Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Working Models of Attachment and Attribution Processes in Intimate Relationships Working Models of Attachment and Attribution Processes in Intimate Relationships

Abstract

Two studies examined the link between working models of attachment and social construal processes in romantic relationships. In Study 1, individuals high in attachment-related anxiety responded to hypothetical partner transgressions by endorsing relationship-threatening attributions, experiencing emotional distress, and endorsing behavioral intentions that were likely to result in conflict. These effects emerged after controlling for pessimistic explanatory style, depressed mood, and selfesteem. In addition, the association between anxiety and emotional distress was mediated by attributions and attachmentrelated needs. In Study 2, anxious individuals endorsed relationship-threatening attributions for their partner's transgressions but less so for their partner's positive behaviors, and these effects occurred primarily among those in unhappy relationships. In contrast, avoidant individuals endorsed pessimistic attributions for their partner's positive behavior but less so for their partner's transgressions, and these effects occurred regardless of their level of relationship satisfaction. Keywords: attachment; attributions; emotion; social cognition; close relationships The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. -John Milton (1608-1674 Close relationships are filled with ambiguity, and understanding the behavior of others can sometimes be difficult and frustrating. Nevertheless, most people manage to navigate their interpersonal lives with relative ease, guided by their past experiences and existing social knowledge. Indeed, a large body of research indicates that many aspects of social perception are guided by topdown, theory-driven processes in which people's existing goals, schemas, and expectations shape the way they view new information Adult Attachment Theory Adult attachment theory begins with the assumption that adults enter relationships with a history of interpersonal experiences and a unique set of memories, beliefs, and expectations that shape how they think and feel about their relationships and how they behave in at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 25, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.com Downloaded from those relationships. Although there are many mental structures that are relevant to relationship functioning in adulthood (e.g., sex role schemas, social exchange scripts), attachment theory is concerned with mental representations that center on the regulation and fulfillment of attachment-related needs, namely, the maintenance of closeness and felt security in valued relationships. Attachment theorists refer to these cognitiveaffective representations as internal working models of attachment, and they are thought to be rooted, at least in part, in the quality of one's early relationships with caretakers and other important attachment figures Much of the adult attachment literature has focused on individual differences in styles of attachment. These styles refer to chronic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving in close relationships, and they are thought to reflect differences in internal working models of attachment. Adult attachment researchers typically define four prototypic attachment styles derived from two underlying dimensions: attachment-related anxiety and attachment-related avoidance. The anxiety dimension refers to one's sense of relational self-worth and acceptance (vs. rejection) by others. The avoidance dimension refers to one's degree of comfort (or discomfort) with intimacy and interdependence with others. Secure individuals are low in both anxiety and avoidance. They feel valued by others and worthy of affection, and they perceive attachment figures as trustworthy and responsive. Secure individuals are comfortable with closeness and able to depend on others when needed. Preoccupied individuals are high in anxiety but low in avoidance. They are comfortable with closeness but worried about being rejected and unloved. Preoccupied individuals depend greatly on acceptance by others for a sense of personal well-being but they lack confidence in others' regard for them and responsiveness in times of need. Fearful individuals are high in both anxiety and avoidance. Although they desire social contact, their distrust of others and expectations of rejection result in discomfort with intimacy and avoidance of close relationships. Finally, dismissing individuals are low in anxiety but high in avoidance. They feel confident and tend to view themselves as invulnerable to negative feelings; however, they perceive attachment figures as unreliable and uncaring. Dismissing individuals attempt to maintain a positive self-image in the face of potential rejection by denying attachment needs, distancing themselves from others, and restricting expressions of emotionality As noted above, individual differences in attachment style are presumed to reflect fundamental differences in working models of self and others. Support for this assumption is provided by a number of studies that show that secure adults have more favorable images of themselves and more optimistic expectations about the social world compared to insecure adults (e.g., Working Models and Social Perception There are many mechanisms that may explain why people with different attachment styles experience different relationship outcomes, but one mechanism that may be especially important is the impact of working models on social perception processes. Working models of attachment are highly accessible cognitive-affective structures that, once activated, should play an important role in shaping how individuals construe their social experiences PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 25, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.com Downloaded from they may be apt to experience emotional distress and to choose maladaptive behavioral strategies that contribute to poor relationship outcomes Initial support for these ideas was provided in a set of studies reported by Several subsequent studies provide further evidence of a link between insecure attachment and pessimistic attributions. For example, in a sample of married couples, Taken together, these studies provide evidence that compared to secure individuals, insecure individuals are predisposed to make more pessimistic attributions for partner transgressions, although attachment-related anxiety is more consistently associated with negative attributions than is attachment-related avoidance. These studies also suggest that attachment style differences in interpersonal behavior and relationship outcomes (e.g., relationship conflict, relationship satisfaction) may be mediated by these biased cognitive appraisals. The current investigation extends this work in several important ways. STUDY 1 Although the studies reviewed above provide evidence for attachment-style differences in attributions for partner transgressions, it is possible that these differences are an artifact of other chronic factors that covary with attachment style. For example, insecure attachment is associated with increased depression (Carnelley, Pietromonanco, & Jaffe, 1994; Our second goal was to further explore attachmentstyle differences in emotional responses to partner transgressions and to investigate two possible mediators of these differences. On the basis of attachment theory and prior research, we expected that preoccupied and fearful individuals (those high in anxiety) would report the highest levels of emotional distress and that dismissing Collins et al. / WORKING MODELS OF ATTACHMENT 203 at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 25, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.com Downloaded from individuals (low in anxiety but high in avoidance) would report the lowest levels of distress. We expected this pattern for two primary reasons. First, because anxious individuals are more likely to construct negative explanations for their partner's transgressions, they are likely to feel more threatened by these events and more concerned about their potential implications The final goal of Study 1 was to examine behavioral intentions. Based on theory and prior research, we expected that fearful and preoccupied individuals (those high in anxiety) would respond to their partner's transgressions in ways that were less adaptive and more likely to result in conflict. There are two primary reasons for expecting this pattern. First, if as hypothesized above, anxious individuals are interpreting their partner's behavior in pessimistic ways (e.g., inferring more malevolent motivation or hurtful intent), they are apt to behave in maladaptive ways such as acting suspicious, hostile, emotionally needy, or emotionally withdrawn A summary of our hypothesized model is presented in Method OVERVIEW Participants were presented with vignettes describing potentially negative partner behaviors. 1 After each vignette, they rated a series of explanations and attributions for their partner's behavior, described how they would feel, predicted the likelihood of conflict, and provided a written description of how they would behave in each situation. Attachment style, self-esteem, pessimistic attributional style, and depression were assessed in a background questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS Participants were 181 introductory psychology students (105 men, 76 women) who were currently involved in a romantic relationship. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 37 (M = 19.6 years), and relationship length ranged from 1 to 85 months (M = 16 months). MATERIALS AND PROCEDURE Stimulus events. Participants read five vignettes describing potentially negative partner behaviors (e.g., imagine that your partner "didn't respond when you tried to cuddle," "didn't comfort you when you were feeling down," "left you standing alone at a party where you didn't know anyone"). These behaviors were chosen because they represented violations of common attachment-related needs. Four of these events were taken from Possible explanations. Following each vignette, participants were presented with four possible explanations for their partner's behavior. Two were designed to be relationship enhancing and two were intended to be relationship threatening. For example, in response to the behavior "Your partner wanted to spend the evening by himself," a relationship-enhancing explanation was, "My partner is tired and just needs some time to relax at home." A relationship-threatening explanation was, "My partner is losing interest in me." Participants rated the extent to which each statement was likely to explain their partner's behavior on a 7-point scale. A principal components analysis with orthogonal rotation suggested a two-factor solution. The 10 positive explanations (2 from each of the 5 vignettes) loaded on the first factor, and the 10 negative ones loaded on the second factor. Thus, we computed an index of relationship-enhancing explanations (a = .71) and an index of relationship-threatening explanations (a = .88). Attribution ratings. For each event, participants rated the cause of their partner's behavior along a series of dimensions used by Emotional distress. Participants described how they would feel in response to each event by rating a series of emotions on a 7-point scale. An index of emotional distress (angry, rejected, hurt, worried, confused, nervous, helpless; a = .81) was computed for the present study. Conflict intentions. Predicted conflict was measured in two ways. First, participants rated the extent to which they thought each event was "likely to result in an argument or a conflict of any kind" on a 7-point scale. An index of predicted conflict was then computed by averaging this rating across the five vignettes (a = .67). Next, participants wrote a brief description of what they would do in response to each situation. Independent coders then rated these descriptions (on 7-point scales) for (a) the degree to which the response was punishing toward the partner and (b) the likelihood that the response would lead to conflict. Each coder rated half of the questionnaires; interrater reliability was assessed by having both coders rate a subset of 20 randomly chosen responses (intraclass correlations were .92 for punishing and .95 for conflict). To provide the most reliable and valid assessment of predicted conflict, we computed an overall index of conflict intentions by combining participants' ratings with the ratings of our independent coders (a = .77). Background questionnaire. Attachment style was measured with the revised version of the Adult Attachment Scal