner, possible mate poaching,
prospective separation). Such threatening conditions are likely to activate
attachment concerns that call for distress regulation (e.g., Davis, Shaver, &
Vernon, 2003; Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002; Simpson, Rholes, &
Phillips, 1996) and may therefore elicit attachment defensive strategies in
insecurely attached individuals (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b; Simp-
son & Rholes, 1994). Given that behaviors characteristic of the sexual sys-
tem may serve the goals of deactivation and hyperactivation strategies (e.g.,
maintaining distance by engaging in emotionless sex, and avoiding aban-
donment by deferring to partners’ sexual needs, respectively; Birnbaum,
2010; Davis et al., 2006), it is reasonable to expect that under relationship-
threatening conditions, the sexual manifestations of these defensive strate-
gies may be particularly pronounced.
This reasoning has received support from studies that examined
sexual responses to a variety of relationship-threatening conditions (e.g.,
hypothetical relationship threat scenarios, actual troubled interactions).
For example, in two series of experiments, participants imagined relation-
ship-threatening scenes (e.g., a partner’s considering breaking up, a part-
ner’s infidelity), non-relationship-threatening scenes (failure on an exam),
or nonthreatening scenarios (e.g., a partner going to a grocery store).
Following this procedure, participants rated or described their desire to
have sex, reasons for engaging in sex (Birnbaum, Weisberg, & Simpson,
2011), and what sexual activities they would like to engage in (i.e., their
sexual fantasies) (Birnbaum, Svitelman, Bar-Shalom, & Porat, 2008). The
results indicated that relationship threat generated mixed emotions in anx-
iously attached people. Specifically, it decreased their pursuit of sexual
pleasure (Birnbaum, Weisberg, et al., 2011) and increased their habitual
negative self-representations, such that highly anxious people represented
themselves as more alienated and hostile in their fantasies (Birnbaum et
al., 2008). This negative reaction, which may reflect the intensification of
anger toward the threatening partners and self-relevant thoughts typical of
relationship-threatening events (e.g., Campbell & Marshall, 2011; Miku-
lincer & Shaver, 2007b), was accompanied by a heightened desire to satisfy
others sexually (Birnbaum et al., 2008).
The findings of these studies suggest that anxiously attached people
have trouble enjoying sex when being flooded with the relationship worries
imposed by threat. Threats to their relationships exacerbate their habit-
ual insecurity, motivating them to respond to threats with relationship-
maintaining behaviors (e.g., using sex to please their partners) while deny-
ing their own sexual needs. The ensuing frustration may pose additional
obstacles to their erotic pleasure. Tragically, the ambivalent reaction that
relationship threat invokes in anxiously attached people may lead them to
display relationship-destructive behaviors (e.g., recurring bouts of uncon-
trollable anger, partner surveillance; Guerrero, 1998; Mikulincer & Shaver,
2005). Such behaviors may eventually sabotage their attempts to repair the
threatened relationship and lead them to realize their worst fear—relation-
ship loss (e.g., Campbell & Marshall, 2011; Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, &
Kashy, 2005; Simpson et al., 1996).
The studies on sexual reactions to threats also indicate that, as
expected, avoidant people use distancing strategies when being threatened.
Specifically, relationship threat lessened avoidant people’s desire to have
sex with their partners (Birnbaum, Weisberg, et al., 2011). In addition,
reminders of death—the final separation and possibly the ultimate threat—
increased the likelihood that avoidant people have sex for self-serving rea-
sons (e.g., affirming their self-worth) as well as the likelihood that avoidant
men engage in casual sex (Birnbaum, Hirschberger, et al., 2011). These
findings show that unlike anxiously attached people, who use sex to repair
threatened relationships, avoidant people react to threat by withdrawing
sexually from their partners and by using sex as a means to feel better about
themselves. That is, avoidant people attempt to protect themselves against
anticipated rejection by engaging in compensatory self-enhancement and
defensive distancing from their potentially rejecting partners.
A similar pattern was observed in a dyadic study conducted in a more
natural context (Birnbaum, Mikulincer, et al., 2011). In this study, mem-
bers of heterosexual cohabiting couples reported their attachment orienta-
tions and then provided daily diary measures of their relationship interac-
tions for 21 consecutive days. In addition, immediately after every occasion
in which they experienced a sexual fantasy during the 21-day study period,
participants described it in narrative form. The results revealed that nega-
tive couple interactions increased habitual attachment-related wishes and
self-representations. Specifically, distressful relationship events led anx-
iously attached people to shift from fantasizing about mutually nurturing
themes to fantasizing about submission themes that emphasize their needi-
ness (e.g., representations of the self as weak and helpless), which could
serve the goal of eliciting caregiving from a powerful partner (Birnbaum,
2007b; Davis et al., 2004). Avoidant people, in contrast, reacted to trou-
bled interactions with distancing themes and enhancement fantasies. They
expressed more avoidant wishes (escaping reality) and represented them-
selves as less weak and helpless.
Considered together, these findings demonstrate the involvement of
sexual mental imagery in handling attachment-related stressful events
and imply that such negative events amplify habitual defensive tenden-
cies. These events elicit compensatory self-enhancement (i.e., protective
responses in which the self is represented as sexually potent) among avoid-
ant people, and compensatory relational restoration strategies (i.e., pro-
tective responses designed to improve the relationship) among anxiously
attached people.
This conclusion is tempered, however, by results from a recent series of
studies indicating that subliminally activated attachment insecurity exerts

a uniformly avoidant effect on the content of sexual fantasies. In these
studies (Birnbaum, Simpson, Weisberg, Barnea, & Assulin-Simhon, 2012,
Studies 2 and 3), participants were subliminally exposed to either a security
or an insecurity picture prime (pictorial representations of either mater-
nal caring or maternal rejection), after which they described a sexual fan-
tasy narratively or completed a fantasy checklist. The results showed that,
regardless of dispositional attachment orientations, subliminally activated
attachment insecurity inhibited relationship-promoting themes and pro-
duced fantasies that involved interpersonal distance and hostility themes.
These presumably self-protective fantasy responses (i.e., distancing oneself
from the potential source of distress) resemble the typical thematic content
of avoidant people’s sexual fantasies (Birnbaum, 2007b; Birnbaum, Miku-
lincer, et al., 2011). The finding that this effect was independent of dispo-
sitional attachment orientations suggests the involvement of unconscious
processes in which rejection concerns automatically activate self-protection
goals while inhibiting relationship-promoting ones.
The discrepancies between the results of this research and those of
earlier studies are likely due to differences in methodology. For example,
the finding that activated attachment insecurity inhibited, rather than
prompted, relationship-promoting themes may be related to the type of
threat studied and to the goals that are more likely to be challenged by this
specific threat. A situation in which a partner considers to end the relation-
ship is likely to challenge interpersonal goals aimed at maintaining nurtur-
ing intimate relationships. As such, it may elicit reactions that focus on
fighting for the specific threatened relationship, at least among those who
are motivated by intimacy needs (e.g., Davis et al., 2003). Conversely, con-
sistent exposure to a rejecting mother image fits with the conceptualization
of an avoidant prime and should therefore produce general rejection con-
cerns. These general concerns are likely to challenge self-image goals (i.e.,
maintaining a positive self-image) and thus to activate avoidance motiva-
tion geared toward protecting the self from the pain of rejection (Andersen
& Chen, 2002; Bartz & Lydon, 2004).
The Contribution of the Partner’s Attachment Characteristics to Sexual Dynamics

Obviously, people are motivated by a variety of purely personal goals in the
sexual domain (e.g., enhancement, stress reduction, hedonism) under both
threatening and nonthreatening conditions, and often engage in sex that
involves a solitary act of pleasure. Nevertheless, given that sexual expe-
riences are generally integrated into some sort of relational context that
guides their construal, sexual responses should be determined not only by
each individual’s characteristics, but also by the partner’s characteristics. In
the case of relationship threat, for example, people may be less likely to turn
to their partners for sexual consolation if they realize that their partners
are not likely to respond positively to such advances. Corroborating this
view, a study examining the effects of relational conflict on sexual motiva-
tion showed that major conflict inhibited self-serving sexual motives (e.g.,
having sex to obtain relief from stress) among people with avoidant part-
ners (Birnbaum et al., 2013). These findings imply that people are unlikely
to use avoidant partners as a source of comfort while engaging in so-called
“make-up” sex, because they do not view them as responsive figures that
can alleviate their distress, either inside or outside the bedroom. Indeed,
avoidant people habitually distance themselves from emotional partners,
dismiss their signals of sexual and nonsexual needs, and provide them with
less support (Birnbaum et al., 2006; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b; Reis,
2007).
Other studies have demonstrated the value of adopting a dyadic per-
spective for understanding the manifestations of attachment dynamics in
everyday sexual experience. These studies show, for example, that partners
of anxiously attached people do not report greater levels of sexual dis-
satisfaction than partners of less anxiously attached people do, at least in
nonclinical samples (Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Impett & Peplau, 2002;
but see Brassard, Péloquin, Dupuy, Wright, & Shaver, 2012, for different
results in couples seeking marital therapy). This is probably because anx-
iously attached people tend to please their partners and defer to their sexual
needs (e.g., Davis et al., 2006). Still, partners of anxiously attached women
do experience relational distress following negative sexual interactions—a
finding that may reflect their negative reaction to the destructive behavior
that anxiously attached women exhibit after having experienced negative
feelings during sex (Birnbaum et al., 2006). In contrast, and as expected,
partners of avoidant people report greater levels of sexual dissatisfaction
than do partners of less avoidant people (e.g., Butzer & Campbell, 2008).
Furthermore, partners of avoidant men, compared to partners of less avoid-
ant men, show fewer reductions in relationship-damaging behaviors fol-
lowing sexual interactions, possibly because sex with an avoidant male
may contribute minimally to women’s intimacy goals in close relationships
(Birnbaum et al., 2006).
Taking into consideration the unique configuration of both partners’
attachment orientations extends these studies by unraveling the interac-
tive nature of couples’ sexuality. The predictive power of this approach
has been demonstrated in a study in which members of established couples
reported their attachment orientations and sexual experiences (Brassard
et al., 2007). This study revealed dyadic interaction patterns in which two
anxiously attached partners have a relatively high rate of sexual inter-
course. However, anxiously attached men have sex less often if their female
partners are less anxiously attached. This pattern suggests that anxiously
attached men’s intense efforts to have sex are well received by partners with
similar intimacy needs, but deter less anxiously attached partners, who
may perceive such excessive demands as irritating. Somewhat similarly,
anxiously attached women have sex less often if their male partners are
avoidantly attached, probably because anxiously attached women’s needs
for reassurance clash with their avoidant partners’ intimacy fears. Avoidant
men are also more likely to avoid sexual activities in their current relation-
ships, to experience sexual difficulties, and to have sex less often if their
female partners are avoidantly attached. It seems that fears of intimacy that
burden both partners in a couple may be particularly detrimental to their
sexuality, because neither of them is motivated to resolve their relationship
difficulties.
Contribution of Sex to Attachment Processes

The studies reviewed above illustrate how attachment processes may affect
the construal of sexual interactions in close relationships. Other studies
suggest that influences in the reverse direction, from sexual to attachment
processes, are also possible. There is no doubt that sex has the potential
to be an intensely meaningful experience—one that can be a powerful
motivational force during relationship development. Indeed, although the
sexual behavioral system evolved to facilitate reproduction (via pregnancy
or impregnation; Buss & Kenrick, 1998), impregnation is generally not
sufficient for the survival of human offspring, who have a long period of
development and vulnerability. Sexual partners therefore need to remain
together long enough to enable their offspring to survive the most vulner-
able period of infancy, to increase chances of future reproductive success
(Fisher, 1998; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994; Mellen, 1981). Accordingly, mech-
anisms that keep sexual partners attached to each other for an extended
period and motivate them to care jointly for their offspring should have
arisen in the course of human evolution (Birnbaum & Gillath, 2006; Birn-
baum & Reis, 2006).
Several characteristics of human sexuality insinuate that sexual needs
may act as such a mechanism because they encourage extended intimate
contact, which is likely to contribute to the formation and maintenance of
attachment bonds (e.g., Birnbaum, 2014; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994). For
example, humans tend to prefer the ventro-ventral sexual position, which
allows belly-to-belly contact and mutual gaze. Humans also tend to have
sex in private and to sleep together after intercourse (Ford & Beach, 1951).
These tendencies are likely to enhance intimacy and emotional bonding
between sexual partners. In addition, oxytocin and vasopressin, the neuro-
peptides involved in mediating the rewarding aspects of attachment (e.g.,
Carter et al., 2005; Young, Gobrogge, Liu, & Wang, 2011), are secreted
in humans during foreplay, during sexual intercourse, and in the moments
preceding orgasm (e.g., Carmichael et al., 1987; Carter, 1992; Filippi et al.,
2003; Murphy, Seckl, Burton, Checkley, & Lightman, 1987). Moreover,
in contrast to most mammalian species, humans have sex on every day of
the menstrual cycle; they may therefore experience an extended release of
oxytocin and vasopressin that further reinforces sexual bonding, which
over time promotes enduring attachment bonds between sexual partners
(Young & Wang, 2004).
Research assessing mental representations of the sexual aspect of
romantic relationships provides additional support for the theorized link
between sex and attachment. Specifically, studies exploring people’s
accounts of their motives for having sex show that some of the most fre-
quently endorsed reasons for having sex involve relationship-related motives,
such as the desire for emotional closeness and the desire to intensify the
relationship (e.g., Meston & Buss, 2007). Similarly, research examining the
functional meaning of sex has indicated that prevalent meanings attached
to sex reflect the beliefs that sexual activity promotes intimacy between
partners and enhances their emotional bond (e.g., Birnbaum, 2003; Birn-
baum & Gillath, 2006; Birnbaum & Reis, 2006). Subsequent research has
extended these studies by providing evidence for the hypothesized causal
pathway from activation of the sexual system to attachment formation
and maintenance (Gillath, Mikulincer, Birnbaum, & Shaver, 2008). In
this series of experiments, participants were subliminally exposed to erotic
stimuli (vs. neutral stimuli). The results revealed that subliminal exposure
to sexually arousing stimuli increased the willingness to self-disclose inti-
mate information to a potential new partner, as well as the willingness to
engage in relationship-promoting behaviors with existing partners. These
findings imply that sexual arousal leads people to employ strategies that
allow them to get closer to potential new partners or to strengthen relation-
ships with existing ones.
A Model of the Functional Significance of Sex within Romantic Relationships

Although research suggests that activation of the sexual system facili-
tates both relationship initiation and relationship maintenance strategies
(e.g., Gillath et al., 2008), as yet there is still no compelling theoretical
framework for understanding changes in the functional significance of sex
across major relationship phases. The underlying function of sex is likely
to change as the relationship develops, due to corresponding changes in the
emotional bonding process (e.g., the transformation from preattachment to
a full-blown attachment relationship, and then on to potential detachment
and dissolution; Birnbaum, 2014). A model depicting these changes may
thus include, but is not limited to, relationship initiation and maintenance.
Furthermore, to the extent that the meaning of sex varies in individuals
(e.g., Birnbaum, 2003, 2014) and across contexts (e.g., relationship threat;
Birnbaum et al., 2008; Birnbaum, Weisberg, et al., 2011), such a model

should clarify under which circumstances and for whom sex is most likely
to promote the bonding process and benefit the relationship.
The model presented here offers such an initial person × context inter-
active framework. In particular, the proposed model identifies six roles that
sex may play in attachment processes, which roughly correspond to major
relationship phases (see Figure 7.1). Initially, the desire for sex may moti-
vate a person to look for either short-term or long-term mating opportuni-
ties with potential sexual partners (Fisher, Aron, Mashek, Li, & Brown,
2002). Once a potential partner is identified, sexual responses to this new
acquaintance may serve as a diagnostic test of his or her suitability and
compatibility (Birnbaum & Reis, 2006), determining whether future inter-
actions will occur (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). Increased sexual desire for this
potential partner may signify suitability and therefore motivate the individ-
ual to pursue this desirable partner. In contrast, a lack of sexual desire may
signal relationship incompatibility and therefore motivate withdrawal from
Motivating the Gatekeeper Motivating

pursuit of a partner relationship initiation
Preattachment Initial Acquaintanceships Emerging Relationships
Relationship Reevaluating suitability Motivating pursuit of

maintenance of the current partner a more suitable partner
Full-Blown Attachment Relationships Detachment
Individual’s dispositions Contextual factors

and goals (e.g., relationship threats)
FIGURE 7.1. A model of the functional significance of sex at different relationship

phases: (1) motivating an individual’s pursuit of either short-term or long-term
mating opportunities with potential sexual partners; (2) serving as a means of
evaluating the suitability and compatibility of a newly met potential partner,
and as a gatekeeper ensuring that only suitable partners will be pursued; (3)
motivating relationship initiation with a suitable potential partner; (4) promot-
ing intimacy, trust, and commitment; (5) serving as a means of reevaluating the
suitability and compatibility of a current long-term partner; (6) motivating the
individual to solve relational problems or pursue an alternative, more suitable
partner.
future interactions with this person (Birnbaum & Reis, 2006, 2012). Once
a suitable partner is found, sexual desire for this partner may motivate the
individual to form a relationship that extends beyond a single sexual epi-
sode (Birnbaum & Gillath, 2006).
As a relationship progresses from initial encounters to casual dating to
steady dating, sex may serve as a binding force that fosters emotional bond-
ing between sexual partners and strengthens their emerging relationship. A
recent longitudinal study has supported this theorizing (Mizrahi, Birnbaum,
Hirschberger, Mikulincer, & Szepsenwol, 2015). In this study, members of
couples who had been dating for less than 4 months completed measures
of sexual desire, frequency of sexual intercourse, and relationship-specific
attachment avoidance and anxiety three times over an 8-month period. The
results indicated that relationship-specific attachment insecurities declined
over time, but only among participants who reported relatively high levels
of sexual desire and high frequency of sexual intercourse. These findings
suggest that sexual activity reduces attachment defenses in the early stages
of dating, thereby fostering the formation of genuine intimacy (see also
Rubin & Campbell, 2012).
In later phases of relationship development, sex may still help maintain
a relationship (e.g., Bell, Daly, & Gonzalez, 1987; Birnbaum et al., 2006),
but may become less important to its quality and stability than other aspects
of the relationship, such as the provision of mutual support, warmth, and
interdependence (Kotler, 1985; Reedy, Birren, & Schaie, 1981; Sternberg,
1986). Nevertheless, sex may turn out to be especially beneficial to the
relationship of most people in relationship-threatening situations, which
provoke anxiety and elicit proximity seeking. In these situations, people
may use sex to repair their threatened relationships (e.g., Birnbaum, 2014;
Birnbaum et al., 2008). Frequent sexual activity can also buffer against
the detrimental relational implications of potentially destructive personal-
ity traits of romantic partners (e.g., neuroticism; Russell & McNulty, 2011)
or deficits in nonsexual relational dimensions (e.g., poor communication;
Litzinger & Gordon, 2005). It is possible that the intimacy inherent in sex-
ual contact provides an alternative, compensatory route for satisfying the
otherwise unmet attachment needs for security and love.
Yet relationship restoration is not always feasible, such as in the case
of major and insoluble relational conflict. Hence sex may eventually tear
partners apart. For example, prolonged major conflict may lead to a decline
in the desire for sex with one’s partner (e.g., Birnbaum et al., 2013), which
in turn may contribute to reevaluation of his or her suitability. When loss of
sexual interest signals incompatibility with the partner’s relationship goals,
it may motivate the individual to seek resolution of these interpersonal
problems, either with the current partner or by looking for a more suitable
one (Birnbaum & Reis, 2006).
Concluding Comments and Directions for Future Work

Sex has the potential to motivate intensely meaningful experiences whose
nature and quality may vary in individuals, across contexts, and during
relationship development. Attachment processes may explain some of the
individual differences in sexual experiences. As indicated in this chapter,
early attachment experiences seem to shape what people want out of sexual
encounters, how they get their needs met, and what role(s) sex plays in
their close relationships. Still, little is known about how current attach-
ment experiences intersect with earlier experiences to affect the construal
of sex across different stages of relationship development. For example, the
effects of a partner’s attachment behavior (e.g., provision of responsiveness,
safe haven caregiving) on the desire to have sex with the partner may vary
across relationship phases. In the initial relationship stages, partners often
experience relatively strong and spontaneous sexual urges. At later relation-
ship stages, when couples are more likely to experience habituation, sexual
urges may reflect general interpersonal circumstances rather than a sponta-
neous event (Basson, 2000; Baumeister & Bratslavsky, 1999). In these later
stages, a partner’s attachment behavior may have the greatest potential to
affect sexual response (particularly that of an anxiously attached person),
as it is more likely to be influenced by the relational atmosphere (Birn-
baum, 2010). Future studies should address this possibility by examining
the interactive contribution of early and current attachment experiences to
sexual responses over the course of relationship development.
Another promising direction for future research is to identify the
mechanisms through which sex promotes emotional bonding. The model
presented in this chapter embodies three components that could modify the
functional significance of sexuality for relationship quality: person, con-
text, and time. A closer consideration of these components leads to the
conclusion that sex is more likely to affect attachment processes when the
attachment relationship is more vulnerable, such as in couples with part-
ners who have negative characteristics, during conflicts that endanger a
relationship, or in the early stages of emerging relationships. Although the
model indicates for whom, under which circumstances, and when sex is
more likely to influence the quality of a relationship, it does not include
the component that specifies the processes by which such effects occur in
each stage of relationship development. For example, positive sexual expe-
riences may be more likely to reduce attachment insecurities during the
uncertainty stage of dating than in later relationship stages, when certainty
about partners’ commitment intentions is relatively high.
The current line of theorizing suggests that just as optimal sexual
functioning can foster the development of attachment relationships, so can
disruptions in the sexual system’s functioning lead to corresponding dis-
ruptions of attachment processes. These possibilities raise questions about
how and why the sexual system develops either optimally or nonoptimally.
Individual differences in the functioning of any behavioral system were
theorized to result from a history of positive and negative outcomes of sys-
tem activation in various contexts across the lifespan (Bowlby, 1969/1982,
1973). Behavioral genetic studies have challenged this view by revealing
that, at least in the case of the attachment system, heritable factors may
account for some of these individual differences (e.g., Crawford et al., 2007;
see also Fraley & Roisman, Chapter 1, this volume). It is possible, of course,
that genetic factors interact with early life experiences (e.g., parental atti-
tudes toward sex, early sexual experiences) and current changes in the social
context (e.g., partners’ responses, social norms of sexuality) to shape the
functioning of the sexual system. Future studies should identify the ori-
gins of individual differences in the sexual system’s functioning, and should
clarify the extent to which these differences are heritable and the extent to
which they are produced by historical and contemporary contextual factors.
Future work should also more fully explore the dual role of sex: on
the one hand, as a potent relationship maintenance mechanism, and on the
other hand, as a force motivating people to pursue alternative sexual part-
ners. Several studies have delineated some of the conditions that encour-
age the pursuit of these seemingly conflicting goals. For example, a recent
study has indicated that women who are strongly attached to their part-
ners are more likely to desire sexual intimacy with the partners when they
themselves are fertile than when nonfertile, whereas women who are not
strongly attached to their long-term partners show the opposite pattern
(Eastwick & Finkel, 2012). Another study revealed that men’s investment
in their spouses is associated with lower testosterone levels (Gray, Kahlen-
berg, Barrett, Lipson, & Ellison, 2002). These findings suggest that activa-
tion of attachment processes can inhibit relationship-threatening tenden-
cies (i.e., extradyadic mating efforts near ovulation, extrapair desires that
are enhanced by higher testosterone levels).
Studies that pursue this line of investigation should take into account
the new challenges for traditional committed romantic relationships pre-
sented by the increase in social acceptability of alternative lifestyles (e.g.,
swinging, open relationships, polyamory; Conley, Ziegler, Moors, Matsick,
& Valentine, 2013) and the rise of Internet technology and social media
(e.g., greater availability of alternative partners, engaging in online sexual
activities without a partner). Clearly, these changing societal trends may
also create new opportunities for sexual expression in existing relation-
ships. For example, sexting and engaging in partnered online sexual activi-
ties may connect romantic partners across geographical distance, enabling
them to interact more intimately than at any time in the past. Future studies
should examine whether the new patterns of sexual communication pro-
mote the quality of previously challenged relationships, whether virtual
sexual expressions have similar beneficial effects on attachment processes
as actual ones, and whether the effects of sex on relationship development

vary in different relationship arrangements.
References
Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social–
cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young
adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social
Bartz, J. A., & Lydon, J. E. (2004). Close relationships and the working self-con-
cept: Implicit and explicit effects of priming attachment on agency and com-
munion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1389–1401.
Basson, R. (2000). The female sexual response: A different model. Journal of Sex
and Marital Therapy, 26, 51–65.
Baumeister, R. F., & Bratslavsky, E. (1999). Passion, intimacy, and time: Passionate
love as a function of change in intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 3, 49–67.
Beaulieu-Pelletier, G., Philippe, F., Lecours, S., & Couture, S. (2011). The role of
attachment avoidance in extradyadic sex. Attachment and Human Develop-
ment, 13, 293–313.
Bell, R. A., Daly, J. A., & Gonzalez, C. (1987). Affinity-maintenance in marriage
and its relationship to women’s marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 49, 445–454.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193–281). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Birnbaum, G. E. (2003). The meaning of heterosexual intercourse among women
with female orgasmic disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 61–71.
Birnbaum, G. E. (2007a). Attachment orientations, sexual functioning, and rela-
Birnbaum, G. E. (2007b). Beyond the borders of reality: Attachment orientations
and sexual fantasies. Personal Relationships, 14, 321–342.
Birnbaum, G. E. (2014). Sexy building blocks: The contribution of the sexual
system to attachment formation and maintenance. In M. Mikulincer & P.
R. Shaver (Eds.), Mechanisms of social connection: From brain to group
(pp. 315–332). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Birnbaum, G. E., & Gillath, O. (2006). Measuring subgoals of the sexual behav-
ioral system: What is sex good for? Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 23, 675–701.
Birnbaum, G. E., Hirschberger, G., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2011). Desire in the face
of death: Terror management, attachment, and sexual motivation. Personal
Birnbaum, G. E., & Laser-Brandt, D. (2002). Gender differences in the experi-

ence of heterosexual intercourse. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 11,
143–158.
Birnbaum, G. E., Mikulincer, M., & Austerlitz, M. (2013). A fiery conflict: Attach-
ment orientations and the effects of relational conflict on sexual motivation.
Birnbaum, G. E., Mikulincer, M., & Gillath, O. (2011). In and out of a daydream:
Attachment orientations, daily relationship quality, and sexual fantasies. Per-
Birnbaum, G. E., & Reis, H. T. (2006). Women’s sexual working models: An evolu-
tionary-attachment perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 328–342.
Birnbaum, G. E., & Reis, H. T. (2012). When does responsiveness pique sexual
interest?: Attachment and sexual desire in initial acquaintanceships. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 946–958.
Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A. (2006). When
sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientations, sexual experience, and rela-
tionship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 929–943.
Birnbaum, G. E., Simpson, J. A., Weisberg, Y. J., Barnea, E., & Assulin-Simhon,
Z. (2012). Is it my overactive imagination?: The effects of contextually acti-
vated attachment insecurity on sexual fantasies. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships, 29, 1131–1152.
Birnbaum, G. E., Svitelman, N., Bar-Shalom, A., & Porat, O. (2008). The thin line
between reality and imagination: Attachment orientations and the effects of
relationship threats on sexual fantasies. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34, 1185–1199.
Birnbaum, G. E., Weisberg, Y. J., & Simpson, J. A. (2011). Desire under attack:
Attachment orientations and the effects of relationship threat on sexual moti-
vations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 448–468.
Bogaert, A. F., & Sadava, S. (2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Per-
Basic Books.
Brassard, A., Péloquin, K., Dupuy, E., Wright, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). Romantic
attachment predicting sexual satisfaction in couples seeking marital therapy.
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 38, 245–262.
Brassard, A., Shaver, P. R., & Lussier, Y. (2007). Attachment, sexual experience,
and sexual pressure in romantic relationships: A dyadic approach. Personal
Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect
regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social
Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 982–1026). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary
perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.
Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and rela-
tionship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15,
141–154.
Byers, E. S., & Heinlein, L. (1989). Predicting initiations and refusals of sexual
activities in married and cohabiting heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex
Research, 26, 210–231.
Campbell, L., & Marshall, T. (2011). Anxious attachment and relationship pro-
cesses: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Personality, 79, 917–947.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J. G., & Kashy, D. (2005). Perceptions of
conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxi-
ety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510–531.
Carmichael, M. S., Humbert, R., Dixen, J., Palmisano, G., Greenleaf, W., & David-
son, J. M. (1987). Plasma oxytocin increases in the human sexual response.
Carroll, J. L., Volk, K. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1985). Differences between males and
females in motives for engaging in sexual intercourse. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 14, 131–139.
Carter, C. S. (1992). Oxytocin and sexual behavior. Neuroscience and Biobehav-
ioral Reviews, 16, 131–144.
Carter, C. S., Ahnert, L., Grossmann, K. E., Hrdy, S. B., Lamb, M. E., Porges, S.
W., et al. (Eds.). (2005). Attachment and bonding: A new synthesis. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cohen, D., & Belsky, J. (2008). Avoidant romantic attachment and female orgasm:
Testing an emotion-regulation hypothesis. Attachment and Human Develop-
ment, 10, 1–11.
Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2013). A
critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes
of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17,
124–141.
Cooper, M. L., Pioli, M., Levitt, A., Talley, A., Micheas, L., & Collins, N. L.
(2006). Attachment styles, sex motives, and sexual behavior: Evidence for
gender-specific expressions of attachment dynamics. In M. Mikulincer & G.
S. Goodman (Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, and
sex (pp. 243–274). New York: Guilford Press.
Cooper, M. L., Shapiro, C. M., & Powers, A. M. (1998). Motivations for sex and
risky sexual behavior among adolescents and young adults: A functional per-
spective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1528–1558.
Cyranowski, J. M., & Andersen, B. L. (1998). Schemas, sexuality, and romantic
attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1364–1379.
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical, emotional, and behav-
ioral reactions to breaking up. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
29, 871–884.
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2004). Attachment style and subjective
motivations for sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1076–
1090.
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., Widaman, K. F., Vernon, M. L., Follette, W. C., & Beitz,
K. (2006). “I can’t get no satisfaction”: Insecure attachment, inhibited sex-
ual communication, and sexual dissatisfaction. Personal Relationships, 13,
465–483.
DeLamater, J. D. (1987). Gender differences in sexual scenarios. In K. Kelley (Ed.),
Females, males, and sexuality (pp. 127–140). Albany: State University of New
York Press.
DeWall, C., Lambert, N., Slotter, E., Pond, R., Deckman, T., Finkel, E., et al.
(2011). So far away from one’s partner, yet so close to romantic alternatives:
Avoidant attachment, interest in alternatives, and infidelity. Journal of Per-
Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient?: A biobehavioral
model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review,
110, 173–192.
Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2012). The evolutionary armistice: Attachment
bonds moderate the function of ovulatory cycle adaptations. Personality and
Ellis, B. J., & Symons, D. (1990). Sexual differences in sexual fantasy: An evolu-
tionary psychological approach. Journal of Sex Research, 27, 527–555.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (2004). Attachment and sexuality in close relationships.
In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality
in close relationships (pp. 183–201). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Patty, J. (1993). Adolescents’ interactions with the oppo-
site sex: Influence of attachment style and gender. Journal of Adolescence, 16,
169–186.
Feeney, J. A., Peterson, C., Gallois, C., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Attachment style as
a predictor of sexual attitudes and behavior in late adolescence. Psychology
and Health, 14, 1105–1122.
Filippi, S., Vignozzi, L., Vannelli, G. B., Ledda, F., Forti, G., & Maggi, M. (2003).
Role of oxytocin in the ejaculatory process. Journal of Endocrinological
Investigation, 26, 82–86.
Fisher, H. E. (1998). Lust, attraction, and attachment in mammalian reproduction.
Human Nature, 9, 23–52.
Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2002). Defining the
brain systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 31, 413–419.
Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: Harper
& Row.
Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human
sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extra-
pair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior,
18, 69–88.
Gentzler, A. L., & Kerns, K. A. (2004). Associations between insecure attachment
and sexual experiences. Personal Relationships, 11, 249–265.
Gillath, O., Mikulincer, M., Birnbaum, G. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). When sex
primes love: Subliminal sexual priming motivates relational goal pursuit. Per-
Gray, P. B., Kahlenberg, S. M., Barrett, E. S., Lipson, S. F., & Ellison, P. T. (2002).
Marriage and fatherhood are associated with lower testosterone in males.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 193–201.
Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in the experience and expres-
sion of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5, 273–291.
Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bar-
tholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5.
Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 151–177). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1999). Pair bonds as attachments: Evaluating the evi-
dence. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
Hazan, C., Zeifman, D., & Middleton, K. (1994, July). Adult romantic attach-
ment, affection, and sex. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference
on Personal Relationships, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Holmes, B. M., & Johnson, K. R. (2009). Adult attachment and romantic part-
ner preference: A review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26,
33–52.
Impett, E. A., Gordon, A. M., & Strachman, A. (2008). Attachment and daily
sexual goals: A study of dating couples. Personal Relationships, 15, 375–
390.
Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2002). Why some women consent to unwanted
sex with a dating partner: Insights from attachment theory. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 26, 359–369.
Kalichman, S. C., Sarwer, D. B., Johnson, J. R., Ali, S. A., Early, J., & Tuten, J. T.
(1993). Sexually coercive behavior and love styles: A replication and exten-
sion. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 6, 93–106.
Kotler, T. (1985). Security and autonomy within marriage. Human Relations, 38,
299–321.
Little, K. C., McNulty, J. K., & Russell, V. M. (2010). Sex buffers intimates against
the negative implications of attachment insecurity. Personality and Social
Litzinger, S., & Gordon, K. C. (2005). Exploring relationships among communica-
tion, sexual satisfaction, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy, 31, 409–424.
Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent
studies, changing methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies.
Mellen, S. L. W. (1981). The evolution of love. Oxford, UK: Freeman.
Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 36, 477–507.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of the attachment
system in adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of men-
tal representations of attachment figures. Journal of Personality and Social
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close
relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reac-
tions to relational events. Personal Relationships, 12, 149–168.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007a). A behavioral systems perspective on the
psychodynamics of attachment and sexuality. In D. Diamond, S. J. Blatt, &

J. D. Lichtenberg (Eds.), Attachment and sexuality (pp. 51–78). New York:
Analytic Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007b). Attachment in adulthood: Structure,
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). Attachment theory expanded: A behav-
ioral systems approach to personality. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 467–492). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Mizrahi, M., Birnbaum, G. E., Hirschberger, G., Mikulincer, M., & Szepsenwol,
O. (2015). Reassuring sex: Can sex repair attachment insecurities? Manu-
script submitted for publication.
Murphy, M. R., Seckl, J. R., Burton, S., Checkley, S. A., & Lightman, S. L. (1987).
Changes in oxytocin and vasopressin secretion during sexual activity in men.
O’Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1992). College students’ incorporation of initiator
and restrictor roles in sexual dating interactions. Journal of Sex Research, 29,
435–446.
Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and
correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experi-
ences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88.
Reedy, M. N., Birren, J. E., & Schaie, K. W. (1981). Age and sex differences in
satisfying love relationships across the adult lifespan. Human Development,
24, 52–66.
Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1999). Lust: What we know about human sexual
desire. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reis, H. T. (2007). Steps toward the ripening of relationship science. Personal
Rubin, H., & Campbell, L. (2012). Day-to-day changes in intimacy predict height-
ened relationship passion, sexual occurrence, and sexual satisfaction: A dyadic
diary analysis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 224–231.
Russell, V. M., & McNulty, J. K. (2011). Frequent sex protects intimates from the
negative implications of neuroticism. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 2, 220–227.
Schachner, D. A., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Attachment style and human mate poach-
ing. New Review of Social Psychology, 1, 122–129.
Schachner, D. A., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment dimensions and motives for
sex. Personal Relationships, 11, 179–195.
Shaver, P. R., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment: The integra-
tion of three behavioral systems. In R. J. Sternberg & M. Barnes (Eds.), The
psychology of love (pp. 68–99). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
adulthood. In. K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal
relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 181–204). Lon-
don: Jessica Kingsley.
899–914.
Stefanou, C., & McCabe, M. P. (2012). Adult attachment and sexual functioning:
A review of past research. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 2499–2507.
Stephan, C. W., & Bachman, G. F. (1999). What’s sex got to do with it?: Attach-
ment, love schemas, and sexuality. Personal Relationships, 6, 111–123.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93,
119–135.
Tracy, J. L., Shaver, P. R., Albino, A. W., & Cooper, M. L. (2003). Attachment
styles and adolescent sexuality. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romance
and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 137–
Wei, M., Mallinckrodt, B., Larson, L. A., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Attachment,
depressive symptoms, and validation from self versus others. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 52, 368–377.
Young, K. A., Gobrogge K. L., Liu, Y., & Wang, Z. X. (2011). The neurobiology
of pair bonding: Insights from a socially monogamous rodent. Frontiers in
Neuroendocrinology, 32, 53–69.
Young, L. J., & Wang, Z. (2004). The neurobiology of pair-bonding. Nature Neu-
roscience, 7, 1048–1054.
8
An Attachment-Theoretical Perspective
on Optimal Dependence
in Close Relationships
Brooke C. Feeney
Meredith Van Vleet
Brittany K. Jakubiak
A ll individuals in close relationships encounter issues of dependence—

regardless of how conscious–unconscious, deliberate–accidental, or explicit–
implicit these occurrences are. Important questions regarding dependence in
relationships include these: (1) Is dependence good or bad for partners and
relationships? (2) Is there an optimal level of dependence that one should
strive for in close relationships, and if so, what influences the attainment
of optimal dependence? In this chapter, we address these questions from an
attachment-theoretical perspective, and we point to important avenues for
future research.
Is Dependence Good or Bad for Individuals and Relationships?

Attachment theory provides a core perspective on dependence on others,
because it emphasizes the importance of forming and maintaining close
emotional bonds with particular individuals across the lifespan. An impor-
tant aspect of attachment theory that we have emphasized in recent work
(Feeney, 2007) is that dependence on close others is a normative and impor-
tant part of human development throughout the lifespan, and that true
195
independence and self-sufficiency emerges only because of an individual’s

ability to depend on close relationship partners in times of need. Attach-
ment theory emphasizes the critical importance of relationships across the
lifespan—throughout infancy, adolescence, and adulthood—and asserts
that a healthy dependence on a reliably sensitive and responsive attachment
figure is important for optimal functioning and well-being “from the cradle
to the grave” (Bowlby, 1988, p. 62; see also Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973,
1980). According to this perspective, attachment behavior (e.g., reliance on
significant others) in certain circumstances should not be discouraged and
looked down upon, but instead should be accepted as an intrinsic part of
human nature and acknowledged for the important role it plays in promot-
ing optimal human functioning. Bowlby (1969/1982, 1988) emphasized the
important function of attachment figures in this regard: An attachment fig-
ure promotes healthy functioning by providing a safe haven to which a rela-
tionship partner can retreat for comfort, support, reassurance, assistance,
and protection, and by providing a secure base from which a relationship
partner can explore the world and strive to meet his or her full potential.
In the most healthy, stable partnerships, this can be viewed as a cycli-
cal process in which individuals move out from their attachment figures to
learn, explore, and discover when feeling secure and content, and in which
they move toward the attachment figures to derive comfort and security
when feeling threatened (Bowlby, 1988; Feeney, 2004; Feeney & Collins,
2004; Marvin, Cooper, Hoffman, & Powell, 2002). Bowlby stated that
“this concept of the secure personal base, from which a child, an adoles-
cent, or an adult goes out to explore and to which he returns from time
to time, is one [that is] crucial for an understanding of how an emotion-
ally stable person develops and functions all through his life” (1988, p. 60;
emphasis in original).
Evidence for this process has been shown particularly with regard to
parent–child relationships (Ainsworth, 1982; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters,
& Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1988). Children who are brought up in affectionate
homes and have attachment figures who are responsive to their needs (e.g.,
interpret the children’s signals correctly, respond promptly and appropri-
ately, and are cooperative and accepting in dealing with the children) are
confident and clear about whom to seek out in times of need. This type of
attachment figure is usually able, by his or her presence or ready accessibil-
ity, to create the conditions that enable a child to feel secure and to resume
exploration in a confident way (Bowlby, 1988). Thus children raised in this
type of environment typically make a series of excursions away from their
attachment figures, often returning to “check in” and engage in mutually
enjoyable contact before making the next excursion. When any type of
threat arises (e.g., when the children become frightened, tired, ill, injured,
or worried about separation), the children’s top priority is to regain the
presence of their attachment figures, and until that occurs, the children’s
Attachment and Optimal Dependence 197
explorations and organized excursions cease. In contrast, children who are

raised in homes where attachment figures are less sensitive and responsive
to their needs (e.g., fail to notice or misinterpret the children’s signals, and
respond tardily, inappropriately, or not at all; ignore or reject the children;
interfere with the children’s activities in an arbitrary way) are less confi-
dent about receiving care in times of need (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby,
1988). The conditions created by such unresponsive attachment figures dis-
allow dependence and restrict the children’s ability to explore the world in
a confident way.
Thus, according to attachment theory, independent exploration behav-
ior is facilitated by relationship partners who allow dependence and provide
a secure base from which this behavior can occur. Bowlby (1988) described
the concept of a secure base as one in which support providers create the
conditions that enable their relationship partners to confidently explore the
world. He described it as “a role similar to that of the officer commanding
a military base from which an expeditionary force sets out and to which it
can retreat, should it meet with a setback. Much of the time the role of the
base is a waiting one but it is none the less vital for that. For it is only when
the officer commanding the expeditionary force is confident his base is
secure that he dare press forward and take risks” (p. 11). The theory states
that as an individual grows older, his or her life continues to be organized
as a series of excursions away from a close relationship partner. However,
the excursions become steadily longer in time and space, and the thresh-
old for activation of attachment behavior is raised because adolescents and
adults have more complex representational models of themselves, the envi-
ronment, and the people who are important to them (Bowlby, 1969/1982,
1973, 1988).
Thus a major proposition of attachment theory relevant to having a
healthy dependence on others is that throughout adult life, the availabil-
ity of a responsive attachment figure is the source of a person’s feeling
secure, and only when a person feels secure will he or she be able to explore
most effectively, confidently, and autonomously. Important propositions of
attachment theory related to dependence can be summarized as follows:
First, individuals come into the world predisposed to form strong emo-
tional bonds with particular individuals who care for them (attachment fig-
ures). During childhood, bonds are typically with parents, who are looked
to for protection, comfort, and support; during adolescence and adulthood,
important bonds persist, but are supplemented by new ones (e.g., romantic
partners).
Second, these bonds exist and are important because they reduce the
risk of individuals’ experiencing harm. In times of adversity, individuals
seek proximity to known and trusted others, and they derive a sense of
protection, safety, and security from doing so.
Third, the way in which an attachment figure responds to the
individual’s need for close contact in times of adversity has an important

influence on the individual’s personal functioning. If an individual’s attach-
ment figure is known to be accessible, available, and responsive when called
upon, the individual should feel secure enough to explore and function
autonomously. An attachment figure who is accepting of and responsive
to dependence needs also serves a protective function with regard to any
number of threats that the individual may encounter. Thus the desire for
comfort and support during adversity should not be regarded as unhealthy
or childish, unlike what may be implied by the word dependence (Bowlby,
1988).
Hence an important prediction of attachment theory regarding depen-
dence is that an attachment figure’s acceptance of an individual’s depen-
dence needs creates less rather than more dependence. Because dependence
on close relationship partners, particularly in times of need, is an intrinsic
part of human nature, relationship partners who are sensitive and respon-
sive to this behavior actually promote independence and self-sufficiency
rather than inhibit it. According to the theory, individuals who are unac-
cepting of dependence typically foster an unhealthy and anxious depen-
dence in their relationship partners.
Research in the developmental literature has supported this prediction.
For example, by the end of the first year, mothers who attend promptly to
their crying babies have babies who cry much less than the babies of moth-
ers who let them cry (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Belsky, Rovine, & Taylor,
1984; Bowlby, 1988). Thus mothers’ sensitivity to distress cues in their chil-
dren foster less fussiness or neediness in their children. Moreover, research-
ers examining autonomy and attachment in adolescence have found that
adolescent autonomy is most easily established not at the expense of attach-
ment relationships with parents, but against a backdrop of secure relation-
ships with them (Allen & Land, 1999; Moore, 1987; Noom, Dekovic, &
Meeus, 1999).
The postulate that an individual’s responsiveness to his or her partner’s
dependence needs facilitates that partner’s independent functioning has
been supported in adult relationships as well (Feeney, 2007). Two samples
of couples involved in established romantic relationships were used to test
the idea that a close relationship partner’s acceptance of dependence when
needed (e.g., sensitive responsiveness to distress cues) is associated with
less dependence, more autonomous functioning, and more self-sufficiency
on the part of the supported individual. In Study 1, measures of accep-
tance of dependence needs and independent functioning were obtained
through couple members’ reports of general behaviors, through observing
couple members’ behaviors during a laboratory interaction, and through
observing responses to experimentally manipulated partner assistance pro-
vided during a laboratory task. The results supported the predicted links
between acceptance of dependence and independent functioning. First, one
partner’s reports of his or her acceptance of dependence were associated

with reports of the other’s independent functioning (as operationalized by
the other’s perceived independence and self-efficacy, engagement in inde-
pendent exploration, and perceived ability to achieve independent goals).
Second, the link between acceptance of dependence and independent func-
tioning was observable in couple members’ discussions of personal goals
for the future. Third, one partner’s acceptance of dependence (as reported
and observed) predicted the other partner’s autonomous functioning and
self-sufficiency during a subsequent challenging task.
Study 2 replicated these results and extended them by providing a more
rigorous, longitudinal test of the hypothesis that acceptance of a partner’s
dependence needs at one point in time predicts changes in that person’s
independent functioning 6 months later. The results of this study indicated
that (1) partners’ acceptance of dependence (as reported by both couple
members and as observed) at Time 1 predicted increases in the recipients’
independent functioning 6 months later at Time 2 (after controls for recipi-
ents’ independent functioning at Time 1); and (2) partners’ acceptance of
dependence at Time 1 predicted the accomplishment of the specific goal 6
months later. In addition, the results did not support the reverse hypothesis
that recipients’ independent functioning at Time 1 would predict increases
in the partners’ acceptance of dependence at Time 2.
Attachment theory postulates that the hypothesized link between
dependence acceptance and independent functioning should normatively
apply to all individuals. Thus, all individuals should benefit from relation-
ship partners who show acceptance of their dependence needs by being
sensitive and responsive to distress cues, because this is precisely the type of
behavior that fosters attachment security. Although individual-difference
variables are likely to influence partners’ acceptance of dependence needs
and recipients’ expectations of having their needs met (e.g., Feeney & Col-
lins, 2001; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992), even insecure individuals,
who report a low need for achievement and a high fear of failure (Elliot &
Reis, 2003), are likely to fear failure less and function more autonomously
with the support of relationship partners who provide a secure base by
being appropriately accepting of (and sensitive/responsive to) their depen-
dence needs.
Taken together, this research on dependence from an attachment the-
ory perspective has a number of important implications. First, although it is
paradoxical that the acceptance of dependence needs may promote autono-
mous functioning, this idea is consistent with other theorizing regarding the
power of positive dependence in relationships (also referred to as mature
dependence and healthy dependence), which incorporates the human need
for connection with others as a component of healthy functioning (Born-
stein, 2005; Bornstein & Languirand, 2003; Solomon, 1994). Consistent
with attachment-theoretical propositions, these other theories also refute
the widely held societal belief that dependence on others in adulthood is

childish and unhealthy (see Bornstein & Languirand, 2003; Sutton, 2001;
and Fine & Glendinning, 2005, for societal messages that argue against
dependence as a fundamental component of the human condition; see Ras-
mussen, 2005, for views on the dependent prototype). Although too much
dependence in relationships can be unhealthy, the research thus far sug-
gests that too little dependence in relationships may be equally unhealthy
and disadvantageous. It also suggests that one way to assist a relationship
partner in reaching his or her full potential is to demonstrate availability
and accessibility when the individual feels threatened or needs comfort and
support.
A second implication of this work involves the emphasis on normative
aspects of attachment theory. The existing research supports attachment
theory’s assertion that attachment dynamics are important and influen-
tial throughout life for all individuals. Since Bowlby’s initial theoretical
contribution, very little empirical work or theoretical elaboration has been
advanced regarding the normative interworkings of the attachment, explo-
ration, and caregiving systems in adulthood, because most research has
focused on identifying individual differences in personal and relationship
functioning. As emphasized by Simpson and Rholes (2010), a stronger
focus on normative aspects of attachment theory (e.g., optimal dependence
in relationships) will be important in future research on adult attachment.
Third, attachment theory’s perspective on dependence also speaks to
the importance of incorporating the function of intimate relationships into
existing theories of human agency, such as self-determination theory (Ryan
& Deci, 2000a, 2004), resource control theory (Hawley, 1999), and action
control theory (Little, 1998; Little, Hawley, Heinrich, & Marsland, 2002).
Self-determination theory highlights the importance of social-contextual
conditions that facilitate or undermine self-motivational processes, and,
consistent with attachment theory, it discusses both autonomy and relat-
edness as innate psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci,
2000a, 2000b). A detailed account of the function of intimate relation-
ships in fostering intrinsic motivation and human agency is important for
elaborating and extending attachment theory (see also Feeney & Collins,
2014).
Also important for future work will be to establish why depending
on others is so helpful by identifying the mechanisms underlying this pro-
cess. Why are individuals with close relationship partners who accept their
dependence needs more self-efficacious and less needy than those with
relationship partners who are less accepting of their dependence needs?
Wouldn’t complete self-reliance lead to the best outcomes for everyone,
because it gives one more control over one’s own experiences and requires
nothing from others? Why should accepting dependence foster indepen-
dence instead of dependence? And why shouldn’t discouraging dependence
foster the most successful independent functioning? It will be important to

establish that individuals function best when they have attachment figures
who accept dependence needs because such acceptance (and felt security)
gives them the confidence and courage needed to make independent excur-
sions away from their home base in order to grow and accomplish impor-
tant goals. It is much easier for people to take risks, accept challenges, and
try new things when they know that someone is available to comfort and
assist them if things go wrong. An individual who feels confident in the
availability and accessibility of his or her secure base does not have to cling
to that base to the same extent as someone who lacks such confidence.
Bowlby stated that “to remain within easy access of a familiar individual
known to be willing and able to come to our aid in an emergency is clearly
a good insurance policy— whatever our age” (1988, p. 27). Individuals
who lack such an insurance policy should be less likely to take risks and
forge new territory than those who are assured of their significant others’
availability and accessibility. We have likened this process to driving a car
without an insurance policy (Feeney, 2007): Just as an individual without
a car insurance policy may be reluctant to drive long distances or take
unnecessary risks because there will be a heavy price to pay if something
goes wrong, so too might an individual be reluctant to take many (or any)
independent excursions away from a relationship partner who does not
provide good “coverage” in the case of an emergency. In this sense, the
ready availability and accessibility of a relationship partner is necessary for
a person to be an optimally functioning individual.
But how much dependence is ideal? Is there a critical level or range of
dependence that one must maintain for optimal functioning? And if so,
how does one attain this optimal level of dependence? We address these
issues next and point to the need for research focused on identifying opti-
mal levels of dependence in close relationships.
Is There an Optimal Level of Dependence? If So, What Influences

Its Attainment?
After establishing that acceptance of dependence by close relationship
partners (and being dependent on such partners) is part of the process of
becoming an optimally functioning individual, we need to ask: How much
dependence is healthy? This is an area that is lacking in empirical work;
however, this question can be addressed by extending attachment-theoret-
ical postulates and considering research on individual differences in care-
giving experiences that predict individual and relationship outcomes.
Research and theory regarding the dependency paradox (that accept-
ing dependence promotes independence instead of more dependence; see
Feeney, 2007) view dependence as adaptive when it occurs because there
is a need for it. We view dependence that occurs in the absence of need
as overdependence, and a complete lack of dependence on others (even
in times of need) as underdependence, which has also been referred to
as compulsive self-reliance or defensive self-reliance (Feeney & Collins,
2014). Theoretically, both overdependence and underdependence result
from having attachment figures (or close relationship partners) who are
not accepting of dependence or who do not consistently provide sensitive/
responsive support when needed.
A recent theoretical paper (Feeney & Collins, 2014) describes unre-
sponsive and insensitive support behaviors as undermining thriving because
they promote either overdependence or underdependence. Overdependence
(an overreliance on a significant other to do what can be done by oneself)
represents a means of clinging to a person whose availability and accep-
tance are perceived to be uncertain (e.g., inconsistently responsive support
providers) or who provides support when it is not needed (e.g., compulsively
overinvolved support providers). Underdependence (defensive self-reliance
and lack of dependence on others) represents a means of coping with a sup-
port environment or relationship history in which significant others have
been consistently unresponsive, insensitive to, or unaccepting of depen-
dence needs (e.g., neglectful/disengaged or negative/demeaning support
providers). Optimal dependence (a normative and healthy dependence on
others that occurs in response to genuine need), optimal independence (a
healthy autonomy to pursue opportunities for growth), and optimal inter-
dependence (a relationship in which each member is mutually dependent on
the other) is made possible when relationship partners provide sensitive and
responsive support for both attachment needs and autonomous exploration
(see Feeney & Collins, 2014).
Overdependence, underdependence, and optimal dependence may be
based in one’s relationship history and carried forward into new relation-
ships where the strategy is no longer adaptive, or they may arise from new
experiences in one’s current relationship. We now discuss various types of
support experiences that are likely to underlie each type of dependence. In
doing so, we emphasize the need, with regard to attaining optimal levels
of dependence in relationships, for partners to balance sensitive/responsive
support for attachment needs (safehaven support) and sensitive/responsive
support for autonomous exploration (secure base support). These support
experiences are presumed to have the greatest impact when enacted by
attachment figures with whom one has a strong emotional bond.
Behavior That Underlies Optimal Dependence:

Sensitive and Responsive Support
From an attachment-theoretical perspective, support provision that pro-
motes optimal dependence involves the sensitive and responsive provision
of support for both attachment needs (a safe haven) and autonomous explo-
ration behavior (a secure base). A balance of these two support functions
is needed to promote healthy levels of dependence, which should underlie
healthy and optimal human functioning. Figure 8.1 depicts a model of out-
comes related to the receipt of responsive safe haven and secure base sup-
port (elaborated below) that should underlie optimal levels of dependence.
Responsive Safe Haven

Attachment theory stipulates that all individuals come into the world
equipped with an attachment behavioral system, which is prone to activa-
tion when an individual is distressed. The goal of this system is to maintain
a feeling of security, and one way individuals attain this sense of security is
via attachment behaviors that bring close relationship partners into prox-
imity and elicit support (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973, 1980, 1988). In sup-
port of this postulate, observational and daily diary studies have shown
that support-seeking behavior increases in response to stressful or threat-
ening events (Collins & Feeney, 2000, 2005; Collins, Kane, Guichard, &
Ford, 2008). A support provider’s response to this attachment behavior
should determine the nature of a recipient’s dependence on the relation-
ship. Ideally, attachment behavior should motivate the support provider to
provide sensitive and responsive safe haven support. This is consistent with
attachment theory’s notion of a caregiving system that, like the attach-
ment system, functions to maintain felt security, but that becomes activated
when a significant other is distressed and functions to maintain the security
of a close relationship partner (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1988). Thus, in a close,
well-functioning partnership, support-seeking (attachment) and support-
giving (caregiving) behaviors have the same goal, which is to restore the
felt security of the distressed individual. In its optimal form, sensitive and
responsive safe haven support provision should include a broad array of
behaviors aimed at comforting and problem resolution that are flexibly
enacted to meet the specific needs of the support receiver (Bowlby, 1988;
Kunce & Shaver, 1994).
Safe haven behaviors that are sensitive and responsive to the support
receiver’s needs should be perceived as supportive by the recipient and
should result in both immediate and long-term outcomes that promote
optimal levels of dependence in relationships (Figure 8.1). Prior research
has shown that supportive acts are most likely to be perceived as supportive
when they are viewed as voluntary behaviors intended solely to benefit the
person in need of support (Cutrona, Cohen, & Igram, 1990; Dunkel-Schet-
ter, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1987; Fincham & Bradbury, 1990; Pierce, Bald-
win, & Lydon, 1997); when they match the needs of the recipient (Cohen &
Wills, 1985; Cutrona, 1990; Cutrona & Russell, 1990; Simpson, Winter-
held, Rholes, & Oriña, 2007); and when they are delivered sensitively (e.g.,
the support provided protects the recipient’s self-esteem and makes him or
Safe Haven Processes: Response in Times of Adversity
204
Support Recipient’s Recipient’s Recipient’s
Provider’s perception of Immediate Outcomes Long-Term Outcomes
behavior as (Optimal Dependence) (Optimal Dependence)
Responsive supportive •• Reduced anxiety/stress •• Relationship quality/satisfaction
Safe Haven •• Increased well-being •• Psychological health
•• Improved coping capacity •• Physical health
•• Enhanced security •• Felt security of home base
•• Problem resolution •• Reduced reactivity to stressors
•• Positive perceptions of self, partner, and •• Greater coping capacity
relationship •• Resilience
•• Attachment security
•• View of support seeking as beneficial
•• Prosocial caring for others
Secure Base Processes: Response to Exploration Opportunities

behavior as (Optimal Dependence) (Optimal Dependence)
Responsive supportive •• Engagement and persistence in exploration •• Greater autonomous exploration
Secure Base •• Successful exploration •• Competency/intelligence
•• Curiosity •• Trait self-esteem
•• State self-esteem •• Trait confidence/perceived efficacy
•• Self-confidence/efficacy •• Personal growth
•• Learning/discovery •• Psychological health
•• Enthusiasm/enjoyment •• Physical health
•• Positive perceptions of partner and relationship •• Relationship quality/satisfaction
•• Skilled mentoring of others
FIGURE 8.1. Proposed links between responsive safe haven and secure base behavior and recipient perceptions and outcomes.
her feel valued, understood, and accepted; Reis & Shaver, 1988) (see also
Feeney & Collins, 2014).
Immediate consequences of receiving responsive safe haven support
that have implications for a healthy dependence on others include reduced
feelings of anxiety or distress; increases in the recipient’s well-being (e.g.,
increases in positive mood, decreases in negative mood, or freeing of cogni-
tive and emotional resources expended on ruminating about a problem);
improved coping capacity; enhanced feelings of safety or security; and
better problem resolution. Additional consequences of receiving respon-
sive safe haven support include positive perceptions of one’s partner and
relationship (e.g., perceptions that the partner is available, and that seek-
ing support and showing vulnerability is beneficial and will be met with
compassion). Responsive safe haven support should also increase feelings
of emotional closeness, trust, and satisfaction with the relationship because
it provides diagnostic information about a partner’s love and concern for
one’s welfare (Collins & Feeney, 2004), and it should also lead recipients to
have positive perceptions of themselves as a result of feeling cared for (Reis
& Shaver, 1988). These immediate outcomes reflect a healthy dependence
on a partner, because they signify the recipient’s and the relationship’s posi-
tive well-being.
These outcomes are supported by studies showing that caring sup-
port from a partner in times of stress has immediate positive effects on
emotional well-being and relationship functioning (e.g., Collins & Feeney,
2000, 2005; Cutrona, 1986; Jaremka, Kane, Guichard, Ford, & Collins,
2010; Kane, McCall, Collins, & Blascovich, 2012; Simpson et al., 1992;
Winstead & Derlega, 1985). These studies indicate a strong link between
receipt of responsive safe haven support and immediate improvements in
mood, relationship satisfaction, feelings of being loved and valued, and
feelings of security. Additional evidence comes from studies showing
that cardiovascular reactivity is buffered in individuals who experience a
stressor in the presence of a close, nonevaluative support provider, rela-
tive to individuals who experience the stressor alone, with a stranger, or
with an evaluative other (e.g., Allen, Blascovich, Tomaka, & Kelsey, 1991;
Edens, Larkin, & Abel, 1992; Fontana, Diegnan, Villeneuve, & Lepore,
1999; Kamarck, Manuck, & Jennings, 1990; Snydersmith & Cacioppo,
1992). Likewise, other studies show that soothing touch or close physical
contact with a close partner during a stressful task decreases heart rate and
blood pressure (e.g., Ditzen et al., 2007; Fishman, Turkheimer, & DeGood,
1995; Grewen, Anderson, Girdler, & Light, 2003; Lynch, Thomas, Paske-
witz, Katcher, & Weir, 1977; Whitcher & Fisher, 1979), and attenuates
neural activation in brain regions associated with emotional and behavioral
responses to threat (Coan, Schaefer, & Davidson, 2006).
These immediate outcomes of receiving responsive safe haven sup-
port should, over many interactions, contribute to long-term tendencies
toward optimal dependence on others. For example, if an individual expe-

riences improved mood, exhibits reduced autonomic reactivity to stress,
and feels supported (i.e., feels more secure) after interacting with a close
partner when distressed, these positive support experiences should, over
time, lead to long-term outcomes that result in a healthier dependence
on the relationship partner; these include improved relationship quality/
satisfaction, enhanced prospects for good health, perceptions of an effec-
tive social support network, and confidence in the security/availability of
one’s home base. Over time, a recipient of consistently responsive support
provision should also experience reduced reactivity to stressors, higher
thresholds for perceiving life events as stressful (and for needing to turn to
the partner for support), greater capacity to cope with stressors, stronger
feelings of security, greater resilience, and perceptions of the benefits of
seeking support from others—all of which reflect, and should contribute
to, the continuance of healthy dependence on others. Responsive support
should contribute to healthy dependence by preventing physical and emo-
tional withdrawal or isolation that can erode relationships; by providing a
positive emotional tone in the relationship; and by engendering a sense of
closeness, trust, appreciation, and goodwill that strengthens the commit-
ment between partners, which may help a couple survive future conflicts
(Cutrona, 1996; Feeney & Lemay, 2012; Kane et al., 2007). This is consis-
tent with studies showing that the extent to which individuals are satisfied
and well adjusted in their relationships depends in part on whether their
partners are responsive caregivers who provide a safe haven of comfort
and security (Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, & Reis, 1988; Carnelley,
Pietromonaco, & Jaffe, 1996; Collins & Feeney, 2000; J. A. Feeney, 1996;
Feeney & Collins, 2001; Jaremka et al., 2010; Katz, Beach, & Anderson,
1996; Kotler, 1985).
Responsive support provision also should contribute to healthy depen-
dence (and interdependence) by increasing the recipient’s capacity to pro-
vide similar care to others, because (1) having his or her own needs met
frees up the recipient’s cognitive and emotional resources to focus on oth-
ers; and (2) a responsive partner, by modeling effective support behaviors,
shows the recipient how to care for others in turn. This mutual giving and
receiving of support is an important indicator of healthy dependence on
others that is not one-sided.
Responsive Secure Base

According to attachment theory, the urge to explore (e.g., to identify and
achieve personal goals, take on new challenges, learn new skills, develop new
competencies, or make new discoveries) is a basic aspect of human nature
(Bowlby, 1988). Thus relationships that support this urge by providing a
secure base for exploration should play a large role in promoting optimal
levels of relational dependence. In previous work (Feeney & Thrush, 2010),

we have shown that relationship partners function as responsive secure
bases for one another by encouraging exploration, by not interfering with
or intruding in one another’s explorations, and by being available if needed
during exploration. We showed that the three components of secure base
support were significant predictors of exploration behavior. Specifically,
spouse availability was associated with greater persistence at exploration,
whereas spouse interference predicted less persistence, poorer performance,
and less enthusiasm during exploration, and spouse encouragement pre-
dicted better performance and greater expressed enthusiasm during explo-
ration. These results indicate that availability and encouragement facilitate
exploration, whereas interference inhibits exploration. In addition, a study
examining links between secure base behavior and exploration behavior
in the context of discussions each couple had about one partner’s personal
goals showed that support providers who were coded by observers as being
more supportive of and comfortable with their partners’ goals had partners
who discussed their goals more openly, more confidently explored avenues
for achieving their goals, and were more receptive to support attempts (Fee-
ney, 2004).
Secure base behaviors that sensitively encourage the support receiver
in his or her exploratory behavior, in the attainment of goals, or in the
pursuit of personally rewarding challenges, as well as behaviors that convey
availability if needed and that are appropriately contingent on the needs of
the recipient, should be perceived as supportive by the recipient (Feeney,
2004; Feeney & Thrush, 2010). Such behaviors should result in immedi-
ate and long-term outcomes that facilitate optimal levels of dependence
in relationships (i.e., appropriately seeking support when needed, but bal-
anced with healthy autonomy) (Figure 8.1). Because safe haven support and
secure base support serve different functions, secure base support should
have important immediate consequences promoting optimal dependence
that are distinct from those afforded by safe haven support. For example,
a secure base gives individuals the confidence and courage to explore the
environment, accept challenges, and take risks (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1988).
Thus, recipients who receive responsive secure base support should be more
fully engaged in exploration, experience greater curiosity, persist longer at
exploration, and therefore be more productive and successful at explora-
tion. In other words, they are likely to demonstrate healthy independence
and healthy pursuit of autonomous activities. In support of these hypoth-
eses, we found that spouse availability and encouragement predicted recipi-
ents’ greater persistence and better performance on an autonomous and
challenging exploration activity (Feeney & Thrush, 2010).
In addition, the greater engagement in and success at exploration
should lead a recipient to experience higher state self-esteem and greater
perceived competency, self-efficacy, and self-confidence immediately
following an exploration activity for which a partner has provided respon-

sive secure base support. These increases in self-esteem and perceived effi-
cacy have implications for the recipient’s ability to establish healthy levels
of dependence, independence, and interdependence. Relatedly, explorations
for recipients who have responsive partners should result in greater learn-
ing and discovery, greater willingness to explore in the future, and greater
enjoyment of exploration. This enjoyment and pursuit of exploration activi-
ties are important in enabling an individual to attain a healthy balance of
autonomy and relatedness. Consistent with these ideas, recipients of respon-
sive secure base support report increases in state self-esteem after engaging
in exploration activities (Feeney, 2004; Feeney & Thrush, 2010), as well as
greater self-efficacy, self-confidence, and perceived ability to achieve their
goals (Feeney, 2004, 2007). Other evidence indicates that responsive secure
base support provision is linked with greater expressed enthusiasm during
exploration activities and increases in positive mood after engaging in them
(Feeney, 2004; Feeney & Thrush, 2010); with perceptions that explora-
tion is more enjoyable and that one is smart and competent to engage in
it (Feeney & Thrush, 2010); and with a greater willingness to engage in
autonomous exploration (Feeney, 2007).
Another immediate outcome of receiving secure base support that has
implications for healthy dependence on others involves positive percep-
tions of the partner and the relationship. Recipients of secure base support
are more likely to perceive that sharing their exploration experiences with
their partners (i.e., capitalizing on the experience; see Gable, Gonzaga, &
Strachman, 2006; Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004) and seeking support
for exploration are beneficial. Similar to immediate relationship outcomes
experienced in the safe haven context, recipients of responsive secure base
support are more likely to feel valued and accepted by their partners and
to be satisfied with their relationships. These relational outcomes reflect an
optimal dependence in which recipients are able to use their partners as a
base for autonomous exploration (establishing competence and autonomy)
while remaining connected to the partners.
Over many interactions, these immediate outcomes of receiving secure
base support should predict indicators of healthy dependence across time.
Recipients of consistently responsive secure base support should show
increases in engagement in exploration, persistence in exploration, and suc-
cess at exploration activities over time. Recipients should also experience
greater independence during exploration because of their increased con-
fidence in the security of their home base (Feeney, 2007), which may be
reflected in their being more intrinsically motivated to engage in explora-
tion activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000; La Guardia et al., 2000; Ryan & Deci,
2000) and feeling greater enthusiasm about engaging in them. This greater
engagement in exploration should result in more learning and discovery and
in the development of new competencies. Thus, recipients should experience
increases in trait self-esteem, perceived competency/intelligence, perceived
self-efficacy, and self-confidence over time—all long-term improvements in

the self reflecting personal growth. This is consistent with research show-
ing that newlyweds who receive responsive secure base support during
the first year of marriage are more engaged in exploration and experience
more personal growth 1 year later (Feeney & Van Vleet, 2010; Van Vleet
& Feeney, 2012), and with research showing that reports of the amount
of goal support received from romantic partners predict the enactment of
both relationship and individual goals over time (Brunstein, Dangelmayer,
& Schultheiss, 1996). This trajectory of personal growth is indicative of
healthy dependence, independence, and interdependence.
Consistently responsive secure base support provision should also have
beneficial effects on psychological and physical health, albeit through dif-
ferent mechanisms than those that explain the effects of safe haven sup-
port on health. Individuals who receive consistently responsive secure base
support should actively engage in the type of exploration that makes them
feel happier, more fulfilled, and more self-actualized, which in turn ought
to have a beneficial impact on indicators of health. Increased exploration
may lead to the development of new competencies, which may promote
self-esteem, happiness, and psychological health, which may in turn have
positive implications for physical health. Active engagement in exploration
should contribute to physical health via increases in physical activity and
mental stimulation (Blair, Cheng, & Holder, 2001; Warburton, Nicol, &
Bredin, 2006). It is also likely to increase positive affect, which is linked
to psychological and physical health (Cohen & Pressman, 2006; Pressman
& Cohen, 2005). Moreover, it should increase an individual’s social net-
work over time, which may provide additional resources that are health-
protective (e.g., Cohen, Doyle, Turner, Alper, & Skoner, 2003; Cohen &
Wills, 1985). This increase in social network size (and enhanced mental
and physical health) should contribute to optimal levels of dependence in
relationships because it ensures that an individual does not overburden one
particular source of support.
These ideas are also consistent with studies indicating that the suc-
cessful pursuit of personally meaningful goals is related to indicators of
well-being such as elated versus depressed mood and satisfaction with life
(Brunstein, 1993; Brunstein, Schultheiss, & Grassman, 1998; Emmons,
1986; Emmons & King, 1988; Omodei & Wearing, 1990; Palys & Lit-
tle, 1983; Ruehlman & Wolchik, 1988; Yetim, 1993; Zaleski, 1987). As
a whole, these studies indicate that individuals high in well-being pursue
goals that are important, fulfilling, challenging, fueled by optimistic expec-
tations, and assisted by others. We propose that the interpersonal dynamics
surrounding the assistance by others play a vital role in determining opti-
mal levels of dependence in the pursuit of exploration opportunities.
The giving and receipt of responsive secure base support should also
strengthen relationships over time by increasing relationship satisfaction,
intimacy, and trust (and by reducing experiences of conflict) for both
partners, which should also enable healthier levels of dependence in their

relationship. This is supported by studies showing that social support for
personal goals by intimate partners accounts for how satisfied people feel
with their relationships (Brunstein et al., 1996; Kaplan & Maddux, 2002);
by research showing that people draw closer to significant others who are
instrumental in the accomplishment of their goals (Fitzsimons & Fishbach,
2010; Fitzsimons & Shah, 2008); and by research showing that responsive
secure base support during the first year of marriage predicts increases in
relationship quality 1 year later (Van Vleet & Feeney, 2012). These studies
suggest that personal goal attainment and relationship outcomes are linked
in important ways (Gore & Cross, 2006), and it highlights the importance
of a healthy balance of autonomy and relatedness. Finally, individuals who
feel fulfilled and successful in their own goal pursuits, and who have had
responsive secure base support provision modeled for them, should become
especially skilled mentors of others.
Unresponsive Safe Haven and Secure Base Behavior

Thus far, we have described outcomes reflecting a healthy dependence
on others for recipients of responsive safe haven and secure base support.
However, there are many ways in which interpersonal processes surround-
ing the provision of a safe haven and secure base may go awry, resulting in
suboptimal levels of dependence. Although the support recipient certainly
plays a role and may be unwilling to turn to a partner for support or may be
unwilling to engage in exploration activities, we propose that an unhealthy
balance of autonomy and relatedness is likely to result from relational his-
tories or experiences in which an individual has not received responsive
support from attachment figures for both attachment and exploration
needs. We now consider links between various forms of unresponsive sup-
port provider behavior (in both safe haven and secure base contexts) and
support recipient outcomes that indicate suboptimal levels of dependence
on others. It is important to consider distinct patterns of unresponsiveness,
because each pattern should lead to distinct patterns of suboptimal depen-
dence. We discuss three patterns of unresponsiveness that present unique
challenges to the establishment of optimal levels of dependence in rela-
tionships: compulsively overinvolved, negative/demeaning, and neglectful/
disengaged behavior.
Compulsively Overinvolved Behavior

Compulsively overinvolved support provider behavior in safe haven and/or
secure base support contexts should undermine optimal dependence by cre-
ating overdependence in the recipient. We next describe processes involving
compulsively overinvolved caregiving that should have implications for

unhealthy dependence on others, depicted in Figure 8.2.
Compulsively Overinvolved Support in Safe Haven Contexts

Compulsively overinvolved support provider behavior may occur either in
response to a partner’s support seeking (e.g., expressions of distress) or
spontaneously in response to the presence of a partner’s life stressor. Such
behavior can include (1) giving support that is not needed (i.e., providing
support regardless of the need or desire for it); (2) being responsive to actual
needs while also responding to perceived needs that do not exist; (3) sac-
rificing oneself or one’s own needs for the partner by offering or provid-
ing services that could be detrimental to the self; and (4) providing indul-
gent, coddling, or pampering forms of support that encourage or maintain
dependence.
Recipients of this behavior should have ambivalent perceptions of
it. That is, they are likely to perceive it as both supportive (in the sense
that their partners are trying to provide support) and unsupportive (in the
sense that the support is excessive and out of synchrony with the recipients’
actual needs). These behaviors and perceptions should result in immediate
outcomes indicative of a lack of healthy dependence on others. Although
recipients are likely to experience an attenuation of their stressor-related
anxiety/distress, feel confident that their home base is secure (i.e., experi-
ence felt security), and feel validated and cared for (but perhaps not under-
stood), they are likely to have negative views of their own abilities to cope
with and resolve problems. They may also feel smothered (if they perceive
that their partners have provided too much unneeded support), guilty (if
they perceive they are taking advantage of their partners, the partners are
self-sacrificing, or they are not feeling grateful for the unneeded assistance),
and indebted (if they perceive they should but cannot reciprocate what their
partners have done for them). These concerns may lead recipients to have
ambivalent perceptions of their partners and relationships. Recipients may
experience feelings of intimacy and trust in their relationships, yet they
may be ambivalent about their satisfaction with the relationships. These are
mixed outcomes that are indicative of suboptimal states of both well-being
and dependence.
Over time, recipients of compulsively overinvolved support provision
may experience some of the benefits of responsive safe haven support, such
as perceiving that the home base is secure or feeling that it is beneficial
to seek support from others. However, overindulgent support provision
is likely to produce some negative outcomes over time, including greater
clinging to and dependence on partners, poor coping with stressors, poor
regulation of the recipients’ own emotions, and intense distress if the part-
ners are even temporarily inaccessible. Because of their overreliance on
212
behavior as (Overdependence) (Overdependence)
Compulsive/ supportive and •• Attenuated anxiety •• Perceived security of home base
Overinvolved unsupportive •• Felt security •• Perceived benefit of seeking support
Safe Haven (ambivalence) •• Feeling cared for and validated •• Greater dependence on partner
•• Negative view of own ability to cope with •• Poor coping and emotion regulation
and resolve problems •• Intense distress if partner absent
•• Ambivalent perceptions of self, partner, •• Controlling and dominating
and relationship •• Poor relationship quality

behavior as (Overdependence) (Overdependence)
Compulsive/ supportive and •• Low likelihood of engaging or persisting in •• Excessive dependence on partner
Overinvolved unsupportive autonomous exploration •• Less willingness to engage in autonomous
Secure Base (ambivalence •• Dependent forms of exploration exploration
•• Low state self-esteem •• Decreases in learning and competency
•• Low state perceived competency and efficacy •• Decreased trait self-esteem and self-
•• Less success at and enjoyment of exploration, efficacy
and less learning •• Lack of personal growth
•• Ambivalent views of partner and relationship •• Decreased psychological health
•• Poor relationship quality
•• Codependence in relationship
FIGURE 8.2. Proposed links between compulsively overinvolved support provider behavior and recipient perceptions and outcomes.
their partners, recipients may become increasingly controlling and domi-

nating in their relationships, and they may insist that their partners stay
nearby and not pursue their own goals. This may result in poor relationship
quality in which partners have unequal status (e.g., one person does all the
giving), and it may take a toll on the health and well-being of the support
provider. See Figure 8.2 for a summary of proposed outcomes.
These long-term consequences are also theorized to influence recipi-
ents’ responses to future life stressors and future exploration opportuni-
ties. For example, perceptions of the benefit of seeking support from oth-
ers, combined with poor coping and emotion regulation and a controlling/
dominating interpersonal style, may lead recipients to seek support for life
stressors and exploration opportunities in an overly entitled manner. Indi-
viduals who have developed overdependence resulting from a history of
compulsively overinvolved caregiving may expect others to resolve their
stressors for them (even those they can handle themselves), and they may
expect others to do much of their exploration or goal pursuit either for
them or with them.
Compulsively Overinvolved Support in Secure Base Contexts

In secure base contexts, compulsively overinvolved support provider behav-
ior may occur either in response to a partner’s support-seeking/exploration
behavior or spontaneously in response to the presence of a partner’s explo-
ration opportunity. This type of support provider behavior can include (1)
being available for assistance during exploration (during which availability
may be imposed on the recipient); (2) frequent interference in the partner’s
exploration (e.g., taking over the activity, inserting oneself in the partner’s
exploration activities, providing assistance that is not needed or requested);
and (3) discouragement of autonomous exploration. The discouragement
of autonomous exploration displayed by a compulsive caregiver is likely to
be exhibited in a concerned manner. For example, discouragement may be
shown by being overprotective, by invoking fear in the partner regarding
potential dangers and hazards of exploration, by wanting to be involved in
all of the partner’s activities, and/or by clinging to the partner and com-
municating one’s own need to have the partner stay close to the home base.
A recipient of these behaviors should also have ambivalent perceptions
of the behaviors as being both supportive (in the sense that the partner con-
veys caring and concern, has supportive intent, and may have assisted him
or her) and unsupportive (in the sense that the support behavior is out of
synchrony with the recipient’s needs, interferes with exploration attempts,
or is not helpful in promoting healthy autonomy). These compulsive behav-
iors and ensuing perceptions should result in immediate outcomes indica-
tive of a lack of healthy dependence. First, recipients should be unlikely to
engage and persist in autonomous exploration. When they do explore, it is
likely to be a dependent form of exploration that involves stronger desires

for assistance from and involvement of their partners. Second, because
they engage in dependent forms of exploration (or no exploration at all),
recipients are likely to experience lower levels of state self-esteem, perceived
self-efficacy, perceived competency, and confidence in their own abilities.
Third, recipients ought to experience less success at exploration, because
their exploration is disrupted and they do not feel capable of successful
autonomous exploration (and therefore put less effort into it). As a result,
they are less likely to learn and discover during their explorations. Fourth,
because of their partners’ interference in and discouragement of autono-
mous exploration, recipients should report less enjoyment of it, greater guilt
when they do engage in it, and less willingness to explore autonomously in
the future. However, recipients may view dependent or joint exploration as
less threatening, more enjoyable, or as an opportunity to obtain intimacy
with their partners. Fifth, although recipients may perceive their home base
as secure, their views of their partners may depend on the degree to which
they feel assisted versus stifled by the partners.
To test some of these predictions, we examined immediate outcomes
of intrusive or interfering behaviors during laboratory exploration activi-
ties (Feeney, 2004; Feeney & Thrush, 2010). As expected, interference was
a major inhibitor of exploration. Spouse interference predicted less per-
sistence, poorer performance (even when the interference involved provid-
ing answers to challenging tasks), and less enthusiasm during the tasks.
Recipients of interfering behaviors also showed an ambivalent behavioral
pattern: Although they expressed greater concern about their spouses’
watching their explorations, they also sought greater task assistance from
them. Interestingly, they were receptive to both solicited and unsolicited
task assistance, and they were simultaneously rejecting of both solicited
and unsolicited task assistance.
We suspect that the ambivalent behavioral pattern observed for explor-
ers with interfering spouses reflects a fundamental tension they experience
in most exploration contexts. On the one hand, people with interfering
partners may have come to believe that they are incapable of successful
independent exploration. These self-doubts may make them receptive to
both solicited and unsolicited task assistance, and may lead them to seek
assistance despite a concern about their partners’ involvement. On the
other hand, because spouse interference is also likely to feel demeaning and
to impede their goals and efforts, it makes sense that recipients are simulta-
neously rejecting of both solicited and unsolicited task assistance.
Other studies have revealed that (1) support providers who were intru-
sive during a discussion of their partners’ personal goals had partners who
tended to modify and minimize the importance of their original goals; (2)
recipients of experimentally manipulated intrusive support messages from
their spouses viewed the messages as frustrating and insensitive, and they
perceived the spouses as both intrusive/interfering and helpful (provid-
ing further evidence of ambivalent feelings toward their spouses); and (3)
intrusive/interfering support provision during exploration was predictive
of decreases in state self-esteem (Feeney, 2004; Feeney & Thrush, 2010).
These results for adults are consistent with research showing that parental
interference in children’s exploratory activities is associated with negative
outcomes for children, including disrupted concentration, less persistence
and enthusiasm during exploration, more passivity, more negative emotion,
less competence, and less curiosity (e.g., Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1974;
Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Egeland & Farber, 1984; Main, 1983; Matas,
Arend, & Sroufe, 1978).
Over time, the recipients of compulsively overinvolved support provi-
sion are likely to become overly dependent on their partners and less will-
ing to engage in autonomous exploration. They may become less willing to
venture away from their secure base (their partners) to pursue autonomous
goals because they have developed fears and concerns about autonomous
exploration, or because they have grown accustomed to having their part-
ners do everything for them. The overdependence on their partners and
resulting lack of exploration may lead to decreases in learning/discovery
(development of competencies), and therefore to decreases in perceived self-
efficacy, perceived competency, confidence in the recipients’ own abilities,
and trait self-esteem. Overdependence and lack of exploration may also
result in decreased psychological health over time (e.g., lower life satisfac-
tion, greater depression) because the recipients are not living up to their full
potential and growing as individuals. The relationship may be character-
ized by increases in conflict over time, especially if the recipients grow more
demanding or feel stifled by their partners. This consistently overinvolved
support pattern may also contribute to the development of codependence
within the relationship, in which the compulsively overinvolved partner
may depend on the recipient to fill his or her need to compulsively care for
others, and the recipient may in turn depend on the partner to do things for
him or her that the recipient can accomplish unaided (see Figure 8.2 for a
summary).
Negative/Demeaning Behavior
Negative and demeaning support provider behavior in safe haven and/or
secure base support contexts should undermine optimal dependence by
creating a defensive or compulsive self-reliance in the recipients. We next
describe processes involving negative/demeaning support provider behavior
that have implications for an unhealthy lack of dependence on others, as
depicted in Figure 8.3.
Negative/Demeaning Behavior in Safe Haven Contexts

When attachment needs are activated, negative/demeaning support pro-
vider behavior may occur either in response to a partner’s support seeking
(e.g., expressions of distress) or spontaneously in response to the presence
of a partner’s life stressor. This type of behavior can include (1) encouraging
suppression of feelings (or disallowing them) and discouraging the expres-
sion of distress or vulnerability; (2) rejecting a recipient’s bids for support;
(3) being critical, harsh, cruel, or contemptuous of a recipient’s distress or
vulnerability; (4) blaming the recipient for his or her misfortune; (5) making
the recipient feel weak, pathetic, or abnormal for being distressed; (6) pro-
viding support that is controlling in nature; (7) giving assistance in a way
that communicates the recipient is burdensome or incompetent; (8) express-
ing anger or frustration in response to the recipient’s distress or request for
support; (9) blaming the recipient for the support provider’s own negative
response to the stressor; and (10) forcing the recipient to accept the support
provider’s views about the stressor by disallowing a different perspective.
Recipients of this behavior in safe haven support contexts are likely to
perceive it not only as unsupportive, but also as unkind, hurtful, frighten-
ing, or threatening. These behaviors and perceptions should result in imme-
diate outcomes reflecting an inability to depend on others in times of need.
Recipients should experience intensified feelings of anxiety, distress, and
fear, as well as intensified feelings of insecurity in relation to their partners.
They should not feel understood, validated, cared for, or valued/accepted
by their partners, and they are likely to experience negative self-perceptions
(e.g., perceptions that they are not lovable and unworthy of care and sup-
port from others). Recipients may also perceive that their home base is not
only insecure, but may be threatening and dangerous, which should lead
them to experience immediate decreases in relationship satisfaction, inti-
macy, and trust. Recipients may view interactions with their partners as
negative and stressful, and perceive that seeking support from the partners
is risky and costly—which may cause them to view problems as worse than
they are.
Over time, recipients of negative/demeaning behaviors during times of
stress are likely to exhibit increasingly intense reactivity to stressors; they
may also experience chronically elevated stress responses such as increased
allostatic load (McEwen & Stellar, 1993) because they cannot rely on others
in times of need, and because their partners may themselves have become
life stressors. Merely anticipating that one’s partner will be unavailable in
times of stress and expecting negative support exchanges should heighten
the stressfulness of an already negative event (Pierce et al., 1997). As a
result, such recipients should develop a defensive independence (underde-
pendence on others) when coping with stress and solving problems. They
should become reluctant to express their needs to others (Collins & Feeney,

Provider perception of Immediate Outcomes Long-Term Outcomes
behavior as (Underdependence) (Underdependence)
Negative/ unkind, hurtful, •• Intensified anxiety/distress/fear •• Intense reactivity to stressors
Demeaning frightening, or •• Intensified feelings of insecurity •• Chronically elevated feeling of stress (increased
Safe Haven threatening •• Not feeling cared for/accepted allostatic load)
•• Negative perception of self, partner, and •• Defensive independence (underdependence on
relationship others)
•• View of home base as dangerous •• Increased insecurity
•• View of problem as worse •• Reduced psychological health
•• Reduced physical health
•• Relationship deterioration/ending
Support Recipient’s Recipient’s Immediate Outcomes Recipient’s

Provider’s perception of (Underdependence) Long-Term Outcomes
behavior as •• Low likelihood of engaging or persisting (Underdependence)
Negative/ unkind, hurtful, in or enjoying autonomous exploration •• Decreased or no exploration (e.g., goal pursuit)
Demeaning frightening, or •• Decreases in state self-esteem and •• Decreased learning/discovery
Secure Base threatening perceived efficacy •• Decreased trait self-esteem/competency/self-
•• No benefits of exploration efficacy
•• Distress following exploration •• Reduced social networks
•• Negative views of partner and •• Decreased psychological health and physical
relationship health
•• Relationship deterioration/ending
•• Compulsive overinvolvement
217
FIGURE 8.3. Proposed links between negative/demeaning support provider behavior and recipient perceptions and outcomes.
2000). Over time, they may experience decreases in perceptions of their

own self-worth and decreases in feelings of security. Recipients may also
experience deteriorating psychological and physical health, as well as wors-
ening relationship quality over time because they may begin to psycho-
logically detach themselves from their partners. The hostility exhibited in
this support pattern is likely to contribute to relationship dissolution (e.g.,
Carrere & Gottman, 1999; Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998;
Gottman & Levenson, 2000). See Figure 8.3 for a summary.
Consistent with these predictions, prior research has shown that
recipients of unresponsive forms of support express their needs only indi-
rectly, if at all (Collins & Feeney, 2000), and that negative/hostile sup-
port interactions predict slower cardiovascular recovery after experienc-
ing a stressor (Fritz, Nagurney, & Helgeson, 2003) and poorer immune
function (i.e., increased proinflammatory cytokine production and slower
wound healing) (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2005). Overall, research indicates
that negative social support interactions are strongly related to adverse
outcomes over time (e.g., Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989;
Coyne & DeLongis, 1986; Cutrona, 1996; Lakey, Tardiff, & Drew, 1994;
Pagel, Erdly, & Becker, 1987; Robles & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2003; Rook, 1984;
Vinokur & van Ryn, 1993), and that invalidating or negative exchanges
exert a powerful negative impact on individuals and relationships that
outweighs the beneficial impact of positive exchanges (e.g., Rook, 1984).
These findings are consistent with evidence indicating that interpersonal
conflicts are by far the most upsetting of all daily stressors (Bolger et al.,
1989), and that negative social interactions increase psychological symp-
toms by inducing a less favorable evaluation of both the self and others
(Lakey et al., 1994).
These immediate and long-term outcomes of negative support
exchanges are indicative of a deteriorated state of both personal and rela-
tional well-being, and convey to recipients that they cannot depend or rely
on others, even in times of extreme need. This in turn should influence
responses to future life stressors and exploration opportunities in a way
that promotes an unhealthy lack of dependence on others. For example,
recipients of negative/demeaning partner behaviors may come to view
dependence as a weakness, refuse to request or accept support from others
in times of need (yet experience stressors more intensely because of their
inability to do so), become unaccepting of others’ dependence needs (or
compulsively overinvolved in responding to others’ needs), and fear ventur-
ing out to engage in autonomous exploration.
Negative/Demeaning Behavior in Secure Base Contexts

In secure base contexts, negative/demeaning support provider behavior
may occur either in response to a partner’s support seeking for exploration
or exploration behavior, or spontaneously in response to the presence of

a partner’s exploration opportunity. This type of behavior can include (1)
a lack of availability for facilitating exploration, (2) negative and control-
ling interference in the partner’s exploration, or (3) active discouragement
of the partner’s exploration. This behavior may take the form of express-
ing criticism, anger, or disapproval in response to a partner’s exploration
opportunities; controlling his or her engagement in autonomous explora-
tion; having the partner engage in exploration for the support provider’s
own benefit; taking over a partner’s exploration activity in a negative or
demeaning manner; minimizing the importance of the recipient’s explora-
tion opportunities; criticizing or belittling the recipient, and making him or
her feel incapable of engaging in successful exploration; and instilling fear
about autonomous exploration.
Recipients of this behavior should perceive it as unkind, hurtful, or
threatening, and these behaviors and perceptions are expected to result in
immediate outcomes reflecting an inability to depend on significant oth-
ers in exploration contexts. First, recipients should be unlikely to engage
in exploration or persist at or enjoy uninhibited exploration if they do
engage in it, and they are unlikely to view exploration as worth the effort
and risk involved. Second, recipients should experience decreases in state
self-esteem, perceived self-competence, perceived self-efficacy, and self-
confidence regarding exploration. Third, they are unlikely to benefit from
exploration by learning/discovering and increasing their competencies, and
they are less likely to perform well in exploration activities, given their
inability to focus on the activities. They ought to experience more distress
and more negative moods (e.g., frustration, sadness, disappointment) fol-
lowing exploration attempts. Finally, recipients should feel dissatisfied with
their partners and relationships. These are immediate outcomes that are
indicative of a deteriorated state of well-being, fueled by an inability to
depend appropriately on others in exploration contexts.
Some initial evidence for these predictions was obtained in an obser-
vational study in which recipients explored in the presence of their spouses
(Feeney & Thrush, 2010). A lack of spouse encouragement and availability
(and spouse interference) predicted poorer performance and less enthusi-
asm during exploration; lower levels of persistence at exploration; decreases
in positive mood and increases in negative mood from before to after the
exploration; decreases in state self-esteem from before to after the explo-
ration; and negative postexploration perceptions of the self, the spouse,
and the exploration activity. In another study, spouses who were coded
by observers as being unsupportive, discouraging of, and uncomfortable
with their partners’ goals were viewed by their partners as being insensi-
tive, self-focused, and disappointing (Feeney, 2004). Further research that
specifically assesses negative/demeaning behaviors in exploration contexts
is still needed to establish its effects.
Over time, the recipients of negative/demeaning support behaviors in

response to exploration opportunities should experience decreases in genu-
ine exploration (or no exploration at all). In addition, they should show
decreases (or no change) over time in learning, discovery, productivity, and
the acquisition of new skills. As a result of their partners’ negative/demean-
ing behaviors and their own lack of exploration, recipients should expe-
rience erosion of trait self-esteem, perceived self-competence, perceived
self-efficacy, and confidence over time. In addition, the extended social
networks of recipients may decrease or deteriorate over time, as a lack of
exploration may prevent them from establishing and maintaining social
contacts. These interpersonal processes surrounding a lack of secure base
support ought to result in decreased psychological health over time (e.g.,
increased depression, anxiety, and anger/hostility, and decreased life satis-
faction), as well as decreases in physical health (because recipients are less
likely to engage in the types of behaviors that contribute to better health
and well-being).
Finally, perceiving a partner as undermining the pursuit of personal
goals should impair relationship satisfaction by posing a threat to the
accomplishment of highly valued goal states (Brunstein et al., 1996; Kaplan
& Maddux, 2002). There is likely to be little or no intimacy or confiding
about dreams and goals; there should be little or no trust in the relationship;
and there is likely to be increasing volatility in which negative interactions
outweigh positive ones, leading to relationship dissolution (Gottman et al.,
1998; Gottman & Levenson, 2000). A recipient may withdraw from the
relationship literally or psychologically, or may over time become compul-
sively overinvolved with the partner (the source of rejection) in an attempt
to maintain calm/peace in the relationship and gain a sense of approval or
acceptance. These long-term consequences should result in a defensive self-
reliance that influences responses to future exploration opportunities and
life stressors. Defensively self-reliant individuals are less likely to seek sup-
port for attachment needs or for exploration, and less likely to risk depend-
ing on others who might be able to provide a responsive safe haven and
secure base.
Neglectful/Disengaged Behavior
Neglectful/disengaged support provider behavior in safe haven and/
or secure base support contexts is also likely to hinder one’s ability to
establish a healthy dependence on others, and it is also likely to result
in defensive self-reliance, albeit for different reasons than in the case of
negative/demeaning support provider behavior. We now describe pro-
cesses involving neglectful/disengaged support provider behavior that
have implications for a suboptimal lack of dependence on others, as
depicted in Figure 8.4.

Provider’s perception Immediate Outcomes Long-Term Outcomes
of behavior (Underdependence) (Underdependence)
Neglectful/ as negative, •• No attenuated anxiety •• Defensive self-reliance
Disengaged dissatisfying, and •• Reduced emotional well-being •• Decreased attachment security
Safe Haven unsupportive •• Felt lack of understanding, validation, •• Increased reactivity to stressors/
and care avoidant response to stressors
•• Negative perceptions of self, partner, •• Aberrant support seeking
and relationship •• Poor psychological health
•• No problem resolution •• Poor physical health
•• Reduced felt security •• Relationship deterioration

Provider’s perception Immediate Outcomes Long-Term Outcomes
of behavior (Underdependence) (Underdependence)
Neglectful/ as negative, •• Not fully engaging in exploration •• Less genuine exploration (extrinsically
Disengaged dissatisfying, and •• No benefits of exploration motivated)
Secure Base unsupportive •• No learning, capitalization on •• Unhealthy or strategic exploration
successes, or enjoyment •• Greater dependence
•• Perceived insecurity of home base •• Low or fragile trait self-esteem
•• Contingent self-esteem •• Reduced psychological health
•• Dissatisfaction with partner and •• Reduced physical health
relationship •• Relationship deterioration
221
FIGURE 8.4. Proposed links between neglectful/disengaged support provider behavior and recipient perceptions and outcomes.
Neglectful/Disengaged Behavior in Safe Haven Contexts

In safe haven contexts, neglectful/disengaged support provider behavior
may occur either in response to a partner’s support seeking (e.g., expres-
sions of distress) or spontaneously in response to the presence of a part-
ner’s life stressor. This type of behavior can include (1) not attending to
the recipient’s expression of emotion or bids for support, (2) focusing only
on one’s own needs and neglecting those of the recipient, (3) being unin-
terested in the problems or concerns of the recipient, (4) not engaging in
conversations about the recipient’s problems or concerns, (5) being inat-
tentive to the recipient’s cues and signals, or (6) not providing any active
form of support.
Recipients of such behavior should perceive it as negative, dissatisfy-
ing, and unsupportive, and they are likely to perceive that they are on
their own and must deal with life’s stressors independently. These behav-
iors and perceptions should result in immediate outcomes reflecting an
inability to depend on others in times of need. Recipients should be less
likely to experience attenuation of their anxiety and distress, and instead
they may experience decreases in emotional well-being (e.g., greater anxi-
ety, depression). They may not feel understood, validated, or cared for,
and they may develop negative self-perceptions because of the lack of care
they perceive. They might also feel dissatisfied with their relationships and
experience decreases in feelings of intimacy and trust. Additional immedi-
ate outcomes of neglectful/disengaged partner behavior may include either
no improved problem resolution or worse problem solving, especially if
a recipient copes by disengaging from a problem. Neglectful/disengaged
partner behavior also should lead recipients to perceive that their home
base is insecure. These are all immediate outcomes that should have impli-
cations for these individuals’ ability to develop optimal levels of depen-
dence on others.
These predictions are consistent with research showing that (1) indi-
viduals who were waiting to begin a stressful procedure were less calmed
when their partners avoided or downplayed their concerns (Simpson et al.,
1992); (2) individuals who had been exposed to an inattentive/neglectful
partner in a virtual world reported greater anxiety, less positive self-eval-
uations, and decreased relationship satisfaction immediately afterward,
and they kept greater distance between themselves and the partner during
an immediately subsequent (but unrelated) task in the virtual world (Kane
et al., 2012); (3) individuals who received no support from their partners
(manipulated experimentally) were in a less positive mood after a stressful
speech task, had lower self-esteem, and felt less satisfied with their relation-
ships compared to those who received responsive support (Collins, Ford,
Guichard, Kane, & Feeney, 2010); and (4) unsupportive interactions pre-
dicted slower cardiovascular recovery after experiencing a stressor (Fritz
et al., 2003). These findings suggest that neglectful/disengaged support
provision can immediately begin to erode both physical and emotional

closeness between partners, as well as the well-being of a recipient.
Over time, recipients of neglectful/disengaged partner behavior in safe
haven contexts may show a defensive self-reliance in coping and solving
problems, and may perceive that turning to others for support and depend-
ing on others is not a helpful strategy. They are likely to report decreased
attachment security over time, and they may either experience increased
reactivity to stressors or show an increasingly avoidant response to stress-
ors along with an avoidant style of coping. Because recipients of unrespon-
sive support do not directly express their needs (Collins & Feeney, 2000),
recipients of neglect may eventually engage in aberrant forms of support
seeking (e.g., eating disorders, substance use, sexual infidelity) to draw the
attention of their partners and elicit supportive behaviors (Bowlby, 1979).
Consistent neglect/disengagement over time should also predict dec-
rements in psychological health, because important attachment needs are
not being met (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1988). Physical health also may be
adversely affected over time because the neglected individuals’ increased
reactivity to stressors, avoidant coping style, decreased mental health, and
aberrant coping behaviors (e.g., eating problems, drug or alcohol use) are
likely to have deleterious health consequences. Finally, neglect or disengage-
ment should take a toll on a relationship over time. Research has shown
that a partner’s consistent failure to provide responsive support (includ-
ing dismissing behaviors during support interactions) can become a major
source of disruption in relationships due to the emotional detachment this
failure creates, which in turn predicts relationship dissolution (Barbee et
al., 1993; Barbee & Cunningham, 1995). All of these negative long-term
consequences arise because of the inability of a recipient to depend appro-
priately on a partner in times of need. See Figure 8.4 for a summary.
Neglectful/Disengaged Behavior in Secure Base Contexts

In secure base contexts, neglectful/disengaged support provider behavior
may occur either in response to a partner’s support-seeking/exploration
behavior or spontaneously in response to the presence of a partner’s explo-
ration opportunity. This type of behavior can include (1) a lack of avail-
ability (e.g., being unavailable to assist with obstacles during exploration
or to facilitate exploration, failing to respond to the partner’s needs during
exploration); (2) noninterference in the partner’s exploration, albeit in a
detached way that includes not noticing or attending to exploration suc-
cesses; and (3) an uncaring and uninvolved acceptance of exploration in
which the partner is not discouraged or held back from exploring, but there
is no attention to or encouragement of exploration behavior.
Recipients of such behavior should also perceive it as negative, dis-
satisfying, and unsupportive, and they are likely to perceive that they are
“on their own” in their explorations of the world. These behaviors and
perceptions ought to result in immediate outcomes reflective of a lack of

healthy dependence on others. Recipients may engage in exploration as a
means of finding a connection that is missing for them. However, they
are unlikely to explore in a passionate, fully engaged manner (or persist at
especially challenging explorations) because they perceive that their home
base is insecure. Because of the perceived insecurity of their home base, and
the resulting attentional toll this is likely to take on exploration behavior,
recipients are unlikely to reap the full benefits of exploration in terms of
learning and discovery, capitalizing on exploration successes, and enjoy-
ing exploration. Their state self-esteem, perceived self-efficacy, perceived
competence, and self-confidence are likely to be contingent on successes
or failures during exploration (Crocker, Brook, Niiya, & Villacorta, 2006;
Crocker & Knight, 2005; Park & Crocker, 2005; Park, Crocker, & Kiefer,
2007). Finally, recipients are unlikely to feel valued and accepted, and will
consequently feel dissatisfied with their partners and relationships.
Consistent with these predictions, prior research has shown that a
lack of spouse availability and encouragement during exploration is asso-
ciated with poorer performance during exploration, less persistence at
exploration, less enthusiasm during exploration activities, decreases in
positive mood and increases in negative mood after engaging in explora-
tion, decreases in state self-esteem, and negative perceptions of exploration
(Feeney & Thrush, 2010). In a study that examined links between secure
base behavior and exploration in discussions of personal goals (Feeney,
2004), support providers who were coded by observers as avoiding discus-
sion of their partners’ goals had partners who did not discuss their goals
openly, did not confidently explore avenues for achieving their goals, were
not receptive to support attempts (when they occurred), and avoided dis-
cussion of the goals.
Over time, recipients of neglecting/disengaged behavior in secure base
contexts may engage in less genuine exploration that is more extrinsically
motivated (e.g., done to gain others’ approval or acceptance, to fill rela-
tional voids; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000), and it may involve
engaging in forms of exploration that are detrimental to the relationship,
such as exploring alternative partners. Alternatively, recipients may become
less willing to venture from their home base to take on challenges or risks
because of the insecurity of their home base. They may strategically choose
exploration activities that match those of their partners, to gain proxim-
ity to them in a context in which proximity is acceptable to the partners.
Although this type of partner behavior is thought to produce a forced inde-
pendence, recipients should become more dependent (and less independent)
over time, consistent with research showing that a lack of partner availabil-
ity predicts decreases in independent functioning over time (Feeney, 2007).
Because recipients may pursue exploration for reasons other than gen-
uine interest, may engage in unhealthy forms of exploration, and are likely
to feel contingently accepted by their partners, they ought to experience
poorer psychological health and lower relationship satisfaction, intimacy,

and trust over time. Recipients also are likely to have either low or frag-
ile trait self-esteem, particularly if it is based on successes at independent
exploration. If recipients engage in aberrant forms of exploration (e.g.,
seeking extramarital relationships, drug abuse), relationship dissolution
and deterioration in physical health are likely outcomes.
Conclusions and Caveats

Our goal in this chapter has been to consider optimal dependence in close
relationships from an attachment-theoretical perspective. We have elabo-
rated on attachment-theoretical propositions and emphasized that (1) rela-
tional dependence is important for both personal and relationship func-
tioning; (2) there is an optimal level of dependence that one should strive
for in close relationships; and (3) the quality of relational support in both
safe haven and secure base contexts influences the extent to which one can
develop and maintain optimal levels of dependence.
Our discussion has focused primarily on the role of attachment fig-
ures in creating optimal or suboptimal levels of dependence in relation-
ships. However, support recipients also play a significant role in creating
healthy or unhealthy levels of dependence in relationships. For example,
recipients may transfer unhealthy beliefs and interaction patterns (based on
prior experiences with unresponsive attachment figures) into new attach-
ment relationships where those beliefs and patterns are no longer adaptive
and preclude the establishment of healthy dependence (even with respon-
sive partners). In addition, a person’s broader network of significant others
(e.g., other family members) may play a substantial role in determining the
influence of an attachment figure’s behavior on the ultimate outcomes for
the individual. Even within a central relationship, partners may be respon-
sive in both safe haven and secure base contexts, responsive in only one
context, or responsive in neither context. Although there is evidence for
some of the predictions regarding optimal dependence from an attachment
perspective, many others await future investigation. A program of research
establishing important consequences of optimal and suboptimal depen-
dence in relationships (in both safe haven and secure base contexts) is an
area ripe for future theoretical and empirical attention.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect and prospect. In C. M. Parkes
& J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior
(pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.
Ainsworth, M. D., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. (1974). Infant–mother attachment and
social development: Socialization as a product of reciprocal responsiveness to
signals. In M. P. M. Richard (Ed.), The integration of a child into a social

world (pp. 99–135). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
Erlbaum.
Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P. R.
cations (pp. 319–335). New York: Guilford Press.
Allen, K. M., Blascovich, J., Tomaka, J., & Kelsey, R. M. (1991). Presence of
human friends and pet dogs as moderators of autonomic responses to stress in
women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 582–589.
Barbee, A. P., & Cunningham, M. R. (1995). An experimental approach to social
support communications: Interactive coping in close relationships. Commu-
nication Yearbook, 18, 381–413.
Barbee, A. P., Cunningham, M. R., Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., Gulley, M. R.,
Yankeelov, P. A., et al. (1993). Effects of gender role expectations on the social
support process. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 175–190.
Belsky, J., Rovine, M., & Taylor, D. G. (1984). The Pennsylvania Infant and Fam-
ily Development Project: III. The origins of individual differences in infant–
mother attachment: Maternal and infant contributions. Child Development,
55, 718–728.
Blair, S. N., Cheng, Y., & Holder, J. S. (2001). Is physical activity or physical fit-
ness more important in defining health benefits? Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 33, 379–399.
Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects of daily
stress on negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
808–818.
Bornstein, R. F. (2005). Dependency across the life span. In R. F. Bornstein (Ed.),
The dependent patient: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 39–55). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Bornstein, R. F., & Languirand, M. A. (2003). Healthy dependency: Leaning on
others without losing yourself. New York: Newmarket Press.
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1979). On knowing what you are not supposed to know and feeling
what you are not supposed to feel. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 24, 403–
408.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression.
Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1061–1070.
Brunstein, J. C., Dangelmayer, G., & Schultheiss, O. C. (1996). Personal goals and
social support in close relationships: Effects on relationship mood and marital
satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1006–1019.
Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Grassman, R. (1998). Personal goals and
emotional well-being: The moderating role of motive dispositions. Journal of

Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains
of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and
Carnelley, K. B., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Jaffe, K. (1996). Attachment, caregiving,
and relationship functioning in couples: Effects of self and partner. Personal
Carrere, S., & Gottman, J. M. (1999). Predicting divorce among newlyweds from
the first three minutes of a marital conflict discussion. Family Process, 38,
293–301.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment:
Theory and research. Child Development, 65, 971–991.
Coan, J., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand: Social regu-
lation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17, 1032–
1039.
Cohen, S., Doyle, W. J., Turner, R., Alper, C. M., & Skoner, D. P. (2003). Sociabil-
ity and susceptibility to the common cold. Psychological Sciences, 14, 389–
395.
Cohen, S., & Pressman, S. D. (2006). Positive affect and health. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 15, 122–125.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypoth-
esis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
spective on support-seeking and caregiving in adult romantic relationships.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). An attachment theory perspective on close-
ness and intimacy. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of close-
ness and intimacy (pp. 163–187). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2005, May). Attachment processes in intimate
relationships: Support-seeking and caregiving behavior in daily interaction.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Society, Los
Angeles.
Collins, N. L., Kane, H. S., Guichard, A. C., & Ford, M. B. (2008). Will you be
there when I need you?: Perceived partner responsiveness shapes support-
seeking behavior and motivations. Unpublished manuscript, University of
California, Santa Barbara.
Collins, N. L., Ford, M. B., Guichard, A. C., Kane, H. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2010).
Responding to need in intimate relationships: Social support and caregiv-
ing processes in couples. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial
motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 367–
389). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Coyne, J. C., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Going beyond social support: The role of
social relationships in adaptation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 54, 454–460.
Crocker, J., Brook, A. T., Niiya, Y., & Villacorta, M. (2006). The pursuit of self-
esteem: Contingencies of self-worth and self-regulation. Journal of Personal-
ity, 74, 1749–1771.
Crocker, J., & Knight, K. M. (2005). Contingencies of self-worth. Current Direc-

tions in Psychological Science, 14, 200–203.
Cutrona, C. E. (1986). Behavioral manifestations of social support: A microanalytic
investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 201–208.
Cutrona, C. E. (1990). Stress and social support: In search of optimal matching.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 3–14.
Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support in couples. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cutrona, C. E., Cohen, B. B., & Igram, S. (1990). Contextual determinants of the
perceived supportiveness of helping behaviors. Journal of Social and Personal
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress:
Toward a theory of optimal matching. In I. G. Sarason, B. R. Sarason, & G.
R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 319–366). New
York: Wiley.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,
11, 227–268.
Ditzen, B., Neumann, I. D., Bodenmann, G., von Dawans., B., Turner, R. A.,
Ehlert, U., et al. (2007). Effects of different kinds of couple interaction on
cortisol and heart rate responses to stress in women. Psychoneuroendocrinol-
ogy, 32, 565–574.
Dunkel-Schetter, C., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. (1987). Correlates of social sup-
port receipt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 71–80.
Edens, J. L., Larkin, K. T., & Abel, J. L. (1992). The effect of social support and
physical touch on cardiovascular reactions to mental stress. Journal of Psy-
chosomatic Research, 36, 371–382.
Egeland, B., & Farber, E. (1984). Infant–mother attachment: Factors related to its
development and changes over time. Child Development, 55, 753–771.
Elliot, A. J., & Reis, H. T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood. Jour-
Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjec-
tive well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068.
Emmons, R. A., & King, L. A. (1988). Conflict among personal strivings: Imme-
diate and long-term implications for psychological and physical well-being.
Feeney, B. C. (2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and
exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Feeney, B. C. (2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting
dependence promotes independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 92, 268–285.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate
relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2004). Interpersonal safe haven and secure base
caregiving processes in adulthood. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.),
Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 300–338).
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2014). A new look at social support: A theoretical
perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Review. Advance online publication.
Feeney, B. C., & Lemay, E. P. (2012). Surviving relationship threats: The role of
emotional capital. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1004–
1017.
Feeney, B. C., & Thrush, R. L. (2010). Relationship influences on exploration in
adulthood: The characteristics and function of a secure base. Journal of Per-
Feeney, B. C., & Van Vleet, M. (2010). Growing through attachment: The inter-
play of attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of Social and Per-
Feeney, J. A. (1996). Attachment, caregiving, and marital satisfaction. Personal
Fine, M., & Glendinning, C. (2005). Dependence, independence or inter-depen-
dence?: Revisiting the concepts of “care” and “dependency.” Aging and Soci-
ety, 25, 601–621.
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1990). Social support in marriage: The role of
social cognition. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 31–42.
Fishman, E., Turkheimer, E., & DeGood, D. (1995). Touch relieves stress and pain.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18, 69–79.
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Fishbach, A. (2010). Shifting closeness: Interpersonal effects
of personal goal progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98,
535–549.
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Shah, J. Y. (2008). How goal instrumentality shapes rela-
tionship evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 319–
337.
Fontana, A. M., Diegnan, T., Villeneuve, A., & Lepore, S. J. (1999). Nonevalua-
tive social support reduces cardiovascular reactivity in young women during
acutely stressful performance situations. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 22,
75–91.
Fritz, H. L., Nagurney, A. J., & Helgeson, V. S. (2003). Social interactions and car-
diovascular reactivity during problem disclosure among friends. Personality
and Social Personality Bulletin, 29, 713–725.
Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be there for me
when things go right?: Supportive responses to positive event disclosures.
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you
do when things go right?: The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of
sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87,
228–245.
Gore, J. S., & Cross, S. E. (2006). Pursuing goals for us: Relationally autonomous
reasons in long-term goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 90, 848–861.
Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital
happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 60, 5–22.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting
when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 62, 737–745.
Grewen, K., Anderson, B., Girdler, S., & Light, K. C. (2003). Warm partner con-
tact is related to lower cardiovascular reactivity. Behavioral Medicine, 29,
123–130.
Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evo-
lutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97–132.
Jaremka, L., Kane, H. S., Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., & Collins, N. L. (2010).
Perceived partner responsiveness and the development and maintenance of
felt-security in intimate relationships. Unpublished manuscript, University of
California, Santa Barbara.
Kamarck, T. W., Manuck, S. B., & Jennings, J. R. (1990). Social support reduces
cardiovascular reactivity to psychological challenge: A laboratory model. Psy-
chosomatic Medicine, 52, 42–58.
Kane, H. S., Jaremka, L. M., Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., Collins, N. L., &
Feeney, B. C. (2007). Feeling supported and feeling secure: How one part-
ner’s attachment style predicts the other partner’s perceived support and
relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24,
535–555.
Kane, H. S., McCall, C., Collins, N. L., & Blascovich, J. (2012). Mere presence is
not enough: Responsive support in a virtual world. Journal of Experimental
Kaplan, M., & Maddux, J. E. (2002). Goals and marital satisfaction: Perceived
support for personal goals and collective efficacy for collective goals. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 157–164.
Katz, J., Beach, S. R. H., & Anderson, P. (1996). Self-enhancement versus self-veri-
fication: Does spousal support always help? Cognitive Therapy and Research,
20, 345–360.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Loving, T. J., Stowell, J. R., Malarkey, W. B., Lemeshow, S.,
Dickinson, S. L., et al. (2005). Hostile marital interactions, proinflammatory
cytokine production, and wound healing. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62,
1377–1384.
Kotler, T. (1985). Security and autonomy within marriage. Human Relations, 38,
299–321.
Kunce, L. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). An attachment-theoretical approach to care-
giving in romantic relationships. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.),
Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 5, pp. 205–237). London: Jessica
Kingsley.
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-
person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory per-
spective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384.
Lakey, B., Tardiff, T. A., & Drew, J. B. (1994). Negative social interactions: Assess-
ment and relations to social support, cognition, and psychological distress.
Little, T. D. (1998). Sociocultural influences on the development of children’s
action-control beliefs. In J. Heckhausen & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation
and self-regulation across the lifespan (pp. 281–315). New York: University
Press.
Little, T. D., Hawley, P. H., Heinrich, C. C., & Marsland, K. (2002). Three views
of the agentic self: A developmental synthesis. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan
(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 389–404). Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press.
Lynch, J. J., Thomas, S. A., Paskewitz, D. A., Katcher, A. H., & Weir, L. O. (1977).
Human contact and cardiac arrhythmia in a coronary care unit. Psychoso-
matic Medicine, 39, 188–192.
Main, M. (1983). Exploration, play, and cognitive functioning related to infant–
mother attachment. Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 167–174.
Marvin, R., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Powell, B. (2002). The Circle of Security
Project: Attachment-based intervention with caregiver–preschool child dyads.
Matas, L., Arend, R., & Sroufe, L. A. (1978). Continuity of adaptation in the
second year: The relationship between quality of attachment and later compe-
tence. Child Development, 49, 547–556.
McEwen, B. S., & Stellar, E. (1993). Stress and the individual: Mechanisms leading
to disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 153, 2093–2101.
Moore, D. (1987). Parent–adolescent separation: The construction of adulthood by
late adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 23, 298–307.
Noom, M. M., Dekovic, M., & Meeus, W. H. J. (1999). Autonomy, attachment
and psychosocial adjustment during adolescence: A double-edged sword?
Journal of Adolescence, 22, 771–783.
Omodei, M. M., & Wearing, A. J. (1990). Need satisfaction and involvement in
personal projects: Toward an integrative model of subjective well-being. Jour-
Pagel, M. D., Erdly, W. W., & Becker, J. (1987). Social networks: We get by with
(and in spite of) a little help from our friends. Journal of Personality and
Palys, T. S., & Little, B. R. (1983). Perceived life satisfaction and the organization
of personal project systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
44, 1221–1230.
Park, L. E., & Crocker, J. (2005). Interpersonal consequences of seeking self-
esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1587–1598.
Park, L. E., Crocker, J., & Kiefer, A. K. (2007). Contingencies of self-worth, aca-
demic failure, and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
33, 1503–1517.
Pierce, G. R., Baldwin, M. W., & Lydon, J. E. (1997). A relational schema approach
to social support. In G. R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G. Sarason, & B. R. Sarason
(Eds.), Sourcebook of social support and personality (pp. 19–47). New York:
Plenum Press.
Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does positive affect influence health? Psy-
chological Bulletin, 131, 925–971.
Rasmussen, P. R. (2005). The dependent prototype. In P. R. Rasmussen (Ed.),
Personality-guided cognitive-behavioral therapy (pp. 215–234). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck

(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interven-
tions (pp. 367–389). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Robles, T. F., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2003). The physiology of marriage: Pathways
to health. Physiology and Behavior, 79, 409–416.
Rook, K. S. (1984). The negative side of social interaction: Impact on psycho-
logical well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1097–
1108.
Ruehlman, L. S., & Wolchik, S. A. (1988). Personal goals and interpersonal sup-
port and hindrance as factors in psychological distress and well-being. Jour-
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilita-
tion of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). The darker and brighter sides of human exis-
tence: Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry,
11, 319–338.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Autonomy is no illusion: Self-determination
theory and the empirical study of authenticity, awareness, and will. In J.
Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental
existential psychology (pp. 449–479). New York: Guilford Press.
Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2010). Attachment and relationships: Milestones
and future directions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 173–
180.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and
support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role
of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,
434–446.
romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 466–
477.
Snydersmith, M. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Parsing complex social factors to
determine component effects: I. Autonomic activity and reactivity as a func-
tion of human association. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11,
263–278.
Solomon, M. (1994). Lean on me: The power of positive dependency in intimate
relationships. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Sutton, A. (2001). Dependence and dependability: Winnicott in a culture of symp-
tom intolerance. Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 15, 1–19.
Van Vleet, M., & Feeney, B. C. (2012). Long-term consequences afforded by
secure base support among newlyweds. Paper presented at the conference for
the International Association for Relationship Research, Chicago.
Vinokur, A. D., & van Ryn, M. (1993). Social support and undermining in close
relationships: Their independent effects on the mental health of unemployed
persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 350–359.
Warburton, D. E. R., Nicol, C. W., & Bredin, S. S. D. (2006). Health benefits of
physical activity: The evidence. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 174,

801–809.
Whitcher, S. J., & Fisher, J. D. (1979). Multidimensional reaction to therapeutic
touch in a hospital setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
87–96.
Winstead, B. A., & Derlega, V. J. (1985). Benefits of same-sex friendships in a
stressful situation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 3, 378–384.
Yetim, U. (1993). Life satisfaction: A study based on the organization of personal
projects. Social Indicators Research, 29, 277–289.
Zaleski, Z. (1987). Behavioral effects of self-set goals for different time ranges.
International Journal of Psychology, 22, 17–38.
9
Adult Attachment Style and Parenting
Jason D. Jones
Jude Cassidy
Phillip R. Shaver
F or almost three decades, attachment scholars have been studying

how parents’ adult attachment relates to their own parenting and the quality
of their relationships with their children. This line of research has tradition-
ally been viewed as mainly residing within the purview of developmental
and clinical attachment researchers, who typically employ the Adult Attach-
ment Interview (AAI; George, Kaplan, & Main, 1984, 1996) to assess par-
ents’ current state of mind with respect to attachment. However, since the
mid-1990s, attachment researchers within the social/personality tradition
have been investigating how self-reported adult attachment styles relate to
various facets of parenting. Recently we reviewed over 60 published stud-
ies that examined the relation between parents’ self-reported attachment
styles and parenting; we found that attachment styles are related to various
aspects of parenting across a range of contexts and child ages (from infancy
to early adulthood; Jones, Cassidy, & Shaver, 2014).
The main goals of the present chapter are to (1) summarize our review
of the theoretical and empirical links between parents’ self-reported attach-
ment styles and parenting, (2) highlight our own work in this area of
research, and (3) discuss the prospects for future research. We begin by
discussing Bowlby’s (e.g., 1969/1982, 1988) theoretical ideas about rela-
tions between the attachment and caregiving behavioral systems. We then
briefly discuss the birth of adult attachment research in the 1980s, and
describe the two main approaches to measuring individual differences in
234
Adult Attachment Style and Parenting 235
adult attachment (i.e., the AAI and self-reports). The link between attach-
ment styles and parenting was not the main focus of the first attachment
style researchers (Hazan & Shaver, 1987); thus we explain how both the-
ory and subsequent attachment style research provide a basis for expecting
this link. We then review the empirically established associations between
attachment styles and three aspects of parenting—parental behaviors,
emotions, and cognitions—and discuss important factors to consider when
interpreting the findings in this literature. Next, we describe our current
work focusing on the links between attachment styles and caregiving in
parents of adolescents. Finally, we propose directions for future research.
Theory Concerning Adult Attachment and Parental Caregiving

During his career, Bowlby focused mainly on attachment in infancy, but he
conceptualized attachment as a lifespan process that affects thoughts, feel-
ings, and behaviors in relationships “from the cradle to the grave” (1979,
p. 129). Although he did not write extensively about caregiving, his concep-
tion of interacting behavioral systems—including the attachment and care-
giving systems—and his proposal that cognitive representations of early
relationships provide templates for future relationships provide theoretical
foundations for studying the links between adult attachment and parenting.
Two Behavioral Systems: Attachment and Caregiving

Bowlby adopted the ethological concept of the behavioral system to char-
acterize innate motivational systems and their development over the lifes-
pan. A behavioral system is a species-universal set of actions (e.g., seeking
proximity to a caregiver or providing care to a needy other) activated by
specific internal and external stimuli that lead to, or predispose, a specific
biologically relevant outcome. Such behavioral systems are assumed to have
evolved because they organize behavior in ways that increase the likeli-
hood of survival and reproductive success (Bowlby, 1969/1982; Stevenson-
Hinde, 1994). Although these behavioral systems are assumed to be innate,
Bowlby argued that their development is influenced by experiences and
contexts.
One such system, the attachment behavioral system, organizes infant
behavior around the goal of seeking and maintaining proximity to an
attachment figure (usually a child’s principal caregiver). The main function
of the attachment system in infancy is to protect young, vulnerable infants
from danger (e.g., predation), which increases the probability that they will
survive to reproductive age and succeed in passing on their genes. Although
the attachment system is perhaps most evident early in life when one is most
vulnerable, Bowlby believed that it continues to influence behavior across
the lifespan. As such, a parent’s attachment system is likely to influence par-

enting, even though a parent’s bond to a young child is not itself conceptual-
ized as an attachment (Ainsworth, 1989). Thus both child and parent pos-
sess attachment behavioral systems that influence thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors in the parent–child relationship, but in notably different ways.
The primary behavioral system thought to organize parenting behav-
iors, emotions, and cognitions is the caregiving system. The behaviors
organized by the caregiving system protect offspring from danger, reduce
offspring distress, and promote offspring growth. Although Bowlby did not
write about the caregiving system in great detail, he did note that parent-
ing behavior could “usefully be approached from the same ethologically
inspired [i.e., behavioral systems] viewpoint” (1988, pp. 4–5). Subsequent
attachment scholars have written extensively about the nature of the care-
giving system and its interactions with other behavioral systems (George &
Solomon, 2008; Solomon & George, 1996).
Bowlby (1969/1982, 1988) viewed a parent’s caregiving behavior as
complementing his or her child’s attachment behavior; that is, in the con-
text of a well-functioning parent–child relationship, the child’s attachment
system and the parent’s caregiving system work in synchrony. The two
systems share a goal—proximity between infant and attachment figure
(particularly under conditions of threat or danger)—and serve common
functions: protection and survival of offspring. For example, when there
is physical distance between a child and an attachment figure and a threat
arises, the child’s attachment system motivates him or her to seek proximity
to the attachment figure, and the parent’s caregiving system motivates the
parent to seek proximity to and provide solace and protection to the child
(Cassidy, 1999).
However, synchrony between the child’s attachment system and the
parent’s caregiving system is not guaranteed. Building on ethologists’
observation that the increased activation of one behavioral system often
reduces the activation of another, Bowlby (1969/1982) described how
increased activation of the infant’s attachment system typically results in
reduced activation of the infant’s exploration system. Similarly, increased
activation of a parent’s attachment system may result in reduced activation
of his or her caregiving system. In such cases, the parent’s own attachment-
related needs and strategies may interfere with the ability to respond appro-
priately to the child’s needs. Similarly, dispositional attachment patterns,
established over the period of childhood and adolescence, may affect the
general quality of parents’ care for their children.
Internal Working Models of Relationships

A central proposition of attachment theory is that infants develop experi-
ence-based mental representations, or internal working models (IWMs), of
the self, attachment figures, and relationships (see Bretherton & Munhol-
land, 2008, for a review). According to theory, these IWMs serve as tem-
plates for current and future relationships, and as such are one of the mech-
anisms by which early attachment experiences influence later relationships,
including the parent–child relationship. Importantly, individual differences
in the nature and quality of IWMs emerge as a function of the type of care
received from attachment figures. Thus an infant who receives sensitive
and responsive care from an attachment figure will likely form representa-
tions of the self as worthy of care, and of attachment figures as people who
can be relied upon in times of need. On the other hand, an infant whose
attachment-related needs are responded to only inconsistently or in a reject-
ing manner will likely form representations of the self as unworthy of care,
and of attachment figures as unavailable or inconsistently available. These
representations then affect thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in subsequent
relationships, including ones with offspring.
Attachment in Adulthood
During the 1980s, two independent lines of research were initiated to
explore the nature of attachment in adulthood. Main and her colleagues
(George et al., 1984; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985) developed an inter-
view procedure, the AAI, to assess current state of mind with respect to
attachment, inferred from the linguistic properties (e.g., coherence) of
responses to questions about early attachment experiences, recent losses,
and current relationships with one’s parents and children. AAI transcripts
are coded in detail and then assigned to one of three primary catego-
ries (secure, dismissing, preoccupied) that parallel the infant categories in
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation procedure (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &
Wall, 1978; see Hesse, 2008, for a discussion of the AAI categories). Many
studies have found that an adult’s state of mind with respect to attachment
in the AAI is related to his or her child’s attachment classification in the
Strange Situation and to parenting behavior that partially mediates this
connection (see van IJzendoorn, 1995, and Madigan et al., 2006, for meta-
analyses).
Also in the 1980s, two social psychologists (Hazan & Shaver, 1987)
suggested that there are adolescent and adult parallels of Ainsworth’s
infant attachment categories—which they labeled attachment styles—
that influence a person’s experiences and behavior in romantic relation-
ships. They found that these styles could be assessed with self-report
measures, and subsequent psychometric research showed that the three
(or four, according to some researchers) adult attachment styles are bet-
ter captured by dimensional than by categorical measures (Brennan,
Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Following Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) diagram of
two dimensions underlying Strange Situation categories, the two adult

dimensions are generally labeled attachment-related anxiety and avoid-
ance; more recently (e.g., Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011;
Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), these dimensions have been considered to
reflect thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in relationships with close others
more broadly (i.e., not with romantic partners only). Avoidance reflects
a tendency to deactivate the attachment system and is characterized by
discomfort with intimacy, dependency, and emotional disclosure in close
relationships. Anxiety, on the other hand, reflects the tendency to hyper-
activate the attachment system and is characterized by a strong desire for
closeness in relationships and intense fears of rejection and abandonment
(Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). A high score on either of these two dimen-
sions reflects greater attachment insecurity, whereas low scores on both
dimensions reflect greater attachment security.
A large body of research indicates that adult attachment styles predict
variation in caregiving behavior within couple relationships (e.g., Feeney &
Collins, 2001; Kunce & Shaver, 1994; Rholes, Simpson, & Oriña, 1999;
Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992; Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996).
For example, anxious attachment in such relationships is associated with
caregiving that is intrusive, controlling, and out of synchrony with a rela-
tionship partner’s needs. Avoidant attachment, on the other hand, is asso-
ciated with tepid, unsupportive, or insensitive caregiving. Low scores on
both insecurity dimensions (indicating attachment security) are positively
related to indicators of availability, sensitivity, and responsiveness.
In addition to the findings regarding couple relationships, findings
from other areas of research suggest that attachment styles may influence
caregiving in parent–child relationships. For example, greater insecurity
has been found to predict maladaptive responses to distress and difficulties
with emotion regulation (e.g., Mikulincer & Florian, 1998; Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007), as well as reduced empathy, compassion, and forgiveness
(Mikulincer et al., 2001; Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005;
Shaver, Mikulincer, Lavy, & Cassidy, 2009). Parents who have difficulty
regulating their own emotions, and who respond to others with insufficient
empathy, compassion, and forgiveness, may struggle with the challenges
and stresses of child rearing.
Although the AAI and self-report measures of attachment style derive
from the same theoretical tradition and are described as measures of “adult
attachment,” they differ in many respects and are not strongly related to
each other (see Roisman, Holland, et al., 2007, for a meta-analysis). As
mentioned above, the AAI is coded with special reference to the coher-
ence of a person’s discourse when discussing early attachment relation-
ships, whereas self-report measures of attachment style (e.g., Experiences
in Close Relationships; Brennan et al., 1998) ask more directly about a
person’s experiences in recent close relationships. However, despite these
differences and the weak relation between the two kinds of measures, the
AAI and attachment style measures are similarly associated with a variety
of attachment-related constructs such as emotion regulation (Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2007), romantic relationship functioning (e.g., Simpson, Rholes,
Oriña, & Grich, 2002), and social information processing (Dykas & Cas-
sidy, 2011). To date, there has been little effort to integrate what is known
about the use of self-report measures of adult attachment style to predict
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects of parenting. This chapter, as
well as our review paper (Jones et al., 2014), performs that service.
Review and Analysis of the Empirical Evidence

Several factors make reviewing this literature complicated. First, there is
variability across studies in the way parental attachment style was opera-
tionalized: Some researchers used dimensional measures of avoidance, anx-
iety, or security, whereas others used categorical measures of three or four
attachment categories. Some authors did not differentiate between insecure
subtypes or dimensions, whereas others did, making it difficult to interpret
the consistency or inconsistency of findings across studies. Second, many
studies included only women; several included both men and women; and a
few included only men. Not every study that included both men and women
reported comparisons between them.
Parents’ Self-Reported Attachment Styles and Their Parenting Behaviors

These studies can be placed into one of four parenting behavior categories:
(1) parental sensitivity, responsiveness, and supportiveness; (2) hostility and
conflict behavior; (3) child abuse/maltreatment; and (4) overall parental
functioning and miscellaneous parenting behaviors.
Parental Sensitivity, Responsiveness, and Supportiveness

Attachment-related avoidance has been consistently associated with less
sensitive, responsive, and supportive parental behavior (Berlin et al., 2011;
Edelstein et al., 2004; Goodman, Quas, Batterman-Faunce, Riddlesberger,
& Kuhn, 1997; Mills-Koonce et al., 2011; Rholes, Simpson, & Blakely,
1995, Study 1; Selcuk et al., 2010). Studies have revealed both main effects
of avoidance on parenting behavior and interactions between avoidance
and characteristics of the parent or child. For example, Rholes et al. found
a main effect of avoidance on maternal supportiveness, as well as a sig-
nificant avoidance × child behavior interaction in predicting less supportive
behavior. In contrast, Edelstein et al. found no significant main effect of
avoidance on parenting behavior, but found that the link was moderated
by the level of child distress: Avoidance was negatively related to parental

responsiveness only when children were highly distressed.
The empirical links between attachment-related anxiety and paren-
tal sensitivity and responsiveness have been less consistent than the links
between avoidance and these parental qualities. Only two studies have
reported significant links between anxiety and less sensitive and responsive
maternal behavior (Goodman et al., 1997; Selcuk et al., 2010). For exam-
ple, Goodman et al. found that maternal anxiety was negatively associated
with providing physical comfort to a distressed child following a painful
medical procedure.
Hostility and Conflict Behavior

Rholes et al. (1995, Study 1) found no significant association between
mothers’ attachment styles and observed hostility toward their children.
However, parental attachment styles have been found to relate to the
degree of conflict in parent–child interactions and to the ways in which
parents behave when engaged in conflict with their children. Selcuk et al.
(2010) found that maternal anxiety, but not avoidance, was associated with
greater observed conflict in mother–child interactions. In addition, two
studies found that insecure parental attachment styles were related to less
supportive and constructive parental behavior during parent–child con-
flicts (e.g., more anger and yelling, less problem solving, less collaborating;
Feeney, 2006; La Valley & Guerrero, 2010). Feeney found that the links
between attachment style and conflict behavior were somewhat different
for mothers and fathers. For mothers, avoidance and anxiety were related
to less constructive conflict behavior, whereas only anxiety mattered for
fathers.
Child Maltreatment and Corporal Punishment

Six studies suggest that insecure parental attachment styles are related to
increased risk for child maltreatment. For example, parents with insecure
attachment styles were overrepresented in a sample of maltreating parents
whose children were removed from the home (59% insecure, compared
to 44% insecure in a community sample reported by Hazan & Shaver,
1987; Cramer & Kelly, 2010). In this sample of abusive parents, the fearful
attachment category was the most frequently endorsed insecure style. In
addition, insecure parents scored higher than secure parents did on indi-
ces of child abuse risk (Howard, 2010; Moncher, 1996; Rodriguez, 2006).
The subtype of insecurity related to abuse risk was, however, inconsistent
across these studies. Moncher and Rodriguez found that both maternal
anxiety and avoidance were associated with higher abuse risk. On the other
hand, in a sample of fathers, Howard found that anxious, but not avoidant,
fathers were at higher risk for abuse than secure fathers. Finally, two stud-
ies found that insecure maternal attachment styles were weakly related to
greater use of corporal punishment (i.e., spanking; Berlin et al., 2011; Coyl,
Newland, & Freeman, 2010).
Overall Parental Functioning and Miscellaneous Parenting Behaviors

Researchers have also examined how attachment styles relate to various
other aspects of parental behavior that do not fall neatly into a single
subcategory of parenting behavior. In general, these studies suggest that
insecure parental attachment styles are associated with more negative
parental behaviors, including less consistent parental behavior (Coyl et
al., 2010; Kilmann, Vendemia, Parnell, & Urbaniak, 2009), less parental
involvement (Coyl et al., 2010), less caring behavior (Feeney, 2002), lower
parental acceptance (Kilmann et al., 2009; but see Meredith & Noller,
2003, for null findings), more intrusiveness (Mills-Koonce et al., 2011;
but see Berlin et al., 2011, for null findings), greater psychological control
(Kilmann et al., 2009), lower-quality maternal teaching behavior (Rholes
et al., 1995, Study 1), less engagement in activities with children thought
to promote positive development (Green, Furrer, & McAllister, 2007),
greater socialization of avoidant coping strategies (Abaied & Rudolph,
2010), more authoritarian and more permissive parenting (Millings,
Walsh, Hepper, & O’Brien, 2013), and more negative ratings of overall
functioning as a parent (Cohen, Zerach, & Solomon, 2011). As with the
other subdomains of parental behavior, there was variability in which
subtype or dimension of insecurity better predicted a particular aspect of
parental behavior.
Summary of Research on Parenting Behavior

Taken together, the studies reviewed in this section suggest that parental
attachment styles have implications for a variety of both observed and
self-reported parenting behaviors. The broad range of parenting behaviors
associated with parental attachment styles is impressive, but what may be
most intriguing to attachment researchers is the link between attachment
styles and parental sensitivity and responsiveness. Parental sensitivity
and responsiveness are at the core of attachment theory and are thought
to be among the most important predictors of child attachment security
(Ainsworth et al., 1978; De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997). The findings
showing that parental insecurity is related to less sensitive, supportive, and
responsive parental behavior mesh nicely with the results of studies find-
ing links between insecure attachment styles and less sensitive and sup-
portive caregiving in romantic relationships (e.g., Feeney & Collins, 2001;
Rholes et al., 1999; Simpson et al., 1992, 1996). Furthermore, the link
between self-reported attachment styles and parental sensitivity meshes

with the well-documented association between parents’ state of mind with
respect to attachment in the AAI and parental sensitivity/responsiveness
(van IJzendoorn, 1995). Nonetheless, additional studies are needed to rep-
licate and further clarify the link between attachment styles and parental
sensitivity.
Parents’ Attachment Styles and Their Emotions Related to Parenting

Studies examining the links between attachment styles and parental emo-
tions have focused on seven areas: (1) desire to have children; (2) feelings of
closeness to children; (3) parental satisfaction; (4) coping with pregnancy
and parenthood; (5) parental stress; (6) maternal separation anxiety; and
(7) miscellaneous parenting emotions.
Desire to Have Children

Five studies found that attachment-related avoidance was related, among
both male and female nonparents, to a weaker desire to have children
(Rholes et al., 1995, Study 2; Rholes, Simpson, Blakely, Lanigan, & Allen,
1997, Studies 1 and 2; Rholes, Simpson, & Friedman, 2006; Wilson, Rholes,
Simpson, & Tran, 2007). Only one study, using an all-male sample, found
that anxiety was inversely related to the desire to have children (Scharf &
Mayseless, 2011). Finally, Nathanson and Manohar (2012) found that inse-
curity was negatively associated with the desire to have children, but these
authors did not distinguish between the subtypes of insecurity.
Feelings of Closeness to Children

Compared to secure mothers, insecure mothers report feeling less close to
their children, both prenatally (Priel & Besser, 2000; Mikulincer & Flo-
rian, 1999c, Studies 1 and 2) and after childbirth (Rholes et al., 1995,
Study 1; Wilson et al., 2007). In general, the findings are more consistent
for avoidance than for anxiety. Only one of these studies included fathers:
Wilson et al. found no significant links between fathers’ attachment styles
and feelings of closeness to children.
Parental Satisfaction
Six studies on this topic have yielded inconsistent results. Four found that
avoidance was related to lower parental satisfaction (Cohen & Finzi-Dot-
tan, 2005; Cohen et al., 2011; Rholes et al., 2006; Vieira, Ávila, & Matos,
2012), but in one study this effect emerged only for mothers (Cohen &
Finzi-Dottan, 2005), and in another the effect of avoidance on satisfaction

was indirect through work–family conflict (Vieira et al., 2012). The findings
related to anxiety are harder to interpret, with Cohen et al. (2011) finding
a negative relation between anxiety and satisfaction, Rholes et al. (2006)
finding no association, and Vieira et al. (2012) finding a positive direct
effect of anxiety on satisfaction. However, Vieira et al. found that anxiety
was indirectly related to lower parental satisfaction via higher work–family
conflict. Lau and Peterson (2011) found no significant association between
attachment style and parental satisfaction. Finally, La Valley and Guerrero
(2010) found that security was related to greater parental satisfaction.
Coping with Pregnancy and Parenthood

The results of several studies suggest that secure mothers are better able
than insecure mothers to cope with pregnancy, the transition to parent-
hood, and parenting stresses (Alexander, Feeney, Hohaus, & Noller, 2001;
Berant, Mikulincer, & Florian, 2001a, 2001b; Mikulincer & Florian,
1998, Studies 1–4; Mikulincer & Florian, 1999c, Study 2; Trillingsgaard,
Elklit, Shevlin, & Maimburg, 2011). Specifically, secure mothers reported
less psychological distress during pregnancy and early parenthood, felt
more equipped to handle pregnancy and the transition to parenthood,
reported less fear and anxiety about their own health and the health of the
fetus during pregnancy, and reported more adaptive coping strategies than
insecure mothers did. Following a pattern that is strikingly consistent with
the larger literature on attachment styles and coping with stress (Miku-
lincer & Florian, 1998; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), security was associ-
ated with greater support seeking and problem-focused coping; avoidance
was related to more distancing coping; and anxiety was related to greater
emotion-focused coping when dealing with stressors related to pregnancy
and parenthood.
Parental Stress
Eleven studies yielded significant associations between attachment style
and parental stress (Alexander et al., 2001; Fernandes, Muller, & Rodin,
2012; Howard, 2010; Kor, Mikulincer, & Pirutinsky, 2012; Kwako, Noll,
Putnam, & Trickett, 2010; Mills-Koonce et al., 2011; Nygren, Carstensen,
Ludvigsson, & Frostell, 2012; Rholes et al., 2006; Trillingsgaard et al.,
2011; Vasquez, Durik, & Hyde, 2002; Vieira et al., 2012). The majority
found that both avoidance and anxiety were related to greater parenting
stress. Studies that examined the effect of parent gender generally found
no differences (Kor et al., 2012; Nygren et al., 2012; Rholes et al., 2006;
Vasquez et al., 2002).
Maternal Separation Anxiety

Three studies found that adult attachment insecurity was related to greater
maternal separation anxiety (Mayseless & Scher, 2000; Scher & Mayse-
less, 1994; Vasquez et al., 2002). Two of these studies (Mayseless & Scher,
2000; Scher & Mayseless, 1994) found that only avoidance directly pre-
dicted greater separation anxiety, whereas Vasquez et al. found that moth-
ers high in both avoidance and anxiety (i.e., fearful) reported the greatest
separation anxiety.
Miscellaneous Parental Emotions

Four studies examined facets of parental emotions that do not fall neatly
into one of our subcategories. In one study, Leerkes and Siepak (2006)
presented female undergraduates with separate videos of infants expressing
fear and anger, and then asked them to identify the infants’ emotions and
rate their own emotional responses to the videos. Higher scores on avoid-
ance were related to less accurate identification of infant fear, and higher
scores on both avoidance and anxiety were associated with mistaking fear
for another emotion (e.g., sadness). In addition, avoidance was related to
being amused by infant fear.
Consistent with the general tendency of anxious individuals to be jeal-
ous and to want more of their relationship partners’ attention (Collins &
Read, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987), Wilson et al. (2007) found that anxi-
ety (but not avoidance) was related to both men’s and women’s feelings of
jealousy toward unborn infants (6 weeks before childbirth) as competitors
for their partners’ love and attention. Also, in a study of stepmothers, Ceg-
lian and Gardner (2000) found that anxious stepmothers felt less appreci-
ated and respected by stepchildren than avoidant stepmothers did, whereas
avoidant stepmothers reported more resentment toward stepchildren than
anxious stepmothers did. Finally, Scher and Dror (2003) found that more
anxious mothers reported greater feelings of hostility toward their infants,
but that attachment style was unrelated to feelings of pleasure from being
a parent.
Summary of Research on Parental Emotions

The studies reviewed in this section support the link between parents’ self-
reported attachment styles and various facets of parental emotion. This
body of work contributes importantly to the literature on links between
adult attachment and parenting in ways that have not been adequately
addressed by AAI studies. AAI researchers have tended to focus on asso-
ciations between adult attachment and observed parental behavior (e.g.,
Adam, Gunnar, & Tanaka, 2004; Cohn, Cowan, Cowan, & Pearson,
1992), but have not devoted much attention to emotions related to specific
aspects of parenting (e.g., stress, desire to have children). It would be inter-
esting to examine how parental states of mind assessed by the AAI relate
to these specific parental feelings and to compare the findings with those in
the attachment style literature.
Given the well-documented link between parental emotions and par-
enting outcomes (Dix, 1991), future research should examine how various
parental emotions mediate and moderate associations between attachment
styles and parenting behavior. In addition, researchers should go beyond
self-reports of parental emotion and include physiological and behavioral
indices of emotion. For example, how do parental attachment styles relate
to physiological responses during interactions with children or in response
to child distress?
Parents’ Self-Reported Attachment Styles and Their Cognitions Related to Parenting

Studies examining the links between attachment styles and parental cog-
nitions have focused on four areas: (1) perceptions of parenthood and of
oneself as a parent; (2) perceptions of current and future children; (3) per-
ceptions of the parent–child relationship and family functioning; and (4)
cognitive responses to infant distress.
Perceptions of Parenthood and of Oneself as a Parent

Self-reported attachment security is consistently associated with a generally
more positive outlook on parenthood—part of what Rholes et al. (1997)
have referred to as “working models of parenthood” (Berant et al., 2001a,
2001b; Mikulincer & Florian, 1998, Study 2; Nathanson & Manohar,
2012; Rholes et al., 1997, Study 1; Vasquez et al., 2002). That is, secure
parents perceive parenthood as less threatening and concerning, and secure
fathers view parenthood as more rewarding. In addition, in samples of
nonparents, insecurity is related to more negative attitudes toward child
rearing and to expecting child care to be more stressful and aggravating
(Nathanson & Manohar, 2012; Rholes et al., 1997, Study 1; yet see Scharf
& Mayseless, 2011, who did not find a link between attachment style and
expected parental satisfaction). Although not all of these studies exam-
ined the subtypes or dimensions of insecure attachment, the ones that did
mostly found that both avoidance and anxiety were related to more nega-
tive views of parenthood.
Studies examining individuals’ perceptions of themselves as current
or future parents have found that insecurity is associated with less self-
reported competence in the parental role, less confidence in the ability
to relate to children and to parent effectively, less emphasis on children’s

attaining developmental goals, less knowledge of child development,
and more unrealistic expectations of being a “perfect” parent (Caldwell,
Shaver, Li, & Minzenberg, 2011; Howard, 2010; Kilmann et al., 2009;
Kohlhoff & Barnett, 2013; Rholes et al., 1995, Study 2; Scharf & Mayse-
less, 2011; Scher & Mayseless, 1994; Snell, Overbey, & Brewer, 2005).
However, the subtype of insecurity predicting each of these parenting cog-
nitions was inconsistent across studies. Nonparents who reported greater
insecurity also reported that they expected to be less warm and more strict
with future children (Nathanson & Manohar, 2012; Rholes et al., 1997,
Study 1). These links emerged in relation to both avoidance and anxiety for
both men and women (Rholes et al., 1997, Study 1).
Perceptions of Current and Future Children

Studies examining perceptions of current and prospective children have
yielded inconsistent results. Four studies found no relation between par-
ents’ attachment styles and perceptions of their current (Lench, Quas, &
Edelstein, 2006; Mayseless & Scher, 2000; Meredith & Noller, 2003)
or future (Scharf & Mayseless, 2011) children. On the other hand, three
studies found that insecure attachment styles were related to more nega-
tive perceptions of current child temperament (e.g., less adaptable, more
fearful; Pesonen, Räikkönen, Keltikangas-Järvinen, Strandberg, & Järv-
enpää, 2003; Pesonen, Räikkönen, Strandberg, Keltikangas-Järvinen, &
Järvenpää, 2004; Priel & Besser, 2000). In general, these studies found
that both avoidance and anxiety were associated with more negative per-
ceptions of infant temperament. In addition, Scher and Mayseless (1997)
found that maternal avoidance, but not anxiety, predicted an increase in
negative perceptions of infant temperament from 3 to 9 months. Finally,
Rholes et al. (1997, Study 2) found that nonparents’ avoidance, but not
anxiety, was related to more negative expectations of future child attach-
ment behavior.
In addition to these findings on perceptions of child temperament and
behavior, Rholes et al. (2011) found that parental anxiety, but not avoid-
ance, was associated with perceiving an infant as interfering with the par-
ents’ romantic relationship. This fits with the general tendency of anxious
individuals to desire more attention from close others (Collins & Read,
1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987); it also meshes with the finding that anxi-
ety is related to feelings of jealousy toward infants (Wilson et al., 2007).
Finally, greater parental avoidance has been linked to less optimistic expec-
tations for child outcomes (Lench et al., 2006). That is, more avoidant
parents view their children as more likely to experience negative life events
(e.g., become seriously ill) and less likely to experience positive life events
(e.g., stay healthy).
Perceptions of the Parent–Child Relationship and Family Functioning

Both avoidance and anxiety have been linked with more negative percep-
tions of the parent–child relationship (e.g., feeling disliked by one’s child;
Berlin et al., 2011). Related to overall family functioning, two studies found
that parental security was associated with higher ratings of family cohe-
sion and adaptability (Mikulincer & Florian, 1999a; Finzi-Dottan, Cohen,
Iwaniec, Sapir, & Wiezman, 2006; but see Mikulincer & Florian, 1999b,
for null results). In addition, Kor et al. (2012) found that parents’ avoid-
ance and anxiety were related to greater emotional distance among family
members and greater family chaos (i.e., lower organization and control).
Finally, Kohn et al. (2012) found that higher parental anxiety was related
to perceiving family responsibilities as overwhelming and to perceptions of
greater work–family conflict in both mothers and fathers. Avoidance was
also related to perceiving family responsibilities as overwhelming and to
more work–family conflict, but only among fathers.
Cognitive Responses to Infant Distress

Leerkes and Siepak (2006) asked female college students to view videos of
infants expressing anger and fear, and then assessed participants’ attribu-
tions for why the infant in each video was crying. Avoidance was positively
associated with negative/internal attributions for infant fear (e.g., “the
infant is spoiled or difficult”) and negatively associated with situation/emo-
tion attributions for infant anger (e.g., “the baby is upset by the situation”).
On the other hand, anxiety was positively associated with temporary/
physical attributions for infant fear and anger (e.g., “the baby is hungry
or tired”). These findings, in conjunction with the results from this study
related to emotional responses to infant distress (reported above), suggest
that avoidance is associated with rather maladaptive responses to infant
distress. That is, more avoidant women attribute infant distress to negative
stable characteristics of the infant, rather than to situational factors, and
respond to infant fear with amusement. The findings related to anxiety are
more difficult to interpret. The authors suggest that the combination of
mistaking fear for another negative emotion and attributing infant distress
to temporary, physical factors may reflect a pattern of responding that is
out of synchrony with the needs of the infant (e.g., feeding a frightened
infant rather than providing comfort).
Summary of Research on Parental Cognitions

Taken together, these studies suggest that insecure parental attachment
styles are related to more negative parenting cognitions. The findings make
a novel and important contribution to understanding the links between
adult attachment and parenting. As mentioned in the summary of paren-

tal emotions, AAI researchers have tended to focus mainly on the relation
between adult attachment and parenting behavior, and for the most part
have not examined how AAI states of mind relate to parental cognitions.
An interesting question for future research is whether states of mind in the
AAI are related to specific parental cognitions (e.g., working models of
parenthood) in the same way that self-reported attachment styles are (see
Scharf & Mayseless, 2011, for some initial evidence).
Several important cognitive aspects of parenting have yet to be exam-
ined in relation to parental attachment styles—for example, parental mind-
mindedness (Meins, 1997), reflective function (Slade, 2005), and parental
insightfulness (Oppenheim & Koren-Karie, 2009), which are important
predictors of parenting behavior and child outcomes. Future research
should examine how parents’ attachment styles relate to these cognitions.
In addition, future research should examine parental cognitions as media-
tors and moderators of the link between parental attachment styles and
parenting behavior. For example, do negative attributions for child distress
mediate the link between insecure attachment styles and insensitive parent-
ing behavior?
Additional Considerations
Across all three broad parenting domains reviewed here, the empirical evi-
dence suggests that self-reported attachment security is associated with
more positive parenting characteristics and outcomes, whereas self-reported
attachment insecurity is associated with more negative parenting character-
istics and outcomes. Thus the conclusion that parents’ self-reported adult
attachment styles can be used profitably to study thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors in parent–child relationships seems to be justified by the available
empirical evidence. However, there are several important factors to consider
if one intends to understand the more nuanced aspects of this literature.
First, although it is true that insecurity is related to more negative par-
enting behaviors, emotions, and cognitions, the literature is less consistent
in terms of how the specific subtypes or dimensions of insecurity relate
to particular parenting outcomes. Attachment-related avoidance and anxi-
ety reflect very different approaches to close relationships; therefore, some
aspects of parenting may be particularly influenced by avoidance rather
than anxiety or vice versa, and this may account for some of the variabil-
ity in findings. For example, most attachment researchers would probably
expect the desire to have children (i.e., the desire for a close relationship
characterized by intense emotion and dependency) to be particularly low
for avoidant individuals, who value their independence and are uncom-
fortable with intimacy, and this is what the literature shows. In contrast,
other aspects of parenting—such as jealousy toward an infant for “steal-

ing” a romantic partner’s time and affection, or perceiving an infant as
interfering with the parents’ romantic relationship—may be more strongly
associated with anxiety than avoidance (see Collins & Read, 1990, and
Hazan & Shaver, 1987, for relevant research within adult relationships),
and this expectation too is borne out in the literature. Still other aspects,
such as parental stress, may be associated with both avoidance and anxiety,
because both dimensions of insecurity are associated with emotion regu-
lation and coping difficulties (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998; Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2007). The literature supports this prediction and also shows
that anxious and avoidant parents differ in the ways they cope with par-
enting stress (Berant et al., 2001a; Mikulincer & Florian, 1998, Studies
2–4; Mikulincer & Florian, 1999c, Study 2). In future studies, researchers
should give careful a priori thought to how the subtypes of insecurity will
relate to a particular aspect of parenting.
Second, in some cases, findings related to the same parenting con-
struct were inconsistent across studies. Two potential explanations for this
variability include differences in how attachment style was measured and
diversity of samples across studies. There is considerable variability in how
attachment style was measured across studies. Researchers have used a
variety of dimensional attachment style measures that, although similar,
are not identical. Of perhaps greater importance is the issue of comparing
findings from studies that used categorical measures with findings from
studies based on dimensional measures. In accord with the psychometric
evidence indicating that adult attachment is better conceptualized in terms
of dimensions than of categories (Brennan et al., 1998; Roisman, Fraley,
& Belsky, 2007), we encourage researchers studying links between attach-
ment style and parenting to use dimensional measures.
The studies reviewed in this chapter were conducted in 10 countries,
with diverse samples characterized by differing life circumstances (e.g.,
parents vs. nonparents; parents of infants vs. parents of older children; par-
ents of sick vs. healthy children; single vs. married parents; parents of low
vs. middle socioeconomic status). This diversity could account for some of
the variability across studies. Future research should involve giving greater
consideration to sample-specific characteristics that could influence results,
and should include discussion of how results are consistent or inconsistent
with prior research conducted with different samples.
Another important factor to consider is parent gender. The links
between attachment style and aspects of parenting sometimes, but not
always, differed for mothers and fathers (or for female and male nonpar-
ents). Similar to the larger literature on parenting, research in this area
has tended to exclude fathers. In particular, studies examining attachment
styles and observed parenting behavior have been completely limited to
mothers (Edelstein et al., 2004, included four fathers). Given the evidence
for sex differences in attachment styles (Del Giudice, 2011), which vary
across cultures, and the initial evidence reported in this review for potential
differences in how attachment styles relate to some aspects of parenting as
a function of parent gender, future research should include both mothers
and fathers, and any gender differences should be reported.
A Focus on Adolescence
Our extensive review of the literature on attachment styles and parenting
has revealed that virtually all of the studies to date have focused on parents
of young children or college-age children. Noticeably lacking in this area
of research are studies examining links between attachment styles and par-
enting in samples of parents of adolescents. Thus we have begun a line of
research to address this gap in the literature.
In an initial study of adolescents (mean age = 16 years) and their par-
ents (Jones & Cassidy, 2014), we examined how mothers’ and fathers’
attachment styles related to observed parental secure base provision and
adolescent secure base use in the context of a parent–adolescent conflict
discussion task. We also examined how parents’ attachment styles related
to parent-reported hostile behavior toward their adolescents and to ado-
lescents’ perceptions of their parents, and tested whether these variables
mediated the link between parental attachment styles and secure base use.
Parental attachment styles were related to observed adolescent secure base
use, but not to parental secure base provision; yet the pattern of findings
differed for mothers and fathers. At the bivariate level, maternal avoid-
ance, but not anxiety, was negatively related to adolescent secure base
use. Furthermore, maternal avoidance was indirectly related to less ado-
lescent secure base use through greater mother-reported hostile behavior
toward the adolescents and through adolescents’ negative perceptions of
their mothers (i.e., a composite indicating less secure base availability, less
warmth, less understanding, and more hostility). For fathers, attachment
anxiety, but not avoidance, was indirectly related to less adolescent secure
base use through greater father-reported hostility toward the adolescents.
In a second study with parents and adolescents (mean age = 14 years),
we (Jones, Ehrlich, Lejuez, & Cassidy, 2014) examined how parental
attachment styles related to mothers’, fathers’, and adolescents’ perceptions
of the degree to which parents were knowledgeable about their adolescents’
whereabouts and activities—a variable well known to predict adolescent
risk behavior and delinquency (e.g., Stattin & Kerr, 2000). For both moth-
ers and fathers, attachment anxiety and avoidance were negatively corre-
lated with their own reports of parental knowledge. With regard to ado-
lescents’ reports of parental knowledge, the pattern of results differed for
mothers and fathers: Maternal avoidance (but not anxiety) and paternal
anxiety (but not avoidance) were negatively associated with adolescents’

perceptions of parental knowledge.
In a third study (Jones, Brett, Ehrlich, Lejuez, & Cassidy, 2014), we
examined the prospective association between mothers’ attachment styles
and their self-reported responses to their adolescents’ (mean age = 15
years) negative emotions 2 years later. Furthermore, we examined whether
mothers’ emotion regulation difficulties mediated this link. We found that
maternal avoidance and anxiety were both indirectly related to more harsh,
more distressed, and less supportive responses to adolescents’ negative emo-
tions through maternal difficulties with emotion regulation. In addition,
we found a significant direct effect of mothers’ avoidance on more harsh
responses to their adolescents’ negative emotions 2 years later.
In sum, consistent with the findings of studies conducted with par-
ents of much younger and much older children, these three studies suggest
that parental attachment styles are related to caregiving among parents
of adolescents. However, these three studies also reveal the complexity of
these links. More work is needed to clarify whether these links are better
construed as direct or indirect, and whether the answer to this question
depends on the type of parenting construct measured. In addition, given
the similarities and differences in results we found as a function of par-
ent gender, future work should include both mothers and fathers. Finally,
given our failure to replicate previous studies that reported links between
parental attachment styles and observed parental behavior toward young
children (e.g., Edelstein et al., 2004; Mills-Koonce et al., 2011; Rholes et
al., 1995, Study 1; Selcuk et al., 2010), future studies should include obser-
vations of parent–adolescent interactions to determine whether these links
will emerge in different samples or in a different observational task.
Future Directions
Throughout this chapter, we have mentioned many future directions for
this area of research. Below, we suggest several additional avenues for
future research.
One issue that remains to be investigated is whether individual differ-
ences in attachment style relate to differences in physiological and neuro-
biological responses to stimuli relevant to caregiving. Several studies have
found that variation in state of mind in the AAI is related to differences
in neural responses to infant cues, as well as to differences in peripheral
oxytocin response to infant contact (Riem, Bakermans-Kranenburg, van
IJzendoorn, Out, & Rombouts, 2012; Strathearn, 2011; Strathearn, Fon-
agy, Amico, & Montague, 2009). Given that attachment styles are related
to differences in physiological and neuroendocrine responding during
romantic partner interactions (Gouin et al., 2009; Powers, Pietromonaco,
Gunlicks, & Sayer, 2006), it is possible that they also relate to neurobio-
logical responses to one’s children.
Future research should include greater consideration of the role of par-
ents’ romantic relationship quality in regard to the links between attach-
ment styles and parenting. It has long been recognized that marital relation-
ships both influence and are influenced by parent–child relationships (e.g.,
Belsky, 1981). Given substantial evidence for strong associations between
adult attachment styles and romantic relationship quality (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007), as well as evidence for links between marital quality and the
quality of parent–child relationships (see Erel & Burman, 1995, for a meta-
analysis), future research should examine the additive and interactive influ-
ences of attachment styles and marital quality on parenting (see Rholes et
al., 1995, Study 1, for some initial evidence).
Future research should examine not only how parental attachment
styles relate to parenting, but also how the experience of parenthood may
change parents’ attachment styles. The transition to parenthood is a major
life event that likely leads individuals to reflect upon, reevaluate, and pos-
sibly change their orientation toward close relationships (Bowlby, 1988;
Simpson, Rholes, Campbell, & Wilson, 2003). Furthermore, researchers
should consider how characteristics of the parents, of the parents’ romantic
relationship, and of the child relate to changes in parents’ attachment styles
across the transition to parenthood.
Another issue is experimentation. Much of the attachment style litera-
ture is based on studies in which contexts, stressors, subliminal security
or insecurity primes, and experimental tasks for couples are manipulated,
and the interaction of the manipulations and attachment styles is assessed.
Similar research techniques could be used in studies of parent–child rela-
tionships.
Finally, research on adult attachment and parenting would benefit
greatly from increased collaboration among researchers from the social
and developmental attachment research traditions. The modest empirical
association between the AAI and self-report attachment style measures
indicates that one measure is not simply a substitute for the other. Yet both
seem to be reliably associated with various facets of parenting. Therefore,
researchers should strive to include both the AAI and self-report mea-
sures of attachment style in their studies. It should be particularly easy for
researchers already administering the AAI to add a brief self-report attach-
ment style measure to their studies.
Acknowledgments
Preparation of this chapter was supported by awards to Jason D. Jones from the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (No. F31 DA033848), and to Phillip R. Shaver
from the Fetzer Institute.
References
Abaied, J. L., & Rudolph, K. D. (2010). Contributions of maternal adult attach-
ment to socialization of coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
27, 637–657.
Adam, E. K., Gunnar, M. R., & Tanaka, A. (2004). Adult attachment, parent
emotion, and observed parenting behavior: Mediator and moderator models.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist,
44, 709–716.
Erlbaum.
Alexander, R., Feeney, J., Hohaus, L., & Noller, P. (2001). Attachment style and
coping resources as predictors of coping strategies in the transition to parent-
hood. Personal Relationships, 8, 137–152.
Belsky, J. (1981). Early human experience: A family perspective. Developmental
Berant, E., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2001a). The association of mothers’
attachment style and their psychological reactions to the diagnosis of infant’s
congenital heart disease. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 208–
232.
Berant, E., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2001b). Attachment style and mental
health: A 1-year follow-up study of mothers of infants with congenital heart
disease. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 956–968.
Berlin, L. J., Whiteside-Mansell, L., Roggman, L. A., Green, B. L., Robinson, J., &
Spieker, S. (2011). Testing maternal depression and attachment style as mod-
erators of Early Head Start’s effects on parenting. Attachment and Human
Basic Books.
tock.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent–child attachment and healthy human
development. New York: Basic Books.
ment relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In
J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research,
Caldwell, J. G., Shaver, P. R., Li, C., & Minzenberg, M. J. (2011). Childhood mal-
treatment, adult attachment, and depression as predictors of parental self-effi-
cacy in at-risk mothers. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma,
20, 595–616.
Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications

Ceglian, C., & Gardner, S. (2000). Attachment style and the “wicked stepmother”
spiral. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 34, 111–129.
Cohen, E., Zerach, G., & Solomon, Z. (2011). The implication of combat-induced
stress reaction, PTSD, and attachment in parenting among war veterans.
Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 688–698.
Cohen, O., & Finzi-Dottan, R. (2005). Parent–child relationships during the
divorce process: From attachment theory and intergenerational perspective.
Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 27, 81–99.
Cohn, D. A., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Pearson, J. (1992). Mothers’ and
fathers’ working models of childhood attachment relationships, parenting
styles, and child behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 417–431.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and rela-
tionship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 58, 644–663.
Coyl, D. D., Newland, L. A., & Freeman, H. (2010). Predicting preschoolers’
attachment security from parenting behaviours, parents’ attachment relation-
ships and their use of social support. Early Child Development and Care,
180, 499–512.
Cramer, P., & Kelly, F. D. (2010). Attachment style and defense mechanisms in
parents who abuse their children. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
198, 619–627.
Del Giudice, M. (2011). Sex differences in romantic attachment: A meta-analysis.
De Wolff, M., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A
meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Develop-
ment, 68, 571–591.
Dix, T. (1991). The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladapta-
tive processes. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 3–25.
Dykas, M. J., & Cassidy, J. (2011). Attachment and the processing of social infor-
mation across the life span: Theory and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 137,
19–46.
Edelstein, R. S., Alexander, K., Shaver, P. R., Schaaf, J. M., Quas, J. A., Lovas, G.
S., et al. (2004). Adult attachment style and parental responsiveness during a
stressful event. Attachment and Human Development, 6, 31–52.
Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent–
child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108–
132.
Feeney, J. A. (2002). Early parenting and parental attachment: Links with off-
spring’s attachment and perceptions of social support. Journal of Family
Studies, 8, 5–23.
Feeney, J. A. (2006). Parental attachment and conflict behavior: Implications for
offspring’s attachment, loneliness, and relationship satisfaction. Personal
Fernandes, C., Muller, R., & Rodin, G. (2012). Predictors of parenting stress in
patients with haematological cancer. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 30,
81–96.
Finzi-Dottan, R., Cohen, O., Iwaniec, D., Sapir, Y., & Weizman, A. (2006). The
child in the family of a drug-using father: Attachment styles and family char-
acteristics. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 6, 89–111.
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The
Experiences in Close Relationships—Relationship Structures Questionnaire:
A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 23, 615–625.
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1984). Adult Attachment Interview proto-
col. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1996). Adult Attachment Interview proto-
col (3rd ed.). Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.
George, C., & Solomon, J. (2008). The caregiving system: A behavioral systems
approach to parenting. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 833–
856). New York: Guilford Press.
Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Batterman-Faunce, J. M., Riddlesberger, M. M.,
& Kuhn, J. (1997). Children’s reactions to and memory for a stressful event:
Influence of age, anatomical dolls, knowledge, and parental attachment.
Applied Developmental Science, 1, 54–75.
Gouin, J., Glaser, R., Loving, T. J., Malarkey, W. B., Stowell, J., Houts, C., et
al. (2009). Attachment avoidance predicts inflammatory responses to marital
conflict. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 23, 898–904.
Green, B. L., Furrer, C., & McAllister, C. (2007). How do relationships support
parenting?: Effects of attachment style and social support on parenting behav-
ior in an at-risk population. American Journal of Community Psychology,
40, 96–108.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
Hesse, E. (2008). The Adult Attachment Interview: Protocol, method of analy-
sis, and empirical studies. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
Howard, K. S. (2010). Paternal attachment, parenting beliefs and children’s attach-
ment. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 157–171.
Jones, J. D., Brett, B. E., Ehrlich, K. B., Lejuez, C. W., & Cassidy, J. (2014). Mater-
nal attachment style and responses to adolescents’ negative emotions: The
mediating role of maternal emotion regulation. Parenting: Science and Prac-
tice. Advance online publication.
Jones, J. D., & Cassidy, J. (2014). Parental attachment style: Examination of links
with parent secure base provision and adolescent secure base use. Attachment
and Human Development, 16, 437–461.
Jones, J. D., Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2014). Parents’ self-reported attachment
styles: A review of links with parenting behaviors, emotions, and cognitions.
Personality and Social Psychology Review. Advance online publication.
Jones, J. D., Ehrlich, K. B., Lejuez, C. W., & Cassidy, J. (2014). Parental knowledge
of adolescent activities: Links with parental attachment style and adolescent

substance use. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kilmann, P. R., Vendemia, J. C., Parnell, M. M., & Urbaniak, G. C. (2009). Par-
ent characteristics linked with daughters’ attachment styles. Family Therapy,
36, 83–94.
Kohlhoff, J., & Barnett, B. (2013). Parenting self-efficacy: Links with maternal
depression, infant behaviour and adult attachment. Early Human Develop-
ment, 89, 249–256.
Kohn, J. L., Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., Martin, A., Tran, S., & Wilson, C. L.
(2012). Changes in marital satisfaction across the transition to parenthood:
The role of adult attachment orientations. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 38, 1506–1522.
Kor, A., Mikulincer, M., & Pirutinsky, S. (2012). Family functioning among
returnees to Orthodox Judaism in Israel. Journal of Family Psychology, 26,
149–158.
Kunce, L. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). An attachment-theoretical approach to care-
giving in romantic relationships. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.),
Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment processes in adult-
hood (pp. 205–237). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Kwako, L. E., Noll, J. G., Putnam, F. W., & Trickett, P. K. (2010). Childhood sex-
ual abuse and attachment: An intergenerational perspective. Clinical Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 15, 407–422.
Lau, W., & Peterson, C. C. (2011). Adults and children with Asperger syndrome:
Exploring adult attachment style, marital satisfaction and satisfaction with
parenthood. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 392–399.
La Valley, A. G., & Guerrero, L. K. (2010). Perceptions of conflict behavior and
relational satisfaction in adult parent–child relationships: A dyadic analysis
from an attachment perspective. Communication Research, 39, 48–78.
Leerkes, E., & Siepak, K. (2006). Attachment linked predictors of women’s emo-
tional and cognitive responses to infant distress. Attachment and Human
Lench, H. C., Quas, J. A., & Edelstein, R. S. (2006). My child is better than aver-
age: The extension and restriction of unrealistic optimism. Journal of Applied
Madigan, S., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Moran, G.,
Pederson, D. R., & Benoit, D. (2006). Unresolved states of mind, anomalous
parental behavior, and disorganized attachment: A review and meta-analysis
of a transmission gap. Attachment and Human Development, 8, 89–111.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood,
and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E.
Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Mono-
graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1–2, Serial No.
209), 66–104.
Mayseless, O., & Scher, A. (2000). Mother’s attachment concerns regarding spouse
and infant’s temperament as modulators of maternal separation anxiety. Jour-
nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 917–925.
Meins, E. (1997). Security of attachment and the social development of cognition.
Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Meredith, P., & Noller, P. (2003). Attachment and infant difficultness in postnatal
depression. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 668–686.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The relationship between adult attach-
ment styles and emotional and cognitive reactions to stressful events. In J. A.
Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1999a). The association between spouses’ self-
reports of attachment styles and representations of family dynamics. Family
Process, 38, 69–83.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1999b). The association between parental reports
of attachment style and family dynamics, and offspring’s reports of adult
attachment style. Family Process, 38, 243–257.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1999c). Maternal–fetal bonding, coping strategies,
and mental health during pregnancy: The contribution of attachment style.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. A. (2005). Attach-
ment, caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases
compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,
817–839.
Millings, A., Walsh, J., Hepper, E., & O’Brien, M. (2013). Good partner, good
parent: Responsiveness mediates the link between romantic attachment and
parenting style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 170–180.
Mills-Koonce, W., Appleyard, K., Barnett, M., Deng, M., Putallaz, M., & Cox,
M. (2011). Adult attachment style and stress as risk factors for early maternal
sensitivity and negativity. Infant Mental Health Journal, 32, 277–285.
Moncher, F. J. (1996). The relationship of maternal adult attachment style and risk
of physical child abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 335–350.
Nathanson, A. I., & Manohar, U. (2012). Attachment, working models of parent-
ing, and expectations for using television in childrearing. Family Relations:
An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 61, 441–454.
Nygren, M., Carstensen, J., Ludvigsson, J., & Frostell, A. (2012). Adult attach-
ment and parenting stress among parents of toddlers. Journal of Reproduc-
tive and Infant Psychology, 30, 289–302.
Oppenheim, D., & Koren-Karie, N. (2009). Infant–parent relationship assessment:
Parents’ insightfulness regarding their young children’s internal worlds. In C.
R. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (3rd ed., pp. 266–280).
Pesonen, A., Räikkönen, K., Keltikangas-Järvinen, L., Strandberg, T., & Järven-
pää, A. (2003). Parental perception of infant temperament: Does parents’
joint attachment matter? Infant Behavior and Development, 26, 167–182.
Pesonen, A., Räikkönen, K., Strandberg, T., Kelitikangas-Järvinen, L., & Järv-
enpää, A. (2004). Insecure adult attachment style and depressive symptoms:
Implications for parental perceptions of infant temperament. Infant Mental

Priel, B., & Besser, A. (2000). Adult attachment styles, early relationships, antena-
tal attachment, and perceptions of infant temperament: A study of first-time
mothers. Personal Relationships, 7, 291–310.
ogy, 90, 613–628.
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Blakely, B. S. (1995). Adult attachment styles and
mothers’ relationships with their young children. Personal Relationships, 2,
35–54.
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., Blakely, B. S., Lanigan, L., & Allen, E. A. (1997).
Adult attachment styles, the desire to have children, and working models of
parenthood. Journal of Personality, 65, 357–385.
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Friedman, M. (2006). Avoidant attachment and
the experience of parenting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32,
275–285.
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., Kohn, J. L., Wilson, C. L., Martin, A., Tran, S., et al.
(2011). Attachment orientations and depression: A longitudinal study of new
parents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 567–586.
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Oriña, M. (1999). Attachment and anger in an
anxiety-provoking situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76, 940–957.
Riem, M. E., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Out, D., &
Rombouts, S. B. (2012). Attachment in the brain: Adult attachment represen-
tations predict amygdala and behavioral responses to infant crying. Attach-
Rodriguez, C. M. (2006). Emotional functioning, attachment style, and attribu-
tions as predictors of child abuse potential in domestic violence victims. Vio-
lence and Victims, 21, 199–212.
Roisman, G. I., Fraley, R., & Belsky, J. (2007). A taxometric study of the Adult
Attachment Interview. Developmental Psychology, 43, 675–686.
Roisman, G. I., Holland, A., Fortuna, K., Fraley, R., Clausell, E., & Clarke, A.
(2007). The Adult Attachment Interview and self-reports of attachment style:
An empirical rapprochement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92, 678–697.
Scharf, M., & Mayseless, O. (2011). Buds of parenting in emerging adult males:
What we learned from our parents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 26, 479–
505.
Scher, A., & Dror, E. (2003). Attachment, caregiving, and sleep: The tie that keeps
infants and mothers awake. Sleep and Hypnosis, 5, 27–37.
Scher, A., & Mayseless, O. (1994). Mothers’ attachment with spouse and parenting
in the first year. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 601–609.
Scher, A., & Mayseless, O. (1997). Changes in negative emotionality in infancy:
The role of mother’s attachment concerns. British Journal of Developmental
Selcuk, E., Günaydin, G., Sumer, N., Harma, M., Salman, S., Hazan, C., et al.
(2010). Self-reported romantic attachment style predicts everyday maternal
caregiving behavior at home. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 544–
549.
Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., Lavy, S., & Cassidy, J. (2009). Understanding and
altering hurt feelings: An attachment-theoretical perspective on the genera-
tion and regulation of emotions. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Feeling hurt in close
relationships (pp. 92–122). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Campbell, L., & Wilson, C. L. (2003). Changes
in attachment orientations across the transitions to parenthood. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 317–331.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Oriña, M., & Grich, J. (2002). Working models of
attachment, support giving, and support seeking in a stressful situation. Per-
899–914.
Slade, A. (2005). Parental reflective functioning: An introduction. Attachment and
Snell, W. R., Overbey, G. A., & Brewer, A. (2005). Parenting perfectionism and the
parenting role. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 613–624.
Solomon, J., & George, C. (1996). Defining the caregiving system: Toward a the-
ory of caregiving. Infant Mental Health Journal, 17, 183–197.
Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child
Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1994). An ethological perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 5,
62–65.
Strathearn, L. (2011). Maternal neglect: Oxytocin, dopamine and the neurobiol-
ogy of attachment. Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 23, 1054–1065.
Strathearn, L., Fonagy, P., Amico, J., & Montague, P. (2009). Adult attachment
predicts maternal brain and oxytocin response to infant cues. Neuropsycho-
pharmacology, 34, 2655–2666.
Trillingsgaard, T., Elklit, A., Shevlin, M., & Maimburg, R. D. (2011). Adult
attachment at the transition to motherhood: Predicting worry, health care
utility and relationship functioning. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psy-
chology, 29, 354–363.
van IJzendoorn, M. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsive-
ness, and infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the
Adult Attachment Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387–403.
Vasquez, K., Durik, A. M., & Hyde, J. (2002). Family and work: Implications
of adult attachment styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,
874–886.
Vieira, J., Ávila, M., & Matos, P. (2012). Attachment and parenting: The mediat-
ing role of work–family balance in Portuguese parents of preschool children.
Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies,
61, 31–50.
Wilson, C. L., Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Tran, S. (2007). Labor, delivery,
and early parenthood: An attachment theory perspective. Personality and
10
Attachment Theory
in Organizational Settings
Ramona L. Paetzold
A ccording to Mikulincer and Shaver (2007), social-psychological

approaches to attachment theory show that it addresses important psy-
chodynamic issues beyond close personal relationships, including those
present in important organizational processes and outcomes. Bowlby him-
self described attachment theory as being relevant “from the cradle to the
grave” (1973, p. 203), noting that the lack of appropriately supportive and
protective caregivers when growing up can have far-reaching effects. He
described individuals who, early in life, lack good-quality care as “hav[ing]
no confidence that a caretaking figure will ever be truly available and
dependable,” further mentioning that their world is “seen as comfortless
and unpredictable; and they respond either by shrinking from it or by doing
battle with it” (1973, p. 208).
Organizations are complex and inherently interpersonal entities,
requiring workers to negotiate lateral and hierarchical relationships, learn
role identities, communicate and coordinate activities in interdependent set-
tings, balance work and family issues, engage in self-regulation, and meet
organizational norms to become valued and contributing organizational
members. And as Hazan and Shaver (1990) have shown, adult romantic
attachment style is predictably linked to work orientations, attitudes, and
motivations. It is not surprising, therefore, that a growing literature on the
role of attachment theory in organizations has accumulated within the last
15–20 years. Attachment theory has been shown to account for variance in
organizational variables over and above that of the Big Five traits (Neustadt,
261
Charorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2011; Noftle & Shaver, 2006; Richards

& Schat, 2011), measures of which are the most widely used assessments
of personality in organizational behavior research (e.g., Barrick & Mount,
1991; Christiansen & Tett, 2013; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002).
This chapter begins with an overview of the justifications that have
been provided for considering attachment theory as relevant to organiza-
tional relationships and processes. Next, the chapter addresses the myriad
problems with measurement of attachment style, noting that the methods
used are often parallel but distinct from those that have evolved in devel-
opmental and social psychology. Third, the bulk of the chapter reviews
the substantial body of research that has included attachment style as an
important consideration for understanding organizational phenomena.
The chapter concludes with suggestions to extend the role that attachment
theory may play in organizational research.
Conceptual Rationales for Including Attachment Theory

in Organizational Research
There are several theoretical justifications for linking attachment style to
the workplace. Hazan and Shaver (1990) saw work as paralleling play in
infants and children. Other researchers have noted that many organizational
relationships are dyadic in nature, such as leader–follower or supervisor–
subordinate, which are similar to parent–child (e.g., Game, 2008; Davido-
vitz, Mikulincer, Shaver, Izsak, & Popper, 2007). These relationships are
argued to allow for proximity seeking in times of need, a safe haven where
social support can be obtained, and a secure base from which the follower/
subordinate can explore and learn. This is particularly true for workplace
relationships in which there is regular interaction, such as in supervisory
relationships (Game, 2008).
Some researchers see even fairly distal relationships as providing
attachment dynamics, allowing organizations to supplement individual
needs for belonging and social involvement that may not be met in other
close dyadic relationships (e.g., Mayseless & Popper, 2007). For example,
leaders such as CEOs—whom employees don’t know personally and who
are unfamiliar with their employees—may be part of attachment dynamics
by symbolically providing a sense of security (say, by appearing close and
familiar through media self-disclosures). Or employees may have less need
for attachment figures because, when distressed, they can use institutional
processes such as grievance systems, help lines, and other human resource
services for instrumental support (Mayseless & Popper, 2007).
One avenue for bringing attachment theory to work that has not been
explicitly explored is the use of group-level attachment, a concept first
Attachment Theory in Organizational Settings 263
proposed and measured by Smith, Murphy, and Coats (1999). Work set-
tings or entire organizations can serve as groups, which can vary in size,
cohesion, and entitativity. Smith et al. (1999) demonstrated, using their
Social Group Attachment Scale, that group-level attachment style is dis-
tinct from romantic relationship attachment style and from group identifi-
cation. Thus a combination of the two types of attachment style could be
useful for understanding attachment theory’s role in organizations.
Measurement Issues and Organizational Research

How to measure attachment style for organizational research is an unre-
solved issue that can make comparability of studies difficult. There is still
considerable reliance on categorical measures, including Hazan and Shav-
er’s (1990) three prototypes (referred to as H&S in this chapter) and Bar-
tholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) Relationship Questionnaire (RQ). The
H&S classification allows participants to classify themselves as secure,
anxious/ambivalent, or avoidant. The RQ leads to four prototypic forms
for attachment style: secure, preoccupied (similar to anxious/ambivalent),
dismissing/avoidant, and fearful/avoidant. Social psychologists have largely
abandoned these in favor of dimensional measures of anxiety and avoid-
ance—for example, the Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ; Simpson,
1990; Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996) and more recently the Expe-
riences in Close Relationships (ECR) scale (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver,
1998), which have been accepted as assessing (relatively) orthogonal factors
underlying the adult attachment style construct. Low scores on anxiety and
avoidance imply attachment security for these dimensional measures. In
organizational research, there are multiple dimensional measures, typically
looking at the relationship between the respondent and “work” or others at
work. The most similar to the ECR is the Experience of Relationships Scale
(ERS; Richards & Schat, 2011), which is directly adapted from the ECR by
changing the word “partner” to “others” or “other people.”
Another alternative, the Adult Attachment in the Workplace (AAW)
scale (Neustadt, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2006, 2011), is based
on Collins and Read’s (1990) 18-item Adult Attachment Scale (AAS) but
changes the language about romantic partners to “my boss” and about
“people” to “others at work” and “work colleagues.” Whereas the AAS
separates avoidance into two highly correlated subfacets understood to be
related to avoidance and a separate subfacet representing anxiety (Miku-
lincer & Shaver, 2007), the AAW represents two oblique factors (Secure/
Autonomous, or SAAW, and Insecure, or IAW) that the authors interpret as
representing security and insecurity. Sample items on the SAAW subscale
include “I find it relatively easy to get close to others at work” and “I do
not often worry about being left in the lurch at work”; sample items on the
IAW subscale are “I often worry that people will not want to stay on my
work team” and “I get nervous when anyone at work confides too much.”
Thus it appears that each dimension of the AAW combines elements of
anxiety (i.e., worrying about rejection/abandonment) and avoidance (i.e.,
handling issues of physical/psychological closeness), posing problems for
interpretation.
One often-used self-report scale is substantially different from others
in the organizational literature. The Self-Reliance Inventory (SRI; Quick,
Joplin, Nelson, & Quick, 1992) appears to have been developed at about
the same time as early dimensional scales in the social-psychological litera-
ture. It generates three factors: Counterdependence (dismissing), Overde-
pendence (preoccupied), and Interdependence (secure) (Joplin, Nelson, &
Quick, 1999; Little, Nelson, Wallace, & Johnson, 2011). The SRI contains
items such as “Needing someone is a sign of weakness” (Counterdepen-
dence), “My desire to be close to my coworkers sometimes scares them
away” (Overdependence), and “I can usually take care of my own work but
I don’t mind getting help if I need it” (Interdependence) (Little et al., 2011).
Although an early version of the SRI has been validated and recommended
for use by organizational researchers (Hinkin, 1995), a question remains
as to how this scale can be compared to two-dimensional scales focusing
on anxiety and avoidance, where security represents being low in either or
both.
Throughout this chapter, the ECR (either the short or the long form)
has been used to measure attachment style unless another measure is des-
ignated.
Attachment Theory and Organizational Research

Today’s workplaces often demand cooperative teamwork, increased inter-
dependence, prosocial behaviors, and high-quality relationships among
employees. At the same time, job satisfaction, job performance, and factors
that affect them continue to be of utmost importance to organizational
researchers. This section of the chapter reviews the role that attachment
theory plays throughout a series of often interrelated workplace or organi-
zational constructs. To some extent, areas of specialization have grown up
separately around these key concepts, and the chapter tends to reflect those.
First, workplace group and dyadic processes are examined. The remain-
ing portion of this section of the chapter explores constructs from more
of an individual perspective, which, according to Murphy (1996), can be
reflected in either the employee’s experiences in the workplace (e.g., atti-
tudes, attributions) or task- and non-task-related behaviors in the work-
place. These latter constructs are therefore divided along those lines.
Work Group and Team Processes

In general, attachment styles have been predictably linked to affect and
cognitions toward groups, perceptions of social support from groups,
satisfaction with groups, group functioning, and plans for group exit. In
their study of social groups, Smith et al. (1999) found that members high
in anxiety experienced more negative affect toward, and lower levels of
social support from, their groups. Members high in avoidance, on the other
hand, experienced lower positive affect, perceived less social support, and
provided exit intentions for the group. These findings parallel Rom and
Mikulincer’s (2003) results concerning work groups in both laboratory
and field (military) settings. Using a 10-item attachment style scale devel-
oped by Mikulincer, Florian, and Tolmacz (1990), they found that people
with higher levels of anxiety had stronger negative emotions, more nega-
tive memories about group interactions, and more negative self-appraisals
resulting from group interactions; saw group activities as threatening; had
lower perceptions of self-efficacy in the group; and performed poorly on
group tasks (based on self-report and observers’ ratings). Higher levels of
avoidance were related to more negative appraisals of and lack of close-
ness to group members, increased dismissal of any potential benefits from
group interactions, endorsement of self-reliance goals, and lower levels of
task and socioemotional functioning. Unexpectedly, more avoidant group
members also experienced greater recall of negative memories of group
interactions; according to Rom and Mikulincer (2003), this indicates that
suppression of feelings of distress is difficult in settings where a high level
of interdependence (e.g., a team-based setting) is required.
Although group cohesion was related to improved group functioning,
it did not improve task functioning for more avoidant individuals, who
appeared not to benefit from the support or security cohesion represented.
Group cohesion may in fact signal a high level of interdependence that
should be threatening to more avoidant people’s needs for self-reliance
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Cohesion did attenuate the negative relation-
ship between anxiety and self-perception of task functioning, so that group
cohesion seemed to provide a buffer by allowing support for more anxious
individuals to engage in task performance.
Rom (2008), also using Mikulincer et al.’s (1990) attachment style
scale, examined the attachment-related mental representations of group
members, where the groups could be more properly referred to as teams.
In other words, they were role-delineated, highly structured, and task-
oriented, with high levels of interdependence required for task perfor-
mance (e.g., Crawford & LePine, 2013). Rom’s study of undergraduates
who had “command-and-control” team experience in the military revealed
that avoidance was significantly related to lower instrumental content and
to lower positive and higher negative content regarding teams. Persons
higher in anxiety demonstrated lower cognitive complexity in their team

mental representations, while those with higher avoidance had lower levels
of mental differentiation. In combination, these results suggest that insecu-
rity is related to lower perceptions of team performance and/or dismissal of
the importance of team-based interactions.
Finally, Daus and Joplin (1999), using the SRI with undergraduates
who, in small groups, performed consensus-based ranking tasks, found
that groups composed of members who were more counterdependent had
lower levels of group satisfaction (and satisfaction with the emergent leader,
who was determined by both group leaders and a research assistant). Aver-
age group-level attachment style also interacted with group-level coping
strategies to have an impact on group performance. Lower performance
was associated with high average group counterdependence paired with
high levels of group members’ coping avoidance. High average group lev-
els of counterdependence coupled with a group’s greater likelihood to use
positive reappraisal also was associated with lower group satisfaction, sat-
isfaction with the leader, and with the task.1 Daus and Joplin (1991) also
investigated the effects of leader attachment and coping styles on group
performance, finding that higher levels of leader counterdependence inter-
acted with the leader’s avoidant coping style to predict lower group perfor-
mance, as did higher levels of leader overdependence paired with a leader’s
lack of using positive reappraisal as a coping style.
Leaders and Followers

Using Freud’s work as a basis, organizational researchers have drawn
parallels between parent–child and leader–follower relationships (Keller,
2003; Keller & Cacioppe, 2001; Popper & Amit, 2009; Popper, Mayseless,
& Castelnovo, 2000; Towler, 2005). The early focus was on transforma-
tional (i.e., more relational) leaders, because they tend to provide strong
investments of emotional and instrumental resources in their followers;
they are responsive and sensitive to followers’ needs; and they give fol-
lowers individualized attention in the spirit of empowering them to build
self-esteem and individual autonomy. Transformational leaders also model
prosocial behaviors, being empathetic and nurturing (Popper & Mayseless,
2003). Thus transformational leaders are sensitive, responsive caregivers
who provide their followers with a sense of security that enables followers
to self-actualize. By contrast, more personalized (i.e., less relational) lead-
ers follow their own personal vision and self-interests; provide one-way
1 It should be noted that because Daus and Joplin (1999) were apparently unaware of
Smith et al.’s (1999) work, they did not consider a group-based measure of attachment
orientation, but averaged individual group members’ scores to represent a group-level
attachment style.
communication; are more detached, more self-oriented, and less empa-

thetic; and can be prone to narcissism (Shalit, Popper, & Zakay, 2010).
Popper et al. (2000), using the SRI, found that transformational leadership
characteristics were correlated with having a secure attachment style. Moss
(2009), using the AAQ, found that leaders (supervisors) of more anxiously
attached individuals were less transformational, suggesting an effect for
followers on leadership style.
Motives for becoming leaders have also been demonstrated to vary
across attachment styles, as shown by Davidovitz, Mikulincer, Shaver,
Izsak, and Popper (2007). Greater anxiety was linked to seeing leadership
as an opportunity to have needs for acceptance met, while more avoidant
persons sought to be leaders to distance themselves from followers and
viewed leadership as an opportunity to demonstrate their autonomy and
toughness. Attachment insecurity in general reduced the probability than
at individual would have prosocial motives for leadership and was asso-
ciated with more personalized forms of leadership. Greater anxiety was
related to control-related motives, whereas greater avoidance was asso-
ciated with lower task-oriented motives (possibly a way of avoiding the
interdependence necessary for task performance). Thus higher security was
linked to having motives related to being prosocial, being supportive, and
in general being more of a transformational leader.
This does not mean that followers necessarily prefer leaders who are
more secure, more transformational (relational), or less personalized. For
example, Mikulincer and Florian (1995), using the H&S attachment mea-
sure, found that individuals with either a secure or an avoidant attachment
style were viewed as more suitable for officer roles by their military peers.
Thus even avoidant leaders may be viewed as capable of providing instru-
mental forms of leadership, at least in military settings. Furthermore, fol-
lowers’ attachment styles help to predict their leadership preferences. Shalit
et al. (2010) compared preferences for personalized leaders over socialized
leaders, and found (based on use of the H&S measure) that among col-
lege students who viewed videos comparing candidates for a CEO position,
secure students preferred more socialized leaders over personalized leaders,
while avoidant students had just the opposite preference. Berson, Dan, and
Yammarino (2006) found, again using the H&S prototypes, that secure
followers emphasize more relationship-oriented qualities in their ideal lead-
ers than do either ambivalent or avoidant followers. Using the RQ in a
study of adult workers in a retail organization, Boatwright, Lopez, Sauer,
VanDerWege, and Huber (2010) demonstrated that workers who were pre-
occupied reported stronger preferences for relational forms of leadership
as ideal than did workers who were dismissing/avoidant. Secure workers
also more strongly preferred relationship leadership than did dismissing/
avoidant workers. Thus it appears that secure followers, who can work well
with others and will rely on leadership from appropriate others when it is
needed, and preoccupied followers, who exhibit more dependence on others

and require support and comforting to manage anxiety, prefer a relational
style of interacting with a leader/supervisor, whereas dismissing/avoidant
followers, who strongly value autonomy and independence and cope with
distress through distancing, apparently do not. While results on leader-
ship preferences across these studies are somewhat mixed, it appears that
relational or transformational leaders are preferred by followers who are
not more avoidant. This finding can perhaps be explained by Davidovitz et
al. (2007), who found that followers who were high in avoidance viewed
leaders as having less ability to lead in both task- and emotion-focused situ-
ations. More avoidant followers also tended to view themselves as having
lower instrumental and socioemotional functioning within teams.
Most studies indicate advantages for having more secure leaders. Davi-
dovitz et al. (2007) found that when followers assessed leader performance,
they saw leaders higher in avoidance as having lower efficacy in handling
emotion-focused situations, and perceived leaders higher in anxiety as
having lower efficacy in handling task-focused situations. Officers having
higher avoidance were also viewed as having military units with less cohe-
sion. Leader attachment style was related to follower self-ratings of func-
tioning as well: High leader avoidance was negatively associated with fol-
lower self-ratings of socioemotional functioning, while high leader anxiety
was positively associated with such self-ratings. These effects for leader and
follower were additive, so that the pairing of a leader high on avoidance
with followers high on avoidance led to fewer contributions from followers
to a positive emotional climate and the lowest amount of unit cohesion of
any leader–follower pairing. This suggests that leader–follower congruence
in attachment styles—a model proposed by Keller (2003) for beneficial
attachment-related leadership—does not appear to hold for avoidance.
Research has also shown that leader avoidance tends to have particu-
larly deleterious effects on the health and well-being of followers. In a lon-
gitudinal study, Davidovitz et al. (2007) assessed mental health outcomes
of followers when the leader had the opportunity to serve as a security-
providing attachment figure during a stressful period of combat training.
When a leader was high on avoidance, his followers saw him as less sensi-
tive and responsive than if a leader was lower in avoidance; in addition, a
soldier’s own anxiety or avoidance was associated with perceptions that
the leader was not a good security provider. At the level of the unit, higher
leader avoidance was related to the deterioration of the mental health of
the soldiers in the unit. Within the unit, soldiers who were more highly
avoidant also saw greater declines in their mental health. Officer avoidance
interacted with soldier insecurity, so that more insecure soldiers (either
anxious or avoidant) experienced greater reductions in mental health than
others. Furthermore, the soldiers’ assessments of the officer’s ability to be
a secure attachment figure mediated the relationship between the officer’s
attachment style and changes in the soldiers’ mental health levels. After
only 2 months, leader avoidance was directly related to follower mental
health, which was lower for insecure followers than for those who were
more secure. Followers who were more secure managed to maintain a
higher level of mental health after the 2-month period, regardless of the
insecurity of their leader. This buffering of the followers’ own attachment
style appeared to disappear after 4 months, however, so that negative
effects of the leader’s avoidance were present for all soldiers, regardless of
their own attachment style.
The relationship between leaders and followers has also been studied
through the lens of leader–member exchange (LMX), which focuses on
the process of dyadic relationship development via role and social exchange
theories (Wayne, Shore, & Linden, 1997). For example, Towler and Stuhl-
macher (2013), in a study of career-oriented working women, found that
although anxiety was not related to the quality of employee relationships
with supervisors (via LMX), avoidance was negatively related to LMX
quality; these results support the notion that more avoidant persons do
not make investments in their relationships with supervisors, perhaps as a
means of maintaining distance and autonomy. In addition, having good-
quality relationships with supervisors (for employees low in avoidance)
was associated with less work conflict. However, Towler and Stuhlmacher
(2013) did not consider the role of supervisor attachment style in determin-
ing LMX quality.
Richards and Hackett (2012)—using the ERS to measure both super-
visor and subordinate attachment styles in a sample obtained through the
StudyResponse project (Stanton & Weiss, 2002), and using the actor–part-
ner independence model (APIM) for data analysis—found that LMX qual-
ity perceptions were negatively related to both anxiety and avoidance in an
actor (i.e., there was a lack of trust, there was too much clinginess in the
relationship, and individuation was hindered), but there were no partner
effects. However, low levels of anxiety in actors and partners interacted
to predict higher perceived levels of LMX quality, with quality deteriorat-
ing as a function of the difference between levels of anxiety in actors and
partners (leaders and their subordinates). Thus there was support for a con-
gruence effect for anxiety in LMX quality (Keller, 2003), but because there
was no significant interaction for avoidance, congruence was not supported
for that attachment style.
Richards and Hackett (2012) also found that cognitive and behavioral
strategies such as reappraisal and suppression moderated the connection
between attachment styles and LMX quality, due to either reducing the
emotional impact of a situation (appraisal) or changing behavioral response
to a felt emotion (suppression). A higher quality of LMX was found in
dyads with highly anxious partners, when both supervisors and subor-
dinates used reappraisal to reframe threats that triggered the attachment
system (e.g., negative treatment at work, presence of work stressors). Reap-

praisal was not an effective strategy for avoidant dyadic partners, however,
perhaps because avoidant denial prevented them from using it. Suppres-
sion of negative emotions was also an effective strategy for highly anxious
dyadic partners. For highly avoidant partners, there was a significant part-
ner effect (not an actor effect), such that LMX quality was significantly
higher when these supervisor and subordinate pairs used suppression to
regulate their emotions. These results regarding regulatory strategies also
support Keller’s (2003) notion that there is congruency in anxiety pairings,
but not for partners who are avoidant.
Although not using the LMX framework, Game (2008) examined
supervisor–subordinate dyadic models by looking at the differential effects
of global and specific models of attachment styles. She found that super-
visor-specific avoidance, but not anxiety, was related to negative relation-
ship attributions, above and beyond the role that global attachment styles
played. In this research, global attachment styles were measured with a
version of the ECR adapted to the workplace (e.g., “others” instead of
“my partner”); specific attachment styles were measured with a combina-
tion of items from the ECR and the Client Attachment to Therapist Scale
(Mallinckrodt, Gant, & Coble, 1995), reworded to refer to supervisors.
Supervisor-specific avoidance was also positively related to anger and dis-
tress within supervisory relationships, beyond the contribution of global
attachment styles, and this association was partially mediated by negative
attributions about the supervisory relationship. Furthermore, there was no
buffering effect for global attachment styles in these relationships; in fact,
when global anxiety was lower (higher global security), the relationship
between supervisor-specific anxiety and anger was stronger. Anger toward
the supervisor appeared to be high, regardless of the level of supervisor-
specific anxiety, but particularly when global anxiety levels were high.
Game’s (2008) work provides the first indication that when researchers
are assessing outcomes for dyadic relationships in organizations, it may be
important to consider the different roles that global and specific attach-
ment styles play.
Attitudes in and Experience of the Workplace

Stress, Health, and Job Burnout
Attachment styles also play an important role in the experience of stress
and health outcomes related to work, as well as job burnout. Early
research (Joplin et al., 1999) found that having a secure attachment style
(as assessed with the SRI) was positively related to both physical and psy-
chological well-being, whereas insecure attachment styles had the oppo-
site effect (both counterdependence and overdependence were positively
associated with psychological symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, and social

dysfunction).
Although results vary across studies, research in general has demon-
strated some negative effects of insecure attachment styles on workplace
well-being. Schirmer and Lopez (2001) found that employee anxiety pre-
dicted higher levels of work stress intensity and physical/psychological
symptoms such as depression, but there was a significant interaction with
levels of supervisory support. With low supervisory support, highly anx-
ious employees reported marginally higher stress levels than did those lower
in anxiety, but with high levels of support, there was no significant link
between anxiety and stress. Avoidance was unrelated to stress and sympto-
mology. The authors also used the RQ, finding no difference in work stress
among anxious, secure, and dismissing/avoidant employees.
Clearer effects have also been established between employee attach-
ment insecurity and job burnout. For example, Simmons, Gooty, Nelson,
and Little (2009) found that having a secure attachment style (as mea-
sured by the Interdependence subscale of the SRI) was negatively related
to burnout (measured as emotional exhaustion, physical fatigue, and cog-
nitive weariness), although security was positively associated with feel-
ings of hope. Negative appraisals of contextual workplace factors may be
the critical link between attachment insecurity and burnout. Ronen and
Mikulincer (2009) studied nonmanagerial Israeli employees from a large
variety of business organizations to determine whether perceptions of
team cohesion and organizational fairness mediated the insecurity–burn-
out connection. Anxiety and avoidance were both positively linked to job
burnout, with perceptions of organizational fairness completely mediating
the association between avoidance and burnout. 2 Avoidance was associ-
ated with lowered perceptions of organizational fairness, which in turn
was positively related to job burnout. Also, lower levels of perceived team
cohesion partially mediated the association between anxiety and burnout.
This study demonstrates that attachment styles negatively bias appraisal of
contextual workplace factors, thus both directly and indirectly contribut-
ing to job burnout. Similarly, Ronen and Baldwin (2010), using the same
burnout measure, demonstrated in a longitudinal study that perceptions of
social rejection mediated the relation between anxiety and perceived stress,
as well as the connection between anxiety and prospective job burnout.
Being hypersensitive to perceived social rejection from others at work (i.e.,
work colleagues) predicted higher levels of perceived stress and job burnout
1 month later.
Furthermore, the attachment styles of supervisors or managers, as well
2 Here,burnout was assessed with the Maslach Burnout Inventory—General Scale

(Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996), which measures emotional exhaustion,
cynicism, and professional effectiveness.
as their caregiving styles, have an impact on employee levels of job burn-

out. Ronen and Mikulincer (2012) found that not only were subordinates’
reports of job burnout related to their own attachment avoidance and anxi-
ety (with higher burnout being associated with higher levels of insecurity),
but their job burnout levels were also directly related to their direct man-
agers’ levels of anxiety (but not avoidance). There also was an interaction
between managers’ avoidance and subordinate anxiety, however, such that
managers’ level of avoidance had a negative impact on the self-appraised
efficacy of subordinates who scored relatively low on attachment anxiety
(i.e., relatively secure subordinates perceived themselves as less capable
when their managers were more avoidant). Subordinates who were higher
in anxiety did not report that their efficacy levels were affected by direct
manager avoidance. Managerial caregiving style fully mediated the con-
nection between managers’ anxiety level and subordinate job burnout,
such that managers higher in anxiety tended to use more hyperactivated
caregiving styles, which accounted for subordinate job burnout. Managers
with deactivated caregiving styles did not affect subordinates’ reports of
job burnout. Thus one form of nonoptimal managerial caregiving—being
coercive and/or intrusive—completely explained the relationship between a
manager’s anxiety and a subordinate’s associated job burnout.
In addition to differences in experience of job burnout, employees
use different coping strategies to handle it. In a set of studies focused on
different cultural groups of individuals living within Israel, Pines (2004)
found that different attachment styles were related to different ways of
coping with the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout. Using Miku-
lincer et al.’s (1990) measure of attachment styles, Pines found a negative
link between attachment security and burnout, and a positive correlation
between both avoidance and anxiety and burnout, among Israeli nurses,
Hungarian nurses, an Arab sample living in Israel, and an Israeli national
sample (with anxiety being the best predictor of burnout for this last
group). Furthermore, in terms of coping with burnout, security was related
to viewing burnout in a more positive light and was negatively correlated
with ignoring it. Anxiety was negatively related to solving issues related to
burnout and seeing positive aspects of burnout, but was positively related
to negative coping strategies such as ignoring it, obsessing over it, using
drugs, and avoiding the situation. Avoidance was negatively correlated with
talking about burnout problems and positively related to avoiding and leav-
ing the situation.
Work Engagement
Work engagement is often represented by two constructs: vigor at work
and dedication (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002).
Little et al. (2011) have defined vigor as a “positive affective state in a work
context that combines elements of an emotion and a mood state” (p. 467),
and that provides physical and emotional energy as well as mental alertness
for performing the job. Dedication, on the other hand, represents a sense of
purpose and pride at work (Moss, 2009).
Using the AAQ, Moss (2009) found that vigor and dedication were
both inversely correlated with anxiety and avoidance. In a more specialized
study of vigor based on the SRI, Little et al. (2011) found that security was
positively related to vigor, and, like Moss (2009), found that both counter-
dependence and overdependence were negatively related to vigor at work.
They interpreted these results as being consistent with the characteristics
of anxiety and avoidance. For example, counterdependent workers may
engage in defense mechanisms of denial or repression to avoid activation of
their attachment systems, which in turn may deplete their resource avail-
ability for work. Overdependent individuals may be in a state of hyperac-
tivation, with heightened levels of distress and rumination that leave few
resources available for vigor at work. In total, these results indicate that
employees higher in attachment security may be less engaged (or more dis-
engaged) from work, which is consistent with the findings on job burnout
(which may be loosely interpreted as a form of work disengagement).
Job Satisfaction
Studies have tended to show that more insecure workers tend to be dis-
satisfied with at least some aspects of their jobs (e.g., lack of recognition,
coworkers, overall job) (Hardy & Barkham, 1994; Hazan & Shaver, 1990;
Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012; Sumer & Knight, 2001). Both moderators
and mediators have been investigated to explain the link between attach-
ment insecurity and job dissatisfaction. In a survey study of employees,
Schirmer and Lopez (2001), who incorporated both the RQ and the ECR
into their research, found that avoidance interacted with supervisory sup-
port to predict levels of job satisfaction. In particular, under low levels of
support, workers who were more highly avoidant (ECR) reported higher
job satisfaction than did those who were lower in avoidance, but under
high levels of support, the group means were the same. 3 Towler and Stuhl-
macher (2013), in their study of working women, found that the association
between avoidance and job dissatisfaction was fully mediated by LMX.4
Avoidance was negatively related to LMX, which was positively related
to job satisfaction, such that more secure women reported higher levels of
job satisfaction as a result of having higher-quality relationships with their
3 TheRQ, however, did not detect differences in job satisfaction among preoccupied,
secure, and dismissing/avoidant workers.
4 Anxietywas not related to any of the mediators, and thus not to job satisfaction in the
mediation model.
supervisors. These two studies indicate the role that supervisory support
and the quality of supervisory relationships can play in determining job
satisfaction. More avoidant individuals are more satisfied without much
support from supervisors (an interaction effect), but because they tend to
have poor-quality relationships with their supervisors (as viewed through
an LMX lens), they tend to be less satisfied with their jobs (a mediation
effect). In other words, highly avoidant employees tend to prefer that their
supervisors allow them to work unaided, but relational leadership, as pro-
vided through LMX, does not permit that outcome.
Managerial/supervisory attachment styles are also related to subordi-
nate–employee job satisfaction levels. Ronen and Mikulincer (2012) found
that a manager’s anxiety was negatively related to his or her subordinates’
job satisfaction level, and that the hyperactivated caregiving associated
with the level of managerial anxiety accounted for the lowered job satisfac-
tion of the subordinates. Managers’ avoidance bore no connection to the
job satisfaction of their subordinates, however, and no dyadic interactions
of attachment styles predicted the job satisfaction levels of subordinates.
Work–Family Issues
Work–family balance (or work–family conflict) continues to be a major
area of organizational research, with models of the work–family interface
becoming increasingly complex over time (Ferguson, Carlson, Zivnuska, &
Whitten, 2012). Research in this area largely supports a spillover model,
indicating that work experiences flow into family life (and vice versa) (Kin-
nunen, Feldt, Geurts, & Pulkkinen, 2006). Crossover effects based on
workplace support for not only the employee, but also the spouse/part-
ner and children, can also be important in work–family issues (Ransford,
Crouter, & McHale, 2008).
Attachment research related to work–family issues is in the early stages,
with most of the focus on just an employee’s attachment style, and without
sufficient consideration of a partner’s roles or the presence of children. For
example, Sumer and Knight (2001), using the RQ, reported support for the
spillover model based on a measure they developed to assess work–family
linkage (the Work–Family Linkage Questionnaire). On this measure, pre-
occupied employees reported higher levels of negative spillover from home
to work than did secure or dismissing/avoidant employees (with fearful/
avoidant employees not differing from secure or dismissing/avoidant ones).
Secure employees were more likely to experience positive spillover from
family to work than were any of the other three groups. They were also
more likely to have positive spillover from work to family (compared to
dismissing and fearful employees), but they did not differ from preoccupied
employees on this dimension. In addition, preoccupied employees were less
likely than all other groups to experience segmentation (independence of
work and family lives), which indicates that such workers may use both life
aspects as a means of getting their safety and other needs met.
Towler and Stuhlmacher (2013) found that having higher-quality home
relationships (e.g., higher satisfaction with the partner/spouse, greater rela-
tionship cohesion)—which was related to higher levels of attachment secu-
rity—was positively related to a woman’s job satisfaction and lower levels
of conflict in the workplace, such that being more secure was associated
with more positive family–work spillover.
The most complex study to date was completed by Vasquez, Durik,
and Hyde (2002), who conducted a longitudinal study to examine the
experience of parenthood on work functioning. Using the RQ, they inves-
tigated mothers and fathers separately to determine how attachment styles
related to variables such as marital rewards, parental stress, working hours,
depression, and job satisfaction. At 1 year postpartum, secure and dismiss-
ing/avoidant mothers reported the least stress and greatest rewards from
their family relationships, whereas fearful/avoidant mothers reported the
most stress and fewest rewards. Depression was highest among fearful/
avoidant mothers. There were no differences across the attachment style
groups with regard to work functioning, however, so no spillover effects
related to attachment styles were found. Among men, secure fathers tended
to view family salience and parental role quality more positively and as less
stressful than did fearful/avoidant fathers. Both preoccupied and fearful/
avoidant fathers were more depressed than secure or dismissing/avoidant
fathers. Work functioning varied across the attachment style groups, with
secure fathers reporting fewer work-related concerns than either preoccu-
pied or fearful/avoidant fathers (i.e., less negative family-work spillover).
Secure fathers also reported less role overload than fearful/avoidant fathers
(i.e., they reported better work–family balance).
Results were somewhat different at 4.5 years postpartum. At this fol-
low-up, secure and dismissing/avoidant mothers were less stressed about
their families and felt more rewarded in family relationships than fearful/
avoidant mothers, just as at 1 year postpartum. Also, fearful/avoidant
mothers at this stage reported fewer work rewards than did the other three
attachment types, indicating greater negative family–work spillover for
them. Differences between fearful/avoidant mothers and the other groups
persisted with regard to depression, but the other three groups did not dif-
fer among themselves. For men, differences in family functioning were still
present at 4.5 years postpartum, with fearful/avoidant fathers reporting
the most stress and less family salience, and with secure fathers report-
ing the least stress and more family salience. There was no difference in
depression levels among the four attachment style groups. With regard to
work, however, preoccupied and fearful/avoidant fathers showed higher
work-related concerns (more negative family–work spillover) and more role
overload (less balance) than secure and dismissing/avoidant fathers did.
Even though Vasquez et al. (2002) provide indications of attachment-

style-related support for the spillover model, several work-related outcome
variables did not show significant differences across attachment styles. For
example, work salience, the length of leave taken by mothers or fathers,
and the number of hours worked did not vary across groups. Unexpectedly,
neither dismissing/avoidant men nor women reported working a greater
number of hours as a way to avoid family obligations, nor did dismissing/
avoidant women take shorter maternity leaves. In general, on those vari-
ables for which there were significant differences, family and work out-
comes were most positive for secure and more negative for fearful/avoidant
parents, suggesting support for the spillover model of work–family balance/
conflict.
Job Performance and Other Workplace Behaviors

Job Performance
There has been surprisingly little research on attachment styles and job per-
formance, despite the construct’s importance in the organizational behav-
ior literature. Beginning with Hazan and Shaver (1990), however, there
was evidence that job performance and workplace behaviors are linked to
attachment styles. In the Hazan and Shaver work, secure employees reported
higher levels of work success, but individuals who were anxious reported
that they were unable to finish work tasks and meet work deadlines, sug-
gesting poorer levels of work performance. Avoidant employees indicated
that they persisted at work-related tasks, but tended to work alone, avoided
receiving help, and gave themselves lower self-ratings on job performance,
suggesting that their coworkers might similarly evaluate them.
Overall, higher levels of security are related to higher levels of job
performance. Neustadt et al. (2011), using the AAW, found that individu-
als who scored higher on the SAAW dimension (i.e., were more secure)
had higher levels of job performance, as indicated by managerial ratings
provided by the organization. They further observed that this association
was partially mediated by emotional self-efficacy. Simmons et al. (2009),
using the Interdependence (secure) dimension of the SRI, found that more
secure attachment was related to having more trust in the supervisor, which
in turn was related to better employee task performance (although secure
attachment did not have a direct effect on job performance).
Support Seeking
Again, little research has explicitly examined support-seeking behavior in
the workplace, although work difficulties might be expected to activate
the attachment system, even for individuals with lower levels of chronic
activation. Using a convenience sample of different types of workers, Rich-

ards and Schat (2011), in a study using a StudyResponse project sample
(Stanton & Weiss, 2002) and measuring attachment styles with the ERS,
demonstrated that individuals higher in anxiety sought more emotional
support from others. Although persons higher in anxiety are generally
believed to fear rejection (and may therefore be less likely to seek support
from collegial or supervisory relationships), this finding may result from
work relationships’ being designed to promote assistance, meaning that
the possibility of rejection is attenuated and perceptions are not negatively
biased. Employees higher in avoidance sought less instrumental and emo-
tional support, consistent with other findings indicating that highly avoid-
ant individuals prefer to work alone and are less satisfied with supervisory
help. Furthermore, these associations held after the researchers controlled
for the Big Five personality traits, trait affectivity, and level of organiza-
tional commitment.
Prosocial Behaviors
The construct most commonly used to measure prosocial behavior (support
providing behavior) in the workplace is that of organizational citizenship
behaviors (OCBs). OCBs are behaviors intended to help in the “maintenance
and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports
task performance” (Organ, 1997, p. 91). These behaviors, therefore, are
not task behaviors, but are generally viewed as discretionary and support-
ive of the organizational context (Motowidlo, 2000). OCBs are sometimes
operationalized as two dimensions: OCB-I, which measures prosocial or
supportive behaviors directed toward individuals within the organization,
and OCB-O, which measures prosocial behaviors geared toward helping
the organization (Coleman & Borman, 2000). Other researchers, however,
sometimes use a five-dimensional measure for OCBs representing altruism,
courtesy, sportsmanship, civic virtue, and conscientiousness (Niehoff &
Moorman, 1993). Because these behaviors are generally viewed as volun-
tary, persons higher in attachment security should engage in more of them
(Erez, Mikulincer, van IJzendoorn, & Kroonenberg, 2008).
A study by Desivilya, Sabag, and Ashton (2006) involving undergradu-
ate employees and their reports of their OCBs found that both higher levels
of anxiety and higher levels of avoidance were both associated with lower
self-reports of OCBs. To explain this connection, the authors examined
perceptions of interactional justice (a measure of organizational justice that
assesses an employee’s perceptions of fairness during interactions with his
or her supervisor) as a potential moderator, but these perceptions did not
moderate any of these relations. Richards and Schat (2011), using the ERS,
found that OCB-O was negatively related to anxiety. This result was also
supported by Little et al. (2011), using the SRI, who found that having an
overdependent attachment style was negatively related to engaging in OCB-

O. This relationship was also partially mediated by vigor, in that overde-
pendence was negatively related to vigor and vigor was positively related to
OCB-O. Thus it appears that anxiety may be positively related to OCB, but
the relation between anxiety and OCB-I is not clearly established.
Using a somewhat different notion of social support, Geller and Bam-
berger (2009) found that for Israeli workers in call centers, higher levels
of anxiety were related to lower levels of instrumental helping behavior.
Avoidance was not associated with instrumental helping behavior, but this
effect must be interpreted in the context of an interaction between attach-
ment styles. Under higher levels of anxiety, the association between instru-
mental helping and avoidance was slightly, but not significantly, positive.
At low levels of anxiety, however, the relationship between instrumental
helping and avoidance was significantly negative. Workers who had more
secure attachment styles provided the highest amount of instrumental help.
Antisocial Behavior
In the workplace, behaviors are sometimes viewed as counter to the best
interests of the organization. Various labels have been attached to these
behaviors: They are commonly termed counterproductive work behaviors
(CWBs), antisocial work behavior, workplace incivility, or workplace devi-
ance (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Hershcovis, 2011). These constructs
differ slightly in operationalization, but they all convey that the behaviors
are undesirable and antithetical to the norms and goals of the organiza-
tion. The attachment-style-related results are so far mixed. Richards and
Schat (2011), using the ERS, found that anxiety was positively related, and
avoidance was negatively related, to CWBs. Little et al. (2011), using the
SRI, found instead that counterdependence positively predicted workplace
deviance, with the relation being fully mediated by vigor at work (which
was negatively related to deviance). They found no effects for either overde-
pendence or interdependence (security).
Voluntary Turnover (Intentions)

Although extensive models of likelihood of turnover (i.e., employees’
behavioral intentions to change jobs) exist in the organizational behavior
literature (Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004), virtually
no research has investigated the connection between attachment styles and
turnover in organizations. Richards and Schat (2011), using the ERS, found
that organizational commitment negatively predicted turnover intentions
and that negative affect positively predicted such intentions, with attach-
ment anxiety being related to turnover intentions above and beyond those
significant predictors. Being more anxious predicted having a higher
turnover intention. There was no relationship between turnover intentions

and avoidance after the researchers controlled for other personality, attitu-
dinal, and affective measures. Mikulincer and Shaver (2007), on the other
hand, in a correlational study of high-tech workers, found that attachment
insecurity was related to lower levels of organizational commitment, with
avoidance being correlated with intentions to quit.
Summary and Future Research Directions

Overall, the results linking adult attachment styles to workplace or orga-
nizational processes and outcomes point to several disadvantages for inse-
curity. This is true across results for individuals, dyads, and teams/work
groups, and the results also hold across categorical and various dimen-
sional methods of assessing self-reported attachment styles. Thus the
findings that secure employees are likely to be more satisfied, healthier,
and more engaged with their work; higher performers on task-related and
non-task-related jobs; less involved in deviant workplace behaviors; better
team performers and team leaders; and more able to balance work and
family issues appear to be quite robust. They parallel findings in the inti-
mate relationship literature that individuals who are more secure are better
caregivers and care receivers, suffer less depression and experience fewer
negative emotions, and are more satisfied with their romantic relationships
(see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for a review). They also reflect Bowlby’s
(1973) view that secure individuals view the world as a more predictable
place in which one can engage comfortably.
The robustness and consistency of the findings have practical issues
for organizational attitudes toward this research. Although scholars have
not called for employee selection based on attachment styles, they have
suggested that employees might be able to “change” their attachment styles
as a function of corrective experiences within the workplace, or perhaps
even by having a secure style modeled (say, by a transformational leader).
In general, attachment styles are relatively stable over time (e.g., Fraley,
Vicary, Brumbaugh, & Roisman, 2011), although there is evidence that
adult attachment styles are a function of not only early childhood care-
giving experiences, but also subsequent close relationships and other life
experiences (Fraley, Roisman, Booth-LaForce, Owen, & Holland, 2013).
Whether attachment styles—either those representing orientations in rela-
tionships with specific individuals, or more global attachment styles—can
be modified through workplace experiences is an unstudied and interesting
question, one that would be of great interest to organizations.
In addition, the apparent robustness of these findings should not
be construed as evidence that measurement of attachment styles is irrel-
evant. There are variations in the findings across different typologies or
dimensions of insecurity, and these may be the result of differences in mea-

surement. Although other design features such as types of participants,
lab versus field settings, types of jobs or occupations, and organizational
contexts may be responsible for some of the differential results, it is likely
that the manner of assessment plays a role in outcome variation. First,
it is clear that dimensional measures of attachment now constitute the
accepted standard in social psychology, which underlies the study of orga-
nizational behavior. This suggests that dimensional measures are more
appropriate for modern organizational research examining adult attach-
ment styles, and that in particular, dimensional measures of avoidance
and anxiety should be employed. Second, researchers need to investigate
whether different dimensional measures lead to certain subtleties in out-
comes. A nomological network for the role of attachment styles in organi-
zational processes and outcomes requires that different methods of assess-
ment be considered and compared. For example, what are the limits of
romantic attachment styles for understanding organizational processes
and outcomes? As noted by Mikulincer and Shaver (2007), the expansion
of attachment styles to other social settings is in itself a controversial area
of study and a source of tension between developmental and social psy-
chologists. Are there organizational phenomena that cannot or should not
be linked to romantic attachment styles? In addition, are there differential
predictions or explanations when more organization-based attachment
measures are used? Can group-related attachment styles provide further
insights into the associations between attachment and workplace attitudes,
experiences, and behaviors? And for dyadic workplace relationships, do
more global attachment styles provide different insights than dyad-specific
attachment considerations do?
One shortcoming of much of the research to date is that even in dyadic
situations, the attachment style of only one dyad member is assessed.
Because attachment styles are important for examining interpersonal pro-
cesses, both members of a dyad should have their attachment styles mea-
sured and evaluated to assess dyadic processes and outcomes. Feedback
loops based on each member’s perceptions of the other are important in
determining attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. The statistical methodol-
ogy for examining dyadic data is more complex, but the gains in under-
standing easily offset the required use of hierarchical linear models (such
as the APIM). For example, a fuller investigation of Keller’s (2003) congru-
ence model requires just such an analysis. In addition, the formation of
attachment relationships in the workplace may best be understood through
a dyadic approach. To date, no one has empirically examined how friend-
ship bonds among work colleagues are formed, strengthened, and main-
tained via attachment processes.
Because of the focus on individual-difference measures (attachment
styles), most of the research reviewed in this chapter has ignored the
important role of organizational context. The research areas summarized

above are more complex than the reviewed articles suggest; future research
must examine the role that context plays in producing, exacerbating, or off-
setting attachment theory effects. For example, results found among Israeli
soldiers under situations of high stress may not apply to most American
workplaces. Or some organizational contexts may provide such “strong sit-
uations” (e.g., highly unjust workplaces or workplaces dominated by high
levels of discrimination) that they override even the otherwise beneficial
effects of being more secure. Job description is another contextual vari-
able that may also affect outcomes. For example, workers in call centers
may be less likely than team workers to help each other complete tasks;
attachment theory effects may therefore be stronger in one situation than
the other. This suggests that context can be an important moderator of
the antecedent role that attachment styles play in determining important
organizational outcomes.
Greater attention also needs to be paid to mediators of the linkages
between attachment styles and outcomes. Organizational attitudes, per-
ceptions, and behaviors are complex interconnected phenomena, typically
requiring mediation models to explain important pathways. Given that
attachment styles have been demonstrated to be important antecedents of
many workplace-related outcomes, the next step will be to insert attach-
ment styles into these more complex mediation models to understand how
views of self and other, as well as the behavioral dynamics associated with
different attachment styles, affect organizational attitudes, perceptions,
interpretations, experiences, and behaviors.
Many applied areas have yet to be examined from an attachment
theory perspective. Fields such as constructive deviant behavior (whistle-
blowing, prosocial rule breaking), political workplace behavior (influence
tactics), destructive leadership and abusive supervision, alternative dispute
resolution (negotiation, mediation), person–organization fit, newcomer
socialization (but see Nelson & Quick, 1991), and mentoring relationships
are obvious areas where attachment styles would be expected to be rel-
evant predictors. Moreover, types of employment (permanent, seasonal,
temporary, full-time, part-time), compensation and benefits, training, top
management teams, globalization, the boundaryless workplace, entrepre-
neurship, and other contemporary issues are all promising areas of study
for social psychologists and organizational researchers/psychologists alike.
For example, our work (Paetzold, Miner, & Carpenter, 2010) has shown
that even bystanders’ responses to sexual harassment of a coworker can
be reliably explained by attachment theory, with more avoidant bystand-
ers reporting less empathy for and less distress regarding the target of the
harassment, including less willingness to help the target. More anxious
bystanders, on the other hand, had greater empathy, felt more distress, and
indicated a greater willingness to help the target. These results held even
when bystander individual-difference measures such as trait empathy and

negative affectivity were taken into account.
Finally, despite the important findings detailed in this chapter, there
has been remarkably little research on the role of attachment theory in
organizational studies in general. Every area of specialization covered in
this chapter could benefit from a more extensive consideration of the role
of attachment styles: Just as personality changed the way that research-
ers came to understand how employees interact in organizational settings
(Christiansen & Tett, 2013), further work on attachment theory could
add to the existing body of research and begin to revolutionize our cur-
rent understanding of the roles played by employees in organizational pro-
cesses and outcomes. It is hoped that this chapter will encourage research-
ers in both social psychology and organizational research/psychology to
look beyond other individual-difference measures that are commonly used
within the organizational context, and to explore more fully the role that
attachment styles can—and most likely do—play.
References
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and
job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organi-
zational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424.
Berson, Y., Dan, O., & Yammarino, F. J. (2006). Attachment style and individual
differences in leadership perceptions and emergence. Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 146, 165–182.
Boatwright, K. J., Lopez, F. G., Sauer, E. M., VanDerWege, A., & Huber, D. M.
(2010). The influence of adult attachment styles on workers’ preferences for
relational leadership behaviors. Psychologist–Manager Journal, 13, 1–14.
Christiansen, N., & Tett, R. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of personality at work.
New York: Routledge.
Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of
the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review,
10, 25–44.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and
relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 58, 644–663.
Crawford, E. R., & LePine, J. A. (2013). A configural theory of team processes:
Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 38, 32–48.
Daus, C. S., & Joplin, J. R. W. (1999). Survival of the fittest: Implications for self-
reliance and coping for leaders and team performance. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 4, 15–28.
Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Izsak, R., & Popper, M. (2007).
Leaders as attachment figures: Leaders’ attachment orientations predict lead-
ership-related mental representations and followers’ performance and mental
health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 632–650.
Desivilya, H. S., Sabag, Y., & Ashton, E. (2006). Prosocial tendencies in organi-
zations: The role of attachment styles and organizational justice in shaping
organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 14, 22–42.
Erez, A., Mikulincer, M., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (2008).
Attachment, personality, and volunteering: Placing volunteerism in an attach-
ment-theoretical framework. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
64–74.
Ferguson, M., Carlson, D., Zivnuska, S., & Whitten, D. (2012). Support at work
and home: The path to satisfaction through balance. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 80, 299–307.
Fraley, R. C., Vicary, A. M., Brumbaugh, C. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2011). Patterns
of stability in adult attachment: An empirical test of two models of continu-
ity and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 974–992.
Game, A. M. (2008). Negative emotions in supervisory relationships: The role of
relational models. Human Relations, 61, 355–393.
Geller, D., & Bamberger, P. (2009). Bringing avoidance and anxiety to the job:
Attachment style and instrumental helping behavior among co-workers.
Human Relations, 62, 1803–1827.
Hardy, G. E., & Barkham, M. (1994). The relationship between interpersonal
attachment styles and work difficulties. Human Relations, 47, 263–281.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical per-
spective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270–280.
Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). Incivility, social undermining, bullying . . . oh my!: A
call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32, 499–519.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of orga-
nizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967–988.
Joplin, J. R. W., Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1999). Attachment behavior and
health: Relationships at work and home. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
20, 783–796.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality
and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,

530–541.
Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attach-
ment perspective on implicit leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 14,
141–160.
Keller, T., & Cacioppe, R. (2001). Leader–follower attachments: Understanding
parental images at work. Leadership and Organization Development Jour-
nal, 22, 70–75.
Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., Geurts, S., & Pulkkinen, L. (2006). Types of work–family
interface: Well-being correlates of negative and positive spillover between work
and family. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 149–162.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C. J., Burton, J. P., & Holtom, B. C. (2004).
The effects of job embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job perfor-
mance, volitional absences, and voluntary turnover. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 47, 711–722.
Little, L. M., Nelson, D. L., Wallace, J. C., & Johnson, P. D. (2011). Integrating
attachment style, vigor at work, and extra-role performance. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior, 32, 464–484.
Mallinckrodt, B., Gant, D. L., & Coble, H. M. (1995). Attachment patterns in the
psychotherapy relationship: Development of the Client Attachment to Thera-
pist Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 307–317.
Mayseless, O., & Popper, M. (2007). Reliance on leaders and social institutions:
An attachment perspective. Attachment and Human Development, 9, 73–93.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1995). Appraisal of and coping with a real-life
stressful situation: The contribution of attachment styles. Personality and
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Tolmacz, R. (1990). Attachment styles and fear of
personal death: A case study of affect regulation. Journal of Personality and
Moss, S. (2009). Cultivating the regulatory focus of followers to amplify their sen-
sitivity to transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organiza-
tional Studies, 15, 241–259.
Motowidlo, S. J. (2000). Some basic issues related to contextual performance and
organizational citizenship behavior in human resource management. Human
Resource Management Review, 10, 115–126.
Murphy, K. R. (1996). Individual differences and behavior in organizations: Much
more than g. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in
organizations (pp. 3–30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and newcomer adjustment in
organizations: Attachment theory at work? Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 12, 543–554.
Neustadt, E., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). The relationship
between personality traits, self-esteem, and attachments at work. Journal of
Individual Differences, 27, 208–217.
Neustadt, E. A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2011). Attachment at
work and performance. Attachment and Human Development, 13, 471–488.
Niehoff, B. F., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as mediator of the relation-

ship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527–556.
Noftle, E., & Shaver, P. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the Big Five personal-
ity traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 179–208.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up
time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97.
Paetzold, R. L., Miner, K. N., & Carpenter, N. C. C. (2010). An attachment the-
ory approach to bystander sexual harassment. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Pines, A. M. (2004). Adult attachment styles and their relationship to burnout: A
preliminary, cross-cultural investigation. Work and Stress, 18, 66–80.
Popper, M., & Amit, K. (2009). Attachment and leader’s development via experi-
ences. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 749–763.
Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to basics: Applying a parenting perspec-
tive to transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 41–65.
Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (2000). Transformational leadership
and attachment. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 267–289.
Quick, J. C., Joplin, J. R., Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. D. (1992). Behavioral
responses to anxiety: Self-reliance, counterdependence, and overdependence.
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 5, 41–54.
Ransford, C. R., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2008). Implications of work
pressure and supervisor support for fathers’, mothers’ and adolescents’ rela-
tionships and well-being in dual-earner families. Community, Work and
Family, 11, 37–60.
Richards, D. A., & Hackett, R. D. (2012). Attachment and emotion regulation:
Compensatory interactions and leader-member exchange. Leadership Quar-
terly, 23, 686–701.
Richards, D. A., & Schat, A. C. H. (2011). Attachment at (not to) work: Applying
attachment theory to explain individual behavior in organizations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96, 169–182.
Rom, E. (2008). Team-related mental representations: The role of individual differ-
ences. Individual Differences Research, 6, 289–302.
Rom, E., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). Attachment theory and group processes: The
association between attachment style and group-related representations,
goals, memories, and functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 84, 1220–1235.
Ronen, S., & Baldwin, M. W. (2010). Hypersensitivity to social rejection and per-
ceived stress as mediators between attachment anxiety and future burnout:
A prospective analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59,
380–403.
Ronen, S., & Mikulincer, M. (2009). Attachment orientations and job burnout:
The mediating roles of team cohesion and organizational fairness. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 549–567.
Ronen, S., & Mikulincer, M. (2012). Predicting employees’ satisfaction and burn-
out from managers’ attachment and caregiving orientations. European Jour-
nal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 828–849.
Schaufeli, W., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). MBI-General
Survey. In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Maslach Burnout
Inventory manual (3rd ed., pp. 6–42). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psycholo-
gists Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
Schirmer, L. L., & Lopez, F. G. (2001). Probing the social support and work strain
relationship among adult workers: Contributions of adult attachment orienta-
tions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 17–33.
Shalit, A., Popper, M., & Zakay, D. (2010). Followers’ attachment styles and their
preference for social or for personal charismatic leaders. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 31, 458–472.
Simmons, B. L., Gooty, J., Nelson, D., & Little, L. M. (2009). Secure attachment:
Implications for hope, trust, burnout, and performance. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 30, 233–247.
Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships.
899–914.
Smith, E. R., Murphy, J., & Coats, S. (1999). Attachment to groups: Theory and
measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 94–110.
Stanton, J. M., & Weiss, E. M. (2002). Online panels for social science research:
An introduction to the StudyResponse project (Syracuse University, School
of Information Studies, Tech. Rep. No. 13001). Retrieved July 5, 2013, from
www.studyresponse.net/TechRpt13001.pdf.
Sumer, H. C., & Knight, P. A. (2001). How do people with different attachment
styles balance work and family?: A personality perspective on work–family
linkage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 653–663.
Towler, A. (2005). Charismatic leadership development: Role of parental attach-
ment style and parental psychological control. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 11, 15–25.
Towler, A. J., & Stuhlmacher, A. F. (2013). Attachment styles, relationship sat-
isfaction, and well-being in working women. Journal of Social Psychology,
153, 297–298.
Vasquez, K., Durik, A. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2002). Family and work: Implications
of adult attachment styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,
874–886.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Linden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational sup-
port and leader–member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy
of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.
11
Health and Attachment Processes
Paula R. Pietromonaco
Cassandra C. DeVito
Fiona Ge
Jana Lembke
P eople with supportive social relationships, more social connec-

tions, and greater social integration typically evidence better emotional and
physical health than those with unsupportive relationships, fewer social
connections, and less social integration (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton,
2010; Uchino, 2009). Marital relationships, in particular, appear to confer
health benefits (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001), especially when those
relationships are high in quality. Researchers have repeatedly found links
between close relationships and health, but much remains to be learned
about the processes through which relationships affect health.
Research following from attachment theory can offer insights into how
relationships contribute to health, because many aspects of attachment pro-
cesses (e.g., affect regulation, self-regulation, perceptions of support and sup-
port seeking, caregiving) are implicated in health. Accordingly, a growing
literature has begun to examine the extent to which individual differences
in attachment style are associated with health-related biological indicators,
health behaviors, and health and disease outcomes from childhood through
adulthood (Maunder & Hunter, 2008; Pietromonaco, DeBuse, & Powers,
2013; Pietromonaco, Uchino, & Dunkel Schetter, 2013). In this chapter, we
first discuss the relevance of attachment processes for understanding health-
related behaviors and outcomes, and present a theoretical framework for
understanding potential connections between attachment and health. We
then review research examining linkages between and among attachment
287
and health-related biological responses, health behavior, and health and dis-
ease outcomes. Throughout our review, we evaluate how attachment pro-
cesses across the lifespan—from childhood through adulthood—contribute
to health-related outcomes. Finally, we discuss several emerging themes, as
well as directions for future research that will enhance our understanding of
the mechanisms linking attachment processes and health.
Relevance of Attachment Processes for Health

Research and theory point to several ways in which attachment processes
contribute to health-related physiological responses and downstream health
and disease outcomes. Attachment processes are inextricably tied to how
people regulate distress in the face of threat (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007;
Pietromonaco & Beck, 2015), and these regulatory strategies are likely to
have long-term consequences for both emotional and physical health. In
normative cases, individuals (infants, children, or adults) who face a threat-
ening event seek out their attachment figures, who then provide comfort
and reassurance, thereby allowing distressed individuals to regain a sense
of calm. People vary, however, in the kinds of regulatory strategies they
apply, depending on what they have come to expect about the responsive-
ness and reliability of attachment figures (i.e., depending on the content of
their working models of attachment; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Indi-
viduals with an insecure anxious attachment style expect that close others
will not be readily available; as a result, they respond to threat by using
hyperactivating strategies, including persisting in signaling their emotional
distress to their partners and in trying to maintain proximity to partners,
and excessively seeking reassurance and support from partners. Individu-
als with an insecure avoidant attachment style typically expect that their
attachment figures will be unavailable and unresponsive to their needs. As
a result, avoidantly attached individuals often respond to threat by sup-
pressing or minimizing their distress and by not turning to close others
for support. In contrast, individuals with a secure attachment style expect
that their attachment figures will be available and responsive, and they
are comfortable turning to their attachment figures when they are in need
of support or reassurance. These chronic strategies for regulating negative
affect are associated with different emotional health outcomes and may
raise or lower risks for physical illness as well. For example, both anxious
and avoidant individuals are more likely to show symptoms of depression
(Carnelley, Pietromonaco, & Jaffe, 1994; Simpson, Rholes, Campbell,
Tran, & Wilson, 2003; Wei, Mallinckrodt, Larson, & Zakalik, 2005),
which in turn predict impaired immune functioning and the development
of infectious diseases and chronic illnesses such as cancer (Antoni et al.,
2006; Miller, 2010).
Health and Attachment Processes 289
Another way in which attachment may influence health is via percep-

tions and provision of support; that is, individual differences in attach-
ment-based affect regulation strategies predict the extent to which indi-
viduals rely on and benefit from their partners’ efforts to provide support
and reassurance, how they perceive their partners’ supportive attempts,
and how they provide support to partners (Beck, Pietromonaco, DeBuse,
Powers, & Sayer, 2013; Carnelley, Pietromonaco, & Jaffe, 1996; Collins
& Feeney, 2004; Simpson, Winterheld, Rholes, & Oriña, 2007). Given
the importance of social support throughout life for later health outcomes
(Robles, Slatcher, Trombello, & McGinn, 2014; Uchino, 2009) and the
potential benefits of caregiving (Brown et al., 2009), attachment-related
expectations and beliefs constitute an important antecedent condition that
is likely to predict the extent to which individuals reap the health benefits
of receiving and giving social support.
A final pathway linking attachment and health is that individual dif-
ferences in attachment style and associated affect regulation strategies
are connected to the ability to self-regulate and organize behavior in an
effort to achieve goals (for a review, see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
For example, in young children, attachment security predicts the ability
to regulate behavior on tasks that require them to suppress a dominant
response (Kochanska, Philibert, & Barry, 2009) or that require social
control (Drake, Belsky, & Fearon, 2014). Similarly, in adults, attachment
security has been associated with greater self-control (Tangney, Baumeis-
ter, & Boone, 2004), as well as more effective behavioral regulation in a
variety of domains (e.g., analyzing a problem, concentrating on a task, task
persistence; reported in Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, pp. 229–230). These
findings suggest that insecurely attached individuals will have greater dif-
ficulty regulating behaviors related to health—including taking preventive
measures such as obtaining regular physical exams and immunizations,
eating a healthy diet, and avoiding risky behaviors.
Given the hypothesized ways that attachment-related differences in
affect regulation, care seeking and support, and self-regulation influence
individuals’ later health outcomes, we have developed a model (Figure 11.1)
that illustrates how these processes, along with physiological and affective
responses and health behaviors, may account for the link between attach-
ment and health. The conceptual framework illustrates that in a relation-
ship between two partners (Partner A and Partner B), each partner’s own
attachment style shapes his or her affect and self-regulation strategies and
relationship behavior, which in turn trigger patterns of health-related phys-
iological responses (e.g., cortisol reactivity to stress, cardiovascular reac-
tivity, immune functioning), affect, and health behavior (e.g., diet, exer-
cise). The framework further suggests that these physiological and affective
responses and health behaviors then contribute to the development of health
conditions and disease. In addition, the theoretical framework emphasizes
Chapter Eleven
PARTNER A PARTNER B
Attachment Style Attachment Style
Affect Regulation Affect Regulation

Self-Regulation Self-Regulation
Relationship Behavior (e.g., Relationship Behavior (e.g.,
support seeking and giving, support seeking and giving,
hostility) hostility)
Physiological Responses Physiological Responses

(e.g., endocrine, autonomic, (e.g., endocrine, autonomic,
immune) immune)
Affect Affect
Health Behavior Health Behavior
Health and Disease Health and Disease

Outcomes Outcomes
FIGURE 11.1. A theoretical

. framework for guiding research on attachment
- and
health-related processes and outcomes.
that attachment relationships are dyadic, suggesting that each partner’s

characteristics, responses, and outcomes can influence the other partner at
various points (Pietromonaco, Uchino, et al., 2013). To simplify the model,
we have illustrated effects in only one direction (e.g., from attachment to
health and disease outcomes), but some effects are likely to be bidirectional
(e.g., having a disease may influence attachment security). Although a fair
amount of research has examined the connection between attachment and
health-related processes and outcomes, few studies have tested the hypoth-
esized mediating links in the model. As an example, little is known about
whether the link between attachment insecurity and health conditions such
as cardiovascular disease (McWilliams & Bailey, 2010) can be accounted
for by the cumulative effects of cortisol reactivity to stress, or health behav-
iors such as food and exercise patterns, or a combination of these factors.
In the following sections, we review evidence indicating that individual
differences in attachment style—in both childhood and adulthood—are

associated with health-related biological responses, health behavior, and
health and disease outcomes. When possible, we discuss evidence relevant
to the mediating mechanisms (see Figure 11.1); we return to this issue in the
final section, in which we make recommendations for the next generation
of studies.
Physiological Mechanisms Linking Attachment and Health

Early adverse attachment experiences can alter the development and func-
tioning of biological regulatory systems, including the hypothalamic–pitu-
itary–adrenal (HPA) axis, the sympathetic–adrenal medullary (SAM) axis,
and the immune system, leaving individuals vulnerable to the effects of
stress on the body (Felitti et al., 1998; Gunnar & Donzella, 2002; Repetti,
Taylor, & Seeman, 2002; Schore, 2001; Shonkoff, Boyce, & McEwen,
2009; Taylor, Way, & Seeman, 2011). Specifically, children who experience
harsh circumstances—including neglectful or abusive parents, or environ-
ments with high levels of conflict or disorganization—not only evidence
difficulty in regulating distress, but also show dysregulation in their physi-
ological stress responses (Repetti et al., 2002; Taylor et al., 2011). Indeed,
early childhood adversity and low socioeconomic status (SES) have been
linked to higher risk for a variety of chronic health conditions, such as car-
diovascular disease, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and cancer (Kelly-Irving
et al., 2013; Lehman, Taylor, Kiefe, & Seeman, 2005; Miller & Cole, 2012;
Steptoe & Kivimäki, 2013; Tamayo, Christian, & Rathmann, 2010). Thus,
as illustrated in Figure 11.1, dysregulation in endocrine, autonomic, and
immune responses may provide a pathway through which attachment-
related beliefs and expectations developed early in life (e.g., as a result of
early adverse experiences) contribute to downstream health and disease
outcomes. Similarly, attachment in adulthood also may shape health and
disease outcomes through biological response systems, either because of
continuity between earlier and later attachment patterns (Fraley & Brum-
baugh, 2004), or because attachment in adult relationships also can shape
biological stress responses (Pietromonaco, DeBuse, et al., 2013; Pietromon-
aco, Uchino, et al., 2013). The primary biological indicators that have been
examined reflect activity in the HPA axis, SAM axis, and immune system.
We selectively review key studies for each of these biological responses.
HPA Responses
A key physiological system subject to the influence of attachment is the
HPA axis. Upon activation by a stressor, the HPA axis governs the release
of cortisol into the bloodstream. Although this response prepares the body
to deal with acute stressors, continued release of cortisol disrupts numerous

body processes, including metabolism, immune responses, and autonomic
nervous system activity (Pietromonaco, DeBuse, et al., 2013). Indeed, the
effect of cortisol on health may be attributed to its inhibitory effect on the
immune system, which predisposes individuals to negative health outcomes
such as increased susceptibility to infectious disease, flareups of existing
allergies or other conditions, and accelerated progression of chronic disease
(Miller, Chen, & Zhou, 2007).
Childhood Attachment and HPA Responses

The link between attachment style and health-related biological outcomes
emerges very early in life. Support from a large body of research suggests
that infants and children raised in a harsh family environment experience
mental and physical health problems well into adulthood, and that HPA
axis dysregulation is implicated in the link between risky family back-
ground and health risks (Taylor, Lerner, Sage, Lehman, & Seeman, 2004).
In particular, parental caregiving may influence children’s biologically
based stress response systems; for example, poorer caregiving by parents
(which is associated with children’s attachment insecurity) can increase
children’s baseline cortisol levels, and this dysregulation potentiates lower
executive functioning and higher reactivity to stimuli (Blair & Raver, 2012).
These outcomes are correlates of poor self-regulation, which places infants
and children at risk for serious health problems including heart disease
and depression, as well as increases in the prevalence of health-threatening
behaviors such as substance abuse and sexual promiscuity (Repetti et al.,
2002). In this way, an adverse environment in childhood may have last-
ing effects on HPA axis functioning, increasing one’s propensity for health
risks and disease.
Several studies have focused specifically on the link between parent–
child attachment and physiological responses. This work has indicated that
infants with different attachment classifications exhibit distinctive physi-
ological patterns to stressful stimuli. Infants with a Type D (disorganized/
disoriented) attachment classification consistently show significantly higher
elevations in cortisol levels and heart rates than infants with other attach-
ment classifications (Hertsgaard, Gunnar, Erickson, & Nachmias, 1995;
Spangler & Grossmann, 1993). Similarly, toddlers of mothers who reported
more frequently using emotional withdrawal in response to their children
(which presumably would increase the likelihood that the children were
insecurely attached) were more likely to show higher levels of baseline cor-
tisol (Bugental, Martorell, & Barraza, 2003). Other work has found that
attachment moderated the association between behavior inhibition and
HPA activity, such that HPA activation was most prominent in fearful or
behaviorally inhibited infants who were also insecurely attached (Gun-
nar, Brodersen, Nachmias, Buss, & Rigatuso, 1996; Nachmias, Gunnar,
Mangelsdorf, Parritz, & Buss, 1996; Spangler & Schieche, 1998). Still other
work has examined attachment in early childhood and later patterns of
stress reactivity in adolescence among individuals at risk for asthma; in this
sample, insecure attachment in early childhood predicted flatter patterns
of cortisol reactivity over the course of a standard laboratory stressor, sug-
gesting dysregulated HPA responses (Kelsay, Leung, Mrazek, & Klinnert,
2013). Conversely, attachment security may have a health-protective effect.
One study found that attachment security buffered infants from elevations
in cortisol when the infants were facing threatening stimuli, such as receiv-
ing an immunization (Gunnar et al., 1996). Taken together, the research
indicates that childhood attachment insecurity is linked to greater dysregula-
tion in physiological responses to stress. It is possible that these dysregulated
physiological patterns, such as the frequency and magnitude of HPA activa-
tion, may serve as precursors to childhood health and disease problems.
Adult Attachment and HPA Responses

HPA activation has been shown to affect mental and physical wellness in
numerous ways (Jaremka et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2007), but research
has only recently addressed whether attachment in adult relationships is
connected to physiological stress responses that may predispose individu-
als to later deleterious health outcomes. One study (Powers, Pietromonaco,
Gunlicks, & Sayer, 2006) examined how attachment style in dating couples
modulates patterns of cortisol release and recovery in response to an inter-
personal stressor: discussing a heated and unresolved area of disagreement
with one’s partner. Salivary cortisol was assessed at multiple time points
before, during, and after each couple’s conflict discussion. The findings
indicated that patterns of cortisol release and recovery varied as a function
of attachment style and gender. For women, higher attachment avoidance
predicted heightened cortisol responses before and during the discussion,
but a rapid recovery after the discussion when they were able to disengage
from the stressor. For men, higher attachment anxiety predicted a peak in
cortisol in anticipation of the stressful discussion and resulted in slower
recovery afterward. These findings suggest that different types of attach-
ment insecurity are associated with distinct patterns of HPA axis responses
to attachment-related threats such as relationship conflict.
While both attachment avoidance and anxiety appear to support atyp-
ical HPA axis activity, anxiously attached individuals are especially vulner-
able to exaggerated physiological and affective reactivity to stress, particu-
larly when the stressor is relationship-threatening (Pietromonaco, DeBuse,
et al., 2013). For instance, heightened HPA axis activity was observed in
anxiously attached individuals during travel separations, reinforcing the
notion that an anxious attachment style may enhance sensitivity to threats
of decreased partner closeness and availability (Diamond, Hicks, & Otter-
Henderson, 2008).
Collectively, these findings suggest that an individual’s attachment

style is associated with his or her stress responses, especially reactions
to attachment-relevant threats. In addition, research suggests that one’s
partner’s attachment style may modulate, for better or for worse, one’s
own stress response. For example, when husbands withdrew in response
to wives’ negativity during a conflict interaction, wives showed increased
cortisol reactivity (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1996). Additional support for
the effect of partners’ behaviors on individuals’ own physiological stress
responses comes from research finding that men with securely attached
female partners showed lower cortisol reactivity and faster recovery to rela-
tionship conflict than did men with insecure partners (Powers et al., 2006).
This finding is thought to be a function of secure individuals’ tendency to
be more responsive, which may have reduced the physiological stress of
men in this study (Powers et al., 2006).
Little research has examined how the interplay between both part-
ners’ attachment orientations is associated with physiological responses,
although developmental models have long recognized the significance of
this interplay. Specifically, transactional or goodness-of-fit models (Thomas
& Chess, 1977) suggest that the attachment orientations, behavior, and
temperament of both infants and their mothers need to be considered in
predicting how each dyad member responds (Mangelsdorf, Gunnar, Kes-
tenbaum, Lang, & Andreas, 1990). Recent work in our lab examined how
both partners’ attachment styles might jointly contribute to their physiolog-
ical and behavioral responses to a conflict discussion (Beck et al., 2013). In
this study of 218 newlywed couples, we found that pairs including a more
anxiously attached wife and a more avoidantly attached husband showed
a distinctive pattern of cortisol responses in anticipation of and before a
discussion of a major area of unresolved conflict in their relationship. Both
spouses showed rapid increases in cortisol in anticipation of a conflict dis-
cussion, followed by rapid declines. These cortisol patterns were paralleled
by less constructive interaction behaviors: More anxiously attached wives
had difficulty recognizing their husbands’ distress when the husbands were
high in avoidance, and more avoidantly attached husbands were less able to
express their needs for support and responsiveness when their wives were
high in anxiety (Beck et al., 2013). These partner effects suggest that rela-
tionship partners dynamically influence each other’s physiological activity
over time, with potential downstream consequences for psychological well-
being and physical health.
SAM Responses
Attachment also may influence health outcomes through the SAM sys-
tem, which includes the autonomic nervous system (Diamond & Fagundes,
2010). As with HPA axis responses, dysregulated reactivity in the SAM
axis is likely to accompany insecure attachment in children and adults, and

to affect biological markers with implications for health.
Childhood Attachment and SAM Responses

Researchers have become increasingly interested in the complex interac-
tions among genetic predispositions, childhood experiences, attachment
style, and physiological outcomes. For instance, attachment behavior has
been hypothesized to modulate infants’ genetically based physiological sen-
sitivities to distress, such that secure attachment may protect against SAM
hyperactivation in individuals with genetic polymorphisms that put them at
risk for dysregulated stress responses (Frigerio et al., 2009).
Along with constitutional factors, experiences early in life (e.g., quality
of parental caregiving) shape a child’s developing attachment style, and a
substantial body of research suggests that adverse experiences may disrupt
various physiological systems with the potential for long-term adverse health
effects. Research on individuals from risky family backgrounds suggests that
continued social challenges in early life—such as parental unavailability or
insensitivity—can disrupt a child’s SAM system, which over time taxes car-
diovascular functioning (Repetti et al., 2002). Another pathway by which
attachment style in childhood may predict health risks is via attachment-
associated social interaction patterns (attachment → relationship behavior
in Figure 11.1) with known health correlates. For example, insecure attach-
ment with caregivers may predispose the development of loneliness, fewer
reciprocated friendships, and less social competence in children (Kerns,
Klepac, & Cole, 1996), which would appear to increase SAM activation and
the risk for coronary heart disease. Taken together, these findings support
a model whereby attachment-based influences early in development shape
lifelong physical health outcomes via multiple avenues.
Adult Attachment and SAM Responses

The relationship between adult attachment and SAM reactivity may vary
as a function of deficient, defensive, or dissociative emotion regulation
strategies that have been linked to insecure attachment (Pietromonaco &
Beck, 2015). For example, individuals high in attachment avoidance tend
to minimize emotional distress and rely on repressive coping in response to
emotional and attachment-related tasks, and this strategy has been found
to produce heightened and escalating sympathetic nervous system reactiv-
ity (Diamond et al., 2008). Indeed, several studies have found that attach-
ment avoidance in adults potentiates hyperactivation in the SAM axis,
and that in contrast to the pattern for anxiously attached individuals, this
avoidance-related hyperactivation fails to correspond with heightened sub-
jective distress (Diamond & Fagundes, 2010; Diamond et al., 2008). The
incongruence between avoidant individuals’ physiological activity and their

reported distress and negative affect underscores the value of physiologi-
cal measurements for providing a window into a less conscious aspect of
emotional reactions.
Immune Responses
Immune system functioning is another biomarker of health outcomes that
can fluctuate depending on the quality of relationship experiences, which
are closely associated with attachment style. The literature examining
attachment and immune responses is in its infancy, with only a few studies
examining these processes in early childhood or adulthood.
Childhood Attachment and Immune Responses

Few studies have directly examined childhood attachment and immune
responses, but related research indicates that experiencing adversity in
early childhood is associated with immune dysregulation (Fagundes, Gla-
ser, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2013). One study of a nationally representative sam-
ple of U.S. children has shown that children from lower-income families
evidenced higher levels of C-reactive protein, an indicator of inflammation
(Dowd, Zajacova, & Aiello, 2010), as well as elevated antibody levels of a
herpes virus, cytomegalovirus (Dowd, Palermo, & Aiello, 2012).
Adversity early in life appears to shape immune functioning later in
life (Miller & Chen, 2010; Slopen, Koenen, & Kubzansky, 2012). In one
longitudinal study, individuals who as children had experienced some form
of socioeconomic disadvantage or high levels of sexual abuse or physical
abuse at a young age were more likely to have higher Epstein–Barr virus
antibody titers, which reflect cell-mediated immune functioning (Slopen
et al., 2012). The potential role of attachment is suggested by recent work
showing that adults from a low-SES background who reported (retrospec-
tively) that their mothers displayed high warmth during childhood evi-
denced diminished pro-inflammatory responses across several indicators of
immune functioning and inflammation, compared to those who reported
that their mothers displayed low warmth (Chen, Miller, Kobor, & Cole,
2011). These findings suggest that individuals who were more likely to be
securely attached (i.e., those who had mothers higher in warmth) were pro-
tected from the adverse effects of low SES. However, the interpretation
of these findings is limited because the quality of the mother–child rela-
tionships was assessed via participants’ self-reports about their mothers’
earlier behavior, rather than through direct observation of interactions in
the mother–child relationships during childhood. As a result, the findings
may reflect that participants who recalled their mothers as low in warmth
during childhood differed from those who recalled their mothers as high in
warmth in important ways (e.g., depressed mood, quality of current rela-

tionship) that may lead to poorer immune functioning.
Adult Attachment and Immune Functioning

The few studies examining attachment in adulthood and immune func-
tioning point to attachment avoidance, anxiety, or both as risk factors for
immune system dysregulation, but the findings are not always consistent for
men and women. One study found that both husbands’ and wives’ attach-
ment avoidance predicted a greater inflammatory response to a marital con-
flict discussion, in addition to more negative and fewer positive behaviors,
both of which signal cardiovascular risks (Gouin et al., 2009). Similarly,
other work with a small sample of dating couples (N = 34 couples) found
that women’s attachment avoidance predicted slower recovery from a skin
barrier wound (which reflects immune functioning) over the course of two
potentially stressful discussions on two separate days (a discussion of a per-
sonal concern and another about a relationship problem); however, avoid-
ance was unrelated to skin barrier recovery among men (Robles, Brooks,
Kane, & Schetter, 2013). Instead, men high in attachment anxiety showed
slower skin barrier recovery when the discussion focused on a personal
concern. Furthermore, one finding for women ran counter to theoretical
predictions: Women high in attachment anxiety showed more rapid skin
barrier recovery at both visits. This finding is difficult to explain, given the
current scarcity of research in this area (Robles et al., 2013) and in light
of other recent work showing that attachment anxiety is linked to poorer
immune functioning in both husbands and wives: Husbands and wives who
scored higher on a measure of adult attachment anxiety showed lower levels
of several types of T-cells (CD3+ T-cells, CD45+ T-cells, CD3+CD4+ helper
T-cells, and CD3+CD8+ cytotoxic T-cells), suggesting impaired immune
functioning (Jaremka et al., 2013).
Too few studies have been conducted to determine whether attachment
avoidance, attachment anxiety, or both are more likely to be connected to
immune functioning, and when these effects are likely to vary by gender.
The answer may be complex: Attachment anxiety may be associated with
some immune markers, whereas avoidance may be associated with others,
or the links may vary across different situational contexts (e.g., across qual-
ity and type of relationship or type and degree of stress) as well as in rela-
tion to the meaning of each context for women versus men. Nevertheless,
initial evidence suggests that attachment insecurity in adults is associated
with disruptions in immune functioning, and that these disruptions may
forecast future health problems. Additional investigations are needed to
determine the conditions under which attachment anxiety, avoidance, or
both are tied to immune responses, and to provide a clearer picture of the
mechanisms underlying such effects.
Health Behavior
Attachment orientations are strongly tied to the strategies people use to
regulate their thoughts, feelings, and behavior (see Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007, and Pietromonaco & Beck, 2015); as a result, attachment security or
insecurity should predict the extent to which individuals engage in preven-
tive health behaviors or behaviors that increase health risks. Despite the
importance of this issue, relatively few studies have examined the extent to
which attachment in either childhood or adulthood predicts specific health
behaviors. Figure 11.1 illustrates that self-regulation, affect regulation, and
relationship processes may be implicated in the link between attachment
and health behavior, but this idea has yet to be directly tested.
Childhood Attachment and Health Behavior

Children and adolescents who are insecurely attached to parents show
riskier health behavior. For example, insecurely attached children (ages
8–11 years) and adolescents are more likely to evidence eating disorders
(Goossens, Braet, Bosmans, & Decaluwé, 2011; O’Shaughnessy & Dallos,
2009). Similarly, children who were insecurely attached at 24 months of
age, compared with their securely attached peers, were more likely to be
diagnosed with obesity at 4.5 years of age (Anderson & Whitaker, 2011),
which also may reflect problematic eating patterns and is a risk factor for
various diseases later in life (including heart disease, stroke, and diabe-
tes). Similarly, low maternal sensitivity and children’s attachment insecu-
rity (assessed from mother–child interactions at ages 1–3) predicted obe-
sity during early adolescence (12–16 years) (Anderson, Gooze, Lemeshow,
& Whitaker, 2012). In addition, insecure attachment has been associated
with poorer glycemic control among adolescents with diabetes (Rosenberg
& Shields, 2009), suggesting that these adolescents had difficulty adhering
to their medical regimen.
Furthermore, adolescents with insecure attachments to their parents
are more likely to use alcohol and drugs (Branstetter, Furman, & Cot-
trell, 2009), smoke cigarettes (Foshee & Bauman, 1994), and engage in
risky sexual behavior (Luster & Small, 1994). Research examining African
American girls (a group at higher risk for sexually transmitted diseases) has
shown that girls who had higher-quality relationships with their mothers
(a proxy for secure attachment) were less likely to engage in risky sexual
behaviors (e.g., unprotected sex, multiple sexual partners, earlier sexual
intercourse) (Crosby et al., 2001; Emerson, Donenberg, & Wilson, 2012;
Moore & Chase-Lansdale, 2001), suggesting a protective effect of attach-
ment security.
The mechanisms underlying the link between children’s attachment
and health behavior have yet to be tested. Children who have poorer-quality
relationships with parents also have greater difficulty regulating emotions

(Contreras, Kerns, Weimer, Gentzler, & Tomich, 2000), which is likely
to interfere with their ability to engage in and persist at behaviors such as
resisting attractive but potentially health-damaging foods or following a
regular exercise routine. Children who are insecurely attached (especially
avoidantly attached) may be reluctant to seek assistance from parents or
other adults, and discussions with parents about health-protective behav-
iors may be difficult (Brody et al., 2006). Alternatively, parents who pro-
vide less sensitive and responsive caregiving themselves may be more likely
to engage in riskier behaviors and less likely to engage in health-protective
behaviors, and therefore transmit similar attitudes and behaviors to their
children through modeling.
Adult Attachment and Health Behavior

Limited research indicates that attachment insecurity (anxiety, avoidance,
or both) in young adults is associated with using drugs, having a poorer
body image, engaging in risky sexual behavior, reporting greater alcohol
use, having a poorer diet, and exercising less (Feeney, Peterson, Gallois,
& Terry, 2000; Huntsinger & Luecken, 2004). In a similar vein, a recent
study of 701 adult women found that attachment anxiety predicted riskier
sexual behavior, and that avoidance predicted being more likely to smoke
(Ahrens, Ciechanowski, & Katon, 2012).
Other work has demonstrated that individuals with insecure attach-
ment styles are less likely to take preventive health measures. For example,
women who are higher in avoidance or anxiety are less likely to report
receiving cervical cancer screening and perceive more barriers to screen-
ing, even after their sexual experience and levels of neuroticism are taken
into account (Hill & Gick, 2013). Avoidantly attached women also are less
likely to use seat belts routinely (Ahrens et al., 2012). In addition, evidence
from a sample of over 4,000 primary care patients with diabetes indicated
that those with dismissing/avoidant attachments (i.e., high in avoidance
and low in anxiety) showed less adherence to their treatment plans; they
were less likely to follow diet, foot care, medication, exercise, and smoking
recommendations (Ciechanowski et al., 2004).
Research in this area would be enhanced by examining attachment
and health behavior at a dyadic level, taking into account how relationship
partners’ attachment orientations and associated relational behavior might
shape each partner’s health behaviors. Research on relationships and health
behavior has increasingly shown that dyadic processes contribute to health
behaviors, including weight loss attempts (Novak & Webster, 2011), smok-
ing (Lewis & Butterfield, 2007), and management of one partner’s diabe-
tes (August, Rook, Franks, & Stephens, 2013; Stephens et al., 2013). For
example, one recent diary study found that on days when spouses provided
support and encouragement about following the recommended diet, their

partners with Type 2 diabetes were more likely to adhere to their dietary
regimen on the following day; however, on days when spouses exerted pres-
sure or coercion, their partners were less likely to adhere to their diet on
the following day (Stephens et al., 2013). Incorporating an attachment per-
spective into dyadic studies of health behavior will be useful for identifying
whether individuals with particular attachment styles (e.g., avoidant) or
couples with particular attachment pairings (e.g., a more anxious caregiv-
ing partner with a more avoidant patient partner) may be especially prone
to veer from their diet when partners exert pressure, or whether support
is effective for some patients (e.g., securely attached) but less so for oth-
ers (e.g., avoidantly attached). Future work investigating how individuals’
own attachment styles together with their partners’ attachment styles shape
dyadic efforts to manage and change health behaviors will be important for
developing interventions that take into account individual differences, and
that can be tailored for different individuals and types of couples.
Physical Health
All of the factors discussed so far may ultimately contribute to physical
health and disease risks and outcomes, as illustrated in Figure 11.1. We
now discuss the research linking attachment in childhood and adulthood
to known health risks and health conditions.
Childhood Attachment and Health Conditions

A number of studies have examined whether health conditions during child-
hood vary as a function of early childhood attachment insecurity (Maunder
& Hunter, 2001). One general finding is that insecure attachment to par-
ents is more prevalent among children diagnosed with a clinical condition,
compared with healthy controls; for instance, this pattern has been found
for premature infants or infants affected by atopic dermatitis (Cassibba,
van IJzendoorn, & Coppola, 2012), infants with congenital heart disease
(Goldberg, Simmons, Newman, Campbell, & Fowler, 1991), and asthmatic
preschool children (Mrazek, Casey, & Anderson, 1987).
Although studies have demonstrated an association between childhood
attachment and children’s health conditions and outcomes, the direction of
this association remains elusive. It is possible that early attachment contrib-
utes to childhood health conditions through physiological pathways, such as
the HPA axis; an additional possibility is that disease conditions alter par-
ent–child interactions in ways that increase the likelihood that children will
become insecurely attached. Few studies have addressed this question; how-
ever, one study has shown that children born with congenital heart disease
were more likely to be classified as avoidantly attached at 12–18 months of

age (based on behavior in the Strange Situation) than healthy controls were
(Goldberg et al., 1991). Furthermore, of the children with congenital heart
disease, 70% of those classified as securely attached showed improvement
in cardiac function from an earlier initial intake interview to the laboratory
session in which attachment behavior was observed, whereas only 30%
of children classified as insecurely attached showed improvement, even
though the two groups did not differ in the initial severity of their illness.
This finding suggests that improvement in a child’s health condition may
alter parent–child interactions in ways increasing the likelihood that the
child will show secure attachment behavior; however, prospective data are
needed to evaluate the direction of these effects more precisely.
Few studies have examined whether childhood attachment to parents
predicts health conditions in adulthood. Evidence from studies in which
individuals retrospectively reported on their childhood relationships sug-
gests that individuals with poorer-quality family relationships are more
likely to have health problems in adulthood (Stewart-Brown, Fletcher, &
Wadsworth, 2005). Interpreting findings from studies relying on retrospec-
tive reports of childhood attachment is difficult, however, because partici-
pants’ current states (e.g., current attachment, mood, physical health con-
ditions) could bias their memory for earlier childhood experiences. Other
work has used self-report indicators of early attachment disruption that
are less likely to be biased by participants’ current states. For example,
one study examined whether the self-reported death of a biological parent
before age 16 predicted adults’ health-related physiological responses to
stress (Luecken, 1998). This research found that young adults who had lost
a parent before age 16 showed higher blood pressure and cortisol levels in
response to novel stressful stimuli (watching a video clip depicting loss of a
parent or giving an impromptu speech) in comparison to young adults who
had not experienced the loss of a parent. If physiological responses such
as those observed in this study accumulate over time, they may contribute
to the development of adverse health conditions. Similarly, research using
childhood SES as an indicator of early childhood environment has found
that individuals from lower-SES backgrounds are more likely to develop
adult metabolic syndrome; however, this association appears to be stron-
ger among participants who report poorer maternal nurturance (possibly
reflecting insecure attachment) and weaker among individuals who report
better maternal nurturance (possibly reflecting secure attachment) (Miller,
Lachman, et al., 2011).
The best way to examine the role of childhood attachment and future
health and disease outcomes in adulthood is to assess attachment in child-
hood and then follow these individuals into adulthood (Maunder & Hunter,
2001). Although nearly 30 years ago researchers pointed to the importance
of taking a developmental perspective to understand how early childhood
experiences shape health in later life (e.g., Boyce, 1985), few studies have
examined this question by using prospective, longitudinal designs. A recent
landmark study, however, used a prospective design to follow individuals
from infancy to age 32, providing the most compelling evidence yet for a
connection between attachment in childhood and health outcomes in adult-
hood (Puig, Englund, Simpson, & Collins, 2013). In this study, childhood
attachment was assessed when participants were 12 and 18 months of age
with an objective measure: the infants’ behavior (coded by trained observ-
ers) in response to separation and reunion with their mothers in the Strange
Situation. Physical health was assessed many years later, when partici-
pants were 32 years old. Remarkably, individuals’ infant attachment clas-
sifications predicted their physical health outcomes in middle adulthood,
even after potentially related variables (e.g., life stress, negative emotion,
body mass index) were taken into account. Specifically, individuals whose
attachments had been classified as anxious-resistant in infancy were more
likely to report physical illness as adults 32 years later than were individu-
als who had been classified as securely attached in infancy. Adults whose
attachments had previously been classified as anxious-avoidant or anxious-
resistant were more likely to report having an inflammation-related illness
at age 32 than their secure peers. In addition, participants classified as inse-
curely attached at both times (12 months and 18 months) during infancy
were more likely to report having a physical illness, inflammation-related
illness, and nonspecific symptoms at age 32 than participants classified as
insecurely attached at one time or as securely attached at both times during
infancy.
The Puig et al. (2013) study also examined whether several factors
mediated the link between early attachment and later health outcomes—
including variables that our model (Figure 11.1) suggests may be impor-
tant mechanisms, such as the role of childhood emotion regulation ability,
interpersonal competence with peers, and emotional health. None of the
variables tested significantly mediated the attachment–health link. As Puig
et al. note, however, the small percentage of participants with a physical
illness may have made it difficult to detect mediation.
This prospective research suggests that the quality of early parent–child
relationships is an important antecedent of later physical health. Additional
prospective longitudinal studies are needed for replicating this effect and
assessing its generality across samples. The infants in the Puig et al. (2013)
study were originally from low-SES backgrounds; such individuals carry
a greater risk for adverse health outcomes in adulthood, a process that
may occur in part through alterations beginning in childhood in the body’s
physiological stress response systems (Miller, Lachman, et al., 2011). Thus
it will be important for additional prospective studies to determine whether
the link between childhood attachment and later health outcomes is inten-
sified by early adverse circumstances (e.g., low SES), or whether a similar
link emerges among individuals who have not experienced early childhood
adversity. Furthermore, research in this area will be advanced by assessing
potential physiological pathways (Miller, Chen, & Parker, 2011), as well
as further examining possible behavioral and emotional mechanisms (e.g.,
learned strategies for regulating emotion) through which early experiences
shape downstream health outcomes. This knowledge will be vital for devel-
oping early intervention programs to target processes that are implicated
in the link between early experience and later health and disease outcomes.
Adult Attachment and Health/Disease Outcomes in Adulthood

A growing literature suggests that adult attachment is associated with
physical symptoms (e.g., sleep problems, perceptions of pain) and health
and disease risks and conditions (e.g., cardiovascular reactivity, high blood
pressure, stroke, heart attack).
Physical Symptoms
Anxiously attached individuals, who show greater affective reactivity
(Pietromonaco, Barrett, & Powers, 2006; Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997),
also may be more sensitive to physical distress and pain. Consistent with this
idea, individuals characterized by anxious attachment report more physical
and somatic symptoms than individuals with other forms of attachment do
(Feeney & Ryan, 1994; Kidd & Sheffield, 2005; Ciechanowski, Walker,
Katon, & Russo, 2002).
Most of the studies have examined adult attachment and reported
physical symptoms at the same point in time, making it difficult to know
whether attachment style influences symptom reporting, or whether expe-
riencing unpleasant physical symptoms creates conditions that lead to
attachment insecurity. For example, people who are in pain may find it
difficult to engage in positive interactions with others, which over time may
increase their attachment insecurity.
Studies of experimentally induced pain suggest that attachment anxi-
ety is associated not only with anxiously attached individuals’ reports
of pain experienced in their daily lives, but also with their reactions to
induced pain. Individuals higher in attachment anxiety show more intense
reactions to experimentally induced pain, including a lower pain threshold,
greater catastrophizing about the pain (e.g., ruminating about it, feeling
overwhelmed by it), and greater perceptions of pain (Meredith, Strong, &
Feeney, 2006; Wilson & Ruben, 2011), although some work has not found
this association (Andrews, Meredith, & Strong, 2011).
The link between attachment avoidance and experimentally induced
pain is less clear. Some work has found greater pain tolerance among avoid-
antly attached individuals exposed to an acute laboratory pain induction
(Andrews et al., 2011; Wilson & Ruben, 2011). Other work, however, has
found that both attachment anxiety and avoidance predict pain intensity.
In a diary study of women with chronic pain, those high in attachment
anxiety reported greater pain intensity and showed more pain catastroph-
izing on days when they reported more intense pain; more avoidant women
also reported greater pain intensity and catastrophizing, but they were less
likely to cope by relying on others on days when they showed higher cata-
strophizing (Kratz, Davis, & Zautra, 2012).
These findings suggest that for women with chronic pain, both attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance are associated with perceptions of pain and
coping strategies, especially on days that are more difficult (the pain is
more intense, or worries about the pain are high). Findings vary somewhat
across studies, possibly because the extent to which either attachment anxi-
ety, avoidance, or both are associated with pain responses may depend on
the context (e.g., an acute laboratory stressor or chronic pain), the nature of
the sample (e.g., individuals with or without chronic pain, age of sample),
and other contextual variables (e.g., the extent to which the pain sufferers
feel supported or rejected) (Andrews et al., 2011; MacDonald, 2008). For
example, anxiously attached individuals who were reminded of rejection
evidenced a lower pain threshold than anxiously attached individuals in
a control condition did (MacDonald, 2008), suggesting that social pain
may trigger greater sensitivity to physical pain among those with anxious
attachments.
Another symptom associated with attachment is difficulty sleeping,
which is linked to greater health risks such as contracting the common cold
(Cohen, Doyle, Alper, Janicki-Deverts, & Turner, 2009), poorer immune
function (Prather et al., 2012), and metabolic and cardiovascular diseases
(Grandner, Jackson, Pak, & Gehrman, 2012). Attachment anxiety in adults
may be relevant for sleep quality, because an individual’s worries about
the relationship and partner (e.g., concerns about closeness, rejection) may
become salient when the individual attempts to fall asleep (Carmichael &
Reis, 2005). In line with this reasoning, one study of married couples found
that attachment anxiety predicted difficulties with sleeping for husbands
and wives, even after the researchers controlled for individuals’ symptoms
of depression, which also are linked to sleep problems (Carmichael & Reis,
2005). Similarly, research using a diverse sample of older adults (ages 60–85
years) found that individuals who were preoccupied with attachment (high
in anxiety and low in avoidance) were more likely to use medication to help
them sleep and more likely to take naps during the daytime, possibly as a
side effect of the medications or because they had trouble sleeping at night
(Verdecias, Jean-Louis, Zizi, Casimir, & Browne, 2009).
Other work has found a link between anxious attachment and objec-
tive sleep quality, but, surprisingly, not subjective sleep quality (Troxel,
Cyranowski, Hall, Frank, & Buysse, 2007; Troxel & Germain, 2011). In
this work, anxiously attached women with major depression showed poorer
sleep quality on objective measures: They showed the lowest percentage of
sleep during stages 3 and 4 (deep sleep), especially if they had lost a spouse
through divorce, separation, or death (Troxel et al., 2007). Similarly, mili-
tary veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder who were more anxiously
attached showed less sleep in stages 3 and 4 (Troxel & Germain, 2011).
Overall, the findings consistently show that attachment anxiety is
associated with sleep disturbances, whereas few studies have shown a simi-
lar link between avoidance and sleep disturbances (Maunder, Hunter, &
Lancee, 2011). Importantly, the link between relationship functioning and
sleep disruptions appears to be bidirectional (Hasler & Troxel, 2010). As
a result, individuals who are anxiously attached may experience a vicious
cycle in which attachment-related worries lead to poorer sleep quality, and
being fatigued may increase the likelihood of problematic interactions with
their partners, which can then interfere with subsequent sleep. This idea
fits with findings from a diary study showing that more anxiously attached
couple members reported greater sleep problems on mornings following
days of greater conflict with their partners, and fewer sleep problems on
mornings following days of lower conflict (Hicks & Diamond, 2011). In
contrast, individuals higher in avoidance showed a weaker association
between experiencing conflict on the previous day and sleep problems the
next morning than did those low in avoidance, perhaps because highly
avoidant individuals are better able to suppress potentially disturbing
thoughts about conflict.
Health Risks and Conditions

Cardiovascular reactivity to stress, particularly if cumulative, is a risk fac-
tor for later cardiovascular disease (Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser,
1996). Several studies suggest that attachment insecurity is associated with
cardiovascular reactivity. For example, individuals who were anxiously or
avoidantly attached responded with increased heart rate and blood pres-
sure after separation from their romantic partners during a stress task (Fee-
ney & Kirkpatrick, 1996) or when they imagined themselves in hypotheti-
cal scenarios about their romantic partners that evoked anger (Mikulincer,
1998). In addition, adolescents who were more anxiously attached in their
relationships with close others showed higher ambulatory diastolic and sys-
tolic blood pressure in response to interactions with friends, and those who
were more avoidantly attached showed higher diastolic blood pressure in
response to interpersonal conflict (Gallo & Matthews, 2006). (Although
this study examined adolescents, it is included in this section because the
attachment measure did not specifically assess parent–child attachment.)
Although these studies point to attachment insecurity as a risk factor
for downstream health problems, no studies have yet demonstrated that
attachment-related fluctuations in blood pressure predict health and dis-

ease outcomes later in life.
Some work has examined whether adult attachment predicts the like-
lihood of having a health condition. The best evidence comes from cross-
sectional data from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, in which
researchers examined the links between adult attachment and a range of
health conditions in a large (N = 5,692) national probability sample from
the United States (McWilliams & Bailey, 2010). In analyses that simulta-
neously included attachment ratings for security, anxiety, and avoidance
and controlled for demographic variables (gender, marital status, race, age,
education), attachment avoidance was associated with greater odds of hav-
ing conditions defined primarily by pain (headaches, arthritis, back and
neck problems, other chronic pain). Attachment anxiety was associated
with greater odds of having headaches and some forms of chronic pain, as
well as more serious conditions such as ulcers, high blood pressure, heart
attack, and stroke.
Attachment insecurity also has been associated with risks for depres-
sion, anxiety symptoms and disorders, and substance abuse (Carnelley et
al., 1994; Mickelson, Kessler, & Shaver, 1997; Simpson et al., 2003). For
this reason, it is important that researchers take into account psychological
disorders when examining the connection between attachment and physi-
cal health conditions. Following this reasoning, in additional analyses of
the data from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, McWilliams
and Bailey (2010) controlled for psychiatric disorders (e.g., depression,
anxiety) associated with attachment insecurity. These analyses indicated
that attachment anxiety remained significantly associated with some forms
of chronic pain and with stroke, heart attack, and high blood pressure,
over and above any associations with psychiatric conditions. Attachment
avoidance, however, was no longer significantly associated with chronic
pain conditions after the investigators took into account psychological
health, suggesting that some forms of psychopathology (especially depres-
sion and anxiety disorders) may account for the link between attachment
avoidance and pain-related conditions. These findings are intriguing and
invite further research in this understudied area. In particular, prospective
longitudinal studies are essential for clarifying the nature of the attach-
ment–health link, as well as for investigating the possible mediating roles
of negative affect such as depression and anxiety.
Emerging Themes and Future Directions

Much of the literature linking attachment in childhood and adulthood
to health is newly developing. The work so far suggests that attachment
insecurity is a risk factor for a variety of health problems, including dys-

regulated stress responses, maladaptive health behaviors, physical symp-
toms, and serious outcomes such as heart disease and stroke. Nonethe-
less, the small number of studies (particularly regarding the links between
attachment and immune responses or health behavior) makes it difficult to
generalize about connections between specific forms of attachment insecu-
rity (i.e., attachment anxiety, avoidance, or both) and particular response
patterns. Some of the variation across studies probably results from differ-
ences in the context of the situations or stressors (e.g., relationship-related,
achievement-related, relevance to the self) as well as gender-related charac-
teristics, and we expect that further work allowing for comparisons across
a broader range of contexts will clarify the nature of these links. We sug-
gest several promising directions for advancing knowledge about the nature
of the attachment–health link, and especially the processes through which
attachment from infancy through adulthood shapes later health outcomes.
One important avenue for future research is to pinpoint specific mech-
anisms that might account for the link between attachment and health-
related outcomes. As Figure 11.1 suggests, physiological responses are likely
to be mediating pathways through which attachment influences subsequent
health outcomes, but there is no direct evidence on this point. Specifically,
further work needs to determine the conditions under which physiological
responses (e.g., HPA, SAM responses) to acute stressors mediate the link
between attachment and longer-term health/disease outcomes. In addition,
most research examines one or two physiological markers or systems in
isolation; more needs to be known about how the interplay among dif-
ferent physiological markers and systems contributes to the attachment–
health link (Diamond & Fagundes, 2010). This work will necessarily entail
the use of prospective longitudinal designs that examine the link between
attachment and physiological responses at earlier time points, and then test
whether physiological responses mediate the link between attachment and
later physical health outcomes. Similarly, additional work will be required
to determine whether other factors in the model—self-regulatory skills,
affect regulation strategies, affective responses, and health behaviors—
mediate the relationship between attachment and downstream health out-
comes.
Attachment insecurity predicts problematic relationship behaviors,
including poorer communication, hostility, and poorer care seeking and
caregiving (Beck et al., 2013; Collins & Feeney, 2000; Simpson, Rholes,
& Phillips, 1996; Beck, Pietromonaco, DeVito, Powers, & Boyle, 2014).
And, as shown in Figure 11.1, such relationship behaviors may provide a
key pathway connecting attachment style to health-related physiological
responses, health behavior, and downstream health outcomes. Although
a few studies have explored links between relationship behavior and
physiological responses (Gouin et al., 2009; Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1993,

1996), no research has directly tested the extent to which relationship
behaviors account for links between attachment and subsequent health-
related outcomes. Identifying the mediating role of relationship behaviors
in the attachment–health link will facilitate efforts to develop interven-
tions to promote health. For example, positive interaction styles or having
securely attached partners may act as a buffer against negative relation-
ship outcomes for insecure individuals (Salvatore, Kuo, Steele, Simpson, &
Collins, 2011). In a similar manner, positive interactions with relationship
partners may help to protect insecure individuals from later adverse health
consequences. For example, engaging in a positive-mindset emotion regula-
tion intervention prior to discussing a conflict with one’s partner decreased
cardiovascular arousal and negative affect in both the manipulated person
and his or her partner; interestingly, this effect was especially robust for
individuals high in attachment anxiety (Ben-Naim, Hirschberger, Ein-Dor,
& Mikulincer, 2013).
The dyadic context is important for understanding the link between
attachment and health-related outcomes (Beck et al., 2013; Pietromonaco,
Uchino, et al., 2013; Powers et al., 2006). For example, given the theo-
rized mediating role of physiological activity in the attachment–health link,
questions about how romantic partners modulate each other’s physiology
and downstream health demand further exploration. Emerging research
on coregulation focuses on how relationship partners influence each oth-
er’s psychological and physiological responses (Sbarra & Hazan, 2008).
For example, wives who displayed negative behavior in a conflict interac-
tion showed heightened cortisol responses when their husbands withdrew
(Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1996), and the interplay between husbands’ avoid-
ance and wives’ anxiety has been found to predict distinctive cortisol pat-
terns in response to a conflict discussion (Beck et al., 2013), suggesting the
importance of dyadic processes in physiological response patterns. Other
work indicates that spouses’ cortisol levels are associated with each other
(Papp, Pendry, Simon, & Adam, 2013; Saxbe & Repetti, 2010), and that
spouses’ cortisol levels in response to conflict show convergence over the
first 3 years of marriage (Laws, Sayer, Pietromonaco, & Powers, 2014). A
challenge for future work will be to determine the conditions under which
coregulation processes (and other dyadic processes) contribute over time to
health-related behaviors and outcomes.
Still other work underscores the value of taking a dyadic approach for
understanding how attachment shapes individuals’ health behaviors and
illness outcomes. For example, some work has demonstrated the value of
incorporating both partners into health behavior change programs (Lewis
& Butterfield, 2007), and research in this area would benefit from examin-
ing how partners’ attachment styles and associated relationship processes
affect health behavior change. Recent work highlights the role of dyadic
processes in predicting patients’ outcomes: Anxiously attached patients
with Alzheimer’s disease reported more physical and psychological symp-
toms, especially when their spouses/caregivers were also anxiously attached
(Monin, Schulz, & Kershaw, 2013).
Another important set of questions concern the extent to which attach-
ment patterns in childhood versus adulthood contribute to health outcomes
via the same or different pathways. For example, little is known about the
stability of health-related physiological responses from childhood to adult-
hood. To what extent are stability between childhood and adult attach-
ment, and the physiological correlates of each, able to account for the links
between adult attachment and health outcomes? And to what extent does
attachment at different points in development uniquely predict such out-
comes? In addition, experiences in early childhood may be more likely than
those in adulthood to alter underlying physiological stress response systems
(e.g., see Schore, 2001). If so, then early experiences may be more potent
predictors of later physical health.
Finally, it will be important to place the connection between attach-
ment and health within the larger context of other kinds of relationships,
such as those with health care providers. For example, insecurely attached
patients often desire close, supportive relationships with their physi-
cians (Noyes et al., 2003) and trust their physicians less (Holwerda et al.,
2013). Such perceptions may contribute to patients’ disease outcomes. For
instance, patients with diabetes and with dismissing/avoidant attachments
who reported lower-quality communications with their provider showed
poorer metabolic control (Ciechanowski, Katon, Russo, & Walker, 2001).
Research incorporating the perspectives of both health care providers and
patients, as well as spouses or close others who may be involved in the care
process, will inform the development of tailored interventions that take
into account which kinds of communication strategies promote health for
which patients.
Conclusions
Attachment patterns from childhood through adulthood are associated
with a range of health-related outcomes, including physiological stress
responses, health behavior, and health and disease conditions. Although
research in this area is growing, many questions remain about how attach-
ment patterns translate into later health and disease outcomes. We hope
that our model illustrating potential pathways underlying the attachment–
health link, as well as our recommendations for future research, will serve
as a roadmap to guide the next generation of studies.
Acknowledgment
Preparation of this chapter was facilitated by a grant from the National Cancer
Institute of the National Institutes of Health (Grant No. R01CA133908) to Paula
R. Pietromonaco.
References
Ahrens, K. R., Ciechanowski, P. S., & Katon, W. (2012). Associations between
adult attachment style and health risk behaviors in an adult female primary
care population. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 72(5), 364–370.
Anderson, S. E., Gooze, R. A., Lemeshow, S., & Whitaker, R. C. (2012). Quality
of early maternal–child relationship and risk of adolescent obesity. Pediatrics,
129(1), 132–140.
Anderson, S. E., & Whitaker, R. C. (2011). Attachment security and obesity in
US preschool-aged children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,
165(3), 235–242.
Andrews, N. E., Meredith, P. J., & Strong, J. (2011). Adult attachment and reports
of pain in experimentally-induced pain. European Journal of Pain, 15(5),
523–530.
Antoni, M. H., Lutgendorf, S. K., Cole, S. W., Dhabhar, F. S., Sephton, S. E.,
McDonald, P. G., et al. (2006). The influence of bio-behavioural factors on
tumour biology: Pathways and mechanisms. Nature Reviews Cancer, 6(3),
240–248.
August, K. J., Rook, K. S., Franks, M. M., & Stephens, M. A. P. (2013). Spouses’
involvement in their partners’ diabetes management: Associations with
spouse stress and perceived marital quality. Journal of Family Psychology,
27(5), 712–721.
Beck, L. A., Pietromonaco, P. R., DeBuse, C. J., Powers, S. I., & Sayer, A. G.
(2013). Spouses’ attachment pairings predict neuroendocrine, behavioral, and
psychological responses to marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 105(3), 388–424.
Beck, L. A., Pietromonaco, P. R., DeVito, C. C., Powers, S. I., & Boyle, A. M.
(2014). Congruence between spouses’ perceptions and observers’ ratings of
responsiveness: The role of attachment avoidance. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 40(2), 164–174.
Ben-Naim, S., Hirschberger, G., Ein-Dor, T., & Mikulincer, M. (2013). An experi-
mental study of emotion regulation during relationship conflict interactions:
The moderating role of attachment orientations. Emotion, 13(3), 506–519.
Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2012). Child development in the context of adversity:
Experiential canalization of brain and behavior. American Psychologist,
67(4), 309–318.
Boyce, W. T. (1985). Social support, family relations, and children. In S. Cohen &
S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 151–173). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Branstetter, S. A., Furman, W., & Cottrell, L. (2009). The influence of representa-
tions of attachment, maternal–adolescent relationship quality, and maternal
monitoring on adolescent substance use: A 2-year longitudinal examination.

Child Development, 80(5), 1448–1462.
Brody, G. H., Murry, V. M., Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F. X., McNair, L., Brown, A.
C., et al. (2006). The Strong African American Families Program: Prevention
of youths’ high-risk behavior and a test of a model of change. Journal of Fam-
ily Psychology, 20(1), 1–11.
Brown, S. L., Smith, D. M., Schulz, R., Kabeto, M. U., Ubel, P. A., Poulin, M., et
al. (2009). Caregiving behavior is associated with decreased mortality risk.
Psychological Science, 20(4), 488–494.
Bugental, D. B., Martorell, G. A., & Barraza, V. (2003). The hormonal costs of
subtle forms of infant maltreatment. Hormones and Behavior, 43(1), 237–244.
Carmichael, C. L., & Reis, H. T. (2005). Attachment, sleep quality, and depressed
affect. Health Psychology, 24(5), 526–531.
Carnelley, K. B., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Jaffe, K. (1994). Depression, working
models of others, and relationship functioning. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66(1), 127–140.
Carnelley, K. B., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Jaffe, K. (1996). Attachment, caregiving,
and relationship functioning in couples: Effects of self and partner. Personal
Relationships, 3(3), 257–277.
Cassibba, R., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Coppola, G. (2012). Emotional avail-
ability and attachment across generations: Variations in patterns associated
with infant health risk status. Child: Care, Health and Development, 38(4),
538–544.
Chen, E., Miller, G. E., Kobor, M. S., & Cole, S. W. (2011). Maternal warmth buf-
fers the effects of low early-life socioeconomic status on pro-inflammatory
signaling in adulthood. Molecular Psychiatry, 16(7), 729–737.
Ciechanowski, P. S., Katon, W. J., Russo, J. E., & Walker, E. A. (2001). The
patient–provider relationship: Attachment theory and adherence to treatment
in diabetes. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(1), 29–35.
Ciechanowski, P. S., Russo, J., Katon, W., Von Korff, M., Ludman, E., Lin, E., et
al. (2004). Influence of patient attachment style on self-care and outcomes in
diabetes. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(5), 720–728.
Ciechanowski, P. S., Walker, E. A., Katon, W. J., & Russo, J. E. (2002). Attach-
ment theory: A model for health care utilization and somatization. Psychoso-
matic Medicine, 64(4), 660–667.
Cohen, S., Doyle, W. J., Alper, C. M., Janicki-Deverts, D., & Turner, R. B. (2009).
Sleep habits and susceptibility to the common cold. Archives of Internal Med-
icine, 169(1), 62–67.
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1053–1073.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of attachment shape per-
ceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational
studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 363–383.
Contreras, J. M., Kerns, K. A., Weimer, B. L., Gentzler, A. L., & Tomich, P. L.
(2000). Emotion regulation as a mediator of associations between mother–
child attachment and peer relationships in middle childhood. Journal of Fam-
ily Psychology, 14(1), 111–124.
Crosby, R., DiClemente, R., Wingood, G., Cobb, B., Harrington, K., Davies, S., et
al. (2001). HIV/STD-protective benefits of living with mothers in perceived
supportive families: A study of high-risk African American female teens. Pre-
ventive Medicine, 33(3), 175–178.
Diamond, L. M., & Fagundes, C. P. (2010). Psychobiological research on attach-
ment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(2), 218–225.
Diamond, L. M., Hicks, A. M., & Otter-Henderson, K. D. (2008). Every time you
go away: Changes in affect, behavior, and physiology associated with travel-
related separations from romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95(2), 385–403.
Dowd, J. B., Palermo, T. M., & Aiello, A. E. (2012). Family poverty is associated
with cytomegalovirus antibody titers in U.S. children. Health Psychology,
31(1), 5–10.
Dowd, J. B., Zajacova, A., & Aiello, A. E. (2010). Predictors of inflammation
in U.S. children aged 3–16 years. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
39(4), 314–320.
Drake, K., Belsky, J., & Fearon, R. M. P. (2014). From early attachment to engage-
ment with learning in school: The role of self-regulation and persistence.
Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1350–1361.
Emerson, E., Donenberg, G. R., & Wilson, H. W. (2012). Health-protective effects
of attachment among African American girls in psychiatric care. Journal of
Family Psychology, 26(1), 124–132.
Fagundes, C. P., Glaser, R., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2013). Stressful early life expe-
riences and immune dysregulation across the lifespan. Brain, Behavior, and
Immunity, 27, 8–12.
Feeney, B. C., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1996). Effects of adult attachment and pres-
ence of romantic partners on physiological responses to stress. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 255–270.
Feeney, J. A., Peterson, C., Gallois, C., & Terry, D. (2000). Attachment style as a
predictor of sexual attitudes and behavior in late adolescence. Psychology and
Health, 14(6), 1105–1122.
Feeney, J. A., & Ryan, S. M. (1994). Attachment style and affect regulation: Rela-
tionships with health behavior and family experiences of illness in a student
sample. Health Psychology, 13(4), 334–345.
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards,
V., et al. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to
many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experi-
ences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258.
Foshee, V., & Bauman, K. E. (1994). Parental attachment and adolescent cigarette
smoking initiation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 9(1), 88–104.
Fraley, R. C., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2004). A dynamical systems approach to con-
ceptualizing and studying stability and change in attachment security. In W.
S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and
clinical implications (pp. 86–132). New York: Guilford Press.
Frigerio, A., Ceppi, E., Rusconi, M., Giorda, R., Raggi, M. E., & Fearon, P. (2009).
The role played by the interaction between genetic factors and attachment in
the stress response in infancy. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
50(12), 1513–1522.
Gallo, L. C., & Matthews, K. A. (2006). Adolescents’ attachment orientation

influences ambulatory blood pressure responses to everyday social interac-
tions. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68(2), 253–261.
Goldberg, S., Simmons, R. J., Newman, J., Campbell, K., & Fowler, R. S. (1991).
Congenital heart disease parental stress and infant–mother relationships.
Journal of Pediatrics, 119(4), 661–666.
Goossens, L., Braet, C., Bosmans, G., & Decaluwé, V. (2011). Loss of control over
eating in pre-adolescent youth: The role of attachment and self-esteem. Eating
Behaviors, 12(4), 289–295.
Gouin, J.-P., Glaser, R., Loving, T. J., Malarkey, W. B., Stowell, J., Houts, C., et
al. (2009). Attachment avoidance predicts inflammatory responses to marital
conflict. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 23(7), 898–904.
Grandner, M. A., Jackson, N. J., Pak, V. M., & Gehrman, P. R. (2012). Sleep dis-
turbance is associated with cardiovascular and metabolic disorders. Journal
of Sleep Research, 21(4), 427–433.
Gunnar, M. R., Brodersen, L., Nachmias, M., Buss, K., & Rigatuso, J. (1996).
Stress reactivity and attachment security. Developmental Psychobiology,
29(3), 191–204.
Gunnar, M. R., & Donzella, B. (2002). Social regulation of the cortisol levels in
early human development. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 27(1–2), 199–220.
Hasler, B. P., & Troxel, W. M. (2010). Couples’ nighttime sleep efficiency and con-
cordance: Evidence for bidirectional associations with daytime relationship
functioning. Psychosomatic Medicine, 72(8), 794–801.
Hertsgaard, L., Gunnar, M., Erickson, M. F., & Nachmias, M. (1995). Adreno-
cortical responses to the Strange Situation in infants with disorganized/disori-
ented attachment relationships. Child Development, 66(4), 1100–1106.
Hicks, A. M., & Diamond, L. M. (2011). Don’t go to bed angry: Attachment,
conflict, and affective and physiological reactivity. Personal Relationships,
18(2), 266–284.
Hill, E. M., & Gick, M. L. (2013). Attachment and barriers to cervical screening.
Journal of Health Psychology, 18(5), 648–657.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and
mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), 1–20.
Holwerda, N., Sanderman, R., Pool, G., Hinnen, C., Langendijk, J., A., Bemelman,
W. A., et al. (2013). Do patients trust their physician?: The role of attachment
style in the patient–physician relationship within one year after a cancer diag-
nosis. Acta Oncologica, 52(1), 110–117.
Huntsinger, E., & Luecken, L. (2004). Attachment relationships and health behavior:
The mediational role of self-esteem. Psychology and Health, 19(4), 515–526.
Jaremka, L. M., Glaser, R., Loving, T. J., Malarkey, W. B., Stowell, J. R., & Kiecolt-
Glaser, J. K. (2013). Attachment anxiety is linked to alterations in cortisol
production and cellular immunity. Psychological Science, 24(3), 272–279.
Kelly-Irving, M., Lepage, B., Dedieu, D., Lacey, R., Cable, N., Bartley, M., et al.
(2013). Childhood adversity as a risk for cancer: Findings from the 1958 Brit-
ish birth cohort study. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 1–13.
Kelsay, K., Leung, D. Y. M., Mrazek, D. A., & Klinnert, M. D. (2013). Prospec-
tively assessed early life experiences in relation to cortisol reactivity in ado-
lescents at risk for asthma. Developmental Psychobiology, 55(2), 133–144.
Kerns, K. A., Klepac, L., & Cole, A. (1996). Peer relationships and preadolescents’
perceptions of security in the child–mother relationship. Developmental Psy-
chology, 32(3), 457–466.
Kidd, T., & Sheffield, D. (2005). Attachment style and symptom reporting: Exam-
ining the mediating effects of anger and social support. British Journal of
Health Psychology, 10(4), 531–541.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Malarkey, W. B., Chee, M., Newton, T., Cacioppo, J. T.,
Mao, H. Y., et al. (1993). Negative behavior during marital conflict is associ-
ated with immunological down-regulation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55(5),
395–409.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers.
Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 472–503.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Newton, T., Cacioppo, J. T., MacCallum, R. C., Glaser, R.,
& Malarkey, W. B. (1996). Marital conflict and endocrine function: Are men
really more physiologically affected than women? Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 64(2), 324–332.
Kochanska, G., Philibert, R. A., & Barry, R. A. (2009). Interplay of genes and
early mother–child relationship in the development of self-regulation from
toddler to preschool age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(11),
1331–1338.
Kratz, A. L., Davis, M. C., & Zautra, A. J. (2012). Attachment predicts daily
catastrophizing and social coping in women with pain. Health Psychology,
31(3), 278–285.
Laws, H., Sayer, A. G., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Powers, S. I. (2014). Longitudinal
changes in spouses’ cortisol response patterns: Physiological convergence in
newlywed couples. Manuscript under review.
Lehman, B. J., Taylor, S. E., Kiefe, C. I., & Seeman, T. E. (2005). Relation of
childhood socioeconomic status and family environment to adult metabolic
functioning in the CARDIA study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67(6), 846–854.
Lewis, M. A., & Butterfield, R. M. (2007). Social control in marital relationships:
Effect of one’s partner on health behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 37(2), 298–319.
Luecken, L. J. (1998). Childhood attachment and loss experiences affect adult car-
diovascular and cortisol function. Psychosomatic Medicine, 60(6), 765–772.
Luster, T., & Small, S. A. (1994). Factors associated with sexual risk-taking behav-
iors among adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56(3), 622–632.
MacDonald, G. (2008). Use of pain threshold reports to satisfy social needs. Pain
Research and Management, 13(4), 309–319.
Mangelsdorf, S., Gunnar, M., Kestenbaum, R., Lang, S., & Andreas, D. (1990).
Infant proneness-to-distress temperament, maternal personality, and mother–
infant attachment: Associations and goodness of fit. Child Development,
61(3), 820–831.
Maunder, R. G., & Hunter, J. J. (2001). Attachment and psychosomatic medicine:
Developmental contributions to stress and disease. Psychosomatic Medicine,
63(4), 556–567.
Maunder, R. G., & Hunter, J. J. (2008). Attachment relationships as determinants
of physical health. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and
Dynamic Psychiatry, 36(1), 11–32.
Maunder, R. G., Hunter, J. J., & Lancee, W. J. (2011). The impact of attach-
ment insecurity and sleep disturbance on symptoms and sick days in hospi-
tal-based health-care workers. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 70(1),
11–17.
McWilliams, L., & Bailey, S. (2010). Associations between adult attachment rat-
ings and health conditions: Evidence from the National Comorbidity Survey
Replication. Health Psychology, 29(4), 446–453.
Meredith, P. J., Strong, J., & Feeney, J. A. (2006). The relationship of adult attach-
ment to emotion, catastrophizing, control, threshold and tolerance, in exper-
imentally-induced pain. Pain, 120(1–2), 44–52.
Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment in a
nationally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 73, 1092–1106.
Mikulincer, M. (1998). Adult attachment style and individual differences in func-
tional versus dysfunctional experiences of anger. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74(2), 513–524.
Miller, A. H. (2010). Depression and immunity: A role for T cells? Brain, Behavior,
and Immunity, 24(1), 1–8.
Miller, G. E., & Chen, E. (2010). Harsh family climate in early life presages the
emergence of a proinflammatory phenotype in adolescence. Psychological
Science, 21(6), 848–856.
Miller, G. E., Chen, E., & Parker, K. J. (2011). Psychological stress in childhood
and susceptibility to the chronic diseases of aging: Moving toward a model
of behavioral and biological mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(6),
959–997.
Miller, G. E., Chen, E., & Zhou, E. S. (2007). If it goes up, must it come down?:
Chronic stress and the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical axis in
humans. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 25–45.
Miller, G. E., & Cole, S. W. (2012). Clustering of depression and inflammation in
adolescents previously exposed to childhood adversity. Biological Psychiatry,
72(1), 34–40.
Miller, G. E., Lachman, M. E., Chen, E., Gruenewald, T. L., Karlamangla, A. S.,
& Seeman, T. E. (2011). Pathways to resilience: Maternal nurturance as a buf-
fer against the effects of childhood poverty on metabolic syndrome at midlife.
Psychological Science, 22(12), 1591–1599.
Monin, J. K., Schulz, R., & Kershaw, T. S. (2013). Caregiving spouses’ attachment
orientations and the physical and psychological health of individuals with
Alzheimer’s disease. Aging and Mental Health, 17(4), 508–516.
Moore, M. R., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2001). Sexual intercourse and pregnancy
among African American girls in high-poverty neighborhoods: The role of
family and perceived community environment. Journal of Marriage and Fam-
ily, 63(4), 1146–1157.
Mrazek, D. A., Casey, B., & Anderson, I. (1987). Insecure attachment in severely
asthmatic preschool children: Is it a risk factor? Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 516–520.
Nachmias, M., Gunnar, M., Mangelsdorf, S., Parritz, R. H., & Buss, K. (1996).
Behavioral inhibition and stress reactivity: The moderating role of attachment

security. Child Development, 67(2), 508–522.
Novak, S. A., & Webster, G. D. (2011). Spousal social control during a weight loss
attempt: A daily diary study. Personal Relationships, 18(2), 224–241.
Noyes, R., Stuart, S. P., Langbehn, D. R., Happel, R. L., Longley, S. L., Muller, B.
A., et al. (2003). Test of an interpersonal model of hypochondriasis. Psycho-
somatic Medicine, 65(2), 292–300.
O’Shaughnessy, R., & Dallos, R. (2009). Attachment research and eating disor-
ders: A review of the literature. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
14(4), 559–574.
Papp, L. M., Pendry, P., Simon, C. D., & Adam, E. K. (2013). Spouses’ cortisol
associations and moderators: Testing physiological synchrony and connected-
ness in everyday life. Family Process, 52(2), 284–298.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (1997). Working models of attachment and
daily social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6),
1409–1423.
Pietromonaco, P. R., Barrett, L. F., & Powers, S. I. (2006). Adult attachment the-
ory and affective reactivity and regulation. In D. K. Snyder, J. Simpson, & J.
N. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to
dysfunction and health (pp. 57–74). Washington, DC: American Psychologi-
cal Association.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Beck, L. A. (2015). Attachment processes in adult romantic
relationships. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. A. Simpson, & J. F. Dovidio
(Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 3. Inter-
personal relations (pp. 33–64). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Pietromonaco, P. R., DeBuse, C. J., & Powers, S. I. (2013). Does attachment get
under the skin?: Adult romantic attachment and cortisol responses to stress.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 63–68.
Pietromonaco, P. R., Uchino, B., & Dunkel Schetter, C. (2013). Close relationship
processes and health: Implications of attachment theory for health and dis-
ease. Health Psychology, 32(5), 499–513.
ogy, 90(4), 613–628.
Prather, A. A., Hall, M., Fury, J. M., Ross, D. C., Muldoon, M. F., Cohen, S., &
Marsland, A. L. (2012). Sleep and antibody response to hepatitis B vaccina-
tion. Sleep, 35(8), 1063–1069.
Puig, J., Englund, M. M., Simpson, J. A., & Collins, W. A. (2013). Predicting adult
physical illness from infant attachment: A prospective longitudinal study.
Health Psychology, 32(4), 409–417.
Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: Family social
environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological
Bulletin, 128(2), 330–366.
Robles, T. F., Brooks, K. P., Kane, H. S., & Schetter, C. D. (2013). Attachment,
skin deep?: Relationships between adult attachment and skin barrier recovery.
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 88(3), 241–252.
Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital
quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1),
140–187.
Rosenberg, T., & Shields, C. (2009). The role of parent–adolescent attachment in
the glycemic control of adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A pilot study. Fami-
lies, Systems and Health: Journal of Collaborative Family HealthCare, 27(3),
237–248.
Salvatore, J. E., Kuo, S. I.-C., Steele, R. D., Simpson, J. A., & Collins, W. A. (2011).
tive. Psychological Science, 22(3), 376–383.
Saxbe, D., & Repetti, R. L. (2010). For better or worse?: Coregulation of couples’
cortisol levels and mood states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98(1), 92–103.
Sbarra, D. A., & Hazan, C. (2008). Coregulation, dysregulation, self-regulation:
An integrative analysis and empirical agenda for understanding adult attach-
ment, separation, loss, and recovery. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 12(2), 141–167.
Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain
development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental
Health Journal, 22(1–2), 7–66.
Shonkoff, J., Boyce, W., & McEwen, B. (2009). Neuroscience, molecular biology,
and the childhood roots of health disparities: Building a new framework for
health promotion and disease prevention. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 301(21), 2252–2259.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Campbell, L., Tran, S., & Wilson, C. L. (2003).
Adult attachment, the transition to parenthood, and depressive symptoms.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1172–1187.
An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
71(5), 899–914.
romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 466–
477.
Slopen, N., Koenen, K. C., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2012). Childhood adversity and
immune and inflammatory biomarkers associated with cardiovascular risk in
youth: A systematic review. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 26(2), 239–250.
Spangler, G., & Grossmann, K. E. (1993). Biobehavioral organization in securely
and insecurely attached infants. Child Development, 64(5), 1439–1450.
Spangler, G., & Schieche, M. (1998). Emotional and adrenocortical responses of
infants to the strange situation: The differential function of emotional expres-
sion. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22(4), 681–706.
Stephens, M. A. P., Franks, M. M., Rook, K. S., Iida, M., Hemphill, R. C., &
Salem, J. K. (2013). Spouses’ attempts to regulate day-to-day dietary adher-
ence among patients with type 2 diabetes. Health Psychology, 32(10), 1029–
1037.
Steptoe, A., & Kivimäki, M. (2013). Stress and cardiovascular disease: An update
on current knowledge. Annual Review of Public Health, 34, 337–354.
Stewart-Brown, S., Fletcher, L., & Wadsworth, M. (2005). Parent–child relation-

ships and health problems in adulthood in three UK national birth cohort
studies. European Journal of Public Health, 15(6), 640–646.
Tamayo, T., Christian, H., & Rathmann, W. (2010). Impact of early psychoso-
cial factors (childhood socioeconomic factors and adversities) on future risk
of type 2 diabetes, metabolic disturbances and obesity: A systematic review.
BMC Public Health, 10, 525–539.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts
good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success.
Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–322.
Taylor, S. E., Lerner, J. S., Sage, R. M., Lehman, B. J., & Seeman, T. E. (2004).
Early environment, emotions, responses to stress, and health. Journal of Per-
sonality, 72(6), 1365–1393.
Taylor, S. E., Way, B. M., & Seeman, T. E. (2011). Early adversity and adult health
outcomes. Development and Psychopathology, 23(3), 939–954.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Troxel, W. M., Cyranowski, J. M., Hall, M., Frank, E., & Buysse, D. J. (2007).
Attachment anxiety, relationship context, and sleep in women with recurrent
major depression. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69(7), 692–699.
Troxel, W. M., & Germain, A. (2011). Insecure attachment is an independent cor-
relate of objective sleep disturbances in military veterans. Sleep Medicine,
12(9), 860–865.
Uchino, B. N. (2009). Understanding the links between social support and physical
health: A life-span perspective with emphasis on the separability of perceived
and received support. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(3), 236–255.
Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1996). The relationship
between social support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis
on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bul-
letin, 119(3), 488–531.
Verdecias, R. N., Jean-Louis, G., Zizi, F., Casimir, G. J., & Browne, R. C. (2009).
Attachment styles and sleep measures in a community-based sample of older
adults. Sleep Medicine, 10(6), 664–667.
Wei, M., Mallinckrodt, B., Larson, L. M., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attach-
ment, depressive symptoms, and validation from self versus others. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52(3), 368–377.
Wilson, C. L., & Ruben, M. A. (2011). A pain in her arm: Romantic attachment
orientations and the tourniquet task. Personal Relationships, 18(2), 242–265.
12
Attachment and Aged Care
Gery C. Karantzas
Jeffry A. Simpson
A pproximately 524 million people are over the age of 65, and by
the year 2050, this figure will rise to 1.5 billion (National Institute on
Aging [NIA], 2011; World Health Organization [WHO], 2012). Further-
more, about 80% of people within this age group report having at least
one chronic health condition (National Center for Chronic Disease Pre-
vention and Health Promotion, 2011). Because of these trends, the aging
of the population has introduced new challenges for couples and families
regarding the care of ailing older adults. No longer is aged care the pri-
mary responsibility of the state or government. Instead, family members
(whether these are aging adults’ spouses/partners, or grown children and
their partners) are increasingly becoming the primary carers of aging
adults, as federal and state governments in most parts of the globe struggle
to meet the health care demands of their aging societies (Karantzas, Evans,
& Foddy, 2010; NIA, 2011; WHO, 2012). In the coming decades, caring
for an older adult is likely to become a normal life task for many—and
perhaps most—adult children and their spouses. Caring for an older per-
son, however, is a highly stressful and challenging responsibility, even for
family members; it involves coming to terms with the eventual decline and
ultimate loss of someone who often has been a primary source of love,
comfort, and support across a carer’s entire life. From this perspective,
attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982) provides a particularly useful and
powerful framework for understanding the processes of caregiving and
care receiving, as well as the mental health outcomes experienced by both
carers and care recipients. Because it is a lifespan theory of development,
319
attachment theory also provides a unique framework to comprehend how

both attachment and caring processes operate in later life.
We begin the chapter by outlining key concepts and ideas in attachment
theory, especially those relevant to understanding attachment during later
life within the context of aged care. We then provide an overview of exist-
ing research linking attachment theory to aged care, highlighting impor-
tant and novel issues associated with attachment, aged care, and later-life
attachment more generally. We conclude the chapter by posing and discuss-
ing questions that are likely to shape future directions for research on aged
care and attachment processes.
Attachment Concepts and Their Relevance to Aging and Aged Care

Attachment Theory: A Diathesis–Stress Model
According to Bowlby (1969/1982), the regulation and management of our
emotional bonds with those closest to us is governed by the attachment
behavioral system. This integrated behavioral system motivates people to
seek proximity to their attachment figures in order to gain comfort and a
sense of safety when they feel threatened or distressed. Attachment theory,
therefore, is not merely a theory of human bonding; it is a theory of emo-
tional and distress regulation (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a; Simpson &
Rholes, 1994). As such, the theory provides a comprehensive framework
for understanding how close relationships shape the way in which families
deal with stressors and strains, such as the emotional highs and lows of car-
ing for an aging parent. Consistent with other research linking attachment
theory to stressful family situations (e.g., the transition to parenthood; see,
e.g., Rholes, Simpson, Campbell, & Grich, 2001; Simpson, Rholes, Camp-
bell, Tran, & Wilson, 2003), attachment theory provides a diathesis–stress
approach for understanding how and why certain family members who
encounter the stress of caring for an older adult tend to experience greater
difficulty in the caregiving role (see also Simpson & Rholes, 2012). This
approach can also aid in identifying which older adults are particularly sus-
ceptible to experiencing difficulties in accepting care from certain family
members and adjusting to their own ailing health and functional decline.
Thus the application of attachment theory as a diathesis–stress model
allows us to unpack the familial vulnerabilities as well as the contextual
factors/stressors that shape the physical and emotional well-being of both
carers and care recipients.
Felt Security, Proximity Seeking, and Protective Behavior

According to Bowlby (1969/1982), the primary goal of the attachment sys-
tem is to maintain a state of felt security—a physical and/or psychological
Attachment and Aged Care 321
state in which a person feels safe and protected. When this state is compro-
mised (by experiencing a stressful event or being exposed to a threatening
situation), most individuals try to seek out their attachment figures in order
to reestablish felt security (these efforts are termed proximity seeking). In
childhood, felt security is achieved by engaging in rather direct proximity-
seeking behaviors, such as when an upset child maintains close physical
distance to his or her parent/guardian (e.g., Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &
Wall, 1978; Vaughn, Egeland, Sroufe, & Waters, 1979).
Compared to young children, adults do not require direct or frequent
physical contact with their parents in order to feel secure and safe in threat-
ening situations. Rather, adults can achieve a sense of comfort and security
by simply thinking about (symbolically representing) their parents—spe-
cifically, through generating thoughts or memories of closeness, internal-
ized shared values, goals, or common interests with their parents (Cicire-
lli, 1993). As Koski and Shaver (1997) point out, “availability becomes
more abstract and no longer requires constant, immediate physical pres-
ence” (p. 29). This symbolic representation of contact can be periodically
reinforced by direct communication with parents during visits, or via tele-
phone calls or other forms of contact. These behaviors can be conceptual-
ized as an extension of an infant’s original working models of his or her
parents. Attachment during adulthood, in other words, does not always
require actual physical proximity, because felt security can be achieved by
stimulated closeness via thoughts, fantasies, and imagery of parents (Cici-
relli, 1991, 1993; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2004). This symbolic aspect of
attachment has been supported by Troll and Smith (1976), who found that
strong familial attachments between older parents and their adult children
are often maintained, regardless of their contact frequency or proximity
maintenance. Therefore, positive recollections of a parent as an attachment
figure, coupled with phone calls, e-mails, and other nonphysical contact,
can sustain the parent as a secure base and safe haven, even when a child
becomes an adult.
Cicirelli (1998) suggests that in later life, a powerful attachment threat
for an adult child is the current or imminent ill health of a parent. When
parents become ill, most adult children will engage in proximity seeking
manifested in caregiving actions, which Cicirelli has termed protective
behavior. Protective behavior is designed to preserve or restore the exis-
tence of the threatened attachment figure (Bowlby, 1979, 1980; Cicirelli,
1983, 1985). As the vulnerability of a child’s attachment bond with a par-
ent becomes salient due to the onset of age-related illnesses, the adult child
may become motivated to protect the parent, especially if the parent con-
tinues to be an important source of emotional security. Through caregiv-
ing and other forms of helping behavior, the adult child should attempt
to delay the eventual loss of the parent for as long as possible. To put this
another way, the parent’s ill health and potential dependency pose a threat
to the longevity of the familial attachment bond, which in turn should

activate a drive in an adult child to protect the parent through some form
of helping or caregiving behavior (Cicirelli, 1998; Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007a). Cicirelli’s concept of protective behavior is intriguing, and it may
help to explain the normative functioning of the attachment system when
an adult child (and perhaps his or her spouse) deals with the failing health
of an older parent (or older partner). However, research has not yet tested
Cicirelli’s assumptions about caregiving as a manifestation of protective
behavior.
Behavioral Systems
Implicit in much of the work linking attachment to aged care is the inter-
play between different behavioral systems—namely, the attachment behav-
ioral system in relation to the caregiving system. According to Bowlby
(1969/1982), the caregiving system is complementary to the attachment
system, in that it motivates an individual to offer assistance, comfort, and
support when another person is distressed and needs help. As such, the goal
of the caregiving system is to respond to another individual’s need for felt
security by providing sensitive and responsive care (Canterberry & Gillath,
2012; Gillath, Shaver, & Mikulincer, 2005). The caregiving system is acti-
vated when an individual detects that another is distressed or needs help,
and is deactivated when the care recipient’s need is met or his or her sense
of security is reestablished (Canterberry & Gillath, 2012; Gillath et al.,
2005). To date, a considerable amount of early childhood and adult attach-
ment research has examined the associations between these two behavioral
systems. For example, research on adult attachment orientations and the
experimental enhancement of people’s sense of security by priming attach-
ment security have provided important insights into the dynamic interplay
of these two systems (for reviews, see Canterberry & Gillath, 2012; George
& Solomon, 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a, 2007b).
Recently, Canterberry and Gillath (2012) have proposed a model of
caregiving system activation and dynamics that directly maps onto Miku-
lincer and Shaver’s (2003, 2007a) model of attachment system dynamics.
The Canterberry and Gillath model provides an organizational framework
that articulates the role that certain individual differences play in the func-
tioning of the caregiving system, and how they align with other individual
differences associated with the functioning of the attachment system. Spe-
cifically, the model posits that people can engage in one of three broad care-
giving strategies: (1) sensitive and responsive caregiving, (2) hyperactivating
caregiving, or (3) deactivating caregiving. Sensitive and responsive caregiv-
ing strategies reflect caregiving that is delivered in an appropriate manner
and that meets the care recipient’s specific needs. Hyperactivating care-
giving strategies entail caregiving behaviors that are intrusive, compulsive,
and persistent in nature and are delivered in a way that usually intensifies
the care recipient’s distress or fails to meet the person’s needs. Deactivat-
ing strategies refer to caregiving that is distant, minimal, and lacking in
emotional content. Sensitive and responsive caregiving tends to be enacted
by securely attached individuals. Hyperactivating caregiving strategies are
typically enacted by anxiously attached individuals, who rely on hyperac-
tivating attachment strategies to regulate their emotions when they are dis-
tressed (i.e., strategies in which distress and proximity-seeking efforts are
intensified). Deactivating caregiving strategies are displayed by avoidantly
attached individuals, who use deactivating attachment strategies when they
become upset (i.e., strategies in which distress is minimized and proximity
seeking is inhibited).
Despite the utility of the Canterberry and Gillath (2012) model and
research that has attempted to test connections between the attachment
and caregiving systems, aged-care research has not systematically inves-
tigated the links between attachment and caregiving from a behavioral
systems perspective. The aged-care field needs to incorporate behavioral
systems approaches and concepts in studies linking attachment principles
to the care of older adults. The framing of research and testing of assump-
tions proposed in the Canterberry and Gillath model and related models
(e.g., Feeney & Collins, 2004) is particularly important, given Cicirelli’s
(1998) conceptualization of attachment theory and protective behavior. For
instance, from a behavioral systems perspective, one can argue that protec-
tive behavior represents the functioning of the attachment system. That is,
wanting to be near and wanting to assist an ailing attachment figure (parent
or partner) could be a form of proximity seeking that is motivated by the
need to feel more secure when faced with the impending loss of an attach-
ment figure (parent or partner). Alternatively, protective behavior may
reflect the functioning of the caregiving system, in which a carer notices
the older adult’s distress, concern, or calls for help, which then motivates
the carer to alleviate the older adult’s distress or suffering. These competing
but equally plausible explanations of protective behavior constitute merely
one example of the utility of integrating behavioral systems approaches to
elucidate the pathways linking attachment behavior with caregiving behav-
ior in the context of aged care.
Research Trends in Attachment Research within Aging and Aged Care

One of John Bowlby’s most widely quoted statements is his contention that
attachment relationships shape individuals across the entire lifespan “from
the cradle to the grave” (1979, p. 129). Despite this assertion, the lion’s share
of research has investigated attachment processes no further than early to
middle adulthood. Thus there is a very large gap in our understanding
of the nature of attachment bonds in later life (especially between adult

children and their older parents) and how these bonds influence attitudes,
behaviors, and outcomes in contexts such as aged care. Given this large gap
in our understanding, scholars have called for the greater application of
attachment theory to the study of aging families for many decades.
Some of the earliest work on attachment theory and its application to
later-life familial relationships can be attributed to Troll and Smith (1976).
They documented that the strength of what they termed “familial attach-
ment bonds” between young adults and their kin (which included parents
and grandparents) was not dependent on the frequency of contact or on
whether family members lived close to one another. This research provided
initial evidence that attachment bonds are indeed functional and relevant
to the lives of individuals within families as they traverse the lifespan. As a
consequence of this and subsequent early research on later-life attachment
(e.g., Kalish & Knudtson, 1976; Thompson & Walker, 1984), developmen-
talists and gerontologists began to see greater value in applying attachment
theory to how families navigate important later-life transitions, such as
caring for ailing older adults (Cicirelli, 1983; Thompson & Walker, 1984).
Despite this early interest, attachment theory and its principles have
received little attention in recent aged-care research (see Karantzas, Evans,
et al., 2010; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a; Van Assche et al., 2013). In
fact, until the last decade, only about 10% of all gerontology research
has focused on family relationships (Allen, Blieszner, & Roberto, 2000),
and even less research has explicitly focused on attachment theory and its
potential applications to aged care. Instead, aged-care research has been
surprisingly atheoretical, with approximately half of these studies using no
theoretical model(s) to frame the research (see Dilworth-Anderson, Wil-
liams, & Gibson, 2002).
Of the studies that have attempted to explain familial responsibilities
and outcomes of aged care in terms of existing theories or models, most
have used principles of distributive and procedural justice, social exchange,
transactional models of stress and coping, gender role socialization and
culture, filial obligation, and intergenerational solidarity (e.g., Bengtson,
2001; Blieszner & Mancini, 1987; Guberman, Maheu, & Maille, 1992;
Knight, Silverstein, McCallum, & Fox, 2000; Miller & Cafasso, 1992;
Silverstein & Bengtson, 1997; Silverstein, Gans, & Yang, 2006). Although
these perspectives have provided important insights into familial caregiv-
ing, they have fallen short of providing clear insights into how established
familial relationship dynamics shape (1) the assistance given by family
members to older adults, and (2) older adults’ reactions to both seeking and
receiving care.
Taking stock of the limited research on attachment and aged care, we
(Karantzas, Karantzas, Simpson, & McCabe, 2014) recently conducted a
systematic review of this literature. This research revealed that 149 studies
claimed to have investigated attachment variables or processes in the con-

text of aged care. Of these studies, however, only 26% explicitly measured
attachment styles or orientations. The remaining studies either drew on
attachment theory to frame the research or claimed to measure attachment
styles/orientations, but actually did not. Instead, a number of these studies
measured concepts related to attachment, such as affection, parental bond-
ing, or perceptions of emotional closeness.
An Overview of Attachment and Aged-Care Research

Attachment, Caregiving, and Carer Outcomes
Of the research on aged care that has explicitly used attachment measures,
most investigations have focused on the carers’ perspective, particularly
adult children of aging parents (rather than the aging persons’ spouses)
(Karantzas et al., 2014; Van Assche et al., 2013). Furthermore, research
linking attachment and aged care has primarily examined (1) how the
strength of the attachment bond between a carer and a care recipient is
related to caregiving/helping behavior, or (2) how individual differences in
attachment mental representations and behavior are associated with care-
giving behavior and carers’ outcomes.
In regard to the strength of attachment, research has found that stron-
ger self-reported attachment ties between carers and care recipients are
associated with more helping behavior and better carer outcomes in gen-
eral. For example, Thompson and Walker (1984) found that more mother–
daughter caregiving reciprocity was associated with stronger attachment
ties. Pohl, Boyd, Liang, and Given (1995) found that stronger daughter–
mother attachment was associated with daughters’ providing more care to
their aging mothers. Similarly, Cicirelli (1983, 1993) found that stronger
daughter–mother attachment was associated with daughters’ providing
more care to their aging mothers and experiencing less burden.
Individual differences in attachment mental representations and
attachment behavior provide additional insights about the connections
between and among attachment, caregiving, and care outcomes. In a recent
study, Chen et al. (2013) found that adult children’s secure base mental
representations predicted fewer negatively expressed emotions directed at
older parents—a finding that was moderated by adult children’s percep-
tions of their care of elderly parents as difficult.
Our own work and that of others has found that attachment inse-
curity (i.e., attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance) is negatively
associated with the amount of care adult children provide to older parents
who need assistance, and that it is positively associated with carer burden,
depression, anxiety, and stress (e.g., Carpenter, 2001; Crispi, Schiaffino,
& Berman, 1997; Karantzas, 2012; Karantzas, Evans, et al., 2010; Magai
& Cohen, 1998; Nelis, Clare, & Whitaker, 2012). In contrast, attachment
security is positively associated with the amount and quality of care pro-
vided by adult children to their aging parents, and negatively associated
with the carers’ burden and mental health outcomes (e.g., Carpenter, 2001;
Cooper, Owens, Katona, & Livingston, 2008; Karantzas, Evans, et al.,
2010; Magai & Cohen, 1998; Nelis et al., 2012).
In regard to the type of care rendered to older adults, research has
found that attachment anxiety is negatively associated with adult chil-
dren’s provision of both emotional and instrumental support (Carpenter,
2001; Kim & Carver, 2007). Studies of attachment avoidance show less
consistent findings, with some reporting negative associations and oth-
ers reporting no link between adult children’s attachment avoidance and
the provision of either emotional or instrumental support to older parents
(e.g., Carpenter, 2001; Kim & Carver, 2007; Pohl et al., 1995). However,
attachment avoidance is positively associated with adult children’s ten-
dency to place their aging parents in residential care facilities (Markiewicz,
Reis, & Gold, 1997). In contrast, attachment security is positively associ-
ated with adult children’s provision of emotional and instrumental help to
their aging parents, along with a tendency to keep their parents in their
own homes rather than put them in residential care facilities (Markiewicz
et al., 1997).
In the only study to date investigating attachment and the style (the
manner) in which care is provided, Braun et al. (2012) found that in older
couples dealing with cancer, carers’ attachment avoidance was negatively
associated with the provision of sensitive care, whereas carers’ attachment
anxiety was associated with the provision of compulsive caregiving. In addi-
tion, both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were associated
with carers’ engaging in more controlling care toward their older spouses.
During the last decade, a handful of studies have examined how
attachment is related to the future care of older adults. Specifically, attach-
ment security and attachment strength are positively correlated with adult
children’s preparedness and willingness to provide future care to older
adults (Cicirelli, 1983; Sörensen, Webster, & Roggman, 2002). In contrast,
attachment insecurity is negatively associated with carers’ willingness to
plan or their intentions to give care to older adults in the future (Karantzas,
Evans, et al., 2010; Sörensen et al., 2002). Our work and that of others
has also found that attachment avoidance is strongly associated with adult
children’s unwillingness to provide future care to older parents (Karantzas,
Evans, et al., 2010; Sörensen et al., 2002).
Attachment, Care Receiving/Care Seeking, and Care Recipient Outcomes

Over the last four decades, very little research has investigated how attach-
ment processes shape how older adults seek and receive care and their
physical and mental health outcomes. This is true despite the fact that
many studies of attachment and aged care appear to have collected data on
care recipients’ physical and/or emotional well-being.
In our systematic review of the literature (Karantzas et al., 2014),
we found only five studies that reported associations between and among
attachment, care receipt/care seeking, and health outcomes from the per-
spective of the care recipients. In relation to attachment strength, Anto-
nucci (1994) found that older women who reported stronger attachment to
their daughters received more emotional support from them. In an innova-
tive study, Steele, Phibbs, and Woods (2004) examined how the behavior of
older adults with dementia, when reunited with their adult daughters after
separation, predicted the daughters’ attachment mental states as assessed
by the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985).
Steele et al. found that older mothers’ behaviors during these reunions with
their daughters were positively correlated with their daughters’ coherence
of mind as assessed by the AAI, even when the researchers controlled for
the severity of the mothers’ dementia symptoms. Specifically, mothers’ dis-
play of secure reunion behavior (i.e., proximity seeking, maintenance of
contact, and responsiveness) was associated with their daughters’ being
securely attached on the AAI. In another study focusing on people with
dementia, Nelis et al. (2012) found that for such people, attachment secu-
rity was related to having a more positive self-concept and fewer symp-
toms of dementia-related anxiety. In one of the few longitudinal studies on
attachment and caregiving in aged care, Perren, Schmid, Herrmann, and
Wettstein (2007) found that among older couples dealing with dementia
care, the caregivers’ attachment avoidance and the care recipients’ insecure
attachment (i.e., attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance) were asso-
ciated with increased levels of dementia-related problem behavior in care
recipients.
Our own work has also examined attachment and familial caregiv-
ing from the care recipients’ perspective. In one study of older parents’
perceptions of seeking care and its effect on carers, we found that attach-
ment anxiety was positively associated with older parents’ current receipt
of care, their future willingness to receive care, and their perceptions of
carer burden (Karantzas, Evans, et al., 2010). We also found that older par-
ents’ attachment anxiety was positively associated with their perceptions of
the sense of obligation that adult children should have in providing care to
older parents (i.e., filial obligation). In a path-analytic model, we confirmed
that the covariation between older parents’ views about filial obligation
and their attachment orientation predicted older parents’ actual seeking of
care from their adult children. This suggests that filial obligation may be
interconnected with attachment anxiety. If so, older parents who are highly
anxious may impose filial responsibilities on their adult children as a means
of safeguarding and controlling their relationship with them.
A Word of Caution
Although this brief review of the current literature on attachment and aged
care offers some valuable insights, caution must be exercised regarding how
much to read into these findings. A recurrent theme in this review and
recent others is the significant variability in how attachment is conceptu-
alized and measured in most aged-care research (see Bradley & Cafferty,
2001; Karantzas, Evans, et al., 2010; Van Assche et al., 2013). We address
the issue of the conceptualization and assessment of attachment in later
life and aged care in the next section. In doing so, we discuss various con-
ceptualizations of attachment and describe particular measures associated
with each one. We also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the various
conceptualizations and assessments as they relate to aged care.
Conceptualizing Attachment in Later Life and in Aged Care

One of the greatest concerns regarding the conceptual and measurement
variability of attachment is the inability to compare findings across differ-
ent studies. In most prior research on attachment and aged care, attachment
has been conceptualized and assessed in one of three ways: (1) strength of
attachment, (2) attachment states of mind, and (3) attachment orientations/
styles. We discuss each of these distinct conceptualizations and assessment
perspectives in turn.
Strength of Attachment
Several studies of attachment and aged care have conceptualized attach-
ment in terms of the strength of the “bond” between older parents and
their adult children (e.g., Cicirelli, 1995; Thompson & Walker, 1984; Troll
& Smith, 1976), with few measures of this type assessing the romantic
attachment orientations of older adults. This conceptualization of attach-
ment places little, if any, emphasis on the distinction between attachment
individual differences in the form of attachment orientations or styles;
rather, strength is measured as a unidimensional construct, with higher
scores reflecting a tighter/closer perceived bond between an older adult
and an adult child. A common inference associated with these measures
is that a higher score indicates a more secure attachment (Cicirelli, 1993;
Thompson & Walker, 1984). However, this inference (as we discuss later
in this section) is somewhat tenuous, as a “tighter” or “closer” bond does
not necessarily reflect a “secure” attachment. Rather, a secure attachment
bond is characterized by a relationship in which closeness is balanced with
autonomy and independence (Karantzas, Evans, et al., 2010).
Nearly all of these unidimensional measures are self-report in nature,
and various questionnaire measures have been developed. Troll and

Smith (1976), for example, developed a measure that mixes obligation
and aspects of intergenerational solidarity into their assessment of later-
life parent–child attachment. Thompson and Walker (1984) developed a
9-item measure of later-life parent–child attachment (with a specific focus
on mother–daughter relationships) in which higher scores reflect “greater
attachment.” Example items include “We’re emotionally dependent on one
another,” “When we anticipate being apart, our relationship intensifies,”
and “Our best times are with each other.” In 1995, Cicirelli developed the
16-item Adult Attachment Scale (AAS) to measure the degree or strength
of aging mother–daughter attachment. The measure assesses four norma-
tive aspects of attachment discussed in prior attachment research (e.g.,
Ainsworth, 1985; Bowlby, 1980; Weiss, 1982): feelings of love, feelings of
security and comfort, distress upon separation, and joy on reunion. Cicire-
lli’s (1995) measure also contains items that capture the symbolic or “felt
security” nature of attachment in adulthood (Ainsworth, 1989; Cicirelli,
1991; Levitt, 1991; Marvin & Stewart, 1990). Items include “The thought
of losing my mother is deeply disturbing to me,” and “I feel lonely when I
don’t see my mother often.”
Concentric mapping approaches and interviews have also been used
to assess the strength of attachment between older adults or between aging
parents and their adult children. The most widely used concentric map-
ping technique is that devised by Antonucci and colleagues as part of their
social convoy theory of human relations (e.g., Antonucci, 1986; Antonucci
& Akiyama, 1987; Antonucci, Kahn, & Akiyama, 1989). As part of this
measure, individuals are asked to imagine themselves at the center of three
concentric circles. They are then instructed to list members of their social
network according to how close they perceive each network member is to
the self by distributing their social ties across the concentric circles. Accord-
ing to Antonucci and colleagues, network members who are placed within
the concentric circle closest to the self are regarded as very close emotional
ties and are presumed to be attachment figures. Social convoy studies of
adult children and older adults have found that adult children tend to report
strong attachments to their older parents (both mothers and fathers), and
that older adults report their strongest attachments to be with their spouses
and adult children (e.g., Antonucci, Akiyama, & Takahashi, 2004).
Barnas, Pollina, and Cummings (1991) developed an attachment inter-
view designed to measure strength of attachment security. In a semistruc-
tured protocol, responses to 12 questions are coded for attachment content
on two dimensions: the presence of attachment security, and attachment
avoidance/resistance. Scores along both dimensions are then summed to
range on a continuum from insecurity to security.
Even though several measures have attempted to capture key attach-
ment constructs, the unidimensional nature of many of these measures
(coupled with their scoring procedures) casts some doubt over their validity
as good indicators of attachment patterns in later life. As cases in point,
higher scores on both Thompson and Walker’s (1984) measure and Cicirelli’s
(1995) AAS are presumed to reflect stronger (and more secure) attachment,
whereas lower scores are believed to reflect weaker (and more insecure)
attachment. However, this scoring procedure is likely to be inappropriate,
because both of these measures were specifically designed to assess attach-
ment bonding between older parents and their adult children (especially
aging mothers and adult daughters) within the context of aged care. Several
items in these measures—such as “We’re emotionally dependent on one
another,” “The thought of losing my mother is deeply disturbing to me,” or
“I feel lonely when I don’t see my mother often”—suggest that a high score
may not reflect attachment security, but attachment insecurity. Within the
context of family members involved in aged care, the loss of an older adult
is inevitable. According to Bowlby (1980) and Fraley and Shaver (1999),
individuals who are securely attached typically go through a cognitive reor-
ganization of their working models after the death of an attachment figure,
which allows them to come to terms with the loss and eventually reengage
in exploratory behavior. In doing so, the reorganization of their working
models is likely to commence prior to death, as in the case of familial care-
giving during which an older spouse or adult child witnesses an attachment
figure endure a protracted illness (see Fraley & Shaver, 1999).
Thus it seems erroneous to interpret high scores on these unidimen-
sional measures as indexing secure attachment. In fact, it seems more
appropriate to infer that moderate scores on these measures may be more
indicative of secure familial attachment, because secure adult children,
while distressed about the eventual loss of their parents, should have
started reorganizing their attachment working models during the course
of their parents’ ill health. Therefore, high scores on these measures are
probably indicative of an overly anxious form of attachment characterized
by clinginess, a high degree of separation protest, and cognitive inflex-
ibility in the reorganization of attachment working models. Moreover, the
items on the AAS and Thompson and Walker’s measure assess attachment
anxiety, with little emphasis on attachment avoidance. In contrast, the Bar-
nas et al. (1991) interview measure conflates scores on attachment security
and attachment avoidance. As a result, it is difficult to determine whether
scores on this measure reflect either the presence or absence of security or
the presence or absence of avoidance. Moreover, with no explicit assess-
ment of attachment anxiety, this measure excludes a fundamental type of
attachment insecurity. Finally, while Antonucci and colleagues’ social con-
voy measure is not solely a measure of attachment strength, the suggestion
that inner-circle network members are bona fide “attachment figures” is
an assertion rather than a fact. Thus, although it may be true that some
“very close” network members are actual attachment figures, there is no
definitive way of determining whether this is true for the social convoy
measure. In sum, even though these unidimensional assessments of attach-
ment have been used to study aging families and aged care, whether and
the extent to which these measures validly capture attachment orientations
or styles remain uncertain.
Attachment States of Mind

Born from the developmental psychology tradition, other studies investi-
gating later life attachment and/or aged care have used observational and/
or interview assessments to tie early parent–child experiences to attach-
ment states of mind later in life. Specifically, there are a handful of studies
that have conceptualized attachment from this perspective and have used
adult analogues of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978),
the Secure Base Script Assessment (see Chen et al., 2013; Waters & Waters,
2006), or the AAI (see Main et al., 1985; Steele et al., 2004). For instance,
in an earlier-described study examining familial attachment processes in
later life, Steele et al. (2004) conducted AAI assessments of daughters who
were caring for older mothers with dementia. They used a modified version
of the Strange Situation to observe the reunion behavior between daughters
and their mothers. The concordance between these distinct assessments
(i.e., the AAI and reunion behavior in an analogue of the Strange Situa-
tion) was then examined as a way of explaining variability in the dementia-
related behavior of older adults.
In a study using a modified version of the Secure Base Script Assess-
ment, Chen et al. (2013) investigated how adult children’s attachment rep-
resentations were associated with their care of older parents with dementia.
As part of the Secure Base Script Assessment, participants are presented
with an attachment topic (e.g., a parent’s having an accident) along with a
series of word prompts. They are then instructed to verbalize a narrative
about the topic, using the word prompts as a guide. Participants are free to
develop their own distinctive stories around each topic. The narratives are
then scored on a 7-point scale, with higher scores reflecting greater secure
base content. In the Chen et al. study, adult children’s scores on this assess-
ment were then regressed onto their children’s perceptions of difficulty
when caring for parents with dementia, including the negative emotions
expressed toward their own parents.
The assessment of attachment states of mind in the Steele et al. (2004)
and Chen et al. (2013) studies are innovative ways of applying established
attachment assessments to the contexts of aging and aged care. Importantly,
these assessments place strong emphasis on aspects of the internal working
models underlying attachment. Therefore, the application of these assess-
ment procedures to the study of aged care is likely to benefit the field of
aged care in two ways. First, the use of the AAI, especially when assessing
carers, can provide direct evidence of how early attachment representations

are related to the care provided by adult children to ailing adults. Second,
interview measures such as the AAI can yield attachment classifications
that distinguish how different attachment orientations/styles (i.e., secure,
anxious, avoidant, and disorganized) affect carers’ caregiving behavior as
well as their physical and mental health outcomes. Unfortunately, measures
that assess the strength of attachment fall short of allowing such inferences
to be made.
Assessments such as the Strange Situation yield behavioral observa-
tions of attachment behavior that can be used to validate interview and
self-report assessments. Furthermore, behavioral assessments such as the
Strange Situation allow for the measurement of actual attachment behavior
in older adults who are experiencing varying degrees of cognitive impair-
ment. By and large, older adults experiencing cognitive deficits have fre-
quently been excluded from aged-care studies because of their inability to
provide reliable data. Validated observational assessments open the oppor-
tunity for the care recipients’ perspective to be more firmly embedded in
aged-care research on attachment.
The Secure Base Script Assessment is designed to elicit a narrative
that taps an individual’s generalized expectations about the provision of
secure base support (Waters & Waters, 2006). According to Waters and
Rodrigues-Doolabh (2001), a prototypic secure base script depicts an event
sequence in which
the caregiver: (1) supports the [care recipient’s] exploration; (2) remains
available and responsive and serves as a resource as necessary; (3) the
[care recipient] encounters an obstacle or threat and becomes distressed;
(4) either the [care recipient] retreats to the caregiver or the caregiver
goes to the [care recipient]; (5) the difficulty is resolved or removed; (6)
proximity and/or contact with the caregiver effectively comforts the
[care recipient]; (7) the [care recipient] (possibly with the caregiver’s
assistance) returns to constructive [activity] (or ends [the activity] com-
fortably and makes a transition to another activity). (p. 1)
As a result, this assessment measures the degree to which an individual’s

story regarding attachment topics yields a narrative with “extensive secure
base content and a strong interpersonal framework” (Waters & Rodrigues-
Doolabh, 2001, p. 2). Scores on this measure range from low to high, with
higher scores indicative of narratives that encompass greater and more
elaborate secure base content. The application of this measure to aged-
care research can provide important insights into how carers’ expectations
about secure base support underpin their own mental representations (i.e.,
attitudes, expectations, and working models) and behaviors relevant to
their role as caregivers.
Despite the benefits of using different types of assessments that target
attachment states of mind, it is difficult to make comparisons across these

studies, due to the distinct nature of these attachment assessments. AAI
classifications, for example, provide information about individual differ-
ences in attachment mental states, whereas the Secure Base Script Assess-
ment yields a unidimensional score reflecting the extent of people’s secure
base script content. Hence these two measures do not necessarily assess the
same construct. If aged-care research is going to make good use of these
assessment tools, taxometric and scaling procedures will need to demon-
strate convergence between assessments of attachment orientations/styles
and attachment mental states indexed by measures such as the AAI and the
Strange Situation (see Fraley & Spieker, 2003; Roisman, Fraley, & Belsky,
2007). Preliminary evidence regarding links between the Secure Base Script
Assessment and individual-difference measures of attachment suggest that
individuals who are insecurely attached (i.e., have insecure classifications
on the AAI and high scores on self-report measures of attachment anxi-
ety and/or avoidance) score lower on the Secure Base Script Assessment
(Coppola, Vaughn, Cassiba, & Costantini, 2006; Dykas, Woodhouse, Cas-
sidy, & Waters, 2006). However, further work needs to determine both the
degree of association and the convergence of these measures in later-life
familial bonds and the aged-care context.
Attachment Orientations/Styles
The most widely used of the validated attachment measures in aging and
aged-care research are self-report assessments of attachment orientations/
styles. Generally speaking, these self-report measures have been either cat-
egorical assessments or dimensional assessments of attachment. The most
commonly used categorical measures are Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) three
category descriptors (i.e., secure, anxious, and avoidant) and Bartholomew
and colleagues’ prototype measures of attachment (i.e., secure, preoccu-
pied, dismissing, and fearful, assessed by the Relationship Questionnaire
[the RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991] or the Relationship Styles Ques-
tionnaire [the RSQ; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994]). The most popular
dimensional measures have been the Experiences in Close Relationships
(ECR) scale (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) and revisions of it (e.g., the
ECR-R; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000), and the Attachment Style Ques-
tionnaire (ASQ; Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994; Karantzas, Feeney, &
Wilkinson, 2010). Both the ECR and the ASQ tap the two primary dimen-
sions underlying attachment orientations/styles—attachment anxiety and
attachment avoidance. The ASQ also taps specific facets of attachment
insecurity (for reviews, see Feeney et al., 1994; Karantzas, Feeney, et al.,
2010; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a). Scores derived from these categori-
cal and dimensional assessments have been linked to caregiving behavior
outcomes, carer outcomes, and anticipated caregiving behavior (e.g., Braun
et al., 2012; Carpenter, 2001; Karantzas, Evans, et al., 2010; Magai &
Cohen, 1998; Nelis et al., 2012).
The adoption of these self-report measures in aged-care research has
introduced more uniformity in how individual differences in attachment
are conceptualized and measured (Bradley & Cafferty, 2001). They have
also provided greater psychometric rigor, and these measures are yielding
important insights into the links between attachment and aged care. As
a result, differential predictions can be made regarding how attachment
security and different forms of insecurity are likely to affect the provision
of care and the seeking and/or receipt of care.
Given that these measures were designed to measure adult romantic
or global attachment orientations/styles, various gerontological researchers
have modified or adapted their instructions or reworded the items to focus
on attachments between adult children and older adults. Although these
adaptations are presumed to be more context-specific and ecologically
valid assessments of attachment, research is mixed regarding the extent
to which alterations of instructions and items yield assessments that are
similar to general attachment representations (see Cameron, Finnegan, &
Morry, 2012; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a). Given these mixed findings,
the use of self-report measures originally designed to assess romantic or
general attachment orientations during young and middle adulthood raises
questions about the validity of these assessments when they are applied
to aged-care contexts, especially when assessments target familial attach-
ments between older parents and their adult children. For instance, items
that typically capture attachment insecurity in romantic relationships—
such as “I want to merge completely with another person” and “I want to
be completely emotionally intimate with others” (i.e., attachment anxiety),
and “I am nervous when partners get too close to me” and “I am too busy
with other activities to put much time into relationships” (i.e., attachment
avoidance)—may not apply very well to how older parents or their adult
children perceive their relationships. The use of these self-report measures
in aged-care research, in fact, has often yielded low reliability coefficients,
indicating poor internal consistency and/or factor structures that do not
neatly map onto the dimensions of the original measures (e.g., Carpenter,
2001; Magai et al., 2001). These findings suggest that these revised mea-
sures may not capture attachment insecurity in a way that is age-appro-
priate and/or relationship-appropriate when researchers are investigating
bonds between older adults and their adult children.
Therefore, considerable caution needs to be taken when self-report
measures are implemented in the aging and aged-care contexts, especially
for the purpose of measuring attachment relationships between older par-
ents and their adult children. One way forward may be to develop self-
report measures that assess the critical features of attachment security,
anxiety, and avoidance, but that contain items worded in a manner that
more aptly captures familial attachments in later life. The development of

such measures may involve creating new items, rather than just modify-
ing existing ones that are currently used in attachment research to target
romantic relationships or earlier stages of the lifespan.
Where to Next?: Future Directions in Attachment

and Aged-Care Research
When highlighting particular attachment concepts and ideas earlier in
this chapter, we have identified specific aspects of attachment theory and
research that require further extension and investigation in the context of
aging and aged care. In our overview of attachment research on aging and
particularly aged care, we have reviewed the research conducted to date,
but have also highlighted which areas need further attention. When dis-
cussing how attachment orientations/styles are conceptualized and assessed
later in life with respect to aged care, we have identified problems in the
area, but have proposed courses of action that can be taken to advance our
understanding of attachment processes through the application of existing
attachment measures and the development of new measures. In this final
section, we reiterate and expand upon some of our earlier themes, and sug-
gest some new and promising directions for future research on aging and
aged care.
The concepts of diathesis–stress, protective behavior, and behavioral
systems are all highly relevant to aged care research. To date, however,
there has been no systematic investigation of these concepts in aged sam-
ples. Applying these concepts in systematic, well-designed studies is likely
to yield important and novel insights into the impact of certain attachment
processes on aged care. For instance, do the vulnerabilities of insecurely
attached carers and care recipients lead to different outcomes, depending
on the severity or chronicity of distress associated with family caregiving
arrangements? Studies identifying the specific types of family caregiving
arrangements that put insecurely attached carers and care recipients at the
most risk for physical or mental health problems could inform future mod-
els of health care and carer support. By identifying the types of familial
caregiving situations that most adversely affect insecurely attached fami-
lies, health care and carer support systems can determine what kinds of
caregiving circumstances are likely to require specific forms of professional
intervention. Therefore, attachment research into aged care that imple-
ments a diathesis–stress approach is not only likely to advance our theo-
retical understanding of attachment processes in aged care; it is also likely
to have important applied value to the aged-care sector.
The concept of protective behavior, coupled with behavioral systems
research on the interplay between the attachment and caregiving systems
in the context of aged care, also offers exciting opportunities to advance

our theoretical understanding of these two behavioral systems. As noted
earlier in the chapter, the help given by a carer to a care recipient is likely
to reflect attachment system dynamics, according to Cicirelli (1998). In
particular, the ill health of an aging parent may spark proximity-seeking
behavior in the carer, in the form of rendering comfort and assistance to
safeguard the attachment bond between the carer and his or her aging par-
ent (i.e., protective behavior). However, it is equally plausible that the com-
fort and assistance given by a carer may reflect activation of the caregiving
system, in which an aging parent’s ill health alerts the carer to the parent’s
suffering. In this case, the carer may be motivated to provide assistance
not to meet the aging parent’s attachment needs, but to alleviate the par-
ent’s distress or suffering. Thus Cicirelli’s (1983) ideas regarding protective
behavior may reflect caregiving rather than attachment system function-
ing. Researchers need to test these plausible competing behavioral system
explanations.
A more systematic investigation of the interplay between the attach-
ment and caregiving behavioral systems in the context of aged care also
provides an important opportunity to test some critical theoretical assump-
tions that could significantly advance our understating of attachment and
caregiving dynamics. To date, research linking attachment to caregiving
has been studied primarily in social support situations in which romantic
couples have been exposed to temporary stressors (e.g., Simpson, Rholes,
& Nelligan, 1992), or in studies examining prosocial behavior when help-
ing strangers (e.g., Gillath et al., 2005; Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitz-
berg, 2005). The findings of these studies suggest that securely attached
individuals, unlike insecurely attached ones, usually forgo their own attach-
ment needs and instead attend to the needs of their romantic partners or
complete strangers. According to Gillath et al. (2005) and Mikulincer and
Shaver (2007a), securely attached people have the capacity to self-soothe, as
well as the cognitive and affective regulatory ability to delay meeting their
own needs until a later time. One assumption underlying this research is
that the caregiving system overrides the attachment system in most securely
attached people to ensure that assistance is given to another in need (Gil-
lath et al., 2005; Mikulincer et al., 2005).
However, to what extent are these assumptions and explanations true
in typical aged-care situations, when the stress of both the carer and the
care recipient is severe and chronic, and in many instances will result in
the permanent loss of the carer’s attachment figure? Under these extreme
conditions, can we really expect the caregiving system to override or inhibit
the functioning of the attachment system? Couldn’t it be just as plausible
that under these conditions, the strong activation of the attachment system
inhibits the functioning of the caregiving system? Alternatively, could the
chronic and extreme stress often associated with aged care result in the
concurrent activation of the caregiving and attachment systems (i.e., both

systems become activated), or the relative activation of the caregiving and
attachment systems (i.e., both systems become activated, but one system is
activated more than the other)? Finally, could the activation of these two
behavioral systems be moderated by attachment strength or individual dif-
ferences in attachment orientations/styles? The aged-care context offers
unique opportunities for significantly advancing our understanding of how
the attachment and caregiving behavioral systems jointly operate.
Our own thinking on the interplay between the attachment and care-
giving systems in the aged-care context leads us to believe that individual
differences may moderate the dynamics of these behavioral systems. We
contend that secure people are likely to have attachment and caregiving sys-
tems that are fairly balanced in terms of their typical activation and opera-
tion. Carers who are secure in their attachment orientation/style should
have systems that become activated in situations that warrant their activa-
tion, such as when an adult child feels some degree of attachment threat in
response to a sudden change in an aging parent’s health status. If, however,
it becomes clear that the parent requires substantial assistance, the caregiv-
ing system of a secure adult child should override the activation of his or
her attachment system to render support. Not only are secure people likely
to be more attentive to signs of help, but their capacity to regulate their
own distress and emotions should allow them to move more easily between
meeting their own attachment needs (at least eventually) and meeting the
needs of distressed others in ways that satisfy both systems.
Secure care recipients should also experience more balanced activation
of the two systems. When they truly need care, secure care recipients ought
to seek proximity or attention in order to receive support and ameliorate
their distress. However, the type and amount of support that is sought
should be commensurate with the chronicity and severity of the threat, and
secure care recipients should experience deactivation of the attachment sys-
tem after appropriate help is received. In relation to the caregiving system,
secure care recipients should also be sensitive and responsive to signs of
stress or strain in caregivers. When they notice carer distress, for example,
secure recipients may provide support to alleviate the carers’ strain, such as
through words of encouragement, a hug, or a supportive embrace.
Avoidantly attached people should need more stress (either their own
or their care recipients’) to trigger either behavioral system. When either
system becomes operative, the type and amount of care they provide should
follow what is already known about their care provision tendencies. Spe-
cifically, avoidant individuals should strive to suppress activation of both
behavioral systems. As a result, any care they provide is likely to be emo-
tionally distant, underinvolved, and superficial. Thus the amount and
type of caregiving (or lack thereof) typical of avoidant caregivers should
short-circuit or suppress both behavioral systems simultaneously. Similarly,
avoidant care recipients ought to minimize their distress as a means of

deactivating the attachment system.
Avoidantly attached care recipients should refrain from actively seek-
ing help from carers, and they may even reject, dismiss, or devalue its
importance when support is provided. Avoidant individuals should also be
less in tune with the distress and strain of their carers. As a result, they may
be less likely to notice signs of distress in their carers, which may ensure
that their caregiving system is not triggered.
Anxiously attached people should have attachment and caregiving sys-
tems that are more easily and chronically activated. Due to their tendencies
to intensify distress, anxious individuals ought to have lower stress thresh-
olds than secure and avoidant individuals (Simpson & Rholes, 1994), so
that lower levels of stress in themselves or others are likely to activate either
system. When it comes to family caregiving, anxious individuals ought
to experience chronic activation of both systems, in which they oscillate
between providing compulsive or situationally inappropriate support and
seeking attention and validation from their attachment figures, despite
their frailty. Furthermore, it may be more difficult for anxious individuals
to shut down both systems once they are activated.
When they are receiving care, anxious individuals should experience
strong activation of the attachment system. This heightened activation,
coupled with their hyperactivating emotional regulation strategies, should
lead anxious care recipients to engage in persistent care-seeking behavior,
which is rarely fully satisfied by their carers. In fact, the heightened and
sustained activation of the attachment system in care recipients may inhibit
activation of the caregiving system, even when their carers are experiencing
significant distress and burnout.
Further research on individual differences in attachment that takes
into account the unique perspectives of a carer and a care recipient is likely
to increase our theoretical understanding of the pathways that connect car-
ers’ and care recipients’ attachment orientations/styles to current family
care arrangements. For instance, we still know relatively little about how
the amount and type of help that is provided and sought as part of family
care arrangements is related to attachment orientations/styles. Even less is
known about how individual differences in attachment influence the physi-
cal and mental health outcomes of carers and care recipients. Emerging
research suggests that attachment insecurity may be differentially associ-
ated with caregiving and care-receiving/seeking behavior (Karantzas &
Cole, 2011; Karantzas, Evans, et al., 2010; Nelis et al., 2012). Specifically,
while research with carers seems to indicate that both forms of attachment
insecurity (anxiety and avoidance) are associated with providing less care
to aging adults, attachment anxiety may be a particularly important dimen-
sion in explaining older adults’ seeking and receipt of care (e.g., Karantzas,
Evans, et al., 2010; Karantzas et al., 2014).
Future research that adopts a multilevel perspective by examining

family caregiving at the dyadic level (i.e., a care recipient and a carer) or the
family systems level (i.e., a care recipient nested within a network of family
carers) could also provide important explanations for the differential func-
tioning of attachment orientations/styles as they relate to carers and care
recipients. This kind of research is likely to have significant clinical implica-
tions in aged care as well. For example, developing a better understanding
of individual differences in attachment regarding carers and care recipients
may help us identify carers and older adults who will not adjust well to cer-
tain family care arrangements. Most importantly, an attachment perspec-
tive may assist health care professionals (i.e., clinicians, counselors, and
social workers) to tailor the counseling of families through understanding
the role of attachment in family dynamics, mental health outcomes, and
emotional reactions related to caregiving and the planning of future care
arrangements. A consideration of attachment issues may therefore improve
the efficacy of interventions aimed at reducing family and carer burden,
which to date have resulted in only modest improvements for carers (Bro-
daty & Green, 2002; Cooke, McNally, Mulligan, Harrison, & Newman,
2001; Lopez-Hartmann, Wens, Verhoeven, & Remmen, 2012).
In conclusion, we have highlighted the theoretical and applied value
that can be gained by applying attachment theory to the study of later-life
family attachment bonds and aged care. To this point, research has been
limited; however, the field has an important opportunity to develop sig-
nificant and groundbreaking investigations that can appreciably enhance
our understanding of attachment processes “from the cradle to the grave”
(Bowlby, 1979, p. 129). To ensure that the family-based care of older adults
is effective and sustainable in the coming decades, and to minimize pres-
sures and stressors on carers and care recipients alike, a better understand-
ing of late-life attachment relationships is vital. Such an understanding will
not only provide new ways of supporting and strengthening these critical
bonds; it will also facilitate the development of services and supports for
family caregivers and care recipients, helping them to cope better with this
already difficult stage of life and to enhance family functioning.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. (1985). Attachments across the life-span. Bulletin of the New
York Academy of Medicine, 61, 792–812.
Ainsworth, M. D. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist,
44, 709–716.
Erlbaum.
Allen, K. R., Blieszner, R., & Roberto, K. A. (2000). Families in the middle and
later years: A review and critique of research in the 1990s. Journal of Mar-
riage and Family, 62, 911–926.
Antonucci, T. C. (1986). Social support networks: A hierarchical mapping tech-
nique. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging, 10, 10–12.
Antonucci, T. C. (1994). Attachment in adulthood and aging. In M. B. Sperling
& W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental
perspectives (pp. 256–272). New York: Guilford Press.
Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1987). Social networks in adult life and a pre-
liminary examination of the convoy model. Journal of Gerontology, 42,
519–527.
Antonucci, T. C., Akiyama, H., & Takahashi, K. (2004). Attachment and close
relationships across the life span. Attachment and Human Development, 6,
353–370.
Antonucci, T. C., Kahn, R., & Akiyama, H. (1989). Psychosocial factors and the
response to cancer symptoms. In R. Yancik & J. W. Yates (Eds.), Cancer in
the elderly: Approaches to early detection and treatment (pp. 40–52). New
York: Springer.
Barnas, M. V., Pollina, L., & Cummings, E. (1991). Life-span attachment: Rela-
tions between attachment and socioemotional functioning in adult women.
Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 117, 175–202.
Bengtson, V. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of
multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1–16.
Blieszner, R., & Mancini, J. A. (1987). Enduring ties: Older adults’ parental role
and responsibilities. Family Relations, 36, 176–180.
Basic Books.
tock.
York: Basic Books.
Bradley, J. M., & Cafferty, T. P. (2001). Attachment among older adults: Current
issues and directions for future research. Attachment and Human Develop-
ment, 3, 200–221.
Braun, M., Hales, S., Gilad, L., Mikulincer, M., Rydall, A., & Rodin, G. (2012).
Caregiving styles and attachment orientations in couples facing advanced can-
cer. Psycho-Oncology, 21, 935–943.
Brodaty, H., & Green, A. (2002). Who cares for the carer?: The often forgotten
patient. Clinical Practice: Therapeutic Review, 31, 1–4.
Cameron, J. J., Finnegan, H., & Morry, M. M. (2012). Orthogonal dreams in an
oblique world: A meta-analysis of the association between attachment anxiety
and avoidance. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 472–476.
Canterberry, M., & Gillath, O. (2012). Attachment and caregiving. In P. Noller &
G. C. Karantzas (Eds.), The Wiley–Blackwell handbook of couple and family
relationships (pp. 207–219). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Carpenter, B. D. (2001). Attachment bonds between adult daughters and their
older mothers: Associations with contemporary caregiving. Journals of Ger-
ontology, Series B, 56B, 257–266.
Chen, C. K., Waters, H. S., Hartman, M., Zimmerman, S., Miklowitz, D. J., &
Waters, E. (2013). The secure base script and the task of caring for elderly
parents: Implications for attachment theory and clinical practice. Attachment
Cicirelli, V. G. (1983). Adult children’s attachment and helping behaviour to elderly
parents: A path model. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 815–822.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1985). The role of siblings as family caregivers. In W. J. Sauer &
R. T. Cowards, (Eds.), Social support networks and the care of the elderly
(pp. 93–107). New York: Springer.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1991). Family caregiving: Autonomous and paternalistic decision
making. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1993). Attachment and obligation as daughters’ motives for care-
giving behavior and subsequent effect on subjective burden. Psychology and
Aging, 8, 144–155.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1995). A measure of caregiving daughters’ attachment to elderly
mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 89–94.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1998). A frame of reference for guiding research regarding the
relationship between adult attachment and mental health in aging families. In
J. Lomranz (Ed.), Handbook of aging and mental health: An integrative
approach (pp. 341–353). New York: Plenum Press.
Cooke, D. D., McNally, L., Mulligan, K. T., Harrison, M. J. G., & Newman, S. P.
(2001). Psychosocial interventions for caregivers of people with dementia: A
systematic review. Aging and Mental Health, 5, 120–135.
Cooper, C., Owens, C., Katona, C., & Livingston, G. (2008). Attachment style
and anxiety in carers of people with Alzheimer’s disease: Results from the
LASER-AD study. International Psychogeriatrics, 20, 494–507.
Coppola, G., Vaughn, B. E., Cassibba, R., & Costantini, A. (2006). The attach-
ment script representation procedure in an Italian sample: Associations with
adult attachment interview scales and with maternal sensitivity. Attachment
Crispi, E. L., Schiaffino, K., & Berman, W. H. (1997). The contribution of attach-
ment to burden in adult children of institutionalized parents with dementia.
The Gerontologist, 37, 52–60.
Dilworth-Anderson, P., Williams, I. C., & Gibson, B. E. (2002). Issues of race,
ethnicity, and culture in caregiving research: A 20-year review (1980–2000).
Dykas, M. J., Woodhouse, S. S., Cassidy, J., & Waters, H. S. (2006). Narrative
assessment of attachment representations: Links between secure base scripts
and adolescent attachment. Attachment and Human Development, 8, 221–
240.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2004). Interpersonal safe haven and secure base
caregiving processes in adulthood. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.),
Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 300–338).

Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment. In
M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and
developmental perspectives (pp. 128–152). New York: Guilford Press.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Loss and bereavement: Attachment theory
and recent controversies concerning grief work and the nature of detach-
ment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
Fraley, R. C., & Spieker, S. J. (2003). Are infant attachment patterns continu-
ously or categorically distributed?: A taxometric analysis of Strange Situation
behavior. Developmental Psychology, 39, 387–404.
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
George, C., & Solomon, J. (2008). The caregiving system: A behavioral systems
approach to parenting. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
Gillath, O., Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). An attachment-theoretical
approach to compassion and altruism. In P. Gilbert (Ed.), Compassion: Con-
ceptualizations, research, and use in psychotherapy (pp. 121–147). London:
Brunner-Routledge.
Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measurement:
The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.),
Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment processes in adult-
hood (pp. 17–52). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Guberman, N., Maheu, P., & Maille, C. (1992). Women as family caregivers: Why
do they care? The Gerontologist, 32, 607–617.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
Kalish, R. A., & Knudtson, F. W. (1976). Attachment versus disengagement: A life-
span conceptualization. Human Development, 19, 171–181.
Karantzas, G. C. (2012). Family caregiving. In P. Noller & G. C. Karantzas
(Eds.), The Wiley–Blackwell handbook of couples and family relationships
(pp. 82–96). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Karantzas, G. C., & Cole, S. F. (2011). Arthritis and support seeking tendencies: The
role of attachment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 30, 404–440.
Karantzas, G. C., Evans, L., & Foddy, M. (2010). The role of attachment in cur-
rent and future parent caregiving. Journals of Gerontology, Series B, 65B,
573–580.
Karantzas, G. C., Feeney, J. A., & Wilkinson, R. B. (2010). Does less mean more?:
A confirmatory factor analytic study of the Attachment Style Questionnaire
and the Attachment Style Questionnaire—Short Form. Journal of Social and
Karantzas, G. C., Karantzas, K. M., Simpson, J. A., & McCabe, M. (2014).
Examining the associations between attachment and aged care: A systematic
review. Unpublished manuscript.
Kim, Y., & Carver, C. S. (2007). Frequency and difficulty in caregiving among
spouses of individuals with cancer: Effects of adult attachment and gender.
Psycho-Oncology, 16, 714–723.
Knight, B., Silverstein, M., McCallum, T., & Fox, L. (2000). A sociocultural stress
and coping model for mental health outcomes among African American
caregivers in Southern California. Journals of Gerontology, Series B, 55B,
142–150.
Koski, L. R., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Attachment and relationship satisfaction
across the lifespan. In R. J. Sternberg & M. Hojjat (Eds.), Satisfaction in close
relationships (pp. 26–55). New York: Guilford Press.
Levitt, M. J. (1991). Attachment and close relationships: A life-span perspec-
tive. In J. Gewirtz, & W. M. Kurtines (Eds.), Intersections with attachment
(pp. 183–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lopez-Hartmann, M., Wens, J., Verhoeven, V., & Remmen, R. (2012). The effect
of caregiver support interventions for informal caregivers of community-
dwelling frail elderly: A systematic review. International Journal of Inte-
grated Care, 12, 1–16.
Magai, C., & Cohen, C. I. (1998). Attachment style and emotion regulation in
dementia patients and their relation to caregiver burden. Journals of Geron-
tology, Series B, 53B, 147–154.
Magai, C., Cohen, C. I., Milburn, N., Thorpe, B., McPherson, R., & Peralta, D.
(2001). Attachment styles in older European American and African American
adults. Journals of Gerontology, Series B, 56B, 28–35.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and
adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters
(Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1–2, Serial No. 209), 66–104.
Markiewicz, D., Reis, M., & Gold, D. P. (1997). An exploration of attachment
styles and personality traits in caregiving for dementia patients. International
Journal of Aging and Human Development, 45, 111–132.
Marvin, R. S., & Stewart, R. B. (1990). A family systems framework for the
study of attachment. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings
(Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention
(pp. 51–86). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miller, B., & Cafasso, L. (1992). Gender differences in caregiving: Fact or artifact?
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2011).
Healthy aging: Helping people to live long and productive lives and enjoy a
good quality life. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
National Institute on Aging (NIA). (2011). Global health and aging (NIH Publica-
tion No. 11-7737). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
Nelis, S. M., Clare, L., & Whitaker, C. J. (2012). Attachment representations in
people with dementia and their carers: Implications for well-being within the
dyad. Aging and Mental Health, 16, 845–854.
Perren, S., Schmid, R., Herrmann, S., & Wettstein, A. (2007). The impact of
attachment on dementia-related problem behavior and spousal caregivers’
well-being. Attachment and Human Development, 9, 163–178.
Pohl, J. M., Boyd, C., Liang, J., & Given, C. W. (1995). Analysis of the impact
of mother–daughter relationships on the commitment to caregiving. Nursing
Research, 44, 68–75.
ogy, 81, 421–435.
Roisman, G. I., Fraley, R. C., & Belsky, J. (2007). A taxometric study of the Adult
Attachment Interview. Developmental Psychology, 43, 675–686.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2004). What do self-report attachment measures
assess? In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical implications (pp. 17–54). New York: Guilford Press.
Silverstein, M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1997). Intergenerational solidarity and the
structure of adult child–parent relationships in American families. American
Journal of Sociology, 103, 429–460.
Silverstein, M., Gans, D., & Yang, F. M. (2006). Intergenerational support to aging
parents: The role of norms and needs. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1068–
1084.
adulthood. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal
relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 181–204). Lon-
don: Jessica Kingsley.
romantic relationships. In T. Devine & A. Plante (Eds.), Advances in experi-
mental social psychology (Vol. 45, pp. 279–328). New York: Elsevier.
Sörensen, S., Webster, J. D., & Roggman, L. A. (2002). Adult attachment and
preparing to provide care for older relatives. Attachment and Human Devel-
opment, 4, 84–106.
Steele, H., Phibbs, E., & Woods, R. T. (2004). Coherence of mind in daughter
caregivers of mothers with dementia: Links with their mothers’ joy and relat-
edness on reunion in a strange situation. Attachment and Human Develop-
ment, 6, 439–450.
Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1984). Mothers and daughters: Aid patterns and
attachment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 313–322.
Troll, E., & Smith, J. (1976). Attachment through the life-span: Some questions
about dyadic bonds among adults. Human Development, 19, 156–170.
Van Assche, L., Luyten, P., Bruffaerts, R., Persoons, P., van de Ven, L., & Vanden-
bulcke, M. (2013). Attachment in old age: Theoretical assumptions, empirical
findings and implications for clinical practice. Clinical Psychology Review,
33, 67–81.
Vaughn, B. E., Egeland, B. R., Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1979). Individual differ-
ences in infant–mother attachment at 12 and 18 months: Stability and change
in families under stress. Child Development, 50, 971–975.
Waters, H. S., & Rodrigues-Doolabh, L. M. (2001). Narrative assessment of
adult attachment representations: The scoring of Secure Base Script content.
Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Waters, H. S., & Waters, E. (2006). The attachment working models concept:
Among other things, we build script-like representations of secure base expe-
riences. Attachment and Human Development, 8, 185–197.
Weiss, R. S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C. M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde
(Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 171–184). New York:
Basic Books.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2012). Knowledge translation on ageing and
health: Policy framework. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
13
Psychopathology and Attachment
Tsachi Ein-Dor
Guy Doron
A lbert Einstein once stated, “One knows from daily life that one
exists for other people—first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-
being our own happiness is wholly dependent” (1931, p. 193). In keeping
with this view, theory and research have indicated that the roots of mental
health and psychopathology may be traced to a person’s history of interac-
tions with other people, specifically in times of need (Bowlby, 1980; Sroufe,
2005; Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005). When people, particu-
larly close others, regularly respond sensitively to the person’s needs, he or
she develops a sense of attachment security that includes acquiring con-
structive strategies for coping with threats and for regulating negative emo-
tions (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for an extensive review). But when
other people are often unavailable, unreliable, or rejecting of bids for sup-
port, the person may become chronically insecure with respect to close
relationships. One of the main insecure attachment patterns in adulthood
is avoidance, which relates to the extent to which a person distrusts rela-
tionship partners’ goodwill, strives to maintain independence, and relies
on deactivating strategies for dealing with threats and negative emotions
(e.g., Fraley & Shaver, 1997). The second main insecure pattern is anxiety,
which relates to the extent to which a person worries that others will not be
available or helpful in times of need. Anxious individuals exaggerate their
sense of vulnerability and insistently call on others for help and care, some-
times to the point of being intrusive (e.g., Feeney & Noller, 1990).
Research has indicated that attachment insecurities (both anxiety and
avoidance) are associated with a general vulnerability to mental disorders
346
Psychopathology and Attachment 347
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012; Sroufe, Duggal, Weinfield, & Carlson, 2000).
For example, attachment insecurities are linked with depression (e.g., Cat-
anzaro & Wei, 2010), generalized anxiety disorder (e.g., Marganska, Gal-
lagher, & Miranda, 2013), obsessive–compulsive disorder (e.g., Doron,
Moulding, Kyrios, Nedeljkovic, & Mikulincer, 2009), posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) (e.g., Ein-Dor, Doron, Solomon, Mikulincer, & Shaver,
2010), eating disorders (e.g., Illing, Tasca, Balfour, & Bissada, 2010), and
suicide ideation (e.g., Davaji, Valizadeh, & Nikamal, 2010). Attachment
insecurity is also related to many personality disorders (Crawford et al.,
2007; Meyer & Pilkonis, 2005). For example, people high on attachment
anxiety have higher prevalences of dependent, histrionic, and borderline
personality disorders, which often comprise identity confusion, anxiety,
emotional liability, cognitive distortions, submissiveness, self-harm, and
suspiciousness (the “emotional dysregulation” component of personality
disorders; Livesley, 1991). Conversely, avoidant individuals have higher
prevalences of schizoid and avoidant personality disorders, which consist
of restricted expression of emotions, problems with intimacy, and social
avoidance (the “inhibitedness” component of personality problems; Lives-
ley, 1991).
Attachment theory, however, has difficulty simultaneously explaining
the mechanisms by which attachment insecurities lead to multiple disor-
ders (i.e., the question of multifinality; Cicchetti, 1984; Egeland, Pianta, &
Ogawa, 1996), and why one individual with a particular attachment orien-
tation develops one set of symptoms while another with the same attach-
ment vulnerability develops another set of symptoms (i.e., the question of
divergent trajectories; Nolen-Hoeksema & Watkins, 2011). In addition,
attachment research has yet to explore the dyadic processes that play a role
in exacerbating or mitigating psychopathology. In this chapter, we unfold
a transdiagnostic model of attachment insecurities (in line with Nolen-
Hoeksema and Watkins’s [2011] heuristic for developing such models; see
Figure 13.1 for an outline of the heuristic) that refers to the possible causal
processes linking attachment orientation to multiple disorders.
We first review studies of both clinical and nonclinical samples that
link attachment dispositions to the two primary dimensions of psycho-
pathology: internalizing (including mood and anxiety disorders, such as
major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and social
anxiety disorder [social phobia]; Krueger & Markon, 2006, 2011), and
externalizing (including substance use and antisocial disorders; Krueger &
Markon, 2006, 2011).
Next, we address the question of multifinality by speculating on the
processes (i.e., proximal risk factors) that mediate the linkage between
attachment insecurities and multiple disorders, and the question of diver-
gent trajectories by indicating the different contexts (e.g., genetic predispo-
sition, family environment, and cultural environment) that might set one
Distal Risk Factors

(e.g., early parental
environment)
Proximal Risk Factors

(e.g., emotional, cognitive,
or behavioral tendencies)
Moderators
• Conditions that raise concerns or themes
• Conditions that shape responses
• Conditions that change the reward value
of stimuli
Disorder A Disorder B Disorder C
FIGURE 13.1. Nolen-Hoeksema and Watkins’s (2011) heuristic for developing

transdiagnostic models of psychopathology. Distal risk factors contribute to
disorders only through mediating proximal risk factors. Proximal risk factors
directly influence symptoms relative to distal risk factors. Distal and proximal
risk factors lead to multiple disorders (i.e., multifinality), which are comorbid
(indicated by dashed lines). Moderators interact with proximal risk factors to
determine which specific disorders individuals will experience (i.e., to deter-
mine divergent trajectories).
individual on a trajectory to one set of symptoms, but another individual

on a path to a different set of symptoms.
Attachment and Internalizing Disorders

Internalizing refers to a general liability toward negative affect and anxiety
disorders. It may be bifurcated into two separable but highly correlated
liabilities—distress and fear. Distress is a liability to major depression, dys-
thymia (also known as chronic depression), and generalized anxiety disor-
der, whereas fear is a liability to disorders such as panic disorder, phobias,
and PTSD (Krueger & Markon, 2011). In the current review, we focus on
anxiety, depression, and PTSD—the three most extensively studied types
of internalizing disorders with respect to attachment theory.
Anxiety Disorders
Bowlby (1973) was the first to contend that attachment insecurities can,
under specific circumstances, lead to anxiety disorders. When caregivers
are unavailable and unsupportive in times of need, the attachment system

fails to accomplish its basic function—to protect an individual, alleviate
his or her distress and fear, and assure a sense of security. Unsupported
individuals begin to internalize perceptions of the world as a dangerous
place, full of unexpected threats and perils, devoid of places of assurance
and safety. Alongside the internalization of such negative worldviews,
these individuals harbor serious doubts about their ability to cope with
threats and dangers. The individuals therefore are left to ruminate about
their problems, concerns, and feeling of distress, without taking action to
make positive changes (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998). These maladaptive
cognitive tendencies can exacerbate fearful reactions to threats, as well as
heighten the tendency to evade potential anxiety-provoking plights—the
clinically familiar fear and avoidance components of most anxiety disor-
ders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Numerous cross-sectional studies have examined the links between
attachment dispositions and anxiety symptoms. Results have indicated that
a preoccupied state of mind in the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) (e.g.,
Adam, Gunnar, & Tanaka, 2004), endorsement of an anxious (categorical)
attachment style in close relationships (e.g., Marganska et al., 2013; Muris
& Meesters, 2002), or higher ratings of attachment anxiety on self-report
scales (e.g., Esbjørn et al., 2013) are all associated with heightened severity
of anxiety symptoms. With regard to attachment avoidance, the picture is
less consistent: About half of the studies have concluded that people high
on attachment avoidance suffer from more anxiety symptoms (Muris &
Meesters, 2002; Wei, Heppner, & Mallinckrodt, 2003), whereas other stud-
ies have determined that attachment avoidance is not significantly linked
with anxiety (e.g., Adam et al., 2004; Costa & Weems, 2005; Sheehan &
Noller, 2002). This inconsistency may be resolved, at least to some extent,
by carefully examining the positive associations between attachment avoid-
ance and anxiety-related symptoms: Studies using the typology classifica-
tion of attachment styles have indicated that anxiety symptoms are linked
with the fearful aspect rather than the dismissing aspect of attachment
avoidance. Thus it seems that the anxious facet of fearful avoidance, which
is also shared by people high on attachment anxiety, is associated with
vulnerability to anxiety-related symptoms rather than the distancing facet
of dismissing avoidance.
Such a conclusion may be biased, however. Epidemiological research
has indicated that cross-sectional snapshots mix single-episode and “one-
off” cases with recurrent and chronic cases, which are known to differ in
the severity and etiology of their conditions. A cross-sectional design also
precludes confident conclusions regarding the direction of causality in the
link between personality dispositions and psychopathology. Therefore, lon-
gitudinal studies are needed to establish the nature of the links between
attachment dispositions and anxiety disorders. The Minnesota Study (see
Sroufe et al., 2005, for an extensive review), which set out to explore devel-
opmental trajectories of early attachment orientations, revealed that infants
classified as anxious-resistant were more likely than their secure counter-
parts to endorse anxiety disorders at age 17 (Warren, Huston, Egeland,
& Sroufe, 1997). This prospective prediction was not apparent among
anxious-avoidant infants. In a different study, attachment anxiety, but not
avoidance, was also linked with a history of anxiety-related disorders—
from emotional dysregulation at age 3.5, through childhood anxiety prob-
lems, to anxiety disorders in adolescence (Bosquet & Egeland, 2006).
Depression
Bowlby (1980) posited that attachment insecurities relate to the develop-
ment of depressive disorders, as well as to that of anxiety. He contended
that a loss of a primary attachment figure or a repeated failure to form a
secure relationship with a caregiver encourages the formation of pessimis-
tic, hopeless representations of self, other, and world. When an insecure
individual encounters subsequent losses, traumatic events, or hardships, his
or her abandonment-related cognitions and feelings may trigger symptoms
of depression.
To date, more than 100 studies have examined the links between
attachment dispositions and the severity of depressive symptoms. For
example, studies in special populations with a heightened risk for depres-
sion (i.e., low socioeconomic status, stressful life history, and poor health)
revealed that people high on either attachment anxiety or avoidance suffer
from more depressive symptoms. Specifically, dismissing and preoccupied
states of mind according to the AAI, and higher scores on self-report mea-
sures of attachment avoidance or anxiety, have been associated with more
severe symptoms of depression in samples of psychiatric inpatients (Fowler,
Allen, Oldham, & Frueh, 2013); patients with chronic pain (Ciechanowski,
Sullivan, Jensen, Romano, & Summers, 2003); patients with diabetes
(Ciechanowski, Katon, & Russo, 2005); patients who are HIV-positive
(e.g., Hinnen et al., 2012); and outpatients suffering from eating disorders,
drug abuse, or major depression (e.g., Eng, Heimberg, Hart, Schneier, &
Liebowitz, 2001; Visioli, Senatore, Lepri, & Tondo, 2012).
Studies in nonclinical samples have indicated that a preoccupied state
of mind on the AAI (Cole-Detke & Kobak, 1996), endorsement of an
anxious (categorical) attachment style in close relationships (e.g., Muris,
Meesters, van Melick, & Zwambag, 2001), or higher ratings of attachment
anxiety on self-report scales (e.g., Brenning, Soenens, Braet, & Bosmans,
2012; Wei, Mallinckrodt, Larson, & Zakalik, 2005) are associated with
heightened severity of depressive symptoms. In keeping with the findings
regarding anxiety disorders, the evidence for the link between attachment
avoidance and depression is conflicting: About half of the studies have
concluded that people high on attachment avoidance (mostly fearful avoid-

ance) suffer from more depressive symptoms (Gamble & Roberts, 2005;
Simpson, Rholes, Campbell, Tran, & Wilson, 2003), whereas other stud-
ies have determined that attachment avoidance (mostly dismissing avoid-
ance) is not significantly linked with depression (e.g., Adam et al., 2004;
Shaver, Schachner, & Mikulincer, 2005). Research on the multiple facets
of depression has revealed more about the nature of the avoidance–depres-
sion link (Batgos & Leadbeater, 1994; Davila, 2001; Murphy & Bates,
1997; Zuroff & Fitzpatrick, 1995). Attachment avoidance has been found
to be associated with achievement-related aspects of depression, such as
perfectionism, self-punishment, and self-criticism (also called introjective
depression; Blatt, 1974), but not with the interpersonal aspects of depres-
sion, such as overdependence, lack of autonomy, and neediness (also called
anaclitic depression; Blatt, 1974).
The developmental trajectory of depression, as assessed in the Min-
nesota Study, corroborated the conclusions from cross-sectional findings
on the link between attachment and depression by indicating that both
anxious-avoidant and anxious-resistant attachment styles were related to
depression in adolescence (Duggal, Carlson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2001).
Other prospective studies have found that attachment insecurities (anxiety
and avoidance) among adults predict subsequent increases in depression
over periods of time ranging from 1 month to 2 years (e.g., Hankin, Kassel,
& Abela, 2005; Maunder, Lancee, Hunter, Greenberg, & Steinhart, 2005;
Whiffen, 2005).
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

People’s reactions to threats and danger comprise elevated distress and
arousing emotions. Such experiences may traumatize the persons and leave
them at risk for short-term and long-term mental health and adjustment
problems (Horowitz, 1982). Commonly, emotional balance is restored
shortly after a traumatic event ends. In some cases, however, profound and
prolonged mental health sequelae are manifested in the form of PTSD—
repeated reexperiencing of the traumatic event (intrusive symptoms such as
unwanted and dreaded mental images and dreams), reduced involvement
with the external world (trauma-related avoidance), and cognitive–affective
hyperarousal (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
The first systematic attempt to document attachment style differences
in the severity of PTSD symptoms concerned reactions of young adults to
Iraqi Scud missile attacks on Israel during the 1991 Gulf War (Mikulincer,
Florian, & Weller, 1993). Participants with an anxious (categorical) style
had more severe PTSD intrusion and avoidance symptoms as compared
with their secure counterparts, and participants with an avoidant attach-
ment style reported more severe posttraumatic avoidance symptoms. The
effects of attachment dispositions on PTSD symptom severity at the after-

math of war and terror were replicated in several other studies: Attachment
anxiety and avoidance heightened PTSD symptoms among Israeli military
veterans (Dekel, Solomon, Ginzburg, & Neria, 2004), among former pris-
oners of war (ex-POWs) in both the United States and Israel (Dieperink,
Leskela, Thuras, & Engdahl, 2001; Ein-Dor, Doron, et al., 2010; Miku-
lincer, Ein-Dor, Solomon, & Shaver, 2011; Solomon, Ginzburg, Miku-
lincer, Neria, & Ohry, 1998; Zakin, Solomon, & Neria, 2003), among
survivors of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States (Fraley, Faz-
zari, Bonanno, & Dekel, 2006), and among Palestinians who were former
political prisoners (Kanninen, Punamaki, & Qouta, 2003). The association
between insecure attachment and PTSD symptom severity has also been
observed among adults who were sexually or physically abused as chil-
dren (e.g., Ortigo, Westen, DeFife, & Bradley, 2013; Twaite & Rodriguez-
Srednicki, 2004), among patients after cardiac surgery (Parmigiani et al.,
2013), among adults living with HIV/AIDS (Gore-Felton et al., 2013), and
among people with a diagnosis of psychosis (Picken, Berry, Tarrier, & Bar-
rowclough, 2010).
Recently, the causal role of attachment-related processes in the devel-
opment of PTSD was examined in research using a prospective design
(Mikulincer, Shaver, & Horesh, 2006). This research focused on Israelis’
psychological reactions during the 2003 U.S.–Iraq war and examined the
effects of dispositional attachment orientations measured before the war on
the severity of PTSD-related intrusion and avoidance symptoms during the
war (Study 1). Findings indicated that dispositional attachment-related pro-
cesses shaped daily responses to the trauma of war. Specifically, people high
on anxiety or avoidance were found to suffer from more severe war-related
PTSD than their more secure counterparts, with anxious people exhibiting
more war-related intrusion symptoms and avoidant people showing more
war-related avoidance responses.
In addition, research on the link between attachment dispositions and
PTSD-related symptoms has indicated that unlike attachment anxiety,
which relates to exacerbated PTSD symptoms even under mild stressful
conditions, attachment avoidance is linked with PTSD mostly in prolonged
or extremely stressful situations (e.g., caring for a child with a life-threaten-
ing illness, living in captivity, or experiencing prolonged political violence;
Berant, Mikulincer, & Florian, 2001; Ein-Dor, Doron, et al., 2010; Reizer,
Ein-Dor, & Possick, 2012; Reizer, Possick, & Ein-Dor, 2010; Wijngaards-
de Meij et al., 2007). For example, in a study of the links between attach-
ment dispositions and PTSD among war veterans, the findings indicated
that only for ex-POWs, who endured human-engendered, prolonged, and
extremely traumatic conditions, was avoidant attachment associated with
more severe intrusion and avoidance symptoms of PTSD. Avoidant attach-
ment was not associated with the severity of symptoms among war veterans
who were not held in captivity (Ein-Dor, Doron, et al., 2010). It may be
that when individuals are challenged over a prolonged period of time under
extreme conditions such as captivity, the otherwise relatively effective
avoidant strategies of suppressing attachment needs and distress tend to
break down, causing attachment-related avoidance to be associated with
emotional problems and psychopathology.
Attachment and Externalizing Disorders

Externalizing refers to a general liability to experience substance use and
antisocial disorders (Krueger & Markon, 2011). It constitutes disorders
that manifest themselves outwardly, and comprises aggressive, impulsive,
coercive, and noncompliant reactions. In the current review, we focus on
conduct problems.
Conduct Behavior Problems

Bowlby’s original interest in attachment processes began with a study of
juvenile delinquency, when he followed juvenile thieves and noted that
“fourteen of the 44 thieves were distinguished from the remainder by their
remarkable lack of affection or warmth of feeling for anyone” (1944, p. 23).
He concluded that frustrating and painful experiences with parents, and/or
early prolonged, or permanent, separation from a mother, may result in an
“affectionless” character marked by distrust and hostility toward parents
and a pervasive lack of empathy and compassion toward others. Because
excessive animosity and hostility toward parents may be ill adapted, the
dysfunctional feelings and frustrations are redirected to other socializa-
tion agents, individuals, or institutions without causing guilt, sorrow, or
remorse. In this way, insecure attachment can lead to conduct problems
and socially deviant or criminal behavior.
Attachment research has documented associations between adoles-
cents’ reports of insecure attachment to parents or peers (both anxiety
and avoidance) and involvement in delinquent behaviors, such as theft
and assault (McElhaney, Immele, Smith, & Allen, 2006; Wade & Bran-
nigan, 1998), approval of norm-violating behavior (Silverberg, Vazsonyi,
Schlegel, & Schmidt, 1998), bullying behavior in prison (Ireland & Power,
2004), and antisocial tendencies (e.g., Gwadz, Clatts, Leonard, & Gold-
samt, 2004). Other studies have linked only attachment avoidance with
conduct problems (e.g., Vungkhanching, Sher, Jackson, & Parra, 2004)
or only attachment anxiety with these problems (e.g., McNally, Palfai,
Levine, & Moore, 2003). These inconsistencies may be related to differ-
ences in measures, samples, and unmeasured variables. Studies using the
AAI classifications exhibit the same discrepancy: Whereas some studies
have found that conduct problems are associated with an anxious (pre-
occupied) state of mind (e.g., Caspers, Cadoret, Langbehn, Yucuis, &
Troutman, 2005; McElhaney et al., 2006), others relate these problems
to an avoidant (dismissing) state of mind (e.g., Allen, Hauser, & Borman-
Spurrell, 1996).
The developmental trajectory of conduct problems with respect to early
attachment dispositions has yet to be directly examined. With that being
said, poor-quality parenting at infancy (age 42 months), which resulted
from maternal attachment avoidance and alienation (Sroufe et al., 2005),
was found to be a risk factor for externalizing problems in adulthood in the
Minnesota Study (Lorber & Egeland, 2009, 2011).
A Transdiagnostic Model of Attachment Insecurities

As this review has revealed, a vast body of knowledge links attachment dis-
positions to several types of psychopathology. Recent theory and research
in psychiatry and clinical psychology have highlighted the potential value
of a transdiagnostic approach to psychiatric disorders, as it holds several
theoretical and clinical advantages over disorder-specific models (e.g., Bar-
low et al., 2011; Mansell, Harvey, Watkins, & Shafran, 2009). In keeping
with this view, in the present section we unfold a transdiagnostic model of
attachment insecurities that refers to (1) the mechanisms by which attach-
ment dispositions (i.e., the transdiagnostic factors) cause all the different
disorders they are associated with (i.e., the mediated pathways underpin-
ning multifinality); and (2) the reasons why a given disposition leads to
different disorders in different people or to different disorders within the
same person over time (i.e., divergent trajectories). The model is outlined
in Figure 13.2.
Mechanisms Linking Attachment Dispositions to Multiple Psychopathological

Disorders (Multifinality)
Attachment Anxiety
Research and theory have indicated that people high on attachment anxiety
tend to adopt hyperactivating attachment and emotion regulation strategies
(i.e., energetic, insistent attempts to obtain care, support, and love from
others) as a means of regulating distress and coping with threats (Miku-
lincer & Shaver, 2003). They are also inclined to exaggerate appraisals of
threats (e.g., Mikulincer, Birnbaum, Woddis, & Nachmias, 2000), to have
difficulties in suppressing negative thoughts and feelings (e.g., Mikulincer,
Dolev, & Shaver, 2004), and to ruminate on distressing thoughts (Miku-
lincer & Florian, 1998). These tendencies may be the initiating conditions
Attachment Attachment Distal

anxiety avoidance risk
factors
Up-regulate Hypervigilance Low perceived Proximal

negative to threat-related others’ Down-regulate Compulsive
affectivity self-reliance risk
affectivity cues responsiveness factors
Socia
l- -
antis pressure ent
ocial -r vem s D
ing pote elated chie ed los an ista
ten ntial A lat tis nc
a
Inte loss
ea t re oc ing
Traum
Tra
t hr men um ial -r Moderators
ic on a po ela
rper
ron vir ten ted

Ch en tia
son
l
al
Anxiety Major Antisocial

disorder depression PTSD behavior Disorders
FIGURE 13.2. In this transdiagnostic model, attachment dispositions serve as

distal risk factors for multiple psychopathological disorders. Each disposition
affects a “dark triad” of proximal risk factors, which mediate the effect of
attachment anxiety and avoidance on psychopathology. Specific moderators
determine the divergent trajectories that individuals who are high on the proxi-
mal risk factors may take.
for a “dark triad” of processes that link attachment anxiety with multiple
psychopathological disorders: (1) maladaptive emotion regulation pro-
cesses, with a tendency to up-regulate negative affectivity; (2) greater vigi-
lance to threat-related cues and heightened empathic accuracy; and (3) a
lower level of perceived others’ responsiveness—that is, seeing others as
less responsive and supportive and as less understanding of one’s needs (a
broader notion than Reis and colleagues’ perceived partner responsiveness;
e.g., Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004).
Emotion regulation has been conceptualized as processes through
which individuals modulate their emotions to respond appropriately to
environmental demands (e.g., Campbell-Sills & Barlow, 2007). Individuals
deploy regulatory strategies to modify the magnitude and/or type of their
emotional experience or to adjust an emotion-eliciting event itself (e.g., Dia-
mond & Aspinwall, 2003). The attachment system plays an important role
in emotion regulation: It is activated by physiological and psychological
threats, and causes a threatened individual to seek proximity to others as a
means of managing the threat and restoring emotional equilibrium (Miku-
lincer & Shaver, 2003). Among secure people, these strategies reduce the
impact of distressing events, allowing them to experience and acknowledge
negative emotions without undue distortion or repression, and to counter

negative affectivity. Attachment anxiety interferes with the down-regula-
tion of negative emotions and emboldens intense and persistent distress,
which continues even after objective threats subside. As a result, people
high on attachment anxiety experience an unmanageable stream of nega-
tive thoughts and feelings, which contribute to cognitive disorganization
and fuel chronic worries and distress. Attachment anxiety also intensifies
fear-related responses to even minimal signs of threats, exaggerates the
catastrophic implications of threats, and encourages rumination on threats
and their imagined consequences (Ein-Dor, Mikulincer, Doron, & Shaver,
2010).
Difficulties in regulating emotion and exacerbated negative affectivity
have been identified as transdiagnostic factors (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema,
& Schweizer, 2010; Berenbaum, Raghavan, Le, Vernon, & Gomez, 2003;
Kring & Sloan, 2010) and have been incorporated into several models
of specific psychopathologies, including major depressive disorder (Rot-
tenberg, Gross, & Gotlib, 2005), generalized anxiety disorder (Mennin,
Holoway, Fresco, Moore, & Heimberg, 2007) and externalizing disorders
(e.g., Sher & Grekin, 2007). Therefore, one potential mediator of the link
between attachment anxiety and psychopathology is an up-regulation of
negative affectivity.
People high on attachment anxiety do not only intensify negative
responses to threats; they have greater vigilance to threat-related cues
and are quicker and more accurate in detecting such threats. Specifically,
attachment-related anxiety, but not avoidance or security, has recently
been associated with a reaction that we (Ein-Dor, Doron, et al., 2010) have
called sentinel behavior—noticing ambiguous signs of threat, and warning
others about the threat (see also Ein-Dor & Orgad, 2012). For example,
recent research indicated that people with high scores on attachment anxi-
ety had greater mental access to sentinel-related schemas (Ein-Dor, Miku-
lincer, & Shaver, 2011a). When compared with their more secure counter-
parts, individuals high in attachment anxiety recognized sentinel-related
sentences more quickly and with greater accuracy than more secure indi-
viduals (Study 2). When exposed to an experimentally created threatening
situation (a room gradually filling with smoke because of a malfunctioning
computer), the most anxious person in a group was the most likely to detect
the presence of a threat (Study 6), which contributed to the effectiveness
of this person’s social group in dealing with the threat (Ein-Dor, Miku-
lincer, & Shaver, 2011b). Moreover, Ein-Dor and Perry (2014) found that
people high in attachment anxiety were more accurate in detecting deceit-
ful statements, and were better poker players; poker is a social game that
is partially based on players’ ability to detect deception. People high in
attachment anxiety were also found to have a greater empathic accuracy in
relationship-threatening situations, with respect to their ability to foretell
their partners’ true thoughts and feelings (e.g., when their partners rated
and discussed an attractive person with them; Simpson, Ickes, & Grich,
1999; Simpson et al., 2011). According to Mikulincer and Shaver (2003),
these abilities stem from the use of a hyperactivating strategy by people
high in attachment anxiety—ruminating about worst-case scenarios and
remaining vigilant to signs that close others might not be committed to
them.
Attentiveness to threat-related information has been assigned a promi-
nent role in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety and related disorders
(e.g., Eysenck, 1992; Mathews & MacLeod, 2002), such as PTSD (Buckley,
Blanchard, & Neill, 2000), generalized anxiety disorder (Mogg & Bradley,
2005), and panic disorder and phobias (McNally, 1999). The attentional
system of people high on attachment anxiety seems to be distinctively sensi-
tive to and biased in favor of threat-related stimuli in the environment (see
Bar-Haim, Lamy, Pergamin, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn,
2007, for a recent meta-analysis). This tendency may confer adaptational
advantages (Ein-Dor, Mikulincer, et al., 2010), but may also create disad-
vantages in the form of psychopathology.
Aside from perceiving more threats in the environment and intensively
reacting to them, people high on attachment anxiety fear that they may
need to face these threats alone: They tend to regard others as less respon-
sive and supportive, and as less understanding to their needs (i.e., they have
low perceived others’ responsiveness). Research has indicated that perceived
social support reflects a personality characteristic rather than the actual
helpfulness of others when needed (Sarason et al., 1991). For example, Col-
lins and Feeney (2004) found that people high on attachment anxiety were
predisposed to perceive and remember a partner’s helpful behavior as less
supportive, especially if the behavior was ambiguous, open to subjective
construal, and likely to reactivate worries about a partner’s availability and
supportiveness. Moreover, they often choose unsupportive partners and
tend to act in ways that cause partners to act unsupportively, thus con-
firming and strengthening their doubts about other people’s supportiveness
(Rholes, Simpson, Campbell, & Grich, 2001).
Perceived availability of social support (and not actual support received)
has been found to play an important role in the prediction of specific psy-
chopathologies, including PTSD (e.g., Besser & Neria, 2012), depression
(e.g., Grav, Hellzèn, Romild, & Stordal, 2012), and externalizing disorders
(e.g., Lifrak, McKay, Rostain, Alterman, & O’Brien, 1997).
We therefore contend that the dark triad of people high on attachment
anxiety—hypervigilance to threats, intensified negative affectivity, and
low perceived others’ responsiveness—may constitute the proximal trans-
diagnostic risk factors (see Nolen-Hoeksema & Watkins, 2011; also called
intermediate phenotypes) that mediate the relationships between attach-
ment anxiety and multiple psychopathologies, and that launch anxious
individuals on pathways probabilistically related to various psychopatho-

logical outcomes.
Attachment Avoidance
Theory and research have indicated that attachment avoidance is organized
around deactivating strategies of affect regulation, which involve deempha-
sizing threats and trying to cope with them alone, without seeking help or
support from other people (e.g., Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, & Fleming,
1993; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). Avoidant people also deny attachment
needs and suppress attachment-related thoughts and emotions (Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2003). These tendencies may be the initiating conditions for a
second “dark triad” of processes—ones that, in this case, link attachment
avoidance with multiple psychopathological disorders: (1) maladjusted
emotion regulation processes, with a tendency to down-regulate affectivity
and employing distancing strategies; (2) compulsive self-reliance; and (3)
lower levels of social support and perceived others’ responsiveness.
The attachment behavioral system fosters emotion regulation in a
socially based way (Coan, 2008; Sroufe et al., 2004): It motivates a per-
son to alleviate his or her distress by seeking actual or symbolic proximity
to significant others. People high on attachment avoidance tend to forgo
this tendency and to maintain a defensive façade of security and compo-
sure, while managing cognitive and emotional avoidance and dealing with
threats without seeking help from others (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). To
independently overcome life’s many challenges, they tend to block access
to emotions and to cope with stress by ignoring, suppressing, or denying it
(e.g., Dozier & Kobak, 1992). These deactivation strategies may be effec-
tive in regulating mild levels of stress (e.g., Ein-Dor, Doron, et al., 2010),
but they leave suppressed distress unresolved nonetheless. When avoidant
persons are faced with prolonged and demanding stressful experiences that
require active confrontation of a problem and mobilization of external
sources of support, the suppressed distress can impair their ability to deal
with inevitable adversities. In these cases, avoidant people may feel inad-
equate to cope and may undergo a marked decline in functioning (Horow-
itz, 1982).
Cognitive and emotional avoidance, together with suppression of neg-
ative affectivity, have been found to predict a large array of psychopatho-
logical disorders: depression and anxiety (Blalock & Joiner, 2000; Hola-
han, Moos, Holahan, Brennan, & Schutte, 2005), eating disorders (Engler,
Crowther, Dalton, & Sanftner, 2006), and conduct problems (Cooper,
Wood, Orcutt, & Albino, 2003). For example, Holahan and colleagues
(2005) found that cognitive and emotional avoidance predicted increases in
depressive symptoms over 10 years in a sample of late-middle-aged adults.
Aside from coping with life’s challenges by cognitively and emotionally
avoiding the sensation of distress, people high on attachment avoidance are

compulsively self-reliant. Bowlby (1978) was the first to note that avoid-
ant people disclaim the need for close interpersonal relationships, distrust
these relationships, mock their necessity, and avoid situations where they
might be either rejected or relied upon by others. Compulsive self-reliance
helps to foster positive appraisals of self and high self-efficacy (Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2007), which are essential resources for coping. Bowlby (1988)
also noted, however, that no one of any age is completely free from reli-
ance on actual others, and that compulsive self-reliance favors unrealistic
positive appraisals of self, not genuine ones. Thus extreme self-criticism
is fostered alongside the positive evaluations of self, which may result in
psychopathology—especially when an individual repeatedly receives exter-
nal feedback that he or she is weak, mistaken, or imperfect. Theory and
research have indeed indicated that compulsive self-reliance is related to
different forms of introjective psychopathology (Blatt, 1974), such as para-
noia, obsessive–compulsive disorder, guilt-ridden depression, and phallic
narcissism (Blatt & Blass, 1996).
The impact of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral distancing of peo-
ple high on attachment avoidance on the liability for psychopathology may
be further exacerbated in times of genuine need, because avoidant peo-
ple are low on perceived others’ responsiveness (Collins & Feeney, 2004;
Ognibene & Collins, 1998). Avoidant people are deficient in interpersonal
sensitivity and have problems in maintaining a flexible balance between
self-concern and concern for others. These tendencies tend to erode rela-
tionship quality and engender relationship instability. Because people high
on attachment avoidance are unable or unwilling to care sensitively for
others in times of need, they alienate their social network, which in turn
fuels a vicious cycle of feelings of rejection, anger, and isolation. Accord-
ing to interpersonal theories of psychopathology (Joiner & Coyne, 1999;
Segrin, 2001), these negative relationship experiences and the low levels of
perceived others’ responsiveness may provide additional pathways to psy-
chological disorders.
We therefore contend that the dark triad of people high in attachment
avoidance—cognitive and emotional avoidance, compulsive self-reliance,
and low perceived others’ responsiveness—may comprise the proximal
transdiagnostic risk factors that mediate the relationships between attach-
ment avoidance and multiple psychopathologies.
Moderators of the Effects of Proximal Risk Factors

The moderators in our transdiagnostic model of attachment dispositions
determine what particular symptoms proximal transdiagnostic risk fac-
tors will lead to in a given individual. Moderators create symptoms by (1)
raising concerns or themes that proximal risk factors then act upon, (2)
shaping responses through conditioning, or (3) determining the reinforce-

ment value of certain stimuli (Nolen-Hoeksema & Watkins, 2011). In this
section of the chapter, we describe the possible moderators that may launch
people with different attachment dispositions on pathways to internalizing
or externalizing disorders.
The dark triad of people high in attachment anxiety (hypervigilance to
threats, intensified negative affectivity, and low perceived others’ respon-
siveness), and that of people high in attachment avoidance (cognitive and
emotional avoidance, compulsive self-reliance, and low perceived others’
responsiveness), both increase the liability to suffer from internalizing and
externalizing disorders. Nevertheless, “most of those with histories of anx-
ious attachment do not have serious behavior problems or qualify for psy-
chiatric diagnoses. Avoidant and resistant patterns of infant attachment are
only moderate risks for disturbance” (Sroufe, 2005, p. 360). Therefore, we
contend that the dark triad for each type of attachment insecurity should
foment psychopathology only when a person is faced with specific modera-
tors.
One possible moderator is an environment that poses chronic mild to
moderate threat (e.g., living in a rough neighborhood or facing constant but
mild political violence). In such an environment, emotions of fear and anxi-
ety often arise (LeDoux, 2000). The tendency of people high on attachment
anxiety to be emotionally overreactive and hyperattentive to threats should
exacerbate and maintain these feelings of anxiety and fear. At the same
time, their low perceived others’ responsiveness should hinder an effective
alleviation of these feelings by the aid of supportive others. As a result, the
likelihood of developing an anxiety disorder may increase. In contrast, the
cognitive and emotional distancing strategies of people high on attachment
avoidance may shield them from mild to moderate feelings of anxiety and
fear, and therefore may reduce the likelihood of their developing anxiety-
based disorders under such threat conditions.
A second moderator may be the experience of loss. At its aftermath,
a person may be more likely to develop major depression than an anxiety-
related disorder, as loss has been linked with sadness, which in turn is
related to depression (Brown & Harris, 1986). The nature of loss, however,
may determine the type of depressive symptoms that one may endorse and
the likelihood that one will suffer from the disorder. A relationship-related
loss, such as the ending of a romantic relationship, may trigger depression
among people high on attachment anxiety, because their anxiety relates
specifically to separation and abandonment. In such an event, anxious indi-
viduals’ emotional reactivity and attentional bias should maintain their sad
emotions and increase awareness of their loss, potentially leading to ana-
clitic depression (i.e., interpersonally related depression; Blatt, 1974). Loss
related to death of a significant other (e.g., a parent or a spouse), however,
may confer more profound consequences and increase the likelihood of
developing depressive symptoms among both anxious and avoidant people.

This may occur because the distancing defenses of people high on avoidance
may collapse under such conditions. Finally, an achievement-related loss
such as losing a job (Catalano, Aldrete, Vega, Kolody, & Aguilar-Gaxiola,
2000) may cause introjective depression (Blatt, 1974) among people high
on attachment avoidance, but not anxiety, because avoidance is closely tied
to excessive self-criticism and compulsive self-reliance.
A third moderator may be the experience of trauma such as rape,
assault, car accidents, floods, war, and a host of other natural and human-
made disasters. The intensity of the traumatic event and the nature of the
trauma-invoking stimulus may determine the liability to suffer from PTSD
(and related psychopathology) among people high on anxiety or avoid-
ance. The dark triad of people high on attachment anxiety makes them
prone to the psychological ramifications of trauma. Therefore, almost any
acute anxiety-provoking event may launch them on a pathway to PTSD.
Research has indicated, however, that human-engendered traumatic expe-
riences increase the likelihood, severity, and duration of PTSD more than
other kinds of traumatic events (Charuvastra & Cloitre, 2008). Aside from
increasing the liability for PTSD among anxious people, human-engen-
dered events may also increase the likelihood of suffering anaclitic depres-
sion (comorbid with PTSD), because such events (e.g., rape and captivity)
may obliterate any remaining shred of interpersonal trust. A greater sense
of uncertainty may also elicit comorbidity of anxiety disorders, because in
such events the sense of anxiety is harder to rationalize and the extent of
rumination is greater.
A different pattern may be seen among avoidant people. Research on
PTSD (Berant et al., 2001; Ein-Dor, Doron, et al., 2010; Reizer et al., 2010,
2012; Wijngaards-de Meij et al., 2007), has shown that people high on
attachment avoidance are less likely to suffer from PTSD under mild levels
of stress (e.g., natural disasters, car accidents without human casualties).
Conversely, when faced with severe levels of stress (e.g., rape, captivity),
their psychological defenses may collapse; this may make not only PTSD
more likely, but also the comorbidity of introjective depression (because of
the loss of the unrealistic positive appraisals of self) and anxiety (because
of the inability to maintain the uncontrollable anxiety-related emotions).
A fourth and final moderator may be the types of modeling, observa-
tional learning, and reinforcement that increase the likelihood of conduct
problems among people high on anxiety or avoidance. Numerous studies
have linked childhood conduct disorder and juvenile delinquencies with
adult antisocial behavior (for extensive reviews, see Connor, 2002; Hill
& Maughan, 2001; Kalb, Farrington, & Loeber, 2001). According to the
integrated cognitive antisocial potential theory (Farrington, 2005), the key
construct underlying offending is antisocial potential—a continuum con-
struct on which people may be ordered from low to high. High antisocial
potential may characterize people who are exposed to and influenced by

antisocial models, such as criminal parents, delinquent siblings, and delin-
quent peers (e.g., friends in high-crime schools and neighborhoods). We
contend that distancing-related antisocial potential may launch avoidant
people on a pathway to adult antisocial behavior because it is more con-
gruent with their perception of and expectations from others. Conversely,
social-pressure-related antisocial potential may cast anxious people on
such a pathway because the source of their anxiety is separation and aban-
donment. For example, research has indicated that high-delinquency-rate
schools have high levels of distrust between teachers and students, low com-
mitment to the school by students, and unclear and inconsistently enforced
rules (Graham, 1988). In such conditions of exposure to distancing-related
antisocial models, the dark triad of people high on attachment avoid-
ance may lead them to antisocial behavior. Conversely, social-pressure-
related factors such as having antisocial friends (Keenan, Loeber, Zhang,
Stouthamer-Loeber, & van Kammen, 1995) or antisocial parents (Lipsey
& Derzon, 1998) may cause the dark triad of people high on attachment
anxiety to elicit adult antisocial behavior.
Concluding Comments
Numerous studies have linked attachment dispositions (anxiety and avoid-
ance) to multiple psychopathological disorders. In the present chapter, we
have unfolded a transdiagnostic model of attachment insecurities to address
two open questions in attachment research: (1) What are the potential
mechanisms by which attachment dispositions cause all the different disor-
ders they are associated with; and (2) why does a given disposition lead to
different disorders in different people, or to different disorders within the
same person over time? We have suggested that each attachment orienta-
tion has its own “dark triad” of processes that link it to psychopathology,
and that by interacting with a specific moderator, these processes launch an
individual on a pathway for a particular disorder.
Two key aspects fall outside the scope of the present model and ought
to be considered in future transdiagnostic models of attachment disposi-
tions: the moderating effect of genetic predispositions, and the dyadic and
interpersonal processes that may affect the liability to psychopathology.
Specifically, we contend that particular genetic predispositions may inter-
act with the dark triads of people high on anxiety or avoidance as well as
with environmental moderators to predict the likelihood for psychopathol-
ogy. Of specific interest are the polymorphisms of the receptor genes for
oxytocin (OT) and arginine vasopressin (AVP). OT and AVP are mamma-
lian neuropeptides that have been found to be linked not only with devel-
opment and expression of social behavior and emotion regulation (Bartz,
Zaki, Bolger, & Ochsner, 2011), but also with stress-related behavior and
disorders, including anxiety disorders, comorbid depression, and their
neuroendocrine concomitants (see Meyer-Lindenberg, Domes, Kirsch,
& Heinrichs, 2011, for a review). For example, Thompson, Parker, Hall-
mayer, Waugh, and Gotlib (2011) have shown that the AA/AG genotype
of the OTR rs2254298 polymorphism, which has been associated with
insecure attachment (Chen, Barth, Johnson, Gotlib, & Johnson, 2011) was
also associated with physical, social, and separation anxieties among peo-
ple with adverse childhood experiences. Therefore, specific OT and AVP
polymorphisms may interact with a specific dark triad and environmental
moderator to launch an individual on a pathway for a particular psycho-
pathology.
In addition, dyadic processes may play a role in exacerbating or miti-
gating psychopathology. Specifically, the attachment orientations of a per-
son presenting with psychopathological symptoms may influence his or
her spouse’s symptom severity. For example, research has indicated that
spouses of anxious people may present with greater secondary traumatiza-
tion and more psychopathology-related symptoms because of the tendency
of anxious people to up-regulate their emotional states. Conversely, spouses
of avoidant people may paradoxically present with fewer psychopathology
symptoms because avoidant people tend to down-regulate their emotional
states (e.g., Ein-Dor, Doron, et al., 2010).
Despite these shortcomings, if our model is supported in future stud-
ies, it will enable a more comprehensive yet efficient view on the develop-
mental trajectory linking early environmental influences with adult psy-
chopathology.
References
Adam, E. K., Gunnar, M. R., & Tanaka, A. (2004). Adult attachment, parent
emotion, and observed parenting behavior: Mediator and moderator models.
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion regulation strat-
egies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology
Review, 30, 217–237.
Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., & Borman-Spurrell, E. (1996). Attachment theory as a
framework for understanding sequelae of severe adolescent psychopathology:
An 11-year follow-up study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
64, 254–263.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.
Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van
IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and
nonanxious individuals: A meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133,
1–24.
Barlow, D. H., Farchione, T. J., Fairholme, C. P., Ellard, K. K., Boisseau, C. L.,
Allen, L. B., et al. (2011). The unified protocol for transdiagnostic treat-
ment of emotional disorders: Therapist guide. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Bartz, J. A., Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. N. (2011). Social effects of oxy-
tocin in humans: Context and person matter. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
15, 301–309.
Batgos, J., & Leadbeater, B. J. (1994). Parental attachment, peer relations, and
dysphoria in adolescence. In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attach-
ment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp. 155–178). New
Berant, E., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2001). The association of mothers’
attachment style and their reactions to the diagnosis of infant’s congenital
heart disease. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 208–232.
Berenbaum, H., Raghavan, C., Le, H. N., Vernon, L. L., & Gomez, J. J. (2003). A
taxonomy of emotional disturbances. Clinical Psychology: Science and Prac-
tice, 10, 206–226.
Besser, A., & Neria, Y. (2012). When home isn’t a safe haven: Insecure attachment
orientations, perceived social support, and PTSD symptoms among Israeli
evacuees under missile threat. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research,
Practice, and Policy, 4, 34–46.
Blalock, A., & Joiner, T. (2000). Interaction of cognitive avoidance coping and
stress in predicting depression/anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24,
47–65.
Blatt, S. J. (1974). Levels of object representation in anaclitic and introjective
depression. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 24, 107–157.
Blatt, S. J., & Blass, R. B. (1996). Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition:
Two basic dimensions in personality development and psychopathology. In G.
G. Noam & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development and vulnerabilities in close
relationships (pp. 309–338). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bosquet, M., & Egeland, B. (2006). The development and maintenance of anxiety
symptoms from infancy through adolescence in a longitudinal sample. Devel-
opment and Psychopathology, 18, 517–550.
Bowlby, J. (1944). Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their character and home-life. Inter-
national Journal of Psychoanalysis, 25, 19–52.
Bowlby, J. (1978). Attachment theory and its therapeutic implications. In S. C.
Feinstein & P. Giovacchini (Eds.), Adolescent psychiatry: Developmental and
clinical studies (Vol. 6, pp. 5–23). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Brenning, K. M., Soenens, B., Braet, C., & Bosmans, G. (2012). Attachment and
depressive symptoms in middle childhood and early adolescence: Testing the
validity of the emotion regulation model of attachment. Personal Relation-
ships, 19, 445–464.
Brown, G. W., & Harris, T. O. (1986). Establishing causal links: The Bedford Col-
lege studies of depression. In H. Katsching (Ed.), Life events and psychiatric
disorders (pp. 107–187). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Buckley, T. C., Blanchard, E. B., & Neill, W. T. (2000). Information processing
and PTSD: A review of the empirical literature. Clinical Psychology Review,
20, 1041–1065.
Campbell-Sills, L., & Barlow, D. H. (2007). Incorporating emotion regulation
into conceptualizations and treatments of anxiety and mood disorders. In J.
J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 542–559). New York:
Guilford Press.
Caspers, K. M., Cadoret, R. J., Langbehn, D., Yucuis, R., & Troutman, B. (2005).
Contributions of attachment style and perceived social support to lifetime use
of illicit substances. Addictive Behaviors, 30, 1007–1011.
Catalano, R., Aldrete, E., Vega, W., Kolody, B., & Aguilar-Gaxiola, S. (2000). Job
loss and major depression among Mexican Americans. Social Science Quar-
terly, 81, 477–487.
Catanzaro, A., & Wei, M. (2010). Adult attachment, dependence, self-criticism,
and depressive symptoms: A test of a mediational model. Journal of Personal-
ity, 78, 1135–1162.
Charuvastra, A., & Cloitre, M. (2008). Social bonds and posttraumatic stress dis-
order. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 301–328.
Chen, F. S., Barth, M. E., Johnson, S. L., Gotlib, I. H., & Johnson, S. C. (2011).
Oxytocin receptor (OXTR) polymorphisms and attachment in human infants.
Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 200.
Cicchetti, D. (1984). The emergence of developmental psychopathology. Child
Ciechanowski, P. S., Katon, W. J., & Russo, J. E. (2005). The association of depres-
sion and perceptions of interpersonal relationships in patients with diabetes.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 58, 139–144.
Ciechanowski, P. S., Sullivan, M., Jensen, M., Romano, J., & Summers, H. (2003).
The relationship of attachment style to depression, catastrophizing and health
care utilization in patients with chronic pain. Pain, 104, 627–637.
Coan, J. A. (2008). Toward a neuroscience of attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R.
Cole-Detke, H., & Kobak, R. (1996). Attachment processes in eating disorder and
depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 282–290.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of attachment shape per-
ceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational
studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 363–383.
Connor, D. F. (2002). Aggression and antisocial behavior in children and adoles-
cents. New York: Guilford Press.
Cooper, M. L., Wood, P. K., Orcutt, H. K., & Albino, A. (2003). Personality and
predisposition to engage in risky behaviors or problem behaviors during ado-
lescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 390–410.
Costa, N. M., & Weems, C. F. (2005). Maternal and child anxiety: Do attachment
beliefs or children’s perceptions of maternal control mediate their association?
Social Development, 14, 574–590.
Davaji, R. B. O., Valizadeh, S., & Nikamal, M. (2010). The relationship between
attachment styles and suicide ideation: The study of Turkmen students, Iran.
Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 1190–1194.
Davila, J. (2001). Refining the association between excessive reassurance seeking
and depressive symptoms: The role of related interpersonal constructs. Jour-
nal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 538–559.
Dekel, R., Solomon, Z., Ginzburg, K., & Neria, Y. (2004). Long-term adjustment
among Israeli war veterans: The role of attachment style. Journal of Stress,
Anxiety and Coping, 17, 141–152.
Diamond, L. M., & Aspinwall, L. G. (2003). Emotion regulation across the life
span: An integrative perspective emphasizing self-regulation, positive affect,
and dyadic processes. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 125–156.
Dieperink, M., Leskela, J., Thuras, P., & Engdahl, B. (2001). Attachment style
classification and posttraumatic stress disorder in former prisoners of war.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 374–378.
Doron, G., Moulding, R., Kyrios, M., Nedeljkovic, M., & Mikulincer, M. (2009).
Adult attachment insecurities are related to obsessive compulsive phenomena.
Dozier, M., & Kobak, R. (1992). Psychophysiology in attachment interviews: Con-
verging evidence for deactivating strategies. Child Development, 63, 1473–
1480.
Duggal, S., Carlson, E. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2001). Depressive symp-
tomatology in childhood and adolescence. Development and Psychopathol-
ogy, 13, 143–164.
Egeland, B., Pianta, R., & Ogawa, J. (1996). Early behavior problems: Pathways
to mental disorders in adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 8,
735–749.
Ein-Dor, T., Doron, G., Solomon, Z., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2010).
Together in pain: Attachment-related dyadic processes and posttraumatic
stress disorder. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(3), 317–327.
Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., Doron, G., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). The attachment
paradox: How can so many of us (the insecure ones) have no adaptive advan-
tages? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 123–141.
Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011a). Attachment insecurities and
the processing of threat-related information: Studying the schemas involved in
insecure people’s coping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 101, 78–93.
Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011b). Effective reaction to dan-
ger: Attachment insecurities predict behavioral reactions to an experimentally
induced threat above and beyond general personality traits. Social Psycho-
logical and Personality Science, 2, 467–473.
Ein-Dor, T., & Orgad, T. (2012). Scared saviors: Evidence that people high in
attachment anxiety are more effective in alerting others to threat. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 667–671.
Ein-Dor, T., & Perry, A. (2014). Full house of fears: Evidence that people high in
attachment anxiety are more accurate in detecting deceit. Journal of Person-

ality, 82(2), 83–92.
Einstein, A. (1931). The world as I see it. Forum and Century, 84, 193–194.
Eng, W., Heimberg, R. G., Hart, T. A., Schneier, F. R., & Liebowitz, M. R. (2001).
Attachment styles in individuals with social anxiety disorder: The relation-
ship among adult attachment styles, social anxiety, and depression. Emotion,
1, 365–380.
Engler, P. A., Crowther, J. H., Dalton, G., & Sanftner, J. L. (2006). Predicting eat-
ing disorder group membership: An examination and extension of the socio-
cultural model. Behavior Therapy, 37, 69–79.
Esbjørn, B. H., Pedersen, S. H., Daniel, S. I. F., Hald, H. H., Holm, J. M., &
Steele, H. (2013). Anxiety levels in clinically referred children and their par-
ents: Examining the unique influence of self-reported attachment styles and
interview-based reflective functioning in mothers and fathers. British Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 52(4), 394–407.
Eysenck, M. W. (1992). Anxiety: The cognitive perspective. Hove, UK: Psychology
Press.
Farrington, D. P. (2005). Childhood origins of antisocial behavior. Clinical Psy-
chology and Psychotherapy, 12, 177–190.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281–291.
Fowler, J. C., Allen, J. G., Oldham, J. M., & Frueh, B. C. (2013). Exposure to
interpersonal trauma, attachment insecurity, and depression severity. Journal
of Affective Disorders, 149, 313–318.
Fraley, R. C., Fazzari, D. A., Bonanno, G. A., & Dekel, S. (2006). Attachment and
psychological adaptation in high exposure survivors of the September 11th
attack on the World Trade Center. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 32, 538–551.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of
unwanted thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1080–
1091.
Gamble, S. A., & Roberts, J. E. (2005). Adolescents’ perceptions of primary care-
givers and cognitive style: The roles of attachment security and gender. Cogni-
tive Therapy and Research, 29, 123–141.
Gore-Felton, C., Ginzburg, K., Chartier, M., Gardner, W., Agnew-Blais, J.,
McGarvey, E., et al. (2013). Attachment style and coping in relation to post-
traumatic stress disorder symptoms among adults living with HIV/AIDS.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 36, 51–60.
Graham, J. (1988). Schools, disruptive behaviour and delinquency. London: Her
Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Grav, S., Hellzèn, O., Romild, U., & Stordal, E. (2012). Association between social
support and depression in the general population: The HUNT study, a cross-
sectional survey. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21, 111–120.
Gwadz, M. V., Clatts, M. C., Leonard, N. R., & Goldsamt, L. (2004). Attachment
style, childhood adversity, and behavioral risk among young men who have
sex with men. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 402–413.
Hankin, B. L., Kassel, J. D., & Abela, J. R. Z. (2005). Adult attachment dimensions
and specificity of emotional distress symptoms: Prospective investigations of
cognitive risk and interpersonal stress generation as mediating mechanisms.

Hill, J., & Maughan, B. (Eds.). (2001). Conduct disorders in childhood and ado-
lescence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hinnen, C., Schreuder, I., Jong, E., van Duijn, M., Dahmen, R., & van Gorp, E. C.
M. (2012). The contribution of adult attachment and perceived social support
to depressive symptoms in patients with HIV. AIDS Care, 24, 1535–1542.
Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. S., Holahan, C. K., Brennan, P. L., & Schutte, K. K.
(2005). Stress generation, avoidance coping, and depressive symptoms: A
10-year model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 658–666.
Horowitz, M. J. (1982). Psychological processes induced by illness, injury, and loss.
In T. Millon, C. Green, & R. Meagher (Eds.), Handbook of clinical health
psychology (pp. 53–68). New York: Plenum Press.
Illing, V., Tasca, G. A., Balfour, L., & Bissada, H. (2010). Attachment insecu-
rity predicts eating disorder symptoms and treatment outcomes in a clinical
sample of women. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 198, 653–659.
Ireland, J. L., & Power, C. L. (2004). Attachment, emotional loneliness, and bul-
lying behaviour: A study of adult and young offenders. Aggressive Behavior,
30, 298–312.
Joiner, T., & Coyne, J. C. (1999). The interactional nature of depression: Advances
in interpersonal approaches. Washington, DC: American Psychological Asso-
ciation.
Kalb, L. M., Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (2001). Leading longitudinal studies
on delinquency, substance use, sexual behavior, and mental health problems
with childhood samples. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Child delin-
quents: Development, intervention, and service needs (pp. 415–423). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kanninen, K., Punamaki, R. L., & Qouta, S. (2003). Personality and trauma:
Adult attachment and posttraumatic distress among former political prison-
ers. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 9, 97–126.
Keenan, K., Loeber, R., Zhang, Q., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & van Kammen, W.
B. (1995). The influence of deviant peers on the development of boys’ disrup-
tive and delinquent behavior: A temporal analysis. Development and Psycho-
pathology, 7, 715–726.
Kobak, R., Cole, H., Ferenz-Gillies, R., & Fleming, W. (1993). Attachment and
emotional regulation during mother–teen problem solving: A control theory
analysis. Child Development, 64, 231–245.
Kring, A. M., & Sloan, D. M. (Eds.). (2010). Emotion regulation and psychopa-
thology: A transdiagnostic approach to etiology and treatment. New York:
Guilford Press.
Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2006). Reinterpreting comorbidity: A model-
based approach to understanding and classifying psychopathology. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology and Aging, 2, 111–133.
Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2011). A dimensional-spectrum model of psy-
chopathology: Progress and opportunities. Archives of General Psychiatry,
68, 10–11.
LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neurosci-
ence, 23, 155–184.
Lifrak, P. D., McKay, J. R., Rostain, A., Alterman, A. I., & O’Brien, C. P. (1997).
Relationship of perceived competencies, perceived social support, and gender
to substance use in young adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 933–940.
Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (1998). Predictors of violent or serious delinquency
in adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In
R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders:
Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 86–105). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Livesley, W. J. (1991). Classifying personality disorders: Ideal types, prototypes, or
dimensions? Journal of Personality Disorders, 5, 52–59.
Lorber, M. F., & Egeland, B. (2009). Infancy parenting and externalizing psycho-
pathology from childhood through adulthood: Developmental trends. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 45, 909–912.
Lorber, M. F., & Egeland, B. (2011). Parenting and infant difficulty: Testing a
mutual exacerbation hypothesis to predict early onset conduct problems.
Mansell, W., Harvey, A., Watkins, E., & Shafran, R. (2009). Conceptual founda-
tions of the transdiagnostic approach to CBT. Journal of Cognitive Psycho-
therapy, 23, 6–19.
Marganska, A., Gallagher, M., & Miranda, R. (2013). Adult attachment, emotion
dysregulation, and symptoms of depression and generalized anxiety disorder.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83, 131–141.
Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (2002). Induced processing biases have causal effects
on anxiety. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 331–354.
Maunder, R. G., Lancee, W. J., Hunter, J. J., Greenberg, G. R., & Steinhart, A.
H. (2005). Attachment insecurity moderates the relationship between disease
activity and depressive symptoms in ulcerative colitis. Inflammatory Bowel
Diseases, 11, 919–926.
McElhaney, K. B., Immele, A., Smith, F. D., & Allen, J. P. (2006). Attachment
organization as a moderator of the link between friendship quality and ado-
lescent delinquency. Attachment and Human Development, 8, 33–46.
McNally, A. M., Palfai, T. P., Levine, R. V., & Moore, B. M. (2003). Attachment
dimensions and drinking-related problems among young adults: The medita-
tional role of coping motives. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1115–1127.
McNally, R. J. (1999). Panic and phobias. In T. Dalgleish & M. J. Power (Eds.),
Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 479–496). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Mennin, D. S., Holoway, R. M., Fresco, D. M., Moore, M. T., & Heimberg, R. G.
(2007). Delineating components of emotion and its dysregulation in anxiety
and mood psychopathology. Behavior Therapy, 38, 284–302.
Meyer, B., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2005). An attachment model of personality disorders.
In M. F. Lenzenweger & J. F. Clarkin (Eds.), Major theories of personality
disorder (2nd ed., pp. 231–281). New York: Guilford Press.
Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Domes, G., Kirsch, P., & Heinrichs, M. (2011). Oxytocin
and vasopressin in the human brain: Social neuropeptides for translational
medicine. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12, 524–538.
Mikulincer, M., Birnbaum, G., Woddis, D., & Nachmias, O. (2000). Stress and
accessibility of proximity-related thoughts: Exploring the normative and
intraindividual components of attachment theory. Journal of Personality and

Mikulincer, M., Dolev, T., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment-related strategies
during thought-suppression: Ironic rebounds and vulnerable self-representa-
tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 940–956.
Mikulincer, M., Ein-Dor, T., Solomon, Z., & Shaver, P. R. (2011). Trajectories of
attachment insecurities over a 17-year period: A latent growth curve analysis
of the impact of war captivity and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 30, 960–984.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The relationship between adult attach-
ment styles and emotional and cognitive reactions to stressful events. In J. A.
Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strate-
gies, and posttraumatic psychological distress: The impact of the Gulf War in
Israel. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 817–826.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). An attachment perspective on psychopa-
thology. World Psychiatry, 11, 11–15.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Horesh, N. (2006). Attachment bases of emotion
regulation and posttraumatic adjustment. In D. K. Snyder, J. A. Simpson, &
J. N. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation in families: Pathways to dysfunction
and health (pp. 77–99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
tion.
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2005). Attentional bias in generalized anxiety disorder
versus depressive disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 29–45.
Muris, P., & Meesters, C. (2002). Attachment, behavioral inhibition, and anxiety
disorders symptoms in normal adolescents. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 24, 97–105.
Muris, P., Meesters, C., van Melick, M., & Zwambag, L. (2001). Self-reported
attachment style, attachment quality, and symptoms of anxiety and depres-
sion in young adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 809–
818.
Murphy, B., & Bates, G. W. (1997). Adult attachment style and vulnerability to
depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 835–844.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Watkins, E. R. (2011). A heuristic for developing transdi-
agnostic models of psychopathology: Explaining multifinality and divergent
trajectories. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 589–609.
Ognibene, T. C., & Collins, N. L. (1998). Adult attachment styles, perceived social
support and coping strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
15(3), 323–345.
Ortigo, K. M., Westen, D., DeFife, J. A., & Bradley, B. (2013). Attachment,
social cognition, and posttraumatic stress symptoms in a traumatized, urban
population: Evidence for the mediating role of object relations. Journal of

Traumatic Stress, 26, 361–368.
Parmigiani, G., Tarsitani, L., De Santis, V., Mistretta, M., Zampetti, G., Roselli,
V., et al. (2013). Attachment style and posttraumatic stress disorder after car-
diac surgery. European Psychiatry, 28(Suppl. 1), 1.
Picken, A. L., Berry, K., Tarrier, N., & Barrowclough, C. (2010). Traumatic events,
posttraumatic stress disorder, attachment style, and working alliance in a
sample of people with psychosis. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
198, 775–778.
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsive-
ness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D.
J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–
Reizer, A., Ein-Dor, T., & Possick, H. (2012). Living at risk: Dyadic examination
of the links among environmental stress attachment orientations and marital
support provision. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 694–
712.
Reizer, A., Possick, H., & Ein-Dor, T. (2010). Environmental threat influences
psychological distress and marital satisfaction among avoidantly attached
individuals. Personal Relationships, 17, 585–598.
ogy, 81, 421–435.
Rottenberg, J., Gross, J. J., & Gotlib, I. H. (2005). Emotion context insensitivity
in major depressive disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 627–639.
Sarason, B. R., Pierce, G. R., Shearin, E. N., Sarason, I. G., Waltz, J. A., & Poppe,
L. (1991). Perceived social support and working models of self and actual oth-
ers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 273–287.
Segrin, C. (2001). Social skills and negative life events: Testing the deficit stress
generation hypothesis. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Per-
sonality, Social, 20, 19–35.
Shaver, P. R., Schachner, D. A., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Attachment style, exces-
sive reassurance seeking, relationship processes, and depression. Personality
Sheehan, G., & Noller, P. (2002). Adolescents’ perceptions of differential parent-
ing: Links with attachment style and adolescent adjustment. Personal Rela-
tionships, 9, 173–190.
Sher, K. J., & Grekin, E. R. (2007). Alcohol and affect regulation. In J. J. Gross
(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 560–580). New York: Guilford
Press.
Silverberg, S. B., Vazsonyi, A. T., Schlegel, A. E., & Schmidt, S. (1998). Adoles-
cent apprentices in Germany: Adult attachment, job expectations, and delin-
quency. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13, 254–271.
Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Grich, J. (1999). When accuracy hurts: Reactions of
anxious-ambivalent dating partners to a relationship-threatening situation.
Simpson, J. A., Kim, J. S., Fillo, J., Ickes, W., Rholes, W. S., Orina, M. M., & Win-
terheld, H. A. (2011). Attachment and the management of empathic accuracy
in relationship-threatening situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 37, 242–254.
Solomon, Z., Ginzburg, K., Mikulincer, M., Neria, Y., & Ohry, A. (1998). Coping
with war captivity: The role of attachment style. European Journal of Person-
ality, 12, 271–285.
Sroufe, L. A. (2005). Attachment and development: A prospective, longitudinal
study from birth to adulthood. Attachment and Human Development, 7,
349–367.
Sroufe, L. A., Duggal, S., Weinfield, N., & Carlson, E. A. (2000). Relation-
ships, development, and psychopathology. In A. J. Sameroff, M. Lewis, &
S. M. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathology (2nd ed.,
pp. 75–91). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, A. (2005). The development
of the person: The Minnesota Study of Risk and Adaptation from Birth to
Adulthood. New York: Guilford Press.
Thompson, R. J., Parker, K. J., Hallmayer, J. F., Waugh, C. E., & Gotlib, I. H.
(2011). Oxytocin receptor gene polymorphism (rs2254298) interacts with
familial risk for psychopathology to predict symptoms of depression and anx-
iety in adolescent girls. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 144–147.
Twaite, J. A., & Rodriguez-Srednicki, O. (2004). Childhood sexual and physical
abuse and adult vulnerability to PTSD: The mediating effects of attachment
and dissociation. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13, 17–38.
Visioli, C., Senatore, R., Lepri, B., & Tondo, L. (2012). Low quality in early attach-
ment bondings as possible predictor of adult depressive disorder. Journal of
Psychopathology, 18, 273–280.
Vungkhanching, M., Sher, K. J., Jackson, K. M., & Parra, G. R. (2004). Relation
of attachment style to family history of alcoholism and alcohol use disorders
in early adulthood. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 75, 47–53.
Wade, T. J., & Brannigan, A. (1998). The genesis of adolescent risk-taking: Path-
ways through family, school and peers. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 23,
1–20.
Warren, S. L., Huston, L., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Childhood anxiety
disorders and attachment. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 637–644.
Wei, M., Heppner, P. P., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2003). Perceived coping as a mediator
between attachment and psychological distress: A structural equation model-
ing approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 438–447.
Wei, M., Mallinckrodt, B., Larson, L. M., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Attachment,
depressive symptoms, and validation from self versus others. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 52, 368–377.
Whiffen, V. E. (2005). The role of partner characteristics in attachment insecurity
and depressive symptoms. Personal Relationships, 12, 407–423.
Wijngaards-de Meij, L., Stroebe, M., Schut, H., Stroebe, W., van den Bout, J.,
van der Heijden, P. G. M., et al. (2007). Patterns of attachment and parents’
adjustment to the death of their child. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 33, 537–548.
Zakin, G., Solomon, Z., & Neria, Y. (2003). Hardiness, attachment style, and
long-term distress among Israeli ex-POWs and combat veterans. Personality
and Individual Differences, 34, 819–829.
Zuroff, D. C., & Fitzpatrick, D. K. (1995). Depressive personality styles: Impli-
cations for adult attachment. Personality and Individual Differences, 18,
253–265.
14
Attachment-Related
Preventive Interventions
Mary Dozier
Caroline K. P. Roben
Y oung children are dependent upon their parents for help in reg-
ulating attachment, emotions, behaviors, and physiology. When parents
themselves experience harsh, adverse conditions and/or have histories of
problematic relationships, it is often difficult for them to provide the care
children need to flourish. The consideration of clinical phenomena and
interventions was central to the development of attachment theory (Bowlby,
1944, 1969/1982). Nonetheless, only relatively recently have attachment-
based interventions for parents of young children been developed and tested
through experimental design. This chapter focuses upon early attachment-
based interventions for parents of infants and young children. Enhancing
parenting for infants and young children, especially among parents who
are faced with adversity that compromises caregiving, should be a rich and
productive avenue for change. Indeed, a number of interventions appear to
have important effects on parenting and on child outcomes.
In this chapter, we first review several key principles of attachment,
and describe themes specifically relevant to early intervention. We then
describe several promising preventive interventions for at-risk children
based upon these principles; in particular, we provide an in-depth descrip-
tion of the intervention developed in our lab. We conclude with directions
for future research.
374
Attachment-Related Preventive Interventions 375
Key Foundational Principles

Attachment Theory Is Based on Ethology and Evolutionary Theory
Attachment theory was strongly influenced by ethology (Bowlby, 1969/
1982). Defining attachment theory as quite distinct from contemporary
psychoanalytic and social learning theories, Bowlby drew from the work of
evolutionary biologists Lorenz (1935) and Tinbergen (1951), who described
behavior such as imprinting among goslings. Bowlby (1969/1982) recog-
nized analogous behaviors among human infants that serve functions in
maintaining proximity to caregivers and maximizing chances of survival.
In Bowlby’s view, such behaviors—especially crying, smiling, clinging, and
following—all represent early evolutionarily prepared behaviors displayed
by young infants toward their caregivers. He called these evolutionally pre-
pared behaviors the attachment behavioral system.
Humans Are an Altricial Species

Young infants are almost fully dependent upon their caregivers. At birth,
infants are dependent upon caregivers for help in regulating body tempera-
ture and neuroendocrine functioning, and they become reliant on parents
for help in regulating emotions, security, and safety, among other things.
Under favorable conditions, parents serve as coregulators for their infants
and young children. Although young children gradually take over regula-
tory functions themselves over time, as described below, there is a pro-
tracted period of dependence upon parents as coregulators.
Without an Available Caregiver, There Are Consequences

Availability of caregivers represents an experience-expectant condition. That
is, in terms of our evolutionary history, infants would not have survived with-
out caregivers. Therefore, human infants did not need strategies for coping
with the lack of caregivers. Not surprisingly, then, significant consequences
often result when children lack consistent and adequate caregivers, as Bowl-
by’s (1944) seminal research on the early home lives of 44 thieves demon-
strated. Subsequent research has found that children growing up in institu-
tional settings without adequate caregiving show deficits in physical growth,
cognitive development, executive functioning, and attachment-related behav-
iors (Drury et al., 2012; Johnson, Bruce, Tarullo, & Gunnar, 2011; Loman
et al., 2013; Nelson et al., 2007; Zeanah, Smyke, Koga, & Carlson, 2005).
Attachment Promotes Physical Proximity

The attachment system evolved to keep infants in close proximity to parents
under potentially threatening conditions, thus enhancing their likelihood
for survival. By the time infants are capable of moving away from their
parents, the attachment system has developed fully, leading children to
seek out proximity under threat (Bowlby, 1969/1982). The caregiving sys-
tem functions in complementary ways to the attachment system, serving
to promote parents’ protection of their young under conditions of threat
(George & Solomon, 1999; Insel, 2000). Although parents differ in how
they respond to infants’ distress, most nonetheless behave in ways to pro-
tect their young from danger.
An Attachment Figure Helps a Child Develop Self-Regulation

A sensitive parent (or other caregiver) serves to help a child regulate physiol-
ogy, behavior, and emotions, and gradually helps the child take over those
regulatory functions him- or herself. As noted above, the parent is therefore
a coregulator for the child (Sroufe, 1996), engaging in mutual regulatory
experiences that serve as building blocks for the child’s developing self-
regulation (Kopp, 1982). Without adequate parental input (as in the case of
neglect), or with problematic input (as in the case of abuse), parents fail to
serve effectively as coregulators. Children who lack appropriate input have
difficulty taking over regulatory capabilities themselves, and may have def-
icits in the ability to regulate physiology, behavior, and emotions (Blair &
Raver, 2012; Calkins & Leerkes, 2011; Cicchetti & Toth, 2005).
Key Themes Relevant to Intervention

Parents Are the Focus of the Intervention
Although older children and adolescents may themselves be the focus of
intervention, parents are nearly always the focus of intervention involving
infants and very young children. Indeed, parenting behaviors, and perhaps
aspects of the relationship between parent and child, are seen as important
to target, rather than the infant him- or herself. Parents are the most influ-
ential aspects of infants’ environments, serving as protectors, coregulators,
and care providers during most waking hours. In particular, interventions
often target helping parents improve their effectiveness as coregulators.
Intervene Early to Change Parental Behavior

Intervening early with at-risk children and their parents can have cascading,
lasting effects on developmental trajectories. Infancy and toddlerhood are
important times of neurodevelopmental integration of functioning (John-
son & Munakata, 2005), including the neurobiological, social, emotional,
and cognitive domains (Gunnar & Quevedo, 2007; Kopp, 1982; Perez &
Gauvain, 2007). The vast neurobiological and behavioral changes taking
place in early infancy are dependent on repeated and frequent interactions

with caregivers (Trevarthen & Aitken, 2001). During this period of rapid
development, a child’s developing brain and behaviors are especially sensi-
tive to environmental risk; therefore, infancy is an ideal time for interven-
tion (Ramey & Ramey, 1998; Shore, 1997).
Intervene in Families’ Homes

Interventions have differed with regard to the emphasis placed on where
interventions occur. Some interventions are implemented in offices,
whereas others take place in families’ homes. We consider it advantageous
to intervene in homes, because parents are learning and practicing skills in
the context in which they will be using them. The likelihood that behaviors
will generalize is increased when these are practiced in the environment in
which they will be needed.
Intervene in Critical Parental Behaviors

From an attachment perspective, there are several key characteristics that
distinguish sensitive, responsive parenting: nurturance, contingent respon-
siveness (or synchrony), delight, and nonfrightening behavior. Attachment-
related interventions often target these critical parent behaviors, as well as
deal with issues related to parental trauma and parents’ own caregiving
history.
Nurturance
First, young children need nurturing care, and this is especially true for
children who have experienced early adversity. Although children from
low-risk environments can usually organize attachment around the avail-
ability of non-nurturing caregivers, high-risk children have greater diffi-
culty doing so (Cyr, Euser, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn,
2010; Dozier, Stovall, Albus, & Bates, 2001). Therefore, an objective of
most attachment-based interventions is to help parents behave in nurturing
ways when their children are distressed.
Synchrony or Contingent Responsiveness

Children need a responsive environment if they are to develop adequate
regulatory capabilities. Children who have experienced early adversity are
especially susceptible to problems in regulating their behavior and physi-
ology. When parents follow children’s lead and are well attuned to chil-
dren’s signals, they are providing a responsive interpersonal environment
(e.g., Beebe et al., 2010; Feldman, 2007; Tronick & Cohn, 1989). As with
nurturing care, many attachment-based interventions target this aspect

of sensitivity in interventions. Beebe and Lachmann (1984) and Feldman
(2007) refer to this quality as synchrony, emphasizing the importance of
parental attunement to children’s signals. Shonkoff et al. (2012) emphasize
the “serve and return” nature of successful interactions, with an emphasis
on a parent’s response to a child-initiated interaction. Other related terms
are following the child’s lead and contingent responsiveness.
Parental Delight
Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) emphasized the importance
of parents’ feeling and showing delight toward their infants. Bernard and
Dozier (2011) found that foster parents who indicated that they felt more
committed to their foster children showed more delight behaviorally than
parents who indicated that they felt less committed. When parents display
positive affect to their children, children are more likely to display positive
affect themselves (e.g., Forbes, Cohn, Allen, & Lewinsohn, 2004; Tron-
ick, 1989). In contrast, when children’s parents (such as parents who are
depressed) display emotions characterized as either flat or withdrawn, chil-
dren are more likely to have dysregulated emotions and behaviors (e.g.,
Beardslee, Bemporad, Keller, & Klerman, 1983; Cohn & Tronick, 1989;
Field, 1984). Delight is explicitly addressed in some interventions.
Nonfrightening Behavior
When parents behave in frightening ways, children have difficulty orga-
nizing their attachment behaviors (Schuengel, Bakermans-Kranenburg,
& van IJzendoorn, 1999); indeed, such children develop disorganized
attachments at high rates (Carlson, Cicchetti, Barnett, & Braunwald,
1989). Children with disorganized attachments have difficulty regulating
behavior and physiology (Bernard & Dozier, 2010; Hertsgaard, Gunnar,
Erickson, & Nachmias, 1995). Main and Hesse (1990) have suggested
that when parents behave in frightening ways, children experience “fright
without solution” (p. 163) because they are frightened of the persons from
whom they need to seek reassurance. This issue is addressed directly by
some interventions.
Parental Trauma and Caregiving History

Parents’ history of trauma or inadequate caregiving can affect their abil-
ity to respond sensitively to their children. More specifically, parents with
their own history of unresolved trauma are at increased risk for behav-
ing in frightening and intrusive ways with their children (Hesse & Main,
1999; Lyons-Ruth & Block, 1996; Schuengel et al., 1999). Interventions
that target parental trauma or parents’ history of inadequate caregiv-

ing directly include Child–Parent Psychotherapy (CPP) and the Circle of
Security; Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-up (ABC) targets these less
directly. These three interventions and several others are described below.
Attachment-Based Preventive Interventions

Several attachment-based interventions that have been developed over the
last several decades are based on these principles. Some have supporting
evidence through randomized clinical trials or pre- to postintervention
data. We first provide a detailed overview of ABC, which was developed in
our lab, and then go on to describe several other attachment-based inter-
ventions. We do not cover the wider range of programs that aim to enhance
parental sensitivity more generally.
Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-up

Overview of the Intervention
ABC is a short-term preventive intervention for high-risk infants and par-
ents. ABC targets four issues, as suggested by attachment and stress neu-
robiology theory and findings (Bernard, Butzin-Dozier, Rittenhouse, &
Dozier, 2010). First, nurturing behavior under conditions of child distress
is critical for children who have experienced adversity (Dozier et al., 2001);
second, children need parents to behave in contingent, responsive ways
when they are not distressed (Bernard et al., 2010: Raver, 1996); third,
frightening behavior is problematic for children at all times (Schuengel et
al., 1999); and fourth, children need parents to delight in them (Bernard
& Dozier, 2011). ABC is specifically designed for infants who have experi-
enced early adversity, and it has been assessed in randomized clinical trials
among several populations, including neglecting birth parents, foster par-
ents, and parents adopting internationally.
Description of the Intervention

The ABC intervention is a 10-session program that is conducted in families’
homes by a “parent coach” with parents and children present. We consider
it critical that the intervention take place in the environment in which par-
ents live their lives, increasing the likelihood that parents will generalize the
skills acquired. Sessions are video-recorded for the purposes of providing
supervision and video feedback to parents. Sessions include manual-guided
discussion of intervention content, review of parent homework, activi-
ties that allow parents to practice targeted behavior, and video feedback.
Although the intervention is manualized, parent coaches’ “in-the-moment”
comments, described in more detail below, are considered the most critical
aspect of the program.
The ABC intervention has been used with both foster parents and
maltreating birth parents referred by child protective services as part of
a foster care diversion program. The intervention is best suited to parents
of children who are between about 6 and 24 months of age. Although it is
possible to intervene with infants between the ages of birth and 6 months,
the intervention is likely to be more powerful with children older than 6
months, because there are more opportunities for practice on intervention
targets. When the intervention is conducted with newborns and young
infants, frequent napping and fewer spontaneous behaviors (vocalizing,
reaching for objects, etc.) provide parents with relatively few opportunities
to practice targeted behaviors. We are currently testing the efficacy of an
intervention for children older than 24 months, which includes attention
to helping parents help their children to develop self-regulatory strategies
under challenging conditions.
“In-the-Moment” Comments
Parent coaches use “in-the-moment” comments to provide feedback to
parents regarding their behaviors that relate to intervention targets. These
comments focus attention on parents’ opportunities for behaving in nur-
turing and synchronous ways during the sessions, and help them recognize
and practice the key targeted behaviors. Parent coaches are expected to
make in-the-moment comments at least once per minute. Parent coaches
are expected to pause or interrupt themselves during discussions of manual
content to bring the focus of the session back to the parent–child interac-
tion. Manual content is expected to be secondary to in-the-moment com-
ments.
In-the-moment comments can address one or more of three possible
components: describing the parent’s behavior (e.g., “He bumped his head,
and you said, ‘Oh, sweetie, are you OK?’ ”); relating the behavior to an
intervention target (e.g., “That’s such a good example of your providing
her with nurturance”); and/or relating the behavior to long-term outcomes
(e.g., “That’s the kind of thing that will let him know you’ll be there when
he needs you”). The first of these three components, describing the behav-
ior, helps the parent clearly identify the behavior that is addressed. Without
a clear description, parents are sometimes confused about exactly what the
parent coach is focusing upon. Anecdotally, when parent coaches fail to
provide clear descriptions, we have seen parents increase behaviors other
than those intended. The second of these components, relating the behavior
to an intervention target, helps the parent see links between the more gen-
eral concept and specific behaviors. In other words, it makes the discussion
of a general construct (e.g., following the child’s lead, nurturance) more
specific and concrete, which helps the parent associate his or her own cur-
rent actions with the manual content being discussed. The third of these
components, relating the behavior to a child outcome, provides examples
of how the parent’s behavior affects child outcomes. The target for parent
coaches is an average of one component per comment. Although it is pos-
sible (and sometimes desirable) to make comments that include all three
components, it can be overwhelming for all comments to include three
components.
In the first several intervention sessions, parent coaches are expected
to make comments that point out only those times when nurturance, fol-
lowing the child’s lead, or delight are observed (even if this means missing
many opportunities for making comments when parents fail to nurture or
follow the lead). After the first several sessions, when parent coaches have
developed sufficient rapport with the parents, they are expected to begin
to make comments that point out times when parents have neglected to
nurture or follow the lead. These comments can be made gently and in a
scaffolding way: “This is one of those times when he might need you to
pick him up,” or “Are you following or leading right now?”
We have developed a system of coding parent coaches’ in the moment
comments. Any parental behavior that is relevant to an intervention tar-
get is a trigger for a comment. These behaviors include nurturing (or non-
nurturing) behavior, synchronous (or nonsynchronous) behavior, delight,
and nonfrightening (or frightening) behavior. Parent coaches’ behaviors are
coded with regard to whether they commented on each relevant parental
behavior, along with the number of components included in each comment
(description, identification of intervention target, link with child outcome).
An automated spreadsheet calculates rates of on-target commenting, aver-
age number of components included in comments, and a number of other
variables.
Parent coaches are also trained to code their own sessions. A trained
coder provides feedback on the reliability of coding and suggests alterna-
tive strategies for comments. We have been able to use carefully trained
and supervised undergraduate students in this role. The students work with
parent coaches to reach predetermined levels of proficiency by the end of
a year of supervision. In order to be certified as implementing ABC with
fidelity, coaches are expected to reliably make one comment every minute
(or miss fewer than 50% of the opportunities available to make a com-
ment); to be on target with their comments at least 80% of the time (e.g.,
to comment on nurturance when the parent behavior is nurturance instead
of a different type of behavior); and to have an average of at least one com-
ponent (description of the behavior, labeling the target, or providing an
outcome) for every comment. An experienced clinician (PhD) also provides
clinical supervision.
Randomized clinical trials have found ABC to be effective in
improving attachment (Bernard et al., 2012), normalizing diurnal cortisol

levels postintervention (Bernard, Dozier, Bick, & Gordon, 2014) and sev-
eral years after intervention completion (Bernard, Hostinar, & Dozier, in
press), reducing child negative affect during a challenging activity (Lind,
Bernard, Ross, & Dozier, 2014) and improving executive functioning at
age 4 (Lewis-Morrarty, Dozier, Bernard, Terraciano, & Moore, 2012) as
compared to a control intervention. Caregivers of children enrolled in ABC
have also been shown to have higher levels of sensitivity (Bick & Dozier,
2013) and a more normative ERP response to emotional faces relative to
neutral faces when compared to caregivers in the control intervention (Ber-
nard, Simons, & Dozier, 2014).
Child–Parent Psychotherapy
Alicia Lieberman and colleagues at the University of California, San Fran-
cisco, developed CPP. CPP grew from the Infant–Parent Psychotherapy
intervention developed by Selma Fraiberg (Fraiberg, 1980; Fraiberg, Adel-
son, & Shapiro, 1975), which considered how parents’ “ghosts in the nurs-
ery,” or challenging attachment experiences, affect parenting. Lieberman
adapted CPP to be broader than Infant–Parent Psychotherapy and manual-
ized it (Lieberman, Ghosh Ippen, & Van Horn, 2006). The intervention is
designed for parents and their young children who have experienced chal-
lenging early attachment experiences, including trauma. The intervention
focuses on helping parents become aware of their issues that interfere with
sensitivity to their children’s needs. The intervention works to help par-
ents provide supportive, safe relationships so that children can cope effec-
tively with trauma, and can develop secure, organized attachments. Among
infants, the focus is almost exclusively on parents helping their young chil-
dren cope, but the intervention increasingly includes children as partners as
they become older. Delivered in weekly sessions over about a year, this rela-
tively intensive intervention is intended to help parents gain understanding
of their children’s challenges in a safe, playful context. The intervention is
delivered in the home in some cases and in a clinic-based setting in others.
Through randomized clinical trials, CPP has been shown to reduce
disorganized attachment (Cicchetti, Rogosch, & Toth, 2006), reduce nega-
tive self-representations (Toth, Maughan, Manly, Spagnola, & Cicchetti,
2002), and reduce posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms among children
(Lieberman et al., 2006).
Circle of Security
The Circle of Security (Hoffman, Marvin, Cooper, & Powell, 2006) was
developed by three clinicians in Spokane, Washington: Kent Hoffman,
Glen Cooper, and Bert Powell. For a number of years, Hoffman, Cooper,
and Powell worked with Robert Marvin from the University of Virginia;
more recently, they have worked with Jude Cassidy from the University of
Maryland. Two versions of the Circle of Security have been developed—a
longer version that requires close work with the model developers to imple-
ment, and a briefer, more recent version that is DVD-based and can be
implemented independently following training. Both versions of the inter-
vention use a conceptual model of relationship challenges to focus par-
ents’ and interventionists’ attention. Attachment issues are considered to
represent a “circle of security,” with parents providing a safe haven when
children are distressed, and a secure base when children feel prepared to
explore the world. Children are expected to develop confidence in their
parents’ availability and develop stronger self-esteem when they find that
they can venture out into the world supported by their parents, and that
they can return to their parents for support when needed.
Parents are asked to think about when their own issues interfere more:
when they need to respond to a child’s needs for reassurance, or when they
need to allow the child to move away to explore. In the longer version,
attachment quality is assessed at preintervention to guide and inform the
intervention approach, and at postintervention to assess change. In an
attempt to reduce the time and resources needed for the longer version,
an eight-session parent reflection protocol was developed that uses DVD
footage created by the model’s founders, rather than individualized video
reviews. Groups of parents are encouraged to discuss their own strengths
and struggles in parenting in relation to the video clips of other parents and
children, and to reflect on parenting behaviors that could serve to maintain
attachment problems.
The longer version has been tested in several pre- to postintervention
blinded studies, and has been shown to enhance attachment security (Hoff-
man et al., 2006; Cassidy et al., 2010). At this point, randomized clinical
trials have not been reported in the literature, but such trials are under way
for both the longer and DVD versions of the model.
Video-Feedback Intervention to Promote Positive Parenting

Juffer, Bakermans-Kranenburg, and van IJzendoorn (2008) developed a
brief intervention, the Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive
Parenting (VIPP), to enhance parental sensitivity and thus child attachment
security. The intervention uses video feedback to focus mothers’ attention
on their children’s signals, with the goal of enhancing sensitivity and empa-
thy. Video feedback focuses on four themes: exploration versus attachment
behavior; giving voice to the child; the chain of events occurring when
the parent promptly responds to the child; and the importance of sharing
emotions. The interventionist video-records portions of each session while
being as unobtrusive as possible, and prepares brief videos for presentation
in the subsequent session. Like ABC, VIPP emphasizes parent strengths
as observed in specific parental behaviors. (It is very different from ABC,
however, because the interventionist remains unobtrusive during filming.)

VIPP has been shown to be effective in enhancing parental sensitivity and
in enhancing child attachment among a number of different populations
(e.g., Juffer et al., 2008; Stein et al., 2006).
Steps Toward Effective Enjoyable Parenting

Byron Egeland and Martha Farrell Erickson developed STEEP in 1986.
STEEP was developed directly from an attachment-theoretical perspec-
tive, with considerations of the critical factors affecting the development
of secure attachments. Using STEEP, interventionists work with parents
before their first child is born and throughout the first year of the child’s
life. This rather intensive and broad-based intervention focuses on helping
parents respond sensitively to children’s needs, and encouraging them to
reflect upon their own attachment issues. STEEP has been found to have
positive effects on parental sensitivity, but not on parental state of mind
with regard to attachment (Erickson, Korfmacher, & Egeland, 1992; Korf-
macher, Adam, Ogawa, & Egeland, 1997).
Interaction Guidance
Susan McDonough developed Interaction Guidance as a brief model using
video feedback to enhance parents’ awareness of infants’ signals and
responses, so that children could develop trusting, secure relationships
(McDonough, 2004). Targeting parent–infant dyads resistant to other
treatments, this model emphasizes the importance of parents’ representa-
tions of the world more generally, and of their infants more specifically, as
the mechanisms of change in parent sensitivity/child attachment. Interven-
tionists are expected to be very positive in their approach to parents, par-
ticularly in making suggestions of alternative explanations for children’s
behaviors.
Robert-Tissot et al. (1996) compared Interaction Guidance with psy-
chodynamic therapy in a randomized clinical trial. Reductions in symptoms
and improvements in mothers’ self-esteem were seen for both groups, with
no significant differences between the groups. In a small matched-com-
parison-group study, Benoit, Madigan, Lecce, Shea, and Goldberg (2001)
found lower levels of maternal atypical behaviors following the interven-
tion among mothers receiving Interaction Guidance than among mothers
receiving a feeding-focused intervention.
Minding the Baby

Lois Sadler, Arietta Slade, and others at the Yale Child Study Center devel-
oped the Minding the Baby intervention. The focus of Minding the Baby is
on promoting reflective parenting by helping give voice to both an infant’s

and a mother’s experiences as a means of enhancing parental sensitivity.
The mother is helped to develop the capacity to contemplate these expe-
riences and develop positive feelings for the child, even when faced with
challenging emotions. Minding the Baby is an interdisciplinary approach,
with a social worker and nurse practitioner working together to enhance
secure attachment, health, mental health, self-efficacy, and reflective par-
enting through intensive home visitation. Preliminary unpublished findings
in a sample composed largely of teen mothers suggest that mothers who
received the Minding the Baby intervention had babies with higher rates of
secure attachment (and lower rates of disorganized attachment) than the
rates for babies of mothers in the control condition (http://medicine.yale.
edu/childstudy/mtb/research/currentfindings.aspx). In addition, moth-
ers in the Minding the Baby intervention reported fewer problem behav-
iors among their infants than control mothers did. It is important to note,
though, that these findings are preliminary.
Promoting First Relationships

Jean Kelly and colleagues at the University of Washington developed Pro-
moting First Relationships with goals similar to those of the other inter-
ventions described here (Kelly, Zuckerman, & Rosenblatt, 2008). As the
Circle of Security and several other interventions do, Promoting First Rela-
tionships uses video recordings of parent–child interactions to help bring
parents’ attention to times when they behave in nurturing and responsive
ways, and times when they fail to do so. Parents are helped to reflect upon
their own and their children’s behaviors thoughtfully.
The intervention has been assessed through several randomized clini-
cal trials, with varying results. Short-term effects have been seen on par-
ents’ sensitivity and knowledge of appropriate parenting behaviors, parents’
perceptions of child competence, and observations of child emotion regula-
tion (Spieker, Oxford, Kelly, Nelson, & Fleming, 2012). Effects beyond this
initial follow-up period have been nonsignificant, with the exception of dif-
ferences in sleep problems favoring the Promoting First Relationships group
(Spieker et al., 2012). Differences in cortisol production have suggested the
possibility of intervention effects as well (Nelson & Spieker, 2013).
New and Promising Directions for Future Research

Dissemination and Implementation
The dissemination of attachment-based preventive interventions is an
important issue as researchers work to bring their interventions to scale. The
study of dissemination and implementation science (e.g., Southham-Gerow,
Rodriguez, Chorpita, & Daleiden, 2012) highlights many of the critical

issues that need to be addressed in moving interventions to larger service
systems. Notable challenges arise as interventions move from laboratory to
community settings.
Critical to the process of dissemination and implementation is iden-
tifying the mechanisms of an intervention’s action. When the interven-
tion’s mechanisms are identified, local adaptations to the model can be
made, with care taken that these adaptations do not interfere with the
mechanisms. Fidelity measures can then be developed that carefully assess
whether the critical aspects of the interventions are being implemented with
fidelity (Carroll, 2012; Landsverk, 2013).
Dissemination of ABC as an Example of the Process

Our lab has begun the process of dissemination and implementation of the
ABC intervention. We have proposed in the moment comments as the most
critical active ingredient of the intervention. We have found that frequency
of in the moment comments is associated with parental synchrony in sub-
sequent sessions and in postintervention assessments (Meade, Dozier, &
Bernard, 2014).
Establishing clearly what skill or skills are crucial to an intervention’s
implementation is an important step, but ensuring that interventionists
learn and use the skills is a vital next step. In the early years of ABC, we
found that parent coaches often found it difficult to make in-the-moment
comments even when supervision focused upon this aspect of the model. We
have taken several steps to enhance the likelihood of success and increase
our ability to disseminate the model with fidelity.
First, we have developed a screening tool that assesses potential par-
ent coaches’ ability to make in the moment comments. They first watch
examples of effective in-the-moment comments, and are then asked to gen-
erate such comments themselves after watching videos in which the parent
coach did not make comments. This screening tool predicts at a very high
level later success in making in the moment comments in sessions (Meade,
Roben, & Dozier, 2013).
Second, our training and supervision strategies focus on making such
comments. In the moment commenting and the coding system are intro-
duced on the first of 2–3 days of training, with extensive practice in the sys-
tem provided in the rest of the training. Parent coaches receive two types of
weekly supervision over the course of a year—one focusing more generally
on case conceptualization (i.e., parental strengths with regard to nurtur-
ance, following the child’s lead, delight, and avoiding frightening behav-
iors), and one focusing exclusively on in the moment commenting. Each
week they code a randomly assigned 5-minute clip of a session, and then
meet with their supervisor for consultation on the reliability of their coding
and strategies for improving the quantity and quality of comments. Prelim-
inary evidence from eight parent coaches at one training site suggests that
adding the coding feedback to regular small-group supervision increased
the coaches’ rate of commenting across subsequent months (Dozier, Meade,
Wallin, & Bernard, 2013).
Finally, we have established clear, quantified criteria that specify how
frequently we expect to see in the moment comments and the average num-
ber of components expected. Parent coach trainees can therefore gauge
their progress toward these criteria. When they meet criteria, they are cer-
tified as ABC parent coaches. Since the institution of this system, 80–90%
of the parent coaches who have trained in the system have met the criteria
and been certified.
Pre- to postintervention assessments provide support for the inter-
vention’s effectiveness in changing parental sensitivity in the community
(Meade, Dozier, Weston-Lee, & Haggerty, 2014). A randomized clinical
trial of ABC is being conducted at another site, but data are not yet avail-
able.
Conclusion
A number of attachment-based preventive interventions for parents of
young children have been developed in the last several decades. Some of
these interventions focus primarily on the parents’ own attachment issues
that may interfere with caregiving, and others focus primarily on parenting
behaviors themselves. In all interventions, goals involve enhancing paren-
tal sensitivity and responsiveness, as well as reducing frightening behavior.
A growing evidence base supports both of these approaches to enhanc-
ing parental sensitivity and responsiveness, with effects seen on children’s
attachment and self-regulation. This work is exciting in demonstrating the
openness of the caregiving and attachment systems to change.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attach-
ment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beardslee, W. R., Bemporad, J., Keller, M. B., & Klerman, G. L. (1983). Children
of parents with major affective disorder: A review. American Journal of Psy-
chiatry, 140, 825–832.
Beebe, B., Jaffe, J., Markese, S., Buck, K., Chen, H., Cohen, P., et al. (2010). The
origins of 12-month attachment: A microanalysis of 4-month mother–infant
interaction. Attachment and Human Development, 12, 3–141.
Beebe, B., & Lachmann, F. M. (1984). Representation and internalization in
infancy: Three principles of salience. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 11, 127–165.
Benoit, D., Madigan, S., Lecce, S., Shea, B., & Goldberg, S. (2001). Atypical mater-
nal behavior toward feeding-disordered infants before and after intervention.
Infant Mental Health Journal, 22, 611–626.
Bernard, K., Butzin-Dozier, Z., Rittenhouse, J., & Dozier, M. (2010). Young chil-
dren living with neglecting birth parents show more blunted daytime patterns
of cortisol production than children in foster care and comparison children.
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164, 438–443.
Bernard, K., & Dozier, M. (2010). Examining infants’ cortisol responses to labo-
ratory tasks among children varying in attachment disorganization: Stress
reactivity or return to baseline? Developmental Psychology, 46, 1771–1778.
Bernard, K., & Dozier, M. (2011). This is my baby: Foster parents’ feelings of
commitment and displays of delight. Infant Mental Health Journal, 32,
251–262.
Bernard, K., Dozier, M., Bick, J., & Gordon, K. A. (2014). Normalizing blunted
diurnal cortisol rhythms among children at risk for neglect: The effects of an
early intervention. Development and Psychopathology. Advance online pub-
lication.
Bernard, K., Dozier, M., Bick, J., Lewis-Morrarty, E., Lindhiem, O., & Carlson,
E. (2012). Enhancing attachment organization among maltreated infants:
Results of a randomized clinical trial. Child Development, 83, 623–636.
Bernard, K., Hostinar, C., & Dozier, M. (in press). Intervention effects on diurnal
cortisol rhythms of CPS-referred infants persist into early childhood: Pre-
school follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics.
Bernard, K., Simons, R., & Dozier, M. (2014). Effects of an attachment-based
intervention on high-risk mothers’ event related potentials to children’s emo-
tions. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bick, J., & Dozier, M. (2013). The effectiveness of an attachment-based interven-
tion in promoting foster mothers’ sensitivity toward foster infants. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 34, 95–103.
Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2012). Child development in the context of adversity:
Experiential canalization of brain and behavior. American Psychologist, 67,
309–318.
Bowlby, J. (1944). Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their character and home-life. Inter-
national Journal of Psychoanalysis, 25, 19–52.
Bowlby J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic
Books.
Calkins, S. D., & Leerkes, E. M. (2011). Early attachment processes and the devel-
opment of emotional self-regulation. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp.
355–373). New York: Guilford Press.
Carlson, V., Cicchetti, D., Barnett, D., & Braunwald, K. (1989). Disorganized/
disoriented attachment relationships in maltreated infants. Developmental
Carroll, K. (2012). Evidence-based practices: How far we’ve come, and how much
further we’ve got to go. Addiction, 107, 1031–1033.
Cassidy, J., Ziv, Y., Stupica, B., Sherman, L., Butler, H., Karfgin, A., et al. (2010).
Enhancing maternal sensitivity and attachment security in the infants of
women in a jail-diversion program. Attachment and Human Development,

12, 333–353.
Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., & Toth, S. L. (2006). Fostering secure attachments
in infants in maltreating families through preventive interventions. Develop-
Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2005). Child maltreatment. Annual Review of Clini-
cal Psychology, 1, 409–438.
Cohn, J. F., & Tronick, E. Z. (1989). Specificity of infants’ response to mothers’
affective behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adoles-
cent Psychiatry, 28, 242–248.
Cyr, C., Euser, E. M., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H.
(2010). Attachment security and disorganization in maltreating and high-risk
families: A series of meta-analyses. Development and Psychopathology, 22,
87–108.
Dozier, M., Meade, E., Wallin, A. R., & Bernard, K. (2013). Implementing an
evidence-based intervention for high-risk parents in the community: The
importance of model fidelity. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the
Society for Research on Child Development, Seattle, WA.
Dozier, M., Stovall, K. C., Albus, K. E., & Bates, B. (2001). Attachment for infants
in foster care: The role of caregiver state of mind. Child Development, 72,
1467–1477.
Drury, S. S., Theall, K., Gleason, M. M., Smyke, A. T., De Vivo, I., Wong, J. Y.
Y., et al. (2012). Telomere length and early severe social deprivation: Linking
early adversity and cellular aging. Molecular Psychiatry, 17(7), 719–727.
Erickson, M. F., Korfmacher, J., & Egeland, B. R. (1992). Attachments past and
present: Implications for therapeutic intervention with mother–infant dyads.
Feldman, R. (2007). Parent–infant synchrony and the construction of shared tim-
ing: Physiological precursors, developmental outcomes, and risk conditions.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 329–354.
Field, T. (1984). Early interactions between infants and their postpartum depressed
mothers. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 527–532.
Forbes, E. E., Cohn, J. F., Allen, N. B., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (2004). Infant affect
during parent-infant interaction at 3 and 6 months: Differences between
mothers and fathers and influence of parent history of depression. Infancy,
5, 61–84.
Fraiberg, S. (1980). Clinical studies in infant mental health. New York: Basic
Books.
Fraiberg, S., Adelson, E., & Shapiro, V. (1975). Ghosts in the nursery: A psycho-
analytic approach to the problems of impaired infant–mother relationships.
Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 14, 387–421.
George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999). Attachment and caregiving: The caregiving
behavioral system. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attach-
ment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 649–670). New York:
Guilford Press.
Gunnar, M., & Quevedo, K. (2007). The neurobiology of stress and development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 145–173.
Hertsgaard, L., Gunnar, M., Erickson, M. R., & Nachmias, M. (1995). Adreno-
cortical responses to the Strange Situation in infants with disorganized/disori-
ented attachment relationships. Child Development, 66, 1100–1106.
Hesse, E., & Main, M. (1999). Second-generation effects of unresolved trauma
in nonmaltreating parents: Dissociated, frightened, and threatening parental
behavior. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 19, 481–540.
Hoffman, K. T., Marvin, R. S., Cooper, G., & Powell, B. (2006). Changing tod-
dlers’ and preschoolers’ attachment classifications: The Circle of Security
intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 1017–
1026.
Insel, T. R. (2000) Toward a neurobiology of attachment. Review of General Psy-
chology, 4, 176–185.
Johnson, A. E., Bruce, J., Tarullo, A. R., & Gunnar, M. R. (2011). Growth delay as
an index of allostatic load in young children: Predictions to disinhibited social
approach and diurnal cortisol activity. Development and Psychopathology,
23, 859–871.
Johnson, M. H., & Munakata, Y. (2005). Processes of change in brain and cogni-
tive development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 152–188.
Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2008). Pro-
moting positive parenting: An attachment-based intervention. New York:
Erlbaum.
Kelly, J. F., Zuckerman, T., & Rosenblatt, S. (2008). Promoting first relationships:
A relationship-focused early intervention approach. Infants and Young Chil-
dren, 21, 285–295.
Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmental perspective.
Developmental Psychology, 18, 199–214.
Korfmacher, J., Adam, E., Ogawa, J., & Egeland, B. (1997). Adult attachment:
Implications for the therapeutic process in a home visitation intervention.
Applied Developmental Science, 1, 43–52.
Landsverk, J. (2013). Reflections on treatment integrity in a dissemination and
implementation framework. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 20,
114–119.
Lewis-Morrarty, E., Dozier, M., Bernard, K., Terraciano, S., & Moore, S. (2012).
Cognitive flexibility and theory of mind outcomes among foster children: Pre-
school follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 52, S17–S22.
Lieberman, A. F., Ghosh Ippen, C., & Van Horn, P. (2006). Child–Parent Psycho-
therapy: 6-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 913–918.
Lind, T., Bernard, K., Ross, E., & Dozier, M. (2014). Intervention effects on nega-
tive affect of CPS-referred children: Results of a randomized clinical trial.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 9, 1459–1467.
Loman, M. M., Johnson, A. E., Westerlund, A., Pollak, S. D., Nelson, C. A., &
Gunnar, M. R. (2013). The effect of early deprivation on executive attention
in middle childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 37–45.
Lorenz, L. (1935). Der Kumpan in der Umwelt des Vogels. Journal of Ornithology,
83, 137–213.
Lyons-Ruth, K., & Block, D. (1996). The disturbed caregiving system: Relations
among childhood trauma, maternal caregiving, and infant affect and attach-
ment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 17, 257–275.
Main, M., & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents’ unresolved traumatic experiences are
related to infant disorganized attachment status: Is frightened and/or fright-
ening parental behavior the linking mechanism? In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cic-
chetti, & E. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory,
research, and intervention (pp. 161–182). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
McDonough, S. C. (2004). Interaction guidance. In A. J. Sameroff, S. C.
McDonough, & K. L. Rosenblum (Eds.), Treating parent–infant relationship
problems: Strategies for intervention (pp. 79–96). New York: Guilford Press.
Meade, E. B., Dozier, M., & Bernard, K. (2014). Using video feedback as a tool in
training parent coaches: Promising results from a single-case design. Attach-
Meade, E., Dozier, M., Weston-Lee, P., & Haggerty, D. (2014). Effectiveness of
community implementation of Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-up.
Manuscript submitted for review.
Meade, E., Roben, C. K. P., & Dozier, M. (2013). Screening interventionists for
a parent training program. Unpublished manuscript, University of Delaware.
Nelson, C. A., Zeanah, C. H., Fox, N. A., Marshall, P. J., Smyke, A. T., & Guthrie,
D. (2007). Cognitive recovery in socially deprived young children: The Bucha-
rest Early Intervention Project. Science, 318, 1937–1940.
Nelson, E. M., & Spieker, S. J. (2013). Intervention effects on morning and stimu-
lated cortisol responses among toddlers in foster care. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 34, 211–221.
Perez, S. M., & Gauvain, M. (2007). The sociocultural context of transitions in
early socioemotional development. In C. A. Brownell & C. B. Kopp (Eds.),
Socioemotional development in the toddler years: Transitions and transfor-
mations (pp. 396–419). New York: Guilford Press.
Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (1998). Early intervention and early experience.
American Psychologist, 53, 109–120.
Raver, C. C. (1996). Relations between social contingency in mother–child inter-
actions and 2-year-olds’ social competence. Developmental Psychology, 32,
850–859.
Robert-Tissot, C., Cramer, B., Stern, D. N., Serpa, S. R., Bachmann, J. P., Palacio-
Espasa, F., et al. (1996). Outcome evaluation in brief mother–infant psycho-
therapies: Report on 75 cases. Infant Mental Health Journal, 17(2), 97–114.
Schuengel, C., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1999).
Frightening maternal behavior linking unresolved loss and disorganized infant
attachment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 54–63.
Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., & The Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child
and Family Health, Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Depen-
dent Care, and Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. (2012).
The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics,
129, e232–e242.
Shore, R. (1997). Rethinking the brain: New insights into early development. New
York: Families and Work Institute.
Southham-Gerow, M. A., Rodriguez, A., Chorpita, B. F., & Daleiden, E. L. (2012).
Dissemination and implementation of evidence based treatments for youth:

Challenges and recommendations. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 43, 527–534.
Spieker, S. J., Oxford, M. L., Kelly, J. F., Nelson, E. M., & Fleming, C. B. (2012).
Promoting first relationships: Randomized trial of a relationship-based inter-
vention for toddlers in child welfare. Child Maltreatment, 17, 271–286.
Sroufe, L. A. (1996). Emotional development. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Stein, A., Woolley, H., Senior, R., Hertzmann, L., Lovel, M., Lee, J., et al. (2006).
Treating disturbances in the relationship between mothers with bulimic eat-
ing disorders and their infants: A randomized, controlled trial of video feed-
back. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 899–906.
Tinbergen, N. (1951). The study of instinct. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Toth, S. L., Maughan, A., Manly, J. T., Spagnola, M., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). The
relative efficacy of two interventions in altering maltreated preschool chil-
dren’s representational models: Implications for attachment theory. Develop-
Trevarthen, C., & Aitken, K. (2001). Intersubjectivity: Research, theory, and clini-
cal applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 3–48.
Tronick, E. Z. (1989). Emotions and emotional communication in infants. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 44, 112–119.
Tronick, E. Z., & Cohn, J. F. (1989). Infant–mother face-to-face interaction: Age
and gender differences in coordination and the occurrence of miscoordina-
tion. Child Development, 60, 85–92.
Zeanah, C. H., Smyke, A. T., Koga, S. F., & Carlson, E. (2005). Attachment in
institutionalized and community children in Romania. Child Development,
76, 1015–1028.
15
Attachment
A Guide to a New Era of Couple Interventions
Susan M. Johnson
Marie-France Lafontaine
Tracy L. Dalgleish
A ttachment theory, now recognized as “one of the broadest, most

profound, and most creative lines of research” in psychology (Cassidy &
Shaver, 2008, p. xi), has permeated the fields of developmental, personality,
and social psychology and has arguably changed the culture of parenting
in the Western world. Attachment theory is perhaps the prime example of
an empirically supported theory of human functioning that systematically
integrates what Bowlby (1973, p. 180) called the “inner ring” of emotional
processing in the individual with the “outer ring” of patterned interac-
tions in social relationships, outlining how each reciprocally influences the
other. This integration would seem to give it obvious relevance for clini-
cal psychology and the tasks of the psychotherapist. Nevertheless, clinical
psychologists have been slow to appreciate its significance. Over 25 years
ago, Bowlby himself noted that he was “disappointed that clinicians have
been so slow to test the theory’s uses” (1988, pp. ix–x). The most notable
exceptions appear to be the work of more analytically oriented clinicians
who use approaches such as mentalizing, derived from attachment theorist
Mary Main’s (1991) notion of metacognitive monitoring (Fonagy et al.,
1995; Wallin, 2007), and accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy
(Fosha, 2000). Both models are used to address individual dysfunction.
In the field of couple therapy, however, attachment theory and science
393
have become increasingly central—forming the basis of one of the only

two extant empirically validated couple therapies, emotionally focused
therapy (EFT; Johnson, 2004), while beginning to influence the concep-
tualization of relationship distress in the other, the cognitive-behavioral
model of couple therapy (Cobb & Bradbury, 2003). Attachment is also the
basis for a new and promising relationship enhancement program based on
EFT, the Hold Me Tight: Conversations for Connection program (Johnson,
2010), which is presently being evaluated. This chapter focuses on how
attachment science is taking couple therapy and our ability to shape lov-
ing relationships, as exemplified by EFT, in new and immensely promising
directions; how clinical findings can clarify theoretical issues associated
with changing attachment; and how attachment affects other aspects of a
relationship, namely sex and caregiving. The chapter does not focus on sys-
tematically describing EFT, since such descriptions are already available in
numerous texts in the attachment and couple therapy literature (Johnson,
2009a, 2009b). It is sufficient here to summarize EFT as a model where a
therapist constantly helps partners to expand their inner emotional aware-
ness, especially of their deeper, softer emotions, and to send new signals to
each other that evoke new and more positive responses from each other.
These positive responses are then organized into a new “dance” of secure
bonding. This dance redefines the partners’ relationship and offers them
all the benefits that accrue from a stable sense of felt connection with an
irreplaceable other.
As a modality, couple therapy is more and more in demand with the
public; moreover, the quality of couple relationships is now recognized as a
key variable in mental and physical health in general, and in problems such
as depression and heart attack in particular (Johnson, 2004; Hawkley,
Masi, Berry, & Cacioppo, 2006). However, couple therapy is also a field
that has long been accused of being a set of relatively superficial interven-
tions in search of an encompassing theory of relationship and relationship
change. Many commentators have suggested that the key defining aspects
of love relationships, such as emotional comfort and nurturing, have been
conspicuously absent from models of couple therapy, and that many inter-
ventions, such as those that focus on teaching sequences of communication
and listening skills, are not typical of happy relationships and are not pow-
erful enough to change key relationship-defining interactions outside the
therapist’s office (Mackay, 1996: Gottman, Coan, Carriere, & Swanson,
1998). In the same vein, Acevedo and Aron (2009)—after completing a
recent brain scan study showing that physiological responses to a partner in
a certain proportion of recent and long-term lovers were identical, and con-
cluding that romantic love is not ephemeral but can last across time—have
now directly challenged couple therapists to begin to focus on shaping the
responses that make up what we call love. The key issue in meeting such a
challenge is that the creation of a couple therapy that targets the organizing
Attachment and Couple Interventions 395
elements of a love relationship, and is powerful enough to have an impact

on vital factors such as intimacy, trust, emotional connection, compassion,
sexual desire, and tenderness, requires a systematic, pragmatic theory of
love and loving. The field of adult attachment, as developed over the last
two decades (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), offers exactly such a theory. In
light of the points made above, it seems to be more and more apparent that
the attachment perspective is creating the beginnings of what may be called
a revolution in the way couple problems are conceptualized and couple
interventions are implemented (Johnson, 2013).
This revolution is exemplified in EFT—a model that now, more than
any other approach, exemplifies the ideal in terms of empirical validation as
laid out by the American Psychological Association (Sexton et al., 2011), in
terms of numerous studies on outcome and the process of change, positive
follow-up studies, generalization studies with different populations such as
trauma survivors, and studies of the process of learning this model (Lebow,
Chambers, Christensen, & Johnson, 2012). It is apparent that attachment
theory and science are clarifying the core problem to be addressed in rela-
tionship distress, and offer, for the first time, clearly defined criteria for
successful treatment and relationship health.
A New Direction: A Secure Base for the Practice of Couple Therapy

First, the essence of any short-term psychotherapy is to find a pertinent
focus for intervention. Attachment offers clinicians a clearly detailed map
to the emotional territory of a love relationship. It provides an explanatory
framework that elucidates the strong emotions and motivations organizing
a partner’s responses in love relationships, and that explains the powerful
impact one partner has on another. As a therapist watches members of a
couple move in ubiquitous negative patterns, such as blame/demand fol-
lowed by defend/withdraw, there are many problematic elements to focus
on and many ways to understand what he or she sees. Attachment leads
the therapist past individually focused explanations (“She has a personal-
ity disorder”), skill deficit issues (“He needs assertiveness training”), con-
tent issues (“They need help negotiating their differing parenting styles”),
one-dimensional frames (“He needs to learn to reappraise her ‘nagging’ as
concern”), and mythological explanations (“They are not soul mates, so
they should separate”). The clear lens of attachment gives precedence to
the need for a felt sense of connection with another, and frames emotional
isolation in terms of deprivation and starvation; it allows the therapist to
see negative responses as desperate attempts to connect with a partner or to
stave off the threat of imminent rejection and abandonment. The problem,
in attachment terms, is essentially a pervading sense of emotional discon-
nection and ineffective attempts to remedy this. The central questions in a
distressed relationship, often never explicitly stated, are “Are you there for
me; am I important to you; and will you come when I call?” Relationship
conflict is then seen as separation distress that is continually perpetuated
by the negative ways in which a couple deals with attachment signals. As
Bowlby himself suggested, through the lens of attachment every apparently
dysfunctional response to a partner makes sense, and so the multilevel,
often confusing drama of distress is laid bare and becomes amenable to
intervention. Partners criticize to evoke responses from each other, but end
up pushing each other away; or they shut down and withdraw to avoid
rejection, and end up shutting each other out and elicit fears of abandon-
ment. Attachment theory allows therapist to grasp the essential nature of
relationship distress on both individual and interactional levels in a manner
that clients find salient and compelling and creates a path for the curtail-
ment of negative cycles of interaction and the creation of positive bonding
interactions.
The attachment perspective also offers a coherent picture of a healthy,
stable relationship that provides a direction for therapy and keeps the thera-
pist on track in the process of change. EFT is conducted in three stages.
Stage 1, deescalation, involves offering the members of a couple a new
understanding of how they influence each other and what they need from
each other; the therapist helps them to identify negative patterns of inter-
action that constantly elicit disconnection, distance, and despair. Once
partners can help each other out of such cycles, the relationship becomes
a secure base from which to explore the path to deeper connection and
Stage 2, restructuring the bond. Here partners are guided into a process of
becoming more open and responsive to each other, to the point where they
can ask for comfort in regard to their attachment fears and clearly state
their attachment needs in a manner that invites responsiveness. Stage 3, the
last stage, is consolidation, where the partners form a coherent narrative of
how they changed their relationship and how they can continue to enhance
their bond. Process studies of key attachment interactions in Stage 2 inform
therapists of the shifts in emotional processing and interactional responses
that are necessary and sufficient to create lasting change. The goal in EFT
is not simply to lessen negativity and offer a couple some new resources. It
is specifically to shape the emotional synchrony typical of positive bonded
relationships in the session, and to offer the couple a corrective emotional
experience of secure connection. Clarity as to the nature of love and bond-
ing allows for the identification of pivotal moments in therapy—moments
where focused, systematic intervention can help partners create not just a
more generally positive dance, but one that will answer their primary needs
for connection and care, as well as building ongoing commitment and sat-
isfaction.
It is also important to note that this goal, which is admittedly more
ambitious than interventions aimed at simply reducing relationship hostility
and distress, makes relationship interventions supremely relevant to the

welfare of individual partners and so extends the scope of couple therapy
as a modality. It is pertinent to consider just a few of the benefits that
are associated with more secure attachment. These include being able to
retain emotional balance in the fact of stress and threat, rather than becom-
ing flooded with anxiety or anger; tune into one’s own emotions and so
identify needs; offer consonant, coherent messages to others about fears
and needs that evoke responsiveness; trustingly take in care and return to
physiological homeostasis; tolerate ambiguous or negative responses from
another with less defensiveness and reactivity; turn into the world with
the confidence to explore and learn; and respond to another with empa-
thy and sensitive care in a way that constantly renews bonds (Johnson,
2011). A basic tenet of attachment theory is that secure bonds make people
stronger and more able to adapt to difficult circumstances. The possibility
then arises that couple therapy becomes a potent arena for the growth of
more functional individuals that can continue to grow and also to sup-
port each other over a lifetime of transitions, uncertainties, and dangers.
More secure attachments also have great healing power and can be mobi-
lized in an attachment-oriented therapy as part of any integrated treat-
ment to move individuals from dysfunctional states into improved mental
health. EFT has been shown to be easily adapted to couples facing problems
such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, and to have a posi-
tive impact on individual symptomatology (Dalton, Greenman, Classen,
& Johnson, 2013; Denton, Wittenborn, & Golden, 2012; MacIntosh &
Johnson, 2008).
Attachment-Oriented Innovations in Couple Therapy

There are many ways that an EFT session, guided by attachment theory,
differs from other models and from standard practice in the field. First,
while many models speak of building a collaborative alliance with clients,
in EFT there is a particular emphasis on the therapist’s being emotionally
present, responsive, and transparent with clients, much as a good attach-
ment figure would be. The most seminal figures in the development of EFT,
Carl Rogers (1961) and John Bowlby (1969/1982), both believed in clients’
innate desire to grow toward health and advocated empathic responsive-
ness, and in accepting the validity of clients’ present responses and formu-
lations of their reality. A safe environment with an explicitly supportive
therapist, then, fosters the exploration of this reality. An EFT therapist will
begin by validating a client’s anger and placing it in an attachment frame of
desperation triggered by perceived abandonment, rather than by pointing
out how anger can be dysfunctional and offering corrective directives. The
therapist assumes that it is necessary to provide a secure base if new risks
are to be taken and difficult emotions explored. In EFT research (Johnson

& Talitman, 1997), the quality of the alliance has been found to account
for 20% of the variance in therapy outcome. This appears to be a reflection
not only of the bond between therapist and clients and agreement about
goals, but particularly the perceived relevance of the tasks (such as sharing
softer emotions and needs with a partner) structured by the therapist. This
speaks to clients’ perceptions of the exquisite relevance of the attachment
frame, which literally “makes sense” of their struggle and fosters engage-
ment in the therapy process. Attachment offers a unique and very specific
version of the therapeutic alliance to the field of psychotherapy.
Second, an attachment framework gives precedence to emotion, offers
a map to the emotional territory of love relationships, and also system-
atically depathologizes attachment anxieties and longings. These three ele-
ments, we suggest, all offer new directions to the field. Bowlby always made
it very clear that emotion is the core aspect of attachment relationships;
however, many models of couple therapy, viewing emotion as the prob-
lem, have simply dismissed or, at best, simply labeled and then bypassed
it. This is understandable when a therapist has no clear, logical map of the
extreme emotions that accompany love relationships. Attachment theory,
however, offers such a map. An EFT session resounds with the six basic
universal emotions identified by Ekman (2003): anger, which in the case of
couple therapy is reactive anger at the partners’ perceived unresponsiveness
(Bowlby, 1973, called this the anger of despair rather than the anger of
hope); surprise and joy, as when a partner responds to an attachment call;
sadness, at a partner’s pain or for one’s own loneliness; shame, when mod-
els of self as unworthy and unlovable come to the fore; and fear, which in
couple therapy is the fear of abandonment and rejection. Panksepp (2003)
refers to this fear as a “primal panic” that arises when contact with a much-
needed loved one is lost and the brain registers this loss as a danger cue.
Such a formulation fits with recent findings from brain scan studies that
social pain such as rejection is processed in the same part of the brain and
in the same way as physical pain (Eisenberger, Lieberman, Matthew, &
Williams, 2003), the ultimate danger signal. The attachment perspective
outlines key aspects of emotion as it arises in therapy sessions—namely,
the compelling need for felt connection with a dependable other that makes
sense of intense emotional responses, the triggers for these emotions, the
catastrophic meanings associated with them, and the ways they move part-
ners in their interactional dance. Partners and therapists who have no grasp
of this perspective often misinterpret or pathologize these emotions, view-
ing silent fear and shame as indifference, or desperate anger as mental ill-
ness or malice rather than an attempt to coerce an unresponsive attachment
figure into engagement and responsiveness. The EFT therapist, however,
can make coherent sense of, validate, and so help clients effectively regu-
late such emotions, moving them from numbing out and avoidance or the
hyperarousal of attachment anxiety into more emotional balance and more

flexible responsiveness. From an attachment perspective, the pathologizing
of dependence needs, longings, and anxieties is a significant issue in the
field of mental health and in the couple therapy modality in particular,
where concepts such as enmeshment and lack of differentiation or indi-
viduation are very often offered as explanations for relationship problems
(Johnson, 2008b). To change these kinds of conceptualizations into one
that values effective dependence, where close connection supports a posi-
tive, coherent, and autonomous sense of self, is indeed to take the field in
a new direction.
Third, attachment offers the couple therapy field clarity about what
is necessary and sufficient to create a corrective emotional experience of
connection that is able to redefine a relationship as a stable and satisfy-
ing bond. Recent studies (described later in this chapter) have shown that
EFT increases attachment security, and that this increase in security is
associated with specific processes and events in Stage 2 of EFT (Burgess
Moser et al., in press; Burgess Moser, Johnson, Dalgleish, Tasca, & Wiebe,
2014). These results are similar to those from other studies of the process
of change in EFT (Dalgleish, Johnson, Burgess Moser, Wiebe, & Tasca,
2014; Greenman & Johnson, 2013), which found that events where the
more hostile partner “softened” and asked for needs to be met in a vulner-
able fashion, so that partners became mutually accessible and responsive
to each other’s attachment needs and fears, were associated with positive
changes in satisfaction and significant increases in variables such as trust
and intimacy. This research also outlines the specific therapist interven-
tions that appear to set up these pivotal moments of change. It is still a
relatively rare achievement in the field of psychotherapy to systematically
document outcomes, to be able to specify how change occurs, to show that
this process is consonant with the theoretical formulations of the model of
intervention, and to link moments of change to specific interventions by the
therapist. The possibilities for the refinement of intervention, consistently
effective practice, and therapist training are clear. We believe the fact that
this has been achieved in EFT research and practice speaks to the salience
of attachment theory.
Clinical studies on violations of connection or attachment injuries
again illustrate the power of attachment—first, to define and clarify clinical
issues and impasses so that focused targeted intervention is possible; and
second, to provide a compass in the change process to the point that pivotal
moments and conditions of change can be specified. The study of injurious
events in couple relationships began with the recognition that some partners
could not and would not take the risk of opening up and reaching for their
lovers to ask for attachment needs to be met, even if these partners became
explicitly more accessible. The observation of this impasse as it occurred
in video recordings of Stage 2 of EFT led to the formulation of these events
as relationship traumas where partners had violated the expectations of

an attachment relationship, abandoning or betraying the injured and now
untrusting partners at key moments of vulnerability. At times these events
may have seemed small or obscure until their attachment meaning and spe-
cific emotional significance became clear. Once these ideas were clearly
formulated, it was possible to build a model to resolve these injuries and
to test its effectiveness (Makinen & Johnson, 2006), and then to examine
the process of change and therapist interventions that fostered forgiveness
and reconciliation (Zuccarini, Johnson, Dalgleish, & Makinen, 2013). The
kinds of injuries studied arouse from key moments of disconnection associ-
ated with affairs, health crises, miscarriages, deaths of parents or friends, or
significant career losses. These injuries were then exacerbated over time by
the couples’ inability to discuss and resolve them, and the injuring partners’
continued lack of responsiveness in regard to these events.
In the recent study of the process of resolution referred to above, when
couples who successfully resolved their injuries were compared to couples
who were unable to obtain resolution, members of resolved couples were
found to have engaged more deeply in their emotional experiences in key
sessions of therapy, to have been more deliberate and reflective in their pro-
cessing of these experiences, and to have risked more affiliative behaviors
when asked by the therapist to communicate directly to each other. Process
measures were also used to identify the key steps of resolution and for-
giveness as outlined in EFT and to validate that successful couples indeed
completed the steps outlined by the theoretical model. At key steps, the
therapists of couples who resolved their injury used more reflections of
primary emotions, asked more evocative questions to unpack emotions,
and heightened emotional experience more often. These therapists also
set up powerful enactments focused on attachment-related emotions and
needs, and guided partners into increased engagement and responsiveness.
This kind of clinical practice and research, guided by the wisdom of adult
attachment theory, offers a systematic clinical blueprint that can be used to
resolve key impasses in couple therapy and open the door—even for very
wounded partners—to renewed relationship satisfaction and connection.
Although changes in attachment security were not systematically measured
in this study, by the end of therapy resolved couples demonstrated the cog-
nitive flexibility, greater empathy, and trust that are associated with more
secure attachment. Resolved, forgiving couples also showed more affiliative
responses on the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (Benjamin, 1981).
Such responses have been found to be associated with greater attachment
security (Neumann & Tress, 2007).
It is interesting to note that as clinical studies using attachment theory
and relationship-oriented neuroscience become more integrated, cross-
fertilization is possible. Attachment studies may be able to contribute to
ongoing work on understanding and identifying emotions. For example,
longing is not identified as one of the basic emotions; however, metaphors

such “emotional starvation” and “hunger” are part of the attachment per-
spective and constantly arise in the practice of EFT. Clinical studies may
also be able to expand traditional formulations of attachment theory—for
example, by encouraging more emphasis on the emotion regulation aspects
of attachment and the consequences of habitual emotion dysregulation,
rather than focusing exclusively on cognitive working models as the basic
mechanism of long-term stability in attachment patterns. Recent studies
on the emotional suppression typical of an avoidant attachment style, for
example, suggest that the physiological effort involved in such suppression
results in more tension and arousal, which can lead to flooding and sudden
rage, and also increases the tension experienced by interactional partners
(Gross, 2001). This kind of research allows attachment clinicians and theo-
rists to formulate specific ways in which insecure attachment styles become
perpetuated in new relationships.
A recent example of the kind of fertile integration referred to above
is the inclusion of a brain scan study (Johnson et al., 2013) as part of a
clinical trial focused on demonstrating that EFT is able to increase secure
attachment (Burgess Moser et al., in press). Before and after receiving EFT
with their partners, insecure and relationally distressed women were placed
one by one in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner and
shown a signal that they knew 20% of the time would result in their receiv-
ing an electric shock on their ankles. A woman was shown this signal either
while alone in the scanner, with a stranger holding her hand, and with her
partner holding her hand. Both before and after EFT, lying alone in the
fMRI machine resulted in extreme brain activation when the signal was
received, and in reports of significant pain due to the shock. In both pre-
and post-EFT conditions, contact with a stranger seemed to reduce brain
activation and reported pain. Before EFT, contact with the partner was less
effective in reducing activation and pain than was holding the stranger’s
hand; however, after EFT, this partner contact was associated with a large
reduction in brain activation when the threat signal was received, as well
as a significant reduction in reported pain. It is also interesting to note that
this lack of activation after EFT was observed in the prefrontal cortex (the
seat of emotional control), not simply in areas associated with emotional
arousal such as the amygdala. This study offers new levels of evidence for
one of the most basic tenets of attachment theory—that contact with a
loved one who is judged to be dependable and responsive results in more
physiological equilibrium in the face of threat, as well as lessened sensitiv-
ity or reactivity to pain. Perhaps even more interesting, these results imply
that contact comfort influences the perception and encoding of threat itself,
rather than simply increasing coping efforts and activity. As Bowlby sug-
gested, it seems that safe connection with a loved one makes the world
safer.
The Stability of Attachment: Does EFT Change Attachment Orientations?

Attachment theory posits that accessibility and responsiveness are the
building blocks of secure attachment bonds between partners (Bowlby,
1969/1982). The goal of EFT is to create more secure bonding events in
therapy sessions by exploring and expressing partners’ emotional needs and
fears, and by shaping increased emotional accessibility and responsiveness
between partners. The question of whether these events indeed revise and
modify working models of attachment and long-term emotional regulation
strategies has only recently been directly addressed and is discussed below.
This section briefly explores the stability of attachment, change in
attachment orientations in the context of psychotherapy, and the specific
changes that occur in attachment orientations over the course of EFT. We
present findings from two recent studies in our EFT Research Lab (Bur-
gess Moser et al., 2014, in press), which support the notion that EFT is
targeting and changing attachment orientations. As EFT researchers and
therapists, we see change in attachment orientations as occurring through
several pathways: new ways of regulating attachment longings and fears;
the shaping of new behaviors, especially in ways of asking for attachment
needs to be met; the priming of revised representational models of the pres-
ent partner; and the delineation of expanded models of self as vulnerable
but effective and competent in shaping interactions with loved ones.
Many researchers and theoreticians in the field of attachment theory
have testified to the stability of attachment orientations. They suggest that
models of attachment formed in childhood display stability throughout
adulthood, acting as constant prototypes guiding interpersonal functioning
(Fraley, 2002; Fraley, Vicary, Brumbaugh, & Roisman, 2011). They also
point out that this is consistent with Bowlby’s (1969/1982) early hypothesis
that internal working models of attachment contain key information about
the self, others, and relationships—information that influences perceptions
and expectations, and so guides interpersonal functioning throughout the
lifespan. However, others have focused more on the view that childhood
attachment patterns can change and can be modified in adulthood by new
kinds of interactions with loved ones. Indeed, Bowlby (1969/1982) suggests
that to be optimally functional, internal working models must assimilate
new information and be amenable to revision. He states (1969, p. 82), “To
be useful . . . attachment models must be kept up to date.”
Research demonstrates that attachment patterns do in fact change
across the lifespan, and that attachment orientations may differ across rela-
tionships (Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr, Enns, & Koh-Rangarajoo, 1996; Davila
& Cobb, 2004; Caron, Lafontaine, Bureau, Levesque, & Johnson, 2012;
Davila, Karney, & Bradbury, 1999). Changes in attachment orientations
may be results of situational events and changes in life stress, modifications
of relationship status (e.g., entering marriage or parenthood), personality
variables, or a combination of these factors (Crowell, Treboux, & Waters,

2002; Davila et al., 1999; Simpson, Rholes, Campbell, & Wilson, 2003).
Kirkpatrick and Hazan (1994) found that attachment orientations changed
in 30% of individuals over a 4-year period. Although Crowell, Treboux,
and Waters (2002) found 78% of spouses to be unchanged in their attach-
ment orientation categories from 3 months before marriage to 18 months
after marriage, some spouses did experience changes in their attachment
orientations. It is generally presumed that changes to working models begin
with new experiences in specific relationships that shift perceptions, biases,
and expectations. These shifts then generalize and modify more general
relational models. Researchers also suggest that the stability of attachment
orientations is dependent on the type of attachment a person possesses.
Individuals with higher levels of attachment anxiety are more likely to
experience changes in security levels than those with secure and avoidant
attachment orientations are (Davila & Cobb, 2003, 2004). It makes sense
that once a secure representation is created within a relationship, it tends to
be more resistant to distortion when hurtful incidents and relationship dif-
ficulties occur, and so to become self-perpetuating—and also that partners
with avoidant attachment orientations tend to be less open to new experi-
ences and information, and so less likely to revise their working models.
For the clinician, the key question is whether therapeutic intervention
can prime the revision of working models and shape new interpersonal
responses. The therapeutic relationship can potentially provide new, emo-
tionally laden experiences of connection that contribute to positive changes
in attachment orientation (Bowlby, 1969/1982). The impact of individual
and group psychotherapy on attachment orientations indicates that insecu-
rity is amenable to change. In individual psychotherapy, some research sug-
gests that 20–40% of clients move from insecure to more secure attachment
after participating in time-limited psychotherapy (Travis, Binder, Bliwise, &
Horne-Moyer, 2001) and longer-term psychodynamic therapy (Diamond,
Stovall-McCloush, Clarkin, & Levy, 2003; Fonagy et al., 1995). Similar
results have been found in group psychotherapy, where attachment anxiety
decreases for women with binge-eating disorder who participated in either
a cognitive-behavioral or an interpersonal psychodynamic group (Tasca,
Balfour, Ritchie, & Bissada, 2007). These results suggest that therapeu-
tic relationships may help clients to move toward attachment security over
time. Therapists can act to facilitate clients’ formulation and expression of
attachment needs, as well as to respond in a manner that disconfirms the
expectations created by previous absent or nonresponsive caregivers.
Although positive changes in attachment security have been demon-
strated in individual psychotherapy, little to no research has examined
changes in attachment security in couple therapy, even though this is the
modality where working models may be most accessible and patterns of
attachment responses most salient and open to potential modification.
As previously discussed, EFT systematically modifies negative patterns

of disconnection and nonresponsiveness, and shapes the elements of more
secure interactional cycles and deeper levels of engagement where partners
identify and express their attachment longings and needs. Detailed clinical
observation over many years has shown that new patterns of mutual acces-
sibility and responsiveness then restructure habitual attachment-oriented
interactions and relationship-specific models of attachment. Recently, our
research team at the University of Ottawa and the International Centre for
Excellence in Emotionally Focused Therapy (ICEEFT; www.iceeft.com)
more rigorously examined changes in attachment strategies and models
over the course of EFT (Burgess Moser et al., 2014, in press).
We recruited 32 moderately distressed and insecurely attached cou-
ples. Partners were asked to respond to the relationship-specific version of
the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) scale (Brennan, Clark, &
Shaver, 1998; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), and to engage in a conflict res-
olution task that allowed us to observe and code the manner in which part-
ners tended to seek and provide attachment-based support (the Secure Base
Scoring System, or SBSS; Crowell, Treboux, Gao, et al., 2002). Fourteen
therapists, each of whom had over 5 years of EFT training, then provided
couples with approximately 21 sessions of EFT. Couples also completed the
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) and the ECR—Short Form
(ECR-S; Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007) after every therapy
session. We implemented hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Singer &
Willett, 2003) to examine session-by-session changes in relationship satis-
faction and attachment security over the course of therapy.
On the observational measure of attachment (i.e., the SBSS), we found
that couples significantly increased their secure base use and secure base
provision from pre- to posttherapy (Burgess Moser et al., in press). Accord-
ing to the SBSS (Crowell, Treboux, Gao, et al., 2002), attachment security
is defined as the ability to clearly identify and express attachment needs,
while also being able to identify and respond to a partner’s cries for support
and connection. The results of our study suggest that over the course of
EFT, members of couples learn to access the attachment longings and needs
underlying their negative interaction cycles, and to express these to their
partners in a manner that is more open and affiliative. The more congru-
ent expression of these needs then elicits increased responsiveness from the
partners. EFT focuses not only on helping members access their own needs,
but on guiding them to respond to their partners’ calls for care and sup-
port in an effective manner. Bowlby (1969/1982) proposed that in addition
to preexisting individual attachment orientations, the habitual interaction
patterns that develop between adult partners are key in the development
and maintenance of attachment security. Both partners need to be able
to express their needs clearly and from a place of emotional vulnerability,
while at the same time responding to each other to be able to create a secure
bond. These results support the notion that EFT is creating unconscious
changes in attachment security that show up in explicit responses in seek-
ing and providing support in love relationships.
Our team also examined changes in self-reported attachment security
over the course of EFT, using the relationship-specific version of the ECR
(administered pre- and posttherapy) and the ECR-S (administered after
each therapy session). First, we found that as partners’ relationship-specific
attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance decreased, relationship sat-
isfaction increased (Burgess Moser et al., in press). This is consonant with
the theoretical underpinnings of EFT, suggesting that attachment theory
is on target in terms of guiding therapists’ interventions that are effec-
tive in improving relationship satisfaction. On the ECR-S, we found that
reported attachment avoidance significantly decreased over the course of
EFT. This suggests that the interventions in EFT are specifically helping
avoidant partners to develop more adaptive models and perspectives when
interacting with their loved ones. Instead of using deactivation strategies
(such as viewing their partners as dangerous and preferring to shut down
attachment needs), these individuals are learning to view connection with
their partners as a resource, and they begin to depend on them and be
more open to sharing fears and needs with their significant others. These
results highlight the importance of therapists’ helping individuals with
higher levels of attachment avoidance (typical of more withdrawn partners)
at the start of therapy to turn to their partner rather than inward, and so
to develop more adaptive coping mechanisms. These results are contrary
to previous research, which suggests that individuals with avoidant attach-
ment may be more difficult to engage in therapy as a result of their deacti-
vating coping strategies (Meyer, Pilkonis, Proietti, Heape, & Egan, 2001;
Horowitz, Rosenberg, & Bartholomew, 1993). Rather, EFT and therapists’
use of key interventions seem to help such partners modify their internal
working models, which paint others as unsafe and minimize attachment
needs. Based on these results, therapists should take pains to ensure that
withdrawn clients are engaged at the beginning of therapy and are given
help to begin to be open to new perceptions of and revised behaviors from
their partners.
When we looked at attachment anxiety over the course of EFT, our
study at first found no significant change for partners (Burgess Moser et
al., in press). However, in a second study, Burgess Moser et al., 2014 dem-
onstrated that significant changes in attachment anxiety did indeed occur
by the end of therapy for a subset of partners (16 out of 32)—namely, those
who were able to explicitly engage in a key change event in EFT, the blamer-
softening event. The blamer-softening event occurs when a previously hos-
tile/critical partner is able to openly ask for his or her attachment needs to
be met from a position of soft vulnerability and a high level of emotional
engagement (Johnson, 2004; Johnson & Best, 2002). A partner expressing
needs in this manner pulls the previously withdrawn partner toward him
or her, engages this partner in the process, and enables the partner to hear
and respond to these needs. The blamer-softening event is a corrective emo-
tional experience in which a new level of felt security is experienced with
the partner. Since the withdrawer is helped to reengage before the blamer is
asked to take a risk by openly asking for attachment needs to be met, both
partners are responsive once the blamer-softening event occurs, and are
able to risk, reach, and share attachment vulnerabilities and needs.
The task was now to reach a further understanding of how attach-
ment orientations shift as a result of this key change event (Burgess Moser
et al., 2014), which has been consistently linked to changes in relationship
satisfaction and other positive outcomes at the end of EFT and at follow-up
(Johnson & Greenberg, 1988; Dalgleish et al., 2014). A deeper understand-
ing of this shift and its impact will enable therapists to guide partners confi-
dently as they regulate difficult and unfamiliar affect, mine their emotional
vulnerability, and take risks with their loved ones. Interestingly, we found
that couples who were able to complete a softening (as coded from the
audio-recorded interactions in session) also reported a significant increase
in relationship satisfaction and a decrease in attachment avoidance at the
end of the softening session. Although these couples reported an initial
increase in relationship-specific attachment anxiety in the softening session,
this was followed by a significant decrease in attachment anxiety in the ses-
sions that followed. It seems that anxiously attached partners have pressing
and urgent fears about whether they matter to their loved ones; they are
preoccupied with the fear of abandonment and of being unloved (Collins
& Read, 1990; Davila & Kashy, 2009). For these individuals, the anger/
protest in the negative interactional cycle of relationship distress arises as
a result of not being able to seek comfort or have their normal needs for
contact and intimacy met by their partners (Johnson, 2004). The softening
event appears to disconfirm their belief that their partners will abandon
them, and provides them with an experience of soothing responsiveness
that directly leads to decreased attachment anxiety. Therapy modalities
that emphasize and elaborate the importance of close relationships with
significant others and emotions may fit particularly well with highly anx-
ious individuals (Daniels, 2006). EFT interventions are designed to be
soothing and provide an alternative to these partners’ usual hyperactivating
relationship strategies. In EFT, partners are constantly exploring, access-
ing, and reprocessing emotions such as reactive anger, sadness, loss, shame,
and fears of rejection and abandonment, and formulating their attachment
longings with their partners. Throughout EFT, these partners develop more
emotional balance. They find more positive, less angry, and less controlling
ways of expressing their emotions and needs and of inviting their partners
to engage with them. In a softening event, a previously withdrawn part-
ner’s new accessibility and responsiveness are carefully made explicit by
the EFT therapist, and this actively challenges the more anxiously attached
partner’s cognitive belief that he or she will be abandoned and is essentially
defective and therefore unlovable. This belief is a key element of the nega-
tive model of self in anxious attachment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). The
more anxious partner’s awareness of vulnerability and the emotional risk
associated with reaching for a partner in a softening event (Johnson, 2004)
seems to explain the temporary increase in attachment anxiety reported by
such a partner in this specific session.
The results of these two key studies from our lab support the notion
that key events and interventions in the process of change in EFT are
effective in facilitating changes in relationship-specific attachment secu-
rity and relationship satisfaction. It is crucial for therapists to understand
the process of change, so that they are able to select their interventions
appropriately for the many couples dealing with significant issues of inse-
cure attachment and chronic emotional disconnection, and to focus on the
completion of successful softening events where both partners are open,
engaged, and responsive. Understanding the probability that attachment
anxiety will peak in a softening session should help therapists normalize,
validate, and soothe this anxiety. In contrast to the effects on attachment
anxiety, partners’ attachment avoidance slowly decreases in every session
over the entire course of EFT. This result emphasizes the importance of
constantly supporting the more withdrawn member of a couple to slowly
but surely become more actively engaged in the therapeutic process, and to
gradually learn to express emotions to the partner. A therapist should also
ensure that the avoidant, withdrawn partner is able to hear that his or her
lack of emotional presence is a trigger for the other partner to experience
panic and rejection, and that this other indeed truly values and desires the
avoidant partner’s love and care.
These findings support the idea that the softening event acts as a classic
corrective emotional experience, as described in the general psychotherapy
literature (Johnson & Best, 2002). This corrective experience demonstrates
the powerful impact of sharing fears and vulnerabilities in an emotionally
expressive and affiliative manner that elicits attuned caregiving rather than
avoidance or rejection. The softening event is, then, a pivotal moment of
intrapsychic and interpersonal change that therapists must actively shape in
order to create changes in relationship-specific attachment orientations and
relationship satisfaction. Preliminary follow-up analyses suggest that the
changes discussed here, as found in other EFT follow-up studies, remain
stable across time. Once partners have found the path to a deeply satisfying
felt sense of security, they are likely to seek and find this path again and
again. Thus attachment is amenable to change—to the integration of new
experiences, and to revised internal working models of self and other—
throughout EFT in general and through the blamer-softening event in par-
ticular.
Attachment, Caregiving, and Sex

This section addresses the impact that strengthening attachment can have
on other key aspects of a bonding relationship. Attachment theory, as
extended to include romantic attachments in adulthood (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007; Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw, 1988), suggests that three inde-
pendent, interconnected, innate behavioral systems are necessary in order
to establish optimal functioning in romantic relationships: the attachment,
caregiving, and sexual systems. Each of these three systems is influenced by
the others, and together they encompass the behavioral responses that have
generally promoted the survival, adaptation, and reproduction of human-
ity in the context of social relationships. The attachment system is focused
on the provision of comfort and security in times of hardship. According
to the theory, the caregiving system is considered complementary to the
attachment system and is expressed by humans in order to ensure the safety
and longevity of those they depend upon. In a romantic relationship, the
activation of one partner’s attachment system (by a threat to well-being or
perceived security) triggers the activation of the other partner’s caregiv-
ing system, and this partner attempts to alleviate the loved one’s distress
and restore a sense of safety (Collins, Guichard, Ford, & Feeney, 2006).
Within a secure couple relationship, loved ones weave between expressing
the need for security and comfort, and providing such care to their partners
(Schachner, Shaver, & Mikulincer, 2003). The sexual system includes indi-
viduals’ emotions, motives for engaging in sexual interactions, and sexual
behaviors (Birnbaum, 2010; Mikulincer, 2006). A person’s attachment and
caregiving experiences have an impact on sexuality that is likely to develop
in early adolescence. The sexual system is of substantial importance to
both the development and maintenance of most couple relationships, as
it promotes feelings of attraction and provides early bonding experiences;
in addition to enhancing long-term relationship quality (Birnbaum, 2010,
Davis, Shaver, & Vernon, 2004; Schachner & Shaver, 2004).
Empirical evidence of the links between the attachment and caregiv-
ing systems indicates that more anxious individuals report being less able
to recognize and interpret their partners’ needs, more willingness to pro-
vide needed care, and use of more controlling and compulsive caregiving
strategies. Their responses tend to be less contingent and thus less effec-
tive. Avoidantly attached individuals report being less able to recognize and
interpret their partners’ needs, less willingness to answer to their partners’
signals of need, and a greater tendency to be domineering when trying
to help their partners. Individuals with such attachment patterns tend to
become distant and dismissing of both their own and others’ needs for care
and security. These findings have been found across numerous populations,
including dating couples (Feeney & Collins, 2001), couples in long-term
relationships (Feeney, 1996; Millings & Walsh, 2009), and adults involved
in same-sex couple relationships (Bouaziz, Lafontaine, Gabbay, & Caron,

2013). Similarly, research has revealed that subliminal priming procedures
aimed at experimentally enhancing individuals’ sense of security effectively
elicit compassionate and supportive behavior (Mikulincer et al., 2001;
Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005).
The association between attachment and sexuality has also become
better and better substantiated (for reviews, see Dewitte, 2012; Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2007; Stefanou & McCabe, 2012). For example, security shapes
the experience of positive emotions in sexual relationships, and it increases
the capacity to let go and enjoy sex for itself (Birnbaum, Reis, Mikulincer,
Gillath, & Orpaz, 2006; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2006). Casual, detached
sex and low levels of intimacy; avoidance of sexual interactions; and engag-
ing in fewer sexual fantasies about the partner are more predominant
in avoidant people (Birnbaum et al., 2006; Brassard, Shaver, & Lussier,
2007). However, the importance of the partner’s emotional involvement
during sex, and sex motivated by the fear of losing a partner, is more asso-
ciated with attachment anxiety (Tracy, Shaver, Albino, & Cooper, 2003).
Anxious and avoidant individuals both report lower sexual satisfaction,
and these attachment insecurities in women are related to lower sexual self-
esteem and higher sexual anxiety (Birnbaum, 2007; Brassard, Péloquin,
Dupuy, Wright, & Shaver, 2012; Brassard, Dupuy, Bergeron, & Shaver,
2014). All in all, a secure, connected relationship appears to be the best
recipe for sexual fulfillment (Johnson & Zuccarini, 2010).
Only a few studies have directly examined the relations among attach-
ment, caregiving, and sexual functioning (Péloquin, Brassard, Delisle, &
Bédard, 2013; Péloquin, Brassard, Lafontaine, & Shaver, 2014). Results
show that caregiving, mostly in the form of proximity and sensitivity, medi-
ates the association between attachment insecurities and lower sexual sat-
isfaction in both distressed and nondistressed romantic partners. In short,
there is no doubt that there are theoretical and empirical links among the
attachment, caregiving, and sexual systems. We also know that unhappy
couples report to their couple therapists issues related to these three sys-
tems, thus indicating a real therapeutic need to promote attachment secu-
rity and the integration of attachment, caregiving, and sexual responses
by using an influential theory of adult love—namely, attachment theory.
The integration of caregiving, sexuality, and attachment has to start with
the attachment system and the creation of safe emotional connection, as
privileged within EFT.
How does attachment affect caregiving? According to Bowlby
(1969/1982), a primed attachment system is likely to inhibit effective care-
giving. Under these conditions, a romantic partner will be focused on
restoring his or her own sense of security, before attending to the other
partner’s need for comfort. In particular, partners with higher levels of
attachment avoidance appear to express less empathy, reciprocate less
supportive actions, and are less apt to consider others as deserving of their
care, in comparison to individuals embodying other attachment patterns.
Partners with higher levels of attachment anxiety may have difficulty
responding to the needs of their loved ones, as their cognitive resources
tend to be exhausted on their preoccupation with their own distress and
attachment-related needs. In opposition, partners with secure attachment
are not worried with regulating anxiety and doubts about self-worth, and
they have more attention and resources to offer their partners. Securely
attached individuals also perceive their partners to be available in times of
need or distress, and in turn may be more likely to consider their partners as
meriting compassion and help when needed (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
In this vein, it is only when a sense of security is established or restored
within a romantic relationship that the caregiving system may be effectively
activated in response to a partner’s distress (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005).
As mentioned earlier, results from clinical studies support the notion
that EFT provokes changes toward attachment security in partners’ views
of themselves and others. These major changes will then be noticeable in
terms of seeking connection and in terms of sensitive caregiving and con-
tingent responsive behaviors in their relationships. In Stage 1 of EFT, where
members of a couple are guided to reframe their problems in the terms of
how they are stuck in cycles of distance that spark emotional starvation,
separation distress, and deprivation around attachment needs, this meta-
perspective “sets the table” for becoming more attuned and supportive of
each other. For instance, Carol states in session, “I never realized that he
was lonely too and felt rejected. I guess I have complained and blamed a
lot. I feel more generous now, more caring toward him. He needs positive
messages from me. We are not so different after all.” In Stage 2 of EFT, the
therapist helps the withdrawn partner to reengage in the relationship and
to assertively state the conditions of this deeper engagement. The therapist
will also encourage the critical partner to take a more vulnerable position
that facilitates attempts to have the other partner respond to his or her
attachment needs. By the end of Stage 2 of EFT, each partner is more able
to trust and find comfort with the loved one, who is now more accessible,
attentive, and supportive. For example, Ted, Carol’s partner, is able to tell
her, “I want some acceptance from you. I want you to support me when I
am stressed and not assume I am going to let you down. I need caring too.
Then I can let you in.” Later, Carol can softly ask Ted, “When I get all
lonely, I need you to be there. I don’t need advice. I need you to take me in
your arms and really comfort me.” In Stage 3 of EFT, consolidation, part-
ners can actively empathize with each other and develop new solutions to
old problems that take each person’s needs for closeness, security, and car-
ing into account. These problems are no longer tainted with overwhelming
negative emotions and active triggers for rejection and abandonment; they
can be solved cooperatively.
In regard to sexuality, Heiman (2007) declared that unmet attachment

needs will lead to undermined sexual arousal, because sexuality involves
the exploration of the body and mind in both partners. Although Heiman
(2007) specifically discussed arousal, this declaration is also relevant to the
other dimensions of sexual functioning: desire, orgasm, and satisfaction.
Therefore, secure attachment characterized by attunement and responsive-
ness to emotional and physiological cues provides a foundation for part-
ners’ experience of satisfying sex, which may in turn influence a sense of
felt security. Sex can represent intimate play and a safe adventure in the
context of a relationship where partners are emotionally accessible, respon-
sive, and engaged (Johnson, 2008a, 2008b). This may be particularly true
for women, due to the highly contextual nature of their desire (Basson,
2007). The view of optimal sexual satisfaction is often that of a relation-
ship filled with passion, novelty, and a certain level of danger and thrill—a
notion that is present in the dominant culture of romance. This is con-
tradictory to the view of a secure, familiar, and predictable relationship
in which security promotes exploration and attunement to one another’s
needs in the moment (Johnson & Zuccarini, 2010). The solution to seem-
ingly inevitable sexual boredom and dissatisfaction in long-term attach-
ments seems, then, to focus on sexual technique or to somehow inject dis-
tance or attempts at sexual novelty into a relationship. Unfortunately, this
goal is often not achieved, as it does not promote attunement to a partner
or the ability to be completely present. Focused attention and full engage-
ment in the moment, however, tend to intensify eroticism and can overrule
technique issues (Kleinplatz, 2001).
In many distressed couples, partners are trapped in cycles of critical
demanding and defensive withdrawal. These cycles have a negative impact
on overall couple functioning, but also on sexual interactions. The more
demanding partner (typically the female partner) is usually more anxiously
attached, looking for support and affection in and out of the bedroom,
while the more withdrawn partner (typically the male partner) may start
sexual contact but avoid closeness and remain emotionally distant and
unavailable (Johnson & Zuccarini, 2010). In this negative cycle marked
by attachment insecurity, the demanding partner’s attention is on affection
and reassurance, whereas the more withdrawn partner focuses on sensation
and performance, which leads to more anxiety and disconnection from the
demanding partner. In this circumstance, the EFT therapist deescalates the
negative cycle and promotes secure bonding interactions between the part-
ners. More positive and integrated sexual experiences begin to stem from
new levels of emotional safety and connection. For example, a withdrawn
husband is able to disclose how he longs to feel desired by his partner, and
how he ejaculates fast to avoid any signals of disappointment or rejection
from his partner. He shares that he only asks for sex because he does not
know how to initiate closeness in any other way. This disclosure allows his
wife to perceive him in a new way and fosters reciprocal sharing about their
sexual and emotional relationship.
Improving attachment security and relationship satisfaction leads to
new avenues in a couple’s sexual interaction. Understanding love as attach-
ment gives a picture of optimal, healthy relatedness and sexuality. In a
secure relationship, positive emotional experiences of joy and excitement,
tender touch, and erotic playfulness can all come together (Johnson & Zuc-
carini, 2010). The first step for the EFT therapist is to increase emotional
safety and secure connection between partners, regardless of whether their
sex life plays a role in their relationship distress (Johnson & Zuccarini,
2010). In Stage 1 of EFT, the therapist will first explore the quality of
the couple’s physical relationship and integrate this information into the
context of the negative interaction cycle. Here it is important for the EFT
therapist to give an attachment frame to partners’ sexual responses—for
instance, by connecting the lack of satisfaction and difficulty having an
orgasm to the lack of safety and fears of abandonment. If partners do not
report any sexual difficulty, but sex has deteriorated as a result of the nega-
tive cycle, their sex life begins to improve at the end of Stage 1, when both
partners can work together against the negative impact of their cycle both
inside and outside the bedroom. In Stage 2, the EFT therapist helps the
partners initiate positive cycles of emotional responsiveness, as they are
able to risk, confide attachment needs and fears (i.e., physical closeness and
sexuality), and reach for and respond to each other. In a case where sexual-
ity is experienced as dangerous, partners will be invited to preclude having
intercourse and focus on safe, pleasurable touch. In order to normalize
sexual experiences, the EFT therapist may need to offer the couple some
information, with the goal of supporting the transfer of safe emotional
engagement and exploration into the sexual area. For example, a husband
may be reassured to find out that orgasms vary in intensity and character,
and that it’s perfectly natural for him to feel different from time to time.
Mutual accessibility and responsiveness between partners helps them to
engage in a new kind of satisfying and connected sexual experience. In
Stage 3 of EFT, the therapist helps partners to create a joint story of the
repair of their relationship that includes the enhancement of their sexual
bond. The therapist may also help partners solve concrete problems, such as
modifying a lifestyle that excludes time for enjoyable and pleasurable sexual
play. Satisfying sexual encounters now strengthen the couple’s bond, and a
more secure bond continues to build more erotic and more satisfying sex.
In sum, by creating changes in attachment security, EFT helps roman-
tic partners alter the explicit ways in which they seek support and provide
support and care, as well as their sexual connection. Couple therapists will
find in EFT a powerful guide that can help partners integrate attachment,
caregiving, and sex, in a way that leads to a powerful, resilient, and satisfy-
ing bond.
Case Example: A Clinical Snapshot of a Moment of Change1

Prue is sent to couple therapy by her individual therapist, who is concerned
about her recent but unremitting depression and her hopelessness about her
marriage to Larry. After 25 years of marriage and the successful launch-
ing of four children, she has lapsed into extreme silent withdrawal, and his
temper tantrums and lists of “concerned” directives for his wife have esca-
lated. She admits that she feels “flawed” and unable to please her husband,
who is, she believes, more verbal, more active, more fit, and more compe-
tent than she is. Larry lectures and reasons in the first therapy sessions,
pointing out that she became depressed 2 years before when she went away
to care for a dying aunt, and she should simply exercise more and try harder
to combat her negative thoughts. When asked by the therapist, Prue states
that her depression began on a day exactly a year ago, after a strenuous hik-
ing holiday where she had fallen and hurt her leg, much to Larry’s chagrin.
“In fact,” she states, “it began with the train—at that train station.” Larry
sighs, raising his eyes in exasperation.
Prue had gone to get coffee and was standing with a coffee cup in her
hand, holding her pull-along luggage, when Larry realized that the train
was moving. Alarmed, he sprinted along the platform and leapt onto the
train while shouting at the conductor to stop the train. He then turned
and screamed at his wife, “Run!” Prue froze, disoriented. Finally, she did
indeed run, and with great difficulty she managed to clamber onto the
moving train. Larry then screamed at her, “Why are you so damned slow?”
At this moment, their relationship plummeted into unremitting distress and
despair. Larry believes that his wife will soon leave him or harm herself.
There are many different ways to see this pivotal incident and this cou-
ple’s problems. The EFT therapist, using an attachment perspective, builds
an alliance as a secure base. The therapist then delineates the interactional
dance that has taken over their relationship as a “criticize-and-complain,
followed by defend-and-withdraw” cycle that leaves them both isolated,
helpless, and dejected. As these partners are encouraged to explore and
deepen their emotions, unspoken attachment sensitivities and fears emerge.
Prue admits that she has “given up” on being accepted by her husband,
since she will never be active and fit enough to meet his expectations. She
feels overwhelmed by sadness and shame. Larry does not understand this
response or the impact he has on his wife. In the therapy session, the thera-
pist slowly replays and reviews the train station incident as a microcosm of
the attachment reality of Larry and Prue’s relationship.
As the station incident is slowly reviewed, the therapist asks evoca-
tive questions, orders and reflects emotional responses and statements,
1 The case and the incident described in this section were first outlined in modified form
in Johnson (2013).
and conjectures as to the attachment meanings associated with different

moments. Prue becomes able to explicitly formulate and express her sense
of condemnation and rejection, and her acceptance of herself as inadequate.
The therapist validates that at the moment, this is the only sense she can
make out of Larry’s “desperate” exhortations and arguments that her per-
ceptions are mistaken and her emotions inappropriate. Prue starts at the
word “desperate” and looks at her husband intently.
The therapist slowly unfolds the elements of Larry’s emotional experi-
ence and places it in an attachment framework. With help, Larry recalls the
triggering image of Prue’s standing still as the distance between them grew
second by second. He is encouraged to tune into his body, and he now iden-
tifies “panic” and “breathlessness” in his chest. As the therapist asks him
what he sees as he recalls this event, he says, “She isn’t coming. She isn’t
running. She isn’t trying to reach me—to be with me. She won’t try.” The
therapist comments, “And so you are . . . ?” Larry calls out, “All alone,”
and collapses in tears. He then begins to recognize the compelling fears
that arise when his wife is physically or emotionally absent or shows any
sign of weakness or illness. He usually dismisses such feelings as “pathetic
and foolish,” but he is now able to shape his experience into a coherent
whole and tell his wife that she is the only one he has ever turned to or felt
safe with. As Larry owns and communicates his separation distress and
links it to his controlling behaviors, Prue expresses amazement. She articu-
lates that she is now seeing him differently, and as she recounts the times
when her strength and responsiveness helped him through difficulties and
earned his trust and respect, she straightens up and becomes more engaged
and less subdued. In the next session, Prue is now able to firmly express
her sense of rejection at his criticism, but now frames these in terms of his
fears and how much he needs her, rather than any inadequacy on her part.
Her depression, which Bowlby identified as an inherent part of separation
distress, begins to lift. In the following sessions, Prue moves into asserting
her need to be respected and accepted as “different” from Larry, but as a
good and valued partner.
This husband and wife, who always had much genuine caring and
respect for each other, have thus swiftly contained their pattern of negative
interactions and, when directed by the therapist, have begun to tune into
the channel of their attachment emotions and needs and to reach for each
other. Both are then able to help each other stay calm, find their emotional
balance, express attachment needs, and move into a place of mutual care
and reassurance. In Session 9, the final session, Larry is able to articulate a
view of himself as a lonely man who can now accept that he depends on his
wife and needs to be able to turn to her, especially as he grows older and
confronts his own vulnerability. The therapist helps him frame this ability
to turn to his partner as strength.
At the end of therapy, both partners have expanded their model of self
and other. Both are more trusting and able to deal with their emotions in a
way that fosters open engagement and allows for empathic responsiveness
to each other. Both now frame themselves as more confident and compe-
tent, and as able to offer more sensitive caregiving. Larry reports being less
driven to exercise compulsively and less anxious in the relationship. Prue
emerges from her clinical depression and becomes more assertive about her
own needs with Larry and with others. In the final session, the partners
also report that their new ways to communicate with each other seem
to have improved their sexual relationship. In summary, the deepening
of key attachment-oriented experiences in this case has resulted in new
perspectives and new ways to send signals to each other that have pulled
these partners closer and shaped a new dance of mutual accessibility and
responsiveness—the elements of a secure bond.
Conclusion
Attachment theory and science are changing the way we view and treat
adult love relationships. Attachment offers a systematic protocol for rela-
tionship repair that has already proven effective on many different levels
and is more and more broadly adopted by couple therapists across the
globe. It also expands the scope of couple therapy as a modality. If couple
therapy can help partners not only repair their relationships, but shift from
basically insecure working models and affect regulation strategies to secure
connection, this therapy modality can begin a cascade of change and indi-
vidual growth, evoking all the positive effects associated with more secure
loving bonds. This not only offers a new direction for couple therapists and
their clients; it also validates attachment theorists and researchers in their
formulations of exactly how the most precious connections people have
with others work, and how they may be honored and fostered in the future.
References
Acevedo, B., & Aron, A. (2009). Does a long-term relationship kill romantic love?
Review of General Psychology, 13, 59–65.
94–109.
Basson, R. (2007). Sexual desire arousal disorders in women. In S. Leiblum (Ed.),
Principles and practice of sex therapy (4th ed., pp. 25–53). New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Benjamin, L. S. (1981). Manual for coding social interaction in terms of Structural
Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Birnbaum, G. E. (2007). Attachment orientations, sexual functioning, and rela-

Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A. (2006).
When sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientations, sexual experience,
and relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
929–943.
Bouaziz, A.-R., Lafontaine, M.-F., Gabbay, N., & Caron, A. (2013). Investigating
the validity and reliability of the caregiving questionnaire with individuals in
same-sex couple relationships. Journal of Relationships Research, 4, e2.
Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York.
Basic Books.
Brassard, A., Dupuy, E., Bergeron, S., & Shaver, P. R. (2014). Attachment insecu-
rities and women’s sexual function and satisfaction: The mediating roles of
sexual self-esteem, sexual anxiety, and sexual assertiveness. Journal of Sex
Research, 1–10. Epub ahead of print.
Brassard, A., Péloquin, K., Dupuy, E., Wright, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). Romantic
attachment insecurity predicts sexual dissatisfaction in couples seeking mari-
tal therapy. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 38, 245–262.
Brassard, A., Shaver, P. R., & Lussier, Y. (2007). Attachment, sexual experience,
and sexual pressure in romantic relationships: A dyadic approach. Personal
Burgess Moser, M., Johnson, S. M., Dalgleish, T. L., Tasca, G. A., Lafontaine, M.
F., & Wiebe, S. A. (in press). Changes in relationship-specific romantic attach-
ment in emotionally focused couple therapy. Journal of Family Psychology.
Burgess Moser, M., Johnson, S. M., Dalgleish, T. L., Tasca, G. A., & Wiebe, S. A.
(2014). The impact of blamer-softening on romantic attachment in emotion-
ally focused couples therapy. Manuscript in preparation.
Caron, A., Lafontaine, M.-F., Bureau, J. F., Levesque, C., & Johnson, S. M. (2012).
Comparisons of attachment in close relationships: An evaluation of attach-
ment to parents, peers, and romantic partners in young adults. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 44, 245–256.
Cobb, R., & Bradbury, T. (2003). Implications of adult attachment for preventing
adverse marital outcomes. In S. M. Johnson & V. Whiffen (Eds.), Attachment
processes in couple and family therapy (pp. 258–280). New York: Guilford
Press.
Collins, N. L., Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., & Feeney, B. C. (2006). Responding
to need in intimate relationships: Normative processes and individual differ-
ences. In M. Mikulincer & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), Dynamics of romantic
love: Attachment, caregiving, and sex (pp. 149–189). New York: Guilford
Press.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment models and relationship
quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
644–663.
Crowell, J. A., Treboux, D., Gao, Y., Fyffe, C., Pan, H., & Waters, E. (2002).
Assessing secure base behavior in adulthood: Development of a measure, links
to adult attachment representations, and relations to couples’ communication
and reports of relationships. Developmental Psychology, 38, 679–693.
Crowell, J. A., Treboux, D., & Waters, E. (2002). Stability of attachment represen-
tations: The transition to marriage. Developmental Psychology, 38, 467–479.
Dalgleish, T. L., Johnson, S. M., Burgess Moser, M., Wiebe, S. A., & Tasca, G. A.
(2014). Predicting key change events in emotionally focused couple therapy.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. Advance online publication.
Dalton, J., Greenman, P., Classen, C., & Johnson, S. M. (2013). Nurturing con-
nections in the aftermath of childhood trauma: A randomized control trial of
emotionally focused couple therapy (EFT) for female survivors of childhood
abuse. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2(3), 209–221.
Daniels, S. I. F. (2006). Adult attachment patterns and individual psychotherapy: A
review. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 968–984.
Davila, J., & Cobb, R. (2003). Predicting change in self-reported and interviewer-
assessed attachment security: Tests of the individual and life-stress model.
Davila, J., & Cobb, R. (2004). Predictors of change in attachment security dur-
ing adulthood. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment:
Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 133–156). New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Davila, J., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Attachment change processes
in the early years of marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76, 783–802.
Davila, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2009). Secure base processes in couples: Daily associa-
tions between support experiences and attachment security. Journal of Family
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2004). Attachment style and subjective
motivations for sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1076–
1090.
Denton, W., Wittenborn, A., & Golden, R. (2012). Augmenting antidepressant
medication treatment of depressed women with emotionally focused therapy
for couples: A randomized pilot study. Journal of Marital and Family Ther-
apy, 38, 23–38.
Dewitte, M. (2012). Different perspectives on the sex–attachment link: Towards an
emotion-motivational account. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 105–124.
Diamond, D., Stovall-McCloush, C., Clarkin, J. F., & Levy, K. (2003). Patient–
therapist attachment in the treatment of borderline personality disorder. Bul-
letin of the Menninger Clinic, 67, 227–260.
Eisenberger, N., Lieberman, M., Matthew, D., & Williams K. (2003). Does rejec-
tion hurt?: An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290–293.
Ekman. P. (2003). Emotions revealed. New York: Holt.
Feeney, J. A. (1996). Attachment, caregiving, and marital satisfaction. Personal
Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Leigh, T., Kennedy, R., Matton, G., et al. (1995).
Attachment, the reflective self and borderline states: The predictive specificity
of the Adult Attachment Interview and pathological emotional development.
In S. Goldberg, R. Muir, & J. Kerr (Eds.), Attachment theory: Social, develop-
mental and clinical perspectives (pp. 233–279). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Fosha, D. (2000). The transforming power of affect: A model for accelerated
change. New York: Basic Books.
Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis
and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 6, 123–151.
Fraley, R. C., Vicary, A. M., Brumbaugh, C. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2011). Patterns
of stability in adult attachment: An empirical test of two models of continu-
ity and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 974–992.
Gottman, J., Coan, J., Carriere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital hap-
piness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 60, 5–22.
Greenman, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2013). Process research on emotionally focused
therapy: Linking theory to practice. Family Process, 52, 46–61.
Gross, P. (2001). Emotional regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Cur-
rent Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 214–219.
Hawkley, L., Masi, C., Berry, J., & Cacioppo, J. (2006). Loneliness is a unique
predictor of age-related differences in systolic blood pressure. Journal of Psy-
chology and Aging, 21, 152–164.
Heiman, J. (2007). Orgasmic disorders in women. In S. Leiblum (Ed.), Principles
and practice of sex therapy (4th ed., pp. 84–123). New York: Guilford Press.
Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., & Bartholomew, K. (1993). Interpersonal prob-
lems, attachment styles, and outcome in brief dynamic psychotherapy. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 549–560.
Johnson, S. M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creat-
ing connection. New York: Routledge.
Johnson, S. M. (2008a). Hold me tight: Seven conversations for a lifetime of love.
New York. Little, Brown.
Johnson, S. M. (2008b). Couple and family therapy: An attachment perspective. In
J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research
Johnson, S. M. (2009a). Extravagant emotion: Understanding and transforming
love relationships in emotionally focused therapy. In D. Fosha, D. Siegel, &
M. Solomon (Eds.), The healing power of emotion: Affective neuroscience,
development and clinical practice (pp. 257–279). New York: Norton.
Johnson, S. M. (2009b). Attachment and emotionally focused therapy: Perfect
partners. In J. Obegi & E. Berant (Eds.), Attachment theory and research in

clinical work with adults (pp. 410–433). New York: Guilford Press.
Johnson, S. M. (2010). Hold me tight: Conversations for connection—Facilitators
guide for small groups (2nd ed.). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International
Centre for Excellence in Emotionally Focused Therapy.
Johnson, S. M. (2011). The attachment perspective on the bonds of love: A pro-
totype for relationship change. In J. Furrow, S. M. Johnson, & B. Bradley
(Eds.), The emotionally focused casebook: New directions in treating couples
(pp. 31–58). New York: Routledge.
Johnson, S. M. (2013). Love sense: The new revolutionary science of romantic
relationships. New York: Little, Brown.
Johnson, S. M., & Best, M. (2002). A systemic approach to restructuring adult
attachment: The EFT model of couples therapy. In P. Erdman & T. Caffery
(Eds.), Attachment and family systems: Conceptual, empirical and therapeu-
tic relatedness (pp. 165–192). New York: Springer.
Johnson, S. M., Coan, J., Burgess Moser, M., Beckes, L., Smith, A., Dalgleish, T.,
et al. (2013). Soothing the threatened brain: Leveraging contact comfort with
emotionally focused therapy. PLoS ONE, 8(11), e79314.
Johnson, S. M., & Greenberg, L. S. (1988). Relating process to outcome in marital
therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 14, 175–183.
Johnson, S. M., & Talitman, E. (1997). Predictors of success in emotionally focused
marital therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23, 135–152.
Johnson, S. M., & Zuccarini, D. (2010). Integrating sex and attachment in emo-
tionally focused couple therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36,
431–445.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships:
A four-year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1, 123–142.
Kleinplatz, P. J. (2001). New directions in sex therapy: Innovations and alterna-
tives. Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.
Lebow, J., Chambers, A. L., Christensen, A., & Johnson, S. M. (2012). Research
on the treatment of marital couple distress. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 38, 145–168.
MacIntosh, H., & Johnson, S. M. (2008). Emotionally focused therapy for couples
and childhood abuse survivors. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34,
298–315.
Mackay, S. (1996). A neglected dimension in family therapy with adolescents. Jour-
nal of Marital and Family Therapy, 22, 489–508.
Main, M. (1991). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and sin-
gular (coherent) vs. multiple (incoherent) model of attachment: Findings and
directions for future research. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Mar-
ris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 127–159). London: Tavistock/
Routledge.
Makinen, J., & Johnson, S. M. (2006). Resolving attachment injuries in couples
using emotionally focused therapy: Steps towards forgiveness and reconcilia-
tion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 1005–1064.
Meyer, B., Pilkonis, P. A., Proietti, J. M., Heape, C. L., & Egan, M. (2001). Attach-
ment styles and personality disorders as predictors of symptom course. Jour-
nal of Personality Disorders, 15, 371–389.
Mikulincer, M. (2006). Attachment, caregiving, and sex within romantic relation-

ships: A behavioral systems perspective. In M. Mikulincer & G. S. Good-
man (Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, and sex
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment security, compassion, and
altruism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 34–38.
Millings, A., & Walsh, J. (2009). A dyadic exploration of attachment and caregiv-
ing in long-term couples. Personal Relationships, 16, 437–453.
Neumann, E., & Tress, W. (2007). [Close relationships in childhood and adult-
hood from the viewpoint of Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB)
and attachment theory]. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psy-
chologie, 57, 145–153.
Panksepp, J. (2003). Feeling the pain of social loss. Science, 302, 237–239.
Péloquin, K., Brassard, A., Delisle, G., & Bédard, M.-M. (2013). Integrating the
attachment, caregiving and sexual systems into the understanding of sexual
satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 45, 185–195.
Péloquin, K., Brassard, A., Lafontaine, M.-F., & Shaver, P. R. (2014). Sexuality
examined through the lens of attachment theory: Attachment, caregiving, and
sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex Research, 51(5), 561–576.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Schachner, D. A., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment dimensions and sexual
motives. Personal Relationships, 11, 179–195.
Schachner, D. A., Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). Adult attachment theory,
psychodynamics, and couple relationships: An overview. In S. M. Johnson
& V. E. Whiffen (Eds.), Attachment processes in couple and family therapy
Sexton, T., Gordon, K. C., Gurman, A., Lebow, J., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., &
Johnson, S. (2011). Guidelines for classifying evidence-based treatments in
couple and family therapy. Family Process, 50, 377–392.
Shaver, P. R., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment: The integra-
tion of three behavioral systems. In R. J. Sternberg & M. Barnes (Eds.), The
anatomy of love (pp. 68–98). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2006). A behavioral systems approach to roman-
tic love relationships: Attachment, caregiving, and sex. In R. J. Sternberg &
K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (2nd ed., pp. 35–64). New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Campbell, L., & Wilson, C. L. (2003). Changes
in attachment orientations across the transition to parenthood. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 317–331.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Meth-
ods for studying change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring relational adjustment: New scales for assessing
the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-
ily, 38, 15–28.
Stefanou, C., & McCabe, M. P. (2012). Adult attachment and sexual functioning:
A review of past research. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 2499–2507.
Tasca, G. A., Balfour, L., Ritchie, K., & Bissada, H. (2007). Change in attachment
anxiety is associated with improved depression among women with binge eat-
ing disorder. Psychotherapy, 44, 423–433.
Tracy, J. L., Shaver, P. R., Albino, A. W., & Cooper, M. L. (2003). Attachment
styles and adolescent sexuality. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic
relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications
(pp. 137–159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Travis, L. A., Binder, J. L., Bliwise, N. G., & Horne-Moyer, H. L. (2001). Changes
in clients’ attachment orientations over the course of time-limited dynamic
psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 38, 149–159.
Wallin, D. J. (2007) Attachment in psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The Experiences
in Close Relationships Scale (ECR)—Short Form: Reliability, validity, and
factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 187–204.
Zuccarini, D., Johnson, S. M., Dalgleish, T. L., & Makinen, J. A. (2013). Forgive-
ness and reconciliation in emotionally focused therapy for couples: The client
change process and therapist interventions. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 39, 148–162.
Author Index
Abaied, J. L., 241 Allen, K. R., 324

Abel, J. L., 205 Allen, N. B., 378
Abela, J. R. Z., 351 Alper, C. M., 209, 304
Aber, J. L., 13, 71 Alterman, A. I., 357
Ablard, K. E., 16 Altmann, J., 74
Ablow, J. C., 110 Amico, J., 54, 251
Abramson, L. Y., 33 Amit, K., 266
Acevedo, B., 394 Andersen, B. L., 172
Ackerman, C., 102 Andersen, S. M., 180
Adali, T., 57 Anderson, B., 73, 205
Adam, E. K., 245, 308, 349, 351, 384 Anderson, I., 300
Adelson, E., 382 Anderson, M. C., 44
Agnew, C. R., 154 Anderson, P., 206
Aguilar-Gaxiola, S., 361 Anderson, S. E., 298
Aguilera, G., 73, 74 Andersson, F., 45
Aharon, I., 76 Andreas, D., 294
Ahern, G. L., 47 Andrews, N. E., 303, 304
Ahrens, K. R., 299 Ansermet, F., 106
Aiello, A. E., 296 Antoni, M. H., 288
Ainsworth, M. D. S., 40, 41, 49, 126, 196, Antonucci, T. C., 327, 329
197, 198, 215, 236, 237, 241, 321, 329, Appelhans, B. M., 102
331, 378 Appleyard, K., 105
Ainsworth, M. S., 16 Arend, R., 215
Aitken, K., 377 Argiolas, A., 77, 83
Akiyama, H., 329 Arndt, J., 131
Albersheim, L., 107 Aron, A., 47, 72, 78, 131, 184, 394
Alberts, S. C., 74 Arriaga, X. B., 154, 157, 159
Albino, A., 172, 358, 409 Asher, E. R., 208
Albus, K. E., 377 Asher, S. R., 18
Aldao, A., 356 Ashton, E., 277
Aldrete, E., 361 Aspinwall, L. G., 355
Alexander, R., 243 Assulin-Simhon, Z., 180
Alkon, A., 107, 108 Atchley, R., 59
Allen, E. A., 242 Atkinson, L., 17
Allen, J. G., 350 Atzil, S., 54
Allen, J. P., 198, 353, 354 Auer, B. J., 102
Allen, K. M., 205 August, K. J., 299
423
424 Author Index
Austerlitz, M., 173 Beebe, B., 377, 378

Avihou-Kanza, N., 128 Belanger, I., 148
Ávila, M., 242 Bell, R. A., 185
Bell, S. M., 215
Baccus, J. R., 131 Belsky, J., 16, 33, 107, 108, 110, 175, 198,
Bachman, G. F., 172 249, 252, 289, 333
Baek, J. M., 32 Bemporad, J., 378
Bailey, S., 290, 306 Benetti, S., 49
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., 51, 52, 108, Bengtson, V. L., 324
251, 357, 377, 378, 383 Benjamin, L. S., 400
Bakker, A. B., 272 Ben-Naim, S., 308
Baldwin, M. W., 42, 68, 71, 72, 113, 129, 131, Benoit, D., 384
203, 271, 402 Bera, S., 113
Bales, K. L., 53 Berant, E., 129, 243, 245, 249, 352, 361
Balfour, L., 347, 403 Berenbaum, H., 356
Balfour, M. E., 72, 79 Bergeron, S., 409
Bamberger, P., 278 Berlin, L. J., 148, 215, 239, 241, 247
Banihashemi, L., 104 Berman, W. H., 325
Barbee, A. P., 223 Bernard, K., 378, 379, 382, 387
Bar-Haim, Y., 357 Berntson, G. G., 100
Barkham, M., 273 Berridge, K. C., 51, 78
Barlow, D. H., 354, 355 Berry, C. M., 278
Barnas, M. V., 329, 330 Berry, J., 394
Barnea, E., 180 Berry, K., 352
Barnett, B., 246 Berscheid, E., 81, 170, 184
Barnett, D., 378 Berson, Y., 267
Bar-On, N., 134 Besser, A., 242, 246, 357
Barr, G. A., 74 Best, M., 405, 407
Barraza, V., 292 Bick, J., 382
Barrett, E. S., 187 Binder, J. L., 403
Barrett, L. F., 55, 56, 71, 288, 303 Binik, Y. M., 79
Barrick, M. R., 262 Birnbaum, G. E., 4, 88, 170, 171, 172, 173,
Barrowclough, C., 352 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181,
Barry, C. M., 16 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 354, 408, 409
Barry, R. A., 289 Birren, J. E., 185
Bar-Shalom, A., 178 Bissada, H., 347, 403
Bartels, A., 54, 72 Blaicher, W., 80
Barth, M. E., 363 Blair, C., 292, 376
Bartholomew, K., 14, 113, 173, 263, 333, 405 Blair, S. N., 209
Bartz, J. A., 52, 180, 362 Blakely, B. S., 239, 242
Basson, R., 186, 411 Blalock, A., 358
Bates, B., 377 Blanchard, E. B., 357
Bates, G. W., 351 Blandon, A. Y., 102
Bateson, P., 109 Blascovich, J., 136, 205
Batgos, J., 351 Blass, R. B., 359
Batson, C. D., 133 Blatt, S. J., 138, 351, 359, 360, 361
Batterman-Faunce, J. M., 239 Blehar, M. C., 40, 126, 196, 237, 321, 378
Bauman, K. E., 298 Blieszner, R., 324
Baumeister, R. F., 101, 149, 150, 186, 289 Bliwise, N. G., 403
Beach, F. A., 182 Block, D., 378
Beach, S. R. H., 206 Bluthé, R. M., 87
Beardslee, W. R., 378 Boatwright, K. J., 267
Beauchaine, T. P., 101, 107 Bogaert, A. F., 173, 174, 176
Beaulieu-Pelletier, G., 174 Boldry, J., 148
Beck, L. A., 289, 294, 295, 298, 307, 308 Boldry, J. G., 179
Becker, J., 218 Bolger, N., 218, 363
Beckes, L., 56, 72 Boling, M. W., 16
Bédard, M.-M., 409 Bonanno, G. A., 352
Author Index 425
Boomsma, D. I., 101 Brumbaugh, C. C., 11, 44, 238, 279, 291, 402
Boone, A. L., 289 Brunstein, J. C., 209, 210, 220
Booth-LaForce, C., 17, 18, 20, 33, 34, 51, 279 Bruyneel, S., 87
Borghini, A., 106 Bubier, J. L., 108
Borman, W. C., 277 Buchheim, A., 45
Borman-Spurrell, E., 354 Buckley, T. C., 357
Bornstein, R. F., 199, 200 Bugental, D. B., 292
Bos, P. A., 87 Buhrmester, D., 206
Bosmans, G., 298, 350 Bunge, S. A., 44
Bosquet, M., 350 Burchinal, M. R., 14
Bouaziz, A.-R., 409 Bureau, J. F., 402
Bouchey, H. A., 17 Burge, D., 113
Bouthillier, D., 148 Burgess Moser, M., 399, 401, 402, 404, 405,
Bowlby, J., 1, 7, 10, 11, 12, 40, 42, 44, 52, 68, 406
69, 71, 97, 112, 124, 125, 126, 138, 146, Burkett, J. P., 54, 60
148, 161, 170, 171, 173, 187, 196, 197, Burman, B., 252
198, 200, 201, 203, 206, 207, 223, 234, Burt, K. B., 33
235, 236, 252, 261, 279, 319, 320, 321, Burt, S. A., 32, 51
322, 323, 329, 330, 339, 346, 348, 350, Burton, J. P., 278
353, 359, 374, 375, 376, 393, 397, 398, Burton, S., 80, 183
401, 402, 403, 404, 409 Busby, D. M., 84
Boyce, W. T., 33, 107, 108, 110, 291, 302 Bush, J. P., 129
Boyd, C., 325 Buss, C., 101
Boyle, A. M., 307 Buss, D. M., 76, 175, 182, 183
Bradbury, T. N., 31, 107, 203, 394, 402 Buss, K., 105, 292, 293
Bradley, B. P., 352, 357 Butterfield, R. M., 299, 308
Bradley, J. M., 328, 334 Butzer, B., 181
Bradshaw, D., 170, 408 Butzin-Dozier, Z., 379
Braet, C., 298, 350 Buysse, A., 106
Brammer, G. L., 51 Buysse, D. J., 304
Brannigan, A., 353 Byers, E. S., 175
Branstetter, S. A., 298 Byrd-Craven, J., 102
Brassard, A., 174, 176, 181, 409
Bratslavsky, E., 186 Cacioppe, R., 266
Brauer, M., 48 Cacioppo, J. T., 98, 100, 205, 305, 394
Braun, M., 326, 333 Cadoret, R. J., 354
Braunwald, K., 378 Cafasso, L., 324
Bredin, S. S. D., 209 Cafferty, T. P., 328, 334
Breiner, T., 108 Caldwell, J. D., 80
Breiter H. C., 76 Caldwell, J. G., 246
Brennan, K. A., 41, 126, 172, 174, 237, 238, Calhoun, V. D., 57
249, 263, 333, 404 Calkins, S. D., 100, 102, 376
Brennan, P. L., 358 Cameron, J. J., 334
Brenning, K. M., 350 Campbell, K., 300
Bretherton, I., 11, 44, 71, 237 Campbell, L., 148, 152, 178, 179, 181, 185,
Brett, B. E., 251 252, 288, 320, 351, 357, 403
Brewer, A., 246 Campbell, W. K., 154
Brodaty, H., 339 Campbell-Sills, L., 355
Brodersen, L., 292 Canterberry, M., 43, 46, 57, 58, 132, 322, 323
Brody, G. H., 299 Cantor, J. M., 79
Brook, A. T., 224 Carlson, D., 274
Brooks, K. P., 297 Carlson, E., 375
Brown, G. W., 360 Carlson, E. A., 21, 346, 347, 351
Brown, L. L., 72, 184 Carlson, V., 378
Brown, S. L., 289 Carmichael, C. L., 304
Browne, R. C., 304 Carmichael, M. S., 80, 183
Bruce, J., 103, 375 Carnelley, K. B., 132, 206, 288, 289, 306
Brumbach, B. H., 30 Caron, A., 402, 409
426 Author Index
Carpenter, B. D., 325, 326, 334 Classen, C., 397

Carpenter, N. C. C., 281 Clatts, M. C., 353
Carrere, S., 218 Cloitre, M., 361
Carriere, S., 394 Clow, A., 105
Carroll, J. L., 175 Coall, D. A., 110
Carroll, J. S., 84 Coan, J. A., 47, 55, 56, 57, 73, 135, 205, 218,
Carroll, K., 386 358, 394
Carstensen, J., 243 Coats, S., 263
Carter, C. S., 53, 74, 82, 83, 182, 183 Cobb, R., 394, 402, 403
Carver, C. S., 326 Coble, H. M., 270
Casey, B., 300 Cohen, B. B., 203
Casimir, G. J., 304 Cohen, C. I., 326, 334
Caspers, K. M., 51, 354 Cohen, D., 175
Cassibba, R., 300, 333 Cohen, E., 241, 242, 243
Cassidy, J., 4, 40, 41, 106, 126, 127, 148, 157, Cohen, J. D., 44
215, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239, 250, 251, Cohen, M. X., 47, 48
327, 333, 383, 393 Cohen, O., 242, 247
Castelnovo, O., 266 Cohen, S., 203, 209, 304
Castro, J., 74 Cohn, D. A., 245
Catalano, R., 361 Cohn, J. F., 377, 378
Catanzaro, A., 347 Cole, A., 295
Caughlin, J. P., 31 Cole, H., 148, 358
Ceglian, C., 244 Cole, S. F., 338
Chambers, A. L., 395 Cole, S. W., 33, 291, 296
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., 262, 263 Cole-Detke, H., 350
Champagne, F., 54 Coleman, V. I., 277
Charuvastra, A., 361 Collins, A., 346
Chase-Lansdale, P. L., 298 Collins, N. L., 15, 71, 73, 129, 135, 136, 146,
Chatterjee, N., 78, 131 157, 196, 199, 200, 202, 203, 205, 206,
Checkley, S. A., 79, 80, 183 216, 218, 222, 223, 238, 241, 244, 246,
Chen, C. K., 325, 331 249, 263, 289, 307, 323, 357, 359, 406,
Chen, E., 99, 292, 296, 303 408
Chen, F. S., 52, 363 Collins, P. F., 75, 76
Chen, S., 159, 180 Collins, T. J., 57
Cheng, Y., 209 Collins, W. A., 12, 13, 20, 21, 30, 107, 112,
Chesney, M., 108 162, 302, 308
Chess, S., 294 Conley, T. D., 187
Chiao, J. Y., 58 Connor, D. F., 361
Chisholm, J. S., 110 Conradt, E., 110
Chisholm, K., 46 Contreras, J. M., 299
Chorpita, B. F., 386 Cooke, D. D., 339
Christensen, A., 159, 395 Coolen, L. M., 72, 79
Christian, H., 291 Cooper, C., 326
Christiansen, N., 262, 282 Cooper, G., 196, 382
Chun, D. S., 42 Cooper, J. C., 76
Chun, S. D., 32 Cooper, M. L., 129, 172, 174, 175, 176, 358,
Cialdini, R. B., 133 409
Ciarocco, N. J., 101 Coppola, G., 300, 333
Cicchetti, D., 23, 52, 103, 105, 347, 376, 378, Costa, B., 52
382 Costa, N. M., 349
Cicirelli, V. G., 321, 322, 323, 325, 326, 328, Costantini, A., 333
329, 330, 336 Cottrell, L., 298
Ciechanowski, P. S., 299, 303, 309, 350 Couchman, C. E., 113
Clare, L., 326 Couture, S., 174
Clark, C. L., 41, 126, 237, 263, 333, Cowan, C. P., 245
404 Cowan, P. A., 245
Clark, M. S., 148, 150, 155, 160, 355 Cox, M. J., 14
Clarkin, J. F., 403 Coyl, D. D., 241
Author Index 427
Coyne, J. C., 218, 359 Del Cerro, C. R., 81

Cramer, P., 240 Del Giudice, M., 42, 98, 107, 108, 109, 110,
Crawford, E. R., 265 111, 250
Crawford, T. N., 51, 187, 347 DeLamater, J. D., 175
Creasey, G., 148 Delisle, G., 409
Crews, D., 75 DeLongis, A., 218
Cribbet, M. R., 107, 110 Denton, W., 397
Crispi, E. L., 325 Depue, R. A., 73, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81
Crittenden, P. M., 110, 111 Derlega, V. J., 205
Crocker, J., 224 Derzon, J. H., 362
Croft, C. M., 51 Desivilya, H. S., 277
Crosby, R., 298 DeVito, C. C., 5, 287, 307
Cross, S. E., 210 DeWall, C., 47, 174
Crouter, A. C., 274 Dewitte, M., 106, 409
Crowell, J., 13, 107, 403, 404 Dewitte, S., 87
Crowell, S. E., 107 DeWolff, M., 11
Crowther, J. H., 358 Diamond, D., 403
Cummings, E., 108, 110, 329 Diamond, L. M., 3, 50, 70, 73, 74, 97, 106,
Cunningham, M. R., 223 107, 110, 146, 170, 293, 294, 295, 305,
Cusato, B., 78 307, 355
Cutrona, C. E., 203, 205, 206, 218 Diana, M., 77
Cyr, C., 377 Dickenson, J., 70
Cyranowski, J. M., 172, 304 Dickerson, S. S., 99
Diegnan, T., 205
Dale, A., 76 Dieperink, M., 352
Daleiden, E. L., 386 Dilworth-Anderson, P., 324
Dalgleish, T. L., 6, 393, 399, 400, 406 Diorio, J., 54, 77
Dallos, R., 298 Ditzen, B., 73, 205
Dalton, G., 358 Dix, T., 245
Dalton, J., 397 Dolev, T., 354
Daly, J. A., 149, 185 Domes, G., 363
Damsma, G., 76 Domjan, M., 78
Dan, O., 48, 267 Donenberg, G. R., 298
Dangelmayer, G., 209 Donnellan, M. B., 32, 51
Daniels, S. I. F., 406 Donzella, B., 102, 291
Daus, C. S., 266 Doron, G., 5, 6, 346, 347, 352, 353, 356, 358,
Davaji, R. B. O., 347 361, 363
Davidovitz, R., 137, 262, 267, 268 Doussard-Roosevelt, J. A., 100
Davidson, R. J., 73, 135, 205 Dowd, J. B., 296
Davila, J., 107, 113, 351, 402, 403, 406 Doyle, W. J., 209, 304
Davis, D., 173, 178, 179, 180, 181, 408 Dozier, M., 6, 102, 358, 374, 377, 378, 379,
Davis, K. E., 160 382, 386, 387
Davis, M. C., 304 Drabick, D. A. G., 108
Davis, N. V., 107 Drake, K., 289
Dawson, G., 47 Drevets, W. C., 44
De Dreu, C. K., 52 Drew, J. B., 218
De Geus, E. J. C., 101 Dror, E., 244
De Houwer, J., 106 Drury, S. S., 375
De Schipper, J. C., 102 Dube, M., 148
De Wolff, M., 241 Dudley, K. L., 150, 152, 153, 154, 155,
DeBuse, C. J., 287, 289, 291, 292, 293 156
Decaluwé, V., 298 Duggal, S., 347, 351
Deci, E. L., 113, 200, 208, 224 Dunbar, R. I. M., 78, 79
DeFife, J. A., 352 Dunkel-Schetter, C., 203, 287
DeGood, D., 205 Dunne, S., 76
Dekel, R., 352 Dupuy, E., 181, 409
Dekel, S., 352 Durik, A. M., 243, 275
Dekovic, M., 198 Dykas, M. J., 157, 239, 333
428 Author Index
Eastwick, P. W., 187 Fehr, B., 42, 68, 72, 113, 129, 402
Edelstein, R. S., 239, 246, 249, 251 Feiring, C., 113
Edens, J. L., 205 Feldman, R., 54, 377, 378
Egan, M., 405 Feldt, T., 274
Egeland, B., 12, 21, 105, 107, 112, 215, 321, Felitti, V. J., 291
346, 347, 350, 351, 354, 384 Felmlee, D., 160
Ehrlich, K. B., 250, 251 Ferenz-Gillies, R., 148, 358
Eiler, W. J., 82 Ferguson, M., 274
Ein-Dor, T., 5, 6, 308, 346, 347, 352, 353, 356, Fernandes, C., 243
357, 358, 361, 363 Fernández-Guasti, A., 82
Einstein, A., 346 Ferris, C. F., 54
Eisenberger, N. I., 47, 58, 73, 130, 398 Festjens, A., 87
Ekman, P., 398 Fibiger, H. C., 76
El-Hodiri, M., 59 Field, T., 378
Elicker, J., 15 Fieldstone, A., 100
Elklit, A., 243 Figueredo, A. J., 30
Elliot, A. J., 42, 199 Filippi, S., 183
Ellis, B. J., 30, 33, 98, 107, 108, 110, 175 Fincham, F. D., 203
Ellison, P. T., 187 Fine, M., 200
Elmore-Staton, L., 107 Finkel, E. J., 154, 157, 187
El-Sheikh, C. D., 108 Finnegan, H., 334
El-Sheikh, M., 100, 107, 108, 110 Finzi-Dottan, R., 242, 243, 247
Emerson, E., 298 Fishbach, A., 210
Emilien, G., 131 Fisher, H., 72, 182, 184
Emmons, R. A., 209 Fisher, J. D., 205
Eng, W., 350 Fisher, P., 102, 103
Engdahl, B., 352 Fishman, E., 205
Engler, P. A., 358 Fitzgerald, M. E., 79
Englund, M. M., 20, 302 Fitzpatrick, D. K., 351
Enns, V., 42, 68, 113, 402 Fitzsimons, G. M., 210
Enrico, P., 77 Fleming, C. B., 385
Erdly, W. W., 218 Fleming, W., 148, 358
Erel, O., 252 Fletcher, G. J. O., 137, 149
Erez, A., 277 Fletcher, L., 301
Erickson, A., 72 Florian, V., 111, 129, 162, 238, 242, 243, 245,
Erickson, M. F., 292, 384 247, 249, 265, 267, 349, 351, 352, 354
Erickson, M. R., 378 Foddy, M., 319
Esbjørn, B. H., 349 Folkman, S., 203
Eskenazi, B., 107 Fonagy, P., 54, 55, 56, 97, 251, 393, 403
Euser, E. M., 377 Fontana, A. M., 205
Evans, L., 319, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 334, Forbes, E. E., 378
338 Ford, C. S., 182
Eysenck, M. W., 357 Ford, M. B., 71, 73, 203, 205, 222, 408
Fosha, D., 393
Fagundes, C. P., 50, 110, 294, 295, 296, 307 Foshee, V., 298
Faig, H. G., 101 Foster, C. A., 154
Farber, E., 14, 215 Fowler, J. C., 350
Farrell, A., 129, 159 Fowler, R. S., 300
Farrington, D. P., 361 Fox, L., 324
Fazzari, D. A., 352 Fraiberg, S., 382
Fearon, R. M. P., 32, 289 Fraley, R. C., 2, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20, 26, 27,
Feeney, B. C., 3, 15, 71, 135, 136, 137, 146, 28, 29, 32, 34, 44, 51, 52, 107, 113, 126,
157, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 158, 187, 238, 249, 279, 291, 330, 333,
203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 214, 346, 352, 402
215, 216, 218, 219, 222, 223, 224, 238, Frank, E., 304
241, 289, 305, 307, 323, 357, 359, 408 Frankenhuis, W. E., 111
Feeney, J. A., 173, 174, 176, 206, 240, 241, Franks, M. M., 299
243, 299, 303, 333, 346, 408 Fredrickson, B. L., 128
Author Index 429
Freeman, H., 241 Gobrogge K. L., 182

Frenn, K., 103 Gold, D. P., 326
Fresco, D. M., 356 Goldberg, S., 300, 301, 384
Friedman, M., 242 Golden, R., 397
Frigerio, A., 108, 295 Goldenberg, J. L., 175
Fritz, H. L., 218, 222 Goldey, K. L., 87
Frohlich, P. F., 76, 80 Goldsamt, L., 353
Frostell, A., 243 Goldstein, A., 48
Frueh, B. C., 350 Gomez, J. J., 356
Furey, T., 76 Gonzaga, G. C., 208
Furman, W., 17, 18, 206, 298 Gonzalez, C., 185
Furnham, A., 262, 263 González-Romá, V., 272
Furrer, C., 241 Goodman, G. S., 239, 240
Goossens, L., 298
Gabbay, N., 409 Gooty, J., 271
Gable, S. L., 208 Gooze, R. A., 298
Gagnon, J. H., 175 Gordon, A. M., 159, 173
Gallagher, M., 347 Gordon, K. A., 382
Gallo, L. C., 305 Gordon, K. C., 185
Gallois, C., 173, 299 Gore, J. S., 210
Galynker, I. I., 54 Gore-Felton, C., 352
Gamble, S. A., 351 Gormley, B., 107, 113
Gamble, W., 148 Gotlib, I. H., 356, 363
Game, A. M., 262, 270 Gottman, J., 218, 220, 394
Gangestad, S. W., 30, 176 Goubert, L., 106
Gans, D., 324 Gouin, J., 251
Gant, D. L., 270 Gouin, J.-P., 297, 308
Gao, Y., 404 Graham, J., 362
Gardner, S., 244 Graham, S. M., 150
Garrett-Peters, P., 102 Gramzow, R., 149
Gatzke-Kopp, L. M., 107 Grandjean, D., 45
Gauvain, M., 376 Grandner, M. A., 304
Ge, F., 5, 287 Granger, D. A., 102
Gehrman, P. R., 304 Grassman, R., 209
Geller, D., 278 Gratton, A., 77
Gentzler, A. L., 173, 174, 176, 299 Grav, S., 357
George, C., 234, 236, 237, 322, 376 Gray, J. A., 75
Germain, A., 304, 305 Gray, P. B., 187
Gessa, G. L., 83 Green, A., 339
Geurts, S., 274 Green, B. L., 241
Ghosh Ippen, C., 382 Greenberg, G. R., 351
Gibson, B. E., 324 Greenberg, J., 131
Gibson, G., 33 Greenberg, L. S., 406
Gick, M. L., 299 Greenman, P., 397, 399
Giesbrecht, B., 44 Grekin, E. R., 356
Gilissen, R., 108 Grewen, K., 205
Gill, K. L., 102 Grewen, K. M., 73
Gillath, O., 4, 32, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, Grich, J., 152, 158, 239, 320, 357
49, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 88, 130, 132, Griffin, D. W., 333
133, 172, 173, 178, 182, 183, 185, 238, Griskevicius, V., 30
322, 323, 336, 409 Groh, A. M., 17, 33
Ginzburg, K., 352 Gross, C., 51
Girdler, S., 73, 205 Gross, J. J., 150, 356
Girme, Y. U., 149 Gross, P., 401
Given, C. W., 325 Grossmann, K. E., 292
Glaser, R., 296 Guberman, N., 324
Glendinning, C., 200 Guerrero, L. K., 178, 240, 243
Glover, V., 103 Guichard, A., 71, 136, 203, 205, 222, 408
430 Author Index
Guiney, J., 97 Herrmann, S., 327

Gump, B. B., 135 Hershcovis, M. S., 278
Günaydin, G., 71, 73, 81, 130 Hertsgaard, L., 292, 378
Gunlicks, M., 50, 106, 251, 293 Heslenfeld, D. J., 47
Gunnar, M. R., 97, 102, 103, 104, 105, 109, Hesse, E., 104, 106, 237, 378
110, 111, 245, 291, 292, 293, 294, 349, Hessler, D. M., 100, 101
375, 376, 378 Hicks, A. M., 106, 107, 146, 293, 305
Gupta, A., 75 Hill, E. M., 299
Gurney, K., 49 Hill, J., 361
Gwadz, M. V., 353 Hill, R., 159
Hill-Barlow, D., 149
Hackett, R. D., 269 Hilliard, S., 78, 79
Haggerty, D., 387 Hillyard, S. A., 48
Halfon, O., 106 Hinde, K., 53
Hall, M., 304 Hinde, R. A., 75, 110
Hallmayer, J. F., 363 Hinkin, T. R., 264
Haltigan, J. D., 12, 15, 26, 27, 28 Hinnant, J. B., 107, 110
Hamelin, M., 148 Hinnen, C., 350
Hamilton, C. E., 107, 113 Hirschberger, G., 42, 130, 175, 179, 185, 308
Hammen, C., 113 Hirsh, J., 46
Hammond, M. T., 149 Hoffman, K., 196, 382, 383
Hankin, B. L., 351 Hohaus, L., 243
Hanrahan, M., 333 Holahan, C. J., 358
Hardy, G. E., 273 Holahan, C. K., 358
Harris, T. O., 360 Holder, J. S., 209
Harrison, M. J. G., 339 Holland, A., 18, 51, 238, 279
Hart, J., 42, 60 Holmes, B. M., 173, 174
Hart, T. A., 350 Holmes, J., 160
Harvey, A., 354 Holmes, J. G., 355
Hasler, B. P., 305 Holoway, R. M., 356
Hauser, S. T., 354 Holt-Lunstad, J., 287
Hawkley, L., 394 Holtom, B. C., 278
Hawley, P. H., 200 Holwerda, N., 309
Haydon, K. C., 13 Honk, J. V., 87
Hayes, A., 172 Horesh, N., 131, 352
Hazan, C., 2, 11, 16, 42, 68, 69, 71, 73, 81, Horne-Moyer, H. L., 403
130, 170, 171, 173, 182, 235, 237, 240, Horowitz, L., 14, 173, 263, 333, 405
244, 246, 249, 261, 262, 263, 273, 276, Horowitz, M. J., 351, 358
308, 333, 403, 408 Hostinar, C., 97, 102, 103, 109, 110, 111,
Heape, C. L., 405 382
Heatherton, T. F., 149 Houts, R. M., 31
Heavey, C. L., 159 Howard, K. S., 240, 243, 246
Heffernan, M. E., 29, 238 Huber, D. M., 267
Heim, C., 101 Hucklebridge, F., 105
Heiman, J., 411 Hunter, A. L., 102, 103
Heimberg, R. G., 350, 356 Hunter, J. J., 106, 287, 300, 301, 305, 351
Heinlein, L., 175 Huntsinger, E., 299
Heinrich, C. C., 200 Huston, L., 350
Heinrichs, M., 363 Huston, T. L., 31
Helgeson, V. S., 218 Hyde, J., 175, 243, 275
Heller, D., 262
Hellhammer, D. H., 101 Ickes, W., 357
Hellige, J. B., 47 Igram, S., 203
Hellzèn, O., 357 Ijzak, R., 137
Hendler, T., 54 Ilg, U., 102
Hepper, E., 241 Illing, V., 347
Heppner, P. P., 349 Immele, A., 353
Herbert, J., 77 Impett, E. A., 69, 150, 156, 173, 176, 181, 208
Author Index 431
Imran, A., 59 Karantzas, K. M., 324

Ingram, C. D., 74 Karney, B. R., 31, 107, 402
Innes-Ker, A. H., 48 Karremans, J. C., 47
Insel, T. R., 53, 54, 74, 376 Kashy, D. A., 148, 179, 406
Inzlicht, M., 46 Kassel, J. D., 351
Ireland, J. L., 353 Katcher, A. H., 205
Irnaten, M., 78 Katon, W. J., 299, 303, 309, 350
Iwaniec, D., 247 Katona, C., 326
Izsak, R., 262, 267 Katz, J., 206
Katz, L. F., 100, 101, 108, 110
Jackson, K. M., 353 Keane, S. P., 102
Jackson, N. J., 304 Keating, J. P., 133
Jackson, S. E., 271 Keedian, E., 72, 129
Jaffe, K., 206, 288, 289 Keelan, J. P. R., 42, 68, 113, 402
Jakubiak, B. K., 3, 195 Keenan, K., 362
Janicki-Deverts, D., 304 Kelitikangas-Järvinen, L., 246
Jaremka, L., 136, 205, 206, 293, 297 Keller, M. B., 378
Järvenpää, A., 246 Keller, P. S., 108
Jean-Louis, G., 304 Keller, T., 266, 268, 269, 270, 280
Jennings, J. R., 205 Kelley, H. H., 159
Jensen, M., 350 Kelly, F. D., 240
John, O. P., 150 Kelly, J. F., 385
Johnson, A. E., 375 Kelly-Irving, M., 291
Johnson, K. R., 173, 174 Kelsay, K., 293
Johnson, M. C., 102 Kelsey, R. M., 205
Johnson, M. H., 376 Keltikangas-Järvinen, L., 13, 51
Johnson, P. D., 264 Kemeny, M. E., 99
Johnson, S., 406 Kennedy, P. J., 45
Johnson, S. C., 52, 363 Kenrick, D. T., 182
Johnson, S. L., 363 Kerns, K. A., 173, 174, 176, 295, 299
Johnson, S. M., 6, 393, 394, 395, 397, 398, Kerr, M., 250
399, 400, 401, 402, 405, 406, 407, 409, Kershaw, T. S., 309
411, 412, 413 Kessler, R. C., 129, 218, 306
Joiner, T., 358, 359 Kestenbaum, R., 14, 16, 294
Jokela, M., 13, 51 Keverne, E. B., 78
Jones, J. D., 4, 234, 239, 250, 251 Kidd, T., 303
Jones, W. H., 150 Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., 218, 287, 294, 296, 305,
Joplin, J. R. W., 264, 266, 270 308
Judge, T. A., 262 Kiefe, C. I., 291
Juffer, F., 383, 384 Kiefer, A. K., 224
Julien, D., 148 Kilmann, P. R., 241, 246
Kim, Y., 326
Kahlenberg, S. M., 187 King, L. A., 209
Kahn, R., 329 Kinnunen, U., 274
Kahneman, D., 76 Kirkpatrick, L. A., 160, 305, 403
Kajantie, E., 104 Kirsch, P., 363
Kalb, L. M., 361 Kirschbaum, C., 101
Kalichman, S. C., 174 Kivimäki, M., 291
Kalish, R. A., 324 Kleinplatz, P. J., 411
Kalkose, M., 105 Klepac, L., 295
Kamarck, T. W., 135, 205 Klerman, G. L., 378
Kane, H., 136, 203, 205, 206, 222, 297 Kline, R. P., 100
Kanninen, K., 352 Klinnert, M. D., 293
Kaplan, H. S., 30 Klohnen, E. C., 113
Kaplan, M., 210, 220 Klump, K., 32, 51
Kaplan, N., 106, 234, 237, 327 Knight, B., 324
Karantzas, G. C., 5, 319, 324, 325, 326, 327, Knight, K. M., 224
328, 333, 334, 338 Knight, P. A., 273, 274
432 Author Index
Knudtson, F. W., 324 Langbehn, D., 354

Kobak, R., 127, 148, 350, 358 Languirand, M. A., 199, 200
Kobor, M. S., 296 Lanigan, L., 242
Kochanska, G., 289 Larkin, K. T., 205
Koehnle, T. J., 104 Larson, L. A., 173
Koenen, K. C., 296 Larson, L. M., 288, 350
Koga, S. F., 375 Laser-Brandt, D., 175
Koh Rangarajoo, E., 42 Lau, W., 243
Kohlhoff, J., 246 Laurent, H., 106
Kohn, J. L., 247 Lavy, S., 238
Koh-Rangarajoo, E., 68, 113, 402 Laws, H., 308
Kolody, B., 361 Layton, J. B., 287
Komisaruk, B. R., 78 Lazarus, R., 203
Kopp, C. B., 376 Le, B. M., 156
Kor, A., 243, 247 Le, H. N., 356
Koren-Karie, N., 248 Leadbeater, B. J., 351
Korfmacher, J., 384 Lebow, J., 395
Koski, L. R., 321 Lecce, S., 384
Kotchick, B. A., 16 Lecours, S., 174
Kotler, T., 185, 206 LeDoux, J. E., 45, 360
Kouros, C. D., 108 Lee, S., 71
Kovács, G., 77, 79, 83, 84 Lee, T. W., 278
Kratz, A. L., 304 Leerkes, E., 244, 247, 376
Kring, A. M., 356 Lehman, B. J., 291, 292
Kronhaus, K. D., 100 Lehman, M. N., 79
Kroonenberg, P. M., 277 Lehtimäki, T., 13, 51
Kross, E., 73, 130 Leiter, M. P., 271
Krueger, R. F., 347, 348, 353 Lejuez, C. W., 250, 251
Kruger, T. H., 80 Lemay, E. P., Jr., 4, 145, 148, 149, 150, 152,
Kubzansky, L. D., 296 153, 154, 155, 156, 206
Kugler, K., 150 Lembke, J., 5, 287
Kuhl, J., 105 Lemche, E., 45
Kuhn, J., 239 Lemeshow, S., 298
Kumashiro, M., 157 Lench, H. C., 246
Kunce, L. J., 203, 238 Lengua, L. J., 104
Kuo, P. X., 87 Leonard, N. R., 353
Kuo, S. I., 13, 20, 30, 162 LePine, J. A., 265
Kuo, S. I.-C., 308 Lepore, S. J., 205
Kurzban, R., 73 Lepri, B., 350
Kwako, L. E., 243 Lerner, J. S., 292
Kyrios, M., 347 Leskela, J., 352
Leung, D. Y. M., 293
La Guardia, J. G., 113, 208 Levendosky, A., 32, 51
La Valley, A. G., 240, 243 Levenson, R. W., 218, 220
Labouvie-Vief, G., 107, 113 Levesque, C., 402
Lachman, M. E., 301, 302 Levine, A., 54
Lachmann, F. M., 378 Levine, R. V., 353
Ladd, C. O., 101 Levine, S., 103
Lafontaine, M.-F., 6, 393, 402, 409 Levinger, G., 42
Laible, D., 14 Levitt, M. J., 329
Lakatos, K., 51 Levy, K., 403
Lakey, B., 218 Lewinsohn, P. M., 378
Lamy, D., 357 Lewis, M., 113, 299, 308
Lancee, W. J., 106, 305, 351 Lewis-Morrarty, E., 382
Land, D., 198 Li, C., 246
Landsverk, J., 386 Li, H., 184
Lane, R. D., 101 Li, T., 43
Lang, S., 294 Liang, J., 325
Author Index 433
Liberzon, I., 74, 82 Maimburg, R. D., 243

Lieberman, A. F., 382 Main, M., 49, 104, 106, 110, 172, 215, 234,
Lieberman, M., 47, 55, 56, 398 237, 327, 331, 378, 393
Liebowitz, M. R., 350 Maiti, A. K., 100
Lifrak, P. D., 357 Makinen, J. A., 400
Light, K. C., 73, 205 Malenka, R. C., 81
Lightman, S. L., 74, 79, 80, 183 Mallinckrodt, B., 173, 270, 288, 349, 350, 404
Lim, M. M., 53, 77 Mancini, J. A., 324
Lind, T., 382 Mangelsdorf, S., 105, 293, 294
Linden, R. C., 269 Maninger, N., 53
Linting, M., 108 Manly, J. T., 382
Lipkus, I., 154 Manohar, U., 242, 245, 246
Lipsey, M. W., 362 Mansell, W., 354
Lipson, S. F., 187 Manuck, S. B., 205
Little, B. R., 209 Marganska, A., 347, 349
Little, K. C., 152, 177 Markiewicz, D., 326
Little, L. M., 264, 271, 272, 273, 277, 278 Markon, K. E., 347, 348, 353
Little, T. D., 200 Marschall, D. E., 149
Littman-Ovadia, H., 138 Marshall, T., 178, 179
Litzinger, S., 185 Marsland, K., 200
Liu, J., 57 Martensz, N. D., 78
Liu, Y., 73, 74, 182 Martorell, G. A., 292
Livesley, W. J., 347 Marvin, R., 196, 329, 382
Livingston, G., 326 Mashek, D., 184
Loeber, R., 361, 362 Masi, C., 394
Loman, M. M., 375 Maslach, C., 271
Lopez, F. G., 107, 113, 267, 271, 273 Massey, A. R., 102
Lopez-Hartmann, M., 339 Masten, A. S., 23, 25
Lorber, M. F., 354 Master, S. L., 73, 130, 136
Lorenz, L., 375 Matas, L., 215
Loveday, C., 105 Mathews, A., 357
Lowry, J., 16 Matos, P., 242
Luchies, L. B., 157 Matsick, J. L., 187
Ludvigsson, J., 243 Matthew, D., 398
Luecken, L. J., 102, 299, 301 Matthews, K. A., 305
Lussier, Y., 174, 409 Matzner, W. T., 73
Luster, T., 298 Maughan, A., 382
Luu, P., 81 Maughan, B., 361
Luyten, P., 54, 97 Maunder, R. G., 106, 107, 287, 300, 301, 305,
Lydon, J., 132, 180, 203 351
Lynch, J. J., 205 Mayes, L. C., 97
Lyons-Ruth, K., 378 Mayseless, O., 242, 244, 245, 246, 248, 262,
266
MacDonald, G., 304 McAllister, C., 241
MacDonald, K., 55 McCabe, M., 173, 324, 409
MacDonald, T. M., 55 McCall, C., 136, 205
Macfie, J., 14 McCallum, T., 324
Machin, A. J., 78, 79 McCubbin, J. A., 73
MacIntosh, H., 397 McDonough, S. C., 384
Mackay, S., 394 McElhaney, K. B., 353, 354
Mackey, S., 78, 131 McElwain, N. L., 14, 16, 17
MacLeod, C., 357 McEwen, B., 109, 216, 291
Maddux, J. E., 210, 220 McGinn, M. M., 289
Madigan, S., 104, 237, 384 McGregor, I., 46
Magai, C., 325, 326, 334 McGuire, M. T., 51
Maheu, P., 324 McHale, S. M., 274
Maier, U., 102 McKay, J. R., 357
Maille, C., 324 McManus, B., 172
434 Author Index
McNally, A. M., 353 Moore, D., 198

McNally, L., 339 Moore, E. N., 100
McNally, R. J., 357 Moore, G. A., 100, 102
McNulty, J. K., 71, 152, 177, 185 Moore, M. R., 298
McWilliams, L., 290, 306 Moore, M. T., 356
Mead, H. K., 107 Moore, S., 382
Meade, E., 386, 387 Moorman, R. H., 277
Meaney, M. J., 53, 54, 77 Moors, A. C., 187
Measelle, J., 110 Moos, R. S., 358
Meesters, C., 349, 350 Morrone-Strupinsky, J. V., 73, 76, 77, 79,
Meeus, W. H. J., 198 81
Meins, E., 248 Morry, M. M., 334
Melis, M., 77 Moskovitz, J., 59
Mellen, S. L. W., 182 Moss, S., 273
Meltzer, A. L., 71 Motowidlo, S. J., 277
Mennin, D. S., 356 Moulding, R., 347
Meredith, P., 241, 246, 303 Mount, M. K., 262
Merrick, S., 107 Mrazek, D. A., 293, 300
Merrill, S., 2, 11, 68 Muise, A., 69
Meston, C. M., 76, 80, 183 Muller, R., 243
Meyer, B., 347, 405 Mulligan, K. T., 339
Meyer-Lindenberg, A., 363 Munakata, Y., 376
Mickelson, K. D., 129, 306 Munholland, K. A., 11, 44, 71, 237
Middleton, K., 173 Münte, T. F., 48
Mikulincer, M., 3, 4, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 48, Muraven, M., 101
59, 71, 72, 88, 111, 124, 125, 126, 127, Muris, P., 349, 350
128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, Murphy, B., 351
138, 146, 148, 157, 162, 163, 171, 172, Murphy, J., 263
173, 174, 175, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, Murphy, K. R., 264
185, 238, 239, 242, 243, 245, 247, 249, Murphy, M. R., 79, 80, 183
252, 261, 262, 263, 265, 267, 271, 272, Murray, S. L., 151
273, 274, 277, 279, 280, 288, 289, 298,
305, 308, 320, 321, 322, 324, 333, 334, Nachmias, M., 105, 292, 378
336, 346, 347, 349, 351, 352, 354, 355, Nachmias, O., 42, 130, 354
356, 357, 358, 359, 395, 404, 407, 408, Nagurney, A. J., 218
409, 410 Nash, K., 46
Miller, A. H., 101, 288 Nathanson, A. I., 242, 245, 246
Miller, B., 324 Nedeljkovic, M., 347
Miller, E. K., 44 Neill, W. T., 357
Miller, G. E., 99, 103, 291, 292, 293, 296, 301, Nelis, S. M., 326, 327, 334, 338
302, 303 Nelligan, J. S., 73, 146, 199, 238, 336
Millings, A., 241, 408 Nelson, C. A., 375
Mills-Koonce, W. R., 102, 105, 239, 241, 243, Nelson, D. L., 264, 271, 281
251 Nelson, E. E., 74
Miner, K. N., 281 Nelson, E. M., 385
Minnis, H., 102 Nelson, L., 33
Minzenberg, M. J., 246 Nemeroff, C. B., 101
Miranda, R., 347 Neria, Y., 352, 357
Mischel, W., 13, 48, 71 Nes, L. S., 101
Mitchell, T. R., 278 Neumann, E., 400
Mitchell, V., 107, 113 Neumann, S. A., 101
Mizrahi, M., 185 Neustadt, E. A., 261, 263, 276
Mletzko, T., 101 Newland, L. A., 241
Mogg, K., 357 Newman, J., 300
Moncher, F. J., 240 Newman, S. P., 339
Monin, J. K., 309 Newport, D. J., 101
Montague, P., 54, 251 Newton, T. L., 287
Moore, B. M., 353 Nguyen, M., 78
Author Index 435
Nicol, C. W., 209 Owens, G., 13

Niedenthal, P. M., 48 Oxford, M. L., 385
Niehoff, B. F., 277
Niiya, Y., 224 Packer, D. J., 131
Nikamal, M., 347 Paetzold, R. L., 5, 261, 281
Nitzberg, R. A., 133, 238, 336, 409 Pagel, M. D., 218
Noftle, E., 42, 262 Pak, V. M., 304
Nolan, R. P., 106 Palermo, T. M., 296
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., 347, 348, 356, 357, 360 Palfai, T. P., 353
Noll, J. G., 243 Palys, T. S., 209
Noller, P., 174, 176, 241, 243, 246, 333, 346, Panksepp, J., 54, 74, 75, 87, 398
349 Papp, L. M., 308
Nolte, T., 97 Park, L. E., 224
Noom, M. M., 198 Parke, S., 78, 131
Novak, S. A., 299 Parker, J. G., 18
Noyes, R., 309 Parker, K. J., 99, 303, 363
Nygren, M., 243 Parmigiani, G., 352
Parnell, M. M., 241
O’Brien, C. P., 357 Parra, G. R., 353
O’Brien, M., 102, 241 Parritz, R. H., 105, 293
Ochsner, K. N., 363 Paskewitz, D. A., 205
O’Connor, T. G., 51, 103, 110, 112 Patty, J., 174
O’Doherty, J. P., 76 Paul, E. L., 172
O’Donnell, K., 103 Peana, A. T., 77
Ogawa, J., 347, 384 Pears, K. C., 103
Ognibene, T. C., 359 Pearson, J., 245
Ohry, A., 352 Péloquin, K., 181, 409
Oldham, J. M., 350 Pendry, P., 308
O’Leary, K., 155 Peplau, L. A., 173, 176, 181
Oliet, C., 74 Peragine, D., 69
Oliva, A., 74 Pereg, D., 72
Olson, M. A., 71 Perez, S. M., 376
Omodei, M. M., 209 Pérez-Segarra, C. D., 74
Ones, D. S., 278 Pergamin, L., 357
Oosterman, M., 102, 104, 105 Perren, S., 327
Oppenheim, D., 248 Perry, A., 356
Orcutt, H. K., 358 Perry, N. B., 102
Orgad, T., 356 Pesonen, A., 246
Organ, D. W., 277 Petersen, R. W., 110
Oriña, M. M., 135, 148, 158, 159, 203, 238, Peterson, C., 173, 243, 299
239, 289 Pfaff, D. W., 76
Orpaz, A., 88, 172, 409 Pfaus, J. G., 76, 79
Ortigo, K. M., 352 Phelps, E. A., 45
O’Shaughnessy, R., 298 Phibbs, E., 327
Oskis, A., 105, 107 Philibert, R. A., 289
Osterhout, L., 48, 71 Philippe, F., 174
Ostrowski, N. L., 83 Phillips, D., 148, 178, 238, 263, 307
O’Sullivan, L. F., 175 Phillips-Farfán, B. V., 82
Otter-Henderson, K., 146 Pianta, R., 347
Otter-Henderson, K. A., 106 Picken, A. L., 352
Otter-Henderson, K. D., 293 Pierce, G. R., 203, 216
Out, D., 251 Pierce, T., 132
Overall, N. C., 4, 137, 145, 148, 149, 150, Pierrehumbert, B., 106
151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 158, 159, 161, Pietromonaco, P. R., 5, 50, 55, 56, 71, 106,
162, 163, 164 206, 251, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292,
Overbey, G. A., 246 293, 295, 298, 303, 307, 308
Owen, M. T., 18, 51, 279 Pilkonis, P. A., 347, 405
Owens, C., 326 Pines, A. M., 272
436 Author Index
Pirutinsky, S., 243 Reis, M., 326

Plotsky, P. M., 101 Reizer, A., 352, 361
Pluess, M., 33, 107, 108, 110 Remmen, R., 339
Pohl, J. M., 325, 326 Repetti, R. L., 109, 291, 292, 295, 308
Polk, D. E., 135 Rholes, W. S., 1, 73, 97, 106, 135, 146, 148,
Pollina, L., 329 152, 158, 163, 178, 199, 200, 203, 238,
Popper, M., 137, 262, 266, 267 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246, 251,
Porat, O., 178 252, 263, 288, 289, 307, 320, 336, 338,
Porges, S. W., 78, 100 351, 357, 403
Porter, A. E., 102 Richards, D. A., 262, 263, 269, 277, 278
Porter, C. L., 102 Riddlesberger, M. M., 239
Possick, H., 352 Riem, M. E., 251
Powell, B., 196, 382 Rigatuso, J., 292
Power, C. L., 353 Riksen-Walraven, J. M., 105
Powers, A. M., 176 Rinaman, L., 104
Powers, S. I., 50, 71, 106, 251, 287, 289, 293, Ritchie, K., 403
294, 303, 307, 308 Rittenhouse, J., 379
Prentice, M., 46 Roben, C. K. P., 6, 374, 386
Prescott, T. J., 49 Roberto, K. A., 324
Pressman, S., 59, 209 Roberts, J. E., 351
Priel, B., 242, 246 Robertson, J., 10
Proietti, J. M., 405 Robert-Tissot, C., 384
Propper, C., 104 Robin, L., 48
Pruessner, J. C., 105 Robles, T. F., 218, 289, 297
Puig, J., 20, 302 Rockliff, H., 52
Pulkkinen, L., 274 Rodin, G., 243
Punamaki, R. L., 352 Rodrigues-Doolabh, L. M., 332
Putnam, F. W., 243 Rodriguez, A., 102, 386
Pyszczynski, T., 131 Rodriguez, C. M., 240
Rodriguez-Srednicki, O., 352
Qouta, S., 352 Rogers, C., 397
Quas, J. A., 239, 246 Rogge, R. D., 71
Quevedo, K., 376 Roggman, L. A., 326
Quick, J. C., 264, 281 Rogosch, F. A., 52, 103, 105, 382
Quick, J. D., 264 Roisman, G. I., 2, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 26, 27, 28,
Quinlivan, J. A., 110 32, 33, 34, 51, 107, 112, 113, 148, 187,
Quirin, M., 49, 50, 105, 107 238, 249, 279, 333, 402
Rom, E., 132, 265
Raby, K. L., 27, 28 Romano, J., 350
Radecki-Bush, C., 129 Rombouts, S. B., 251
Raghavan, C., 356 Romild, U., 357
Räikkönen, K., 104, 246 Ronen, S., 138, 271, 272, 273, 274
Raleigh, M. J., 51 Rook, K. S., 218, 299
Ramey, C. T., 377 Rosenberg, S. E., 405
Ramey, S. L., 377 Rosenberg, T., 298
Ransford, C. R., 274 Rosenblatt, S., 385
Rasmussen, P. R., 200 Rosenbluth, D., 10
Rathmann, W., 291 Rosenthal, S., 113
Raver, C. C., 292, 376, 379 Ross, E., 382
Ray, R. D., 58 Rostain, A., 357
Raz, S., 48 Rothman, A. J., 159
Read, S. J., 129, 244, 246, 249, 263, 406 Rottenberg, J., 356
Redgrave, P., 49 Rovine, M., 198
Reedy, M. N., 185 Rowe, A. C., 132
Regan, P. C., 170 Ruben, M. A., 303, 304
Reis, H. T., 42, 71, 88, 160, 172, 173, 174, Rubin, H., 185
175, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 199, 205, Rudnick, J. R., 149
206, 208, 304, 355, 409 Rudolph, K. D., 241
Author Index 437
Ruehlman, L. S., 209 Schuengel, C., 102, 378, 379

Rusbult, C. E., 154, 159 Schultheiss, O. C., 209
Russell, D., 203, 404 Schulz, R., 309
Russell, M., 152 Schutte, K. K., 358
Russell, V. M., 177, 185 Schwartz, G. E., 47
Russo, J. E., 303, 309, 350 Schweizer, S., 356
Ryan, R. M., 113, 200, 208, 224 Seckl, J. R., 79, 80, 183
Ryan, S. M., 303 Seeman, T. E., 109, 291, 292
Segerstrom, S. C., 101
Sabag, Y., 277 Segrin, C., 359
Sablynski, C. J., 278 Seidel, M., 72, 129
Sackett, P. R., 278 Selcuk, E., 42, 71, 73, 84, 130, 239, 240, 251
Sadava, S., 173, 174, 176 Senatore, R., 350
Sadler, L., 384 Sesko, A. K., 42
Sage, R. M., 292 Sexton, T., 395
Sahdra, B. K., 134 Shaffer, L., 17
Sakata, J. T., 75 Shaffer, M. J., 71
Salanova, M., 272 Shafran, R., 354
Salo, J., 13, 34, 51 Shah, J. Y., 210
Salomon, K., 107 Shahrokh, D. K., 77, 83
Salvatore, J. E., 13, 162, 308 Shalit, A., 267
Sanchez, M. M., 101 Shanks, N., 74
Sander, D., 45 Shapiro, C. M., 176
Sanftner, J. L., 358 Shapiro, M. L., 45
Sapir, Y., 247 Shapiro, V., 382
Sapir-Lavid, Y., 128 Sharma, S., 54
Sarason, B. R., 357 Shaver, P. R., 3, 4, 32, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47,
Sarnyai, Z., 77, 83 48, 59, 68, 71, 72, 88, 111, 124, 125,
Sauer, E. M., 267 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133,
Saul, J. P., 100 134, 137, 146, 148, 157, 158, 170, 171,
Saxbe, D., 308 172, 173, 174, 178, 181, 183, 203, 205,
Sayer, A., 50, 106, 251, 289, 293, 308 234, 235, 237, 238, 239, 240, 243, 244,
Sbarra, D. A., 73, 308 246, 249, 252, 261, 262, 263, 265, 267,
Scantamburlo, G., 74 273, 276, 279, 280, 288, 289, 298, 306,
Schachner, D. A., 146, 173, 174, 351, 408 320, 321, 322, 324, 330, 333, 334, 336,
Schaefer, H. S., 73, 135, 205 346, 347, 351, 352, 354, 355, 356, 357,
Schaie, K. W., 185 358, 359, 393, 395, 404, 407, 408, 409,
Schaller, M., 133 410
Scharf, M., 242, 245, 246, 248 Shaw, D. S., 105
Scharfe, E., 113 Shea, B., 384
Schat, A. C. H., 262, 263, 277, 278 Sheehan, G., 349
Schaufeli, W. B., 271, 272 Sheffield, D., 303
Scher, A., 244, 246 Sher, K. J., 353, 356
Schetter, C. D., 297 Shevlin, M., 243
Schiaffino, K., 325 Shields, C., 298
Schieche, M., 102, 293 Shiffman, S. M., 135
Schilling, E. A., 218 Shirtcliff, E. A., 98
Schimel, J., 131 Shizgal, P., 76
Schirmer, L. L., 271, 273 Shoda, Y., 13, 48, 71, 81
Schlegel, A. E., 353 Shonkoff, J., 291
Schlomer, G. L., 30 Shore, L. M., 269
Schmeeckle, M., 160 Shore, R., 377
Schmid, R., 327 Shulman, S., 15, 16
Schmidt, S., 353 Sibley, C. G., 148, 149, 158, 159, 163
Schmitt, D. P., 175 Siegel, D. J., 97
Schneider, B. H., 17 Siepak, K., 244, 247
Schneier, F. R., 51, 350 Silk, J. B., 74
Schore, A. N., 97, 291, 309 Silva, S. S., 102
438 Author Index
Silverberg, S. B., 353 Stayton, D., 215

Silverstein, M., 324 Stearns, S. C., 30
Simmons, B. L., 271, 276 Steele, H., 327, 331
Simmons, J., 33 Steele, R. D., 13, 162, 308
Simmons, R. J., 300 Stefanou, C., 173, 409
Simon, C. D., 308 Stein, A., 384
Simon, V. A., 17 Steinhart, A. H., 351
Simon, W., 175 Stellar, E., 109, 216
Simons, R., 382 Stephan, C. W., 172
Simonsohn, U., 33 Stephens, M. A. P., 299, 300
Simpson, J. A., 1, 5, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 27, 28, Steptoe, A., 291
30, 72, 73, 97, 106, 110, 129, 135, 137, Sternberg, R. J., 185
146, 148, 149, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, Stetler, D., 59
158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 178, 179, 180, Stevenson-Hinde, J., 110, 235
199, 200, 203, 205, 222, 238, 239, 241, Stewart, R. B., 329
242, 252, 263, 288, 289, 302, 306, 307, Stewart-Brown, S., 301
308, 319, 320, 324, 336, 338, 351, 357, Stillwell, A. M., 149
403 Stockdale, G. D., 42
Singer, J. D., 404 Stordal, E., 357
Skoner, D. P., 209 Stotland, E., 133
Skowron, E. A., 102 Stouthamer-Loeber, M., 362
Slade, A., 248, 384 Stovall, K. C., 377
Slatcher, R. B., 289 Stovall-McCloush, C., 403
Slavich, G. M., 33 Strachman, A., 173, 208
Sloan, D. M., 356 Strandberg, T., 246
Slopen, N., 296 Strathearn, L., 54, 251
Slovik, L. F., 154 Stronach, E. P., 104, 105
Small, S. A., 298 Strong, J., 303
Smillie, L. D., 78 Struthers, H., 158
Smith, C. L., 102 Stuhlmacher, A. F., 269, 273, 275
Smith, E. R., 263, 265, 266 Sullivan, M., 350
Smith, F. D., 353 Sumer, H. C., 273, 274
Smith, J., 321, 324, 328, 329 Summers, H., 350
Smith, K. D., 133 Sung, S., 30
Smith, T. B., 287 Susman Stillman, A., 105
Smyke, A. T., 375 Sutton, A., 200
Snell, W. R., 246 Svitelman, N., 178
Snieder, H., 101 Swanson, C., 218, 394
Snydersmith, M. A., 205 Symons, D., 175
Soenens, B., 350 Szabó, G., 77
Sollers, J. J., 101 Szepsenwol, O., 185
Solomon, J., 49, 104, 236, 322, 376
Solomon, M., 199 Takahashi, K., 329
Solomon, Z., 241, 352 Takahashi, M., 48, 71
Sörensen, S., 326 Talitman, E., 398
Southham-Gerow, M. A., 385 Tamayo, T., 291
Spagnola, M., 382 Tan, R., 151, 157, 160
Spagnola, M. E., 110, 112 Tanaka, A., 245, 349
Spangler, G., 102, 292, 293 Tangney, J. P., 149, 289
Spanier, G. B., 404 Tannenbaum, D. W., 106
Spear, J. F., 100 Tardif, C., 17
Spieker, S. J., 333, 385 Tardiff, T. A., 218
Sprecher, S., 160 Tarrier, N., 352
Sroufe, L. A., 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 72, 107, 112, Tarullo, A. R., 375
125, 215, 321, 346, 347, 350, 351, 354, Tasca, G. A., 347, 399, 403
358, 360, 376 Taylor, D. G., 198
Stanton, J. M., 269, 277 Taylor, J. K., 151
Stattin, H., 250 Taylor, S. E., 74, 109, 291, 292
Author Index 439
Teder-Sälejärvi, W. A., 48 van Dillen, L. F., 47

Terraciano, S., 382 Van Doornen, L. J. P., 101
Terry, D., 173, 299 Van Horn, P., 382
Teti, D. M., 16 van IJzendoorn, M. H., 11, 51, 52, 108, 237,
Tett, R., 262, 282 241, 242, 251, 277, 300, 357, 377, 378,
Tharner, A., 49, 50, 105 383
Thayer, J. F., 101 van Kammen, W. B., 362
Thibaut, J. W., 159 Van Lange, P. A., 47
Thomas, A., 294 van Melick, M., 350
Thomas, S. A., 205 van Ryn, M., 218
Thompson, L., 324, 325, 328, 329, 330 Van Ryzin, M. J., 103
Thompson, R., 14, 363 Van Vleet, M., 3, 195, 209, 210
Thomson, D. W., 72, 129 VanderDrift, L. E., 157
Thorn, L., 105 VanDerWege, A., 267
Thornhill, R., 176 Vangelisti, A. L., 149
Thrush, R. L., 137, 207, 208, 214, 215, 219, Vasilev, C. A., 107
224 Vasquez, K., 243, 244, 245, 275, 276
Thuras, P., 352 Vaughn, B. E., 321, 333
Tinbergen, N., 375 Vazsonyi, A. T., 353
Tolmacz, R., 265 Vega, W., 361
Tomaka, J., 205 Vendemia, J. C., 241
Tomich, P. L., 299 Verdecias, R. N., 304
Tondo, L., 350 Verette, J., 154
Torrisi, R., 106 Verhoeven, V., 339
Toth, S. L., 52, 103, 105, 376, 382 Vernon, L. L., 356
Towler, A., 266, 269, 273, 275 Vernon, M. L., 173, 178, 408
Tracy, J. L., 172, 174, 409 Vicary, A. M., 238, 279, 402
Tran, S., 13, 148, 154, 155, 242, 288, 320, 351 Vieira, J., 242, 243
Travaglia, L. K., 163 Villacorta, M., 224
Travis, L. A., 403 Villeneuve, A., 205
Treboux, D., 107, 403, 404 Vinokur, A. D., 218
Tress, W., 400 Visioli, C., 350
Trevarthen, C., 377 Vogel, D. L., 404
Trickett, P. K., 243 Vohs, K. D., 101
Trillingsgaard, T., 243 Volk, K. D., 175
Troisi, A., 51 Vondra, J. I., 105
Troll, E., 321, 324, 328, 329 Vrticka, P., 45, 55, 56
Trombello, J. M., 289 Vuilleumier, P., 45, 55, 56
Tronick, E. Z., 377, 378 Vungkhanching, M., 353
Troutman, B., 354
Troxel, W. M., 304, 305 Waddington, C. H., 11
Troy, M., 14 Wade, T. J., 353
Tschann, J. M., 108 Wadsworth, M., 301
Tuite, B., 78 Wagner, P., 149
Turkheimer, E., 205 Waldman, I., 105
Turner, R., 209, 304 Waldstein, S. R., 101
Twaite, J. A., 352 Walker, A. J., 324, 325, 328, 329, 330
Walker, E. A., 303, 309
Uchino, B. N., 100, 287, 289, 290, 291, 305, Wall, S., 126, 196, 237, 321, 378
308 Wallace, J. C., 264
Urbaniak, G. C., 241 Waller, N. G., 126, 333
Uvnäs-Moberg, K., 73 Waller, W. W., 159
Wallin, A. R., 387
Valentine, B., 187 Wallin, D. J., 393
Valizadeh, S., 347 Walsh, J., 241, 408
van Anders, S. M., 87 Walster, E. H., 81
Van Assche, L., 324, 325, 328 Wang, Z., 51, 73, 76, 83, 182, 183
van Bakel, H. J. A., 105 Warburton, D. E. R., 209
440 Author Index
Warren, S. L., 46, 47, 55, 350 Winterheld, H. A., 135, 158, 203, 289
Waters, E., 13, 40, 72, 107, 113, 125, 126, 128, Wittenberg, M. T., 206
196, 237, 321, 331, 332, 378, 403 Wittenborn, A., 397
Waters, H. S., 128, 331, 332, 333 Woddis, D., 354
Watkins, E. R., 347, 348, 354, 357, 360 Wolchik, S. A., 209
Waugh, C. E., 363 Wood, P. K., 358
Way, B. M., 291 Woodhouse, S. S., 333
Wayne, S. J., 269 Woods, R. T., 327
Wearing, A. J., 209 Woolley, S. C., 75
Webster, G. D., 299 Wouden-Miller, M., 102
Webster, J. D., 326 Wright, J., 181, 409
Weems, C. F., 349 Wu, X., 17
Wei, M., 173, 288, 347, 349, 350, 404 Wust, S., 101
Weimer, B. L., 299
Weinfield, N., 107, 113, 347 Yammarino, F. J., 267
Weir, L. O., 205 Yang, F. M., 324
Weisberg, Y. J., 178, 179, 180, 184 Yetim, U., 209
Weiss, E. M., 269, 277 Young, E. A., 74, 82
Weiss, R. S., 329 Young, K. A., 182
Weizman, A., 247 Young, L. J., 51, 53, 54, 60, 73, 76, 77, 83,
Weller, A., 54, 351 183
Wendelken, C., 44 Youngblade, L. M., 16
Wenkstern, D., 76 Younger, J., 78, 131
Wens, J., 339 Yu, L., 72, 79
Westen, D., 352 Yucuis, R., 354
Weston-Lee, P., 387
Wettstein, A., 327 Zagoory-Sharon, O., 54
Wewerka, S. S., 103 Zajacova, A., 296
Whiffen, V. E., 351 Zak, P. J., 73
Whipple, B., 78 Zakalik, R. A., 173, 288, 350
Whitaker, C. J., 326 Zakay, D., 267
Whitaker, R. C., 298 Zaki, J., 363
Whitcher, S. J., 205 Zakin, G., 352
Whitehead, C., 58 Zaleski, Z., 209
Whitney, G. A., 154 Zautra, A. J., 304
Whitson, S. A., 100 Zayas, V., 2, 3, 11, 13, 42, 48, 68, 69, 71, 73,
Whitten, D., 274 81, 130
Wiebe, S. A., 399 Zeanah, C. H., 375
Wiedenmayer, C. P., 74 Zeifman, D., 16, 81, 170, 171, 173, 182
Wieselquist, J., 154 Zeki, S., 54, 72
Wijngaards-de Meij, L., 352, 361 Zerach, G., 241
Wilkinson, R. B., 333 Zhang, F., 107, 113
Willett, J. B., 404 Zhang, Q., 362
Williams, E., 150 Zhang, T. Y., 77
Williams, I. C., 324 Zhang, X., 43, 48
Williams K., 398 Zhou, E. S., 99, 292
Willoughby, B. J., 84 Zhou, X., 43
Wills, T. A., 203, 209 Ziegler, A., 187
Wilson, C. L., 242, 244, 246, 252, 288, 303, Zilber, A., 48
304, 320, 351, 403 Zivnuska, S., 274
Wilson, H. W., 298 Zizi, F., 304
Wilson, M., 58 Zuccarini, D., 400, 409, 411, 412
Wilson, P., 102 Zuckerman, T., 385
Windle, R. J., 74 Zuroff, D. C., 138, 351
Winstead, B. A., 205 Zwambag, L., 350
Subject Index
The letter f following a page number indicates figure; the letter t indicates table.
Abandonment fears, 238 future directions and, 84–88

Acceptance, 241 health and, 293–294, 295–296, 299–300,
Accommodation, 154 301, 303–306, 309
Adaptive calibration model immune system and, 297
attachment insecurity and, 110–112 mental representations and, 127–129
overview, 98 overview, 70–74, 88–89, 124–125,
stress and, 107–109 138–139, 237–239
Adolescence parenting and, 234–237, 239–248
attachment insecurity and, 105–106 regulation of the partner, 148–152
externalizing disorders and, 353–354 role of sex in, 80–84
health behavior and, 298–299 security-enhancement and, 129–135
parenting and, 250–251 sexual mating system and, 74–80
Adrenal medulla, 98–99 stress and, 105–106
Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), sympathetic–adrenal medullary (SAM)
98–99 axis and, 295–296
Adult Attachment in the Workplace (AAW), Affect regulation. See also Emotion
263–264 regulation; Self-regulation
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) adult attachment system and, 73
aged care and, 327, 331–332 health and, 290f
anxiety disorders and, 349 transdiagnostic model and, 358
overview, 237, 238–239 Affective reactivity, 303
parenting and, 235, 252 Affiliative reward, 76–77
stress and, 106 Aged care. See also Adult attachment system
Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ), attachment processes and, 320–323,
263, 267, 273 328–335
Adult Attachment Scale (AAS), 329 future directions and, 335–339
Adult attachment system. See also Aged overview, 319–320
care; Early attachment experiences; research regarding, 323–328, 335–
Romantic relationships; Sexual pair 339
bonding Alcohol use, 298
broaden-and-build cycle and, 135– Allostatic load model (ALM), 109–110
138 Ambivalence, 211
441
442 Subject Index
Amygdala regulation of the partner, 148–152,

adult attachment system and, 73–74 164–165
neuroimaging technologies and, 45–46 sexual mating system and, 88, 173–174,
neuroscience and, 53f, 55, 60 175–177, 178–179
Animal models, 53–54 transdiagnostic model of, 354–362, 355f
Anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) Appetitive phase, 74–77, 78
adult attachment system and, 74 Appraisals, 269–270
neuroimaging technologies and, 44–45, 47 Approach
neuroscience and, 53f, 55, 60 adult attachment system and, 71–72
security priming and, 132 neuroscience and, 55
Anterior superior temporal gyrus, 55 sexual mating system and, 75–76
Anterior temporal pole, 55 Approach phase. See Appetitive phase
Antisocial behavior, 278 Arginine vasopressin (AVP), 362–363
Antisocial disorders, 347, 355f, 361–362 Asexual individuals, 86
Antisocial work behavior, 278 Assessment, 331–335. See also Measurement
Anxiety. See also Anxious attachment style issues
adolescence and, 250–251 Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-up
attachment system and, 126–127, 238 (ABC) intervention, 379–382, 386–
couple therapy and, 398–399 387
genetic factors and, 51 Attachment behavioral system. See also
health and, 293, 299–300, 304–305, 306 Behavioral system
immune system and, 297 developmental pathways and, 10–11
neuroscience and, 55 health and, 295–296
optimal dependence and, 204f neuroscience and, 40–42
organizational settings and, 271–272, overview, 125, 138–139
277, 281–282 parenting and, 235–237
parenting and, 249–250, 250–251 Attachment bonds. See also Bonding
regulation by the partner, 152–157, neuroimaging technologies and, 45–46
164–165 relationships and, 196–201
regulation of the partner, 148–152, Attachment dynamics, 262–263
164–165 Attachment figure. See also Caregivers
regulation processes and, 146–147, 147f adult attachment system and, 72–73
secure-base script and, 128 attachment bonds and, 196–201
stress and, 105–106 mental representations and, 128–129
Anxiety disorders, 347, 348–350, 355f, 357, neuroimaging technologies and, 45–
363 46
Anxious attachment style. See also Anxiety; overview, 40–41, 125
Attachment styles; Insecure attachment principles of attachment and, 376
adolescence and, 250–251 relationships and, 196
adult attachment system and, 238 Attachment neuroscience. See Neuroscience
aged care and, 326, 338 Attachment processes. See also Attachment
emotionally focused therapy (EFT) and, styles
404–405 aged care and, 320–323
genetic factors and, 51 couple therapy and, 398
health and, 288–291, 299–300, 304–305 health and, 288–291, 290f
immune system and, 297 in later life and aged care, 328–335
neuroimaging technologies and, 46, 49–50 principles of attachment and, 375–376
overview, 41–42 sexuality and, 182–185, 184f
parenting and, 249–250, 250–251 transdiagnostic model of, 354–362, 355f
psychopathology and, 346–347, 348–354 Attachment relationships, 68–70, 104–105.
regulation by the partner, 152–157, See also Relationships
164–165 Attachment Style Questionnaire, 52
Subject Index 443
Attachment styles. See also Anxious health and, 293, 299–300, 303–304,
attachment style; Attachment processes; 304–305
Avoidant attachment style; Insecure immune system and, 297
attachment; Secure attachment neuroscience and, 55
adolescence and, 250–251 organizational settings and, 268,
adult attachment system and, 237–238 271–272, 273–274, 281–282
animal models and, 53–54 parenting and, 239–240, 249–251
EFT and the stability of, 402–407 regulation by the partner, 161–165
health and, 288–291, 290f, 295–296, regulation of the partner, 157–161,
298–300 164–165
in later life and aged care, 328–335 regulation processes and, 146–147, 147f
organizational settings and, 273–274, secure-base script and, 128
279–282 stress and, 105–106
overview, 41–42 transdiagnostic model and, 358–359
parenting and, 234–237, 239–248, Avoidant attachment style. See also
250–251, 252 Attachment styles; Avoidance; Insecure
sympathetic–adrenal medullary (SAM) attachment
axis and, 295–296 adolescence and, 250–251
Attachment systems, 270–272 adult attachment system and, 238
Attachment theory aged care and, 326, 337–338
aged care and, 320–323 genetic factors and, 51
neuroscience and, 40–42 health and, 288–291, 299–300, 304–305
organizational research and, 264–279 immune system and, 297
overview, 124–127, 375, 393–395 neuroimaging technologies and, 46,
Attachments, 68–70 47–48, 49–50
Attention, 44–45, 60 overview, 41–42
Attitudes, 58f, 270–276 parenting and, 246, 249–251
Attraction, 69–70, 171. See also Sexual psychopathology and, 346–347, 348–354
mating system regulation by the partner, 161–165
Authoritarian parenting, 241. See also regulation of the partner, 157–161,
Parenting 164–165
Autonomic nervous system (ANS) sexual mating system and, 88, 174–175,
adult attachment system and, 73–74 177, 179
attachment insecurity and, 105–108 transdiagnostic model of, 354–362, 355f
differential susceptibility and adaptive Avoidant personality disorder, 347
calibration and, 108–112
early caregiving and, 101–104 Basal ganglia, 49, 49–50
health and, 290f Bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST),
role of sex in adult attachment formation, 73–74, 82–83
82–83 Behavior inhibition, 292–293
stress and, 97–98, 99–104, 105–108 Behavioral genetics, 50–51. See also Genetic
Autonomy factors
early attachment experiences and, 198 Behavioral system. See also Attachment
optimal dependence and, 204f behavioral system
romantic relationships and, 136–137 aged care and, 322–323
Avoidance. See also Avoidant attachment health and, 290f, 298–300
style neuroscience and, 40–42, 58f
adolescence and, 250–251 Big Five traits, 261–262
attachment system and, 71–72, 126–127, Biological factors, 54–55
238 Biological sensitivity to context theory,
couple therapy and, 398–399, 409–410 33–34, 107–108
genetic factors and, 51 Blamer-softening event, 404–405
444 Subject Index
Bonding. See also Pair bonding; Sexual pair immune system and, 296–297
bonding sympathetic–adrenal medullary (SAM)
animal models and, 53–54 axis and, 295–296
couple therapy and, 408–412 Child–Parent Psychotherapy (CPP), 379, 382
emotionally focused therapy (EFT) and, Cigarette smoking, 298
402 Circle of Security intervention, 379, 382–383
neuroscience and, 54 Classic themes in the attachment field, 2–4
Bonds, attachment. See also Bonding Client Attachment to Therapist Scale, 270
neuroimaging technologies and, 45–46 Cognitive mechanisms, 44–45, 58f, 247–248
relationships and, 196–204 Communication, 307–308
Borderline personality disorder, 347 Compassion, 238
Brain volume, 49 Compulsively overinvolved support,
Broaden-and-build cycle 211–215, 212f
interpersonal contexts, 135–138 Computed tomography (CT) scans, 43
overview, 128–129 Concentric mapping approaches, 329
security priming and, 130–135 Conditioning, 70, 72–73
Burnout, 270–272 Conduct behavior problems, 353–354
Confidence, 207
Cardiovascular disease, 305–306 Conflict
Care receiving, 326–327, 336–339 parenting and, 240
Care seeking regulation by the partner, 162–163
aged care and, 326–327, 336–339 regulation of the partner, 159–160
health and, 307–308 sexual mating system and, 177–180
Caregivers, 40–41, 375. See also Attachment Consolidation stage of EFT, 396
figure Consummatory phase, 75, 77–80
Caregiving environment. See also Early Control, 241
attachment experiences; Environmental Coping strategies
factors; Parenting neglectful/disengaged support and, 223
adult attachment system and, 139 optimal dependence and, 204f
aged care and, 321–322, 325–328, organizational settings and, 272
336–339 parenting and, 241
couple therapy and, 408–412 transdiagnostic model and, 359
developmental cascades and, 24–25, 24f Corporal punishment, 240–241
developmental trajectories and, 12 Corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH),
genetic factors and, 31–34 73–74
health and, 307–308 Cortisol
intervention and, 376–379 adult attachment system and, 73–74
optimal dependence and, 202–210, 204f health and, 293
research regarding, 239–248 role of sex in adult attachment formation,
security priming and, 133 82–83
unpredictability and valance of, 30–31 stress and, 98–99
Caregiving system Counseling, 138
adult attachment system and, 238 Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs),
aged care and, 336–339 278
overview, 236 Couple therapy. See also Relationships
Caring behavior, 241 attachment-oriented innovations in,
Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), 397–401
53f, 60 caregiving and sex and, 408–412
Childhood attachment. See also Early case example of, 413–415
attachment experiences overview, 393–394, 415
health and, 295, 300–303, 309 secure base for the practice of, 395–397
health behavior and, 298–299 stability of attachment and, 402–407
Subject Index 445
Courage, 207 Distancing behaviors, 157–161

Curiosity, 204f, 207 Distress regulation
Current Relationship Interview (CRI), 13 aged care and, 320
early attachment experiences and, 198
Deactivating caregiving, 322–323. See also parenting and, 247
Caregiving environment sexual mating system and, 177–180
Deactivation, 127 Dopamine system
Dedication, 272–273 neuroscience and, 49, 51, 53f, 54, 60
Deescalation stage of EFT, 396 role of sex in adult attachment formation,
Demeaning behaviors, 216–220, 217f 80–81, 83–84
Dependence sexual mating system and, 70, 76, 77, 79,
overview, 225 85–86
relationships and, 195–201 Dopaminergic reward system, 71–72, 75–
sensitive and responsive support and, 76
202–210, 204f Double mediation model, 19f, 20
unresponsive safe haven and secure base Drug use, 298
behavior and, 210–225, 212f, 217f, Dual-risk model, 33–34
221f Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), 404
Dependent personality disorder, 347 Dyadic processes, 363
Depression Dyadic regulation
health and, 306 anxious individuals and, 148–157
overview, 347, 350–351 avoidant individuals and, 157–164
transdiagnostic model and, 355f, 357, health and, 308–309
359, 360–361 overview, 145–146, 164–165
Developmental cascades, 23–25, 24f regulation by the partner, 152–157,
Developmental ecology, 30 161–164
Developmental factors regulation of the partner, 148–152,
classic themes in the attachment field 157–161
and, 2 sexual mating system and, 177
neuroscience and, 52
parenting and, 246 Early attachment experiences. See also
Developmental trajectories Caregiving environment; Parenting
aged care and, 319–320 caregiving environment and, 30–31
anxiety disorders and, 349–350 developmental pathways and, 21–23, 22f,
canalization of, 10–18, 11–12 25–30, 27f
causal structure of, 19–21, 19f immune system and, 296–297
depression and, 351 overview, 18, 126–127
early attachment experiences and, 21–23, relationships and, 196–201
22f research regarding, 239–248
Diathesis–stress model romantic relationships and, 12–18
adaptive calibration model and, 109–110 stress and, 97–98, 101–104
aged care and, 320, 335 Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, 31–32
overview, 33–34 Early experiences, 102–104
Differential susceptibility theory, 33–34, Early intervention, 376–379
107–109 Eating disorders, 298, 347
Discovery, 204f Electroencephalography (EEG), 43, 44–50
Disease conditions, 300–301. See also Emerging themes in the attachment field,
Health 4–6
Disengagement, 158–159 Emotion regulation. See also Affect
Dismissing behavior, 158–159 regulation; Self-regulation
Disorganized attachment, 51, 104–105 aged care and, 320
Distal risk factors, 348f. See also Risk factors neuroscience and, 44–45, 55, 60
446 Subject Index
Emotionally focused therapy (EFT) Family functioning, 247

attachment-oriented innovations in, Fear, 173, 238
397–401 Felt security, 320–322
case example of, 413–415 Fight-or-flight response, 99–101
overview, 6, 394, 415 Followers, 266–270
secure base and, 396–397 Forgiveness, 238
stability of attachment and, 402–407 Friendship, 2, 15–18. See also Relationships
Emotions, 58f, 398–401 Functional magnetic resonance imaging
Empathy (fMRI)
adult attachment system and, 238 adult attachment system and, 71–72
couple therapy and, 409–410 emotionally focused therapy (EFT) and,
security priming and, 133 401
Employee attachment styles, 273–274 neuroscience and, 57
Employment settings. See Organizational overview, 43, 44–50
settings security priming and, 131
Encoding, 81
Encouragement, 219 Gender differences
Endocrine system, 3, 290f aged care and, 327
Endorphines, 78–79 parenting and, 243, 249–250
Engagement, 241, 272–273 sexual mating system and, 86–87,
Enjoyment, 204f 175–176
Enthusiasm, 204f Gene × environment (G×E) interactions,
Environmental factors. See also Caregiving 32–34
environment Generalized anxiety disorder, 347, 357. See
genetic factors and, 31–34
also Anxiety disorders
intervention and, 376–379
Genetic factors
neuroscience and, 54–55
caregiving environment and, 31–34
stress and, 104–105, 111–112
neuroimaging technologies and, 49
transdiagnostic model and, 357, 360
neuroscience and, 50–52, 53f, 60
Ethology, 375
psychopathology and, 362–363
Event-related potentials (ERPs), 48–49, 57
Glucocorticoids, 82–83
Evolutionary processes, 182–183
Glutamate, 81
Evolutionary theory, 375
Goal pursuit, 136–137
Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR)
aged care and, 333–334 Gray matter, 49
attachment styles and, 41–42 Group processes, 265–266
organizational settings and, 273–274 Group-level attachment, 262–263
overview, 263, 270, 404–405 Guilt
Experiences in Close Relationships— regulation by the partner, 152–157
Relationship Structures (ECR-RS), 29 regulation of the partner and, 148–149
Experiences of Relationships Scale (ERS), transdiagnostic model and, 359
263, 269, 277–279
Exploration Harshness, 30–31
adult attachment system and, 139 Health
neglectful/disengaged support and, 224 attachment processes and, 288–291, 290f
optimal dependence and, 204f, 208–209 behavior and, 298–300
overinvolved support and, 215 future directions and, 306–309
relationships and, 197 optimal dependence and, 204f
romantic relationships and, 136–137 organizational settings and, 270–272
unresponsive safe haven and secure base overview, 287–288, 309
behavior and, 219 physical health, 300–306
Externalizing disorders, 347, 353–354, 357. physiological mechanisms linking
See also individual disorders attachment and, 291–297
Subject Index 447
Hippocampus Insecure attachment. See also Anxious

adult attachment system and, 74 attachment style; Attachment styles;
neuroimaging technologies and, 45–46, Avoidant attachment style
49–50 adaptive calibration model and, 110–
neuroscience and, 53f, 55, 60 112
Histrionic personality disorder, 347 adult attachment system and, 238
Hold Me Tight: Conversations for early attachment experiences and, 13–
Connection program, 394 14
Horizontally mediated pathways, 22–23, 22f emotionally focused therapy (EFT) and,
Hormone factors, 50–52, 53f, 80–84 402–407
Hostility health and, 292–293, 306, 307–308
health and, 290f, 307–308 health behavior and, 298–300
parenting and, 240 parenting and, 239–242
Hyperactivating caregiving, 322–323. See psychopathology and, 346–347, 348–
also Caregiving environment 354
Hyperactivation, 127 stress and, 105–108, 112–113
Hypervigilance, 360 transdiagnostic model of, 354–362, 355f
Hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical Insula, 47, 55
(HPA) axis Intentions, 278–279
adult attachment system and, 73–74 Interaction Guidance intervention, 384
attachment insecurity and, 105–108 Internal working models. See also Mental
classic themes in the attachment field representations
and, 3 adult attachment system and, 71
differential susceptibility and adaptive attachment styles and, 42
calibration and, 108–112 emotionally focused therapy (EFT) and,
early caregiving and, 101–104 403–404
health and, 291–294, 300–301 neuroimaging technologies and, 44
neuroimaging technologies and, 50 neuroscience and, 44–45, 60
overview, 98–99 overview, 11, 40
stress and, 97, 105–108 parenting and, 236–237
Hypothalamus, 74 Internalizing disorders, 347, 348–353. See
also individual disorders
Immune system, 290f, 291, 296–297 International Centre for Excellence in
Incentive/reward motivation system, 75–76 Emotionally Focused Therapy
Independence (ICEEFT), 404
relationships and, 195–196, 199–201 Interpersonal insecurity compensation
romantic relationships and, 136–137 model, 152–153
Independent component analysis, 57 Interventions, preventive. See Preventive
Individual differences interventions
aged care and, 325, 338 “In-the-moment” comments, 380–382
attachment styles and, 42 Intimacy
organizational settings and, 280–281 adult attachment system and, 238
parenting and, 251–252 security priming and, 134–135
sexual mating system and, 87–88, 186 sexual mating system and, 182–183
Infant distress, 247 Intrusiveness, 241
Infant–caregiver attachment
classic themes in the attachment field Job burnout, 270–272
and, 3 Job performance, 276
developmental pathways and, 10–18 Job satisfaction, 273–274
friendships and, 16–17
health and, 292–293, 302, 305–306 Late positive potential (LPP), 48–49
overview, 68–69 Leader attachment, 266–270
448 Subject Index
Leader–member exchange (LMX), 269–270, National Institute of Child Health and

273–274 Human Development (NICHD)
Learning, 204f Study of Early Child Care and Youth
Life history theory, 30 Development (SECCYD)
Lifespan theory of development, 319–320 early attachment experiences and, 27f, 28
Loss, 360–361 social competence and, 15, 18
Near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), 43
Major depression, 347, 355f. See also Negative affectivity, 360
Depression Negative behaviors, 216–220, 217f. See also
Maltreatment, 240–241 Behavioral system
Managerial attachment styles, 273– Negative reinforcement, 82–83
274 Neglectful/disengaged support, 220–225,
Marital therapy. See Couple therapy 221f, 222–223
Maternal care, 101–102. See also Parenting Neuroimaging technologies, 43–50, 71–72,
Measurement issues. See also individual 401
measures Neuroscience
aged care and, 329–330, 331–335 adult attachment system and, 70–74
organizational settings and, 263–264 of attachment, 43–54, 53f
Mediated pathways, 21–23, 22f emotionally focused therapy (EFT) and,
Memory, 81 401
Mental health, 346–348, 348f. See also overview, 4, 39–42, 56–60, 58f, 59f
Psychopathology; individual disorders psychopathology and, 362–363
Mental representations. See also Internal role of sex in adult attachment formation,
working models 80–84
adult attachment system and, 71 security priming and, 132
aged care and, 325 theoretical models, 54–56
attachment security and, 127–129 Neurotransmitters, 50–52, 53f
role of sex in adult attachment formation, Novel themes in the attachment field, 4–6
81 Nucleus accumbens, 47
security priming and, 133 Nucleus accumbens shell (NAS)
security-enhancement and, 129–135 adult attachment system and, 72
sexual mating system and, 183 role of sex in adult attachment formation,
Mental state representation, 55 83
Mentalization, 54 sexual mating system and, 75–76, 77, 79
Metacognitive monitoring, 393–395
Minding the Baby intervention, 384–385 Obsessive–compulsive disorder, 347, 359
Minnesota Study, 349–350 Older adults, 319–320, 323–335. See also
Molecular genetics, 50–51 Adult attachment system; Aged care
Mood, 58f, 133–134 Opioid system
Mood disorders, 347 role of sex in adult attachment formation,
Mother–child relationships, 296–297. See 80–81, 83–84
also Parent–child relationships sexual mating system and, 78–79
Multifinality, 347–348 Optimal dependence, 202–210, 204f, 225.
Mu-opiates See also Dependence
adult attachment system and, 74 Orbitofrontal cortex (OFC)
role of sex in adult attachment formation, neuroimaging technologies and, 46, 47
81 neuroscience and, 53f, 60
sexual mating system and, 77 Organizational citizenship behaviors
(OCBs), 277–278
Narcissism, 359 Organizational settings
National Comorbidity Survey Replication, attachment theory and, 262–263,
306 264–279
Subject Index 449
measurement issues and, 263–264 novel and emerging themes in the

overview, 261–262, 279–282 attachment field and, 4–5
Overdependence, 202. See also Dependence overview, 234–237, 248–250
Overinvolved support, 211–215, 212f prevention interventions and, 379–385
Oxytocin research regarding, 239–248
adult attachment system and, 74 stress and, 101–104
animal models and, 53–54 Partner regulation strategies. See Dyadic
neuroscience and, 52, 53f, 54, 60 regulation
parenting and, 251–252 Paternal care, 101–102. See also Parenting
psychopathology and, 362–363 Perceptions, 204f, 245–247
role of sex in adult attachment formation, Permissive parenting, 241. See also Parenting
81, 82–84 Personality disorders, 54–55, 347
sexual mating system and, 77, 79–80, Personality traits, 31
85–86, 87 Phallic narcissism, 359
Oxytocinergic/opioid arousal-relieving Physical health, 300–306. See also Health
systems, 70, 72–74 Physical proximity, 375–376
Physiological correlates, 50
Pain, 303–304, 306 Physiological mechanisms, 290f, 291–297,
Pair bonding. See also Bonding; Sexual pair 307–308
bonding Plasticity, 107–108
adult attachment system and, 70–74 Platonic adult attachment bonds, 85. See
couple therapy and, 408–412 also Adult attachment system
role of sex in adult attachment formation, Polymorphisms, 50–51, 52
81 Positron emission tomography (PET), 43
Panic disorder, 347 Posterior cingulate cortex, 55
Paranoia, 359 Posterior superior temporal sulcus, 55
Parasympathetic nervous system (PNS), Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
overview, 347, 351–353
98–99, 99–101, 104–105
security priming and, 131
Paraventricular nucleus (PVN), 74
transdiagnostic model and, 355f, 357,
Parental involvement, 241
361–362
Parent–child relationships. See also
Power, 158–160, 161
Parenting; Relationships
Precuneus, 55
adult attachment system and, 238
Prefrontal cortex (PFC), 44–45, 49, 55
aged care and, 321–322, 328–331 Pregnancy, 243. See also Parenting
animal models and, 53–54 Preventive interventions
attachment processes and, 196–201 future directions and, 385–387
genetic factors and, 31–32 overview, 374, 379–385, 387
health and, 292–293, 305–306 principles of attachment and, 375–376
immune system and, 296–297 themes relevant to, 376–379
intervention and, 376–379 Priming, security, 46, 130
leader–follower relationships, 266– Problem resolution, 204f
267 Promoting First Relationships intervention,
Parenting. See also Caregiving environment; 385
Early attachment experiences; Parent– Prosocial behaviors, 277–278
child relationships Protective behavior, 320–322, 335–336
adolescence and, 250–251 Proximal risk factors, 348f, 359–362. See
animal models and, 53–54 also Risk factors
attachment styles and, 239–242 Proximity. See also Proximity-seeking
early attachment experiences and, behaviors
196–201 broaden-and-build cycle and, 135–138
future directions and, 251–252 developmental pathways and, 10–11
intervention and, 376–379 overview, 125
450 Subject Index
Proximity (continued) parenting and, 236–237

regulation processes and, 147 regulation of the partner, 148–152
role of sex in adult attachment formation, sexual mating system and, 176–180
81 transdiagnostic model and, 360–361
Proximity-maintenance behavior, 68–70 unresponsive safe haven and secure base
Proximity-seeking behaviors. See also behavior and, 210–225, 212f, 217f,
Attachment behavioral system; 221f
Proximity Remote Associates Test, 133
adult attachment system and, 71–72 Resilience, 3–4, 204f
aged care and, 320–322 Respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA), 100
overview, 40, 68–70 Responsiveness, 134–135, 239–240,
principles of attachment and, 375– 377–378
376 Restructuring the bond stage of EFT, 396
sexual mating system and, 69–70 Reward systems, 76–77, 80–81
Psychopathology. See also Mental health; Risk factors
individual disorders health and, 305–306
overview, 346–348, 348f, 362–363 psychopathology and, 348f
transdiagnostic model, 354–362, 355f transdiagnostic model and, 359–362
Psychosocial factors, 54–55 Romantic functioning, 12–18, 31–34
Punishment, 240–241 Romantic relationships. See also Adult
attachment system; Sexual behavior;
Reactivity, 360–361 Sexual mating system
Reappraisals, 269–270 broaden-and-build cycle and, 135–138
Reciprocity, 409–410 classic themes in the attachment field and,
Regulation processes, 146–147, 147f. See 2–3
couple therapy and, 408–412
also Dyadic regulation; Self-regulation
developmental pathways and, 21–23,
Regulatory mechanisms, 58f
22f
Rejection early attachment experiences and, 12–
adult attachment system and, 238 18
insecurity in relationships and, 152–157 novel and emerging themes in the
sexual mating system and, 173 attachment field and, 4
Relationship Questionnaire (RQ), 263, overview, 9–10
267–268, 333–334 parenting and, 251–252
Relationship Styles Questionnaire (RSQ), regulation by the partner, 152–157,
333–334 161–164
Relationships. See also Attachment regulation of the partner, 148–152,
relationships; Couple therapy; 157–161
Parent–child relationships; Romantic security priming and, 134–135
relationships sexual mating system and, 182–185, 184f
adult attachment system and, 70–74 transdiagnostic model and, 360–361
animal models and, 53–54
anxiety disorders and, 349 Safe haven
broaden-and-build cycle and, 135– adult attachment system and, 72–74
138 neglectful/disengaged support, 222–223
dependence and, 195–201 optimal dependence and, 203–206, 204f
genetic factors and, 31–34 overview, 68–70
health and, 287–288, 290f, 294, 299–300, relationships and, 196
305–306, 307–309 unresponsive safe haven behavior,
optimal dependence and, 202–210, 204f, 210–225, 212f, 217f, 221f
225 Safety, 72–73, 412
organizational settings and, 273–274 Schizoid personality disorder, 347
overview, 68–70 Secondary attachment strategies, 41, 126
Subject Index 451
Secure attachment. See also Attachment Separation distress

styles overview, 68–70
aged care and, 326, 337 parenting and, 244
couple therapy and, 411–412 sexual mating system and, 179
early attachment experiences and, 13–14 Serotonin system, 51–52, 53f, 57–58, 60
emotionally focused therapy (EFT) and, Sex differences, 86–87
402–407 Sexual behavior. See also Romantic
health and, 288–291, 308 relationships
mental representations and, 127–129 attachment processes and, 182–185, 184f
neuroscience and, 46, 58–59, 58f attachment styles and, 298
optimal dependence and, 204f casual sex and serial monogamy, 85–86
overview, 41–42 overview, 69–70
sexual mating system and, 88, 172–173 Sexual mating system. See also Romantic
Secure base relationships; Sexual pair bonding
adolescence and, 250 attachment processes and, 171–185,
aged care and, 325 184f
couple therapy and, 395–397 couple therapy and, 408–412
neglectful/disengaged support and, overview, 74–80, 170–171, 186–188
223–225 Sexual pair bonding. See also Pair bonding;
optimal dependence and, 204f, 206–210 Sexual mating system
overview, 68–70 adult attachment system and, 70–74
parenting and, 250 classic themes in the attachment field and,
relationships and, 196 2–3
unresponsive secure base behavior, couple therapy and, 408–412
210–225, 212f, 217f, 221f future directions and, 84–88
Secure Base Script Assessment, 331–333 overview, 68–70, 88–89
Secure-base script, 125, 128–129. See also role of sex in adult attachment formation,
Secure base 80–84
Security, 204f, 320–322 Sexuality, 4
Security priming, 46, 130 Sleep functioning, 304–305
Security-enhancing mental representations, Social affect regulation, 56
129–135. See also Mental Social anxiety disorder, 347
representations Social baseline model, 55–56
Self-confidence, 204f, 209 Social competence
Self-efficacy, 136–137, 204f, 209 classic themes in the attachment field
Self-enhancement, 179 and, 2
Self-esteem developmental cascades and, 24–25, 24f
neglectful/disengaged support and, 224 early attachment experiences and, 13–15
optimal dependence and, 204f, 208–209 Social psychology, 280. See also
romantic relationships and, 137 Organizational settings
unresponsive safe haven and secure base Social support. See also Support provision;
behavior and, 220 Support seeking
Self-regulation health and, 287–288
health and, 290f transdiagnostic model and, 357
neuroscience and, 44–45, 60 Socialization, 241
principles of attachment and, 376 Social-psychological approaches, 261–262.
Self-reliance, 202, 359 See also Organizational settings
Self-Reliance Inventory (SRI), 264, 266, Socioeconomic status (SES)
273 caregiving environment and, 30–31
Self-representations, 178 health and, 301–303
Self-sufficiency, 195–196 immune system and, 296–297
Sensitivity, parental, 239–240 States of mind, 331–333
452 Subject Index
Steps Toward Effective Enjoyable Parenting Temporoparietal junction, 55

(STEEP), 384 Thalamus, 49
Steroid/peptide theory of social bonds, 87 Therapists, 138
Strange Situation, 49 Thought control, 44–45, 60
Strengths, 107–108 Threat management strategies
Stress anxious individuals and, 148–157
aged care and, 337–338 avoidant individuals and, 157–164
attachment and, 104–105, 112–113 overview, 164–165
autonomic nervous system (ANS) and, Traits, 112–113, 204f
99–104 Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS),
health and, 305–306 43
hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical Transdiagnostic model, 347, 354–362, 355f,
(HPA) axis and, 98–99 363
optimal dependence and, 204f Trauma, 131, 378–379
organizational settings and, 270–272 Trust, 157–161, 163
overview, 97–98, 113–114
parenting and, 243 Underdependence, 202. See also Dependence
Strong trait perspective, 113 Unpredictability, 30–31
StudyResponse project, 277
Subgenual cingulate cortex (SCC), 44–45, Vasopressin, 77, 83–84, 362–363
53f, 60 Ventral tegmental area (VTA), 72, 75–76,
Substance use/abuse, 298, 306, 347 77, 79
Suicide ideation, 347 Vertically mediated pathways, 22f, 23
Supervisory attachment styles, 273–274 Video-feedback Intervention to promote
Support provision. See also Social support Positive Parenting (VIPP), 383–384
health and, 290f Vigor, 272–273
optimal dependence and, 202–210, 204f Volumetry, 44–50
overview, 239–240 Voluntary turnover, 278–279
Support seeking. See also Social support Vulnerability, 107–108
health and, 290f
optimal dependence and, 204f Well-being, 204f
organizational settings and, 276–277 Withdrawal, 158–159
Suppression, 269–270 Work–family issues, 274–276
Switch model, 54 Work–Family Linkage Questionnaire,
Sympathetic nervous system (SNS), 98–101, 274–275
104–105 Working models. See Internal working
Sympathetic–adrenal medullary (SAM) axis, models
98–99, 291, 294–296 Workplace deviance, 278
Workplace incivility, 278
Team processes, 265–266 Workplace settings. See Organizational
Temperament, 246 settings

Attachment Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attachment Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attachment Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ebook

THE GUILFORD PRESS

The Evolution of Mind:

The Guilford Press

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in

Printed in the United States of America

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Jeffry A. Simpson, PhD, is Professor of Psychology and Director of the Doc-

W. Steven Rholes, PhD, is Professor in the Department of Psychology at Texas

Gurit E. Birnbaum, PhD, School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center

Cindy Hazan, PhD, Department of Human Development, Cornell

Jeffry A. Simpson, PhD, Department of Psychology, University

Introduction: New Directions and Emerging Themes 1

1 Early Attachment Experiences and Romantic Functioning: 9

2 The Neuroscience of Attachment: Using New Methods to Answer 39

4 Stress and Attachment 97

5 Boosting Attachment Security in Adulthood: The “Broaden-and-Build” 124

6 Attachment and Dyadic Regulation Processes 145

7 On the Convergence of Sexual Urges and Emotional Bonds: 170

8 An Attachment-Theoretical Perspective on Optimal Dependence 195

9 Adult Attachment Style and Parenting 234

10 Attachment Theory in Organizational Settings 261

11 Health and Attachment Processes 287

12 Attachment and Aged Care 319

13 Psychopathology and Attachment 346

14 Attachment-Related Preventive Interventions 374

15 Attachment: A Guide to a New Era of Couple Interventions 393

Author Index 423

Subject Index 441

F ew theories and areas of research have been more prolific during

issue. Third, we requested that authors propose new, promising directions

Two Core Themes

with the development of attachment-based pair bonds in romantic relation-

this, Mikulincer and Shaver review research revealing that experimentally

Novel and Emerging Themes

attachment theory, especially connections between the attachment and

S ome adults are involved in well-functioning romantic relation-

In the final portion of the chapter, we discuss ongoing issues and

Early Attachment Experiences and the Canalization

The Attachment Behavioral System

The Canalization of Developmental Trajectories

development, Bowlby believed that several processes function to canalize

Two Major Pathways between Early Attachment Experiences

attachment histories were more likely to produce coherent discourse regard-

Early Attachment Experiences and Social Competence

Pathways between Early Attachment and Social Competence

Pathways between Social Competence and Romantic Functioning

greater interpersonal warmth were more likely to hold secure working

Early Attachment Experiences and Close Friendship Relationships

Pathways between Early Attachment Experiences and Friendship

There are many potential pathways through which early attachment

Pathways between Friendship Functioning and Romantic Functioning

account. Thus, although it is possible that early attachment experiences

Emerging Themes, Conceptual Challenges, and Directions

Ambiguities Concerning the Causal Structure of Developmental Pathways

not take time into account explicitly. Children’s attachment experiences