The Impact of Attachment Styles on Attitudes Toward Marriage: The Mediating Role of Emotional Intimacy

Abstract

Studies to identify the association between individuals’ attachment patterns and their marital attitudes are insufficient and necessitate more empirical study. The current study aimed to investigate the impact of attachment styles on attitudes toward marriage and the mediating role of emotional intimacy among 182 participants at a southeastern university in the United States. Differences in perceptions of the degree of emotional intimacy among securely, avoidantly, and anxiously/ambivalently attached participants were explored to analyze the mediation effect of emotional intimacy between attachment styles and marital attitudes. The research findings revealed that secure, anxious/ambivalent, and avoidant individuals tended to have different attitudes toward marriage. Their marital attitudes were mediated by the emotional intimacy levels associated with their attachment styles. Implications for educators, researchers, and practitioners are discussed.

Keywords

attachment styles emotional intimacy attitudes toward marriage

Attachment styles formed by the relational interaction with a primary caregiver show consistent, significant influences on individuals’ various contexts across the lifespan “from the cradle to the grave” (Bowlby, 1982/1969, p. 208). In line with the significant impacts of attachment experiences on people's lives, many empirical studies have contributed to our understanding of how attachment styles influence couples’ satisfaction, well-being, and quality of marriage (Banse, 2004; Hollist & Miller, 2005; Sandberg et al., 2017; Simpson et al., 2002). However, studies that empirically demonstrate how individuals’ attachment styles may influence their attitudes toward marriage are insufficient. In addition, more research needs to be conducted regarding how individual attachment styles significantly influence emotional intimacy levels (Florian et al., 1995; Hudson & Fraley, 2017).

Securely attached people tend to report higher levels of intimacy when compared with those who report ambivalent and avoidant attachment styles, and higher levels of relationship intimacy and satisfaction (Florian et al., 1995; Mikulincer & Erev, 1991; Monteoliva et al., 2016). In contrast, avoidant people tend to experience lower levels of intimacy in romantic relationships when compared to secure people, and they tend to underestimate their romantic partner's love. They often experience less passionate love and lower levels of intimacy than do those who are secure or ambivalent. Attachment insecurities can also impede romantic partners’ emotional closeness and thwart their sense of shared emotionality and intimacy (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

The research literature strongly supports the significant relationship between an individual's attachment style and emotional intimacy (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Specifically, this research indicates that attachment patterns impact the development of an individual's levels of emotional intimacy, and their perceptions of emotional closeness, responsiveness, and trust toward others. This, in turn, may affect their attitudes toward marriage or other long-term committed relationships (Debrot et al., 2012; Welker et al., 2014).

In the present study, the authors explored the following research questions: (1) What are the impacts of individual attachment patterns on attitudes toward marriage; and (2) What role does emotional intimacy play in mediating these attitudes?

Literature Review

Adult Attachment Styles and Romantic Relationships

According to Bowlby (1982/1969), attachment experiences consistently influence an individual's behavioral, social, and emotional functioning across the lifespan. The internal working models formed in early childhood through critical relationship experiences with attachment figures are carried forward to new relationships across the transition to adulthood. Furthermore, early attachment patterns have lasting and powerful effects on perceptions of intimacy and closeness among romantic partners and within marriages (Banse, 2004; Hollist & Miller, 2005; Kobak & Hazan, 1991; Meyers & Landsberger, 2002; Sandberg et al., 2017).

The frequencies of the three attachment styles (i.e., secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent) in adulthood overlap with the characteristics of those same patterns in infancy. Therefore, individuals’ adult romantic relationships are directly associated with their attachment styles (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Studies have further conceptualized a two-dimensional scheme or structure of adult attachment styles, with two primary dimensions: attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

The dimension of attachment anxiety indicates a high level of anxiety and a low level of avoidance as characterized by an intense need for closeness, excessive concerns about relationships, and fear of being abandoned due to a lack of attachment security. The dimension of attachment avoidance refers to a high level of avoidance as characterized by compulsive self-reliance and emotional detachment from others due to a lack of attachment security. The individual's failure of proximity–seeking and proximity–maintaining to address distress and threats and the consequent reliance on secondary attachment strategies for affect-regulation represent the dimensional scheme of both attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety. Furthermore, attachment avoidance is differentiated as dismissing avoidants (individuals with high levels of avoidance and low anxiety) and fearful avoidants (individuals with high levels of both avoidance and anxiety) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). In the two-dimensional structure, the secure attachment style characterizes a space where a level of both attachment anxiety and avoidance is low (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Secure people exhibit comfort with closeness and interdependence, as well as reliance on support-seeking and other constructive ways to address distress.

Early attachment relationships' behavioral and emotional dynamics significantly govern adult romantic relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). For example, when distressed or threatened, adults generally seek safety, support, and comfort from their accessible, intimate, and responsive partners as a “safe haven” (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). In addition, securely attached adults tend to report more positive beliefs about romantic relationships than those with anxious/ambivalent and avoidant attachment styles. In contrast, avoidantly attached individuals tend to report less perception of relational rewards and benefits (Spielmann et al., 2013). Anxiously attached individuals also report more emphasis on relational threats and losses. Subsequent studies (Frei & Shaver, 2002; Owen et al., 2012) have found that people with more attachment insecurities are less likely to perceive appreciation and respect from romantic partners, which contribute to a lack of relational success. Furthermore, insecure attachment prevents romantic partners from forming, consolidating, and maintaining lasting and satisfying relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Emotional Intimacy

Emotional intimacy, referring to one's subjective perception of closeness, responsiveness, and trust of others, is the central outcome of the attachment communication system because emotional intimacy reflects the perception of others and their expectations of availability and caring from the others, both of which are grounded in the early emotional relationship with a primary attachment figure. Specifically, the attachment system promotes support-seeking behaviors from and maintaining proximity to significant others as a safe haven, particularly when distressed or threatened (Bowlby, 1988). This strategy leads an individual to seek support from actual supportive others or internalized representations of attachment figures in order to maintain an actual or symbolic sense of felt-security.

An individual's positive experiences with attachment-figure availability corroborate that proximity- and support-seeking are accessible to help address the sources of distress and to maintain emotional stability. As a result, securely attached people are more likely to perceive higher levels of emotional and instrumental support from primary attachment figures and have a desire for more emotional supportiveness than avoidant and ambivalent people (Florian et al., 1995).

Intimacy, closeness, supportiveness, and trust toward the partner represent the characteristics of securely attached adults’ romantic experiences (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). As a result, securely attached adults tend to emphasize the importance of intimacy in their adult relationships when compared to those who are ambivalent/anxious and avoidant (Mikulincer & Erev, 1991).

In contrast, inconsistent experiences of attachment-figure availability can lead an individual to develop anxious/ambivalent attachment insecurity. Inconsistent attachment-figure availability experiences can cause an individual to continually appraise the attachment figure's availability and to attempt to discover alternative strategies to handle distress and to manage attachment behaviors (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). In such cases, a proximity-seeking evaluation strategy called hyperactivation is a workable option that can be employed (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988). The primary purpose of hyperactivation is to get relationship partners’ involvement, support, and love through developing and maintaining physical closeness, psychological oneness, intimacy, and connection (Mikulincer et al., 2003). Detecting cues of attachment-figure unavailability and abandonment in the relationship activates the hyperactivation strategy which amplifies a sense of anxiety, decrease in intimacy interest, hypervigilance regarding imminent abandonment, and rapid appraisal of the possibility of disapproval. Thus, ambivalent people's love experiences tend to be characterized by obsession, emotional instability, anxiousness about abandonment, intense physical attraction, jealousy, and the intense desire for the development of a close union (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

Repeated attachment-figure unavailability experiences can cause an individual to develop avoidant attachment insecurity. The evaluation of proximity-seeking as a nonworkable option can lead an individual to adopt another secondary strategy called deactivation characterized by failure to recognize attachment-related needs, aggressive avoidance of close, intimate, and dependent relationships, emotional and cognitive detachment from other people, and the extreme need for self-reliance (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988). The deactivating strategy aims to preemptively avoid any potential relationships that could result in attachment-figure unavailability or distress- or frustrating-provoking situation. Such strategies may also influence an individual to restrict affective interaction with attachment figures (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988). Avoidant people's romantic experiences are often related to traits of fear of intimacy and difficulty relying on others (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

Marital Attitudes

According to Braaten and Rosén (1998), “marital attitudes refers to a person's subjective opinion of the institution of heterosexual marriage” (p. 84). Of course, this definition could also apply to legailized same sex marriages today. Many different factors, ranging from the conditions of the universal society and predominant attitudes toward marriage to the specific characteristics of individuals’ social and emotional experiences within their family, contribute to the development of marital attitudes (Blagojevic, 1989). For example, experiences of interpersonal relationships within the family might influence children's attitudes toward marriage and family life (Coleman & Ganong, 1984). According to Riggio and Weiser (2008), “Marriage attitudes that are more strongly embedded are more likely to influence evaluations of marriage issues and personal relationship scenarios, and marriage attitudes and their embeddedness are related to outcomes in personal relationships” (p. 134). These researchers stressed that lower satisfaction levels with intimacy, companionship, and sexuality in relationships were positively related to more negative marital attitudes.

The current study examined three primary research hypotheses. First, differences in attitudes toward marriage would be statistically significant between secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent participants (H1). Second, differences in emotional intimacy levels would be statistically significant between secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent participants (H2). Third, the relationship between secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent participants and their attitudes toward marriage would be mediated by emotional intimacy (H3).

Methods

Participants and Procedure

The independent variable in the current study is individuals’ attachment styles (Secure, Avoidant, and Anxious/ambivalent); the dependent variable is attitudes toward marriage (Positive and negative);, and the mediating factor, if any, is perceived levels of emotional intimacy.

Participants of the current study consisted of 182 junior and senior students (87 junior, 47.8%; 89 senior, 48.9%; and 6 no response, 3.3%) at a southeastern university in the United States. Participants in this study reported their gender identity as man (n = 30, 16.5%), woman (n = 139, 76.4%), transgender (n = 2, 1.1%), gender-neutral (n = 1, 0.5%), non-binary (n = 3, 1.6%), genderqueer (n = 1, 0.5%), preferred not to answer (n = 1, 0.5%), and no response (n = 5, 2.7%). In terms of the participants’ sexual orientation, 70.3% (n = 128) were heterosexual, 12.6% (n = 23) were bisexual, 5.5% (n = 10) were pansexual, 3.3% (n = 6) were homosexual, 1.6% (n = 3) were asexual and other, 1.1% (n = 2) preferred not to say, 0.5% (n = 1) were polyamorous, and 3.3% (n = 6) did not respond. Participants’ age was reported as follows: 18–24 (n = 153, 84.1%), 25–34 (n = 17, 9.3%), 35–44 (n = 3, 1.6%), 45–54 (n = 3, 1.6%), 55–64 (n = 1, 0.5%), and no response (n = 5, 2.7%). Of the participants, 112 (61.5%) were Caucasian, 30 (16.5%) were Hispanic, 2 (1.1%) were African American, 12 (6.6%) were Asian American, 16 (8.8%) were two or more ethnic identities, 3 (1.6%) were other/unknown, 2 (1.1%) preferred not to answer, and 5 (2.7%) did not respond. Participants reported their parents’ annual household income as less than $ 25,000 (n = 10, 5.5%), between $ 25,000–$ 49,999 (n = 24, 13.2%), between $ 50,000–$ 99,999 (n = 42, 23.1%), between $ 100,000–$ 200,000 (n = 55, 30.2%), more than $ 200,000 (n = 23, 12.6%), preferred not to answer (n = 23, 12.6%), and no response (n = 5, 2.7%). In terms of the participants’ religion, 93 (51.1%) reported Catholicism/Christianity, 3 (1.6%) reported Judaism, 2 (1.1%) reported Islam, 2 (1.1%) reported Buddhism, 44 (24.2%) reported other religions, 28 (15.4%) preferred not to say, and 10 (5.5%) did not respond.

The University of Florida Institutional Review Board approved the current study (IRB202000252). Participants in this study were given a link to an online IRB-approved informed consent document explaining the purpose of the study and the confidentiality of the data that would be collected. After consenting to participate in the study, students completed four sets of questionnaires in an online format: (a) The Adult Attachment Scale (AAS; Collins & Read, 1990), (b) The Marital Attitude Scale (MAS; Braaten & Rosén, 1998), (c) The Emotional Intimacy Scale (EIS; Sinclair & Dowdy, 2005), and (d) a demographic questionnaire.

Measures

Demographic questionnaire

The demographic questionnaire included gender, class, race/ethnicity, household income, sexual orientation, religious orientation, and family structure questions. Charcteristics relevant to the current study were noted above.

Attachment styles

The Adult Attachment Scale (AAS; Collins & Read, 1990) was used to measure adult attachment styles. The AAS includes 18 items used to measure three attachment styles (Secure, Avoidant, and Anxious/ambivalent), and each item is scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (Not at all characteristic) to 5 (Very characteristic). The AAS consists of three subscales; Close (Comfort with closeness and intimacy) (e.g., “I find it relatively easy to get close to others.”), Depend (Comfort with depending on others) (e.g., “I know that people will be there when I need them.”), and Anxiety (Worry about being rejected or unloved) (e.g., “I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.”). In order to measure adult attachment styles, average scores of each subscale were calculated. A high score on the Close and Depend subscales and a low score on the Anxiety subscale indicated a secure attachment style. A high score on the Anxiety subscale and moderate scores on the Close and Depend subscales indicated an Anxious/Ambivalent style. Low scores on all three Close, Depend, and Anxiety subscales indicated an avoidant style.

Collins and Read (1990) demonstrated the construct validity of the AAS, using Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) measure. Scores in the current study demonstrated good/acceptable internal consistency (Close = .72; Depend = .86; Anxiety = .70).

Attitudes toward marriage

The Marital Attitude Scale (MAS; Braaten & Rosén, 1998) was used to measure attitudes toward marriage. The MAS contains 23 items (e.g., “My lifelong dream includes a happy marriage.”) to measure both married and unmarried individuals’ attitudes and opinions toward marriage on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly agree) to 3 (strongly disagree) for each statement. In addition, this scale includes nine items requiring reverse codes (MAS; Braaten & Rosén, 1998). The MAS demonstrated acceptable evidence of validity, showing significant correlations with other measures, such as the Attitudes Toward Marriage Scale (ATM; Gabardi & Rosén, 1991). In this study, the 23-item MAS scores demonstrated excellent reliability (α = .91). The total MAS score was calculated by summing all individual item scores, ranging from 23 to 92. Higher scores indicated more positive attitudes toward marriage.

Emotional intimacy

The Emotional Intimacy Scale (EIS; Sinclair & Dowdy, 2005) was used to measure levels of emotional intimacy. The EIS has five items (e.g., “I know this person cares deeply for me.”), and each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (rarely) to 5 (a great deal of the time). The validity of the EIS was established by correlating it with measures of social support, self-efficacy, perceived health competence, reappraisal coping behaviors, life satisfaction, and positive affect, with significant correlations reported. The total EIS score can range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater perceptions of emotional intimacy. The total EIS scores demonstrated excellent internal consistency in the current study (α = .90).

Data Analysis

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 23 Version (SPSS 23) was utilized as the statistical data analysis method in this study. First, the researchers used SPSS 23 to examine differences in attitudes toward marriage and emotional intimacy levels between secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent participants, by conducting a one-way ANOVA. Because this estimation method relies on the normality and the homoscedasticity of data, explanatory data analysis with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality was performed to ensure the data normality and homoscedasticity. Because the result of the normality test for the EIS (Sinclair & Dowdy, 2005) scores failed to meet the assumption of normality, Kruskal-Wallis H analysis was conducted as the alternative to one-way ANOVA. Next, the authors of the current study executed a pairwise comparison for the nonparametric post-hoc test to examine differences in perceived levels of emotional intimacy between secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent participants.

To analyze the mediation effect, the current research utilized Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal-steps approach with regression analysis, along with a bootstrapped CI for the indirect effects as described by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Since participants’ attachment styles were measured as categorical variables due to the nature of the AAS (Collins & Read, 1990), the estimation of attachment styles (secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent) for path analysis was transformed into dummy variables (Dummy 1: secure attachment = 1, 0, 0; Dummy 2: avoidant attachment = 0, 0, 1; and reference group: anxious/ambivalent attachment = 0, 0, 0). The bootstrapping test was performed (Shrout & Bolger, 2002) so that the researchers could address the issue of normality in emotional intimacy and tested the significance and strength of mediating effects of emotional intimacy in the potential causal relationship between individuals’ attachment styles and attitudes toward marriage.

Results

The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality revealed that the MAS (Braaten & Rosén, 1998) scores used to examine marital attitudes of secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent participants fulfilled the assumption of normality (p > .05). In contrast, the results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test identified that the EIS (Sinclair & Dowdy, 2005) scores used to measure emotional intimacy levels of securely, avoidantly, and anxiously/ambivalently attached participants did not meet the assumption of normality (p < .05).

Levene's test for equality of variance ensured homogeneity of variance of the MAS scores (p > .05). One-way ANOVA results from the sample revealed that attitudes toward marriage scores were significantly different across different attachment styles, F (2, 179) = 8.873, p < .001. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the post-hoc comparison using the Tukey HSD and Scheffe test found that participants who were securely attached reported statistically significantly more positive attitudes toward marriage (M = 46.20, SD = 10.94) than avoidant participants (M = 38.52, SD = 11.73) (p < .001). In contrast, the multiple comparisons using the Tukey HSD and Scheffe test identified that marital attitude scores of anxious/ambivalent participants (M = 42.83, SD = 8.82) were not significantly different from avoidant participants (p > .05). The multiple range test results using Tukey HSD and Scheffe revealed that secure and anxious/ambivalent participants represented distinct homogenous subsets regarding attitudes toward marriage. In addition, anxious/ambivalent and avoidant participants also belonged to distinct homogenous groups.

The results of a Kruskal-Wallis H test demonstrated significant differences in emotional intimacy levels across different attachment styles, H (2, N = 182) = 45.188, p < .001, with a mean rank emotional intimacy score of 126.40 for secure participants, 89.56 for anxious/ambivalent participants, and 68.21 avoidant participants. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the post-hoc test of pairwise comparisons of attachment styles found that emotional intimacy levels were significantly different between secure participants (Mdn = 25.00) and anxious/ambivalent participants (Mdn = 23.00) (p < .01). Secure participants and avoidant participants (Mdn = 21.00) reported significantly different levels of emotional intimacy (p < .001). However, a difference in emotional intimacy levels between avoidant and anxious/ambivalent participants was not found.

In the path from secure attachment style to attitudes toward marriage through emotional intimacy, the mediation analysis results revealed that the direct effect of secure attachment style on attitudes toward marriage was significant (β = .202, t = 2.605, p < .05). Secure attachment style was predictive of the mediating variable—the perceived level of emotional intimacy (β = .397, t = 5.802, p < .001). When controlling for secure attachment style, emotional intimacy was specifically predictive of positive attitudes toward marriage (β = .160, t = 2.065, p < .05). The indirect effect was .064, which was statistically significant per the Sobel test (z = 2.2, p < .05); each one percent increase in emotional intimacy level predicted an increase in positive marital attitudes of .064. The total effect was significant (β = .266, t = 3.698, p < .001). Bootstrapping at 5,000 samples showed a 95% confidence interval with a lower limit of .269 and an upper limit of 3.008. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the results demonstrated that the indirect mediating effect of emotional intimacy was significant because 95% CI of the indirect effect did not contain 0.

In the path from avoidant attachment style to attitudes toward marriage through emotional intimacy, the results of mediation analysis showed the significant direct effect of avoidant attachment style on attitudes toward marriage (β = −.221, t = −2.833, p < .01). Avoidant attachment style significantly negatively influenced the mediating variable—the perceived level of emotional intimacy (β = −.411, t = −6.043, p < .001). When controlling for avoidant attachment style, emotional intimacy was significantly predictive of marital attitudes (β = .150, t = 1.925, p < .05). The indirect effect was -.062, which was statistically significant per the Sobel test (z = −2.0, p < .05); each one percent increase in emotional intimacy level predicted a decrease in marital attitudes of .062. The total effect was significant (β = −.282, t = −3.945, p < .001). Bootstrapping at 5,000 samples showed the indirect mediating effect's 95% confidence interval with a lower limit of −2.968 and an upper limit of −.124. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the results found that 95% CI of the indirect effect did not contain 0, indicating that the indirect mediating effect of emotional intimacy was significant.

Discussion

The research findings in the current study revealed that securely attached participants have more positive attitudes toward marriage than avoidantly attached participants in the sample studied. These findings can be explained with the internal working models of attachment theory. The internal working models developed from childhood tend to remain stable across time and continue to influence close, intimate, and romantic relationship behaviors across the life span (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). When constructing new relationships, people tend to use previous relationship experiences to predict and interpret other people's behaviors and feelings toward them. Furthermore, adults’ romantic attachment styles and behaviors significantly parallel with early attachment patterns. The research findings in the current study demonstrated that securely attached participants tend to have positive views of self and a marriage partner based on their perceptions of high levels of closeness, dependability, and supportiveness toward others, and their internal working model grounded in the sense of felt-security which leads to positive attitudes toward marriage.

On the other hand, participants with avoidant attachment style are more likely to develop an internal mental representation rooted in the sense of felt-insecurity. This internal working model can influence avoidant participants to develop a negative view of self and a marriage partner and negative attitudes toward marriage based on self-doubt about being loved, fear of being abandoned in a relationship, and a lack of being able to depend upon others.

Anxious/ambivalent participants did not significantly differ in attitudes toward marriage from secure and avoidant participants in the present study. Secure and anxious/ambivalent participants showed similarly positive attitudes toward marriage; however, anxious/ambivalent and avoidant participants had similarly less positive attitudes toward marriage when compared to the other homogenous subgroups. The findings indicate that an anxious/ambivalent individual is likely to have inconsistent attachment experiences and to develop a lack of a sense of felt-security. Because of these inconsistent experiences, anxious/ambivalent people tend to show unpredictable attachment behaviors, involving an intense need for closeness, excessive concerns about relationships, and fear of abandonment. The present research findings demonstrated that anxious/ambivalent individuals have strong desires to develop a close union like marriage, as well as exhibit anxiousness about being abandoned and relational instability. These ambivalent attitudes toward an intimate union help to explain why some anxious/ambivalent participants in the current study exhibited positive marital attitudes similar to secure participants’ attitudes as well as less positive attitudes toward marriage like avoidant participants.

Securely attached participants reported higher levels of emotional intimacy toward a close person than avoidant and anxious/ambivalent participants in the present study. These research findings are significantly associated with the attachment system. Based on the concepts of the attachment system, secure participants are more likely to experience attachment-figure availability in early childhood, and these attachment experiences are extended to their romantic relationships in adulthood. In other words, in distressed or threatened situations, securely attached individuals tend to seek support and safety from their romantic partners as a “safe haven” because they had success doing so during their childhood. As a result, participants with attachment security are more likely to show active and comfortable emotional interaction in their close relationships and report high levels of emotional intimacy toward romantic partners. In contrast, anxious/ambivalent and avoidant participants were more likely to have inconsistent or unavailable experiences of attachment-figure availability, leading to the development of hyperactivation or deactivation. Emotional instability associated with the hyperactivation strategy is more likely to keep anxious/ambivalent participants from establishing high levels of emotional intimacy. In addition, attachment avoidance and the deactivating strategy are significantly related to a lack of involvement and low levels of emotional intimacy in close relationships which help to explain avoidant participants’ lower emotional intimacy levels.

The research findings in the current study revealed that anxious/ambivalent participants’ emotional intimacy levels were not significantly different from avoidant participants’ emotional intimacy levels. The potential reason for this result is that both anxious/ambivalent and avoidant people are consistently exposed to the experiences of attachment-figure unavailability, although there is a distinct difference in the extent to which attachment needs are fulfilled. Furthermore, attachment insecurity experiences are likely to influence insecure individuals to develop negative views of self and other people. Therefore, both anxious/ambivalent and avoidant participants are more likely to foster a lack of expectations of availability and support from others, and these internal working models would, in succession, prevent them from experiencing high levels of emotional intimacy.

The mediation analysis research findings in the present study demonstrated that secure participants reported higher levels of emotional intimacy than avoidant participants, and these perceptions significantly mediated positive attitudes toward marriage. In contrast, avoidant participants had lower levels of emotional intimacy than secure participants, and perceived emotional intimacy levels significantly mediated their more negative attitudes toward marriage. The results indicate that individuals’ emotional intimacy, which is impacted by attachment relationship experiences, significantly influences their marital attitudes. Secure people are more likely to experience many positive relational and supportive encounters with an attachment figure. The primary caregiver's availability and consistent responsiveness to the person's attachment needs tend to help secure people develop a sense of self-worth and optimistic expectations of emotional availability, dependability, and caring from other people. In turn, the view of self and others is likely to enable secure participants to develop high levels of emotional intimacy toward others. Based on the perceived high level of emotional intimacy, participants with attachment security are more likely to have positive opinions and optimistic expectations of marriage that both foster and necessitate deeper levels of affective interaction.

On the other hand, avoidant people are more likely to experience unavailable, insensitive, and unresponsive care and support from an attachment figure; these experiences result in consistent failure to fulfill attachment-related needs and the development of a sense of self-worthlessness and pessimistic expectations of emotional availability and dependability from other people. This negative view of self and others can significantly contribute to a person's lower emotional intimacy levels. As previously mentioned, individuals often adopt secondary strategies to avoid any potential distress- or frustration-provoking relationship or situation in advance (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988). Using this alternative strategy, avoidant participants are more likely to deactivate proximity-seeking needs, inhibit support-seeking behaviors, and detach themselves from deeper levels of emotional and vulnerable interactions with other people. Based on lower levels of emotional intimacy, avoidant participants are more likely to have negative ideas and pessimistic expectations about marriage.

Conclusion

The present research contributes three critical insights to the body of the knowledge. First, it broadens our knowledge about the relationship between individuals’ attachment styles and attitudes toward marriage. As previously mentioned, numerous studies have focused primarily on investigating the influence of attachment patterns on marriage-related factors after getting married, including marital well-being, marital satisfaction, and marital quality. Unlike previous studies, the present research examined the impact of individuals’ attachment styles on attitudes toward marriage as a concept related to marriage before getting married. Additionally, the present study can also be used to facilitate more empirical and longitudinal research to investigate significant relationships among individuals’ attachment patterns, marital attitudes, satisfaction, and/or quality both before and after marriage.

Second, anxious/ambivalent participants reported similar positive attitudes toward marriage to secure participants, but they also reported similar martial attitudes to avoidant participants’ less positive attitudes in the present study. These research findings reveal possible implications for the significance of personality and relational traits on anxious/ambivalent attachment styles. Specifically, anxious/ambivalent individuals have strong desires to develop an intimate and close union (i.e., marital relationship), but they also have anxiety about abandonment and relational instability. These unique traits are aligned with the effect of the hyperactivation strategy resulting from inconsistent attachment figure availability experiences. With hyperactivation, anxious/ambivalent people tend to attempt to develop and maintain intimate relationships. Simultaneously, the hyperactivation strategy can be activated by identifying signs of abandonment in close relationships, which can lead to negative feelings and thoughts about relational experiences, including romantic relationships.

Finally, by examining the mediating effect of emotional intimacy in the pathway from individuals’ attachment styles to their attitudes toward marriage, researchers in this study validated emotional intimacy as a central outcome of the attachment system. The research findings shed further light on the role of emotional intimacy as a mediator between attachment style and individuals’ attitudes toward marriage. In other words, emotional intimacy mediates the impact of attachment patterns on marital attitudes, which broadens the knowledge of the association between people's attachment patterns and their attitudes toward marriage. The study authors hope that the research findings can facilitate subsequent studies investigating the mediating or moderating effect of emotional intimacy, as affected by attachment orientation (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016), on the quality and satisfaction of romantic relationships.

The current research's several limitations should also be acknowledged, as they also provide opportunities for conceptualizing and tightening future studies. First, the Adult Attachment Scale (AAS; Collins & Read, 1990) used in the present study was designed to measure adult attachment styles as categorical variables. As a result of the pioneering Strange Situation experiment (Ainsworth et al., 1978), many categorical measurements for individuals’ attachment styles, such as the Relationships Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), have consistently been developed and widely used in empirical studies. However, the risk of misclassification for attachment categories exists. For example, individuals studied near the boundaries between different attachment categories can increase statistical error and decrease statistical power, which may inhibit the identification of specific attachment styles’ effects (Scharfe, 2016). Additionally, categorizing people into particular groups based on continuous scores can negatively and dramatically affect statistical power (Fraley et al., 2015). Therefore, future research should encourage the use of continuous measurements for categorizing attachment styles and re-examine the impact of attachment styles on marital attitudes and the mediating effect of emotional intimacy.

Second, the present study used the Marital Attitude Scale (MAS; Braaten & Rosén, 1998) to measure individuals’ attitudes toward marriage. The scale refers to marital attitudes as “a person's subjective opinion of the institution of heterosexual marriage” (Braaten & Rosen, 1998, p. 84). However, definitions and types of marriage (e.g., civil marriage, same-sex marriage, interfaith marriage, monogamous marriage, polygamous marriage, mixed marriage, or shotgun marriage) are more complex and diverse in the real world depending upon various factors (e.g., culture, religion, sexual orientation, or personal values). Numerous scales, such as the MAS or the Attitudes Toward Marriage Scale (Gabardi & Rosén, 1991), have only been used to measure attitudes toward heterosexual marriage. There is one scale, however, the Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage Scale (Pearl & Galupo, 2007), which measures overall attitudes toward same-sex marriage; it indicates a significant gap between various definitions and types of marriage in the real world and exposes a lack of survey instruments that can be used for examining attitudes toward diverse marriages. The present study, therefore, highlights the need for developing and validating inclusive instruments to measure individuals’ marital attitudes toward marriage, which can include diverse forms and definitions (e.g., heterosexual, same-sex marriage). Moreover, further research is encouraged to examine how sociocultural factors, such as social welfare systems/services for diverse marriage forms or institutional policies regarding different types of marriage, mediate or moderate the impact of attachment styles on overall marital attitudes.

Third, the present study is also limited in its generalizability. Participants in the research consisted of junior and senior students at a southeastern university in the United States. The majority of participants’ ages were between 18–24. In addition, most of the participants reported their gender as women and their sexual orientation as heterosexual. These and other limitations, such as the present research's lack of sample diversity (e.g., different regions, ages, social positions, genders, and sexual orientations), make it impossible to generalize the sample to all populations. With this limitation, future research is strongly encouraged to include more diverse samples in generalizing the potential causal relationship between individuals’ attachment styles and attitudes toward marriage with the mediating effects of emotional intimacy.

Lastly, the present research could not completely rule out several variables that can influence individuals’ attitudes toward marriage. Previous research findings (Bulanda & Brown, 2007; Clarkberg et al., 1995) revealed that career aspirations and race/ethnicity constitute significant variables which can impact marital attitudes and perceptions of spouses’ behaviors. In addition, religiosity, parents’ family structure, and not having a fear of intimacy have been found to be significant predictors of African American men's more favorable marital attitudes (Perry, 2013). This limitation strongly indicates the need for further studies to control for or include the variables necessary to help us better understand individuals’ marital attitudes.

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.

ORCID iD

Cheolwoo Park

References

Ainsworth

M. S.

Blehar

M. C.

Waters

Walls

(1978). Patterns of attachment: Assessed in the strange situation and at home. Erlbaum.

Banse

(2004). Adult attachment and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic configuration effects. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504041388

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bartholomew

Horowitz

L. M.

(1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

Blagojevic

(1989). The attitudes of young people towards marriage: From the change of substance to the change of form. Marriage & Family Review, 14(1-2), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v14n01_12

Bowlby

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

Bowlby

(1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.

Braaten

Rosén

(1998). Development and validation of the marital attitude scale. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 29(3), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1300/j087v29n03_05

Bulanda

J. R.

Brown

S. L.

(2007). Race-ethnic differences in marital quality and divorce. Social Science Research, 36(3), 945–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.04.001

10.

Cassidy

Kobak

R. R.

(1988). Avoidance and its relationship with other defensive processes. In Belsky

Nezworski

(Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 300–323). Erlbaum.

11.

Clarkberg

Stolzenberg

R. M.

Waite

L. J.

(1995). Attitudes, values, and entrance into cohabitational versus marital unions. Social Forces, 74(2), 609. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580494

12.

Coleman

Ganong

L. H.

(1984). Effect of family structure on family attitudes and expectations. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 33(3), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.2307/584713

13.

Collins

N. L.

Read

S. J.

(1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 644–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644

14.

Debrot

Cook

W. L.

Perrez

Horn

A. B.

(2012). Deeds matter: Daily enacted responsiveness and intimacy in couples’ daily lives. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(4), 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028666

15.

Florian

Mikulincer

Bucholtz

(1995). Effects of adult attachment style on the perception and search for social support. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 129(6), 665–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1995.9914937

16.

Fraley

R. C.

Hudson

N. W.

Heffernan

M. E.

Segal

(2015). Are adult attachment styles categorical or dimensional? A taxometric analysis of general and relationship-specific attachment orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(2), 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000027

17.

Fraley

R. C.

Shaver

P. R.

(2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4(2), 132–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.132

18.

Frei

J. R.

Shaver

P. R.

(2002). Respect in close relationships: Prototype definition, self-report assessment, and initial correlates. Personal Relationships, 9(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00008

19.

Gabardi

Rosén

L. A.

(1991). Differences between college students from divorced and intact families. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 15(3-4), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v15n03_10

20.

Hazan

Shaver

P. R.

(1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

21.

Hazan

Shaver

P. R.

(1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.270

22.

Hollist

C. S.

Miller

R. B.

(2005). Perceptions of attachment style and marital quality in midlife marriage. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 54(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0197-6664.2005.00005.x

23.

Hudson

N. W.

Fraley

R. C.

(2017). Adult attachment and perceptions of closeness. Personal Relationships, 24(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12166

24.

Kobak

R. R.

Hazan

(1991). Attachment in marriage: Effects of security and accuracy of working models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 861–869. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.861

25.

Meyers

S. A.

Landsberger

S. A.

(2002). Direct and indirect pathways between adult attachment style and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 9(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00010

26.

Mikulincer

Erev

(1991). Attachment style and the structure of romantic love. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30(4), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1991.tb00946.x

27.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

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

28.

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(2), 77–102. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024515519160

29.

Monteoliva

García–Martínez

J. M. A.

Calvo–Salguero

(2016). Perceived benefits and costs of romantic relationships for young people: Differences by adult attachment styles. The Journal of Psychology, 150(8), 931–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1217190

30.

Owen

Quirk

Manthos

(2012). I get no respect: The relationship between betrayal trauma and romantic relationship functioning. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 13(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2012.642760

31.

Pearl

M. L.

Galupo

M. P.

(2007). Development and validation of the attitudes toward same-sex marriage scale. Journal of Homosexuality, 53(3), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v53n03_07

32.

Perry

A. R.

(2013). African American men’s attitudes toward marriage. Journal of Black Studies, 44(2), 182–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934712472506

33.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In Hayes

A. F.

Slater

M. D.

Snyder

L. B.

(Eds.), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13–54). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452272054.n2

34.

Riggio

H. R.

Weiser

D. A.

(2008). Attitudes toward marriage: Embeddedness and outcomes in personal relationships. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00188.x

35.

Sandberg

J. G.

Bradford

A. B.

Brown

A. P.

(2017). Differentiating between attachment styles and behaviors and their association with marital quality. Family Process, 56(2), 518–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12186

36.

Scharfe

(2016). Measurement: Categorical vs. Continuous. Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1970-1

37.

Shrout

P. E.

Bolger

(2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422

38.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Campbell

Wilson

Tran

(2002). Adult attachment, the transition to parenthood, and marital well-being. In Noller

Feeney

J. A.

(Eds.), Advances in personal relationships. Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 385–410). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511500077.020

39.

Sinclair

V. G.

Dowdy

S. W.

(2005). Development and validation of the Emotional Intimacy Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 13(3), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1891/jnum.13.3.193

40.

Spielmann

S. S.

Maxwell

J. A.

MacDonald

Baratta

P. L.

(2013). Don’t get your hopes up: Avoidantly attached individuals perceive lower social reward when there is potential for intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212472541

41.

Welker

K. M.

Baker

Padilla

Holmes

Aron

Slatcher

R. B.

(2014). Effects of self-disclosure and responsiveness between couples on passionate love within couples. Personal Relationships, 21(4), 692–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12058