Examining the Associations Among Attachment,Affective State,and Romantic Relationship Quality

Abstract

This study examined the direct and indirect associations between insecure attachment patterns (avoidant and anxious) and affective state (positive and negative) on romantic relationship quality with a sample of 572 individuals involved in a romantic relationship. Results from structural equation model analyses indicated a negative direct association between insecure attachment patterns and romantic relationship quality as well as positive affective state. Thus, insecure attachment behavioral patterns were associated with reduced romantic relationship quality and positive emotions. Positive direct associations were found between positive affective state and romantic relationship quality; thus, positive emotions were associated with greater perceived romantic relationship quality. A positive direct association was also observed between anxious attachment patterns and negative affective state; thus, negative emotions were associated with the insecure, anxious attachment behavioral patterns. Application of the findings lends to the importance of emotion-focused intervention in clinical practice.

Keywords

couples counseling attachment affect regulation emotions romantic relationship satisfaction

Bowlby (1969) spearheaded the field of relational influences on human development. Prior to Bowlby’s seminal work, little attention was paid to how emotional forces are depicted in biological drives. Bowlby suggested that humans have a biological drive to emotionally bond with another individual. Infants are born helpless and must form an attachment to another individual in order to survive. The infant elicits interactions from his or her caregiver in order to satiate physical and emotional needs. The caregiver’s responses to the infant build the foundation for the infant’s relational patterns. Thus, the culmination of the interactions between the infant and the caregiver results in an attachment style that the infant will repeat throughout the life span (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970).

Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) characterized three attachment styles: anxious avoidant, secure, and anxious resistant. A fourth style, disorganized disoriented, was added by Main and Solomon (1986). The four styles, demonstrated during infancy, are precursors to adult styles of relating: Secure remains the secure style, anxious avoidant predates the dismissive style, anxious resistant predates the preoccupied style, and disorganized disoriented predates the fearful style (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Hazen and Shaver (1987) applied the adult attachment styles to romantic relationships implicating how individuals emotionally relate to their partner. To further understand attachment, Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) devised two dimensions (anxiety and avoidance) of attachment-related behaviors that when cross examined yield the four attachment styles. The dimension of anxiety is related to how one perceives oneself in the relationship. Individuals with increased anxiety in the context of the romantic relationship may define their self-worth through the relationship and may fear rejection. They may emotionally react in excessive manners in order to avoid abandonment from their romantic partner. The dimension of avoidance is related to perceptions of one’s romantic partner. Individuals with increased avoidance may lack a desire to engage in relationships, they may fear intimacy, and may be uncomfortable with emotional closeness. They may be emotionally unavailable to their romantic partner. High anxiety paired with high avoidance defines the fearful style. High anxiety paired with low avoidance defines the preoccupied style. High avoidance paired with low anxiety defines the dismissive style. Low anxiety paired with low avoidance defines the secure style.

Wei, Vogel, Ku, and Zakalik (2005) suggested that affect regulation may be essential in balancing roles between distress and behaviors toward attachment figures. Individuals in romantic relationships with different attachment styles utilize different affect regulation strategies. For example, avoidant individuals may prefer to manage their emotions with emotional cutoffs, whereas anxious individuals may prefer emotional reactivity to regulate and bring awareness to their interpersonal problem and negative mood (Banse, 2004). Mikulincer, Shaver, and Pereg (2003) devised affect regulation strategies utilized when individuals perceive a threat or experience a threatening event. These strategies may affect the accessibility of attachment figures in relationships. In the first strategy, attachment system activation and the primary attachment, the individual when examining a psychological or physical threat seeks out the attachment figure for closeness, comfort, and regulation. In the second strategy, attachment figure availability and security based, the individual is aware of and manages the distress. As the individual becomes more cognitively attuned internally and externally, affect regulation is possible through connecting with an attachment figure. Securely attached individuals are able to feel safe and protected. In the third strategy, proximity-seeking viability and secondary attachment strategy, the individual attempts to attain support and proximity to the attachment figure yet reduces the pain when frustrated by attempts to seek closeness with the attachment figure. Individuals become aware of threats, betrayals, and separations, thus decreasing efforts of avoiding closeness, dependence of closeness, and intimacy.

Research examining the four attachment styles often separates the secure style from the remaining three insecure styles (dismissive, preoccupied, and fearful) characterized by anxious and avoidant attachment behaviors. Attachment style may correlate with affect regulation or the ability to manage one’s emotions. Affect regulation difficulty may be present across insecure approaches (Ben-Naim, Hirschberger, Ein-Dor, & Mikulincer, 2013; Feeney, 1999; Simpson et al., 2011; Wei, Vogel, Ku, & Zakalik, 2005). The anxious and avoidant patterns of relating to one’s partner may produce an internal struggle with affect regulation and thus create problems in the relationship. Mikulincer, Orbach, and Iavnieli (1998) reported that individuals with an anxiously attached style tend to minimize physical and emotional distance from the attachment figure when their attachment figure is unresponsive to their needs. This may be applied to both cognitive and behavioral attempts to minimize distance (Bowlby, 1988). These individuals may approach distress in a hyperactive way. Thus, they tend to intensify negative affect, exacerbate negative memories, and permit distress to affect other areas of life (Mikulincer, 1995).

In contrast, Mikulincer et al. (1998) noted that individuals with an avoidant attachment style adopt two key approaches to regulate their affect when their attachment figure is unresponsive to their needs. First, individuals detach themselves from external or internal distress as a way to avoid negative interactions with stressful attachment figures. Second, individuals may make compulsive attempts to attain self-sufficiency to compensate for the dependence on others while underrating emotions and dismissing the significance of close relationships. This same pattern of disassociating negative affect observed in those who are highly avoidant was also reported by Simpson et al. (2011). The authors suggested that avoidant individuals tended to guard their emotions to regulate negative affect by resisting discussing the thoughts and feelings of their partner. Their attachment system is maintained by being less empathically accurate when they feel their partner is expressing danger in their relationship or an emotional distress. On the contrary, Simpson and colleagues noted that highly anxious individuals were driven to know what their partner is feeling and thinking during attachment-relevant situations, thus increasing their empathy accuracy with their romantic partner.

Simpson et al. noted that the regulation of affect in conflict situations may be key to assessing differences by attachment behavioral patterns. In order to measure affect regulation response during conflict, Ben-Naim, Hirschberger, Ein-Dor, and Mikulincer (2013) elicited couples to engage in a conflict discussion while engaging in one of two affect regulation strategies related to either suppressing emotion or utilizing cognitive reappraisal. During the emotional suppression task, individuals high in anxious attachment patterns experienced high levels of sadness, whereas those high in attachment avoidant patterns experienced low levels of sadness. The results also suggested that expressive suppression increased negative affect expression while decreasing positive affect of the controlled partner if that partner was a high attachment anxious individual. Yet, results from the cognitive reappraisal task indicated that having a positive mind-set impacted individuals’ positive affect experience. For the individuals with high attachment anxiety manipulated to have a positive mind-set in the cognitive reappraisal task, their partners felt more positivity in response to the conflict discussion interaction. To conclude, emotional regulation in conflict interactions sends messages to the partner and impacts the quality of the interaction for both parties, perhaps suggesting a link between relationship satisfaction and couple interactions.

The unique secure style interactions that keep couples together and produce more contentment in the relationship are often difficult to isolate into tangible behaviors that individuals interrelating insecurely may bring into their relationship. Individuals who relate to their romantic partner with a secure attachment style often report longer lasting romantic relationships and more satisfaction in the relationship (Banse, 2004; Cobb, Davila, & Bradbury, 2001; Duemmler & Kobak, 2001). The correlation between attachment and relationship satisfaction may be mediated by emotion. Davila, Bradbury, and Fincham (1998) reported that individuals with insecure attachment patterns tend to report more negative affect in their relationship. Thus, negative affect may lead to relationship dissatisfaction. Perhaps, examining positive and negative affective states in relation to anxious and avoidant relationship patterns will demonstrate a greater understanding of the relationship between attachment styles and romantic relationship quality. The purpose of this study was to examine the direct and indirect effects of affective state on romantic relationship quality and attachment patterns (avoidant and anxious) with individuals in a romantic relationship. It was predicted that both avoidant and anxious attachment patterns will be negatively associated with romantic relationship quality and positive affective state. It was also predicted that avoidant and anxious attachment patterns would be positively associated with negative emotion. Negative affective state was expected to be negatively associated with romantic relationship quality while positive affective state was expected to be positively associated with romantic relationship quality. Negative affective state and positive affective state were expected to partially mediate the relationships between attachment (anxious and avoidant) and romantic relationship quality.

Method

Participants

Individuals were invited to participate in the study through announcements placed in a variety of settings: counseling centers, online counseling resources, local universities, online classified advertisements, social media, professional and lay listservs, community centers, local restaurants, and personal invitations from members of the research team. The majority of the sample (N = 572) were female (n = 358, 62.5%) with males (n = 212) representing 37% of the sample. Three individuals did not respond to the gender question. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 78 (M = 36.60, SD = 13.66). In regard to relationship status, 7.4% (n = 43) were in a noncommitted relationship or had multiple partners, 20.2% (n = 116) were in a committed relationship, 15.4% (n = 88) were in a committed relationship and living together, and 56.7% (n = 325) were married or in a civil union. Thus, 27.6% (n = 159) of the sample were not living together. Educational attainment included less than high school education (n = 3, .5%), high school diploma (n = 41, 7.2%), trade school (n = 23, 4%), associate’s or some college (n = 179, 31.3%), bachelor’s degree (n = 173, 30.2%), master’s degree (n = 121, 21.1%), and doctorate (n = 29, 5.1%). Income ranged from US$0 to US$500,000 per year (M = $69,481.33, SD = $53,776.44). The sample was predominantly Caucasian (68%, n = 390), followed by Black/African American (16.5%, n = 95), Latino (5.6%, n = 32), Asian–American (3.1%, n = 18), Multiracial (2.6%, n = 15), American Indian (1.9%, n = 11), and Filipino/Pacific Islander (n = 4, 0.7%); seven individuals did not respond. The majority of the sample resided in the Eastern United States (52%, n = 298), followed by Southern United States (18.8%, n = 108), the Midwest United States (17.8%, n = 102), the Western United States (7.7%, n = 44), and outside the United States (3%, n = 17); three individuals did not respond.

Procedures

Electronic study announcements placed on the Internet included a link to the study home page and fliers announcing the study placed throughout the community contained removable tabs with the web address to the study home page. The study home page introduced the potential participants to the study and included information such as the purpose of the study, the risks and benefits of participating in the study, and contact information for the principal investigator. After reading the introductory information, participants had the option to agree to the terms and conditions and therefore continue to the study or decline to participate in the research. Participants self-selecting to participate provided demographic information and completed multiple instruments. The time needed to complete the study ranged from 20 to 45 min.

Materials

Attachment was measured using the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). This instrument consists of a total of 36 items with 18 items on each of the two subscales: Avoidance and Anxiety. The Anxiety subscale measures fear of rejection, need for acceptance, and need for approval in romantic relationships. The Avoidance subscale measures an extreme need for self-reliance, independence, and fear of intimacy in romantic relationships. The ECR instrument has acceptable evidence of reliability and validity (Brennan et al., 1998). In support for reliability, Cronbach’s αs equaled .904 for attachment anxiety and .926 for attachment avoidance. Brennan and colleagues also supplied evidence for validity through ECR correlations with a scale measuring physical affection. For example, attachment anxiety was associated with desire for physical closeness while attachment avoidance was associated with touch aversion.

Romantic relationship quality was measured using the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS; Busby, Christensen, Crane, & Larson, 1995). There are a total of 14 self-report items. This instrument consists of three subscales: Dyadic Consensus, Dyadic Satisfaction, and Dyadic Cohesion. The Dyadic Consensus subscale measures level of and importance of perceived agreement within the couple. The Dyadic Satisfaction subscale measures pleasure and contentment in the romantic relationship. The Dyadic Cohesion measures emotional closeness to a romantic partner. The aggregate of each subscale yields an overall score of romantic relationship quality. The RDAS has acceptable evidence of reliability and validity (Busby et al., 1995; Crane, Middleton, & Bean, 2000). Busby et al. reported Cronbach’s α equaled .90. They further noted in regard to validity that it was correlated with the previous version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (.97) and highly correlated with other instruments measuring relationships satisfaction like the Locke–Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (Locke & Wallace, 1959).

Current affective state was measured using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). This instrument assesses current or recent feelings using two subscales: Positive and Negative Affect. Positive and negative affect are two distinct variables specifically assessing positive or negative emotions. Examples from the positive affect subscale include interested, excited, and enthusiastic. Examples from the negative affect subscale include hostile, distressed, and scared. It consists of 20 self-report items, thus 10 items per subscale. A total score is composited on each subscale. The PANAS has acceptable evidence of reliability and validity (Watson et al., 1988). Watson and colleagues reported Cronbach’s α coefficients ranged from .86 to .90 for positive affect and .84 to .87 for negative affect. Test–retest reliability, over 8 weeks, ranged from .47 to .68 for positive affect and .39 to .71 for negative affect. As evidence for validity of the PANAS, negative affect is highly correlated with other measures of distress and a negative correlation is observed with positive affect.

Analyses

Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) Version 20 was utilized to analyze data collected from three psychometric instruments (RDAS, ECR, and PANAS). We examined the direct and indirect effects of current affect state, romantic relationship quality, and attachment patterns in this structural equation model. In order to measure these relationships, a series of regression analyses were conducted with maximum-likelihood estimation to estimate the parameters. The direct effect of attachment (avoidant and anxious) and romantic relationship quality and the indirect effect of attachment (avoidant and anxious) with current affect state were regressed, respectively, in order to investigate the direct effect changes as a result of the mediating factors.

Multiple methods were utilized to examine model fit: chi-square goodness of fit, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and the comparative fit index (CFI). It was desired that the χ² goodness of fit yields no significant results (i.e., p > .05; Barrett, 2007), the RMSEA yields a score of .08 or lower for reasonable fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), both the CFI and the TLI yield scores ≥0.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and the SRMR yields a score ≤.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Results

Prior to conducting the analysis, assumptions were assessed for normality, linearity, and multicollinearity. Outliers (univariate and multivariate) were removed to more accurately reflect average scores. A two-path mediation was tested in the present model. Variables included anxious attachment, avoidant attachment, negative affect, positive affect, and romantic relationship quality. Unstandardized estimates, critical ratios, and p values are listed in Table 1 and the covariance matrix is provided in Table 2. Avoidant attachment was directly related to positive affect and romantic relationship quality, yet no relationship was found with negative affect. Anxious attachment was directly related to positive affect, negative affect, and romantic relationship quality. Positive affect was also directly related to romantic relationship quality. No direct relationship was found between negative affect and romantic relationship quality. Paths between both avoidant attachment and anxious attachment to romantic relationship quality were both significant, thus no mediation effects were observed. In order to examine partial mediation effects, paths between both anxious and avoidant attachment to romantic relationship quality when taking both positive and negative affect into consideration were tested for a significant decrease in path size. No partial mediation effects were observed.

Table 1.

Unstandardized Estimates, Critical Ratios, and p Values.

Unstandardized Estimates			Critical Ratios		p Values
Positive affect	←	Attachment anxiety	−0.966	2.167	.030
Positive affect	←	Attachment avoidant	−1.711	3.575	.000
Negative affect	←	Attachment anxiety	1.624	6.702	.000
Negative affect	←	Attachment avoidant	−0.081	−0.310	.757
Relationship quality	←	Positive affect	0.104	3.112	.002
Relationship quality	←	Attachment anxiety	−2.102	5.834	.000
Relationship quality	←	Attachment avoidant	−3.720	9.933	.000
Relationship quality	←	Negative affect	0.092	1.500	.134

Table 2.

Covariance Matrix.

Variables	Attachment Anxiety	Attachment Avoidant	Negative Affect	Positive Affect	Relationship Quality
Attachment anxiety	0.900
Attachment avoidant	0.486	0.780
Negative affect	1.422	0.727	21.084
Positive affect	−1.702	−1.805	−2.618	68.494
Relationship quality	−3.746	−4.045	−4.024	17.154	62.446

The model fit was adequate. The χ² goodness of fit was nonsignificant, χ²(1) = 3.814, p = .051.The RMSEA value compensating for model complexity equaled .072 (confidence interval [CI₉₀]: [0.0, 0.155]). The RMSEA value is indicative of a reasonable fit but not a good fit of the model to the data (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). These results may reflect the lack of mediation and partial mediation effects, and the nonsignificant paths between negative affect with both romantic relationship quality and avoidant attachment. The values of TLI (.951) and CFI (.995) were both higher than the .95 standards for good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The SRMR value (.0199) was also lower than the cutoff score of .08.

Discussion

Findings suggest direct negative associations between both avoidant and anxious attachment patterns and romantic relationship quality; thus, as insecure attachment behaviors increase, romantic relationship quality decreases. Both anxious and avoidant attachment patterns were inversely associated with positive affect; this outcome indicates that as insecure attachment behaviors increase, positive affect is expected to decrease. Anxious attachment was positively associated with negative affect; thus, as anxious attachment behaviors increase, negative affect also is expected to increase. Positive affect was positively associated with romantic relationship quality. Yet, negative affect, although, while positively associated with anxious attachment patterns was not associated with romantic relationship quality or avoidant attachment patterns.

As predicted, both anxious and avoidant attachment patterns were negatively associated with romantic relationship quality. This finding is in line with previous research (Banse, 2004; Cobb et al., 2001). Also as expected, insecure attachment patterns were negatively associated with positive affect. Previous research implicated an association between insecure attachment styles and less intense positive affect as well as affect regulation difficulties (Ben-Naim et al., 2013; Feeney, 1999; Wei et al., 2005). A possible explanation for this phenomenon is that individuals who relate with insecure interactions may have more difficulty coping and increasing positive emotions under stress.

Positive affect was positively associated with romantic relationship quality, yet no association was found with negative affect. This result may reflect the importance of positive emotional interactions in the context of romantic relationships. Gottman (1994) reported that for every negative emotional interaction between couples, five equally as intense positive emotional interactions are needed. This finding suggests that an unequal balance overridden with positive emotions is critical to perceived happiness or contentment of a relationship. Thus, although negative affect may be present, as long as it is adequately buffered by the presence of positive affect, negative affect does not threaten romantic relationship satisfaction.

In partial support of the hypothesis, results indicated that negative affect was only associated with anxious attachment behaviors and not to avoidant attachment. Perhaps, this finding may be attributed to differences in how anxiously attached and avoidantly attached individuals interact with their partners. Research suggests that individuals who interact with anxious patterns may engage negative behaviors to gain attention from a romantic partner with the unconscious aim of quelling their anxiety (Wei et al., 2005). These negative behaviors may contribute to negative affect, thus explaining the positive direct association between the anxious attachment style and the negative affect. In contrast, avoidant types often isolate themselves from their romantic partner when experiencing difficulty and, consequentially, may not be physically present to choose or to choose not to express their negative emotions (Simpson et al., 2011; Wei et al, 2005). Yet, as the results did not indicate a direct inverse association between avoidant attachment and negative affect either, the connection between these variables may not merely be explained by the aforementioned idea that more avoidant behaviors translate into less negative affect. It is possible that negative affect in avoidant types is mediated by their partner’s attachment style.

Results did not demonstrate that positive affect and negative affect have a mediating effect on romantic relationship satisfaction for avoidant or anxious attachment styles as hypothesized (Figure 1). The absence of this effect may be explained by the possibility that positive affect is very closely associated with avoidant and anxious attachment styles and negative affect is closely connected to anxious types, such that testing for affect as an indirect indicator of romantic relationship satisfaction revealed no significant difference. Hazen and Shaver’s (1987) findings that various attachment styles have characteristic patterns of emotionality lend support to this explanation. Yet, this rationale that affect is closely tied to attachment style does not account for the lack of a direct association between avoidant types and negative affect. Consideration of the interpersonal dynamics of avoidant and anxious types may help to make sense of the results that both supported and failed to support the hypotheses. Specifically, the emotionally withdrawn behaviors of avoidantly attached individuals provide a rationale for why negative affect was not found to have a direct association with avoidant attachment (Mikulincer, Orbach, & Iavnieli, 1998; Simpson et al., 2011). Also, how partners make meaning of the presence of negative affect may explain why a direct association was not indicated between negative affect and romantic relationship satisfaction.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model.

Limitations and Future Research

The current sample was fairly diverse and cross national. However, generalizability of the results may be limited. The majority of participants were recruited from online methods (e.g., online advertisements and social networking). Even those participants not recruited via online methods (e.g., community centers and mental health support groups) needed Internet access to participate in the research. The recruitment method may have excluded individuals from a lower socioeconomic status and those not comfortable with the Internet. Future research should repeat the study with a random sample and mail potential participants surveys to complete.

The sample represented a broad range of romantic pairing from individuals in noncommitted relationships to married couples or those in a civil union. It may be useful for future research to target a specific stage of romantic pairing, such as individuals who are dating or by length of romantic relationship, in order to gain a greater understanding of how attachment behaviors influence specific stages of romantic relationships. Related, it may be useful to repeat the study using a longitudinal methodology. Couples who are dating could repeat the survey in order to examine how time may be a factor in attachment behaviors and overriding emotions as they are linked to relationship satisfaction.

Longitudinal research may also provide a means to determine if or how positive and negative affect and anxious and avoidant attachment styles can be used to predict divorce. Additionally, future research may study multiple couples within broader extended family groups to discern whether patterns of affect, attachment style, and romantic relationship quality exist among larger family units. As aforementioned, future research may attempt to discern whether characteristics of anxious and avoidant attachment styles were obscuring a mediating effect of positive and negative affect on romantic relationship quality.

Implications for Couples Counseling

The results of this study support attachment theory as a way to understand adult romantic relationships and may be used to guide clinical practice when working with couples. Primarily, the direct negative association between anxious and avoidant insecure attachment patterns with romantic relationship quality supports the theoretical perspective of attachment theory and, thus, points to the value of interventions aimed at restoring or creating a secure attachment bond between the partners. Johnson’s (2004) emotion-focused couples therapy (EFT) draws upon attachment theory and focuses on the relationships between partners in terms of the emotional bond in order to modify patterns of interacting between the couple. A major goal of EFT is “to address attachment concerns, reduce attachment insecurities, and foster the creation of a secure bond” (Johnson, 2004, p. 39). It is expected that healing an insecure attachment will help to foster increased romantic relationship quality. Counselors are, therefore, encouraged to develop more emotion-focused interventions and coping skills.

Related to emotions, the finding that positive, and not negative, affect had a direct positive association with romantic relationship quality has implications for clinical practice. Because positive affect had a direct positive association with romantic relationship quality and negative affect was not found to have a significant correlation with romantic relationship quality, it is recommended that counselors focus more on facilitating positive affect than addressing the presence of negative affect. Counselors could use emotional interventions to help couples learn how to create a relationship defined predominantly through the positive emotional interactions. For example, current and previous research implicated insecure attachment styles are associated with less intense positive affect and affect regulation difficulties (Ben-Naim et al., 2013; Feeney, 1999; Wei et al., 2005); thus, individuals who relate with insecure interactions may have more difficulty coping and increasing positive emotions under stress.

Furthermore, given that positive affect was not found to be a mediating variable between insecure attachment patterns and romantic relationship quality, the researchers recognize that it is possible that fostering positive affect between couples may function as a means to help build a secure attachment, thereby increasing romantic relationship satisfaction. Perhaps the experience of positive affect positions a partner to be in a more open and stable mind-set, making him or her less reactive to his or her partner and, thus, better able to form a secure attachment. It appears that addressing insecure attachment with greater intentionality than positive affect may be the most prudent aim toward assisting couples to experience increased romantic relationship quality.

It is essential that counselors uncover attachment behavioral patterns in the couple relationship. To compensate for the difficulty in isolating target behaviors for clinical intervention, couples’ counselors may want to include a measure of attachment with their intake forms. Counselors could use this information to identify potential strengths and weaknesses in how the couples relate. Counselors could explore how the attachment patterns affect each partner and evaluate the effect on mood and relationship satisfaction.

If through inquiry it is difficult to determine attachment patterns, counselors should bear in mind that clients may exhibit transference onto the counselor, reflecting the client’s particular attachment pattern (Shilkret, 2005). Shilkret asserted that attachment patterns arise out of an individual’s interactions with the parent and is subsequently reflected onto authority figures. By the sheer nature of the therapeutic relationship, there exists an inherent power differential that may mean the client will exhibit the same attachment pattern to the counselor as he or she may do to his or her parent and other authority figures (Shilkret, 2005). Thus, it is essential for counselors to be aware of their clients’ attachment pattern and how they may affect not only the couple’s relationship but also the therapeutic relationship. Overall, counselors are challenged to be prepared to effectively confront client attachment behaviors that may prove detrimental to the couple and therapeutic relationship.

A final implication is that although the aforementioned findings are in line with previous research (Banse, 2004; Cobb et al., 2001), more research is needed to confirm the validity of these findings. Counselors should also be aware that while the influence of attachment patterns on romantic relationship quality was found to be significant, other factors might relate to the variables, possibly affecting the counselor–client relationship. For example, cultural factors, including family traditions, are also critical to note when addressing insecure attachment patterns. Such factors suggest that interventions should focus on cultural sensitivity to family dynamics and individual differences in the role of family. Counselors are encouraged to seek out additional resources to help them understand cultural differences. However, the best manner to uncover cultural specific factors is through the client. Setting aside time to discuss with the couple what cultural factors are the most salient to them could help the counselor with being culturally sensitive.

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

Ainsworth

Bell

(1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41, 49–67. doi:10.2307/1127388

Ainsworth

Blehar

Waters

Wall

(1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

Barrett

(2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815–824. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018

Bartholomew

Horowitz

(1991) Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

Ben-Naim

Hirschberger

Ein-Dor

Mikulincer

(2013). An experimental study of emotional regulation during relationship conflict interactions: The moderating role of attachment orientations. Emotion, 13, 506–519.

Bowlby

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

Bowlby

, (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London, England: Routledge.

Brennan

Clark

Shaver

(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.

10.

Browne

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

11.

Busby

Christensen

Crane

Larson

(1995). A revision of the dyadic adjustment scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 289–308. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00163.x

12.

Cobb

Davila

Bradbury

(2001). Attachment security and martial satisfaction: The role of positive perceptions and social support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1131–1144. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0146167201279006

13.

Crane

Middleton

Bean

(2000). Establishing criterion scores for the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale and the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 53–60. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/019261800261815

14.

Davila

Bradbury

T. N.

Fincham

(1998). Negative affectivity as a mediator of the association between adult attachment and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 5, 467–484. doi:http://dx.doi.prg/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00183.x

15.

Duemmler

Kobak

(2001). The development of commitment and attachment in dating relationships: Attachment security as relationship construct. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 401–415. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1006/jado.2001.0406

16.

Feeney

(1999). Adult attachment, emotional control, and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 6, 169–185. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00185.x

17.

Gottman

J. M.

(1994). What predicts divorce: The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Hazen

Shaver

(1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

19.

Bentler

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

20.

Johnson

S. M.

(2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

21.

Locke

Wallace

(1959). Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251–255.

22.

Main

Solomon

(1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/ disoriented attachment pattern: Procedures, findings and implications for the classification of behavior. In Brazelton

T. B.

Yogman

(Eds.), Affective development in infancy (pp. 95–124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

23.

Mikulincer

(1995). Attachment style and the mental representation of the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1203–1215. doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1203

24.

Mikulincer

Orbach

Iavnieli

(1998). Adult attachment style and affect regulation: Strategic variations in subjective self-other similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 436–448.

25.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Pereg

(2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77–103.

26.

Shilkret

C. J.

(2005). Some clinical applications of attachment theory in adult psychotherapy. Clinical Social Work Journal, 33, 55–68. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10615-005-2619-z

27.

Simpson

Kim

Fillo

Ickes

Rholes

Orina

Winterheld

(2011). Attachment and the management of empathic accuracy in relationship-threatening situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 37, 242–254. doi:10.1177/0146167210394368

28.

Watson

Clark

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of a brief measure of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022.3514.54.6.1063

29.

Wei

Vogel

Zakalik

(2005). Adult attachment, affect regulation, negative mood and interpersonal problems: The mediating roles of emotional reactivity and emotional cutoff. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 14–24. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.522.1.14