The Role of Attachment of Each Partner on Marital Adjustment

Abstract

This study conducted a latent profile analysis on quantitative data gathered from 156 married couples, so to learn more about the role of attachment and gender in marital adjustment. This study explored Finzi-Dottan, Cohen, and Tyano’s (2004) theoretical model, which focuses on how the attachment of each partner contributes to the relationship’s dynamics. Findings were that two partners with secure attachment reported the highest levels of marital adjustment. Both partners with high levels of avoidance or anxiety reported the lowest levels of adjustment. Couples with a mixture of attachment experienced differing levels of adjustment. Differently than predicted, avoidant wives with secure husbands did not experience lower levels of adjustment than secure wives with avoidant husbands. Rather, the husbands endorsed lower levels of adjustment, while these differences were not implicated in the wives’ adjustment. The attachment profile combination was related to the spouse’s gender. Clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

marital adjustment attachment gender marriage

Marriage is widely considered to be an important social institution, and a potential source of satisfaction, companionship, and happiness for both husband and wife (Kaufman & Goldscheider, 2007). Marital adjustment is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct based on the subjective perception of each partner’s satisfaction, consensus, cohesion, and affection (Spanier, 1976). There are many factors affecting marital satisfaction, an important one being the role of attachment (Banse, 2004). According to Bowlby’s (1969, 1973, 1980) groundbreaking theory of attachment, an individual’s early interactions with a primary caregiver shapes internal models, which serves as a mechanism of how the attachment dynamic is transferred to both platonic and romantic relationships throughout the life span (McCarthy & Maughan, 2010; Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2000; Schimmenti & Bifulco, 2015). Attachment plays a major role in the formulation of internal working models, distress regulation, mental representations of self and of others, as well as interpersonal behaviors (Ein-Dor, Doron, Solomon, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2010). Considering the importance of marital adjustment, further research is needed to better understand the role of attachment in the satisfaction of each member of the couple.

The Theory of Attachment

Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) noted that in the first 3 years of life, humans develop one of three kinds of physical and emotional attachment—which they categorized as secure, anxious/ambivalent and avoidant—to a primary caregiver. Building on this theory, Hazan & Shaver, (1987) later argued that the attachment of early childhood is adaptable to adult romantic love, and a person’s attachment is determined in part by childhood relationships and attachment to parents. While attachment theory had always focused on formative relationships in early childhood, Shaver and Hazan extended and applied attachment to relationships throughout the life span. They posit that romantic love is an attachment process that can be experienced differently by people due to variations in their respective attachment histories.

The conceptualization of attachment in adulthood continues to evolve. Compared with Bowlby’s three separate attachment typologies, current research indicates that attachment can be described on two dimensions: attachment anxiety and avoidance (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Attachment anxiety indicates the level to which one adopts hyperactivating strategies, such as compulsively seeking proximity and demanding approval, in order to obtain care and love from their relationship partners. This dimension is defined by a constant worry that a marital partner will not be available in times of need. Contrarily, attachment avoidance indicates the extent to which one distrusts a partners’ goodwill to provide support and love and strives to maintain independence from others while adopting deactivating strategies, such as withdrawal and emotional distancing from others (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003, 2016). Attachment security occurs when both anxiety and avoidance are low, and is marked by the closeness, support, and dependability of the other partner (Ein-Dor et al., 2010).

As will be seen in this study, adults’ attachment orientations are often measured in terms of two orthogonal dimensions (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). “Attachment anxiety,” reflects tendencies to worry over the availability and positive regard of others, while “attachment avoidance,” reflects discomfort with closeness and dependence on others. Low levels on both dimensions indicate attachment security.

The Interaction of a Couple’s Romantic Attachment

In order to further understand the important function of attachment in marital adjustment, Finzi-Dottan et al. (2004) further built off the Shaver and Hazan model by postulating that it is not only important to examine the attachment of each partner but also how the attachment of each adult interacts with the other and influences overall marital adjustment. According to Finzi-Dottan et al.’s model, within a marital dyad there are three types of adult romantic attachment—secure, anxious, avoidant—which can result in six different possible permutations of relationship dynamics. In three of the couples, both partners have the same type of attachment, while in other couples each member of the couple has a different attachment profile (secure-anxious, secure-avoidant, anxious-avoidant). Each of the six different relationship dynamics have repercussions on the development, maintenance, potential rupture, and overall quality of the relationship.

For example, the authors posit that two secure partners in a couple could serve as a secure anchor for each other in times of distress; a dual anxious couple would be uncertain as to whether they could live with or without each other; and a dual avoidant couple would be emotionally cut off from one another. In couples with mixed forms of attachment, a secure-anxious couple would be continuously in a “waltz” of pursuer and distancer; a rarely found secure-avoidant couple would have one present and reliable partner who is always being avoided by the other; and an anxious-avoidant couple regularly feels frustration—with the anxious partner feeling abandoned and rejected, and the avoidant partner resenting the other’s dependency.

The Role of Marital Adjustment

Researchers have long documented the relationship between attachment and the self-reported adjustment of heterosexual couples (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Fuller & Fincham, 1995; Lussier, Sabourin, & Turgeon, 1997; Meyers & Landsberger, 2002; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), having found a positive relationship between secure attachment and marital adjustment, and a negative relationship between secure attachment and a lack of marital adjustment. Multiple studies have found that secure attachment is related to higher levels, while avoidant attachment is related to lower levels of marital adjustment (Banse, 2004; Brassard, Lussier, & Shaver, 2009; Heresi Milad, Rivera Ottenberger, & Huepe, 2014). Molero, Shaver, Ferrer, Cuadrado, and Alonso-Arbiol (2011) found that individuals with anxious attachment have reported being satisfied with their relationships. Differing levels of marital adjustment have been found for couples with mixed attachment, with men often less satisfied with their relationship should his wife be high in avoidance (Brassard et al., 2009; Heresi Milad et al., 2014; Mondor, McDuff, Lussier, & Wright, 2011).

The differing experience of each gender is an important factor in overall marital adjustment, namely that “there are two marriages . . . in every marital union, his and hers” (Bernard, 1982). Some studies have found that men report higher levels of relationship adjustment than their wives (Molero et al., 2011). One reason for this may be that roles within the marriage are often divided by gender, which can also contribute to the differing marital experience of each partner.

Differences in attachment due to gender have also been found. For instance, Butzer and Campbell (2008) found that husbands reported greater avoidance than their wives. In a study of close to 300 couples examining the associations among attachment, sexuality, and marital satisfaction, Heresi Milad et al. (2014) found that marital adjustment could be related to gender, as sexual dissatisfaction was significantly higher for a man with an avoidant wife. Molero et al. (2011) also found a gender effect, as men reported higher levels of relationship satisfaction than women. In a study of 274 couples, Brassard et al. (2009) found that a woman’s anxious attachment was positively associated with her partner’s relationship adjustment.

Study Hypotheses

The unique angle of this study is its use of a latent profile analysis (LPA) as its methodology, as opposed to other existing studies that used a regression analysis or the actor–partner interdependence model. As a result of using an LPA analysis, profiles organically emerged based on the data found, rather than placing the data into preselected attachment groups.

Various studies have found that both attachment and gender play significant roles in overall marital adjustment, yet more research is needed as to how the attachment of each partner contributes to and affects the overall adjustment of the relationship. In testing the theoretical model of Finzi-Dottan et al. (2004), it is first hypothesized that partners who both have a secure attachment will report the highest levels of marital adjustment. Second, couples where both partners have high levels of avoidance or anxiety will report the lowest levels of marital adjustment. Third, couples with a mixture of attachment will experience differing levels of adjustment; for example, wives who endorse avoidance with secure husbands would experience lower levels of marital adjustment than secure wives with avoidant husbands. Finally, it is hypothesized that the attachment profile combination will be related to the gender of each spouse, which will also play a role in marital adjustment.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The current study is part of a larger multicohort longitudinal study of Israeli veterans of the Yom Kippur War, as well as their spouses. Data were collected via questionnaires from the husbands (for additional information, see Solomon, Horesh, Ein-Dor, & Ohry, 2012), and from their spouses (for details, see Greene, Lahav, Bronstein, & Solomon, 2014). The current study focuses on a subset of this sample, namely husbands and wives who participated in completing surveys 30 years after the war at 2003. Indeed, 287 men participated in 2003 (82.20% response rate related to previous measurement) and 156 (73.20% of all potential wives) wives agreed to participate. Both measures were administered in 2003.

The husbands’ demographics are as follows: Age (M = 57.91, SD = 5.09), years of education (M = 13.90, SD = 3.91), and employment status: 57.20% were working in full-time jobs, 13.31% had part-time jobs, and 29.50% were not working. Wives’ demographics are as follows: Age (M = 58.28, SD = 5.79), years of education (M = 14.61, SD = 3.17), years of marriage (M = 34.20, SD = 9.19), number of children (M = 3.23, SD = 3.00), and employment status (47.7% of the women were working in full-time jobs, 20.9% had part-time jobs, and 31.40% were not working). The samples were comparable in their demographics. Following Israel Defense Forces and Tel Aviv University Review Board’s approval, we contacted the husbands and their wives and obtained written informed consent. The questionnaires were administered at the participants’ home or at another location of their choice.

Handling Missing Data

Couples were included in the sample only if both husbands and their wives participated. This anchor created a data set with 156 couples; across variables and partners, there were only 5% to 8% values missing. Little’s (1988) Missing Completely at Random model, aimed to analyze missing values, revealed that the data were missing completely at random, χ²(235) = 780.22, p = .001. Additional t tests showed the missing values in some of the variables were related to the observed data: Specifically, wives of husbands with missing values at attachment avoidance and anxiety were higher in attachment avoidance. Furthermore, in wives of husbands with missing values at marital adjustment had reported lower marital adjustment. Missing data were replaced with maximum likelihood robust estimations when running models in Mplus 7. Sensitivity procedures were conducted to verify that analyzing the data set with missing data versus the data set without missing data (after maximum likelihood robust methodology) did not yield significantly different results. These procedures showed that the models that were conducted in the different data sets yielded same effects with regard to the coefficients directions (negative/positive coefficients) and intensity of the effects. Since the coefficients of the effects reported are standardized, these coefficients represent effect sizes that are equivalent to r.

Measures

Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976)

Marital adjustment was assessed by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, which consists of 32 items divided into four subscales: consensus, cohesion, adjustment, and affection. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which each item described their current marital relationship. The dyadic adjustment score is the sum rating of the 32 items, in which high scores reflect better adjustment. Heyman, Sayers, and Bellack (1994) reported that the scale has very good convergent validity and discriminant validity. The scale has been widely used among both clinical and normative populations all over the world (e.g., Horesh & Fennig, 2000). In the present study, Cronbach’s α was .85 in wives and .91 in husbands.

Attachment Insecurities

Attachment anxiety and avoidance were assessed with the 10-item Adult Attachment Styles scale developed by Mikulincer, Florian, and Tolmacz (1990), based on Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) descriptions of avoidant and anxious attachment types and constructed five items for each dimension. The five anxiety items (e.g., I worry about being abandoned) corresponded to items in Brennan et al.’s (1998) anxiety subscale of the Experiences in Close Relationships measure, and the five avoidance items (e.g., I feel uncomfortable when others get close to me) corresponded to items in Brennan et al.’s avoidance subscale. Participants rated the extent to which an item described them using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).

Mikulincer and Florian (2000) reported high concordance between this measure and the 36-item Experiences in Close Relationships measure inventory (r = .67 for anxiety items, r = .73 for avoidance items). In addition, studies conducted in Mikulincer’s laboratory have demonstrated the measure’s high construct and predictive validity. In the present study, Cronbach αs was .72 for the anxiety items and .67 for the avoidance items in husbands, and .75 and .76 in wives, respectively. We therefore computed two scores (anxiety and avoidance attachment).

Data Analysis

To identify attachment profiles among husbands and their wives, LPA (Lanza & Rhoades, 2013) models using Mplus (version 7) were conducted on attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance dimensions, separately for husbands and wives. LPA is a person-centered approach that enables the identification of profiles constituted from a combination of several aggregates of measures, and indicates the prevalence of these profiles in the explored population. This procedure has already been used to determine profiles of attachment profiles in previous research based on two dimensions of attachment insecurities, (Armour, Elklit, & Shevlin, 2011). To determine the number of attachment profile groups in our data, we ran models containing one to four pattern groups, separately for both spouses. The final models were chosen based on fit indices and substantive interest. Models were judged to exhibit better fit under the following conditions: lower Akaike information criterion (AIC), lower Bayesian information criterion (BIC), lower sample size adjusted BIC (ssBIC), and a significant likelihood ratio test (LRT; Jung & Wickrama, 2008). We also used the 10-point difference in BIC values to indicate the best fitting model (Raftery, 1995).

In the second procedure, we used the most likely class membership variable, taking into account the rate of classification uncertainty, to test the combinations of husbands and wives attachment, outside of the model, specifically on SPSS. This allowed us to specify the different combinations of attachment profiles in couples. Simulation studies suggested that for the model with high entropy (>0.80), covariate estimation on the most likely class membership is a viable alternative to including covariate in the model (Clark & Muthén, 2009). To further illustrate between classes differences, posterior class assignments were exported from Mplus to SPSS and utilized as a variable in a series of analyses of variance for detecting the differences between combinations of husbands and their wives’ attachment in their marital adjustment.

Results

Latent Profile Analysis of Attachment in Husbands

To determine attachment profiles of the husbands, we conducted analysis of LPA with the attachment avoidance and anxiety. The fit statistics from the LPA of husbands are presented in Table 1 and the estimates and the probabilities for the profiles are presented in Table 2. The three-class solution was considered to be the best solution. The BLRT is nonsignificant for the four-class solution, whereas the three-class solution is significant. The entropy value indicates that a high proportion of participants are correctly classified (>0.80). The AIC, BIC, and ssBIC all show a large drop from the one- to three-class solutions; subsequent decrease through to the four-class solution is much smaller with a increase in BIC, suggesting that additional classes do not add to the model (DiStefano & Kamphaus, 2006). Class 1 (mainly avoidant with medium anxiety, n = 59, 37.80%) was characterized by respondents who scored high on the avoidance dimension and medium-high on the avoidance dimension. Class 2 (high on both avoidance and anxiety, n = 16, 10.21%) was characterized by respondents who scored higher on both avoidance and anxiety dimensions, compared with Class 1. Class 3 (secure, n = 81, 51.92%) was characterized by respondents who scored low on both the anxiety and the avoidance dimensions. It is noteworthy to mention that reference to low and high should be regarded as relative rather than absolute. The latent profile plot can be seen in Figure 1.

Table 1.

Fit Indices for One to Five-Cluster LPA Models for Husbands and Their Wives.

Clusters	AIC	BIC	ssBIC	Entropy	BLRT, p
Husbands
1	1426.6	1440	1427.3	—	—
2	1329.7	1353.2	1331.04	0.80	<.001
3	1309.9	1343.4	1311.7	0.80	<.001
4	1305.1	1348.6	1307.4	0.83	.16
Wives
1	1004.6	1016.9	1004.3	—	—
2	967.9	989.5	967.3	0.87	<.001
3	964.4	995.1	963.5	0.81	.06
4	1001.1	1156.6	1163.4	0.77	.37

Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; ssBIC = sample size adjusted BIC; BLRT = bootstrap likelihood ratio test. Entropy and BLRT values are not available for single-pattern models.

Table 2.

Estimates for the Profiles of Attachment Combinations and Mean and Standard Deviation of Attachment and Marital Adjustment in Each Profile Group.

Measure	Profile groups husbands, M (SD)
Measure	Mainly avoidant with medium anxiety (37.8%)	High avoidance and anxiety (10.2%)	Secure (51.9%)
Avoidance	4.74 (0.2)	5.15 (0.22)	2.51 (0.1)
Anxiety	3.25 (0.1)	5.28 (0.21)	2.14 (0.1)
	Profile groups wives, M (SD)
	Secure (90.4%)	High on both dimensions (9.6%)
Avoidance	2.9 (0.11)	4.68 (0.6)
Anxiety	2.3 (0.12)	4.6 (0.6)

Figure 1.

Latent profiles of (a) husbands and (b) wives.

Latent Profile Analysis of Attachment in Wives

To detect the attachment profiles of the wives, we also have conducted LPA analysis for attachment anxiety and avoidance in wives. The fit statistics from the LPA of wives are presented in Table 1 and the estimates and the probabilities for the profiles are presented in Table 2. The two-class solution was considered to be the best solution. The BLRT is nonsignificant for the three-class solution, whereas the two-class solution is significant. The entropy value indicates that a high proportion of participants are correctly classified. The AIC, BIC, and ssBIC all show a large drop from the one to two-class solutions, but stopped decreasing in the three-class solution and the BIC even increased, suggesting that additional classes do not add to the model (DiStefano & Kamphaus, 2006). Class 1 (secure with low-medium avoidance, n = 141, 90.40%) was characterized by respondents who scored low on the anxiety dimension and low-medium on the avoidance dimension. Class 2 (high on both dimensions, n = 15, 9.60%) was characterized by respondents who scored higher than Class 1 on both dimensions but lower than the same class in the husbands. It is noteworthy to mention that reference to low and high should be regarded as relative rather than absolute. The latent profile plot can be seen in Figure 1.

Combinations of Husbands and Wives Attachment

The sample included 156 couples. Indeed, 73 (46.80%) couples were classified as secure-secure (both partners low on both anxiety and avoidance dimensions), 14 (8.90%) couples where wives are secure and husbands are high on both anxiety and avoidance dimensions, and 54 (34.6%) couples where wives are secure and husbands are highly avoidant and with medium levels of anxiety. We also found couples with wives who were high on both avoidance and anxiety dimensions and husbands who were high on the avoidance dimension and medium on the anxiety dimension (n = 5, 3.20%), couples with both husbands and wives high on both avoidance and anxiety dimensions (n = 2, 1.30%), and couples with wives who were high on both anxiety and avoidance dimensions and husbands are secure, that is low on both dimensions (n = 8, 5.10%). Due to group sizes of couples in which wives are high on both dimensions, and given the theoretical similarity between husbands that are high on both dimensions (n = 2) and husbands that are mainly avoidant but also with medium anxiety (n = 5), we have decided to merge these couples into one group (n = 7).

The Associations of Couples’ Different Attachment Combinations and Marital Adjustment

Analysis of variance test was employed to determine if the couples’ combinations of attachment classifications were significantly different in terms of their mean scores of marital adjustment. Post hoc Bonferroni corrections were used and part of the pairwise comparisons were significant (p < .001). Comparing the classes across all measures in husbands, the classes with couples defined by wives that are high on both dimensions of anxiety and avoidance and husbands that are high on both of these dimensions or mainly avoidant with medium anxiety displayed the lowest levels of marital adjustment. This stands in comparison with the secure-secure class whom husbands displayed the highest levels of marital adjustment (see Table 3). However, no differences were found between the wives’ marital adjustment in the combinations of attachment of couples. In other words, the couples’ combinations of attachment avoidance and anxiety were not implicated in wives’ marital adjustment.

Table 3.

Estimates for the Profiles of Attachment Combinations and Mean and Standard Deviation of Marital Adjustment in the Combination of Attachment of Husbands and Wives.

	Measure	Combinations M (SD)				F(4, 151)
	Secure-secure (46.8%)	Wives secure-men high on both (8.9%)	Wives secure-husbands mainly avoidant medium anxious (34.6%)	Wives high on both-husbands high on both or mainly avoidant with medium anxiety (4.5%)	Wives high on both-husbands secure (5.1%)	F(4, 151)
Wives’ marital adjustment	111.5 (21.6)	104.3 (26.4)	108.1 (23.4)	99.6 (14.5)	92.1 (36.8)	1.76, p = .14; Cohen’s d = .11
Husbands’ marital adjustment	102.7 (21.1)	91.2 (26.4)	93.6 (16.5)	81.1 (13.2)	99.2 (40.3)	4.31***; Cohen’s d = .62

Note. The effect sizes for the F test were conducted based with the Cohen’s d measure. The effect size for wives’ marital adjustment was low, but the effect size for husbands’ marital adjustment was of medium-level.

***

p < .001.

Discussion

This study examined Finzi-Dottan et al.’s (2004) theoretical model, which focuses on how the mutual effect of attachment of each partner contributes to the relationship’s dynamics. This study used quantitative data gathered from married couples to learn more about the role of attachment and gender in marital adjustment. Three of the four study hypotheses were met: Partners who both have a secure attachment did report the highest levels of marital adjustment. Couples where both partners had high levels of avoidance or anxiety did report the lowest levels of marital adjustment. Third, the attachment profile combination was related to the gender of each spouse, which also plays a role in marital adjustment. In line with initial hypotheses, couples with a mixture of attachment were found to experience differing levels of adjustment. However, differently than predicted, avoidant wives with secure husbands did not experience lower levels of marital adjustment than secure wives with avoidant husbands. Rather, in these dyads, the husbands endorsed lower levels of adjustment, while these differences were not implicated in the wives’ marital adjustment.

The unique angle of this study is that it used a LPA as its methodology, as opposed to other existing studies that used a regression analysis (Banse, 2004), multilevel modeling (Heresi Milad et al., 2014), or the actor–partner interdependence model (Brassard et al., 2009; Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Lopez, Riggs, Pollard, & Hook, 2011; Marchand, 2004; Mondor et al., 2011; Pollard, Riggs, & Hook, 2014). Due to using this methodology, rather than fitting the data into preselected attachment groups, the LPA analysis provided the opportunity for profiles to organically emerge based on the data found. It is of note that our findings support to the model proposed by Finzi-Dottan et al., as it found couple dynamics similar to those proposed in their theoretical paper.

Finzi-Dottan et al. theorized that two individuals with a secure attachment would have the potential of a stable, close, and intimate relationship, where they would respect both the autonomy and the needs of the other. In line with this conjecture, as well as with our initial hypotheses, the partners in this study with a secure relationship were found to have the highest level of marital adjustment. This finding is in line with other studies of marital attachment and adjustment (Banse, 2004; Scott & Cordova, 2002). Secure attachment may be reflective of strong beliefs of marital commitment and spousal support (Ehrenberg, Robertson, & Pringle, 2012), as well as lower levels of psychological distress (Meyers & Landsberger, 2002), and lower levels of dysfunction (Scott & Cordova, 2002). Levels of marital adjustment may also be due to consensual validation, where each partner serves to validate and normalize the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of the other (McCrae & Costa, 1982).

As predicted, couples where both partners had high levels of avoidance or anxiety reported the lowest levels of marital adjustment. These results appear to support Finzi-Dottan et al.’s vision of a couple where both partners who are high in anxiety would be characterized by reciprocal disappointments, difficulty in separating, as well as verbal and physical aggression. Existing research provides explanations for these findings, suggesting that dually anxious couples may have high rejection sensitivity or be hypervigilent to rejection, and perceive their partner’s behavior as conflictual; an anxious partner may also press the other to deal with negative feelings, which may be unenjoyable (Brassard et al., 2009). A couple mutually high in anxiety or avoidance may perceive their relationship as distressed (Scott & Cordova, 2002) and low in adjustment (Mondor et al., 2011). However, it is of note that research has also found that an individual with high levels of anxiety may aim to sexually gratifying their partner as means of facilitating closeness within the relationship, which can potentially contribute to relationship satisfaction (Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Heresi Milad et al., 2014).

While anxiety may keep the partners interacting with each other, avoidance predicts other problems. Finzi-Dottan et al.’s model also envisions two partners high in avoidance to be emotionally cut-off and to heavily deny their feelings of distress or failure. Both theory and research have found connections between avoidance and marital distress (Barry & Lawrence, 2013), with high levels of avoidance being tied to lower levels of satisfaction, connectedness, and support (Li & Chan, 2012). Avoiding one’s partner may result in avoiding conflict resolution, seeking emotional support, or not remaining faithful (Brassard et al., 2009). Avoidant couples may also avoid sexual relations, intimacy, or closeness with their spouse, while anxious couples may experience difficulty in experiencing sexual satisfaction or enjoyment (Butzer & Campbell, 2008); this is significant as sexual challenges in a couple can be viewed as a cause or symptom of marital adjustment (Young, Denny, Luquis, & Young, 1998).

In line with initial hypotheses, couples with a mixture of attachment types were found to experience differing levels of adjustment. Finzi-Dottan et al. suggested that couples with different attachment would find themselves in dynamics ranging from a pursuer–distancer dynamic to constant rejection due to unwanted dependency or closeness. The findings here found that couples with mixed attachment reported neither the highest or lowest forms of adjustment.

However, differently than predicted, when there were different types of attachment between husband and wife, the husbands did experience lower levels of adjustment, while these differences were not implicated in the wives’ marital adjustment. An anxious or avoidant wife is related to the husband’s dissatisfaction, with the latter being far more related to relationship dissatisfaction (Butzer & Campbell, 2008). An avoidant wife may not be interested in maintaining emotional or physical closeness with her husband, much to his displeasure; her avoidance may lead to the husband feeling rejected (Brassard et al., 2009). The wife’s avoidance can also manifest in avoidance of sexual interactions with her husband, which can lower his relationship satisfaction (Butzer & Campbell, 2008). And should the wife be high in anxiety, the husband may perceive her as overly dependent on him, thereby decreasing his relationship satisfaction (Brassard et al., 2009).

Contrary to expectations, having a husband who was high in anxiety or avoidance did not affect the marital adjustment of securely attached wives. Given findings in the literature, it was expected that having an avoidant husband would impact wives’ adjustment. Brassard et al. (2009) found that women were especially sensitive to their husband’s avoidance, while Mondor et al. (2011) found that the husband’s anxiety was negatively related to the wife’s adjustment. It is possible that this finding is reflective of the wives seeking to maintain relationship harmony in their marriage (Kerr & Bowen, 1988), as wives’ responsibility attributions have been found to be more predictive of forgiveness (Fincham, Paleari, & Regalia, 2002). It is also possible that wives wish to maintain harmony in their marriage, as women can experience significant social and financial losses in the aftermath of a divorce (Smock, Manning, & Gupta, 1999). Indeed, long-term marriages do not necessarily predict marital happiness, as couples may remain together in stable unhappy marriages due to such reasons as age, commitment to the institution of marriage, or the belief that divorce would lead to greater unhappiness (Heaton & Albrecht, 1991). Couples may remain together for the sake of the children, lack of financial resources, religious beliefs, commitment to social norms, or to maintain breadwinner–homemaker roles (Previti & Amato, 2003).

Finally, the attachment profile combination was related to the gender of each spouse, which also plays a role in marital adjustment. Whether due to socialization practices or innate biological reasons, gender divides are seen in marriage, with husbands and wives taking on different roles in the marriage. For instance, women are often deemed to prioritize relationship closeness and emotional intimacy, and are generally viewed as more attuned to the emotional health of their relationships (Renshaw, Campbell, Meis, & Erbes, 2014). If the couple has prioritized the career of the husband over the wife, it may make it financially difficult for the wife to divorce as she may have few alternatives to the marriage (Heaton & Albrecht, 1991).

Clinically, addressing the attachment of each member of the couple and its role in the relationship dynamics can be an important component of couples’ counseling (Mondor et al., 2011). Clinicians can work with each member of the couple to better understand his or her own attachment, that of the partner, and the interaction of these two attachment types within their relationship. It is also important for clinicians to take into account how gender differences and gendered expectations in the marriage play into the overall therapeutic relationship.

Limitations of this study include that it was drawn from a sample of heterosexual military husbands and their wives; it would be of interest to see how these findings are applicable to a civilian population, as well as to homosexual couples. Additionally, this study used a cross-sectional design, which impedes the ability to draw causal inferences from the data. Third, there is a cohort effect of this sample, namely that the sample here is composed of older Israelis in long-term marriages. For instance, culturally Israel has a lower rate of divorce (14%; Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, 2016) than other Western nations (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2016). Finally, it is of note that couples in this study have been married for an average of 34 years, and close to half of the sample rated their marriages as both partners being secure. This is of interest as couples who have been together longer have been found to experience more marital satisfaction (Levenson, Carstensen, & Gottman, 1993). Therefore, more research is needed as to whether the findings here are applicable to couples in short-term marriages.

Future studies can examine the interaction of attachment on relationship quality longitudinally, which would be of interest given that studies have shown that marital adjustment changes over time (Chopik, Edelstein, & Fraley, 2013). Future studies can examine whether clinical intervention could affect attachment, and ideally enhance marital adjustment.

John Bowlby (1980, p. 208) proposed that the attachment system is significant and influential “from the cradle to the grave.” This study lends additional support to the premise that both attachment and gender play a significant role in marital relations and its adjustment. Our unique analysis of quantitative data led to the findings of five possible marital dynamic groupings, which serves to support Finzi-Dottan et al.’s (2004) theoretical framework. This study’s results lend support to the conjecture that the interaction of attachment of each partner is significant when understanding the marital dynamic as well as overall levels of relationship adjustment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Armour

Elklit

Shevlin

(2011). Attachment typologies and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety: A latent profile analysis approach. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 2, 608.

Banse

(2004). Adult attachment and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic configuration effects. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 273-282. doi:10.1177/0265407504041388

Barry

R. A.

Lawrence

(2013). “Don’t stand so close to me”: An attachment perspective of disengagement and avoidance in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 484-494. doi:10.1037/a0032867

Bernard

(1982). The future of marriage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby

(1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation, anxiety and anger. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby

(1980). Attachment and loss, Vol. 3: Loss, sadness and depression. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brassard

Lussier

Shaver

P. R.

(2009). Attachment, perceived conflict, and couple satisfaction: Test of a mediational dyadic model. Family Relations, 58, 634-646. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2009.00580.x

Brennan

K. A.

Clark

C. L.

Shaver

P. R.

(1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. W.

(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

10.

Brennan

K. A.

Shaver

P. R.

(1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267-283.

11.

Butzer

Campbell

(2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15, 141-154. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00189.x

12.

Chopik

W. J.

Edelstein

R. S.

Fraley

R. C.

(2013). From the cradle to the grave: Age differences in attachment from early adulthood to old age. Journal of Personality, 81, 171-183. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00793.x

13.

Clark

Muthén

(2009). Relating latent class analysis results to variables not included in the analysis. Retrieved from https://www.statmodel.com/download/relatinglca.pdf

14.

DiStefano

Kamphaus

R. W.

(2006). Investigating subtypes of child development: A comparison of cluster analysis and latent class cluster analysis in typology creation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 778-794.

15.

Ehrenberg

M. F.

Robertson

Pringle

(2012). Attachment style and marital commitment in the context of remarriage. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53, 204-219. doi:10.1080/10502556.2012.663270

16.

Ein-Dor

Doron

Solomon

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2010). Together in pain: Attachment-related dyadic processes and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 317-327. doi:10.1037/a0019500

17.

Fincham

F. D.

Paleari

F. G.

Regalia

(2002). Forgiveness in marriage: The role of relationship quality, attributions, and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9, 27-37. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00002

18.

Finzi-Dottan

Cohen

Tyano

(2004). Le couple: Sa formation, sa destruction et ce qu’il y a entre les deux [The couple: Its formation, destruction, and everything in between]. Perspective Psychology, 43, 310-317.

19.

Fuller

T. L.

Fincham

F. D

. (1995). Attachment style in married couples: Relation to current marital functioning, stability over time, and method of assessment. Personal Relationships, 2, 17-34.

20.

Greene

Lahav

Bronstein

Solomon

(2014). The role of ex-POWs’ PTSD symptoms and trajectories in wives’ secondary traumatization. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 666-674. doi:10.1037/a0037848

21.

Hazan

Shaver

(1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

22.

Heaton

Albrecht

(1991). Stable unhappy marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 747-758.

23.

Heresi Milad

Rivera Ottenberger

Huepe

. (2014). Associations among attachment, sexuality, and marital satisfaction in adult Chilean couples: A linear hierarchical models analysis. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40, 1-15. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2012.756840

24.

Heyman

R. E.

Sayers

S. L.

Bellack

A. S.

(1994). Global marital satisfaction versus marital adjustment: An empirical comparison of three measures. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 432-446.

25.

Hook

JN.

(2011). Religious commitment, adult attachment, and marital adjustment in newly married couples. J Fam Psychol, 25(2), 301-9. doi: 10.1037/a0022943.

26.

Horesh

Fennig

(2000). Perception of spouses and relationships: A matched control study of patients with severe affective disorder in remission and their spouses. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 188, 463-466.

27.

Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Marriages, divorces, live births, deaths, natural increase, infant deaths and stillbirths, by religion. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton_e.html?num_tab=st03_01&CYear=2016

28.

Jung

Wickrama

(2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 302-317.

29.

Kaufman

Goldscheider

(2007). Do men “need” a spouse more than women? Perceptions of the importance of marriage for men and women. Sociological Quarterly, 48, 29-46. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2007.00069.x

30.

Kerr

Bowen

(1988). Family evaluation. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

31.

Lanza

S. T.

Rhoades

B. L.

(2013). Latent class analysis: An alternative perspective on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prevention Science, 14, 157-168. doi:10.1007/s11121-011-0201-1

32.

Levenson

R. W.

Carstensen

L. L.

Gottman

J. M.

(1993). Long-term marriage: Age, gender, and satisfaction. Psychology and Aging, 8, 301-313. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.8.2.301

33.

Chan

D. K.

(2012). How anxious and avoidant attachment affect romantic relationship quality differently: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 406-419. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1842

34.

Little

(1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198-1202. doi:10.2307/2290157

35.

Lopez

Riggs

Pollard

Hook

JN.

(2011). Religious commitment, adult attachment, and marital adjustment in newly married couples. J Fam Psychol, 25(2), 301-309. doi: 10.1037/a0022943.

36.

Lussier

Sabourin

Turgeon

(1997). Coping strategies as moderators of the relationship between attachment and marital adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 777-791. doi:10.1177/0265407597146004

37.

Marchand

J. F.

(2004). Husbands’ and wives’ marital quality: The role of adult attachment orientations, depressive symptoms, and conflict resolution behaviors. Attachment and Human Development, 6, 99-112.

38.

McCarthy

Maughan

(2010). Negative childhood experiences and adult love relationships: The role of internal working models of attachment. Attachment & Human Development, 12, 445-461. doi:10.1080/14616734.2010.501968

39.

McCrae

Costa

(1982). Self-concept and the stability of personality: Cross-sectional comparisons of self-reports and ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1282-1292. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1282

40.

Meyers

S. A.

Landsberger

S. A.

(2002). Direct and indirect pathways between adult attachment style and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 9, 159-172. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00010

41.

Mikulincer

Florian

(2000). Exploring individual differences in reactions to mortality salience: Does attachment style regulate terror management mechanisms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 260-273. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.260

42.

Mikulincer

Florian

Tolmacz

(1990). Attachment styles and fear of personal death: A case study of affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 273-280.

43.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 53-152.

44.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics and change. New York, NY: Springer.

45.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics and change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

46.

Molero

Shaver

P. R.

Ferrer

Cuadrado

Alonso-Arbiol

(2011). Attachment insecurities and interpersonal processes in Spanish couples: A dyadic approach. Personal Relationships, 18, 617-629. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01325.x

47.

Mondor

McDuff

Lussier

Wright

(2011). Couples in therapy: Actor-partner analyses of the relationships between adult romantic attachment and marital satisfaction. American Journal of Family Therapy, 39, 112-123. doi:10.1080/01926187.2010.530163

48.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). Marriage and divorce rates. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_3_1_Marriage_and_divorce_rates.pdf

49.

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 General Psychology, 4, 155-175. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.155

50.

Pollard

Riggs

Hook

(2014). Mutual influences in adult romantic attachment, religious coping, and marital adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(5), 615-624. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0036682

51.

Previti

Amato

(2003). Why stay married? Rewards, barriers, and marital stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 561-573.

52.

Raftery

A. E.

(1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111-163.

53.

Renshaw

K. D.

Campbell

S. B.

Meis

Erbes

(2014). Gender differences in the associations of PTSD symptom clusters with relationship distress in U.S. Vietnam Veterans and their partners. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27, 283-290. doi:10.1002/jts.21916

54.

Schimmenti

Bifulco

(2015). Linking lack of care in childhood to anxiety disorders in emerging adulthood: The role of attachment styles. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 20, 41-48. doi:10.1111/camh.12051

55.

Scott

R. L.

Cordova

J. V.

(2002). The influence of adult attachment styles on the association between marital adjustment and depressive symptoms. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 199-208. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.16.2.199

56.

Smock

Manning

Gupta

(1999). The effect of marriage and divorce on women’s economic well-being. American Sociological Review, 64, 794-812.

57.

Solomon

Horesh

Ein-Dor

Ohry

(2012). Predictors of PTSD trajectories following captivity: A 35-year longitudinal study. Psychiatry Research, 199, 188-194. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2012.03.035

58.

Spanier

G. B.

(1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28.

59.

Young

Denny

Luquis

Young

(1998). Correlates of sexual satisfaction in marriage. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 7, 115-127.