Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction Among First Married

Journal of Family Therapy (2018) 40: S111–S127 doi: 10.1111/1467-6427.12161

Attachment and relationship satisfaction among ﬁrst married, remarried, and post-divorce relationships

Rachel M. Diamond,a Andrew S. Brimhallb and Michael Elliottc

This study examined relationship satisfaction and adult attachment in a sample of 562 participants: 340 in a first marriage (60.5%); 122 separated/ divorced from their first spouse (21.7%); and 100 in a second marriage (17.8%). For participants in a relationship (dating or married), findings indicated no differences between groups on relationship satisfaction; instead, attachment served as a better predictor of satisfaction. Further, no differences existed when comparing first- and second-married participants on attachment. Differences existed between separated/divorced participants and first- and second-married participants on most attachment indexes; similarities existed between separated/divorce and second-married participants on levels of preoccupation and model of self. When comparing non- dating and dating separated/divorced participants, dating participants reported higher secure attachment and models of others and lower fearful attachment. Clinical and research implications will be discussed.

Practitioner points • Contrary to most extant literature, attachment styles and behav- iour may be a better predictor of relationship satisfaction than relationship type (e.g. ﬁrst vs. second marriage) • Consider the important role of attachment within relationships throughout adulthood and how attachment styles may differ in different types of relationships • Attachment frameworks should be used when developing interventions for couples to increase relationship satisfaction and attachment security

Keywords: attachment theory; couples; divorce; relationship satisfaction; repartnering.

a Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Marriage & Family Therapy Program, University of Saint Joseph, 1678 Asylum Ave, Mercy Hall, 302, West Hartford, CT 06117. Email: [email protected]. b Department of Human Development & Family Science, East Carolina University. c Department of Biostatistics, Saint Louis University.

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice S112 Rachel M. Diamond et al. A common ﬁnding cited by family scholars is that second and subsequent marriages are less stable than the ﬁrst (Ganong and Coleman, 2004; Sweeney, 2010); however, few agree on the reason. Some potential explanations include: (a) a lack of institutionalized standards for remarried couples and their families (Cherlin, 1978; Ganong and Coleman, 2004); (b) personality characteristics that are risk factors, making some partners prone to divorce; and (c) the number of ‘good marriage partners’ dwindles as the pool of available partners dwindles (Amato, Booth, Johnson and Rogers, 2007; Sweeney, 2010). While the topic of divorce and remarriage continues to receive empir- ical attention, it often lacks a strong theoretical foundation and, as such, important aspects of this phenomenon are not fully understood (Feeney and Monin, 2008; Sassler, 2010). One theory that can help family scholars understand divorce is attachment theory (Feeney and Monin, 2008).

Post-divorce attachment and relationship satisfaction Marital dissolution can be seen as one of the most difficult events an adult can face because it disrupts a primary affectional bond (Feeney and Monin, 2008). Attachment theory can help us understand the impact of divorce because attachment, separation and loss are central issues. Attachment theory also provides a framework for understanding the process of losing an attachment bond, as well as considerations for how individuals might respond to new romantic relationships (Brimhall and Engblom-Deglmann, 2011; Brimhall, Wampler and Kimball, 2008). However, depending on which findings from attachment literature are emphasized, divorced partners may receive conflicting information. The first emphasizes the power of attachment injuries and how traumatic events can often result in a person adopt- ing a ‘never again’ stance towards reliance on others (Brimhall et al., 2008; Brimhall and Engblom-Deglmann, 2011; Johnson, Makinen and Millikin, 2001). This story has been repeatedly reinforced throughout the divorce literature, which typically highlights the negative trajectory that follows marital dissolution. When considering this message within an attachment framework, it seems to suggest that a decrease in one’s attachment security could be expected immediately following the end of a meaningful relationship. Since an individual’s spouse is thought to be the primary attachment figure in adulthood, separation or divorce has been shown to be associated with a

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice Attachment and relationship satisfaction S113 perception that one’s partner was lacking accessibility, emotional responsiveness and engagement, which can reinforce feelings of self- doubt and rejection (Brimhall et al., 2008; Johnson, 2008). Further support for a negative shift in attachment security has been demonstrated by a longitudinal study by Kirkpatrick and Hazan (1994), in which the breakup of a romantic relationship caused previously secure individuals to describe themselves as insecure. Thus, it seems imperative to at least consider attachment in the context of relationship transitions. The other narrative focuses on the relatively new acknowledge- ment that regards attachment processes as fluid, and sees attachment security as something that can be rebuilt. Despite Bowlby’s (1988) early contention that every meaningful interaction provides the opportunity to alter beliefs about the availability and supportiveness of primary attachment figures, historically the literature on attachment focused on the static nature of attachment, believing it is pri- marily set through early childhood interactions (thus minimizing its more fluid, interrelational nature). Remarriage statistics clearly indicate that despite the fact that divorce is difficult and traumatic, many individuals seek out new romantic relationships and often remarry quickly (Sweeney, 2010). From this perspective, it is plausible that new interactions with an individual’s partner could lead to earned security. Thus, persons who are in positive romantic relationships following divorce could in fact demonstrate attachment security. Given these conflicting stories, in which it is possible that differences exist in attachment security based on relationship status, we must compare relationship types (e.g. first marriage, dating post-divorce and remarriage) to see how they compare in relationship satisfaction. If differences do exist, we can explore what role attachment plays in these differences.

Research aims and hypotheses The present study examined individuals’ relationship satisfaction and attachment styles in reference to their current relationship status. Individuals were recruited from three groups to make comparisons between relationship types: individuals in a ﬁrst marriage; individuals separated or divorced from a ﬁrst spouse, but not remarried; and individuals in a second marriage following divorce. Based on an attachment framework, it was hypothesized that: (1) measures of

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice S114 Rachel M. Diamond et al. attachment would be associated with differences in satisfaction between relationship groups; (2) first marriages would have higher levels of attachment security than post-divorce participants (i.e. those separated/divorced, not remarried and in second marriages); and (3) participants in dating relationships post-divorce would have higher levels of attachment security than their non-dating post-divorce counterparts. The present study’s hypotheses seek to explore the two narratives described in the literature above. First, previous literature has consis- tently used first marriages as the reference point for subsequent marriages. From this point of view, attachment is more static and, as such, first married partners are assumed to have higher levels of attachment security than their divorced counterparts (hypothesis 2). How- ever, new literature suggests that attachment is more fluid and, as such, individuals can regain attachment security irrespective of relational type (hypothesis 3). It is important to consider both perspec- tives rather than simply assume first marriages are the gold standard.

Methodology Participants and procedure Participants were recruited without compensation via convenience sampling through national and local (Midwest) listservs and message boards targeting individuals who were in first marriages, separated or divorced, and/or were remarried. Individuals (not couples) were recruited from three groups in order to be able to make comparisons between relational groups: first marriages; separated and/or divorced from their first spouse, but not remarried;1 and second marriages following divorce. This process resulted in a sample of 562 individuals: 340 participants in a first marriage (60.5%), 122 unmarried participants who were separated and/or divorced (21.7%), and 100 participants in a second marriage (17.8%). General demographic characteristics of the sample can be found in Table 1. In regards to relationship demographics, the majority (59%) of previously married participants (separated/divorced and second- married individuals) indicated that their first marriage dissolved within ten years, with an average first marriage length of 4.26 years (SD 5 1.8). Fifty-eight (47.5%) of the separated/divorced participants identified as being in a dating relationship; sixty-four (52.5%) did not. A group comparison of previously married participants’ (i.

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice Attachment and relationship satisfaction S115 TABLE 1 Participant demographics First Separated/ Second marriagea divorcedb marriagec DEMOGRAPHICS N % N % N % Gender Male 49 14.4 23 18.9 22 22.0 Female 291 85.6 99 81.1 78 78.0 Race Caucasian 314 92.4 110 90.2 90 90.0 Hispanic 6 1.8 1 0.8 1 1.0 African American 10 2.9 5 4.1 5 5.0 Native American 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Asian 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Biracial 6 1.8 2 1.6 1 1.0 Other 2 0.6 4 3.3 3 3.0 Age 18–24 10 2.9 2 1.6 1 1.0 25–34 122 35.9 20 16.4 9 9.0 35–44 87 25.6 32 26.2 27 27.0 45–54 67 19.7 37 30.3 38 38.0 55–64 42 12.4 31 25.4 23 23.0 651 12 3.5 0 0 2 2.0 Education High school 12 3.5 7 5.7 4 4.0 Some college 62 18.2 22 18.0 20 20.0 Vocational 9 2.6 2 1.6 3 3.0 College 90 26.5 41 33.6 20 20.0 Some graduate school 29 8.5 19 15.6 10 10.0 Graduate school 138 40.6 31 25.4 43 43.0 Note: an5 340. bn5 122. cn5100. e. separated/divorced vs. second-married) dating experience demonstrated no significant difference in number of post-divorce dating partners, v2(3, N 5 215) 5 4.592, p 5 .204. When comparing length of courtship before marriage, first-married participants dated significantly longer (M 5 3.40 years, SD 5 1.03) than second-married participants (M 5 3.04 years, SD 5 1.06), t(438) 5 3.032, p 5 .003. However, during courtship a significantly smaller percentage of first-married participants cohabited (48.2%) compared to second-married participants (73.0%); v2 (1, N 5 440) 5 19.07, p < .001. Lastly, current length of marriage was significantly longer (p 5.003) for first-married participants (M 5 5.10 years, SD 5 2.17) compared to the second-married participants (M 5 4.39 years, SD 5 1.90).

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice S116 Rachel M. Diamond et al. Instruments Participants accessed an online, self-administered survey which included informed consent, demographic questions and questionnaires. Demo- graphic questions asked about gender, race, age, education and relationship experiences (past and present). Questionnaires measured adult attachment styles and, if in a romantic relationship, relationship satisfaction.

Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS; Busby, Christensen, Crane and Larson, 1995). The RDAS is a 14-item self-report instrument used to distinguish between distressed and nondistressed individuals and relationships (Busby et al., 1995). The RDAS has three subscales: dyadic consensus, dyadic satisfaction, and dyadic cohesion. Totals range from 0 to 69. Higher scores represent nondistress; a score of 48 is the established cutoff (Crane, Middleton and Bean, 2000). Busby et al. (1995) demonstrated the RDAS to have acceptable model fit and an internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .90 and Spearman-Brown split-half reliability coefficient of .95. The RDAS was chosen due to its ability to assess individuals in a range of relationships; thus, it was used with all participants in a relationship (dating or married).

Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991). The RQ was utilized to measure participants’ self-reports of adult attachment styles. This instrument consists of four descriptions, one for each attachment style: secure, dismissing, preoccupied and fearful. Participants were asked to rate each description on a 7-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 7 (very much like me). The reliability estimates for the RQ classiﬁcations has a kappa of .35 and r’s of .50 (Crowell, Fraley and Shaver, 2008).

Relationship Styles Questionnaire (RSQ; Grifﬁn and Bartholomew, 1994). The RSQ is a 30-item self-report instrument also used to measure adult attachment styles. Participants were asked to rate each state- ment to indicate the extent they believed items described their feelings about relationships with others on a 5-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me). Similar to the RQ, items correspond to the four attachment styles, providing a score for each style. Additionally, the instrument measures the two dimensions that underlie attachment styles: model of self and model of others.

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice Attachment and relationship satisfaction S117 These two variables – the model of self and the model of others – are independent and have two levels (i.e. positive vs. negative). Thus, combinations of the two dimensions form the four attachment pat- terns: secure (self-positive, other-positive), preoccupied (self-negative, other-positive), dismissing (self-positive, other-negative) and fearful (self-negative, other-negative). Based on these dimensions: secure persons have a sense of self-worth and expectation that others are generally responsive and accepting; preoccupied persons attempt to improve low self-worth by gaining approval from others; dismissing persons have a positive image of self, combined with expectations that others will be rejecting, resulting in independence while rejecting others; fearful persons have a negative image of self, combined with expectations that others will be rejecting, resulting in avoidance of close relationships (Wilhelm and Parker, 2016). Description of calcu- lations for determining classiﬁcations based on models of self and others can be found in ‘Results’ (below). Due to the multi-item nature of the RSQ, it has a somewhat higher reliability than the RQ (r’s of .65 for the scales assessing each of the four attachment styles; Crowell et al., 2008).

Results Prior to conducting analyses, values were screened for missing data, multivariate outliers and normality using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences; 17.0.0 for Windows). Attachment ratings from both the RQ and RSQ were converted into standardized z-scores and combined to create continuous indexes (see Ognibene and Collins, 1998). By having multiple continuous indexes, an attachment profile is created to portray participants’ attachment feelings and behaviours. This is a recommended shift away from solely having a categorical assessment that yields one score (i.e. attachment type), as people rarely fit definitively into one classification of attachment (Kurdek, 2002). All correlations of attachment indexes were in the expected direction. See Table 2 for correlation and descriptive statistics for all study variables. In order to examine the theoretical dimensions underlying the attachment styles, the four continuous adult attachment style indexes were used to form two additional indexes: model of self and model of others. Based on procedures suggested by Bartholomew and col- leagues (Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991; Griffin and Bartholomew, 1994), the model of self index was computed as follows:

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice S118 Rachel M. Diamond et al. TABLE 2 Correlations and distributional and scale properties of study variables Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Secure attachment – 2. Dismissing 2.69** – attachment 3. Preoccupied 2.21** 2.01 – attachment 4. Fearful attachment 2.62** .79** 2.10* – 5. Model of self .72** 2.31** 2.73** 2.44** – 6. Model of others .74** 2.87** .33** 2.88** .25** – 7. Satisfaction .19** 2.20** 2.25** 2.16** .26** .10* – M (SD) First-married .08 2.10 2.06 2.05 .10 1.70 50.23 measures (n 5 340) (.90) (.78) (.88) (.77) (1.39) (2.32) (8.12) 1 M (SD) Separated/ 2.27 .35 .17 .23 2.32 2.67 50.21 divorced measures (n 5 122) (.91) (.87) (1.04) (.86) (1.57) (2.50) (8.40) M (SD) Second- .04 2.10 2.01 2.11 .06 1.31 48.87 married measures (n 5 100) (.90) (.79) (.85) (.78) (1.31) (2.42) (11.54) 1 Includes only participants in dating relationship post-divorce (n 5 58). *p < .05 level ** p < .01. secure 1 dismissing – fearful – preoccupied (Ognibene and Collins, 1998). The model of others index was computed as follows: secure- 1 preoccupied – dismissing – fearful (Ognibene and Collins, 1998). As expected, the correlation between model of self and others was weak (r 5.25). In addition to continuous indexes, a categorical measure of attachment was created by assigning participants to the attachment style in which they scored the highest. This categorical measure was created in order to conduct analyses that were not possible using continuous indexes.

Relationship satisfaction and attachment. Analyses examined the role between satisfaction, relationship types, and attachment differences. First, a one-way ANOVA was conducted using the categorical measures of attachment and the satisfaction scores for all participants in a relationship (married or dating). Results demonstrated a statistically sig- niﬁcant difference between attachment styles and satisfaction, F(3, 493) 5 9.430, p < .001. A Tukey HSD post hoc test revealed that participants categorized as secure had signiﬁcantly higher satisfaction scores (M 5 52.28, SD 5 8.18) than participants categorized as

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice Attachment and relationship satisfaction S119

Figure 1. Attachment styles and relationship satisfaction. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] dismissing (p 5 .004, M 5 48.42, SD 5 8.38), preoccupied (p < .001, M 5 47.43, SD 5 9.03) or fearful (p 5 .009, M 5 48.84, SD 5 9.80). Amongst the insecure attachment types, there were no significant differences on satisfaction (dismissing vs. preoccupied, p 5 .864; dismissing vs. fearful, p 5 .988; preoccupied vs. fearful, p 5 .660). In other words, results demonstrated that secure types had significantly higher relationship satisfaction than insecure types. A visual representation of these results can be found in Figure 1. Results of the ANOVA reflect those found through correlations (Table 2). When analyses were rerun as two-way ANOVAs, with relationship group (i.e. first-married, separated/divorce, second-married) added as an additional independent variable, no significant interaction between the effects of relationship group and attachment on relationship satisfaction were found, F(6,485) 5 .899, p 5 .495. Thus, examin- ing the data by relationship groups provided no additional information for understanding relationship satisfaction.

Attachment by group. In order to assess attachment styles by relationship group, a one-way ANOVA was conducted based on the three

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice S120 Rachel M. Diamond et al. levels of between-subject variables (i.e. first-married, separated/ divorced and second-married) and the continuous indexes of attachment as the dependent variable. Significant differences were revealed on all four attachment indexes, as well as for models of self and others. Subsequent post hoc tests revealed no differences between the married groups; first- and second-married participants were similar on all indexes of attachment and models of self and others. Differen- ces emerged on all indexes for the separated/divorced group compared to the first-married group and almost all indexes compared to the second-married group. Results of these tests are presented below.

Attachment security. Results demonstrated a significant difference for secure attachment between relationship groups, F(2,559) 5 6.996, p 5 .001. A Tukey HSD post hoc test revealed separated/divorced participants reported significantly lower scores on secure attachment compared to first- (p 5 .001) and second-married (p 5.029) participants.

Attachment insecurity. Separated/divorced participants reported significantly higher scores on dismissing attachment compared to first- (p < .001) and second-married (p <.001) participants, as well as fearful attachment (p 5 .003 and p 5 .005, respectively). When assessing differences related to preoccupied attachment, only a marginal difference emerged between relationship groups, Welch F(2,210.6) 5 2.386, p 5.095. A Tukey HSD post hoc test revealed separated/divorced participants reported significantly higher scores on preoccupied attachment compared to first-married participants (p 5 .043); no significant difference emerged when making comparison with second-married participants (p 5 .288).

Models of self and others. Results demonstrated significance for both models of self and others between relationship groups. A Tukey HSD post-hoc tests revealed separated/divorced participants reported significantly lower scores on model of self compared to first-married participants (p 5 .015); the difference for second-married participants fell short of significance (p 5 .103). For model of others, scores were significantly lower for separated/divorced participants compared to both first- (p 5 .002) and second-married (p 5.012) participants.

Attachment within group. Because an aim of this study was to compare relationship groups post-divorce, t-tests were conducted utilizing continuous indexes of attachment to examine if attachment differences

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice Attachment and relationship satisfaction S121 existed between the dating separated/divorced participants and their non-dating counterparts. Results indicated that participants in dating relationships had signiﬁcantly higher indexes of secure attachment (M 52.08, SD 5 .93) compared to participants who were not (M 52.44, SD 5 .86), t(120) 5 2.272, p 5 .025; lower indexes of fearful attachment (M 5 .07, SD 5 .86) compared to their non-dating counterparts (M 5 .37, SD 5 .85), t(120) 521.973, p 5 .051; and higher models of others (M 52.12, SD 5 2.41) compared to their non-dating counterparts (M 521.17, SD 5 2.49), t(120) 5 2.349, p 5 .02.

Discussion The present study used an attachment framework to address several inquiries aimed at deepening our understanding of the potential effects of divorce on subsequent relationships. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, attachment served as a predictor variable for explain- ing satisfaction between relationship groups. Hypothesis 2 was par- tially supported. Unmarried separated/divorced participants were signiﬁcantly less secure than the ﬁrst-married participants on all attachment indexes. While the separated/divorced participants were less secure than second-married participants, they did not differ from second-married participants on preoccupation and model of self. First- and second-married participants did not differ on any style of attachment or models of self or others. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, dating post-divorce participants had higher indexes of secure attachment, lower indexes of fearful attachment and higher indexes on models of others compared to their non-dating counterparts.

Satisfaction While research has typically turned to relationship satisfaction to explain differences between relationship groups, the present study demonstrated that attachment is associated with these constructs. Par- ticipants with higher attachment security had higher levels of satisfaction in their relationships, whether they were in a ﬁrst marriage, second marriage or dating post-divorce. This was consistent with previous research that identiﬁed adult attachment to be a strong predictor of romantic relationship quality (e.g. Butzer and Campbell, 2008; Li and Chan, 2011). Indeed, looking at relationship satisfaction alone may not be the key to providing the most practical information. Instead, we may need to look to other constructs, such as attachment.

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice S122 Rachel M. Diamond et al. Attachment security When generating hypotheses for the present study we expected that the experience of having a significant relationship terminated would be associated with lower levels of attachment security. We also hypothesized that being in a relationship may be associated with higher levels of attachment for those who had experienced marital dissolution. Thus, we hypothesized that separated/divorced participants and remarried participants would have lower levels of attachment security than those in first marriages, and that participants dating post-divorce would have higher levels of attachment security than their non-dating counterparts. The results, however, only par- tially supported this hypothesis. As expected, participants in the separated/divorced group were significantly less secure than participants in the first-married group on all attachment indexes. When comparing separated/divorced participants with those in a second marriage, participants differed on all attachment indexes and model of others; there were no differences between groups for preoccupation and model of self. There has been an ongoing debate whether one’s attachment style is a characteristic of the individual (i.e. individual’s dispositional attachment style) or of a specific relationship (Akister and Reibstein, 2004). In light of the cross-sectional design of the present study, both explanations are plausible and will be utilized to explore the findings. An important finding demonstrated in the present study was a lack of differences between the two married groups (i.e. first and second marriages) on any attachment index or models of self and others. Uti- lizing the latter explanation described above, that attachment styles are related to one’s relationship, results from the present study may indicate that individuals achieve attachment security from a romantic relationship, whether the relationship be a first or second marriage. In adult attachment relationships, each partner functions as an attachment figure for the other. Within this system, spouses can positively enhance one another’s attachment security (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007). The present study also demonstrated that individuals may not need to marry in order to achieve the benefits of attachment security. That is, participants who were in a dating relationship post-divorce had significantly higher indexes of secure attachment, lower indexes of fearful attachment and higher models of others compared to their non-dating counterparts; there were no differences on other indexes. It appears that being in a relationship is associated with attachment

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice Attachment and relationship satisfaction S123 security. In addition to an understanding of attachment security, there were also results demonstrating that separated/divorced individuals and those in second marriages had higher levels of preoccupation (or more negative models of self). We may be able to understand these results by taking into account the shared experience of marital dissolution for these groups, and perhaps this experience served as an attachment injury. That is, following marital dissolution the person was left feeling rejected and unworthy of love. As a result they may question others’ ability to love them (negative model of self) and initially rely on others for validation (preoccupation). After that has been reinforced repeatedly (Brimhall et al., 2008) in the context of a new relationship, the model of self can be reafﬁrmed and attachment security strength- ened. However, a complementary explanation also exists. While attachment security as a function of romantic relationships seems like a viable explanation, it should be noted that individuals could be in a relationship because they are (and always have been) secure. That is, using the alternative explanation regarding attachment, it is plausible that one’s attachment style is a characteristic of the individual (i.e. individual’s dispositional attachment style). Thus, those who choose to date post-divorce are persons who had higher levels of attachment security to begin with and, therefore, are the persons most likely to remarry. Accordingly, it is possible that the participants currently in relationships were initially more secure and inclined towards intimacy with others due to their tendency to view relationships as rewarding and desirable (i.e. positive model of others). Simply speaking, this explanation would imply that more securely attached participants are more likely to enter relationships that are secure. This explanation is also consistent with the results of the present study that demonstrated higher scores on model of others, in addition to the higher levels of security and lower levels of fearful attachment within the separated/divorced group engaging in dating relationships. Given that this data is not longitudinal it is impossible to determine a cause and effect relationship and as a result both explanations must be considered. Thus, future research should consider exploring attachment and relationships longitudinally.

Clinical implications The ﬁndings of the present study can be used to aid those who work with individuals and couples in various relationship types. Indeed, therapy can be a meaningful place to explore the relationship between

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice S124 Rachel M. Diamond et al. attachment security and relationship satisfaction within romantic relationships. Based on the present ﬁndings, it was not clear if individuals in relationships post-divorce reported higher levels of attachment security because they were in a relationship again or if individuals dated post-divorce because they had higher levels of attachment security. However, ﬁndings from the present study did demonstrate that higher attachment security is associated with a person being more likely to have a satisfying couple relationship, whether that relationship be within the context of courtship or marriage. Based on these ideas, clinicians should consider utilizing an attachment framework when conceptualizing methods of developing interventions to both increase attachment security and relationship satisfaction.

Limitations and future research The present study utilized an internet methodology of recruitment in an attempt to reach a greater number of respondents and overall sample diversity. The sample was not representative of any particular population; however, the sample recruited was highly Caucasian, female and educated. Within Sweeney’s (2010) decade review of remarriage and stepfamilies, scholars were encouraged to seek out variations in experiences across age, gender, race, ethnicity and social class. Future recruitment efforts should specifically seek to access individuals with diverse backgrounds to ensure the generalizability of the present results. It was initially hoped that participant groups would be differenti- ated by relational categories. The present study was unable to differ- entiate between the unmarried individuals who were separated and divorced because the sample size of separated individuals was too small to run meaningful comparative analyses. Therefore, divorced and separated participants were combined. Comparisons between first- and second-married groups, however, were achieved and significant differences found. These results suggest that important changes based on relationship experiences may be associated with levels of attachment security. This, however, could differ based on perceived level of loss of an attachment figure. Indeed, research that focuses on the socially ambiguous status that separated persons face – not quite married, not quite divorced – is lacking and would be of future inter- est (Amato, 2010), particularly as it relates to attachment. A final limitation of the present study was its cross-sectional design. There is always a need for longitudinal research that follows

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice Attachment and relationship satisfaction S125 individuals throughout the divorce process (Amato, 2010). Because of the present study’s design we were able to describe differences between groups, but were unable to understand how attachment and satisfaction transforms over time as people move in and out of relationships post-divorce. While it may seem apparent that attachment security could be damaged both during and after divorce, is it possible for an individual’s security to be restored? Conducting a longitudinal study could answer the question of how attachment is affected by the dissolution of important romantic relationships and how the development of a new satisfying relationship could impact one’s attachment.

Conclusions and implications The emphasis of too many studies within the literature on divorce and remarriage has been to identify problems within couples and stepfamilies (Coleman, Ganong and Fine, 2000). The use of a deficit- comparison approach between first marriages and remarriages has continued to create a pessimistic attitude about the ability for post- divorce couples to have satisfying relationships and has created doubts about these couples’ ability to function as well as first marriages (Ganong and Coleman, 2004). While the present study did use a between-group comparison approach, it was not to suggest first marriages are the best or only acceptable relationship structure; instead, it was to explore attachment styles following separation and/or divorce to gain a deeper understanding of each unique group. Results demonstrated that attachment security, regardless of the type of relationship (first marriage, dating post-divorce, second marriage), is associated with a person being more likely to have satisfying couple relationships. Furthermore, the present study demonstrated that individuals in remarriages did not differ on level of attachment security compared to their first-married counterparts. While this study contributed to the literature by utilizing a theoretical framework to link attachment styles to post-divorce repartnering, more research is required to help clinicians and researchers understand how attachment styles change over time as individuals move in and out of relationships and how relationship partners may influence individuals’ sense of attachment security.

Note 1 We chose to combine participants who were separated and participants who were divorced because the sample size of separated

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice S126 Rachel M. Diamond et al. participants was not large enough to run meaningful comparative analyses.

References Akister, J. and Reibstein, J. (2004) Links between attachment theory and systemic practice: some proposals. Journal of Family Therapy, 26: 2–16. DOI: 10.1111/ j.1467-6427.2004.00264.x. Amato, P. R. (2010) Research on divorce: continuing trends and new develop- ments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72: 650–666. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741- 3737.2010.00723.x. Amato, P. R., Booth, A., Johnson, D. R. and Rogers, S. J. (2007) Alone together: how marriage in America is changing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bartholomew, K. and Horowitz, L. (1991) Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2): 226–244. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226 Brimhall, A. S. and Engblom-Deglmann, M. L. (2011) Starting over: a tentative theory exploring the effects of past relationships on postbereavement remarried couples. Family Process, 50(1): 47–62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01345.x. Brimhall, A. S., Wampler, K. S. and Kimball, T. G. (2008) Learning from the past, altering the future: a tentative theory of the effect of past relationships on couples who remarry. Family Process, 47(3): 373–387. Bowlby, J. (1988) A secure base. New York, NY: Basic Books. Busby, D. M., Christensen, C., Crane, D. R. and Larson, J. H. (1995) A revision of the dyadic adjustment scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21(3): 289–308. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00163.x. Butzer, B. and Campbell, L. (2008) Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: a study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15 (1): 141–154. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00189.x. Cherlin, A. (1978) Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American Journal of Sociology, 84(3): 634–650. DOI: 10.1086/226830. Coleman, M., Ganong, L. and Fine, M. (2000) Reinvestigating remarriage: another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4): 1288–1307. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01288.x. Crane, D. R., Middleton, K. C. and Bean, R. A. (2000) Establishing criterion scores for the Kansas Martial Satisfaction Scale and the Revised Dyadic Adjust- ment Scale. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28(1): 53–60. DOI: 10.1080/ 019261800261815. Crowell, J. A., Fraley, R. C. and Shaver, P. R. (2008) Measurement of individual differences in adolescent and adult attachment. In J. Cassidy and P.R. Shaver (eds.) Handbook of attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed.) (pp. 599–634). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Feeney, B. C. and Monin, J. K. (2008) An attachment-theoretical perspective on divorce. In J. Cassidy and P. R. Shaver (eds.) Handbook of attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed.) (pp. 934–957). New York, NY: Guil- ford Press.

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice Attachment and relationship satisfaction S127 Ganong, L. H. and Coleman, M. (2004) Stepfamily relationships: development, dynam- ics, and interventions. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Grifﬁn, D. W. and Bartholomew, K. (1994) The metaphysics of measurement: the case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew and D. Perlman (eds.) Advances in personal relationships. Vol. 5: Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 17–52). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Johnson, S. (2008) Hold me tight: seven conversations for a lifetime of love. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company. Johnson, S. M., Makinen, J. A. and Millikin, J. W. (2001) Attachment injuries in couple relationships: a new perspective on impasses in couples therapy. Jour- nal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27(2): 145–155. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752- 0606.2001.tb01152.x. Kirkpatrick, L. A. and Hazan, C. (1994) Attachment styles and close relationships: a four-year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1(2): 123–142. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00058.x. Kurdek, L. A. (2002) On being insecure about the assessment of attachment styles. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(6): 811–834. DOI: 10.1177/0265407502196005. Li, T. and Chan, D. K. (2012) How anxious and avoidant attachment affect romantic relationship quality differently: a meta-analytic review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(4): 406–419. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.1842. Mikulincer, M. and Shaver, P. R. (2007) Boosting attachment security to promote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry, 18(3): 139–156. DOI: 10.1080/10478400701512646. Ognibene, T. C. and Collins, N. L. (1998) Adult attachment styles, perceived social support and coping strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3): 323–346. DOI: 10.1177/0265407598153002. Sassler, S. (2010) Partnering across the life course: sex, relationships, and mate selection. Journal of Marriage and Family 72(3): 557–575. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741- 3737.2010.00718.x. Sweeney, M. M. (2010) Remarriage and stepfamilies: strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(2): 667–684. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00724.x. Wilhelm, K., Gillis, I. and Parker, G. (2016) Parental bonding and adult attachment style: the relationship between four category models. International Jour- nal of Women’s Health and Wellness, 2(1): 1–4.

VC 2017 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice