You haven’t been on my mind lately

Abstract

Sexual desire between romantic partners tends to decrease over time. A decrease in frequency of dyadic fantasies and an increase in frequency of extradyadic fantasies are typical manifestations of this process. The present diary study adopted an attachment-theoretical perspective to better understand why some people are less likely to fantasize about their partners. Both members of 100 romantic couples completed measures of relationship-specific insecurities, partner responsiveness, and frequency of sexual fantasies every evening for 42 days. Results showed that attachment insecurities were associated with lower frequency of dyadic fantasies. Partner responsiveness mediated these associations, such that attachment insecurities were associated with perceiving partners as less responsive, which, in turn, predicted lower frequency of dyadic fantasies. Men’s avoidance predicted higher frequency of extradyadic fantasies. These findings demonstrated the role of responsiveness in sustaining desire, suggesting that attachment insecurities bias people to perceive their partner as less responsive, thereby hampering sexual desire.

Keywords

Attachment extradyadic fantasies responsiveness sexuality

Sexual desire tends to diminish gradually as time passes, with many long-term relationships failing to sustain it (e.g., Birnbaum, Cohen, & Wertheimer, 2007; Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, & Kolata, 1994). This decline in sexual desire is likely to decrease intimacy between partners (McCarthy, Bodnar, & Handal, 2004) and lead to feelings of attraction toward alternative mates (Regan, 2000). A decrease in frequency of sexual fantasies about existing partners (“dyadic fantasies”) and an increase in frequency of extradyadic fantasies are typical manifestations of this process (Hicks & Leitenberg, 2001). For some people, these extradyadic fantasies may satisfy the need for novelty and variety without necessarily reflecting relationship hardship. For other people, however, such fantasies may emanate from relationship distress and compensate for relationship deficiencies (Davidson & Hoffman, 1986; Trudel, 2002). Past studies have suggested that people who are prone to relationship dissatisfaction fantasize more frequently about extradyadic sex than do happily coupled people (Davidson & Hoffman, 1986; Trudel, 2002). Unfortunately, these findings are hard to interpret because of several methodological issues, such as the use of cross-sectional and retrospective designs. Furthermore, it is still unclear what relationship processes motivate people to fantasize less about their current partners and more about alternative partners.

The present daily diary study adopted an attachment-theoretical perspective to better understand the process underlying the tendency to fantasizing less frequently about current partners and more frequently about alternative mates. Rather than examining attachment orientations at the trait level, we adopted a contextual approach and examined within-person variations in attachment-related experiences. These context-specific attachment insecurities were found to predict relationship outcomes above and beyond dispositional attachment orientations (Cozzarelli, Hoekstra, & Bylsma, 2000; Pierce & Lydon, 2001; Treboux, Crowell, & Waters, 2004). Building on the findings that perceiving one’s partner as unresponsive to one’s needs interferes with attachment processes, with negative effects on relational well-being (Reis & Clark, 2013), we examined (a) the associations between daily attachment anxiety and avoidance and the frequency of dyadic and extradyadic sexual fantasies and (b) the potential role of perceived partner responsiveness in mediating these associations.

Sexual fantasies within the context of adult attachment

Sexual fantasies provide insights into private scripts that portray desires, goals, and preferences that are not enforced by the laws of reality (Freud, 1908/1962) and may not necessarily occur in real life (Birnbaum, 2007b). As such, within committed long-term relationships, they may serve as a source of novel and exciting experiences, including extradyadic ones. These imaginary experiences are likely to fuel sexual arousal without suffering the possible consequences of actual infidelity (Ziegler & Conley, 2016). To be sure, even though some people perceive extradyadic sexual fantasies as inappropriate, both men and women report fantasizing about people other than their current partners, with increasing frequency as relationships endure (Hicks & Leitenberg, 2001).

Although the increase in frequency of extradyadic fantasies may reflect a normative decline in sexual desire over time (Baumeister & Bratslavsky, 1999; Klusmann, 2002; Levine, 2003; Liu, 2000), in some relationships, excluding one’s partner from sexual fantasies may indicate relational deficiencies. Indeed, although previous findings indicated that unsatisfied partners are more likely than satisfied partners to have extradyadic sexual fantasies (Davidson & Hoffman, 1986; Trudel, 2002), clinicians argue that replacing current partners with alternative mates in sexual fantasies does not necessarily signify unhealthy relationship functioning (Ziegler & Conley, 2016). Sexual fantasies may function as a strategy to cope with distressing relational experiences. When relational experiences are disappointing or threatening to one’s self-esteem, fantasies may serve a self-protective role, creating an alternative “reality,” in which one can feel attractive, powerful, indulged, and desired. Such strategy may counter the original stress-provoking experience and help restore self-esteem (e.g., Harder et al., 1984; Zelin et al., 1983).

Some people, however, may be more prone than others to encounter disappointment in their relationships and thus are more likely to use sexual fantasies in a defensive way. Using attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973) as an organizing framework, we examined whether the typical relationship difficulties experienced by insecurely attached people (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016) are manifested in the fantasy realm in the form of excluding current partners from sexual fantasies and replacing them with alternative mates. Attachment theory posits that interactions with responsive others in times of need are crucial for developing a sense of attachment security. Recurrent failures to attain the goal of “felt security” foster the development of two defensive strategies: Hyperactivation, which characterizes anxious attachment, and deactivation, which characterizes avoidant attachment. Hyperactivation of the attachment system is conceptualized as a “fight” reaction, which involves intense efforts to motivate insufficiently responsive others to pay more attention to one’s needs. Deactivation of the attachment system is conceptualized as a “flight” reaction that aims to maintain emotional distance and self-reliance in close relationships (Main, 1990; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Attachment strategies guide patterns of relational expectations and goals over the entire life span and may thus shape expectations about the willingness of one’s romantic partner to be responsive to one’s personal needs (Bowlby, 1973). Indeed, research has shown that individual differences in attachment security contribute to perceptions of partner’s responsiveness (e.g., Segal & Fraley, 2016). As compared to more insecure people, those who are secure with respect to attachment are more likely to trust partners to be available and caring when needed (see review by Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Insecure persons, on the other hand, have less confidence in their partners’ dependability and support. Consequently, they tend to perceive their partners as less responsive than independent observers do (e.g., Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005; Collins & Feeney, 2004; Girme, Overall, Simpson, & Fletcher, 2015).

Research has demonstrated that attachment-related differences in interpersonal goals help to explain variations in the construal of sexual experiences with romantic partners (see reviews by Birnbaum, 2010, 2015; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Specifically, anxiously attached people tend to channel relationship worries into the sexual route (Birnbaum, Reis, Mikulincer, Gillath, & Orpaz, 2006). The resulting intruding thoughts, together with inhibited communication of sexual needs, impede their ability to freely enjoy sexual interactions (Birnbaum et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2006), making them more prone to experiencing low desire and other sexual dysfunctions (Birnbaum, 2007a; Burri, Schweitzer, & O’Brien, 2014; Stefanou & McCabe, 2012).

Yet, previous findings have indicated that men and women experience attachment anxiety differently in the sexual arena (Birnbaum, 2016). Specifically, highly anxious women are particularly likely to be engaged in extrapair sex (e.g., Bogaert & Sadava, 2002; Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997) and risky sexual behaviors (e.g., unprotected and consensual unwanted sex; Feeney & Noller, 2004; Impett & Peplau, 2002). Among men, in contrast, attachment anxiety is associated with relatively restricted sexual expressions (e.g., reporting fewer sex partners and a lower likelihood of cheating on their partners; Cooper et al., 2006; Gentzler & Kerns, 2004). These gender differences in sexual manifestations of attachment anxiety are paralleled in the fantasy realm: Highly anxious women tend to experience fantasies that involve unrestricted sex, whereas highly anxious men tend to focus on pleasing their romantic partners in sexual fantasies (Birnbaum, 2016).

Avoidantly attached individuals are also inclined to experience low desire for their partner (Stefanou & McCabe, 2012), though for different reasons. The aversion to the intimacy inherent in sexual contact often leads avoidant people to employ various strategies to distance themselves from their primary partner. For example, they often masturbate (Bogaert & Sadava, 2002) or engage in extradyadic sex (DeWall et al., 2011) rather than having frequent sex with their partners (Brassard, Shaver, & Lussier, 2007). When avoidant people do have sex with their partners, they focus on their own sexual needs and are less likely to attend to their partners’ needs. Nevertheless, they tend to experience estrangement and alienation during sexual interactions and are less likely to satisfy their needs (Birnbaum & Reis, 2006; Birnbaum et al., 2006).

The effects of attachment avoidance are more marked in men’s sexuality than in women’s (Birnbaum, 2016). Avoidant men, for example, are more inclined to approve of casual sex, to engage in extrapair sex, and to use sex for relationship-irrelevant reasons (e.g., coping with stress) as compared to avoidant women (e.g., Birnbaum, Hirschberger, & Goldenberg, 2011; Cooper et al., 2006; Sprecher, 2013). This pattern of findings may be explained by male sex-role norms, which encourage the quest for sexual conquering, and intensify the destructive effects of avoidance on sexual expressions of intimacy (Birnbaum, 2016).

The present research

The present research sought to explore whether the defensive tendencies associated with attachment anxiety and avoidance migrate into the fantasy realm and are manifested in distancing oneself from romantic partners in the form of losing interest in dyadic themes and expressing more interest in extradyadic themes. Furthermore, we aimed to examine whether perceiving romantic partners as unresponsive may help to explain daily variations in their exclusion from sexual fantasies. Previous research has demonstrated that individual differences in attachment-related defensive goals may color the content of sexual fantasies (Birnbaum, 2007b). Yet, beyond these trait-level attachment orientations, conditions that generate insecurity regarding the love of one’s partner may amplify the defensive manifestations of attachment hyperactivation and deactivation strategies in sexual fantasies (Birnbaum, Mikulincer, & Gillath, 2011; Birnbaum, Svitelman, Bar-Shalom, & Porat, 2008). In particular, priming attachment insecurity was found to elicit sexual fantasies that involved interpersonal distance and hostility themes, regardless of attachment orientations (Birnbaum, Simpson, Weisberg, Barnea, & Assulin-Simhon, 2012).

It remains unclear, however, whether and why the more natural occurrence of day-to-day experiences of attachment insecurities will also be reflected in disengaging from the partner in the form of low-frequency dyadic fantasies and high-frequency extradyadic fantasies. Examining the associations between daily attachment anxiety and avoidance and perceptions of partner responsiveness may help address this question. Specifically, withdrawing from relationship partners who seem unresponsive may be a mechanism through which the defensive strategies of the attachment system operate. Yet, the only studies that indicated that insecure people are more likely than their secure counterparts to report extradyadic sexual fantasies were cross-sectional and retrospective and did not examine the actual frequency of dyadic fantasies. Moreover, these studies focused on the relations between dispositional attachment orientations and sexual fantasies (Brassard et al., 2007; Stephan & Bachman, 1999).

Although people are guided by their global attachment orientations, they also acquire beliefs and expectancies about specific relationships (e.g., Creasey & Ladd, 2005; Pierce & Lydon, 2001), which are sensitive to specific relational interactions and can thus vary across contexts (Cozzarelli et al., 2000; Cozzarelli, Karafa, Collins, & Tagler, 2003). For example, even individuals who are chronically secure can temporarily feel insecure if they recall an event that made them feel highly anxious. These relationship-specific attachment models are not necessarily highly correlated with one’s global attachment orientations (Pierce & Lydon, 2001) and, therefore, may uniquely predict interpersonal perceptions when they are activated (Cozzarelli et al., 2000; Simpson & Rholes, 2002).

In the present study, we adopted a contextual approach to attachment-related experiences. Specifically, we employed a daily experience methodology to investigate the possibility that the exclusion of one’s romantic partner from sexual fantasies would be predicted by daily variations in attachment insecurity and might be explained by the tendency to feel disappointed in a partner’s lack of responsiveness (Collins & Feeney, 2004; Segal & Fraley, 2016). Although anxiety and avoidance are associated with different manifestations in the sexual arena (e.g., Birnbaum, 2016), both relate to perceiving one’s partner as less responsive (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016) and thus may also be related to the exclusion of seemingly unresponsive partners from sexual fantasies. Over a span of 42 consecutive days, we asked both members of romantic couples to complete daily measures of relationship-specific anxiety and avoidance, perceived partner responsiveness, and frequency of dyadic and extradyadic sexual fantasies. Moreover, we controlled for partner effects and examined whether daily variations in partner’s attachment tendencies also predict the frequency of dyadic and extradyadic fantasies.

Our specific predictions were as follows:
Experiencing daily attachment insecurities (i.e., anxiety and avoidance) would be associated with decreased fantasizing about one’s current romantic partner and increased fantasizing about alternative partners.

Daily shifts in the perceptions of partner’s responsiveness would mediate the link between daily attachment insecurities (i.e., anxiety and avoidance) and frequency of dyadic and extradyadic fantasies, such that daily attachment insecurities would be associated with perceiving one’s partner as less responsive, which, in turn, would predict low frequency of dyadic fantasies and high frequency of extradyadic fantasies.

The associations between daily attachment avoidance and frequency of extradyadic fantasies would be stronger in men than in women.

The associations between daily attachment anxiety and frequency of extradyadic fantasies would be stronger in women than in men.

Method

Participants

One hundred heterosexual Israeli couples participated in this study¹ in exchange for 400 New Israeli Shekel (about $105). To determine sample size, we estimated the relative power for the planned multilevel analysis using the PinT V2.1 computer program (Snijders, Bosker, & Guldemond, 2003). Although PinT was originally developed for power analyses of discrete predictors, Raudenbush and Liu (2001) noted that approximations are possible in cases with continuous explanatory variables. Power for a random coefficient model was estimated for a sample of 100 couples and 42 time periods, with a moderate effect size (.30 in a correlation metric). This hypothesized effect size was based on the findings of previous research examining the effect of attachment orientations on sexual fantasies (Birnbaum, Mikulincer, et al., 2011). Estimation of the standard errors assuming α = .05 yielded a power of .99.

All couples were recruited via flyers or by word-of-mouth from universities and community centers in the central area of Israel. Participants were recruited if they (a) were in a monogamous relationship (i.e., not being emotionally or sexually involved with other partners), (b) agreed to report on their daily sexual and relationship experiences each evening for a period of 42 days, and (c) were currently sexually active (defined as having had vaginal sex at least twice a week in the 2 months preceding the study). Women ranged in age from 21 to 31 years (M = 23.93, SD = 1.84) and men ranged in age from 21 to 35 years (M = 25.60, SD = 2.70). Ninety-five percent of the couples were cohabiting and 5% were married. Two percent had children. Relationship length ranged from 1 to 98 months (M = 24.80, SD = 25.67).

Measures and procedure

Couples who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were invited to the laboratory, filled out a background questionnaire, and were trained to complete the diary questionnaires. Participants were instructed to fill out the questionnaires in private and to refrain from discussing responses with their partner until the completion of the study. E-mails containing a link to the daily measures were sent independently to both partners each day for 42 days. Couples were also contacted by telephone every week to improve compliance with the diary protocol. In addition, reminder e-mails were sent to participants who had not completed their daily diaries by midnight each night. At the end of the study, both partners were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Daily-level measures

On each diary day, participants completed measures of relationship-specific attachment anxiety and avoidance, perceived partner responsiveness, and frequency of dyadic fantasies. Participants also reported whether they had engaged in sex with their partner and the frequency of extradyadic fantasies during sex. In all, participants completed an average of 41.14 of the 42 (98%) daily diaries (total of 8,228 daily reports). All daily items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). To estimate scale reliability of attachment and perceived responsiveness measures at the daily level, we created an additional item level (nested within days and persons) and ran a three-level unconditional model in HLM 7 software (Scientific Software International, Inc., Skokie, IL; Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2011), as suggested by Nezlek (2012). HLM estimates the reliability of the item-level intercept, which is equivalent to Cronbach’s α. The intercorrelations among all study variables are presented in an online supplement (Supplemental Table S2).

Attachment anxiety and avoidance

This measure was based on the Experience in Close Relationships Scale (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) and was adapted to reflect daily experiences with a specific partner. Three items tapped attachment anxiety (e.g., “I worried a lot about my relationship today”; α =.67; M_aggregated = 1.42, SD = .52), and three items tapped attachment avoidance (“Today I preferred not to show my partner how I felt deep down; α = .62; M_aggregated = 1.38, SD = .41). The percentages of within-person variability in daily anxiety and avoidance were 46% and 33%, respectively.

Perceived partner responsiveness

This 6-item measure was adapted from the Perceived Responsiveness Scale (Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, & Finkel, 2011) to reflect daily perceptions of how understood, validated, and cared for the participants felt when interacting with their partners (e.g., “Today my partner has expressed liking and encouragement for me”; “Today my partner seemed interested in what I was thinking and feeling”; α = .89; M_aggregated = 4.12, SD = .57).²

Frequency of dyadic fantasies

Participants rated the extent to which they sexually fantasized about their partner during that day. The mean of the reported dyadic fantasies aggregated over 6 weeks was 3.57 (SD = .87).

Frequency of extradyadic fantasies

Participants rated the extent to which they sexually fantasized about alternative partners during sexual intercourse. The fantasy items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The mean of the reported extradyadic fantasies aggregated over 6 weeks was 1.19 (SD = .39).

Results

All analyses were conducted using the MIXED procedure in SPSS 21. A two-intercept, two-level hierarchical model for dyadic diary data was used to account for the nested structure of the data. The two-intercept approach simultaneously estimates separate intercepts and slopes for male and female partners. In the hierarchical model, Level 1 captures within-person variability across days, whereas Level 2 represents between-couple variability across partners (see Laurenceau & Bolger, 2005; Raudenbush, Brennan, & Barnett, 1995, for more details). This analytic approach allows the error terms in Level 1 to correlate across partners and thus better estimates the error structure of repeated dyadic data than a three-level model would (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). These data were analyzed using actor–partner interdependence model (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006), which separates actor effects (how one’s own reports of daily anxiety, daily avoidance, and daily perceived responsiveness predict one’s own sexual fantasies) and partner effects (how a partner’s daily anxiety, daily avoidance, and daily perceived responsiveness³ predict one’s own sexual fantasies).

Dyadic fantasies

We used three sets of control variables in all analyses, as recommended by Bolger and Laurenceau (2013). First, to control for potential time-related artifacts, we included a linear trend of the elapsed time in days. Second, to rule out autocorrelation (i.e., daily serial dependency), we controlled for previous day’s outcome variable. Specifically, in predicting today’s fantasizing, yesterday’s fantasizing was partialed out. Third, to account for potential confounding between the within-person and the between-person levels of analysis, we controlled for between-person averages (e.g., the average fantasizing aggregated across all 42 diary days) for all primary variables (i.e., actor and partner effects of anxiety, avoidance, and perceived responsiveness).

The first set of analyses used composite reports of own and partner daily anxiety and avoidance to predict sexual dyadic fantasies. In order to simplify interpretation, prior to the analysis all daily predictors were within-person mean-centered. The time trend was centered on the middle of the time span (i.e., 22nd day). Intercepts and slopes were allowed to vary across gender. To assess mediation, we used a procedure for testing mediation in a multilevel data structure recommended by Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang (2010). First, we estimated the link between daily attachment insecurities (i.e., anxiety and avoidance experiences; the independent variables) and fantasizing about current partners (i.e., dyadic fantasies; the outcome). Second, we tested the association between daily attachment insecurities and perceived responsiveness (i.e., the mediator). Third, we examined the link between the mediator and the outcome variable while controlling for the independent variables.

In order to estimate the significance of the indirect effects of actor and partner anxiety and avoidance on dyadic fantasies through perceived responsiveness, we used “Mlmed,” a macro that was developed to compute multilevel mediation in SPSS (see Rockwood & Hayes, 2017, for more details). Mlmed accounts for within-person and between-person variability and estimates all of the parameters in the model simultaneously, as outlined in Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006). We estimated the indirect effects by a Monte Carlo simulation generating 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using 10,000 resamples. A significant statistical effect at α < .05 was indicated when the value zero was not included in the CI. Although we did not control for previous day’s outcome in this analysis due to a limitation of Mlmed, we did control for it in the main analysis.

Results of the multilevel dyadic analyses are presented in Table 1. The first section of Table 1 presents the associations between daily attachment insecurities and daily dyadic fantasies. The results showed that for both sexes, daily variations in actor anxiety and avoidance were inversely related to daily fantasizing about one’s partner, such that men and women who experienced relatively high daily anxiety or avoidance reported experiencing daily dyadic fantasies less frequently. Moreover, partner daily avoidance was associated with fantasizing less about this partner in both sexes. These links were found to be statistically significant above and beyond the effects of time, yesterday’s fantasizing, and between-person actor and partner effects of anxiety and avoidance.

Table 1.
Total, direct, and indirect effects of attachment anxiety and avoidance on dyadic fantasies through responsiveness: A multilevel mediation analysis.

B SE t p [95% CI]

I. Dependent variable model (DV = dyadic fantasies)

Men

Intercept 3.487 .725 4.805 <.000 [1.960, 5.014]

Time .004 .001 3.636 <.000 [.001, .006]

Actor anxiety −.151 .042 −3.593 .001 [−.236, −.065]

Partner anxiety −.035 .025 −1.437 .151 [−.085, .013]

Actor avoidance −.272 .043 −6.213 <.000 [−.359, −.185]

Partner avoidance −.069 .028 −2.464 .013 [−.125, −.014]

Yesterday fantasizing .157 .023 6.588 <.000 [.110, .204]

Women

Intercept 2.320 .780 2.974 .010 [.644, 3.997]

Time .006 .001 5.142 <.000 [.003, .008]

Actor anxiety −.145 .042 −3.415 .007 [−.242, −.049]

Partner anxiety −.003 .028 −.123 .901 [−.059, .052]

Actor avoidance −.325 .044 −7.330 <.000 [−.416, −.235]

Partner avoidance −.079 .032 −2.464 .013 [−.142, −.016]

Yesterday fantasizing .175 .023 7.521 <.000 [.126, .223]

II. Mediator variable model (DV = perceived responsiveness)

Men

Intercept 3.365 .546 6.153 <.000 [2.278, 4.451]

Time .001 .000 1.452 .146 [−.000, .003]

Actor anxiety −.147 .027 −5.348 <.000 [−.202, −.092]

Partner anxiety −.076 .015 −4.903 <.000 [−.107, −.045]

Actor avoidance −.382 .042 −9.038 <.000 [−.466, −.298]

Partner avoidance −.107 .017 −6.225 <.000 [−.141, −.073]

Yesterday perceived responsiveness −.043 .021 −2.028 .045 [−.086, −.000]

Women

Intercept 2.419 .455 5.306 <.000 [1.513, 3.325]

Time .002 .000 3.097 .002 [.001, .004]

Actor anxiety −.196 .033 −5.904 <.000 [−.263, −.130]

Partner anxiety −.025 .017 −1.511 .130 [−.059, .007]

Actor avoidance −.437 .035 −12.369 <.000 [−.507, −.366]

Partner avoidance −.069 .019 −3.617 <.000 [−.107, −.032]

Yesterday perceived responsiveness −.056 .015 −3.600 <.000 [−.087, −.025]

III. Dependent variable model (DV = dyadic fantasies)

Men

Intercept 4.075 .695 5.855 <.000 [2.606, 5.543]

Time .003 .001 3.280 .001 [.001, .006]

Actor anxiety −.074 .039 −1.910 .072 [−.157, .007]

Partner anxiety .026 .024 1.075 .282 [−.021, .073]

Actor avoidance −.074 .040 −1.855 .067 [−.154, .005]

Partner avoidance .027 .028 .942 .346 [−.029, .083]

Actor perceived responsiveness .496 .024 2.219 <.000 [.448, .544]

Partner perceived responsiveness .092 .024 3.828 <.000 [.045, .140]

Yesterday fantasizing .099 .022 4.514 <.000 [.056, .142]

Women

Intercept 3.630 .829 4.377 <.000 [1.862, 5.399]

Time .005 .001 4.303 <.000 [.002, .007]

Actor anxiety −.049 .038 −1.283 .230 [−.136, .037]

Partner anxiety .029 .027 1.089 .276 [−.023, .083]

Actor avoidance −.105 .040 −2.598 .019 [−.190, −.019]

Partner avoidance .013 .031 .413 .679 [−.048, .075]

Actor perceived responsiveness .466 .024 18.763 <.000 [.417, .515]

Partner perceived responsiveness .159 .024 6.555 <.000 [.111, .207]

Yesterday fantasizing .124 .021 5.659 <.000 [.071, .176]

The second section of Table 1 presents the associations between daily attachment insecurities and daily perceived responsiveness. The results indicated that for both male and female partners, daily variations in actor anxiety and avoidance were negatively linked to daily perceptions of their partner’s responsiveness, such that daily attachment insecurities were associated with perceiving romantic partners as less responsive. Partners’ daily avoidance was also associated with their perception as less responsive in both sexes, whereas only men’s daily anxiety predicted their perception as less responsive among their female partners. In the third section of Table 1, we present the association between the mediator and the outcome variable while controlling for the independent variables (i.e., actor and partner effects of daily anxiety and avoidance). The results showed that for both sexes, perceived responsiveness was positively linked to fantasizing about current partners, such that perceiving a romantic partner as more responsive on a certain day predicted fantasizing more frequently about this partner. Nevertheless, after controlling for perceived responsiveness, actor and partner effects of daily anxiety and avoidance in both sexes reduced in their magnitude and in most cases became nonsignificant.

To test whether perceived responsiveness mediated the association between attachment insecurities and dyadic fantasies, we calculated the 95% CIs of the effects for each of the significant predictors (i.e., actor effects of anxiety and avoidance in both sexes, partner effects of avoidance in both sexes) through daily actor perceived responsiveness using 10,000 resamples. The results showed that 95% CIs of the indirect effects for actor daily anxiety (women’s 95% CI [−.142, −.101; B = −.121, p < .001]; men’s 95% CI [−.125, −.083; B = −.103, p < .001]), actor daily avoidance (women’s 95% CI [−.269, −.170; B = −.211, p < .001]; men’s 95% CI [−.223, −.170; B = −.195, p < .001]), and partner daily avoidance (women’s 95% CI [−.071, −.026; B = −.048, p < .001]; men’s 95% CI [−.091, −.051; B = −.071, p < .001]) as predictors of fantasizing about current partners through perceived responsiveness did not include zero. These findings indicated that the associations between daily insecurities and fantasizing about current partners were significantly mediated by perceived partner responsiveness (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.
Mediation model showing that perceived responsiveness mediated the associations between actor daily attachment insecurities and dyadic fantasies. Note. W = women, M = men. Path coefficients are unstandardized. The analysis controlled for partner effects of daily anxiety and avoidance. ^† p < .10; p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

Extrasdyadic fantasies

We also examined a model in which daily attachment insecurities predicted extradyadic fantasizing. It is important to note that these data were limited to days in which partners had sex. Therefore, we did not control for previous day extradyadic fantasizing and the systematic linear trend of time. The participants completed an average of 13.25 (total of 2,651) daily reports of extradyadic fantasizing on days in which they had sex. The results revealed that daily attachment avoidance was significantly linked with extradyadic fantasies among men (B = .181, SE = .065, t = 2.75, p < .01) but not among women (B = −.000, SE = .032, t = .00, p = .993). Moreover, daily attachment anxiety had a marginally significant association with extradyadic fantasies in women (B = .071, SE = .037, t = 1.85, p = .064) but was not associated with extradyadic fantasies in men (B = .050, SE = .050, t = .99, p = .409). Partner’s daily avoidance was also positively linked to extradyadic fantasies in men (B = .061, SE = .028, t = 2.17, p < .05), such that on days in which female partner displayed more avoidance, men experienced more extradyadic fantasies. None of the other partner effects was significant.

A test of mediation revealed that for both male and female partners, perceived responsiveness did not mediate the association between actor attachment anxiety (women’s 95% CI [−.011, .009; B = −.001, p = .831]; men’s 95% CI [−.008, .140; B = .002, p = .642]) or avoidance (women’s 95% CI [−.023, .018; B = −.002, p = .830]; men’s 95% CI [−.016, .027; B = .005, p = .641]) and extradyadic fantasies. Moreover, perceived responsiveness did not mediate the association between partner avoidance in men and extradyadic fantasies (95% CI [−.006, .010; B = .001, p = .644]).

Alternative models

To rule out alternative models, we examined whether perceived responsiveness moderated the association between daily anxiety and avoidance and dyadic fantasies. The results revealed a marginally significant interaction between daily avoidance and perceived responsiveness in women (p = .08). Simple-slopes tests revealed that women who reported low daily avoidance also experienced higher frequency of dyadic fantasies. This association was stronger for women who perceived their partner as more responsive (+1 SD in daily responsiveness, B = −.164, t = −3.61, p < .001) than for women who perceived their partner as less responsive (−1 SD in daily responsiveness, B = −.092, t = −3.12, p < .01). The other interactions were not significant (ps ranging from .43 to .93). Thus, perceived partner responsiveness did not seem to moderate the insecurity–dyadic fantasizing association.

We also conducted a mediation analysis in which we reversed the order of the independent variable and mediator, such that daily attachment anxiety and avoidance mediated the association between perceived responsiveness and dyadic fantasies. We analyzed the data similarly to the main analysis, except for reversing the order of perceived responsiveness and attachment insecurities. The results indicated that daily attachment insecurities mediated the association between perceived responsiveness and dyadic fantasies. Yet, the magnitude of the indirect effects in the reversed model was substantially lower than the indirect effects in the main analysis (Bs ranging from .01 to .04).⁴

Discussion

Sexual desire tends to be strong during the early stages of romantic relationships (Acker & Davis, 1992; Baumeister & Bratslavsky, 1999) before declining gradually, with many people excluding their partners from their sexual fantasies and replacing them with alternative mates (Hicks & Leitenberg, 2001). The present research employed a daily experience methodology in an attempt to deepen our understanding about relationship dynamics that underlie the tendency to fantasize less about current romantic partners and more about alternative partners. The findings revealed that experiencing daily attachment anxiety and avoidance predicted less frequent fantasizing about current partners. Moreover, when people had a partner who was higher in avoidance, they reported less frequent dyadic fantasies. Partner responsiveness mediated these associations, such that one’s own anxiety and avoidance and partner’s avoidance were associated with perceiving partners as less responsive, which, in turn, predicted lower frequency of dyadic fantasies. Daily attachment avoidance in men and daily attachment anxiety in women predicted higher frequency of extradyadic fantasies (although the latter finding was marginally significant). Women’s avoidance also predicted more frequent extradyadic fantasizing among their male partners.

Past research has indicated that dispositional attachment insecurities impair the functioning of the sexual system in romantic relationships (Birnbaum, 2015, 2016), generating distance and hostility between partners even in the fantasy realm (Birnbaum et al., 2008). Our research adds to these findings by adopting a contextual approach to attachment insecurities and focusing on daily natural occurrences of these relationship experiences. Our findings indicated that daily attachment-related concerns were associated with decreased fantasizing about current partners, thereby demonstrated that attachment insecurity is reflected not only in estrangement themes but also in minimizing partner’s presence in the world of fantasies. These findings suggest that feeling insecure about being loved by one’s partner, whether this is reflected in relational worries (i.e., experiencing attachment anxiety) or in being uncomfortable with intimacy (i.e., experiencing attachment avoidance), interferes with perceiving this partner as the object of desire in one’s sexual fantasies.

Moreover, although our theoretical model focused on an intrapsychic process of one’s own attachment insecurity and did not include a priori predictions about partner’s insecurities, our results showed that partner’s avoidance was associated with less frequent fantasizing about this partner. These findings add to previous studies that have demonstrated the detrimental effect of partner’s avoidance (but not partner’s anxiety) on sexual and relationship satisfaction (Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Szepsenwol, Mizrahi, & Birnbaum, 2015), implying that emotionally detached partners may be less sexually desired.

Nevertheless, as our findings reveal, it is not attachment insecurity in and of itself that explains minimizing a partner’s presence in the fantasy world, but rather perceiving them as unresponsive. Research has already demonstrated that perceiving a romantic partner as responsive to one’s needs is inherent to developing a sense of security and stability in the relationship (Reis & Clark, 2013). When people perceive their romantic partners as understanding and caring, they tend to feel satisfied with their relationship, increase their investment in it, and perceive alternative partners as less appealing. In contrast, when people perceive their partners as unresponsive, they view them as less valuable and desirable mates (Birnbaum et al., 2016; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996; Segal & Fraley, 2016).

Our findings are in line with these findings, suggesting that experiencing daily attachment insecurities relates to heightened sensitivity to cues that signify a lack of partner’s responsiveness. When such cues are observed, people may defend themselves by detaching from the unresponsive and potentially rejecting partners and decreasing their emotional and sexual dependence on them. Moreover, perceived responsiveness mediated the associations between partner’s avoidance and dyadic fantasies, implying that a partner’s actual behavior might relate to her or his perception as less responsive.

Although perceived partner responsiveness explained the association between insecurity and dyadic fantasizing, it did not mediate the association of attachment insecurities with extradyadic fantasizing. Hence, different processes seem to underlie dyadic and extradyadic fantasizing. Our findings suggest that low frequency of dyadic fantasies stems from relational reasons, whereas high frequency of extradyadic fantasies is less likely to derive from relational perceptions and may emanate from intrapsychic reasons (e.g., the need for self-enhancement, need for novelty). Indeed, men’s daily experiences of attachment avoidance were associated with increased extradyadic fantasizing regardless of perceived partner responsiveness.

The disconnection between sexual and relationship perceptions in men who experienced daily attachment avoidance is consistent with previous findings showing that the manifestations of attachment avoidance are more marked in men’s than in women’s sexuality, such that men are more inclined than women to disengage from current partners during sexual activity (e.g., having sex for relationship-irrelevant reasons, engaging in extradyadic sex; Birnbaum, Hirschberger, & Goldenberg, 2011; Cooper et al., 2006; Sprecher, 2013). As expected, daily attachment anxiety was also associated (although marginally) with extradyadic fantasizing among women, but possibly for different reasons. In women, such pattern may emanate from a defensive motivation of securing alternatives to current partners (Birnbaum, 2016). It is important to note that the average extradyadic fantasizing reported by the participants was low, especially among women. Thus, even people who were above the sample mean of extradyadic fantasizing reported a moderate frequency of extradyadic fantasizing.

Our findings also revealed that women’s avoidance was related to more frequent extradyadic fantasizing in men, suggesting that low emotional involvement in women contributes to men’s preference for alternative partners in sexual fantasies. Still, this association was not explained by perceived responsiveness, suggesting that other mechanisms are involved in experiencing extradyadic fantasies. Future studies should explore other mediators that may explain the increase in extradyadic fantasies in long-term couples.

Overall, our findings demarcate the relational atmosphere that makes people more susceptible to fantasize less about current partners, showing how daily insecurity may color the intrapsychic world of fantasies. These findings should, however, be interpreted in the context of several limitations. First, our results relied on a single sample of young adults who engaged in sex more frequently than average, and thus need to be replicated with more varied samples over a longer period of time. Second, participants were instructed to report the extent to which they sexually fantasized about alternative partners only during sexual intercourse. We therefore have no data about the frequency of extradyadic fantasies that were experienced outside the bedroom, which does not allow us to directly compare the two types of fantasies. Finally, we did not assess people’s general tendency to fantasize and thus could not control for this tendency.

Notwithstanding these limitations, our research is the first to show how daily attachment-related concerns are translated into the intrapsychic world of fantasies in the form of losing interest in dyadic interactions and, at least in some cases, in an increased interest in extradyadic mates. Sexual expressions in this imaginary world are less likely than more overt expressions to be governed by social norms or by partners’ responses and thus may be more revealing about what one truly desires both inside and outside the bedroom (Ziegler & Conley, 2016). Indeed, as our study suggests, a fading presence of relationship partners in this world may serve a marker of not only the desire for this partner but also the belief in this partner’s responsiveness.

Still, the desire for current partners and its fantasmatic expressions are not inevitably doomed to wane over time. Rather, our findings imply that provision of partner’s responsiveness may buffer against the detrimental consequences of attachment-related concerns, at least when it comes to decreased frequency of dyadic fantasies. Future studies should examine longitudinal changes in dyadic and extradyadic fantasies and focus on whether the provision of actual responsiveness may mitigate the effect of daily insecurities on dyadic sexual fantasies. Future studies may also examine whether extradyadic fantasizing is actually less affected than dyadic fantasizing by the relationship context and explore possible alternative mediators, such as sensation seeking and the need for novelty. More research is also needed to examine the reverse direction of influence, focusing on the contribution of dyadic and extradyadic sexual fantasies to relationship insecurity and the relational mechanisms underlying this connection.

Supplementary materials

Supplemental Material, jspr-17-153-File003 - You haven’t been on my mind lately: Partner responsiveness mediates the link between attachment insecurity and sexual fantasies

Supplemental Material, jspr-17-153-File003 for You haven’t been on my mind lately: Partner responsiveness mediates the link between attachment insecurity and sexual fantasies by Moran Mizrahi, Yaniv Kanat-Maymon, and Gurit E. Birnbaum in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Supplementary materials

Supplemental Material, jspr-17-153-File004 - You haven’t been on my mind lately: Partner responsiveness mediates the link between attachment insecurity and sexual fantasies

Supplemental Material, jspr-17-153-File004 for You haven’t been on my mind lately: Partner responsiveness mediates the link between attachment insecurity and sexual fantasies by Moran Mizrahi, Yaniv Kanat-Maymon, and Gurit E. Birnbaum in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Supplementary materials

Supplemental Material, jspr-17-153-File005 - You haven’t been on my mind lately: Partner responsiveness mediates the link between attachment insecurity and sexual fantasies

Supplemental Material, jspr-17-153-File005 for You haven’t been on my mind lately: Partner responsiveness mediates the link between attachment insecurity and sexual fantasies by Moran Mizrahi, Yaniv Kanat-Maymon, and Gurit E. Birnbaum in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

	B	SE	t	p	[95% CI]
	I. Dependent variable model (DV = dyadic fantasies)
Men
Intercept	3.487	.725	4.805	<.000	[1.960, 5.014]
Time	.004	.001	3.636	<.000	[.001, .006]
Actor anxiety	−.151	.042	−3.593	.001	[−.236, −.065]
Partner anxiety	−.035	.025	−1.437	.151	[−.085, .013]
Actor avoidance	−.272	.043	−6.213	<.000	[−.359, −.185]
Partner avoidance	−.069	.028	−2.464	.013	[−.125, −.014]
Yesterday fantasizing	.157	.023	6.588	<.000	[.110, .204]
Women
Intercept	2.320	.780	2.974	.010	[.644, 3.997]
Time	.006	.001	5.142	<.000	[.003, .008]
Actor anxiety	−.145	.042	−3.415	.007	[−.242, −.049]
Partner anxiety	−.003	.028	−.123	.901	[−.059, .052]
Actor avoidance	−.325	.044	−7.330	<.000	[−.416, −.235]
Partner avoidance	−.079	.032	−2.464	.013	[−.142, −.016]
Yesterday fantasizing	.175	.023	7.521	<.000	[.126, .223]
	II. Mediator variable model (DV = perceived responsiveness)
Men
Intercept	3.365	.546	6.153	<.000	[2.278, 4.451]
Time	.001	.000	1.452	.146	[−.000, .003]
Actor anxiety	−.147	.027	−5.348	<.000	[−.202, −.092]
Partner anxiety	−.076	.015	−4.903	<.000	[−.107, −.045]
Actor avoidance	−.382	.042	−9.038	<.000	[−.466, −.298]
Partner avoidance	−.107	.017	−6.225	<.000	[−.141, −.073]
Yesterday perceived responsiveness	−.043	.021	−2.028	.045	[−.086, −.000]
Women
Intercept	2.419	.455	5.306	<.000	[1.513, 3.325]
Time	.002	.000	3.097	.002	[.001, .004]
Actor anxiety	−.196	.033	−5.904	<.000	[−.263, −.130]
Partner anxiety	−.025	.017	−1.511	.130	[−.059, .007]
Actor avoidance	−.437	.035	−12.369	<.000	[−.507, −.366]
Partner avoidance	−.069	.019	−3.617	<.000	[−.107, −.032]
Yesterday perceived responsiveness	−.056	.015	−3.600	<.000	[−.087, −.025]
	III. Dependent variable model (DV = dyadic fantasies)
Men
Intercept	4.075	.695	5.855	<.000	[2.606, 5.543]
Time	.003	.001	3.280	.001	[.001, .006]
Actor anxiety	−.074	.039	−1.910	.072	[−.157, .007]
Partner anxiety	.026	.024	1.075	.282	[−.021, .073]
Actor avoidance	−.074	.040	−1.855	.067	[−.154, .005]
Partner avoidance	.027	.028	.942	.346	[−.029, .083]
Actor perceived responsiveness	.496	.024	2.219	<.000	[.448, .544]
Partner perceived responsiveness	.092	.024	3.828	<.000	[.045, .140]
Yesterday fantasizing	.099	.022	4.514	<.000	[.056, .142]
Women
Intercept	3.630	.829	4.377	<.000	[1.862, 5.399]
Time	.005	.001	4.303	<.000	[.002, .007]
Actor anxiety	−.049	.038	−1.283	.230	[−.136, .037]
Partner anxiety	.029	.027	1.089	.276	[−.023, .083]
Actor avoidance	−.105	.040	−2.598	.019	[−.190, −.019]
Partner avoidance	.013	.031	.413	.679	[−.048, .075]
Actor perceived responsiveness	.466	.024	18.763	<.000	[.417, .515]
Partner perceived responsiveness	.159	.024	6.555	<.000	[.111, .207]
Yesterday fantasizing	.124	.021	5.659	<.000	[.071, .176]

Footnotes

Authors’ note

This research was presented at the International Association for Relationship Research Mini-Conference, June 22nd–25th, Syracuse, NY.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Harry Reis and his laboratory team for their insightful comments on this work. We are also grateful to Reut Bivas, Sapir Damti, and Shir Kogan for their assistance in the collection of the data and Omri Sass for his methodological assistance.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The Israel Science Foundation (Grant 86/10 awarded to Gurit E. Birnbaum).

Supplementary materials

Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

Notes

References

Acker

Davis

M. H.

(1992). Intimacy, passion, and commitment in adult romantic relationships: A test of the triangular theory of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 21–50.

Bauer

D. J.

Preacher

K. J.

Gil

K. M.

(2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142–163.

Baumeister

R. F.

Bratslavsky

(1999). Passion, intimacy, and time: Passionate love as a function of change in intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 49–67.

Birnbaum

G. E.

(2007a). Attachment orientations, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction in a community sample of women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 21–35.

Birnbaum

G. E.

(2007b). Beyond the borders of reality: Attachment orientations and sexual fantasies. Personal Relationships, 14, 321–342.

Birnbaum

G. E.

(2010). Bound to interact: The divergent goals and complex interplay of attachment and sex within romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 245–252.

Birnbaum

G. E.

(2015). Like a horse and carriage? The dynamic interplay of attachment and sex during relationship development. European Psychologist, 20, 265–274.

Birnbaum

G. E.

(2016). Attachment and sexual mating: The joint operation of separate motivational systems. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment, third edition: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 464–483). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Birnbaum

G. E.

Cohen

Wertheimer

(2007). Is it all about intimacy? Age, menopausal status, and women’s sexuality. Personal Relationships, 14, 167–185.

10.

Birnbaum

G. E.

Hirschberger

Goldenberg

J. L.

(2011). Desire in the face of death: Terror management, attachment, and sexual motivation. Personal Relationships, 18, 1–19.

11.

Birnbaum

G. E.

Mikulincer

Gillath

(2011). In and out of a daydream: Attachment orientations, daily relationship quality, and sexual fantasies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1398–1410.

12.

Birnbaum

G. E.

Reis

H. T.

(2006). Women’s sexual working models: An evolutionary-attachment perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 328–342.

13.

Birnbaum

G. E.

Reis

H. T.

Mikulincer

Gillath

Orpaz

(2006). When sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientations, sexual experience, and relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 929–943.

14.

Birnbaum

G. E.

Reis

H. T.

Mizrahi

Kanat-Maymon

Sass

Granovski-Milner

(2016). Intimately connected: The importance of partner responsiveness for experiencing sexual desire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 530–546.

15.

Birnbaum

G. E.

Simpson

J. A.

Weisberg

Y. J.

Barnea

Assulin-Simhon

(2012). Is it my overactive imagination? The effects of contextually activated attachment insecurity on sexual fantasies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 1131–1152.

16.

Birnbaum

G. E.

Svitelman

Bar-Shalom

Porat

(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.

17.

Bogaert

A. F.

Sadava

(2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Personal Relationships, 9, 191–204.

18.

Bolger

Laurenceau

J. P.

(2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

19.

Bowlby

. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

20.

Bowlby

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

21.

Brassard

Shaver

P. R.

Lussier

(2007). Attachment, sexual experience, and sexual pressure in romantic relationships: A dyadic approach. Personal Relationships, 14, 475–493.

22.

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. S.

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

23.

Burri

Schweitzer

O’Brien

(2014). Correlates of female sexual functioning: Adult attachment and differentiation of self. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11, 2188–2195.

24.

Butzer

Campbell

(2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship. satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15, 141–154.

25.

Campbell

Simpson

J. A.

Boldry

J. G.

Kashy

(2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510–531.

26.

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2004). Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 363.

27.

Cooper

M. L.

Pioli

Levitt

Talley

Micheas

Collins

N. L.

(2006). Attachment styles, sex motives, and sexual behavior: Evidence for gender-specific expressions of attachment dynamics. In Mikulincer

Goodman

G. S.

(Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, and sex (pp. 243–274). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

28.

Cozzarelli

Hoekstra

S. J.

Bylsma

W. H.

(2000). General versus specific mental models of attachment: Are they associated with different outcomes? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 605–618.

29.

Cozzarelli

Karafa

J. A.

Collins

N. L.

Tagler

M. J.

(2003). Stability and change in adult attachment styles: Associations with personal vulnerabilities, life events, and global construals of self and others. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, 315–346.

30.

Creasey

Ladd

(2005). Generalized and specific attachment representations: Unique and interactive roles in predicting conflict behaviors in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1026–1038.

31.

Davidson

J. K.

Hoffman

L. E.

(1986). Sexual fantasies and sexual satisfaction: An empirical analysis of erotic thought. Journal of Sex Research, 22, 184–205.

32.

Davis

Shaver

P. R.

Widaman

K. F.

Vernon

M. L.

Follette

W. C.

Beitz

. (2006). “I can’t get no satisfaction”: Insecure attachment, inhibited sexual communication, and sexual dissatisfaction. Personal Relationships, 13, 465–483.

33.

DeWall

Lambert

Slotter

Pond

Deckman

Finkel

… Fincham

. (2011). So far away from one’s partner, yet so close to romantic alternatives: Avoidant attachment, interest in alternatives, and infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1302–1316.

34.

Feeney

J. A.

Noller

(2004). Attachment and sexuality in close relationships. In Harvey

J. H.

Wenzel

Sprecher

(Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 183–201). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

35.

Freud

. (1908/1962). Creative writers and daydreaming. In Strachy

(Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 9, pp. 142–152). London, England: Hogarth.

36.

Gangestad

S. W.

Thornhill

(1997). The evolutionary psychology of extra-pair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 69–88.

37.

Gentzler

A. L.

Kerns

K. A.

(2004). Associations between insecure attachment and sexual experiences. Personal Relationships, 11, 249–265.

38.

Girme

Y. U.

Overall

N. C.

Simpson

J. A.

Fletcher

G. J

. (2015). “All or nothing”: Attachment avoidance and the curvilinear effects of partner support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 450–475.

39.

Harder

D. W.

Zelin

M. L.

Jampel

R. M.

Heijn

Myerson

P. G.

Bernstein

S. B.

(1984). Sustaining fantasies and self-concept among college students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 743–748.

40.

Hicks

T. V.

Leitenberg

(2001). Sexual fantasies about one’s partner versus someone else: Gender differences in incidence and frequency. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 43–50.

41.

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.

42.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

43.

Klusmann

(2002). Sexual motivation and the duration of partnership. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 275–287.

44.

Laurenceau

J. P.

Bolger

(2005). Using diary methods to study marital and family processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 86–97.

45.

Levine

(2003). The nature of sexual desire: A clinician’s perspective. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 279–285.

46.

Liu

(2000). A theory of marital sexual life. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 363–374.

47.

Main

(1990). Parental aversion to infant-initiated contact is correlated with the parent’s own rejection during childhood: The effects of experience on signals of security with respect to attachment. In Bernard

K. E.

Brazelton

T. B.

(Eds.), Touch: The foundation of experience (pp. 461–495). Madison, CT: International University Press.

48.

McCarthy

B. W.

Bodnar

L. E.

Handal

(2004). Integrating sex therapy and couple therapy. In Harvey

J. H.

Wenzel

Sprecher

(Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 573–593). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

49.

Michael

R. T.

Gagnon

J. H.

Laumann

E. O.

Kolata

(1994). Sex in America: A definitive survey. New York, NY: Warner Books.

50.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

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

51.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Griffin

D. W.

(1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155–1180.

52.

Nezlek

J. B.

(2012). Diary methods for social and personality psychology. London, England: Sage.

53.

Pierce

Lydon

J. E.

(2001). Global and specific relational models in the experience of social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 613–631.

54.

Preacher

K. J.

Zyphur

M. J.

Zhang

(2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233.

55.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Brennan

R. T.

Barnett

R. C.

(1995). A multivariate hierarchical model for studying sychological change within married couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 161–174.

56.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

Cheong

Y. F.

Congdon

R. T.

du Toit

(2011). HLM 7. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.

57.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Liu

X. F.

(2001). Effects of study duration, frequency of observation, and sample size on power in studies of group differences in polynomial change. Psychological Methods, 6, 387.

58.

Regan

P. C.

(2000). The role of sexual desire and sexual activity in dating relationships. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 51–59.

59.

Reis

H. T.

Clark

M. S.

(2013). Responsiveness. In Simpson

J. A.

Campbell

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 400–423). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

60.

Reis

H. T.

Maniaci

M. R.

Caprariello

P. A.

Eastwick

P. W.

Finkel

E. J.

(2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557–570.

61.

Rockwood

N. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Mlmed: An SPSS macro for multilevel mediation and conditional process analysis. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Psychological Science (APS), Boston, MA.

62.

Segal

Fraley

R. C.

(2016). Broadening the investment model: An intensive longitudinal study on attachment and perceived partner responsiveness in commitment dynamics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 581–599.

63.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(2002). Fearful-avoidance, disorganization, and multiple working models: Some directions for future theory and research. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 223–229.

64.

Snijders

T. A. B.

Bosker

R. J.

Guldemond

. (2003). PINT (Power IN Two-level designs): Estimating standard errors of regression coefficients in hierarchical linear models for power calculations (User’s manual, Version 2.1). Retrieved from https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~snijders/

65.

Sprecher

(2013). Attachment style and sexual permissiveness: The moderating role of gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 428–432.

66.

Stefanou

McCabe

M. P.

(2012). Adult attachment and sexual functioning: A review of past research. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 2499–2507.

67.

Stephan

C. W.

Bachman

G. F.

(1999). What’s sex got to do with it? Attachment, love schemas, and sexuality. Personal Relationships, 6, 111–123.

68.

Szepsenwol

Mizrahi

Birnbaum

G. E.

(2015). Fatal suppression: The detrimental effects of sexual and attachment deactivation within emerging romantic relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 504–512.

69.

Treboux

Crowell

Waters

(2004). When “new” meets “old”: Configurations of adult attachment representations and their implications for marital functioning. Developmental Psychology, 40, 295–314.

70.

Trudel

(2002). Sexuality and marital life: Results of a survey. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 28, 229–249.

71.

Zelin

M. L.

Bernstein

S. B.

Heijn

Jampel

R. M.

Myerson

P. G.

Adler

… Rizzuto

A. M

. (1983). The sustaining fantasy questionnaire: Measurement of sustaining functions in psychiatric patients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 427–439.

72.

Ziegler

Conley

T. D.

(2016). The importance and meaning of sexual Fantasies in intimate relationships. In Aumer

(Ed.), The psychology of love and hate in intimate relationships (pp. 29–45). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.04 MB

0.07 MB