See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232577676

Support Seeking and Support Giving Within

Couples in an Anxiety-Provoking Situation:
The Role of Attachment Styles

Article in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · March 1992

DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.434

CITATIONS READS

811 4,888

3 authors, including:

Jeffry A Simpson William S Rholes

University of Minnesota Twin Cities Texas A&M University
216 PUBLICATIONS 15,048 CITATIONS 82 PUBLICATIONS 6,709 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Current Opinion in Psychology View project

Early unpredictability, attachment, emotion regulation, and reproductive behavior View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jeffry A Simpson on 12 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
1992, Vol. 62. No. 3, 434-446 0022-3514/92/$3.00

Support Seeking and Support Giving Within Couples in an Anxiety-

Provoking Situation: The Role of Attachment Styles
Jeffry A. Simpson, William S. Rholes, and Julia S. Nelligan
Texas A&M University

This study examined how adult attachment styles moderate spontaneous behavior between dating
couples when 1 member of the dyad is confronted with an anxiety-provoking situation. Eighty-three
dating couples were unobtrusively videotaped for 5 min in a waiting room while the woman waited
to participate in an "activity" known to provoke anxiety in most people. Independent observers
then evaluated each partner's behavior on several dimensions. Results revealed that persons with
more secure attachment styles behaved differently than persons with more avoidant styles in terms
of physical contact, supportive comments, and efforts to seek and give emotional support. Findings
are discussed in the context of theory and research on attachment.

Recently, a growing number of researchers have begun to
explore how different attachment styles influence what tran-
spires within adult relationships (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990;
Feeney & Noller, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Levy & Davis,
1988; Simpson, 1990). Virtually all of this research has been
guided by Bowlby's (1969,1973,1980) attachment theory.
Bowlby sought to understand why infants forge strong emo-
tional bonds to their primary caregivers and why they often
exhibit pronounced anxiety and distress when they are sepa-
rated from them. Adopting an evolutionary-ethological per-
spective, he argued that the specific sequence of behavioral and
emotional reactions associated with separation—protest, de-
spair, and detachment—might reflect the operation of an in-
nate attachment system designed to promote close physical
contact between vulnerable infants and their primary care-
givers. By maintaining close proximity with their caregivers,
infants would be more likely to survive, to reproduce, and ulti-
mately to pass attachment and proximity-seeking propensities
on to subsequent generations.
Although the tendency to seek proximity seems to be univer-
sal in infants, its development and elaboration over time is sen-
sitive to specific environmental conditions, especially transac-
tions between the infant and his or her primary caregiver. Past
empirical research has examined characteristic patterns of at-
tachment behavior that develop between infants and their care-
givers that signify different types of infant-caregiver relation-
ships. Using the Strange Situation paradigm, Ainsworth, Ble-
har, Waters, and Wall (1978) identified three primary patterns
Portions of this research were presented at the 99th Annual Conven-
tion of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, August 1991.
Jeffry A. Simpson and William S. Rholes contributed equally to this
article. We thank Angela Floyd, Karen Galloway, Tiffany Keith, Traci
Littleton, Lucretia Marmor, Peggy Philpot, Lucille Reiter, Linda
Wagner, Katy Watts, Laura Webb, and Laura Woodruff for their assis-
tance with this research.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Jeffry A. Simpson or William S. Rholes, Department of Psychology,
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4235.
434
of attachment behavior. Children involved in secure relation-
ships use their caregivers as a base of security to regulate feel-
ings of distress and anxiety that arise in the Strange Situation.
For these children, the caregiver's presence provides a clear
source of comfort and support. Children involved in avoidant
relationships neither actively seek support from the caregiver
nor use the caregiver to regulate and dissipate negative affect
when it arises. Children involved in anxious/ambivalent rela-
tionships make inconsistent, conflicted, and ambivalent at-
tempts to derive emotional support from their caregivers, ac-
tions that seem to reflect an underlying sense of uncertainty
about the caregiver's availability and supportiveness.
According to attachment theory, the relationships an individ-
ual has during infancy, childhood, and adolescence give rise to
"mental models" of both self and others that influence patterns
of support-proximity seeking and support giving in adult rela-
tionships. Although not impervious to change (Main, Kaplan,
& Cassidy, 1985), these mental models are thought to become
stable and traitlike over time (Bretherton, 1985). Early relation-
ships are thus presumed to exert long-term impact on subse-
quent relationships by affecting the nature and development of
these mental models.
Research on the continuing impact of early relationships on
later ones is still preliminary. Hence, strong conclusions about
long-term effects are premature at this time. Nevertheless,
some encouragingfindingshave been reported recently. Elicker
and Sroufe (in press, cited in Sroufe, Egeland, & Kreutzer,
1990), for instance, have found that assessments of attachment
style conducted during infancy reliably predict social skills and
self-confidence in children 10 years later, even when more con-
temporaneous measures of adjustment and home environment
are controlled for. Infant attachment also reliably predicts the
incidence of behavior problems, difficulties in adjusting to
school, the quality of relationships with peers and adults other
than parents, and the quality of family relationships during
toddler, preschool, and elementary school years (see Erickson,
Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985; Lewis, Feiring, McGuffog, & Jaskir,
1984; Londerville& Main, 1981; Main etal.,1985;Sroufe, 1983;
Sroufe et al., 1990; Waters, Wippman, & Sroufe, 1979).
 ATTACHMENT STYLES
Several recent studies have suggested that three attachment
styles phenotypically similar to those discovered by Ainsworth
et al. (1978) also may characterize adults (see Ainsworth, 1985;
Collins & Read, 1990; Crowell & Feldman, 1988; Feeney &
Noller, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Kobak & Sceery, 1988;
Main & Goldwyn, 1984; Main et al., 1985). People who possess
a secure attachment style tend to develop mental models of
themselves as being valued and worthy of others' concern, sup-
port, and affection, and of significant others as being accessi-
ble, reliable, trustworthy, and well-intentioned. Secure individ-
uals report that they develop closeness with others easily, feel
comfortable depending on others and having others depend on
them, and rarely are concerned about being abandoned or
others becoming extremely close to them (Hazan & Shaver,
1987). Their romantic relationships, in turn, tend to be charac-
terized by more frequent positive affect (Simpson, 1990), by
higher levels of trust, commitment, satisfaction, and interde-
pendence (Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990), and by
happy, positive, and trusting styles of love (Hazan & Shaver,
1987; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989; Levy & Davis, 1988).
Those who manifest an anxious/ambivalent style tend to har-
bor mental models of themselves as being misunderstood, un-
confident, and underappreciated, and of significant others as
being undependable and either unwilling or unable to pledge
themselves to committed, long-term relationships. They report
that others are reluctant to get as close as they prefer, frequently
worry that their partners do not truly love them or will aban-
don them, and often desire to become extremely close to their
partners (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Their relationships tend to
involve more frequent negative affect (Simpson, 1990), lower
levels of trust, commitment, satisfaction, and interdependence
(Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990), and obsessive, preoccu-
pied, and jealous forms of love (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Hen-
drick & Hendrick, 1989; Levy & Davis, 1988).
Finally, those who have an avoidant style perceive themselves
as being aloof, emotionally distant, and skeptical, and signifi-
cant others as being unreliable or overly eager to make long-
term commitments to relationships. Avoidant individuals indi-
cate that they are uncomfortable being close to others, find it
difficult to completely trust and depend on others, and become
apprehensive whenever anyone gets too close (Hazan & Shaver,
1987). Similar to anxious people, avoidant individuals tend to
be involved in relationships characterized by more frequent neg-
ative affect (Simpson, 1990) and by lower levels of trust, com-
mitment, satisfaction, and interdependence (Collins & Read,
1990; Simpson, 1990). The negative nature of their relation-
ships, however, appears to stem from acute fear of intimacy
rather than obsessive preoccupation with their romantic
partners (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989;
Levy & Davis, 1988).
The present research explores whether and how attachment
styles moderate spontaneous support seeking and support giv-
ing in romantic couples when one member of the dyad experi-
ences anxiety. Bowlby (1973,1979) has argued that the attach-
ment system should be most strongly activated under condi-
tions of distress (e.g., when an individual is ill, fatigued, or
afraid). Moreover, it is under these conditions that the behav-
ioral effects associated with attachment per se, relative to other
facets of relationships such as love (Rubin, 1970) or closeness
435
(Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989), should be most clearly
evident. Indeed, the paradigm initially used to identify and
study attachment styles in children—Ainsworth et al.'s (1978)
Strange Situation—was designed explicitly to induce anxiety in
infants so that (a) the attachment system would be strongly acti-
vated and (b) behaviors associated with different styles would
be directly elicited. To date, the role that distress and anxiety
assume in eliciting proximity-seeking behaviors in adults has
not been examined. Research on this issue is critical to the
extension of attachment theory from childhood to adulthood.
According to attachment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1978;
Bowlby, 1973, 1980), the behavior of securely and avoidantly
attached adults should differ markedly in situations that foster
anxiety. Secure attachment originates from a history of experi-
ences in which attempts to establish physical and psychological
contact with attachment figures during times of distress have
been routinely successful (Crittenden & Ainsworth, 1989). As a
result, securely attached persons consider themselves to be
worthy and valued and others to be reliable and trustworthy,
and they tend to be involved in pleasant, emotionally support-
ive relationships that corroborate these mental models. More
securely attached persons, therefore, ought to seek out more
emotional support from their partners when they feel dis-
tressed or anxious and to offer more support when they sense
their partners require it.
Avoidant attachment, on the other hand, results from re-
peated experiences in which efforts to establish contact with
attachment figures have been rebuffed or thwarted (Crittenden
& Ainsworth, 1989). Repeated failure to gain proximity eventu-
ally suppresses future behavioral attempts to achieve it. Accord-
ing to attachment theory (Ainsworth et al, 1978), however,
these failures do not destroy the desire for proximity. Rather,
avoidant persons associate the proximity need with rejection,
and this ultimately produces defensive efforts to keep the desire
for proximity in check. Ainsworth et al. suggest that avoidant
persons want and need proximity yet simultaneously fear it.
Under conditions of stress, therefore, the attachment system
should be suppressed because of defensive information process-
ing designed to prevent awareness of attachment needs (Bowlby,
1980; Main & Goldwyn, 1984). Accordingly, more avoidant per-
sons confronted with strong anxiety—an event that normally
ought to activate the attachment system—should be less likely
to seek support from their partners. To suppress the attachment
system, they also should physically and psychologically dis-
tance themselves from their partners. More avoidant persons
also should display corresponding suppression tendencies
when their partners are distressed and need support. As their
partner's need for support increases, they should not provide
commensurate increases in support. In fact, they ought to de-
fensively retract from their partner.
Anxious attachment stems from experiences in which at-
tempts to make contact with attachment figures have been as-
sociated with inconsistent or unpredictable behavioral re-
sponses from them (Crittenden & Ainsworth, 1989). Because
the prospect of gaining proximity is unpredictable yet possible,
the attachment system in anxious persons is believed to be
readily and strongly activated during times of distress (Bowlby,
1980; Main & Goldwyn, 1984). Thus, according to one interpre-
tation of attachment theory, persons who are more anxiously
436 J. SIMPSON, W RHOLES, AND J. NELLIGAN
attached and who are confronted with strong anxiety should be
highly motivated to seek and perhaps give support during times
of distress, maybe even more so than secure persons. These
predictions, however, may need to be qualified. During adult-
hood, anxious individuals yearn to receive considerable emo-
tional support from their romantic partners. Yet they also tend
to perceive partners as being unpredictable in terms of their
emotional availability and supportiveness, and they tend to be
involved in affectively unpleasant relationships in which strong
emotional support does not exist. Thus, although certain forces
might compel anxious people to seek support, other forces may
inhibit these tendencies. Moreover, anxious/ambivalent adults
tend to be preoccupied with their own needs and to display
anger toward others because of unresolved conflicts stemming
from past or present relationships (Main et al., 1985). This self-
absorption and resentment might make them unreliable as
sources of support for others. As a result of these factors, rela-
tions between the anxious/ambivalent style and indicators of
both support seeking and support giving could be attenuated.
Overview and Hypotheses
In the present study, female members of 83 dating couples
were told that they would participate in an "activity" known to
elicit anxiety in most people. The nature of the activity was
unspecified. Before participating in it, they were escorted to a
private "waiting room" where they waited for five min with
their male partner, who ostensibly was about to take part in a
different study. During this period, the couple's spontaneous
interaction was unobtrusively videotaped. Trained observers
then evaluated each couple's interaction during the five min
period in terms of (a) global adjective ratings of each woman's
support-seeking and each man's support-giving behavior; (b)
ratings of the content and consequences of the couple's discus-
sion about the anxiety-provoking event; and (c) ratings of the
frequency with which various overt physical behaviors oc-
curred (e.g., touching the partner, smiling, and eye contact).
The attachment system was activated through different
channels for men and women in the present study. For women,
the attachment system was elicited by exposure to a stressful
situation designed to directly evoke strong distress and anxiety;
for men, it was triggered by the vulnerability and distress dis-
played by their partners. According to attachment theory
(Bowlby, 1973), distress that is experienced either directly or
vicariously through the emotional needs of one's partner can
activate the mental models of self and others harbored by se-
curely, anxiously, and avoidantly attached people. These mental
models, in turn, should guide responses to the partner. Securely
attached persons should respond by encouraging proximity and
providing support, whereas avoidant and anxious/ambivalent
persons ought to react differently.
In view of the theoretical considerations discussed above, we
tested the followingfivehypotheses:'
Hypothesis 1
As they experience greater anxiety, more securely and more
anxiously attached women should seek greater support from
their partners, whereas more avoidant women should be less
inclined to do so. As anxiety increases, support seeking may be
most pronounced among more anxiously attached women.
(See the qualifications discussed above concerning hypotheses
for anxious/ambivalent persons.)
Hypothesis 2
As their partners display greater anxiety, more securely at-
tached men should provide greater reassurance and emotional
support, whereas more avoidant men should offer less support.
Under these conditions, support giving may be most pro-
nounced among more anxiously attached men.
Hypothesis 3
As women discuss their anxiety in greater detail with their
partners, more securely attached men should provide more sup-
portive and reassuring comments compared with more avoid-
ant men. Supportive comments may be highly pronounced
among anxiously attached men.
Hypothesis 4
As men make more supportive comments, their partners
should be more calmed. This calming effect, however, should
be more pronounced for more securely attached women than
for more avoidant ones. Attachment theory makes no clear pre-
dictions about the relation between anxious attachment and the
extent of calming.
Hypothesis 5
As their level of anxiety increases, more avoidantly attached
women should display greater resistance to physical contact
(e.g., touching) from their partners, whereas more securely and
anxiously attached women should display less resistance. More
anxiously attached women should be least likely to resist con-
tact.
Method
Participants
Eighty-three dating couples (83 men and 83 women), at least one
member of whom was enrolled in introductory psychology at Texas
A&M University, participated in this investigation. Mean ages of men
and women were 19.5 years and 18.9 years, respectively. To ensure that
participants were involved in established relationships, couples were
required to have dated one another for at least 3 months prior to partici-
pation. Mean length of dating relationship was 17.9 months. Members
1
These hypotheses are stated in terms of the behaviors of male and
female partners. According to attachment theory, however, the same
predictions would be made if the roles of support seeking and support
giving enacted by men and women were reversed. Given the limited
number of couples available for research, we subjected only women to
the anxiety-provoking procedures. We did so because we thought that
women, relative to men, might be more willing to mention and openly
discuss their feelings about the stressful situation. We intend to study
support seeking by men and support giving by women in a subsequent
study.
 ATTACHMENT STYLES
of 15 dyads reported that they were dating people in addition to the
current partner, 63 dyads indicated that they were dating each other
exclusively (but were not engaged), and 5 dyads reported that they were
engaged.
Procedure
Overview. The investigation consisted of two phases. In Phase 1,
couples responded to a series of questionnaires that inquired about
their attachment style and their current relationship. In Phase 2, cou-
ples were unobtrusively videotaped after the woman had been told she
was going to be exposed to an anxiety-provoking activity. Independent
observers then rated the behavior of both members of each dyad from
these videotapes.
Phase 1: Questionnaire survey. When couples arrived for the study
(in individual pairs), they were told that they would be participating in
two unrelated projects. The first one involved completing a series of
questionnaires that enquired about themselves and their current rela-
tionship. To guarantee that couples did not communicate during Phase
1, they completed the questionnaires in different rooms.
As a prelude to the stress manipulation administered to women in
Phase 2, female members of each dyad were informed (when reading
the informed consent form) that some of the procedures in the second
study provoked stress and anxiety in many people. However, they also
were told that they could discontinue participation in the study at any
time and for any reason without loss of promised compensation.
Both members of each dyad then completed the questionnaire sur-
vey. Embedded in the survey was a Likert-type version of Hazan and
Shaver's (1987) measure of the three attachment styles (see Simpson,
1990). Even though Hazan and Shaver's attachment measure was devel-
oped according to descriptions provided by Ainsworth et al. (1978) of
avoidantly, securely, and anxiously attached infants, the measure has
some problematic psychometric properties (see Hazan & Shaver, 1987;
Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989). First, people classify themselves as be-
longing to one of three mutually exclusive attachment categories with-
out specifying the extent to which the chosen category characterizes
them. As a result, meaningful individual difference variability that
exists within each category cannot be assessed. Second, this categori-
cal classification method assesses an individual's standing on only one
attachment style, despite the fact that some adults may be best charac-
terized as a blend of two or more styles. Third, this method of classifica-
tion places severe constraints on the types of statistical analyses that
can be performed. Fourth, measurement of individual differences in
adults traditionally has focused on linear relations between multiple-
item measures designed to assess specific, continuously distributed
constructs (Jackson, 1971). Cases in which discrete classes underlie
adult individual differences are rare.
Hence, the three attachment vignettes originally created by Hazan
and Shaver (1987) were decomposed into 13 individual sentences, each
of which was answered on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly
disagree and 7 = strongly agree). To control for acquiescence response
biases, 3 sentences were worded in a negative direction. Moreover, very
slight alterations in wording designed to reduce item response diffi-
culty were made for 2 sentences (Items d and m below). Participants
rated the following items according to how they typically felt toward
romantic partners in general: (a) "I find itrelativelyeasy to get close to
others"; (b) "I'm not very comfortable having to depend on other peo-
ple"; (c) "I'm comfortable having others depend on me"; (d) "I rarely
worry about being abandoned by others"; (e) "I don't like people get-
ting too close to me"; (f) "I'm somewhat uncomfortable being too close
to others"; (g) "I find it difficult to trust others completely"; (h) "I'm
nervous whenever anyone gets too close to me"; (i) "Others often want
me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being"; (j) "Others
often are reluctant to get as close as I would like"; (k) "I often worry that
437
my partners) don't really love me"; (1) "I rarely worry about my
partner(s) leaving me"; and (m) "I often want to merge completely with
others, and this desire sometimes scares them away." Items a through e
were taken from Hazan and Shaver's "secure" vignette description.
Items f through i and j through m were taken from the avoidant and
anxious/ambivalent vignettes, respectively.
For purposes of providing discriminant validity, participants also
completed Rubin's Love scale (Rubin, 1970) and the Relationship
Closeness Inventory (RCI; Berscheid et al, 1989).
Phase 2: Stress induction and behavioral observation. Once the fe-
male member of each dyad had completed the survey, she was escorted
to a waiting room, where the stress induction procedure took place.
The experimenterfirstpretended to take the woman's pulse to accentu-
ate the stressful nature of the "impending" experimental situation. The
experimenter then said the following:
In the next few minutes, you are going to be exposed to a situa-
tion and set of experimental procedures that arouse considerable
anxiety and distress in most people. Due to the nature of these
procedures, I cannot tell you any more at the moment. Of course,
111 answer any questions or concerns you have after the experi-
ment is over.
The purpose of this statement was to arouse anxiety without disclosing
the nature of the stressful procedures.
The experimenter then led the woman to a room normally used for
psychophysiological research. She opened a heavy metal door, expos-
ing a darkened, windowless room that looked like an isolation
chamber and contained psychophysiological equipment. The experi-
menter made sure each participant peered into the room and saw the
equipment. She then stated that the equipment was not fully set up,
after which she led the participant back to the waiting room. The
experimenter gave no further details about the nature ofthe experimen-
tal procedures.
The experimenter then escorted the man to the waiting room and
left the couple alone for 5 min. Nothing was said to the man about the
woman's impending stressful situation. During this time, the couple's
spontaneous interaction was unobtrusively videotaped by a small
video camera encased in an opaque, domed housing unit mounted
from the ceiling in one corner of the room. Five min later, the experi-
menter reentered the room and explained that, due to "malfunction-
ing" equipment, the experiment could not be conducted. Participants
were informed, however, that they wouldreceivethe promised experi-
mental credit.2
Following this, participants were debriefed and informed that they
had been videotaped. The reason for the deception was explained, and
they were given the opportunity to erase their videotapes if they
wanted to do so. No couple requested such action. Participants then
signed areleaseform allowing their videotapes to be used for research
purposes. All participants agreed to this request.
Coding of Videotapes
Three trained raters, blind to both the experimental hypotheses and
participants' attachment styles, then viewed the videotapes and evalu-
2
As a prelude to debriefing, each partner evaluated the woman's
general emotional reaction to the experimental situation. Because
these ratings were made after participants had been told the anxiety-
provoking event would not occur and because they were developed to
assess how participants were generally feeling prior to debriefing, they
are less valid markers of anxiety compared with ratings made by
trained observers during the 5 min observation period. Thus, observer
ratings were used to index women's anxiety.
438 J. SIMPSON, W RHOLES, AND J. NELLIGAN

ated the behavior of both members of each dyad during the 5 min ranged from .70 to .75). On occasions when raters' evaluations were not
waiting period. unanimous for the three dichotomous items, the majority response
Global adjective ratings. Raters first evaluated men and women on was treated as the rated value.
global adjectives. Given our predictions, women were evaluated on a Physical behavior ratings. Finally, raters coded various physical be-
series of adjectives designed to broadly assess two major dimensions: haviors displayed by men and women during the 5 min waiting period.
their level of anxiety-fear (indexed by adjectives such as anxious, fear- Many of the behaviors that transpire in dyadic interactions can be
ful, etc.) and the extent to which they sought comfort and support from divided into two categories: those that indicate approach tendencies
their partner (indexed by adjectives such as clingy, promoting contact, and those that reflect resistance or avoidance (see Knapp, 1978). Behav-
etc.). Relevant adjectives were chosen in part on the basis of descrip- iors indicative of approach can be further subdivided into those that
tions of each dimension found in previous theory (Bowlby, 1973) and can occur at a distance (e.g., smiling or eye contact) and those that
research (Ainsworth et al, 1978) on attachment. involve direct physical contact (e.g., touching). Because tendencies to
Ratings for women were made on 7-point Likert-type scales (1 = not approach one's partner under stress ought to reflect comfort seeking,
at all and 7 = a great deal/extremely). To canvas each dimension and tendencies to avoid him or her ought to connote contact resistance
broadly (see Loevinger, 1957), ratings were made on 21 adjectives: (see Bowlby, 1973), we had raters record the number of times each of 15
warm, self-confident, friendly, relaxed, anxious, nice, self-disclosing, behaviors occurred: touching partner on the body, touching partner on
humorous, hostile, cold/distant, submissive, dull/boring, critical/nega-the face, placing arm or hand on partner's shoulder, hugs, kisses, hand-
tive, fearful, independent, clingy/dependent, comfortable with physicalholding, resisting contact, leaning toward partner, moving toward
contact, promoting physical contact, paying attention to partner, quarrel-partner, turning head or body toward partner, leaning away from
some, and emotionally avoidant. Interrater reliabilities were low for 4 partner, moving away from partner, turning head or body away from
items (hostile, cold/distant, critical/negative, and quarrelsome), and, partner, eye contacts, and smiles. For each behavioral category, in-
therefore, these items were dropped from further analyses. Interrater terrater reliabilities were good (for men, M= .69 across all behaviors,
reliabilities for each of the remaining 17 adjectives were reasonable range = .39-90; for women, M = .75, range = .46-97). Moreover,
given only three raters (M = .60 across all adjectives; range = .41 -.86). interrater agreement also was good (mean Tau statistic was .73 for
Raters' ratings were aggregated for each adjective, resulting in 17 women and .75 for men across all 15 behaviors; see Tinsley & Weiss,
summed indexes for women. 1975). Hence, raters' behavioral counts were aggregated for each cate-
gory, resulting in 15 summed indexes for both members of each dyad.
Given our predictions, men were evaluated on several adjectives de-
signed to broadly tap one major dimension: the extent to which they
offered reassurance and emotional support (e.g., indexed by adjectives Results
such as supportive, reassuring, sympathetic, etc.). Adjectives were se-
lected according to descriptions from prior theory and research on Construction of Attachment Indexes
attachment of what this dimension should entail. Following Loe-
vinger's (1957) suggestions, ratings for men were made on the same Before constructing continuous measures of attachment
7-point Likert-type scales for the following 27 adjectives: warm, self- styles, we first performed two principal-axis factor analyses
confident, emotionally supportive, friendly, competent at calming the (SPSSX PA2) followed by varimax rotation on the 13 attach-
partner, relaxed, reassuring, nice, open/accepting, humorous, socially ment items, one for women and one for men.3 Factors were
skilled, hostile, cold/distant, dependable, dull/boring, critical/negative, extracted on the basis of eigenvalue scree (Cattell, 1966) and
condescending, comfortable with physical contact, promoting physicalfactor interpretability. In line with previous research (Hendrick
contact, paying attention to partner, nurturant, quarrelsome, emotion-& Hendrick, 1989; Simpson, 1990), these analyses revealed two
ally avoidant, helpful, sympathetic, attentive to partner's needs, and re-factors within each sex: Secure versus Avoidant and Anxious
sponsive to partner's needs. Interrater reliabilities were low for 5 items
(self-confident, relaxed, hostile, critical/negative, and condescending),
versus Nonanxious. Once all items were keyed in the proper
and, thus, these items were excluded from further analyses. Interrater direction, the avoidant/secure attachment index was con-
reliabilities for each of the 22 remaining adjectives were reasonable structed by aggregating Items a, b, c, e, f, g, h, and i (Cronbach's
(M= .64 across all adjectives; range = .41-83). Thus, raters' ratings alpha = .81 for both men and women). Higher scores reflected
were aggregated on each adjective, resulting in 22 summed indexes greater avoidance, whereas lower scores reflected greater secu-
for men.
Conversation ratings. Raters then coded the specific verbal content
of partners' conversations on the following dimensions: (a) "Does the 3
All of the factor analyses reported in this article used principal axis
female mention (to her partner) she is to undergo a stressful proce- factoring followed by varimax rotation. Principal axis factoring was
dure?" (coded yes or no); (b) "If yes, to what extent does she discuss her used instead of principal components analysis for three reasons. First,
feelings about being anxious, worried, or upset?" (evaluated on a 9- principal components analysis assumes that all variables are measured
point Likert-type scale, with 1 = little and 9 = a great deal); (c) "If the without error, whereas principal axis factoring does not (West & Finch,
female does mention she is to undergo a stressful procedure, does the in press). Because our measures were not perfectly reliable, principal
male make supportive comments?" (coded yes or no); (d) "If yes, to axis factoring was deemed to be a more appropriate technique. Second,
what extent was he supportive?" (evaluated on a 9-point scale, with 1 = principal axis factoring provides more stable and replicable results,
little and 9 = extremely); (e) "If the female does mention she is to un- particularly when factors are large or when fewer than 35 variables are
dergo a stressful procedure, does the male try to avoid or downplay her being analyzed, as was the case in our study (see Loehlin, 1990; Ve-
comments?" (coded yes or no); (f) "If yes, to what extent did he avoid or licher & Jackson, 1990; West & Finch, in press). Third, principal axis
downplay them?" (evaluated on a 9-point scale, with 1 = little and 9 = factoring extracts the common item variance underlying a covariance
extremely); and (g) "To what extent does she seem reassured or calmed matrix, whereas principal components analysis extracts all the vari-
by the (conversational) behavior of the male?" (evaluated on a 9-point ance (West & Finch, in press). We, of course, were interested in extract-
scale, with 1 = not at all and 9 = extremely). Raters' responses to each ing the common variance underlying our measures. Varimax rotations
question were aggregated. For the four questions requiring Likert-type were used because all dimensions were presumed to be relatively or-
responses, raters' evaluations were reliable (interrater reliabilities thogonal.
 ATTACHMENT STYLES
rity. The anxious attachment index was created by aggregating
Item d and Items j through m. Higher scores reflected greater
anxiousness (Cronbach's alphas = .58 and .61 for men and
women, respectively).
Construction of Rating Indexes
Adjective factors. We performed two principal-axis factor
analyses (SPSSX PA2) followed by varimax rotation on raters'
aggregated adjective ratings. The first analysis involved raters'
evaluations of the 22 aggregated adjective indexes on which
men were evaluated. On the basis of eigenvalue scree (Cattell,
1966) and factor interpretability, two factors accounting for 72%
of the variance were extracted. The first factor reflected the
amount of Reassurance/Emotional Support displayed by men
toward their partners. Items loading at or above .50 included
the following: reassuring (86), sympathetic (84), emotionally
supportive (82), competent at calming partner (75), responsiveto
partner's needs (73), helpful (.73), nurturant (69), attentive to
partners needs (.65), dependable (56), not emotionally avoidant
(.54), and warm (.53). The second factor assessed the extent of
general Warmth/Friendliness displayed by men. Items loading
highly (50 or greater) included the following: promoting physi-
cal contact (78), not dull/boringP4), paying attention to partner
(70), comfortable with physical contact (.68), not cold/distant
(60), humorous (60), warm (58), friendly (56), not emotionally
avoidant (55), and attentive to partner's needs (50). Given our
predictions, we then calculated factor scores for men on the
first factor (i^e., Reassurance/Emotional Support).
The second factor analysis involved raters' aggregated evalua-
tions of the 17 adjectives on which women were rated. Accord-
ing to the eigenvalue scree (Cattell, 1966) and factor interpret-
ability, three factors accounting for 79% of the variance
emerged. The first factor reflected the amount of Warmth/
Friendliness displayed by women. Items loading highly (50 or
greater) included the following: warm (91), not dull/boring(88),
friendly {$l),notcold/distant{$b\nice{$$), paying attentionto
partner's needs (79), not emotionally avoidant (78), humorous
(75), self-disclosing (74), self-confident (61), promoting contact
(.53), and comfortable with contact (53). The second factor in-
dexed Anxiety/Fear and included anxious (94), not relaxed
(92), and fearful (86). The third factor tapped Comfort/Sup-
port Seeking and included clingy (84), not independent (78),
comfortable with contact (67), and promoting contact (67). In
view of our predictions, we then calculated factor scores on the
second and third factors for women (La, Anxiety/Fear and
Comfort/Support Seeking).
Physical behavior factors. We next performed two principal-
axis factor analyses (SPSSX PA2) followed by varimax rotation
on raters' physical behavior counts. The first analysis involved
raters' counts of behaviors displayed by men. On the basis of
eigenvalue scree (Cattell, 1966) and factor interpretability, four
factors accounting for 48% of the variance emerged. Factor 1
reflected the amount of Smiling/Eye Contact directed at the
women. Items loading highly (50 or greater) included eye con-
tacts (96), turning toward the partner (81), and smiles (70).
Factor 2 tapped the extent of Hugs/Touching on the Body and
included touching on shoulders (89), touching on body (74),
and hugs (.68). Factor 3 indexed the extent of Kisses/Touching
439
on the Face and included kisses (84) and leaning toward
partner (55). Factor 4 assessed the frequency of attempts to
Resist Contact and included resisting contact (75) and moving
away from partner (64). We then constructed factor scores
for men.
The second factor analysis consisted of raters' counts of be-
haviors displayed by women. Three factors accounting for 50%
of the variance emerged. Factor 1 reflected the amount of
Touching on the Face. Items loading above .50 included touch-
ing on face (82), hugs (78), and kisses (75). Factor 2 indexed the
extent of Smiling/Eye Contact and included eye contacts (93),
turning toward partner (74), and smiles (67). Factor 3 tapped
efforts to Resist Contact and included resisting contact (92)
and leaning away from partner (88). We then constructed fac-
tor scores for women.
Analyses of Couples' Interaction
A complete set of analyses identical to the ones reported
below did not reveal reliable findings for the anxious attach-
ment index.4 Hence, this index is not discussed in the Results
section, although we return to these nullfindingsin the Discus-
sion. The avoidant/secure (A/S) index, however, was associated
with how partners responded to one another.
Analyses ofadjective factors. Thefirstanalysis examined the
relationship between anxiety and support seeking in women.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that support seeking would increase
with anxiety in more secure women, whereas it would decrease
in more avoidant women. To test this hypothesis, we conducted
a hierarchical regression analysis. Observer-rated support seek-
ing (assessed by the Comfort/Support Seeking factor) served as
the criterion variable. The predictor variables included
women's self-reported A/S index (Step 1), observer-rated anxi-
ety in women (the Anxiety/Fear factor; Step 2), and the interac-
tion of these two variables (Step 3). Only the interaction term
was significant, F(l, 79) = 3.97, p < .05. Specifically, among
more secure women, increases in observer-rated anxiety (ije,
increases across subjects) were positively related to increased
levels of observer-rated support seeking. More avoidant
women, however, showed the opposite tendency; increases in
anxiety were associated with less support seeking. As depicted
in Figure 1, the unstandardized beta relating anxiety to support
seeking for women with higher avoidance scores (1 SD above
the A/S mean) was —0.21; for highly secure women (1 SD below
the A/S mean), the beta was 0.23.
The two predictor variables used in this analysis—observer-
rated anxiety in women and women's self-reported A/S scores
—were not correlated (r = —.05). This finding is noteworthy
4
Internal analyses revealed that the null effects for the anxious at-
tachment index were not attributable to its lowerreliabilitycompared
to the avoidant/secure index. Specifically, we conducted the same set
of analyses on the anxious attachment index as are reported for the
avoidant/secure one. Once all main effects and interactions were calcu-
lated, we estimated how large each effect would have been if the
anxious attachment index possessed perfectreliability(using a formula
found in Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Even after correcting for attenuation
because of the lower reliability of the anxious attachment index, no
significant effects emerged.
440 J. SIMPSON, W RHOLES, AND J. NELLIGAN

because it indicates that attachment style is not confounded +0.5 r

with the degree of anxiety experienced.
Hypothesis 2 focused on the relationship between support E
offered by men and their partners' level of anxiety. We expected M
higher levels of partner anxiety to be associated with increased ,O •0.25 V
levels of support giving among more secure men, but not
among more avoidant ones. A hierarchical regression analysis \O
involving the men's self-reported A/S index (Step 1), observer-
rated anxiety in women (the Anxiety/Fear factor; Step 2), and
the interaction of these two variables (Step 3) revealed that the
interaction of self-reported A/S and observer-rated anxiety ac-
counted for a significant amount of variance in observer-rated
supportiveness in men (indexed by the Reassurance/Emotional -0.25
Support factor), F(l, 79) = 4.85, p < .05. Among more secure
men, higher levels of partner anxiety were associated with
greater support. Conversely, among men scoring higher in avoid-
ance, higher partner anxiety was associated with lower levels of -0.5
support. As presented in Figure 2, the unstandardized beta -1 -.5 •.5 +1
relating anxiety to support among more secure men (1 SD be- Low High
low the A/S mean) was 0.28. The beta for more avoidant men (1
SD above the A/S mean) was -0.25. 5 ANXIETY-FEAR
Sixteen women did not discuss the anxiety-provoking activ- Figure 2. The relation between women's standing on the Anxiety/
ity with their partners. Thus, we conducted a second regression Fear factor and men's standing on the Reassurance/Emotional Support
analysis of supportiveness by men, partialing out the dichoto- factor for highly secure and highly avoidant men. (Regression lines are
mous conversational variable (discuss vs. no discuss) in the first plotted for men 1 SD above and below the mean on the avoidant/secure
step of the analysis. Partialing did not affect the results re- attachment index. Values for the Anxiety/Fear and Reassurance/Emo-
ported above. We also dropped these 16 individuals and reana- tional Support factors are presented on the axes in SD units for each
lyzed the data, once again obtaining the same outcome. factor.)
In examining supportiveness by men, we found as expected

that women's anxiety level interacted with their male partners'

attachment style. In other words, men seemed to have been
c responding to their partner's affective state. It is possible, how-
o
M ever, that men also reacted to the support-seeking efforts of
F their partner, independent of her emotional state. We con-
O ducted a regression analysis similar to the ones described above
R +0.25 - to determine whether the level of support seeking displayed by
women also interacted with their partners' attachment style.
S Results revealed that partner support seeking was not related to
U
P Secure supportiveness by men, either alone or in interaction with men's
P 0_ \ x attachment style. These findings corroborate our original hy-
O Avoidant
R \
pothesis that the behavior of men is largely contingent on their
T partner's emotional state rather than on overt support-seeking
efforts.
| -0.25 \ Analyses of conversation items. We next focused on ob-
E servers' ratings of the extent to which women openly discussed
K their anxiety and how men verbally responded to these disclo-
1
N sures. Sixteen of the 83 women did not mention the anxiety-
G -0.5 1 i I i i
provoking situation to their partners. A t test revealed that
-1 -.5 0 +.5 +1 these women had more avoidant scores on the A/S index than
Low High women who did discuss the situation, ?(81) = 1.97, p < .05,
one-tailed. This is consistent with thefindingsconcerning sup-
ANXIETY-FEAR port seeking among more avoidant women discussed above.
Figure 1. The relation between the Anxiety/Fear factor and the Com- Among the 67 women who did mention the stressful proce-
fort/Support Seeking factor for highly secure and highly avoidant dure, the correlation between self-reported A/S scores and the
women. (Regression lines are plotted for women 1 SD above and below
the mean on the avoidant/secure attachment index. Values for the Anxi-
ety/Fear and Comfort/Support Seeking factors are presented on the 5
No predictions were made for the Warmth/Friendliness adjective
axes in SD units for each factor.) factors. Hence, they were not analyzed.
 ATTACHMENT STYLES
observer-rated extent of discussion measure (Item b: ". . . to
what extent does she discuss her feelings about being anxious,
worried, or upset?") was not significant (r =. 13). This is consis-
tent with the previous finding that A/S scores were not strongly
associated with observers' ratings of women's anxiety.
We next performed a regression analysis on the 67 couples
who discussed the stressor. Ratings of the extent to which men
made supportive comments in direct response to women's dis-
cussion of their feelings were treated as the criterion measure
(Item d: ". . . to what extent was he supportive?"), and the fol-
lowing measures served as predictors: men's self-reported A/S
scores (Step 1), observers' ratings of the extent to which the
women discussed feelings of anxiety (Step 2), and the interac-
tion of these two variables (Step 3). This analysis revealed a
significant main effect for the extent of discussion variable, F(l,
64) = 29.92, p < .001, and a significant interaction between this
variable and the men's A/S index, F(l, 63) = 7.45, p < .01. The
main effect indicates that men made more supportive com-
ments as women discussed their feelings more extensively. The
interaction qualifies this trend in that increased levels of sup-
portive comments were more pronounced for more secure men
than for more avoidant ones. The beta relating men's supportive
comments to the extent of discussion by women variable was
0.89 among more secure men. Among more avoidant men, the
corresponding beta was 0.29. In other words, the tendency to
make extensive supportive comments was more pronounced
among men scoring in the more secure range of the A/S index,
but it was not totally absent among more avoidant men.
Next, we conducted a regression analysis in which the degree
to which men attempted to avoid or downplay women's con-
cerns was treated as the criterion variable (Item e:". . . does the
male try to avoid or downplay her comments?"), and men's
self-reported A/S, observer-rated extent of discussion by
women, and their interaction served as predictors. This analysis
yielded no reliable effects.
We then performed two analyses in which observers' ratings
of the degree to which women were calmed (Item g: "To what
extent does she seem reassured or calmed by the [conversa-
tional] behavior of the male?") served as the criterion variable.
Predictors included (a) women's A/S index (Step 1 of each analy-
sis); (b) observer-rated supportive comments by men and the
degree to which men attempted to avoid or downplay women's
concerns (Step 2, with each variable used alone in separate
analyses); and (c) the interaction of the first and second vari-
ables (Step 3). Results of these two analyses showed that women
were more calmed when men made more supportive remarks,
F(l, 64) = 57.57, p < .001. This trend, however, was contingent
on women's A/S scores, F(l, 63) = 4.56, p< .05. Contrary to the
predictions of Hypothesis 4, increases in supportive comments
had a somewhat greater calming effect on more avoidant
women (0 = 0.59) than on less avoidant ones (# = 0.33). The
other analysis showed no effects for women's A/S scores. It re-
vealed only main effects for men's downplaying of women's
concerns, F(l, 64) = 43.15, p < .001. Not surprisingly, women
were less calmed if their concerns were avoided or downplayed.
The final analyses of conversations examined observer rat-
ings of how calmed women appeared to be as predicted by
women's A/S scores (Step 1), the extent to which they discussed
their feelings (Step 2), and the interaction of these variables
441
(Step 3). This analysis differed from the previous one in that it
examined calming as a function of the extent to which feelings
were discussed, independent of the extent to which supportive
remarks were made by men. This analysis revealed a significant
interaction between extent of discussion and women's A/S
scores, F(l, 63) = 5.76, p < .05. Specifically, extent of discussion
was positively related to ratings of being calmed for more avoi-
dant women (0 = 0.34), but not for more secure women (/3 =
—0.11). That is, more extensive discussion alone had a more
positive effect on highly avoidant women.
To determine whether this interaction was independent of
the one between women's A/S scores and their partners' level of
supportive comments, an additional analysis was conducted in
which the interaction between men's supportiveness and
women's A/S scores was partialed out prior to entering the ex-
tent of Discussion X Women's A/S Index interaction term. This
analysis revealed that this interaction accounted for a margin-
airy reliable amount of variance over and above the men's Sup-
portive Comments X Women's A/S Index interaction, F(\, 61) =
3.69, p < .06.
Analyses of physical behavior factors. We next focused on
physical behaviors that transpired during the observation pe-
riod. The first set of analyses focused on women's behaviors as
predicted by women's A/S scores (Step 1), the frequency with
which men touched their partners on the body (the Hugs/
Touching on the Body factor; Step 2), and the interaction of
these two variables (Step 3). Separate analyses were conducted
in which each of the women's three physical behavior factors
(Touching on the Face, Smiling/Eye Contact, and Resisting
Contact) were treated as dependent measures. These analyses
showed that men's touching on the body had an impact on
physical behavior by women that varied according to women's
attachment style. The first analysis revealed a main effect such
that women exhibited more resistance as men's touching on the
body increased, F(l, 80) = 48.29, p< .001. However, in accord
with Hypothesis 5, this tendency was qualified by a significant
interaction between men's touching and women's A/S scores,
F(l, 79) = 6.65, p < .05. Increased levels of touching by men
were more strongly related to increased resistance among more
avoidant women (/? = 0.80) than among more secure women
(0=0.21).
Closely related findings emerged in an analysis of facial
touching and kissing on the part of women. This analysis
yielded a significant main effect for men's touching, F(l, 80) =
5.37, p < .05, and a marginally significant interaction between
women's A/S scores and men's touching, F(l, 79) = 3.50, p <
.07. The main effect indicates that more body touching by men
was associated with more frequent facial touching and kissing
by women. The interaction suggests that this trend was more
pronounced for more secure women. The betas relating men's
body touching to women's facial touching were 0.61 for more
secure women and 0.10 for more avoidant women. The final
analyses revealed that men's body touching was not associated
with the women's Smiling/Eye Contact factor.
The above analyses reveal a consistent pattern of effects in
which A/S scores moderate the reaction of women to body
touching by their partners. Analyses involving the men's other
physical behavior factors indicated that women's reactions to
442 J. SIMPSON, W RHOLES, AND J. NELLIGAN
these forms of men's behavior were largely unrelated to their
A/S scores.
Men's physical behavior factors were analyzed in the same
way as were the women's behaviors. Although a few significant
findings emerged, they did not present a coherent and easily
interpretable view of men's responses. In general, the physical
behaviors of men were unrelated to their A/S scores.
Relations among the adjective, conversational, and physical analysis. These reanalyses showed that the inclusion of these
behavior measures. The adjective, conversational, and behav- two measures had minimal impact on the findings reported
ioral measures were not necessarily designed to be orthogonal.
In fact, we expected some of them to be moderately correlated.
The reason for assessing so many potentially correlated mea-
sures was to ensure that we canvased the content of couples'
interactions as thoroughly and broadly as possible (see Loe-
vinger, 1957).
Among women, four measures were correlated significantly.
The Anxiety/Fear adjective factor was correlated with the ex-
tent to which women discussed feelings of distress (r = .69),
such that more anxious women discussed their feelings more
extensively. The Anxiety/Fear factor also was correlated with
the degree to which women were calmed by their partners (r =
-.25), such that more anxious women were calmed somewhat
less. The Comfort/Support Seeking adjective factor was corre-
lated with the physical factor of Touching on Face (r = .57), with of each member's attachment style when one member of the
women who sought more comfort being more likely to touch
their partners on the face. The Comfort/Support Seeking factor
also was correlated with the Smiling/Eye Contact factor (r =
-.23), with greater support seeking being associated with less
smiling/eye contact. Among men, all significant correlations
involved the Reassurance/Emotional Support adjective factor.
Not surprisingly, more supportive men made more supportive
comments in the conversations (r = .85) and made fewer re-
marks avoiding or downplaying their partners' concerns (r =
-.16). No other measures were reliably correlated within men
or women.
In summary, most of the adjective, conversational, and behav-
ioral measures were relatively orthogonal. This suggests that
the effects reported above across the three types of measures
are not overly redundant.
Relations between the A/S index andother measures: Discrimi- port seeking and support giving displayed by persons who
nant validity. The final analyses examined relations between
the A/S index, Rubin's (1970) Love scale, and the RCI (Bers-
cheid et al., 1989). Among men, the A/S index was not reliably
correlated with either love or closeness (rs = —.18 and -.15,
respectively). Among women, the A/S index was reliably corre-
lated with both love and closeness (rs = -.25 and -.35, respec-
tively, ps < .01), such that more avoidant women characterized
their current relationship as somewhat lower in love and close-
ness.
Several findings, however, revealed that A/S scores were dis-
criminant from love and closeness. First, although the A/S in-
dex was somewhat correlated with Rubin's Love scale and the
RCI, the correlations were relatively small and reliable only for
women. Second, within-dyad correlations on love, closeness,
and the A/S index revealed striking differences between the
A/S index and the other two measures. Love and closeness were
highly correlated within dyads (within-dyad rs = .58 and .62 for
love and closeness, respectively, ps < .001). By contrast, the
within-dyad correlation for the A/S index was negligible (r =
-.05). The independence of men's and women's scores on the
A/S index suggests that this dimension does not assess the
global quality of the current relationship.
To marshal further evidence for discriminant validity, we
reconducted all analyses on which significant effects for the
A/S index emerged, partialing out scores on Rubin's Love scale
and the RCI from each dependent measure in Step 1 of each
above. We also conducted analyses (similar to the ones pre-
sented above involving the A/S index) in which love and close-
ness measures were substituted for the A/S index. Neither love
nor closeness reproduced the set of significant effects described
above. In fact, only one analysis, which involved an interaction
between women's closeness and men's supportive comments,
was significant. Viewed together, these results suggest that the
A/S index possesses good discriminant validity in relation to
measures of closeness and love.
Discussion
This investigation tested several hypotheses concerning how
spontaneous interaction between couples differs as a function
dyad is confronted with an anxiety-provoking situation. Find-
ings revealed that secure and avoidant persons differ in extent
of support seeking and support giving as a function of the level
of anxiety displayed by their romantic partner. Specifically,
more secure women tend to seek out more support as their level
of anxiety increases, whereas more avoidant women tend to
seek less support with increasing anxiety. Moreover, more se-
cure men tend to offer more support as their partners display
greater anxiety, whereas more avoidant men are less inclined to
do so. No significant effects emerged for the anxious attach-
ment style.
Two features of the present findings should be highlighted.
First, as discussed above, attachment theory proposes that envi-
ronmental events can and do influence the extent to which the
attachment system is activated and, therefore, the level of sup-
differ in attachment style. Indeed, the behavioral characteris-
tics prototypic of securely, avoidantly, and anxiously attached
persons should be most clearly witnessed when the system is
strongly activated. Consistent with this perspective, most of the
major results in this investigation involve interactions between
self-reported attachment style and observer-rated anxiety dis-
played by women. Hence, one cannot fully characterize the
typical behaviors displayed by secure and avoidant persons
without specifying the context in which the interaction occurs.
More avoidant men, for example, cannot be characterized as
cold, distant, or aloof in general. Although they do behave in
this manner when their partner experiences higher levels of
distress, their behavior is not the same when their partner's
distress is lower.
Second, the discriminant validation results suggest that the
present findings are attributable to attachment styles per se
rather than to more global indicators of interdependence, such
as love or closeness. Thesefindingsare consistent with our view
that attachment propensities should be conceptualized in spe-
 ATTACHMENT STYLES
cific rather than in general terms. Previous theory and research
indicates that attachment styles primarily serve to regulate how
individuals interpret, understand, and cope with negative emo-
tional experiences during stressful situations (cf. Kobak &
Sceery, 1988; Simpson, 1990). Distressing situations, however,
represent a limited subset of the events that normally occur
within and affect established relationships. Patterns of support
seeking and support giving associated with attachment styles,
of course, may influence other aspects of relationships, such as
satisfaction, closeness, and love between partners. Moreover,
such tendencies may influence certain kinds of relationships
more than others. For example, attachment styles may exert a
stronger influence within relationships facing chronic stress,
especially if stress accentuates the importance of effective sup-
port seeking and support giving. Nonetheless, the present re-
sults suggest that attachment styles have a unique domain of
applicability and that they are not merely global measures of
relationship functioning or quality.
The findings of this investigation can be classified into three
categories: support seeking, reactions to support, and support
giving. In what follows, we discuss these domains in the context
of existing research on attachment, noting some interesting par-
allels with research on attachment in children. Although longi-
tudinal evidence for continuity in attachment style over time
and across different relationships is mounting (see Sroufe et al.,
1990), any conclusions about continuity over the life span re-
main very tentative. The utility of Bowlby's (1969,1973,1980)
attachment theory for adult relationships, however, does not
require that attachment styles observed in adulthood date back
to infancy. As long as the patterns of attachment identified in
children are phenotypically similar to those that characterize
adults, and as long as the consequences of these styles for behav-
ior and emotions are similar across different developmental
levels, attachment theory remains a viable model for under-
standing adult relationships. Given this perspective, general
comparisons between children and adults may be informative,
regardless of whether continuity exists within individuals over
time.
Support Seeking
More securely attached women in this study used their
partners as a source of comfort and reassurance as their anxiety
increased, whereas more avoidant women retracted from their
partners both emotionally and physically. These results appear
to parallel those found with infants in Ainsworth et al.'s (1978)
Strange Situation. When confronted with anxiety, securely at-
tached children actively seek out close physical and emotional
contact with their attachment figure until anxiety abates, after
which normal behavior resumes. Avoidant children, on the
other hand, avoid and retract from their attachmentfigureeven
though anxiety remains high.
The findings presented in Figures 1 and 2 are interesting in
part because they suggest that, at lower levels of anxiety, more
avoidant women seek more support from their partners than
do more secure women, and more avoidant men provide more
support than do more secure men. As noted earlier, avoidant
persons are often thought of as cold, distant, and aloof. These
443
data, however, appear to contradict this impression. How can
this be explained?
To understand these findings, it is important to recognize
from the outset that our index of anxiety in women measured
relative anxiety in the experimental situation. Even women who
displayed less anxiety were, in all likelihood, at least somewhat
anxious or uncertain and in need of some support. To account
for why support seeking and support giving decline among
more avoidant persons when anxiety rises, we must return to
the conflict model of avoidance (Ainsworth et al., 1978). This
model holds that the behavior of avoidant persons is a product
of conflicting motives, namely a desire for, yet a simultaneous
fear of, proximity. When these motives are both strongly
aroused under stressful conditions, infants do not seek proxim-
ity. This, however, does not mean that avoidant infants never
seek proximity or always display clearly avoidant behavior
(Ainsworth et al, 1978). Under less stressful conditions in the
home or in laboratory play sessions, avoidant infants some-
times do seek proximity with their mother and protest when
separated from her.
Extrapolating from Ainsworth et al.'s (1978) research, we
speculate that desire for proximity in adults is aroused more
strongly than fear of proximity when environmental conditions
are only moderately threatening and emotional distress is at
lower levels. However, increases in perceived threat or distress
sharply accelerate the onset of fear of proximity, resulting in
decreased proximity seeking and giving. Moreover, at lower
levels of threat or distress, avoidant persons may typically over-
compensate vis-a-vis proximity because their motive to seek
proximity is often frustrated and rarely satisfied. Both Bowlby
(1969) and Ainsworth et al. argue that rebuffed efforts to
achieve proximity and frequent failure to achieve satisfactory
resolution of aroused proximity needs can create psychological
conditions in which proximity needs are characteristically
more "available" or more easily aroused.
The null effects for the anxious style in connection with sup-
port seeking could be attributable to the lower reliability of the
anxious attachment index compared to the avoidant/secure
one. Three pieces ofevidence, however, cast doubt on this expla-
nation. First, null results still emerged for the anxious attach-
ment index across all analyses, even when effect sizes were
corrected for attenuation that was due to the measure's lower
reliability (see Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Second, unlike previous
studies using categorical methods to measure anxious attach-
ment (eg., Hazan & Shaver, 1987), in this study the continuous
measure of anxious attachment did not suffer from low endorse-
ment rates; nullresults,therefore, are not due to problems asso-
ciated with restricted range. Third, at least one previous study
using the same continuous measure of anxious attachment has
revealed that this index does correlate highly and reliably with a
diverse array of external criteria (see Simpson, 1990). Hence,
the anxious attachment index has demonstrated predictive va-
lidity in past research. Taken together, these considerations
suggest that, rather than being a statistical artifact, the null
findings for the anxious attachment index may indeed be valid.
Like avoidant persons, anxiously attached persons also suffer
from internal conflict with regard to proximity needs. They
need and desire proximity yet fear they will notreceiveas much
of it as they desire because previous attachment figures have
444 J. SIMPSON, W RHOLES, AND J. NELLIGAN
been inconsistently available (Ainsworth et al., 1978). As a re-
sult, the need for proximity becomes associated with anger to-
ward the attachmentfigure.In the avoidant style, internal con-
flict typically leads to simple, unipolar avoidant behavior. In
the anxious style, however, internal conflict is acted out more
directly in conflicted, contradictory behavior—at least among
infants. When confronted with strong anxiety, they display
marked conflict and ambivalence in the presence of their at-
tachmentfigure,often blending contact-seeking behaviors with
angry, resistant, and dismissive ones (Ainsworth et al., 1978).
Because anxiously attached adults strongly desire close, support-
ive relationships (Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller, 1990;
Hazan & Shaver, 1987) but typically are not involved in them
(Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990), the behavior of highly
anxious people in the present study may reflect behavioral am-
bivalence in which tendencies to both approach and withdraw
from the partner effectively counterbalance one another. Fu-
ture research must determine whether the behavior of anxious
persons in this setting reflects genuine ambivalence.
Reactions to Support
Contrary to predictions, both more secure and more avoi-
dant women were calmed when their partners made supportive
comments. In fact, avoidant women appeared to be somewhat
more responsive to support than secure ones. This result is
intriguing in light of the fact that avoidant women were less
likely to mention the stressful event to their partners. One possi-
ble explanation for this unanticipated finding is that more avoi-
dant women may choose or produce romantic partners who
routinely provide them with less frequent support. When sup-
port is offered, however, it may have stronger and more positive
impact on avoidant women than on secure ones. Regardless of
how it is interpreted, this finding clearly indicates that more
avoidant persons do have proximity needs, for they appear to
benefit from receiving support.
The extent to which the stressful event was discussed also was
associated with the degree to which more avoidant women were
calmed, independent of the behavior displayed by their
partners. Discussion alone, however, was not related to calming
among more secure women. These findings raise interesting
questions for future research about what kinds of support might
be most effective for secure and avoidant persons. Among avoi-
dant persons, support expressed verbally may be more effective
than support expressed through physical contact. For secure
persons, considerable support may be derived merely from the
knowledge that the partner is emotionally available and respon-
sive if needed.
Support Giving
As their partners' level of anxiety increased, more securely
attached men in this study offered greater reassurance and
emotional support and made more supportive comments.
More avoidant men did not show these same trends. The conver-
sational measures revealed only modest increases in supportive
comments made by avoidant men as their female partners dis-
cussed their feelings of distress more extensively, and the adjec-
tive rating measures showed a decline in overall supportiveness
as partner anxiety increased. These findings corroborate and
provide context for previous work which has shown that women
describe secure men as being warm, self-disclosing, responsive,
and good facilitators of communication in relationships (Col-
lins & Read, 1990). They also suggest that anxiety impedes the
establishment of proximity in dyadic interactions involving
avoidant persons, both when it is experienced directly and
when it is experienced vicariously.
To date, relatively few studies have examined how attach-
ment styles affect support giving during spontaneous dyadic
interaction. Two studies, however, have focused on support giv-
ing during mother-child interactions. Crowell and Feldman
(1988) reported patterns of support giving among mothers that
are very similar to those observed among men in this study.
Specifically, mothers who possess a secure attachment style (as
assessed by a clinical interview) provide their children with
more support, help, and encouragement on difficult and stress-
ful tasks than do anxious/ambivalent and avoidant mothers.
Crowell and Feldman discovered a linear trend such that secure
mothers provided the most support, avoidant mothers offered
the least support, and anxious mothers demonstrated a level of
support between these two groups. Although the paradigm and
interactants used by Crowell and Feldman differ in many ways
from ours, similar patterns of support giving appear to have
emerged in these two different settings. Belsky, Rovine, and
Taylor (1984) also reportfindingsthat parallel the present ones.
Mothers of avoidant infants, who themselves tend to be avoid-
ant (Main et al., 1985), are highly involved with their infants
under most circumstances, even more so than mothers of se-
cure infants. Nonetheless, they respond much less supportively
than mothers of secure infants when their infants are dis-
tressed. In other words, the behaviors of these mothers are con-
tingent on their infants' emotional states in ways that are simi-
lar to the contingencies seen among more avoidant men in the
present study. These findings suggest that distressed infants
and distressed adult partners present significant relationship
problems for avoidant persons.
Conclusions and Caveats
Several recent studies have documented that securely at-
tached persons have more committed, satisfying, interdepen-
dent, and well-adjusted relationships relative to their avoidant
and anxious counterparts (Collins & Read, 1990; Hendrick &
Hendrick, 1989; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Levy & Davis, 1988;
Simpson, 1990). Little, however, is known about what kinds of
specific patterns of interaction might generate these global ef-
fects. Although differences in relationship quality can stem
from many different factors (see Berscheid, 1985), the present
findings suggest that one precipitating factor may involve
whether and to what extent romantic partners serve as mutual
sources of comfort and support, particularly under stressful
circumstances. Given that securely attached persons seek out
and provide support when distress arises in their relationships,
these tendencies may facilitate and perhaps produce stronger
interdependence and positive affect. Because avoidantly at-
tached persons fail to seek and offer such support, these pro-
clivities may promote weaker interdependence and greater neg-
ative affect. Future research must determine whether global
 ATTACHMENT STYLES
impressions of relationship quality directly produce these dif-
ferent styles of interaction, whether these styles produce the
global impressions, or whether other variables mediate the two.
This research advances previous work on adult attachment in
two important ways. First, it provides some of thefirstevidence
that adult attachment styles have clear and theoretically mean-
ingful effects on actual behavior during spontaneous dyadic in-
teractions. Second, this investigation represents one of the first
attempts to examine whether and how attachment styles moder-
ate dyadic interaction under stressful conditions in adults. Prior
research has focused almost entirely on how attachment styles
in infants and children differentially affect behavior under
stressful conditions.
The results of this study should be interpreted bearing three
caveats in mind. First, only women were subjected to anxiety,
and only men were given the opportunity to provide support in
this investigation. Although there are no a priori reasons to
expect that our effects should be specific to the differing "roles"
enacted by each sex, the findings for support seeking cannot
necessarily be generalized to men, and those for support giving
cannot be generalized to women. Second, despite the fact that
strong theoreticalreasonsexist to believe that attachment styles
may have directly influenced the behaviors and interaction
styles we observed, the correlational nature of the data do not
permit unambiguous causal inferences. Finally, even though
adults and children appear to exhibit similar patterns of sup-
port seeking and support giving when distressed as a function
of their attachment style, this investigation does not and cannot
address whether these patterns reflect the operation of attach-
ment styles that were first formed in early childhood.
References
Ainsworth, M. (1985). Attachments across the life span. Bulletin ofthe
New York Academy ofMedicine, 61, 792-812.
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Belsky, J., Rovine, M., & Taylor, D. G. (1984). The Pennsylvania infant
and family development project, III: The origins of individual dif-
ferences in infant-mother attachment: Maternal and infant contri-
butions. Child Development, 55, 718-728.
Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In G. Lindzey & E. Ar-
onson (Eds.), Handbook ofsocial psychology (3rd ed., pp. 413-484).
New York: Random House.
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The Relationship
Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal rela-
tionships. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 57,792-807.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and ance, and maternal training methods in the second year oflife. Devel-
anger. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. Lon- Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1984). Predicting rejection of her infant
don: Tavistock.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depres- for the abused-abusing intergenerational cycle. Child Abuse and Ne-
sion. New York: Basic Books.
Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. In
I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment
theory and research. Monographs ofthe Society for Research in Child
Development, 50(1 & 2), 3-35.
445
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multi-
variate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nded.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models,
and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal ofPersonality and
Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.
Crittenden, P. M., & Ainsworth, M. (1989). Child maltreatment and
attachment theory. In D. Cicchetti & Y Carlson (Eds.), Child mal-
treatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of
child abuse and neglect (pp. 432-463). Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Crowell, J. A., & Feldman, S. S. (1988). Mothers' internal models of
relationships and childrens' behavioral and developmental status: A
study of mother-child interaction. Child Development, 59, 1273-
1285.
Elicker, J., & Sroufe, L. A. (in press). Predicting peer competence and
peer relationships in childhood from early parent-child relation-
ships. In R. Parke & G. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships:
Modes oflinkage. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Erickson, M. E, Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship
between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool
in a high-risk sample. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 50(1 & 2), 147-166.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of
adult romanticrelationships.Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 58, 281-291.
Hazan, C, & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52,511-524.
Hendrick, C, & Hendrick, S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it mea-
sure up? Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 56, 784-794.
Jackson, D. N. (1971). The dynamics of structured personality tests:
1971. Psychological Review, 78, 229-248.
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Nonverbal communication in human interaction
(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence:
Working models, affect regulation, andrepresentationsof self and
others. Child Development, 59,135-146.
Levy, M. B., & Davis, K. E. (1988). Lovestyles and attachment styles
compared: Their relations to each other and to various relationship
characteristics. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 5,439-
471.
Lewis, M., Feiring, C, McGuffog, C, & Jaskir, J. (1984). Predicting
psychopathology in six-year-olds from early social relations. Child
Development, 55,123-136.
Loehlin, J. C. (1990). Component analysis versus common factor analy-
sis: A case of disputed authorship. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
25,29-31.
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological
theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694.
Londerville, S., & Main, M. (1981). Security of attachment, compli-
opmental Psychology, 17, 289-299.
from mother's representation of her own experience: Implications
glect, 8, 203-217.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, child-
hood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Mono-
graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1 & 2),
66-104.
446 J. SIMPSON, W RHOLES, AND J. NELLIGAN

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal ofPersonality Velicher, W E, & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Component analysis versus
and Social Psychology, 16, 265-273. common factor analysis: Some issues in selecting an appropriate
Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic rela- procedure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25,1-28.
tionships. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 59,971-980. Waters, E., Wippman, J., & Sroufe, L. A. (1979). Attachment, positive
Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of adap- affect, and competence in the peer group: Two studies in construct
tation in preschool: The roots of maladaptation and competence. In validation. Child Development, 50, 821-829.
M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology West, S. G., & Finch, J. E (in press). Measurement and analysis issues in
(Vol. 16, pp. 41-83). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. the investigation of personality structure. In S. Briggs, R. Hogan, &
Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., & Kreutzer, T. (1990). The fate of early W Jones (Eds.), Handbook ofpersonality psychology. San Diego, CA:
experience following developmental change: Longitudinal ap- Academic Press.
proaches to individual adaptation in childhood. Child Development,
61, 1363-1373.
Tinsley, H. E. A., & Weiss, D. J. (1975). Interrater reliability and agree- Received December 11,1990
ment of subjective judgments. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 22, Revision received October 10,1991
358-376. Accepted October 23,1991 •

Neuropsychology to Be an APA Journal

In January 1993, Neuropsychology, which has been published by the Educational

Publishing Foundation (a subsidiary publishing program of the American Psycho-
logical Association), will be published by the American Psychological Association.
The Publications and Communications Board of the APA has appointed Nelson
Butters as editor of Neuropsychology. As of January 1,1992, manuscripts should be
submitted to
Nelson Butters
Chief, Psychology Service (116B)
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center
3350 La Jolla Village Drive
La Jolla.CA 92161

Manuscripts considered by the incoming editor will be published beginning in the

January 1993 issue. Submitted manuscripts should fall within the following new
editorial policy statement:

The mission of Neuropsychology is to foster (a) basic research, (b) the

integration of basic and applied research, and (c) improved practice in the field
of neuropsychology, broadly conceived. The primary function of Neuropsy-
chology is to publish original, empirical papers in the field. Occasionally,
scholarly reviews and theoretical papers will also be published—all with the
goal of promoting empirical research on the relation between brain and human
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral function. Sought are submissions of
human experimental, cognitive, and behavioral research with implications for
neuropsychological theory and practice. Papers that increase our understand-
ing of neuropsychological functions in both normal and disordered states and
across the lifespan are encouraged. Applied, clinical research that will
stimulate systematic experimental, cognitive, and behavioral investigations as
well as improve the effectiveness, range, and depth of application is germane.
Neuropsychology seeks to be the vehicle for the best research and ideas in the
field.

View publication stats