Among contemporary approaches to personality, attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980) may be the most thoroughly interpersonal. It includes the idea that involvement in close relationships is inherently motivated. It also asserts that personality (or attachment style) develops through social interaction with others in close relationships, and that attachment styles, in turn, play a life-long role in shaping behavior in close relationships. Although we briefl y discuss inherent social motives and the development of attachment styles, our primary topic is the con- nection between attachment styles and interpersonal behavior, consistent with the theme of this volume. We argue that a history of insecure attachment relationships in infancy, childhood, and adolescence creates personal insecurities and habitual affective responses in adults that drive their maladaptive perceptions of partners (e.g., as unsupportive) and situations (e.g., as highly confl ictual), as well as lead- ing to their own maladaptive behaviors (e.g., resolving confl icts poorly). Insecure adults attribute their resulting dissatisfaction with relationships to aversive condi- tions (such as unresolved confl ict), limited opportunities for intimacy and close- ness, and alienation from their relationship partners, leading them to behave in ways that confi rm their pessimistic perceptions and expectations and result in even
RT4509X_C005.indd 118
RT4509X_C005.indd 118 1/16/2008 10:15:54 AM1/16/2008 10:15:54 AM
further relationship dissatisfaction. Finally, we provide an overarching framework for understanding the perceptions, expectations, and behaviors of persons with insecure attachment styles, emphasizing how their habitual anger and egoistic con- cern with meeting their own needs for security and autonomy—to the exclusion of the needs of others—thwarts their ability to obtain higher levels of relationship satisfaction.
According to Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980), humans have an innate attachment system that motivates infants to remain in close proximity to their caregivers, who serve as attachment fi gures. This system has evolved as a means of increasing the likelihood of survival and reproduction of a species whose members are relatively helpless at birth. Proximity to an attachment fi gure provides infants with com- fort and security, allowing them to engage in other forms of essential behaviors such as exploration of their environments. While particularly critical during early stages of life, the attachment system remains active over a person’s life span, from
“the cradle to the grave” (Bowlby, 1973, p. 203), generating thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with the maintaining of proximity to attachment fi gures (Bowlby, 1988).
Although the proximity-seeking motive is posited to be universal as well as innate, not all attachment fi gures can or will provide the forms of caregiving that lead to feelings of security and safety in their offspring. As a result, different pat- terns of attachment emerge in infants (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Infants who receive consistent care and support from their primary attachment fi gure (typically, although not necessarily, their mother) tend to develop a secure attachment style.
As demonstrated by Ainsworth et al. (1978), using what she called the Strange Situation Paradigm, these infants engage in high levels of exploration while using their mothers as a secure base when they become distressed or anxious. At the other extreme, when mothers are consistently unresponsive to their infants’ needs to be comforted, the infants develop avoidant attachment styles. Ainsworth et al.
(1978) noted that these infants did not seek care or support from their mothers when they were distressed; instead, they actively avoided their mothers and were prematurely self-reliant. Finally, when mothers were inconsistent in their care- giving, sometimes being highly responsive while at other times being inattentive, their infants developed an anxious (sometimes referred to as anxious/ambivalent or resistant) attachment style. Infants in this situation appeared to be confl icted, hypervigilant, and angry, engaging in less exploration while making inconsistent attempts to obtain support from their mothers when they became distressed.
Early attachment experiences generate mental working models of the self and others that give rise to attitudes, beliefs, and expectations about relationships, providing a framework for interpreting and infl uencing relationship experiences (Bowlby, 1973, 1980; Collins & Read, 1994; Simpson & Rholes, 1998). These work- ing models represent complex cognitive and affective schemas that, by predicting the availability and responsiveness of others, allow individuals to generate their own behaviors. Because the attachment system, as an evolutionary device, is con- cerned with providing safety and security for individuals, each of the attachment styles has come to be characterized as a set of individual differences refl ecting patterns of responses to signifi cant threats to safety and security (Kobak & Sceery,
RT4509X_C005.indd 119
RT4509X_C005.indd 119 1/16/2008 10:15:55 AM1/16/2008 10:15:55 AM
1988; Sroufe & Waters, 1977). Further, although the initial studies of adult attach- ment styles, including many reviewed in this chapter, assessed styles in terms of a typology or as prototypes (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;
Hazan & Shaver, 1987), they are today typically assessed in terms of two con- tinuous, orthogonal dimensions: avoidance and anxiety (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Simpson, 1990; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992). The anxiety dimen- sion represents the extent to which the attachment system is activated in times of environmental or relationship threat or stress, whereas the avoidance dimen- sion refl ects the degree to which closeness with an attachment fi gure is desired.
Nonetheless, for convenience throughout this chapter, persons who are high on the avoidance dimension are categorically referred to as avoidant, those high on the anxiety dimension are referred to as anxious, and those low on both avoidance and anxiety are referred to as secure.1 No attempt is made to distinguish the method of assessing attachment style used in the research studies cited; the fi ndings dis- cussed in this chapter appear to be robust across measurement method except as otherwise noted.
In adults, attachment-related anxiety manifests itself in low levels of trust regarding the availability and responsiveness of attachment fi gures in times of need. Anxious adults hypervigilantly experience anxiety over the possibility of abandonment and having their needs for care and affection left unfulfi lled in the future, while, at the same time, they are angry over having been rejected in the past (Bowlby, 1973). They tend to have low self-esteem (Brennan & Morris, 1997;
Bylsma, Cozzarelli, & Sumer, 1997) and a negative self-image (Mikulincer, 1995), feeling that they are unworthy of better treatment; yet they may feel that they are entitled to receive higher levels of caregiving and love and engage in coercive attempts to get their needs met (Corcoran & Mallinckrodt, 2000).
Proximity and separation are particularly salient for anxious individuals, who fi nd it diffi cult to obtain suffi cient levels of “felt security” because of their concerns about abandonment (Sroufe & Waters, 1977). They feel insecure upon physical separation from their relationship partner, experiencing the joint needs for close- ness and autonomy in a paradoxical manner that tends to favor excessive demands for physical and/or psychological closeness with their relationship partners (Bren- nan et al., 1998; Fraley & Shaver, 1998; Hazan & Shaver, 1987), yet at the same time report that their desired degree of closeness is not provided (Grabill & Kerns, 2000; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Their obsessive search for security is associated with negative affect and rumination about the future of their close relationships (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998; Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995; Simpson, 1990). They have low levels of trust in their relationship partners (Levy & Davis, 1988) and are quick to see trust violations, attributing them to stable causes such as their partner’s personality (Mikulincer, 1998b).
Attachment-related avoidance manifests itself in the almost certain expectation that attachment fi gures will not be available or responsive when needed and may be actively rejecting, causing them to be viewed as uncaring and untrustworthy.
Particularly in times of stress, avoidant individuals tend to distance themselves from their relationship partners instead of seeking support from them (Collins &
Feeney, 2000; Fraley & Shaver, 1998). At the same time, however, avoidant indi-
RT4509X_C005.indd 120
RT4509X_C005.indd 120 1/16/2008 10:15:55 AM1/16/2008 10:15:55 AM
viduals can experience physiological arousal upon separation from their partners (B. C. Feeney & Kirkpatrick, 1996), indicating that distancing strategies for emo- tions and behaviors are the result of suppression of still intact attachment-related needs. Attachment theory predicts that the anger evident in anxious individuals should also exist in avoidant individuals, but that it is held in check through repres- sive defense mechanisms (Bowlby, 1988). Avoidant individuals tend to report hav- ing high self-esteem and may have a relatively positive view of self in spite of a history of rejection from attachment fi gures (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991; Brennan & Morris, 1997; Mikulincer, 1995), but they tend to have low levels of trust and interdependence with their relationship partners (Levy &
Davis, 1988).
Independence and autonomy are primary motives for avoidant individuals (Mikulincer, Florian, Cowan, & Cowan, 2002; Mikulincer & Nachson, 1991).
They may be unresponsive and insensitive to relationship partners, preferring self- reliance and eschewing neediness, vulnerability, or dependence in their partners (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). This apparent desire for dis- tancing, particularly during high levels of distress, can be viewed as the result of a need to avoid the re-experiencing of the pain of past rejection, as well as a strategy for avoiding future rejection (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1988). It can also be driven by anger, as will be described below. Their underlying need for close, emotional con- nection simply remains unfulfi lled.
Individuals with a secure attachment style are able to manage their distress by accepting it and turning for support in a constructive fashion to close others, who are seen as available, trustworthy, and well-intended (Bowlby, 1988). They may also turn to “internalized” attachment fi gures as a means of coping with distress or threat (e.g., Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2004).
They balance their needs for closeness and autonomy, maintain high levels of self- esteem (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Bylsma et al., 1997; Mikulincer, 1995), and are generally responsive to their partners (B. C. Feeney & Collins, 2003).
Their positivity in cognition (Brennan & Morris, 1997; Mikulincer, 1995), affect (Tucker & Anders, 1998), and orientation toward their partners allows persons with a secure attachment style the cognitive and emotional resources to work on maintaining quality in their relationships (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2000).
The attachment styles can be further delineated by a more nuanced consid- eration of anger and hostility. Bowlby (1973) distinguishes functional anger (the anger of hope) from dysfunctional anger (the anger of despair), noting that an indi- vidual can use functional anger to maintain attachment bonds by protesting that his or her needs are not being met and by serving to change the partner’s negative behaviors. In contrast, dysfunctional anger can be destructive of attachment bonds and, in adults, can result from unresolved anger against earlier attachment fi gures.
It can be manifested as hostility or resentment toward the partner and may incor- porate revenge; dysfunctional anger can alienate the partner and may even result in aggression or violence (Bowlby, 1988).
Persons with all three attachment styles experience anger, particularly when their security is threatened or their needs are not met (Feeney, 1995, 1999; Miku- lincer, 1998a; Muris, Meesters, Morren, & Moorman, 2004), but their expression
RT4509X_C005.indd 121
RT4509X_C005.indd 121 1/16/2008 10:15:55 AM1/16/2008 10:15:55 AM
of anger differs. As expected, attachment security is associated with functional and adaptive manifestations of anger, coupled with the beliefs that the partner’s nega- tive behavior is well-intended and remediable (Feeney, 1999; Mikulincer, 1998a).
Further, secure persons tend to acknowledge their angry emotion in a manner that is consistent with their physiological experience of anger (Mikulincer, 1998a).
Insecure attachment is associated with dysfunctional anger in ways that are consistent with the anxiety and avoidance working models. Anxious adults experi- ence intense anger when they believe or fear that their relationship partners are unavailable to meet their needs (Creasey & Hesson-McInnis, 2001; Mikulincer, 1998a), ruminating on threat-related thoughts that may intensify and prolong their anger (Mikulincer, 1998a; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003, 2005). Their anger may be associated with their tendency to make more negative attributions of their partner’s intent, even in ambiguous situations (Mikulincer, 1998a). These negative attributions may be the result of their tendency to project their own assumed nega- tive characteristics onto their partner (Mikulincer & Horesh, 1999), which would include their own anger and hostility. Out of fear of losing their partner, however, they may fail to express their anger outwardly (Feeney, 1995, 1998; Mikulincer, 1998a), dysfunctionally controlling it and turning it inward (Mikulincer, 1998a).
These fi ndings have also been apparent in naturalistic interactions in a study by Simpson, Rholes, and Phillips (1996), who found that anxious persons felt greater anger and hostility toward their dating or marital partners during and after stress- ful, confl ictual interactions.
Persons with an avoidant attachment style, consistent with their tendency to dis- tance themselves from attachment-related distress and deactivate the attachment system, tend to experience what has been called “dissociated anger” (Mikulincer, 1998a). In other words, although avoidant persons self-report lower levels of anger than secure persons, physiological signs indicate the presence of intense anger and hostility. This approach to anger begins as an infant, according to Ainsworth et al.
(1978), when, although avoidant babies were viewed as behaving angrily toward their rejecting mothers in a home environment, they later (in the Strange Situation, which was highly stressful) were noted as experiencing but suppressing their anger in order to avoid the expected rejection associated with seeking proximity to their attachment fi gure and thus reduce their angry arousal. Avoidant adults tend to attri- bute hostility to their partners, even in the presence of information suggesting non- hostile intent (Mikulincer, 1998a), a type of “defensive projection” that may serve the purpose of enhancing their own self-esteem (Mikulincer & Horesh, 1999).
Although in infants, direct expression of anger to the attachment fi gure can sometimes be a dangerous way of trying to get needs met (Ainsworth et al., 1978), as adults, avoidant persons need not fear distancing their partners by their angry behaviors, and so may be more likely to express strong anger in relationship inter- actions under circumstances that involve meeting their needs, such as trying to re- attain an optimal sense of distance that has been violated by a partner. They may also be likely to reciprocate anger. For example, Rholes, Simpson, and Oriña (1999) found that highly avoidant women displayed intense anger toward their partners during a stressful situation, particularly when they were highly distressed and their partners were themselves angry. Avoidant men displayed greater anger during the
RT4509X_C005.indd 122
RT4509X_C005.indd 122 1/16/2008 10:15:56 AM1/16/2008 10:15:56 AM
stressful period than did less avoidant men, particularly when their partners were distressed, sought more support from them, or displayed more anger.
To become angry at attachment fi gures necessarily involves understanding that one’s legitimate needs have not been met. Even if socialized as children not to think about their attachment needs or the ways in which they have not been ful- fi lled (Bowlby, 1988), insecure individuals often still recognize at some level that they make legitimate claims on attachment fi gures. As a consequence, we suggest that they form a linkage between their anger and the knowledge that their needs can only be met through their own efforts (whether it be through the compulsive pursuit of their attachment fi gures for anxious persons or the compulsive distancing from their attachment fi gures for avoidant persons). This combination of anger and knowledge encourages or produces an egoistic stance; that is, insecure persons tend to focus on getting their needs met to the exclusion of the needs of those with whom they are angry, including their attachment fi gures. The conceptual models shown in Figure 5.1 depict schematically our understanding of attachment anxiety, avoid- ance, and anger as they pertain to processes linked to relationship satisfaction.
The attachment system is but one of four innate behavioral systems—attach- ment, caregiving, sexual, and exploration—described by Bowlby (1969). The fi rst three systems are clearly interrelated in that they involve relationships between persons, while exploration is a system that provides for learning and individual growth through curiosity about the environment. Attachment researchers have focused primarily on the attachment system itself, although, as will be seen, some research has been conducted on the interaction between the attachment and care- giving and attachment and sexuality systems in adults. Though not discussed fur- ther in this chapter, romantic love has been conceptualized as an integration of the attachment, caregiving, and sexuality systems (Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw, 1988).
Also not discussed in any detail in this chapter is the relationship between the attachment and exploration systems, except to note that persons having a secure attachment style, as opposed to an anxious or avoidant attachment style, are gen- erally viewed as being best able to explore the social and physical environment (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Mikulincer et al., 2002). The “optimal balance” between dependence and autonomy allows such individuals to participate fully in close relationships while pursuing activities related to their own interests and personal development (Mikulincer et al., 2002).