Partners’ Attachment Insecurity and Stress Predict Poorer Relationship Functioning During COVID-19 Quarantines

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic presents acute, ongoing relationship challenges. The current research tested how (1) preexisting vulnerabilities assessed prior to the pandemic (attachment insecurity) and (2) stress as couples endured a mandated quarantine predicted residual changes in relationship functioning. Controlling for prequarantine problems, relationship quality, and family environment, greater partners’ attachment anxiety predicted greater relationship problems, lower relationship quality, and a less stable and cohesive family environment when people were experiencing more stress. Greater partners’ attachment avoidance predicted lower problem-solving efficacy and family cohesion. The effects of partners’ preexisting vulnerabilities and pandemic-related stress demonstrate the utility of key models in relationship science in identifying who is at most risk of relationship problems in the unprecedented context of a mandated quarantine. The results emphasize that the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on relationship functioning will be shaped by the characteristics of partners with whom people are confined with during the pandemic.

Keywords

COVID-19 quarantine attachment insecurity stress relationship problems partner effects

High-quality relationships protect health and well-being during challenging life events (Pietromonaco & Collins, 2017). Maintaining close relationships is thus crucial as couples face the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Quarantines to contain COVID-19 require couples to balance work and full-time childcare isolated from social resources that would help alleviate these burdens. The resulting anxiety, economic insecurity, and social loss make it difficult to sustain high-quality relationships, especially for couples entering the pandemic with vulnerabilities that put them at greater risk (Pietromonaco & Overall, 2020).

According to the vulnerability-stress-adaption (VSA) model (Karney & Bradbury, 1995), enduring vulnerabilities, such as traits or dispositions, along with the stress of acute demands strain adaptive processes that are needed to sustain healthy relationship functioning. Integrating the VSA model with diathesis–stress models of attachment (Simpson & Rholes, 2012, 2017), Pietromonaco and Overall (2020) suggested attachment insecurity would be particularly important in determining adaptation to the stress arising from the pandemic. Attachment insecurity is one of the most studied personal vulnerabilities that reliably predicts poorer relationship quality (Joel et al., 2020). Moreover, a bulk of evidence demonstrates that attachment insecurity creates problematic dynamics during times of stress that damage relationship functioning (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Simpson & Rholes, 2012, 2017).

In the current research, we applied and extended the integration by Pietromonaco and Overall (2020) to test whether individuals’ own and their partner’s attachment insecurity represent key preexisting vulnerabilities that, combined with stress experienced across life domains (e.g., economic, work, health), hindered couples ability to adapt to the challenges of a mandated quarantine with their children (see Figure 1). Couples who had completed assessments of attachment insecurity and relationship functioning prior to the COVID-19 pandemic completed assessments of their stress and relationship functioning during a mandatory COVID-19 quarantine. This longitudinal design allowed us to test whether individuals’ and partners’ attachment insecurity (Path V) and stress during quarantine (Path S) predicted residual changes in relationship functioning, including increasing the risk of relationship problems, undermining couples’ ability to provide a stable and cohesive family environment, and lowering relationship quality (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Application of the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model (Karney & Bradbury, 1995) and diathesis–stress model of attachment (Simpson & Rholes, 2012, 2017) to relationship functioning during a mandatory COVID-19 quarantine. Note: Variables in dashed line boxes were assessed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Variables in solid line boxes were assessed when couples were living together in a nationwide lockdown involving mandated quarantine to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Enduring Vulnerabilities: Own and Partner Attachment Insecurity

Attachment anxiety is theorized to arise from inconsistent past caregiving that promotes persistent bids for closeness fueled by fears that partners will be unresponsive or rejecting (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). These fears often create intense distress, destructive reactions to threatening events, and excessive reassurance seeking (Campbell et al., 2005; Jayamaha et al., 2017; Overall et al., 2014; Simpson et al., 1996). Such reactions are linked to multiple relationship problems (e.g., poorer communication, unrealistic expectations, poorer felt regard/love, jealousy), lower problem resolution, and poorer relationship quality (Campbell et al., 2005; Jayamaha et al., 2017; Overall et al., 2014; Simpson et al., 1996).

Attachment avoidance is theorized to arise from neglectful past caregiving that generates deep-seated beliefs that partners cannot be trusted to be responsive (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Such distrust often prompts avoidant individuals to limit closeness (Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997; Tan et al., 2012), suppress distress and reject support (Girme et al., 2015; Simpson et al., 1992), withdraw when their partner needs support (Simpson et al., 2002), and be more unresponsive, withdrawn, or hostile during conflict (Beck et al., 2014; Overall et al., 2013, 2015; Simpson et al., 1996). These distancing strategies can produce various problems (e.g., lack of closeness/support, poorer communication, power struggles), impede problem resolution, and reduce relationship quality (e.g., Overall et al., 2013, 2015; Tan et al., 2012).

The typical reactions to stressful events by people higher in anxiety or avoidance are likely to disrupt relationship functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, because partners’ attachment insecurity creates an array of problems for individuals, the risk to relationship functioning is likely to involve partner effects (partners’ insecurities predicting individuals’ relationship functioning) in addition to actor effects (individuals’ insecurities predicting individuals’ functioning). Individuals with highly anxious partners face intense negative emotions, excessive reassurance seeking, and destructive responses during challenging contexts. Accordingly, individuals with highly anxious partners find it more difficult to be responsive during conflict (Beck et al., 2013; Overall et al., 2015), are less able to improve relationship problems (Jayamaha et al., 2016) or get support from their partner (Jayamaha et al., 2017), and consequently report lower satisfaction and commitment (Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Carnelley et al., 1996; Overall et al., 2015). Similarly, individuals with highly avoidant partners must contend with their partners’ distancing strategies that reduce intimacy and support (Girme et al., 2015; Simpson et al., 2002, 2007), create more hostile, dissatisfying and unsuccessful problem-solving interactions (Beck et al., 2013; Overall et al., 2013, 2015), and lower satisfaction and commitment (Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Carnelley et al., 1996; Tan et al., 2012). Accordingly, partners’ attachment insecurity is likely to hinder adaptation to COVID-19 quarantines and predict poorer relationship functioning.

External Stress and Vulnerability × Stress Interaction Effects

Ample research illustrates that stress heightens the risk of relationship problems and dissatisfaction (Neff & Karney, 2017). People who face greater stress are more disconnected and withdrawn, and less affectionate and intimate with their partners (Bodenmann et al., 2007; Repetti et al., 2009; Story & Repetti, 2006), which predicts poorer closeness, support, and relationship quality (Falconier et al., 2015; Neff & Karney, 2004; Randall & Bodenmann, 2009). Second, managing external stress depletes the energy and resources needed for people to effectively manage relationship problems (Buck & Neff, 2012). The more people are facing stressful events, the more they behave in blaming, critical and hostile ways (Barton & Bryant, 2016; Barton et al., 2015; Bodenmann et al., 2015; Masarik et al., 2016; Neff & Karney, 2004, 2009; Williamson et al., 2013), which in turn predicts declines in relationship quality (Barton et al., 2015; Neff & Karney, 2004; Nguyen et al., 2020). Thus, people facing greater stress during COVID-19 quarantines should experience greater relationship problems, more difficulties navigating the challenges of home life during quarantine, and poorer relationship quality (Figure 1, Path S).

Studies inspired by the VSA model also indicate that vulnerabilities and stress may interact to predict relationship functioning (McNulty, 2016). Potential interactions between personal vulnerabilities and external stress align with diathesis–stress perspectives of attachment insecurity, which emphasize that the affect regulation strategies associated with attachment anxiety and avoidance occur within stressful contexts that activate underlying attachment concerns (Simpson & Rholes, 2012, 2017). Diathesis–stress (or vulnerability–stress) interactions are supported by evidence that the detrimental effects of anxiety and avoidance emerge most strongly in challenging contexts that produce distress or threaten relationship bonds (e.g., Overall et al., 2014, 2015; Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997; Simpson et al., 1992, 1996, 2002). Thus, individuals’ own and their partners’ attachment insecurity may interact with external stress (Figure 1, Path X), such that any damage to relationship functioning will be most likely to occur when attachment insecurity and stress are higher.

Relationship Functioning During Quarantine

To test whether preexisting vulnerabilities and stress predicted poorer relationship functioning during quarantine, we analyzed three categories of outcomes (a) that broadly capture the relationship difficulties shown to arise from attachment insecurity and stress, (b) are relevant to the relationship demands of COVID-19 quarantines, and (c) that we had equivalent prequarantine assessments (see Figure 1).¹

Relationship problems

As outlined above, attachment insecurity and stress often damage relationships by creating a range of problematic dynamics and impeding problem resolution (see Overall & Simpson, 2015; Neff & Karney, 2017). Accordingly, we assessed the (1) severity of an array of problems commonly experienced in relationships and often linked to attachment insecurity and stress (e.g., poor communication, power struggles, love/intimacy, unrealistic expectations) and (2) perceived ability (efficacy) to resolve relationship problems.

Family environment

Extending prior VSA and attachment investigations, we also assessed outcomes essential to the challenge of the quarantine for couples with children—sustaining a stable and cohesive home environment (Farrell & Barnes, 1993; Marsh et al., 2020). Couples with more problems are less able to facilitate cohesive, connected family interactions and report more chaotic, unstable home environments across time (Cross et al., 2020; Low et al., 2019). These disruptions underpin the risks that the pandemic poses to children’s health/well-being (Prime et al., 2020). Thus, home chaos and family cohesion are important indicators of whether couples are able to navigate the challenges of the quarantine in order to provide a stable and supportive family environment that is essential to their own and their children’s health and well-being (Farrell & Barnes, 1993; Marsh et al., 2020).

Relationship quality

The VSA (Karney & Bradbury, 1995) and diathesis–stress attachment (Overall & Simpson, 2015; Simpson & Rholes, 2012, 2017) models equally emphasize that difficulties adapting to stressful contexts, as indicated by greater problems and failure to cultivate supportive family environments, will undermine relationship quality. We assessed satisfaction and commitment, which are central, widely used indicators of relationship quality (Fletcher et al., 2000; Joel et al., 2020; Rusbult et al., 1998).

Overview of Current Research

Integrating two central models in relationship science, the current study investigated how (1) preexisting enduring vulnerabilities (own and partner attachment insecurity) and (2) stress experienced during a COVID-19 quarantine predicted residual changes in relationship functioning. Figure 1 summarizes the design and primary measures. The dashed lines specify variables collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (attachment insecurity and relationship functioning). The solid lines specify variables collected when couples were living together during a nationwide lockdown in New Zealand (NZ) involving mandatory and enforced quarantine in the home for 5 weeks (stress and relationship functioning during quarantine). Collecting outcomes prior to and during the COVID-19 quarantine enabled us to test how (1) own and partners’ attachment insecurity assessed prior to the pandemic (Path V) and (2) the stress experienced during quarantine (Path S) predicted residual changes across an array of indicators of relationship functioning, including greater relationship problems, reduced ability to provide a stable cohesive family environment in the home, and lower relationship quality.

Method

Participants

The sample size was determined by the pool of couples (N = 234) who had participated in a study prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Couples were emailed an invitation to complete an additional questionnaire during the Level 4 Lockdown in NZ (March 26 to April 28, 2020) in which all families were legally required to stay within their immediate household with no physical contact outside the home with the exception of one person occasionally gathering essential resources (medicine, groceries). The questionnaire was open for the last 3 weeks of the quarantine period (April 8–27, 2020). Couples received NZ$50 for participating. Of the 234 couples, 157 opposite-sex couples (314 individuals) provided complete data. Couples were in long-term (M = 12.00, SD = 4.65) relationships (87% married) with children (M = 2.26, SD = 0.87; see Table 1).

Table 1.
Demographic Information for Women (N = 157) and Men (N = 157).

Demographic Variables Women Men

Mean (SD) Frequency (%) Mean (SD) Frequency (%)

Age 36.20 (4.63) 38.04 (5.38)

Ethnicity

New Zealand (NZ) Māori 5.7 4.5

Pacific Nations 2.5 7.0

Indian 4.5 3.8

Asian 12.7 10.2

Non-NZ European 14.6 12.1

NZ European/Pākehā 55.4 58.6

Other ethnicity not listed 4.5 3.8

Education

Postgraduate (e.g., postgraduate diploma, honors degree, masters’ degree) 39.5 26.1

Tertiary (e.g., college/university degree, technical qualification, trade certificate) 47.1 49.0

High school certificate 10.2 20.4

Income (NZ$ per annum) prior to quarantine

<40,000 46.5 7.0

41,000–60,000 12.7 12.7

61,000–80,000 12.7 20.4

81,000–100,000 11.5 21.7

>100,000 15.9 38.2

Income (NZ$ per annum) during the quarantine

<40,000 51.6 19.7

41,000–60,000 12.1 12.1

61,000–80,000 12.7 18.5

81,000–100,000 10.8 20.4

>100,000 12.1 29.3

Note. Age, number of children, relationship length, and marital status reflect demographics at the initial session. Thirty-two percent of participants lost work (N = 100: 44 women, 56 men) and 34% of participants (N = 108: 46 women, 62 men) lost income due to the quarantine, which is evident in changes in income groups prior to and during the quarantine.

People who did not complete the quarantine assessment were higher in attachment avoidance and problem severity, and involved in shorter relationships, at the prepandemic assessment. Post hoc power estimation for the smallest significant partner effects was .724 and .831. See Online Supplemental Material (OSM) for more detail regarding the prequarantine sample, attrition, quarantine conditions, and power.

Procedure and Materials

Couples had completed measures of attachment insecurity and relationship functioning on average a year prior to the quarantine assessment (M = 346 days, SD = 184, range = 25–679). Controlling for days between initial and quarantine assessments did not alter the results. During the quarantine, participants completed the same measures of relationship functioning along with a measure of stress. The quarantine assessment was completed, on average, 20 days (SD = 4, range 14–33) into the mandatory lockdown.

Measures

All measures are established, reliable scales. Items were averaged to construct scale scores (αs ranged from .78 to .95). See OSM for further details. Table 2 displays descriptive statistics.

Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics for Measures Prior to and During Quarantine for Women (N = 157) and Men (N = 157).

Measures Prior to Quarantine During Quarantine^a

Women Men Women Men

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Attachment anxiety 2.74 (1.04) 2.84 (1.07)

Attachment avoidance 2.59 (0.95) 2.38 (0.80)

Problem severity 2.36 (0.83) 2.43 (0.75) 2.01 (0.81) 2.06 (0.83)

Problem-solving efficacy 5.40 (1.30) 5.26 (1.15) 5.99 (1.28) 5.84 (1.14)

Home chaos 3.10 (0.95) 3.34 (0.95) 3.11 (1.08) 3.21 (0.97)

Family cohesion 6.14 (0.87) 5.98 (0.92) 5.98 (1.03) 5.74 (1.10)

Relationship satisfaction 5.63 (1.06) 5.45 (1.24) 5.53 (1.30) 5.41 (1.35)

Relationship commitment 6.76 (0.53) 6.69 (0.64) 6.63 (0.78) 6.62 (0.67)

Stress during quarantine 2.74 (0.94) 2.55 (1.01)

Note. All variables were measured on 1–7 scales.

^a Relationship satisfaction and commitment prior to and during the quarantine are directly comparable. However, prequarantine levels of relationship problems, problem-solving efficacy, home chaos, and family cohesion captured general experiences whereas the quarantine levels of these variables were specific to experiences during quarantine. Nonetheless, analyses controlling for each indicator of relationship functioning prior to the quarantine provides evidence that any effects of individuals’ and partners’ preexisting attachment insecurity (assessed prior to the pandemic) on relationship functioning during quarantine reflect relative residual changes from general prequarantine levels.

Attachment insecurity

At the prequarantine assessment, participants completed the Adult Attachment Questionnaire (Simpson et al., 1996). Nine items assessed attachment anxiety (e.g., “I often worry that my romantic partners don’t really love me”; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Eight items assessed attachment avoidance (e.g., “I’m somewhat uncomfortable being too close to my romantic partners”).

Stress during quarantine

During the quarantine, participants rated how stressful 12 life domains had been during the quarantine (e.g., “living conditions,” “financial status,” “work”; 1 = not at all stressful, 7 = extremely stressful).²

Relationship functioning

Participants completed all measures prior to and during the quarantine. In prequarantine assessments, participants rated general experiences of relationship problems and family environment. In quarantine assessments, participants rated experiences specific to the quarantine (see OSM and Table 2).

Relationship problems

Participants rated the severity of 20 relationship problems (e.g., communication, showing affection; 1 = not a major problem, 7 = major problem; Geiss & O’Leary, 1981) and four items assessing problem resolution efficacy (e.g., “there has been no way that I could solve some of the problems in our relationship” [reverse-scored]; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; Fincham et al., 2000).

Family environment

Participants rated 12 items assessing home chaos (e.g., “there often has been a fuss going on at our home,” “we are usually able to stay on top of things” [reverse-scored]; 1 = not at all like your home, 7 = very much like your home; Matheny et al., 1995) and family cohesion (e.g., we have…“felt a sense of togetherness,” “supported and helped one another”; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; Moos & Moos, 1981).

Relationship quality

Participants completed items from Rusbult and colleagues’ (1998) investment scale to assess relationship satisfaction (e.g., “I feel satisfied with our relationship”) and commitment (e.g., “I want our relationship to last a very long time”).

Results

The indicators of relationship functioning were correlated in expected directions (see Table 3). We ran analyses predicting each outcome separately for transparency and because the constructs are theoretically and empirically distinct in prior work and have differential relevance to the literatures we integrate (see OSM). Using the MIXED procedure in SPSS Version 26, we applied the dyadic regression procedures outlined by Kenny et al. (2006), which treats individuals’ scores as repeated measures within the dyad and accounts for nonindependence by modeling a heterogeneous compound symmetry error structure.

Table 3.
Correlations Across All Measures Prior to the Quarantine (PQ) and During the Quarantine (DQ) for Women (Above the Diagonal) and Men (Below the Diagonal).

Measures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

1. PQ attachment anxiety — .46** .18* .11 .37 −.27 .18* −.23 −.25 −.09 .20* −.11 .10 −.12 −.14 −.04 .19*

2. PQ attachment avoidance .33 — .38 .18* .52 −.46 .24 −.32 −.45 −.36 .23 −.23 .18* −.17* −.24** −.20* .16

3. PQ partners’ attachment anxiety .18* .11 — .33 .36 −.40 .06 −.27 −.39 −.26 .29 −.30 .10 −.18* −.35 −.33 .01

4. PQ partners’ attachment avoidance .38** .18* .46** — .13 −.07 .04 −.08 −.14 −.09 .07 −.09 .11 −.26* −.14 −.08 .08

5. PQ problem severity .59 .30 .24 .35 .59 −.67 .37 −.51 −.67 −.46 .48 −.40 .19* −.24 −.46 −.38 .12

6. PQ problem-solving efficacy −.52 −.32** −.17* −.32 −.71 .44 −.27 .47 .63 .49 −.44 .45 −.15 .29 .49 .47 −.13

7. PQ home chaos .26** .22* .10 .21 .53 −.40 .48 −.47 −.37 −.30 .40 −.29 .59 −.42 −.24 −.20* .32

8. PQ family cohesion −.34 −.32** −.19* −.25 −.63 .48 −.45 .37 .57 .47 −.47 .40 −.23 .49 .54 .48 −.12

9. PQ relationship satisfaction −.45 −.21** −.20* −.36 −.64 .49 −.46 .55 .61 .64 −.57 .44** −.25* .34 .65 .53** −.13

10. PQ relationship commitment −.17* −.18* −.31 −.39 −.34 .24 −.21 .31 .64 .45 −.47 .45 −.18* .27 .48 .65 −.10

11. DQ problem severity .48 .27** .20* .26 .60 −.36 .39 −.49 −.54 −.30 .43 −.75 .41 −.51 −.75 −.70 .36

12. DQ problem-solving efficacy −.38 −.22 −.23 −.38 −.49 .48 −.28 .50 .49 .39 −.68 .39 −.34 .40 .62 .64 −.14

13. DQ home chaos .29 .23 .13 .19* .42 −.33 .62 −.37 −.39 −.21 .55 −.44 .42 −.65 −.28** −.18* .52

14. DQ family cohesion −.37 −.26** −.17* −.27 −.47 .31 −.41 .56 .50 .30 −.60 .50 −.61 .36 .49 .31 −.38

15. DQ relationship satisfaction −.47** −.20* −.24 −.37 −.63 .42 −.41 .58 .78 .46 −.79 .67 −.47 .66 .56 .69 −.20*

16. DQ relationship commitment −.30 −.25 −.20* −.28 −.43 .31 −.30 .47 .47 .41 −.56 .59 −.33 .43 .66 .35** −.13

17. DQ stress during quarantine .22* .26 .00 −.01 .29 −.18* .24 −.22 −.17* −.05 .50 −.35 .41 −.31 −.30* −.13 .15

Note. Correlations for women (N = 157) are shown above the diagonal. Correlations for men (N = 157) are shown below the diagonal. Bold correlations on the diagonal represent correlations across dyad members. Correlations across dyad members for attachment insecurity are shown in the top quadrant (i.e., associations across actor and partner attachment anxiety and avoidance).

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Given the number of parameters required for assessing actor and partner effects of attachment insecurity (modeling individuals’ own and partners’ anxiety and avoidance), we present two models. Model 1 tests the main effects of attachment insecurity (Path V) and stress (Figure 1, Path S). Each measure of relationship functioning during quarantine was modeled as a function of relationship functioning prior to the pandemic (so that any significant effects represent prediction of residual change), own and partners’ attachment anxiety, own and partners’ attachment avoidance, and stress. Model 2 added the Own Anxiety × Stress, Partners’ Anxiety × Stress, Own Avoidance × Stress, and Partners’ Avoidance × Stress, interactions to test whether any damage to relationship functioning was greater when individuals’ or partners’ attachment insecurity and stress were higher (Figure 1, Path X). See OSM for annotated syntax. Data and analytic code are available at https://osf.io/8wtxd/

Relationship Problems During Quarantine

As shown in Table 4, Model 1 testing the main effects revealed that partners’ attachment anxiety predicted greater problems and partners’ attachment avoidance predicted lower problem-solving efficacy (controlling for severity/efficacy prior to the quarantine). In addition to main effects of stress on relationship problems, Model 2 testing the interaction effects revealed that both actor and partner attachment anxiety interacted with stress to predict problem severity (bold interactions in Table 4). Figure 2 decomposes the significant interactions by plotting the predicted values at low (−1 SD) and high (+1 SD) levels of attachment anxiety and stress. Individuals high in attachment anxiety (Panel A) reported greater problem severity when experiencing high stress (solid slope = .157, 95% CI [.055, .259], t = 3.11, p = .003), but not low stress (dashed slope = −.013, 95% CI [−.121, .095], t = −0.23, p = .817). Moreover, individuals with partners high in attachment anxiety (Panel A) reported greater problem severity when experiencing high stress (solid slope = .188, 95% CI [.082, .294], t = 3.52, p = .001) but not low stress (dashed slope = −.009, 95% CI [−.115, .097], t = −0.16, p = .873).

Table 4.
The Effects of Own and Partners’ Attachment Insecurity Assessed Prior to the Quarantine and Stress During the Quarantine on Relationship Problems.

Predictors Problem Severity Problem-Solving Efficacy

B [CI Low, CI High] t p r B [CI Low, CI High ] t p r

Model 1: Main effects

Prequarantine severity/efficacy .41 [.30, .52] 7.15 <.001 .39 .36 [.25, .47] 6.46 <.001 .35

Own attachment anxiety .08 [−.01, .16] 1.86 .064 .11 −.03 [−.15, .10] −0.43 .670 .03

Partners’ attachment anxiety .09 [.02, .17] 2.36 .019 .14 −.12 [−.24, .00] −1.93 .055 .12

Own attachment avoidance −.06 [−.15, .04] −1.20 .233 .07 .02 [−.13, .17] 0.26 .795 .02

Partners’ attachment avoidance .02 [−.07, .11] 0.39 .700 .02 −.19 [−.33, −.05] −2.62 .009 .16

Stress during quarantine .29 [.22, .36] 7.87 <.001 .42 −.23 [−.35, −.11] −3.74 <.001 .22

Model 2: Interaction effects

Prequarantine severity/efficacy .42 [.31, .53] 7.35 <.001 .40 .37 [.25, .48] 6.49 <.001 .35

Own attachment anxiety .07 [−.01, .15] 1.79 .074 .11 −.03 [−.15, .10] −0.41 .686 .02

Partners’ attachment anxiety .09 [.02, .16] 2.39 .018 .14 −.12 [−.24, .00] −1.95 .052 .12

Own attachment avoidance −.05 [−.14, .04] −1.03 .304 .06 .02 [−.13, .17] 0.27 .786 .02

Partners’ attachment avoidance .03 [−.06, .12] 0.64 .526 .04 −.19 [−.34, −.05] −2.65 .009 .16

Stress during quarantine .29 [.22, .37] 8.07 <.001 .43 −.22 [−.34, −.10] −3.64 <.001 .21

Own Attachment Anxiety × Stress .09 [.02, .15] 2.54 .012 .16 −.05 [−.16, .06] −0.86 .388 .06

Partners’ Attachment Anxiety × Stress .10 [.02, .18] 2.60 .010 .16 −.02 [−.15, .11] −0.32 .749 .02

Own Attachment Avoidance × Stress −.02 [−.09, .06] −0.44 .663 .03 −.04 [−.17, .09] −0.54 .589 .03

Partners’ Attachment Avoidance × Stress −.01 [−.09, .07] −0.29 .770 .02 .01 [−.13, .14] 0.09 .933 .01

Note. Significant effects of attachment insecurity and stress are presented in bold. Approximate effect sizes r were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnow’s (2007) formula: r = √(t ² / t ² + df). In these multilevel models, the Satterthwaite approximation is applied to provide specific degrees of freedom for each effect representing the weighted average of the dyad- and individual-level degrees of freedom, which were used to calculate the effect sizes. Degrees of freedom ranged from 270.35 to 301.81 in Model 1 analyses and from 236.45 to 298.00 in Model 2 analyses. CI = confidence interval.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 2.
The interaction effects of individuals’ own attachment anxiety and stress (Panel A) and partners’ attachment anxiety and stress (Panel B) on relationship problems experienced during the COVID-19 quarantine. Note: Analyses control for problem severity prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. High and low levels are plotted at 1 SD above and below the mean.

Family Environment During Quarantine

As shown in Table 5, Model 1 testing the main effects revealed that partners’ attachment avoidance predicted lower family cohesion and greater stress predicted greater home chaos and lower cohesion. In Model 2 testing the interaction effects, significant interactions emerged between partners’ attachment anxiety and stress predicting both home chaos and family cohesion. As shown in Figure 3, individuals with partners higher in attachment anxiety (Panel A) reported greater home chaos when they experienced high stress (solid slope = .195, 95% CI [.069, .321], t = 3.09, p = .002) but not low stress (dashed slope = −.088, 95% CI [−.212, .036], t = −1.41, p = .162). Partners’ greater attachment anxiety (Panel B) also predicted poorer family cohesion when experiencing high stress (solid slope = −.158, 95% CI [−.303, .012], t = −2.16, p = .032). Unexpectedly, partners’ attachment anxiety predicted greater family cohesion when experiencing low stress (dashed slope = .174, 95% CI [.026, .322], t = 2.35, p = .020), but this effect was not evident when examining the other five outcomes.

Table 5.
The Effects of Own and Partners’ Attachment Insecurity Assessed Prior to the Quarantine and Stress During the Quarantine on Family Environment.

Predictors Home Chaos Family Cohesion

B [CI Low, CI High] t p r B [CI Low, CI High] t p r

Model 1: Main effects

Prequarantine chaos/cohesion .53 [.44, .62] 11.09 <.001 .54 .53 .[42, .65] 9.02 <.001 .46

Own attachment anxiety .00 [−.09, .09] 0.02 .984 .00 −.04 [−.14, .06] −0.74 .462 .04

Partners’ attachment anxiety .05 [−.04, .14] 1.10 .270 .07 .01 [−.10, .11] 0.10 .925 .01

Own attachment avoidance −.00 [−.11, .11] −0.04 .969 .00 .05 [−.07, .17] 0.81 .419 .05

Partners’ attachment avoidance .07 [−.04, .17] 1.25 .214 .08 −.23 [−.35, −.11] −3.82 <.001 .22

Stress during quarantine .35 [.26, .43] 8.00 <.001 .43 −.28 [−.38, −.18] −5.53 <.001 .30

Model 2: Interaction effects

Prequarantine chaos/cohesion .54 [.45, .64] 11.41 <.001 .55 .53 [.42, .65] 9.11 <.001 .47

Own attachment anxiety −.01 [−.10, .08] −0.12 .903 .01 −.03 [−.14, .07] −0.66 .512 .04

Partners’ attachment anxiety .05 [−.03, .14] 1.21 .229 .07 .01 [−.09, .11] 0.15 .881 .01

Own attachment avoidance .00 [−.11, .11] 0.05 .964 .00 .03 [−.09, .16] 0.54 .591 .03

Partners’ attachment avoidance .06 [−.04, .17] 1.17 .243 .07 −.24 [−.36, −.12] −3.99 <.001 .23

Stress during quarantine .36 [.27, .44] 8.30 <.001 .45 −.29 [−.39, −.19] −5.76 <.001 .31

Own Attachment Anxiety × Stress .01 [−.07, .09] 0.24 .807 .02 −.07 [−.17, .02] −1.49 .139 .09

Partners’ Attachment Anxiety × Stress .14 [.06, .23] 3.20 .002 .19 −.17 [−.28, −.06] −3.11 .002 .18

Own Attachment Avoidance × Stress .01 [−.08, .10] 0.14 .890 .01 .05 [−.06, .16] 0.98 .330 .06

Partners’ Attachment Avoidance × Stress −.08 [−.18, .01] −1.68 .093 .11 .04 [−.08, .16] 0.69 .492 .04

Note. Significant effects of attachment insecurity and stress are presented in bold. Approximate effect sizes r were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnow’s (2007) formula: r = √(t ² / t ² + df). In these multilevel models, the Satterthwaite approximation is applied to provide specific degrees of freedom for each effect representing the weighted average of the dyad- and individual-level degrees of freedom, which were used to calculate the effect sizes. Degrees of freedom ranged from 265.23 to 301.60 in Model 1 analyses and from 239.39 to 291.11 in Model 2 analyses. CI = confidence interval.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 3.
The interaction effects of partners’ attachment anxiety and stress on home chaos (Panel A) and family cohesion (Panel B) during the COVID-19 quarantine. Note: Analyses control for home chaos/family cohesion prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. High and low levels are plotted at 1 SD above and below the mean.

Relationship Quality During Quarantine

As shown in Table 6, partners’ attachment anxiety predicted lower satisfaction and commitment (Model 1). Although greater stress predicted lower satisfaction, there were no significant interactions between attachment insecurity and stress (Model 2).

Table 6.
The Effects of Own and Partners’ Attachment Insecurity Assessed Prior to the Quarantine and Stress During the Quarantine on Relationship Quality.

Predictors Relationship Satisfaction Relationship Commitment

B [CI Low, CI High ] t p r B [CI Low, CI High ] t p r

Model 1: Main effects

Prequarantine satisfaction/commitment .73 .[63, .82] 14.66 <.001 .67 .59 [.46, .71] 9.24 <.001 .47

Own attachment anxiety −.07 [−.18, .03] −1.36 .174 .08 −.04 [−.11, .03] −1.02 .309 .06

Partners’ attachment anxiety −.12 [−.23, −.02] −2.28 .023 .14 −.09 [−.16, −.02] −2.48 .014 .15

Own attachment avoidance .10 [−.03, .22] 1.50 .136 .09 −.02 [−.11, .06] −0.54 .587 .03

Partners’ attachment avoidance −.08 [−.21, .04] −1.31 .191 .08 .03 [−.06, .11] 0.57 .566 .03

Stress during quarantine −.21 [−.31, −.10] −3.98 <.001 .23 −.05 [−.12, .02] −1.42 .156 .08

Model 2: Interaction effects

Prequarantine satisfaction/commitment .72 [.63, .82] 14.51 <.001 .67 .58 [.46, .71] 9.08 <.001 .47

Own attachment anxiety −.07 [−.18, .04] −1.31 .191 .08 −.03 [−.11, .04] −0.92 .361 .05

Partners’ attachment anxiety −.12 [−.23, −.02] −2.25 .025 .13 −.09 [−.16, −.02] −2.39 .018 .14

Own attachment avoidance .10 [−.03, .23] 1.48 .141 .09 −.03 [−.12, .06] −0.70 .487 .04

Partners’ attachment avoidance −.09 [−.21, .04] −1.39 .166 .08 .02 [−.07, .11] 0.44 .663 .03

Stress during quarantine −.20 [−.30, −.10] −3.87 <.001 .22 −.05 [−.12, .02] −1.43 .154 .08

Own Attachment Anxiety × Stress −.04 [−.13, .06] −0.76 .450 .05 −.02 [−.09, .04] −0.71 .478 .04

Partners’ Attachment Anxiety × Stress .04 [−.07, .15] 0.65 .517 .04 .01 [−.07, .08] 0.12 .906 .01

Own Attachment Avoidance × Stress −.00 [−.11, .11] −0.06 .951 .01 .04 [−.04, .11] 0.94 .348 .06

Partners’ Attachment Avoidance × Stress −.01 [−.12, .11] −0.10 .918 .01 .01 [−.08, .09] 0.07 .945 .00

Note. Significant effects of attachment insecurity and stress are presented in bold. Approximate effect sizes r were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnow’s (2007) formula: r = √(t ² / t ² + df). In these multilevel models, the Satterthwaite approximation is applied to provide specific degrees of freedom for each effect representing the weighted average of the dyad- and individual-level degrees of freedom, which were used to calculate the effect sizes. Degrees of freedom ranged from 264.65 to 306.43 in Model 1 analyses and from 233.99 to 302.86 in Model 2 analyses. CI = confidence interval.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic represents an acute, challenging event that puts to the test whether models in relationship science help identify whose relationships are vulnerable to disruption in the wake of this unprecedented global event (Pietromonaco & Overall, 2020). The current longitudinal study leveraged an existing sample to examine whether preexisting vulnerabilities (attachment insecurity) assessed prior to the pandemic and stress during a mandated quarantine predicted residual changes in relationship functioning. Partners’ attachment anxiety emerged as a consistent vulnerability that, along with stress, increased the risk of poor relationship functioning, including greater relationship problems, a more chaotic and less cohesive family environment, and lower relationship quality. These results uniquely emphasize that the potential detrimental effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on relationships will depend on the partners with whom people are confined with during quarantines.

Partners’ Attachment Insecurity as an Important Risk Factor in Stressful Contexts

Partners’ attachment anxiety played a role in predicting five of the six relationship outcomes examined indicating that partners’ attachment anxiety is likely an important preexisting vulnerability when people are confined with their partner during crisis. Partners high in attachment anxiety experience intense negative emotions, seek reassurance in counterproductive ways, and are difficult to soothe during stressful contexts (e.g., Overall et al., 2014; Simpson et al., 1996). Moreover, because they remain distressed even when they receive care and support, partners high in attachment anxiety often behave in punishing ways that amplify conflict, undermine caregiving, and damage love and closeness (e.g., Campbell et al., 2005; Collins & Feeney, 2004; Simpson et al., 1992). Receiving negative reactivity and excessive reassurance seeking by highly anxious partners is burdensome and dissatisfying, especially during challenging contexts (e.g., Campbell et al., 2005; Overall et al., 2014). Accordingly, partners’ greater attachment anxiety predicted greater problem severity, lower satisfaction, and lower commitment during a mandatory COVID-19 quarantine.

Consistent with diathesis–stress attachment models (Simpson & Rholes, 2012, 2017), partners’ attachment anxiety also predicted greater problem severity and a poorer family environment when people were experiencing high, but not low, levels of stress. Compared to the evaluative outcomes that involved only main effects of partners’ attachment anxiety (satisfaction, commitment), the outcomes that involved interaction effects with stress (problem severity, home chaos, and family cohesion) may more closely capture couples’ ability to work together to manage the challenges of family confinement. Despite feeling less satisfied, some people are able to soothe anxious partners, ease difficult interactions, and compensate for any detrimental effects on relational dynamics (Lemay & Dudley, 2011; Overall & Simpson, 2015). However, such buffering may occur when stress is low but will be more difficult when individuals are depleted by high stress (Buck & Neff, 2012). Moreover, not only will highly anxious partners’ unrealistic needs and destructive behaviors go unabated when individuals are stressed, individuals’ own need for support and help to manage the family environment will clash with anxious partners’ self-focused needs, producing more problematic rather than cohesive interactions (e.g., Beck et al., 2013; Jayamaha et al., 2017).

The results also indicate that partners’ attachment avoidance may hinder functioning during the pandemic and quarantines: Greater partners’ avoidance predicted lower problem-solving efficacy and family cohesion. Although longitudinal effects emerged only for two of the five indicators of relationship functioning, these effects were strong and are consistent with the detrimental effects of attachment avoidance shown in prior work. Highly avoidant partners withdraw when encountering problems, which reduces successful problem resolution (Overall et al., 2013; Simpson et al., 1996). Highly avoidant partners also provide poorer caregiving and restrict closeness (Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997; Simpson et al., 2002), which likely contributed to feeling less connected as a family during the quarantine.

However, although partners’ attachment avoidance was associated with greater problem severity and lower relationship quality prior to the pandemic (see Table 3), partners’ avoidance did not predict residual changes in these outcomes. It might be that quarantines create a context in which the distancing strategies enacted by avoidant partners undermine cohesion, but nonetheless contain growing problems, at least in the short term. Compared to attachment anxiety, partners high in attachment avoidance are unlikely to express intense negative emotions, rumination, and support seeking, which may be particularly demanding for individuals during the challenges of quarantine. The need for families to “get through” quarantine may also mean that avoidant distancing bypasses a focus on problems that cannot be solved or controlled given the situation at hand (see Ross et al., 2019). These possible benefits might have counteracted any increases in problem severity and dissatisfaction resulting in no residual increases from prequarantine. Yet, continued disengagement and lower cohesion may risk growing problem severity, home chaos, and poor relationship quality as the stress of the pandemic and need for couples to support one another grows.

Contributions and Caveats

Some scholars have warned that most social–psychological models are untested in the real world of acute, stressful events and may be unsuitable to understand or guide decisions regarding mitigating the impact of COVID-19 (IJzerman et al., 2020). Our investigation was founded on the theoretical integration of two key models in relationship science identifying attachment insecurity as an important vulnerability that should hinder couples’ capacity to adapt to the relational strains of mandatory quarantines. The results demonstrate the combined utility of the VSA (Karney & Bradbury, 1995) and diathesis-stress attachment (Simpson & Rholes, 2012, 2017) models in predicting the risk of poor relationship functioning in the unprecedented, untested context of a global pandemic.

Applying these models to a unique quarantine context provides valuable theoretical insights. First, the vulnerabilities that matter most depend on key features of the context. VSA-inspired investigations have examined external stress relevant to quarantines (economic hardship, work stress, and poorer social networks; Neff & Karney, 2017) but have not considered the role of attachment insecurity. By contrast, attachment research has examined lab-induced stress or specific relational stressors (e.g., transition to parenthood; Simpson & Rholes, 2012, 2017). The uncontrollable, acute, and shared nature of quarantines make attachment insecurity a particularly relevant vulnerability in this context. With no choice and little warning, people were thrust into a threatening attachment-relevant context involving couples forced to depend on each other to navigate the daily challenges of family isolation.

Second, the results emphasize the need to understand the relationship risks of stressful events from a dyadic perspective. Despite the interdependence of human life, most research focuses on individuals’ characteristics as vulnerabilities to poorer relationship functioning. Indeed, a recent large-scale project concluded partner characteristics play a minor role in shaping relationship quality (Joel et al., 2020). One likely reason some prior studies have failed to identify partner effects is they have not examined couples within interdependent strain-test contexts in which partners’ characteristics really matter (McNulty, 2016). The current results indicate that partners’ vulnerabilities may pose greater risk to relationships when partners are a central feature of emergent stressful contexts, such as when people are confined with partners to face the challenges of family life during a global pandemic.

Third, the results emphasize that dyadic longitudinal designs are critical for understanding the effects of the pandemic (and other stressors). Amid the understandable proliferation of research investigating the impact of the pandemic on health and well-being, the strongest evidence emerges from longitudinal designs, like ours, that examine residual changes in functioning (e.g., Schmid et al., 2020; Sibley et al., 2020; Williamson, 2020; Zacher & Rudolph, 2020). However, prior investigations have primarily examined individuals, which fails to acknowledge the social reality of people’s lives and have not examined how both individuals and partners’ vulnerabilities assessed prepandemic shape relationship functioning. In the current study, partners’ attachment insecurity, and not individuals’ attachment insecurity, had longitudinal effects. This pattern does not mean that individual characteristics do not matter. Individuals’ anxiety and avoidance were cross-sectionally associated with poorer functioning at both assessments (see Table 3), suggesting these negative effects may simply persist into the context of the pandemic and quarantines. By contrast, the effects of partners may become more apparent during quarantines when partners’ reactions are particularly salient and impactful.

Despite the strengths of the dyadic longitudinal design, the necessarily correlational nature of the data limits causal conclusions, leaves open the possibility of third variables, and does not offer a “control” condition to compare changes in relationship functioning in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dyadic longitudinal designs also restrict sample sizes, which may limit power to detect small but meaningful effects, especially if individuals’ vulnerabilities already have damaging effects prior to the pandemic. Moreover, the ability to detect risks to relationships should be greater in samples involving greater insecurities and adversity. Our sample was relatively well-functioning and secure, and people higher in attachment avoidance and problem severity were less likely to complete the quarantine assessment. The risk of poorer outcomes associated with attachment insecurity is likely greater for couples facing more substantial stress, economic strain, and difficult living conditions (Neff & Karney, 2017). For example, individuals’ and partners’ attachment insecurity may have weaker effects in contexts when people are able to regulate distance (e.g., working, going for a walk, spending time in another room) but have more detrimental effects when people have little room or resources to escape the pressures of quarantine.

Similarly, although the mandatory lockdown in NZ placed all families in a confined quarantine that could disrupt relationship functioning, this swift and strong response to the pandemic was accompanied by increases in trust in the government, police, and science (Sibley et al., 2020). Support of the lockdown may have allowed families to capitalize on the opportunity to spend more time as a family and support one another (Pietromonaco & Overall, 2020; Stanley & Markman, 2020), counteracting some of the difficulties couples faced during the initial stages of the pandemic. Yet, even for the relatively well-functioning, secure couples in our sample, greater stress and partners’ attachment insecurities predicted residual decreases in relationship functioning. The risks to relationships are likely to grow as couples encounter ongoing challenges, especially in contexts where prolonged uncertainty, stress, isolation, and economic disadvantage place couples under increasing strain.

Conclusion

The current investigation illustrates the utility of key models in relationship science in identifying which couples are at most risk of relationship problems when experiencing the stressful, unprecedented context of a mandated quarantine. The results emphasize that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will be shaped by the characteristics of partners with whom people are confined with during the pandemic. Greater partner attachment anxiety predicted greater relationship problems, lower relationship quality, and a less stable and cohesive family environment when people were experiencing more stress. Greater partner attachment avoidance predicted lower problem-solving efficacy and family cohesion. Such vulnerability to poor relationship functioning is critical given the downstream consequences of these outcomes, including poorer health and well-being of both adults and their children (Pietromonaco & Overall, 2020; Prime et al., 2020). The current findings illustrate that understanding and promoting how best to navigate the risks of the pandemic and quarantines requires attending to the dyadic context of people’s lives.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-spp-10.1177_1948550621992973 - Partners’ Attachment Insecurity and Stress Predict Poorer Relationship Functioning During COVID-19 Quarantines

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-spp-10.1177_1948550621992973 for Partners’ Attachment Insecurity and Stress Predict Poorer Relationship Functioning During COVID-19 Quarantines by Nickola C. Overall, Valerie T. Chang, Paula R. Pietromonaco, Rachel S. T. Low and Annette M. E. Henderson in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Demographic Variables	Women	Men
Age	36.20 (4.63)		38.04 (5.38)
Ethnicity
New Zealand (NZ) Māori		5.7		4.5
Pacific Nations		2.5		7.0
Indian		4.5		3.8
Asian		12.7		10.2
Non-NZ European		14.6		12.1
NZ European/Pākehā		55.4		58.6
Other ethnicity not listed		4.5		3.8
Education
Postgraduate (e.g., postgraduate diploma, honors degree, masters’ degree)		39.5		26.1
Tertiary (e.g., college/university degree, technical qualification, trade certificate)		47.1		49.0
High school certificate		10.2		20.4
Income (NZ$ per annum) prior to quarantine
<40,000		46.5		7.0
41,000–60,000		12.7		12.7
61,000–80,000		12.7		20.4
81,000–100,000		11.5		21.7
>100,000		15.9		38.2
Income (NZ$ per annum) during the quarantine
<40,000		51.6		19.7
41,000–60,000		12.1		12.1
61,000–80,000		12.7		18.5
81,000–100,000		10.8		20.4
>100,000		12.1		29.3

Measures	Prior to Quarantine	During Quarantine^a
Attachment anxiety	2.74 (1.04)	2.84 (1.07)
Attachment avoidance	2.59 (0.95)	2.38 (0.80)
Problem severity	2.36 (0.83)	2.43 (0.75)	2.01 (0.81)	2.06 (0.83)
Problem-solving efficacy	5.40 (1.30)	5.26 (1.15)	5.99 (1.28)	5.84 (1.14)
Home chaos	3.10 (0.95)	3.34 (0.95)	3.11 (1.08)	3.21 (0.97)
Family cohesion	6.14 (0.87)	5.98 (0.92)	5.98 (1.03)	5.74 (1.10)
Relationship satisfaction	5.63 (1.06)	5.45 (1.24)	5.53 (1.30)	5.41 (1.35)
Relationship commitment	6.76 (0.53)	6.69 (0.64)	6.63 (0.78)	6.62 (0.67)
Stress during quarantine			2.74 (0.94)	2.55 (1.01)

Measures	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.	12.	13.	14.	15.	16.	17.
1. PQ attachment anxiety	—	.46**	.18*	.11	.37**	−.27**	.18*	−.23**	−.25**	−.09	.20*	−.11	.10	−.12	−.14	−.04	.19*
2. PQ attachment avoidance	.33**	—	.38**	.18*	.52**	−.46**	.24**	−.32**	−.45**	−.36**	.23**	−.23**	.18*	−.17*	−.24**	−.20*	.16
3. PQ partners’ attachment anxiety	.18*	.11	—	.33**	.36**	−.40**	.06	−.27**	−.39**	−.26**	.29**	−.30**	.10	−.18*	−.35**	−.33**	.01
4. PQ partners’ attachment avoidance	.38**	.18*	.46**	—	.13	−.07	.04	−.08	−.14	−.09	.07	−.09	.11	−.26*	−.14	−.08	.08
5. PQ problem severity	.59**	.30**	.24**	.35**	.59**	−.67**	.37**	−.51**	−.67**	−.46**	.48**	−.40**	.19*	−.24**	−.46**	−.38**	.12
6. PQ problem-solving efficacy	−.52**	−.32**	−.17*	−.32**	−.71**	.44**	−.27**	.47**	.63**	.49**	−.44**	.45**	−.15	.29**	.49**	.47**	−.13
7. PQ home chaos	.26**	.22*	.10	.21**	.53**	−.40**	.48**	−.47**	−.37**	−.30**	.40**	−.29**	.59**	−.42**	−.24**	−.20*	.32**
8. PQ family cohesion	−.34**	−.32**	−.19*	−.25**	−.63**	.48**	−.45**	.37**	.57**	.47**	−.47**	.40**	−.23**	.49**	.54**	.48**	−.12
9. PQ relationship satisfaction	−.45**	−.21**	−.20*	−.36**	−.64**	.49**	−.46**	.55**	.61**	.64**	−.57**	.44**	−.25*	.34**	.65**	.53**	−.13
10. PQ relationship commitment	−.17*	−.18*	−.31**	−.39**	−.34**	.24**	−.21**	.31**	.64**	.45**	−.47**	.45**	−.18*	.27**	.48**	.65**	−.10
11. DQ problem severity	.48**	.27**	.20*	.26**	.60**	−.36**	.39**	−.49**	−.54**	−.30**	.43**	−.75**	.41**	−.51**	−.75**	−.70**	.36**
12. DQ problem-solving efficacy	−.38**	−.22**	−.23**	−.38**	−.49**	.48**	−.28**	.50**	.49**	.39**	−.68**	.39**	−.34**	.40**	.62**	.64**	−.14
13. DQ home chaos	.29**	.23**	.13	.19*	.42**	−.33**	.62**	−.37**	−.39**	−.21**	.55**	−.44**	.42**	−.65**	−.28**	−.18*	.52**
14. DQ family cohesion	−.37**	−.26**	−.17*	−.27**	−.47**	.31**	−.41**	.56**	.50**	.30**	−.60**	.50**	−.61**	.36**	.49**	.31**	−.38**
15. DQ relationship satisfaction	−.47**	−.20*	−.24**	−.37**	−.63**	.42**	−.41**	.58**	.78**	.46**	−.79**	.67**	−.47**	.66**	.56**	.69**	−.20*
16. DQ relationship commitment	−.30**	−.25**	−.20*	−.28**	−.43**	.31**	−.30**	.47**	.47**	.41**	−.56**	.59**	−.33**	.43**	.66**	.35**	−.13
17. DQ stress during quarantine	.22*	.26**	.00	−.01	.29**	−.18*	.24**	−.22**	−.17*	−.05	.50**	−.35**	.41**	−.31**	−.30*	−.13	.15

Predictors	Problem Severity	Problem-Solving Efficacy
Model 1: Main effects
Prequarantine severity/efficacy	.41	[.30, .52]	7.15	<.001	.39	.36	[.25, .47]	6.46	<.001	.35
Own attachment anxiety	.08	[−.01, .16]	1.86	.064	.11	−.03	[−.15, .10]	−0.43	.670	.03
Partners’ attachment anxiety	.09	[.02, .17]	2.36	.019	.14	−.12	[−.24, .00]	−1.93	.055	.12
Own attachment avoidance	−.06	[−.15, .04]	−1.20	.233	.07	.02	[−.13, .17]	0.26	.795	.02
Partners’ attachment avoidance	.02	[−.07, .11]	0.39	.700	.02	−.19	[−.33, −.05]	−2.62	.009	.16
Stress during quarantine	.29	[.22, .36]	7.87	<.001	.42	−.23	[−.35, −.11]	−3.74	<.001	.22
Model 2: Interaction effects
Prequarantine severity/efficacy	.42	[.31, .53]	7.35	<.001	.40	.37	[.25, .48]	6.49	<.001	.35
Own attachment anxiety	.07	[−.01, .15]	1.79	.074	.11	−.03	[−.15, .10]	−0.41	.686	.02
Partners’ attachment anxiety	.09	[.02, .16]	2.39	.018	.14	−.12	[−.24, .00]	−1.95	.052	.12
Own attachment avoidance	−.05	[−.14, .04]	−1.03	.304	.06	.02	[−.13, .17]	0.27	.786	.02
Partners’ attachment avoidance	.03	[−.06, .12]	0.64	.526	.04	−.19	[−.34, −.05]	−2.65	.009	.16
Stress during quarantine	.29	[.22, .37]	8.07	<.001	.43	−.22	[−.34, −.10]	−3.64	<.001	.21
Own Attachment Anxiety × Stress	.09	[.02, .15]	2.54	.012	.16	−.05	[−.16, .06]	−0.86	.388	.06
Partners’ Attachment Anxiety × Stress	.10	[.02, .18]	2.60	.010	.16	−.02	[−.15, .11]	−0.32	.749	.02
Own Attachment Avoidance × Stress	−.02	[−.09, .06]	−0.44	.663	.03	−.04	[−.17, .09]	−0.54	.589	.03
Partners’ Attachment Avoidance × Stress	−.01	[−.09, .07]	−0.29	.770	.02	.01	[−.13, .14]	0.09	.933	.01

Predictors	Home Chaos	Family Cohesion
Model 1: Main effects
Prequarantine chaos/cohesion	.53	[.44, .62]	11.09	<.001	.54	.53	.[42, .65]	9.02	<.001	.46
Own attachment anxiety	.00	[−.09, .09]	0.02	.984	.00	−.04	[−.14, .06]	−0.74	.462	.04
Partners’ attachment anxiety	.05	[−.04, .14]	1.10	.270	.07	.01	[−.10, .11]	0.10	.925	.01
Own attachment avoidance	−.00	[−.11, .11]	−0.04	.969	.00	.05	[−.07, .17]	0.81	.419	.05
Partners’ attachment avoidance	.07	[−.04, .17]	1.25	.214	.08	−.23	[−.35, −.11]	−3.82	<.001	.22
Stress during quarantine	.35	[.26, .43]	8.00	<.001	.43	−.28	[−.38, −.18]	−5.53	<.001	.30
Model 2: Interaction effects
Prequarantine chaos/cohesion	.54	[.45, .64]	11.41	<.001	.55	.53	[.42, .65]	9.11	<.001	.47
Own attachment anxiety	−.01	[−.10, .08]	−0.12	.903	.01	−.03	[−.14, .07]	−0.66	.512	.04
Partners’ attachment anxiety	.05	[−.03, .14]	1.21	.229	.07	.01	[−.09, .11]	0.15	.881	.01
Own attachment avoidance	.00	[−.11, .11]	0.05	.964	.00	.03	[−.09, .16]	0.54	.591	.03
Partners’ attachment avoidance	.06	[−.04, .17]	1.17	.243	.07	−.24	[−.36, −.12]	−3.99	<.001	.23
Stress during quarantine	.36	[.27, .44]	8.30	<.001	.45	−.29	[−.39, −.19]	−5.76	<.001	.31
Own Attachment Anxiety × Stress	.01	[−.07, .09]	0.24	.807	.02	−.07	[−.17, .02]	−1.49	.139	.09
Partners’ Attachment Anxiety × Stress	.14	[.06, .23]	3.20	.002	.19	−.17	[−.28, −.06]	−3.11	.002	.18
Own Attachment Avoidance × Stress	.01	[−.08, .10]	0.14	.890	.01	.05	[−.06, .16]	0.98	.330	.06
Partners’ Attachment Avoidance × Stress	−.08	[−.18, .01]	−1.68	.093	.11	.04	[−.08, .16]	0.69	.492	.04

Predictors	Relationship Satisfaction	Relationship Commitment
Model 1: Main effects
Prequarantine satisfaction/commitment	.73	.[63, .82]	14.66	<.001	.67	.59	[.46, .71]	9.24	<.001	.47
Own attachment anxiety	−.07	[−.18, .03]	−1.36	.174	.08	−.04	[−.11, .03]	−1.02	.309	.06
Partners’ attachment anxiety	−.12	[−.23, −.02]	−2.28	.023	.14	−.09	[−.16, −.02]	−2.48	.014	.15
Own attachment avoidance	.10	[−.03, .22]	1.50	.136	.09	−.02	[−.11, .06]	−0.54	.587	.03
Partners’ attachment avoidance	−.08	[−.21, .04]	−1.31	.191	.08	.03	[−.06, .11]	0.57	.566	.03
Stress during quarantine	−.21	[−.31, −.10]	−3.98	<.001	.23	−.05	[−.12, .02]	−1.42	.156	.08
Model 2: Interaction effects
Prequarantine satisfaction/commitment	.72	[.63, .82]	14.51	<.001	.67	.58	[.46, .71]	9.08	<.001	.47
Own attachment anxiety	−.07	[−.18, .04]	−1.31	.191	.08	−.03	[−.11, .04]	−0.92	.361	.05
Partners’ attachment anxiety	−.12	[−.23, −.02]	−2.25	.025	.13	−.09	[−.16, −.02]	−2.39	.018	.14
Own attachment avoidance	.10	[−.03, .23]	1.48	.141	.09	−.03	[−.12, .06]	−0.70	.487	.04
Partners’ attachment avoidance	−.09	[−.21, .04]	−1.39	.166	.08	.02	[−.07, .11]	0.44	.663	.03
Stress during quarantine	−.20	[−.30, −.10]	−3.87	<.001	.22	−.05	[−.12, .02]	−1.43	.154	.08
Own Attachment Anxiety × Stress	−.04	[−.13, .06]	−0.76	.450	.05	−.02	[−.09, .04]	−0.71	.478	.04
Partners’ Attachment Anxiety × Stress	.04	[−.07, .15]	0.65	.517	.04	.01	[−.07, .08]	0.12	.906	.01
Own Attachment Avoidance × Stress	−.00	[−.11, .11]	−0.06	.951	.01	.04	[−.04, .11]	0.94	.348	.06
Partners’ Attachment Avoidance × Stress	−.01	[−.12, .11]	−0.10	.918	.01	.01	[−.08, .09]	0.07	.945	.00

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Royal Society of New Zealand (UOA1712).

ORCID iD

Nickola C. Overall

Valerie T. Chang

Paula R. Pietromonaco

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Nickola C. Overall is a professor in the School of Psychology, The University of Auckland, New Zealand. Her research focuses on identifying how couples can effectively resolve conflict and support each other and the factors (e.g., attachment insecurity, sexist attitudes, biased perceptions) that create versus alleviate relationship problems.

Valerie T. Chang is a postdoctoral fellow in the School of Psychology, The University of Auckland, New Zealand. Her research examines how attachment insecurity, depressive symptoms, and stress and emotion regulation strategies affect perceptions and memories and how the resulting perceptual and memory biases affect well-being.

Paula R. Pietromonaco is a Professor Emerita, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Her research focuses on how romantic partners shape each other’s physiological responses, behavior, and perceptions; how individual differences (e.g., in attachment insecurity) modulate these responses; and the link between these responses and downstream emotional and physical health.

Rachel S. T. Low is an assistant professor/lecturer of psychology, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. Her research focuses on emotion regulation processes within interpersonal relationships, including how different emotion regulation strategies during daily life and social interactions predict important personal and interpersonal outcomes such as support, problem resolution, and relationship and personal well-being.

Annette M. E. Henderson is an associate professor of psychology, The University of Auckland, New Zealand. Her research focuses on the factors that shape the development of social and cognitive competence across early childhood, including how parent–child and family processes shape children’s socio-emotional competence and overall well-being.

Handling Editor: Richard Slatcher

References

Barton

A. W.

Bryant

C. M.

(2016). Financial strain, trajectories of marital processes, and African American newlyweds’ marital instability. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(6), 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000190

Barton

A. W.

Futris

T. G.

Nielsen

R. B.

(2015). Linking financial distress to marital quality: The intermediary roles of demand/withdraw and spousal gratitude expressions. Personal Relationships, 22(3), 536–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12094

Beck

L. A.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

DeBuse

C. J.

Powers

S. I.

Sayer

A. G.

(2013). Spouses’ attachment pairings predict neuroendocrine, behavioral, and psychological responses to marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(3), 388–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033056

Beck

L. A.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

DeVito

C. C.

Powers

S. I.

Boyle

A. M.

(2014). Congruence between spouses’ perceptions and observers’ ratings of responsiveness: The role of attachment avoidance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213507779

Bodenmann

Ledermann

Bradbury

T. N.

(2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14(4), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00171.x

Bodenmann

Meuwly

Germann

Nussbeck

F. W.

Heinrichs

Bradbury

T. N.

(2015). Effects of stress on the social support provided by men and women in intimate relationships. Psychological Science, 26(10), 1584–1594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594616

Buck

A. A.

Neff

L. A.

(2012). Stress spillover in early marriage: The role of self-regulatory depletion. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(5), 698–708. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029260

Butzer

Campbell

(2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00189.x

Campbell

Simpson

J. A.

Boldry

Kashy

D. A.

(2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 510–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.510

10.

Carnelley

K. B.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Jaffe

- (1996). Attachment, caregiving, and relationship functioning in couples: Effects of self and partner. Personal Relationships, 3(3), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00116.x

11.

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(3), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.363

12.

Cross

E. J.

Overall

N. C.

Low

R. S. T.

Henderson

A. M. E.

(2020). Relationship problems, agreement and bias in perceptions of partners’ parental responsiveness, and family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000812

13.

Falconier

M. K.

Nussbeck

Bodenmann

Schneider

Bradbury

T. N.

(2015). Stress from daily hassles in couples: Its effects on intradyadic stress, relationship satisfaction, and physical and psychological well-being. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12073

14.

Farrell

M. P.

Barnes

G. M.

(1993). Family systems and social support: A test of the effects of cohesion and adaptability on the functioning of parents and adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(1), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/352963

15.

Fincham

F. D.

Harold

G. T.

Gano-Phillips

(2000). The longitudinal association between attributions and marital satisfaction: Direction of effects and role of efficacy expectations. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(2), 267–285.

16.

Fletcher

G. J.

Simpson

J. A.

Thomas

(2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354.

17.

Geiss

S. K.

O’Leary

K. D.

(1981). Therapist ratings of frequency and severity of marital problems: Implications for research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7, 515–520.

18.

Girme

Y. U.

Overall

N. C.

Simpson

J. A.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

(2015). “All or nothing”: Attachment avoidance and the curvilinear effects of partner support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 450–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038866

19.

IJzerman

Lewis

N. A.

Weinstein

DeBruine

Ritchie

S. J.

Vazire

Forscher

P. S.

Morey

R. D.

Ivory

J. D.

Anvari

Przybylski

A. K.

(2020). Is social and behavioural science evidence ready for application and dissemination? Unpublished manuscript. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/whds4

20.

Jayamaha

S. D.

Antonellis

Overall

N. C.

(2016). Attachment insecurity and inducing guilt to produce desired change in romantic partners. Personal Relationships, 23(2), 311–338. https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1111/pere.12128

21.

Jayamaha

S. D.

Girme

Y. U.

Overall

N. C.

(2017). When attachment anxiety impedes support provision: The role of feeling unvalued and unappreciated. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(2), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000222

22.

Joel

Eastwick

P. W.

Allison

C. J.

Arriaga

X. B.

Baker

Z. G.

Bar-Kalifa

Bergeron

Birnbaum

G. E.

Brock

R. L.

Brumbaugh

C. C.

Carmichael

C. L.

Chen

Clarke

Cobb

R. J.

Coolsen

M. K.

Davis

de Jong

D. C.

Debrot

DeHaas

E. C.

… Wolf

(2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(32), 19061–19071

23.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3

24.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.

25.

Lemay

E. P.

Dudley

K. L.

(2011). Caution: Fragile! Regulating the interpersonal security of chronically insecure partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 681–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021655

26.

Low

R. S. T.

Overall

N. C.

Cross

E. J.

Henderson

A. M. E.

(2019). Emotion regulation, conflict resolution, and spillover on subsequent family functioning. Emotion, 19(7), 1162–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000519

27.

Marsh

Dobson

Maddison

(2020). The relationship between household chaos and child, parent, and family outcomes: A systematic scoping review. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08587-8

28.

Masarik

A. S.

Martin

M. J.

Ferrer

Lorenz

F. O.

Conger

K. J.

Conger

R. D.

(2016). Couple resilience to economic pressure over time and across generations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(2), 326–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12284

29.

Matheny

A. P.

Jr Wachs

T. D.

Ludwig

J. L.

Phillips

(1995). Bringing order out of chaos: Psychometric characteristics of the confusion, hubbub, and order scale. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(95)90028-4

30.

McNulty

J. K.

(2016). Highlighting the contextual nature of interpersonal relationships. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 247–315. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.02.003

31.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 53–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01002-5

32.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2007-12400-000). Guilford Press.

33.

Moos

(1981). Family environment scale manual: Development, applications, research (3rd ed.). Consulting Psychologists Press.

34.

Neff

L. A.

Broady

E. F.

(2011). Stress resilience in early marriage: Can practice make perfect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 1050–1067. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023809

35.

Neff

L. A.

Karney

B. R.

(2004). How does context affect intimate relationships? Linking external stress and cognitive processes within marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203255984

36.

Neff

L. A.

Karney

B. R.

(2009). Stress and reactivity to daily relationship experiences: How stress hinders adaptive processes in marriage. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 97(3), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015663

37.

Neff

L. A.

Karney

B. R.

(2017). Acknowledging the elephant in the room: How stressful environmental contexts shape relationship dynamics. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.013

38.

Nguyen

T. P.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2020). When poor communication does and does not matter: The moderating role of stress. Journal of Family Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000643

39.

Overall

N. C.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Simpson

J. A.

Fillo

(2015). Attachment insecurity, biased perceptions of romantic partners’ negative emotions, and hostile relationship behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(5), 730–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038987

40.

Overall

N. C.

Girme

Y. U.

Lemay

E. P.

Hammond

M. D.

(2014). Attachment anxiety and reactions to relationship threat: The benefits and costs of inducing guilt in romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034371

41.

Overall

N. C.

Simpson

J. A.

, (2015). Attachment and dyadic regulation processes. Current Opinions in Psychology, 1, 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.11.008

42.

Overall

N. C.

Simpson

J. A.

Struthers

(2013). Buffering attachment avoidance: Softening emotional and behavioral defenses during conflict discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 854–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031798

43.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Barrett

L. F.

(1997). Working models of attachment and daily social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1409–1423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1409

44.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Collins

N. L.

(2017). Interpersonal mechanisms linking close relationships to health. American Psychologist, 72(6), 531–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000129

45.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Overall

N. C.

(2020). Applying relationship science to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic may impact couples’ relationships. American Psychologist. http://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000714

46.

Prime

Wade

Browne

D. T.

(2020). Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist, 75(5), 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000660

47.

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

(2009). The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.004

48.

Repetti

Wang

Saxbe

(2009). Bringing it all back home: How outside stressors shape families’ everyday lives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(2), 106–111.

49.

Rosenthal

Rosnow

R. L.

(2007). Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

50.

Ross

J. M.

Karney

B. R.

Nguyen

T. P.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2019). Communication that is maladaptive for middle-class couples is adaptive for socioeconomically disadvantaged couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(4), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000158

51.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

J. M.

Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391.

52.

Schmid

Wörn

Hank

Sawatzki

Walper

(2020). Changes in employment and relationship satisfaction in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from the German family panel. European Societies, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1836385

53.

Sibley

C. G.

Greaves

L. M.

Satherley

Wilson

M. S.

Overall

N. C.

Lee

C. H. J.

Milojev

Bulbulia

Osborne

Milfont

T. L.

Houkamau

C. A.

Duck

I. M.

Vickers-Jones

Barlow

F. K.

(2020). Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown on trust, attitudes towards government, and wellbeing. American Psychologist, 75(5), 618–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000662

54.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(2012). Adult attachment orientations, stress, and romantic relationships. In Devine

Plante

(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 45., pp. 279–328). Elsevier.

55.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(2017). Adult attachment, stress, and romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 19–24.

56.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Oriña

M. M.

Grich

(2002). Working models of attachment, support giving, and support seeking in a stressful situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 598–608. https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1177/0146167202288004

57.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Phillips

(1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 899–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.899

58.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

William

Nelligan

J. S.

(1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 434–446.

59.

Simpson

J. A.

Winterheld

H. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Oriña

M. M.

(2007). Working models of attachment and reactions to different forms of caregiving from romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 466–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.466

60.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2020). Helping couples in the shadow of COVID-19. Family Process. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/pdf/10.1111/famp.12575

61.

Story

L. B.

Repetti

(2006). Daily occupational stressors and marital behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(4), 690–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.690

62.

Tan

Overall

N. C.

Taylor

J. K.

(2012). Let’s talk about us: Attachment, relationship-focused disclosure, and relationship quality. Personal Relationships, 19, 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01383.x

63.

Williamson

H. C.

(2020). Early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on relationship satisfaction and attributions. Psychological Science, 31(12), 1479–1487. https://doi/10.1177/0956797620972688

64.

Williamson

H. C.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2013). Financial strain and stressful events predict newlyweds’ negative communication independent of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031104

65.

Zacher

Rudolph

C. W.

(2020). Individual differences and changes in subjective wellbeing during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000702

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

0.37 MB

Demographic Variables	Women		Men
Demographic Variables	Mean (SD)	Frequency (%)	Mean (SD)	Frequency (%)
Age	36.20 (4.63)		38.04 (5.38)
Ethnicity
New Zealand (NZ) Māori		5.7		4.5
Pacific Nations		2.5		7.0
Indian		4.5		3.8
Asian		12.7		10.2
Non-NZ European		14.6		12.1
NZ European/Pākehā		55.4		58.6
Other ethnicity not listed		4.5		3.8
Education
Postgraduate (e.g., postgraduate diploma, honors degree, masters’ degree)		39.5		26.1
Tertiary (e.g., college/university degree, technical qualification, trade certificate)		47.1		49.0
High school certificate		10.2		20.4
Income (NZ$ per annum) prior to quarantine
<40,000		46.5		7.0
41,000–60,000		12.7		12.7
61,000–80,000		12.7		20.4
81,000–100,000		11.5		21.7
>100,000		15.9		38.2
Income (NZ$ per annum) during the quarantine
<40,000		51.6		19.7
41,000–60,000		12.1		12.1
61,000–80,000		12.7		18.5
81,000–100,000		10.8		20.4
>100,000		12.1		29.3

Predictors	Problem Severity					Problem-Solving Efficacy
Predictors	B	[CI Low, CI High]	t	p	r	B	[CI Low, CI High ]	t	p	r
Model 1: Main effects
Prequarantine severity/efficacy	.41	[.30, .52]	7.15	<.001	.39	.36	[.25, .47]	6.46	<.001	.35
Own attachment anxiety	.08	[−.01, .16]	1.86	.064	.11	−.03	[−.15, .10]	−0.43	.670	.03
Partners’ attachment anxiety	.09	[.02, .17]	2.36	.019	.14	−.12	[−.24, .00]	−1.93	.055	.12
Own attachment avoidance	−.06	[−.15, .04]	−1.20	.233	.07	.02	[−.13, .17]	0.26	.795	.02
Partners’ attachment avoidance	.02	[−.07, .11]	0.39	.700	.02	−.19	[−.33, −.05]	−2.62	.009	.16
Stress during quarantine	.29	[.22, .36]	7.87	<.001	.42	−.23	[−.35, −.11]	−3.74	<.001	.22
Model 2: Interaction effects
Prequarantine severity/efficacy	.42	[.31, .53]	7.35	<.001	.40	.37	[.25, .48]	6.49	<.001	.35
Own attachment anxiety	.07	[−.01, .15]	1.79	.074	.11	−.03	[−.15, .10]	−0.41	.686	.02
Partners’ attachment anxiety	.09	[.02, .16]	2.39	.018	.14	−.12	[−.24, .00]	−1.95	.052	.12
Own attachment avoidance	−.05	[−.14, .04]	−1.03	.304	.06	.02	[−.13, .17]	0.27	.786	.02
Partners’ attachment avoidance	.03	[−.06, .12]	0.64	.526	.04	−.19	[−.34, −.05]	−2.65	.009	.16
Stress during quarantine	.29	[.22, .37]	8.07	<.001	.43	−.22	[−.34, −.10]	−3.64	<.001	.21
Own Attachment Anxiety × Stress	.09	[.02, .15]	2.54	.012	.16	−.05	[−.16, .06]	−0.86	.388	.06
Partners’ Attachment Anxiety × Stress	.10	[.02, .18]	2.60	.010	.16	−.02	[−.15, .11]	−0.32	.749	.02
Own Attachment Avoidance × Stress	−.02	[−.09, .06]	−0.44	.663	.03	−.04	[−.17, .09]	−0.54	.589	.03
Partners’ Attachment Avoidance × Stress	−.01	[−.09, .07]	−0.29	.770	.02	.01	[−.13, .14]	0.09	.933	.01