protection and support, which is accompanied by a subjective sense of safety and security. This goal is made salient when people encounter actual or symbolic threats and notice that an attachment figure is not sufficiently near, interested, or responsive (Bowlby, 1982). In such cases, a person’s attachment system is upregulated and the person is motivated to increase or reestablish proximity to an attachment figure so that “felt security” (Sroufe & Waters, 1977) is attained.
Bowlby (1988) assumed that although age and development increase a person’s ability to gain comfort from internal, symbolic representations of attachment figures, no one at any age is completely free from reliance on actual others. The attachment system therefore remains active over the entire life span, as indicated by adults’ tendency to seek proximity and support when threatened or distressed (Zeifman & Hazan, 2016). Moreover, people of all ages are capable of becoming emotionally attached to a variety of relationship partners (e.g., siblings, friends, romantic partners, coaches, and leaders), using such people as “stronger and wiser” attachment figures (Bowlby, 1982) – i.e., as safe havens in times of need and secure bases from which to explore and develop skills – and suffering distress upon prolonged or permanent separation from these people (Bowlby, 1980; Fraley & Shaver, 2016).
Bowlby (1973) devoted a great deal of attention to individual differences in attachment‐system functioning that arise as a result of the availability, responsiveness, and supportiveness of a person’s key attachment figures, especially in times of need. Interactions with attachment figures who are available, sensitive, and supportive in times of need facilitate: (1) the smooth functioning of the attachment system; (2) promote a sense of connectedness and security; and (3) strengthen positive mental representations (working models) of self and others. In contrast, when attachment figures are not reliably available and supportive: (1) a sense of security is not attained; (2) worries about one’s social value and others’ intentions become ingrained; and (3) strategies of affect regulation other than proximity seeking are developed (secondary attachment strategies, characterized by anxiety and/or avoidance).
When studying individual differences in attachment‐system functioning in adults, attachment research has focused primarily on attachment orientations (or styles) – patterns of relational expectations, emotions, and behaviors that result from internalizing a particular history of attachment experiences (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Research, beginning with Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) and continuing through scores of recent studies by social and personality psychologists (for a review see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016), indicates that attachment styles are conceptually located in a two‐dimensional space defined by two roughly orthogonal dimensions, attachment anxiety and attachment‐related avoidance (Brennan et al., 1998). The avoidance dimension reflects the extent to which a person distrusts relationship partners’ goodwill and defensively strives to maintain behavioral independence and emotional distance. The anxiety dimension reflects the extent to which a person worries that a partner will not be available in times of need, partly because of the person’s self‐doubts about his or her own love‐worthiness. People who score low on both dimensions are said to be secure with respect to attachment. A person’s location in the two‐dimensional space can be measured with reliable and valid self‐report scales (e.g., the Experiences in Close Relationships scale, ECR, Brennan et al., 1998), and this location is associated in theoretically predictable ways with a wide variety of measures of relationship quality and psychological adjustment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).
We (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003) proposed that a person’s location in the two‐dimensional anxiety‐by‐avoidance space reflects both his or her sense of attachment security and the ways in which he or she deals with threats and stressors. People who score low on these dimensions are generally secure, hold positive working models of self and others, and tend to employ constructive and effective affect‐regulation strategies. Those who score high on either attachment anxiety or avoidance, or both (a condition called fearful avoidance), suffer from attachment insecurities, self‐related worries, and distrust of others’ goodwill and responsiveness in times of need. Moreover, these insecure people tend to use secondary attachment strategies that we, following Cassidy and Kobak (1988), conceptualize as attachment‐system “hyperactivating” or “deactivating” to cope with threats, frustrations, rejections, and losses.
People who score high on attachment anxiety rely on hyperactivating strategies – energetic attempts to achieve support and love combined with a lack of confidence that these resources will be provided and with feelings of anger and despair when they are not provided (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988). These reactions occur in relationships in which an attachment figure is sometimes responsive but unreliably so, placing the needy person on a partial reinforcement schedule that rewards exaggeration and persistence in proximity‐seeking attempts because these efforts sometimes succeed. In contrast, people who score high on attachment‐related avoidance tend to use deactivating strategies: trying not to seek proximity to others when threatened, denying vulnerability and needs for other people, and avoiding closeness and interdependence in relationships. These strategies develop in relationships with attachment figures who disapprove of and punish frequent expressions of need and bids for closeness (Shaver & Hazan, 1993).
Interpersonal Manifestations of Attachment Orientations
People enter social interactions with knowledge and attitudes that they acquired during past interactions with the same relationship partner, or they transfer and apply knowledge and attitudes based on previous relationships (Brumbaugh & Fraley, 2006). These cognitive construals include a person’s goal structure (the goals he or she frequently seeks during social interactions) and knowledge about self and others (beliefs about one’s worth, skills, and efficacy; beliefs about a partner’s likely motives and actions). These construals can bias feelings and behavior during an interpersonal interaction via top‐down, schematic processes that favor attention to and encoding of information that reinforces expectations and encourages the ignoring or dismissal of information that invalidates expectations. More important, these construals are parts or offshoots of a person’s attachment orientation, and they are among the main vehicles by which these orientations would shape relational cognitions, feelings, and behaviors and bias relationship satisfaction and stability.
A host of studies have shown that attachment orientations are associated with the goals that people pursue in interpersonal interactions. Specifically, more avoidant people are more likely to prioritize distance‐related goals, whereas more anxious people are more likely to prioritize closeness‐related goals (e.g., Greenwood & Long, 2011; Van Petegem et al., 2013). For example, in a longitudinal study, Van Petegem et al. (2013) found that anxious attachment among adolescents measured at one time point predicted lower levels of autonomy goals within a family context a year later. In another study, Fraley and Marks (2011) found that avoidant people implicitly preferred distancing in a motor task in which participants were instructed to push or pull a lever in response to lexical stimuli. More avoidant participants were faster to push the lever away from themselves when presented with the word “Mom.”
There is also evidence that people differing in attachment orientations also differ in the way they perceive others. Numerous studies have shown that individuals who score higher on attachment anxiety or avoidance have more negative explicit and implicit views of relationship partners, hold more negative expectations concerning their relationship partners’ behavior, and tend to explain a partner’s hurtful behavior in more negative terms (e.g., Chavis & Kisley, 2012; Collins et al., 2006). For example, Baldwin et al. (1993) examined the cognitive accessibility of expectations regarding a partner’s behavior, using a lexical‐decision task, and found that avoidant people had readier mental access to representations of negative partner behaviors (e.g., the partner being hurtful) than did secure people. In addition, Collins et al. (2006) found that less secure people, either more anxious or avoidant, tended to attribute a partner’s hurtful behavior to the partner’s personality and bad intentions and were more likely to believe that this behavior was likely to destroy the relationship.
Hundreds
