Personal Relationships, 12 (2005), 149–168. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright Ó 2005 IARR. 1350-4126=05

Attachment theory and in close relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events

a b MARIO MIKULINCER AND PHILLIP R. SHAVER aBar-Ilan University and bUniversity of California, Davis

Abstract Attachment theory is a powerful framework for understanding regulation. In this article, we examine the role played by attachment orientation in shaping emotional reactions to interpersonal transactions within close relation- ships. Using our recent integrative model of attachment-system activation and dynamics as a guide (M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver, 2003), we review relevant evidence, present new findings, and propose hypotheses concerning how people with different attachment styles are likely to react emotionally to relational events. Specifically, we focus on attachment-related variations in the emotional states elicited by a relationship partner’s positive and negative behav- iors and by signals of a partner’s (relationship relevant or relationship irrelevant) distress or . In so doing, we organize existing knowledge and point the way to future research on attachment-related emotions in close relationships.

One of the hallmarks of close relationships is documented the motivational consequences , both positive and negative. Where of emotions (e.g., Lazarus, 1991; Shaver, else but in close relationships do people expe- Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987). rience such diverse and intense as Within relational contexts, a person’s emo- , security, , , , and tions can affect not only his or her own —on the positive side, and , action tendencies, but also the partner’s re- , , of rejection, , sponses and the resulting quality of the grinding , , , and dyadic interaction. In fact, basic emotions, despair—on the negative side? Close rela- such as , fear, and joy can motivate tionships not only arouse emotions, but are particular kinds of behavior toward a relation- also affected by the way partners react emo- ship partner (e.g., attacking, distancing, ap- tionally to positive and negative relational proaching), which in turn can elicit various events. Theory and research have clearly kinds of relational responses from the part- ner. Close relationships also provide some of the most important supports for and disrup- Mario Mikulincer, Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel; Phillip R. Shaver, Depart- tors of affect regulation, a process that is in- ment of Psychology, University of California, Davis. creasingly being viewed as a central theme in Preparation of this article was facilitated by a grant from developmental, social, and clinical psychol- the Fetzer Institute. Correspondence should be addressed to Mario ogy (Schore, 2003). Mikulincer, Bar-Ilan University, Department of Psy- In all three of these fields, Bowlby’s chology, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel, e-mail: mikulm@ (1969/1982, 1973) attachment theory is one mail.biu.ac or Phillip R. Shaver, University of Califor- nia, Davis, Department of Psychology, Davis, CA of the major conceptual frameworks for 95616-8686, e-mail: [email protected]. understanding affect regulation. Bowlby

149 150 M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver

(1969/1982, 1973) highlighted the - In studies of adolescents and adults, tests buffering and physical protection functions of of these theoretical ideas have generally fo- close relationships, conceptualized proximity cused on a person’s attachment style—the seeking as a fundamental means of regulating systematic pattern of relational expectations, distress, and emphasized the importance of emotions, and behaviors that results from attachment history for understanding individ- internalization of a particular history of at- ual differences in affect-regulation strategies tachment experiences (Fraley & Shaver, across the life span. Most importantly for sub- 2000; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). Initially, sequent research, Bowlby (1973) delineated research was based on Ainsworth, Blehar, alternative attachment-related strategies of Waters, and Wall’s (1978) three-category affect regulation that result from different typology of attachment styles in infancy— patterns of interactions with attachment secure, anxious, and avoidant—and Hazan figures. In this article, we focus on these and Shaver’s (1987) conceptualization of strategies and elaborate on their emotional similar adult styles in the romantic relation- consequences for close relationships. Specifi- ship domain. Subsequent studies (e.g., Bar- cally, we review relevant evidence, present tholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Brennan, new findings from our laboratories, and pro- Clark, & Shaver, 1998) revealed, however, pose new ideas about the ways in which that attachment styles are more appropriately attachment-related strategies shape a person’s conceptualized as regions in a two-dimen- emotional state during positive and negative sional space. The first dimension, typically transactions with close relationship partners. called attachment avoidance, reflects the extent to which a person distrusts relationship partners’ goodwill and strives to maintain Attachment Theory: Basic Concepts behavioral independence and emotional dis- Bowlby (1969/1982) claimed that human tance from partners. The second dimension, beings are born with an innate psychobiologi- typically called attachment anxiety, reflects cal system (the attachment behavioral system) the degree to which a person worries that that motivates them to seek proximity to sig- a partner will not be available in times of nificant others (attachment figures) in times of need. The two dimensions can be measured need. This system accomplishes basic regula- with reliable and valid self-report scales (e.g., tory functions (protection from threats and Brennan et al., 1998) and are associated in alleviation of distress) in human beings of all theoretically predictable ways with relation- ages but is most directly and transparently ship quality and adjustment (see Mikulincer observable during infancy (Bowlby, 1988). & Shaver, 2003; Shaver & Clark, 1994; Bowlby (1973) also described important indi- Shaver & Hazan, 1993, for reviews). vidual differences in attachment-system func- Based on an extensive review of adult tioning. Interactions with attachment figures attachment studies, we (Mikulincer & Shaver, who are available and responsive in times of 2003; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002) proposed need facilitate the optimal functioning of a three-phase model of attachment-system the attachment system, promote a relatively activation and dynamics, which we will sum- stable sense of attachment security, and marize briefly here. Following Bowlby (1969/ heighten in support seeking as 1982), we assume that the routine monitoring a distress-regulation strategy. When a person’s of experiences and events results in activation attachment figures are not reliably available of the attachment system when a potential or and supportive, however, proximity seeking actual threat is perceived. Once the attach- fails to relieve distress, a sense of attachment ment system is activated, an affirmative an- security is not attained, and strategies of affect swer to the question ‘‘Is an attachment figure regulation other than proximity seeking (sec- available and likely to be responsive to my ondary attachment strategies, conceptualized needs?’’ results in attachment security and in terms of two major dimensions, avoidance facilitates the application of security-based and anxiety) are developed. strategies of affect regulation (Shaver & Attachment, emotions, and relationships 151

Mikulincer). These strategies are aimed at detected, the attachment system is chroni- alleviating distress; maintaining comfortable, cally activated, and psychological supportive intimate relationships; and in- related to the unavailability of attachment creasing personal adjustment. They consist of figures is exacerbated. These concomitants of optimistic beliefs about distress management, attachment-system hyperactivation account trusting beliefs about others’ goodwill, and for many of the psychological correlates of a sense of self-efficacy about dealing with attachment anxiety (Mikulincer & Shaver, threats (Shaver & Hazan, 1993). Security- 2003). based strategies also involve acknowledgment Appraising proximity seeking as unlikely and display of distress without personal dis- to alleviate distress results in inhibition of organization, support seeking, and instrumen- the quest for support and active attempts to tal problem solving (Mikulincer & Shaver). handle distress alone. These secondary ap- These tendencies are characteristic of peo- proaches to affect regulation are called ple (called securely attached) who score deactivating strategies (Cassidy & Kobak, relatively low on attachment anxiety and 1988) because their primary goal is to keep avoidance. the attachment system deactivated in order to Perceived unavailability of an attachment avoid frustration and further distress caused figure results in attachment insecurity, which by attachment-figure unavailability. These forces a decision about the viability of prox- strategies involve of attachment needs imity seeking as a protective strategy. The ap- and avoidance of emotional involvement, praisal of proximity as viable or essential— intimacy, and dependence in close relation- because of attachment history, temperamental ships. They also involve the dismissal of factors, or contextual cues—can result in threat- and attachment-related cues and the energetic, insistent attempts to attain proxim- suppression of threat- and attachment-related ity, support, and love. In the literature on thoughts. These tendencies are further rein- attachment, these intense attempts are called forced by assuming a self-reliant attitude that hyperactivating strategies (Cassidy & Kobak, decreases dependence on others and discour- 1988) because they involve constant concern ages acknowledgment of personal faults. and prodigious effort until an attachment These aspects of deactivation account for the figure is perceived to be available and a sense psychological manifestations of attachment of security is attained. Hyperactivating strate- avoidance (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). gies are indicated by attempts to elicit a In summary, each attachment-related strat- partner’s involvement and support through egy has a regulatory goal, and cognitive and clinging and controlling responses (Shaver & affective processes are shaped to facilitate Hazan, 1993), overdependence on relation- goal attainment. We believe these strategies ship partners as a source of protection (Shaver can also shape the quality of emotional expe- & Hazan), and perception of oneself as rela- riences both in general and specifically within tively helpless and incompetent at affect regu- close relationships. In the next section, we lation (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998). present ideas and review research findings According to Shaver and Mikulincer concerning attachment-related variations in (2002), hyperactivating strategies involve emotional reactions to relational episodes. increased vigilance to threat-related cues and a reduction in the threshold for detecting cues Attachment-Related Variations in of attachment figures’ unavailability—the Emotional Reactions to two kinds of cues that activate the attachment Relational Episodes system (Bowlby, 1973). They also intensify negative emotional responses to threatening In order to analyze the possible involvement events and heighten rumination on threat- of attachment-related strategies of affect regu- related concerns, keeping these concerns lation in determining the quality of a person’s active in working memory. As a result, emotional reactions within close relation- minimal threat-related cues are easily ships, we focus on four broad categories of 152 M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver emotion-eliciting relational events. Specifi- threats and injuries is anger. According to cally, we elaborate on attachment-related var- Lazarus (1991), the of iations in the emotional states elicited by a anger is ‘‘. a demeaning offense against me relationship partner’s positive or negative and mine’’ (p. 222), an assault or threat to behaviors and by signals of the partner’s one’s identity or to other important personal (relationship relevant or relationship irrele- goals and possessions. Researchers with other vant) distress or . In other words, theoretical perspectives also view anger as a we consider two ways in which a partner can signal that something important is being evoke emotion in a target person: by acting in threatened in one’s interpersonal interactions, certain ways and by expressing certain emo- often in what is perceived to be an illegitimate tions of his or her own. Table 1 presents an way, and that some action should be integrative overview of our ideas about taken to reduce or eliminate the threat, repair attachment-related variations in emotional the damage, or prevent further assaults (e.g., reactions to the various kinds of relational Izard & Kobak, 1991; Shaver et al., 1987). In events. the second volume of his classic Attachment and Loss trilogy, Bowlby (1973) argued that anger is also the most common response to Emotional responses to a partner’s a partner’s attachment-relevant negative negative behaviors behaviors—for example, a partner’s signs of One strong source of emotions in close unavailability, detachment, or rejection—that relationships is behavior on the part of one threaten a person’s attachment needs and relationship partner that interferes with the sense of security. other’s goals or that either actually or poten- Anger is not, however, a simple or mono- tially damages the other’s welfare or relation- lithic emotional response. Rather, it is a com- ship quality. A common response to such plex, multifaceted emotion that can be

Table 1. An integrative summary of attachment-related variations in emotional reactions to different kinds of relational events

Attachment Attachment Attachment Relational events security avoidance anxiety Partner’s negative Functional Suppressed anger, , , behaviors anger resentment, dysfunctional anger, hostility despair, Partner’s positive Happiness, joy, Indifference, Ambivalent feelings of behaviors love, gratitude detachment happiness, love, fear, anxiety Partner’s relationship- , reparation Resentment, , despair relevant distress hostility Partner’s relationship- Empathic , hostility, Personal distress, irrelevant distress , despair gloating Partner’s relationship- Happiness, joy, Ambivalent feelings of relevant happiness love, pride happiness, anxiety, fear of success Partner’s relationship- Empathic Hostile Ambivalent mixture of irrelevant happiness happiness, happiness, fear of respect, separation, jealousy Attachment, emotions, and relationships 153 associated with different goals, expressed in When redirected toward the self, the angry different ways, and result in different and person may stew over feelings of self-, even antagonistic relational outcomes (e.g., helplessness, vulnerability, and despair, which, Averill, 1982; Mikulincer, 1998; Tangney in turn, produce a mixture of anger, sadness, et al., 1996). According to Tangney et al., and (Averill; Siegel; Tangney et al.). anger can be motivated by either constructive In his discussion of emotional reactions to or destructive goals, be expressed in func- attachment-related negative behaviors, Bowlby tional or dysfunctional ways, result in posi- (1973, 1988) also differentiated between func- tive or negative relational behaviors, elicit tional and dysfunctional manifestations of positive or negative responses from a relation- anger. According to Bowlby (1973), anger is ship partner, and have positive or negative originally a functional response directed to- consequences for relationship quality. ward protesting separation from an attachment Functional manifestations of anger are mo- figure or reproaching an attachment figure for tivated by constructive goals such as, main- not being available. It is functional in the sense taining a relationship, asserting one’s needs, that it is directed toward either overcoming or bringing about a change in a relationship obstacles to reunion or discouraging the loved partner’s behavior (Averill, 1982). In such person from going away again. However, cases, anger is typically expressed in a con- Bowlby (1973, 1988) also noted that anger can trolled manner and does not entail animosity, sometimes become dysfunctional in various hostility, or hateful attitudes toward the part- ways, including becoming so intense that it ali- ner. In fact, this kind of anger is not intended enates the partner or becoming vengeful rather to hurt or destroy the partner but only to dis- than corrective. In particular, Bowlby (1988) his or her negative behavior and to discussed how much of family violence can be reestablish a warm and satisfactory relation- understood as distorted and exaggerated ver- ship (Averill). Hence, functional manifesta- sions of potentially functional behavior. For tions of anger do not usually lead to physical example, he characterizes various coercive or verbal aggression, vengeful criticism, vi- behaviors within close relationships (including cious retaliation, or deeply hurtful accusa- battering) as strategies designed to control the tions. Rather, they take the form of focused other and keep him or her from departing. In complaints and problem-solving discussions Bowlby’s (1988) view, although violent and (Tangney et al., 1996). uncontrollable outbursts of anger may have an In contrast, dysfunctional manifestations instrumental function (to discourage a partner’s of anger include continuing resentment to- future negative behaviors), it is dysfunctional ward one’s partner, hurting the partner emo- in its extremity and in its potential to escalate tionally or physically, and seeking , conflict and destroy the relationship. which can easily result in lasting ‘‘attachment This analysis of anger as a complex, multi- injuries’’ (Johnson, Makinen, & Millikin, faceted emotion provides a preliminary frame- 2001) and weaken relational bonds (Tangney work for conceptualizing attachment-related et al., 1996). These manifestations of anger variations in emotional reactions to a partner’s are likely to include animosity, hostility, and negative behavior. In the following pages, we hatred; when intense, they may lead to un- present several working hypotheses and review controllable aggression and even violence relevant studies concerning the ways in which (Averill, 1982). In some cases, however, attachment-related strategies shape angry reac- these dysfunctional manifestations of anger tions to a relationship partner’s behavior. may be suppressed or redirected, to avoid a confrontation with the partner, and the anger Attachment security. The security-based can then take subtle forms (Tangney et al.). attachment strategies that characterize In such cases, the unexpressed anger may securely attached individuals include reacting persist in diffuse feelings of resentment and to a partner’s negative behavior with func- hostile attitudes toward the partner or may tional manifestations of anger. The main goal be internalized and directed toward the self. of security-based strategies is to deal with 154 M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver threats in a constructive, transformational man- attached adolescents. Among securely attached ner and to maintain stable, reliable, satisfac- adolescents, these emotions were associated tory, and intimate relationships (Mikulincer & with less rather than more disruptive behavior. Shaver, 2003). These strategies are based on Therefore, secure people’s anger seems more beliefs that relationship partners generally regulated and more functionally channeled in have good intentions, that others’ negative be- useful directions. haviors are temporary and reversible, and that one possesses suitable means for dealing con- Attachment avoidance. According to our structively with the offense or misunderstand- model, the deactivating strategies of avoidant ing (Mikulincer & Shaver). As a result, when individuals include reacting to a partner’s threatened by a partner’s negative behavior, negative behavior with more dysfunctional secure people should generally express anger manifestations of anger. Avoidant individuals’ in a controlled manner, without extreme ha- attempts to inhibit every emotional state that tred or hostility, and should attempt to resolve is incongruent with their goal of attachment- conflicts constructively, with positive effects system deactivation may include suppressing on relationship quality. anger from awareness because angry feelings In support of this theoretical analysis, are associated with threat-related thoughts Mikulincer (1998) found that, when con- that can reactivate attachment needs. In addi- fronted with a partner’s negative actions, tion, anger implies emotional investment and securely attached individuals held optimis- involvement in a relationship, which is incon- tic expectations about the partner’s subse- gruent with an avoidant person’s preference quent behavior and made well-differentiated, for interpersonal distance (Cassidy, 1994). As reality-attuned appraisals of the partner’s a result, an avoidant person’s anger can be intentions. Only when there were clear con- expressed only in unconscious or unattended textual cues provided by the experimenter, ways (which may be physiologically measur- indicating that a partner actually acted with able) or can take the form of nonspecific hos- hostile intent did secure people attribute hos- tility or hateful attitudes toward a partner. tility to the partner and react with anger. This hostility can be further exacerbated by Furthermore, secure participants’ memories of avoidant individuals’ lack of confidence in their reactions to a partner’s negative behav- their relationship partners’ goodwill (Shaver iors were characterized by the constructive & Hazan, 1993). goal of repairing the relationship, engaging in Adult attachment studies have consistently adaptive problem solving, and experiencing shown that this mixture of suppressed anger positive affect following these episodes. and high levels of hostility (what Mikulincer, The functional nature of secure individu- 1998, labeled ‘‘dissociated anger’’) is corre- als’ angry reactions has also been documented lated with attachment avoidance. For example, in a recent study conducted by Zimmermann, Mikulincer found that although individuals Maier, Winter, and Grossmann (2001). In this scoring high on attachment avoidance did not study, adolescents who had previously been report overly intense anger in reaction to classified as securely or insecurely attached a partner’s negative behavior, they reported based on the Adult Attachment Interview heightened hostility and exhibited intense (AAI) performed a frustrating, difficult cogni- physiological during these episodes. tive task with the help of a friend, and their They also used distancing strategies to cope reports of disappointment and anger during with the partner’s negative behavior and dis- task performance, as well as the occurrence played a tendency to attribute hostility to of disruptive behavior toward the friend (e.g., a partner even when there were clear contex- rejection of the friend’s suggestions with- tual cues about the partner’s nonhostile intent. out discussion), were assessed. The study Signs of heightened hostility have also been revealed that reports of disappointment and reported in other studies where attachment anger were associated with more frequent avoidance has been assessed with self-report disruptive behavior only among insecurely measures (e.g., Buunk, 1997; Mikulincer, Attachment, emotions, and relationships 155

Florian, & Weller, 1993, Mikulincer, Horesh, lack of actual . Specifically, avoi- Eilati, & Kotler, 1999). Using the AAI, Kobak dant people evinced a negative construal of and Sceery (1988) found that dismissively the events calling for forgiveness; their reac- avoidant attachment was related to greater dis- tions were characterized by narcissistic positional hostility (as reported by friends), wounds, thoughts about relationship deterio- and Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming, ration, and lack of understanding of a partner’s and Gamble (1993) reported that avoidant hurtful actions. Avoidant individuals’ disin- teens displayed more dysfunctional anger than clination to forgive was also noted in a subse- did secure teens toward their mothers and quent daily diary study in which participants engaged in less cooperative dialogue during were asked to report their reactions to their a problem-solving interaction. partner’s negative behaviors over a period of The dysfunctional nature of avoidant indi- 21 days (Shaver & Mikulincer). viduals’ anger toward a relationship partner has also been documented during the process Attachment anxiety. In our view, the hyper- of support seeking in a study by Rholes, activating strategies of anxiously attached Simpson, and Orina (1999). In this study, individuals also include reacting to a partner’s women were told they would engage in an negative behavior with more dysfunctional anxiety-provoking activity and were asked to manifestations of anger. Anxiously attached wait with their dating partners for the activity individuals’ tendencies to intensify the expe- to begin. During this 5-min ‘‘stress’’ period, rience of negative emotions and ruminate on the reactions of the support seekers (women) threat-related thoughts may help fuel intense and support providers (men) were video- and prolonged bouts of anger toward a rela- taped. Women’s avoidance, as assessed by a tionship partner. However, their fear of sepa- self-report scale, was associated with more ration, desperate for a partner’s love, intense anger toward the partner, and this was and overly dependent attitude may hold in especially the case when women were more check the intense resentment and anger and distressed and received less support from their redirect it toward the self. This self-directed partners. It seems that avoidant women’s lack anger can be further exacerbated by anx- of confidence in their partner’s support might ious persons’ about their self-worth have elicited disappointment and anger while (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), which may they were seeking support. provide the context for blaming themselves In a recent study of forgiveness within for the partner’s negative behavior and close relationships, Shaver and Mikulincer reproaching themselves for endangering the (2003) provided further evidence about avoi- relationship. As a result, anxious persons dant individuals’ hostile reactions to their may react to a partner’s negative behaviors partners’ negative behavior. As compared with a complex mixture of resentment, hostil- with less avoidant individuals, people who ity, anger, self-criticism, fear, sadness, and scored high on avoidance were less likely to depression. forgive a partner who had hurt them, as There is already some evidence for this assessed by McCullough, Worthington, and perspective on anxiously attached individu- Rachal’s (1997) forgiveness scale. Instead, als’ reactions to a partner’s negative behav- they were more likely to have a strong desire ior. For example, Mikulincer (1998) found for revenge and to escape from the situation that anxious people’s recollections of their following a partner’s transgression, as as- responses to a partner’s negative behavior in- sessed by the Transgression-Related Interper- cluded an uncontrollable flood of angry feel- sonal Inventory (McCullough ings, persistent rumination on these feelings, et al., 1998). Moreover, when avoidant and sadness and despair following conflictual individuals were asked to recall an episode in episodes. Mikulincer also reported that par- which they forgave a relationship partner who ticipants scoring high on attachment anxiety had hurt them, their feelings and thoughts held negative expectations about their part- were colored by hostility, resentment, and ner’s responses during anger episodes and 156 M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver tended to make undifferentiated, negatively vided by the researchers) their partner had biased appraisals of the partner’s intentions. exhibited that day. As compared with those They attributed hostility to their partner and scoring low on the attachment anxiety dimen- reacted in kind, even when there were ambig- sion, people who scored high produced a uous cues (in the experiment) concerning the stronger association, day by day, between hostile intent. Using a rather different meth- partner’s negative behaviors and depression- od, Woike, Osier, and Candela (1996) found related feelings. They reported more intense that self-reported attachment anxiety was feelings of depression, weakness, and despair associated with writing more violent pro- as a direct function of their perception of jective stories in response to Thermatic their partner’s negativity on a particular day. Apperception Test (TAT) cards. This finding remained significant even after The dysfunctional nature of anxious peo- controlling for the intensity of anger-related ple’s anger has also been noted in observa- feelings on a particular day. tional studies of dyadic behavior. Simpson, Rholes, and Phillips (1996) found that self- Emotional reactions to a partner’s reports of attachment anxiety were associated positive behaviors with displaying and reporting more anger, hostility, and distress while discussing with a Another strong source of emotions in close dating partner an unresolved problem in the relationships is positive behavior on the part relationship. In their study of support seek- of the partner that satisfies one’s needs, im- ing, Rholes et al. (1999) found no significant proves one’s welfare, or advances the stabil- association between attachment anxiety and ity or quality of the relationship. From an anger toward a dating partner while waiting attachment perspective, a partner’s positive for an anxiety-provoking activity (‘‘stress behaviors signal availability, responsiveness, period’’). However, after the participant was support, and love; lead a person to feel pro- told that she would not really have to tected, accepted, and valued; and are crucial undergo the expected stress (‘‘recovery’’ for the development of secure attachment period), higher scores on attachment anxiety bonds (Bowlby, 1973; Shaver & Hazan, were associated with more intense anger to- 1994). Considered in relation to the emotions, ward the partner. Interestingly, this was par- these behaviors are a source of joy, happi- ticularly true if participants had been more ness, and gratitude. They intensify feelings of upset during the stress period and had sought love for and being loved by the available, more support from their partner. It seems that supportive partner; foster approach action anxious participants’ strong need for reassur- tendencies toward the partner; and motivate ance counteracted, or led to suppression of, the person to be sensitive and responsive to angry feelings during support seeking. But the partner’s needs. All these reactions fur- after support was no longer necessary, the ther encourage the partner to be attentive and angry feelings surfaced, reflecting chronic responsive to one’s needs, help to sustain hyperactivating strategies that tend to perpet- a dyadic cycle of positive interpersonal uate distress-related feelings. behaviors, and thereby strengthen the rela- Another recent study on couple interac- tional bond. tions provided important information about Scholars with different theoretical perspec- anxiously attached people’s emotional reac- tives agree that the most common emotional tions to a partner’s insensitive behavior response to a partner’s positive behaviors is (Mikulincer, Florian, & Hirschberger, 2002). a blend of joy (being pleased about having In this study, newly wed couples completed obtained a desirable relational outcome), re- a daily questionnaire each evening for a pe- spect and admiration (viewing the partner’s riod of 21 days. Each day, participants rated actions as praiseworthy), and love (regarding the extent to which their feelings toward their the partner in a warm, positive way), which spouse were positive or negative and then may also induce feelings of gratitude (e.g., indicated which behaviors (from a list pro- Frei & Shaver, 2002; Heider, 1958; Ortony, Attachment, emotions, and relationships 157

Clore, & Collins, 1987). For example, Weiner wish to depend on or be supported by their (1985) claimed that people feel grateful within partner (Mikulincer & Shaver). Moreover, close relationships when they feel happy about expression of toward a partner can receiving a positive outcome and recognize be interpreted as a sign of closeness, which is that their partner was responsible for it. incongruent with an avoidant person’s prefer- Research has also consistently shown that ence for emotional distance. when people are asked to recall a favorable sit- People who score high on attachment uation attributed to another person’s behavior, anxiety may have ambivalent reactions to their most frequent responses are happiness a partner’s positive behavior. We believe this and gratitude (e.g., Overwalle, Mervielde, & results from hyperactivating De Schuyter, 1995; Walker & Pitts, 1998). strategies that strengthen the desire for sup- Although at first sight the links between port and love, intensify the appraisal of po- a partner’s positive behavior and feelings of tential threats, and heighten doubts about joy, love, and gratitude seem intuitively natu- self-worth and self-efficacy (Mikulincer & ral, automatic, and likely to be universal, Shaver, 2003). Anxiously attached people they—just like the different forms of anger may believe they do not deserve a partner’s we examined—depend on a person’s inter- and will not be able to reciprocate it action goals and interpersonal cognitions. fully or meet a partner’s needs and expecta- One precondition for experiencing joy, love, tions, which in turn may muddy happiness and gratitude following a partner’s supportive and gratitude with fear and anxiety. In addi- behavior is appraisal of these behaviors as tion, for anxiously attached persons, positive positive relational outcomes (Heider, 1958; interpersonal experiences may be reminiscent Weiner, 1985). That is, people react to of previous experiences that began well but a partner’s positive behavior with gratitude ended painfully. Once attuned to negative and happiness mainly when they perceive memories, the anxious mind may suffer these behaviors as congruent with their per- from a spread of negative affect that inter- sonal goals. Another prerequisite for experi- feres with the experience of happiness and encing gratitude is recognition that gratitude. a partner’s positive behavior reflects his or Although adult attachment research has her good intentions and is altruistically moti- yet to provide a systematic examination of vated (e.g., Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994; Wei- attachment-style differences in emotional re- ner, 1985). Therefore, people are likely to actions to a partner’s positive behavior, there experience gratitude mainly when they attri- are a few important pieces of evidence con- bute their partner’s positive behavior to inter- cerning associations between attachment ori- nal, stable factors and believe that these entations and the arousal and experience of behaviors are altruistically motivated. positive emotions. For example, research has This reasoning suggests that attachment- consistently shown that securely attached style differences should be relevant to under- people score higher on self-report measures standing individual variations in emotional of joy, happiness, , love, and affection reactions to a partner’s positive behavior. For than do insecurely attached people (see securely attached persons, whose security- Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003, for a review). based strategies include positive beliefs about For example, in two diary studies, each their partner’s goodwill and are aimed at lasting a week, participants completed the maintaining warm and intimate relationships Rochester Interaction Record every time they (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), a partner’s pos- engaged in a social interaction lasting 10 itive behavior naturally and automatically minutes or longer. Both sets of investigators, evokes feelings of joy, love, and gratitude. In Tidwell, Reis, and Shaver (1996) and contrast, avoidant individuals may react with Pietromonaco and Barrett (1997), found that less joy, love, and gratitude to a partner’s anxious and avoidant participants experienced kind, generous behavior. They tend not to fewer positive emotions than secure partici- believe in their partner’s goodwill and do not pants. Moreover, Rom and Mikulincer (2003) 158 M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver reported that both attachment anxiety and ner, they tended to remember negative expe- avoidance were associated with relatively low riences, involving more narcissistic threats positive emotional tone during group in- and and less happiness and love. teractions, and Horppu and Ikonen-Varila People scoring high on attachment anxiety (2001) found that a combination of high anxi- tended to remember more ambivalent experi- ety and high avoidance (fearful avoidance) ences of gratitude-eliciting episodes. Specifi- was associated with fewer positive emotions cally, anxiously attached people recalled during a college entrance interview. relatively high levels of security-related feel- Attachment-style differences in the experi- ings, happiness, and love, together with rela- ence of positive emotions have also been tively high levels of narcissistic threats and documented in studies examining the encod- inferiority feelings. ing of emotion in facial expressions. For ex- In a diary study in which 55 newly wed ample, Magai, Hunziker, Mesias, and Culver couples reported their emotional reactions to (2000) found that attachment security was a partner’s positive actions every day for a associated with more facial expressions of period of 21 days (Shaver & Mikulincer, joy, and Spangler and Zimmermann (1999) 2003), daily feelings of gratitude were signif- found that avoidant participants (assessed by icantly related to the partner’s (perceived) the AAI) exhibited relatively low activation behaviors on that day: The higher the level of of ‘‘smile’’ muscles while watching a positive a partner’s positive behaviors, the higher the emotional film. In addition, several studies feelings of gratitude a participant reported have revealed that high attachment avoidance experiencing toward the partner. In addition, is related to low scores on scales assessing attachment orientations were related to daily expression of positive emotions (Ducharme, feelings of gratitude toward a partner: The Doyle, & Markiewicz, 2002; Searle & Meara, higher the attachment avoidance, the less the 1999; Tucker & Anders, 1999) and to high gratitude across the 21 days. More important, scores on scales assessing control over posi- attachment avoidance moderated the associa- tive emotions—the tendency to bottle up tion between partner’s behavior and self’s positive emotions and conceal them from a gratitude: People scoring high on avoidance relationship partner (Feeney, 1995, 1999). experienced relatively low levels of gratitude Adult attachment studies have also docu- even on days when they perceived the part- mented attachment-style differences in affec- ner’s behavior as positive. Stated in reverse, tive reactions to positive relational episodes, a partner’s positive behaviors elicited grati- such as reunion with a close relationship tude mainly among participants who were not partner following a prolonged separation. avoidant. In Medway, Davis, Cafferty, and Chappell’s (1995) study of marital separation due to Emotional reactions to a overseas deployment of husbands during war, partner’s distress securely attached spouses reported more posi- tive emotions and less conflict upon reunion We turn now to another kind of emotion- than anxious and avoidant spouses. eliciting episode within close relationships— Recently, Shaver and Mikulincer (2003) a partner’s appraisal of threats or damages presented more direct evidence of attach- to his or her identity, possessions, or goals ment-style differences in emotional reactions and the consequent expression of distress. to a partner’s positive behaviors. Compared to According to Clark, Fitness, and Brissette less avoidant people, those scoring high on (2001), a partner’s experience of stress and attachment avoidance were less disposed to distress is a potent source of one’s own emo- feel gratitude, as assessed by the Gratitude tions within communal, interdependent rela- Questionnaire-6 (McCullough, Emmons, & tionships because most people feel at least Tsang, 2002). Moreover, when avoidant somewhat responsible for their partner’s people were asked to recall an episode in welfare and may be strongly affected by which they felt grateful to a relationship part- changes in the partner’s emotional states. This Attachment, emotions, and relationships 159 is a natural consequence of the caregiving interaction goals. In fact, these emotions are system being part of romantic love (e.g., inhibited when people minimize interdepen- Collins & Feeney, 2000; Kunce & Shaver, dence and responsibility for the fate of their 1994; Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw, 1988). In partner and relationship (Clark et al., 2001). these cases, it is important to differentiate This seems to be the case for avoidant between two kinds of relational events individuals, who prefer to minimize emo- according to the source of a partner’s distress: tional involvement and interdependence in (a) relationship-relevant partner distress— their relationships and who often distance episodes in which the partner’s distress results themselves from their partner’s needs (Shaver from one’s own negative behavior (e.g., & Clark, 1994; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). unavailability, rejection, disinterest, criticism, For such people, relationship-relevant partner aggression, ) and (b) relationship- distress may not be perceived as sharply goal irrelevant partner distress—episodes in which incongruent and therefore may not instigate the partner’s distress results from threats and negative self-conscious emotions. losses that have nothing to do with the rela- Although avoidant people may not believe tionship itself (e.g., health problems, work they have done anything wrong when their problems). This differentiation is important partner expresses distress or injury, they may for analyzing attachment-style differences in nevertheless harbor angry, hostile feelings emotions within close relationships because toward the partner. These feelings include re- the two kinds of episodes differ in the emo- sentment of the partner’s accusations and are tional responses they typically elicit. likely to occur when the avoidant person per- ceives the partner as deserving the discomfort Relationship-relevant partner distress. Re- and perceives his or her own destructive be- lationship episodes in which a person behaves havior as a reasonable payback for the part- badly toward a partner, fails to meet the part- ner’s previous transgressions (Lazarus, 1991). ner’s needs and expectations, or actually or In such cases, an avoidant person may blame potentially damages a partner’s well-being or his or her partner for evoking the self’s hurtful relationship quality can elicit a wide array behavior, attribute the negative relational out- of emotional responses, ranging from self- comes to the partner’s negative traits (rather conscious emotions, such as guilt and shame, than the self’s), and feel angry toward the through fear of punishment or retaliation, to partner for causing the self to behave so anger and hostile attitudes toward the dam- badly. aged partner (e.g., Lazarus, 1991; Lewis, Attachment-related dynamics are also 2000; Tangney, 1990, 1992). We believe that important for distinguishing between shame these emotions may have particular signifi- and guilt. Although these two self-conscious cance for attachment-related dynamics and emotions have often been viewed as similar may be related to a person’s attachment and functionally interchangeable, current orientation. theories highlight differences between them Consider the case of the self-conscious in attentional focus, causal attributions, and emotions of guilt and shame. Occurrence of action tendencies (e.g., Lazarus, 1991; Lewis, these emotions implies that threatening or 2000; Tangney, 1992). Shame involves atten- harming a partner’s welfare is appraised as tional focus on one’s objectionable personal- an undesirable failure to live up to one’s ity traits (which Janoff-Bulman, 1979, called standards and ideals (Lazarus, 1991; Lewis, ‘‘characterological self-blame’’) and attri- 2000; Tangney, 1992). People who react to bution of one’s own negative behavior to their own relationship-damaging behaviors global, stable, and uncontrollable aspects of with guilt or shame are likely to favor the the self. Moreover, shame seems to be related creation of warm and supportive relationships to feelings of inferiority, worthlessness, and and to view protection of their partner’s wel- helplessness as well as a tendency to fare and the maintenance of relationship withdraw and hide from interactions with the quality as being among their most important offended partner. In contrast, guilt involves 160 M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver attentional focus on the negative behavior it- ated with shame proneness. Similarly, Gross self (a reaction Janoff-Bulman, 1979, called and Hansen (2000) found that people who ‘‘behavioral self-blame’’) and attribution of score high on both attachment anxiety and the negative behavior to specific, unstable, avoidance were relatively shame prone (as and controllable aspects of self. In addition, revealed by the Brief Shame Rating scale) guilt seems to be related to feelings of po- compared with their secure and dismissively tency and mastery and to a tendency to make avoidant counterparts, and Magai et al. (2000) reparative actions to restore a partner’s wel- found attachment anxiety to be positively fare and relationship quality. associated with facial expressions of shame. Based on this conceptualization of shame Moreover, in a study by Lutwak and Ferrari and guilt, it is reasonable to suggest that at- (1997), recall of negative experiences with tachment anxiety will be related to individual primary attachment figures was associated variations in the propensity to experience with higher levels of reported shame. each of these emotions. Although both se- In a recent study, we attempted to examine curely and anxiously attached individuals are attachment-style differences in emotional motivated to maintain strong attachment reactions to one’s own destructive behavior bonds, seek interdependence and emotional toward a romantic partner. Sixty-five Israeli involvement, and react with self-conscious university students (41 women and 24 men), emotions when their actions hurt a relationship each of whom was involved in a serious or relationship partner, the two different kinds romantic relationship, completed the Experi- of people diverge in their sense of self-worth ences in Close Relationships scale (ECR; and self-efficacy (Mikulincer & Shaver, Brennan et al., 1998) tapping attachment anx- 2003) and therefore may experience and iety and avoidance and were asked to recall express different self-conscious emotions. an episode in which they hurt their romantic Whereas secure people, who enjoy a stable partner or failed to meet the partner’s needs. sense of self-worth and frequent feelings of Then, after writing a brief description of the potency and mastery, may react to their own episode, they rated the extent to which the disagreeable behavior with guilt and the cor- recalled episode caused them to feel guilty, responding tendency to repair the damage, ashamed, or hostile toward the partner (as anxiously attached people, who often feel assessed by the State Shame and Guilt scale worthless and helpless, may attribute their and the Hostility subscale of the Multi- hurtful behavior to personal deficiencies, per- dimensional Anger Inventory). We found that ceive no way out of the disgreeable situation, high scores on the attachment anxiety dimen- and hence feel overwhelmed by shame. sion were positively associated with shame, Although few adult attachment studies r(63) ¼ .39, p , .01, and less intense guilt, have examined differences in emotional reac- r(63) ¼ 2.42, p , .01. In addition, attach- tions to relationship-relevant partner distress, ment avoidance was associated with hostility there is some evidence that attachment orien- toward the aggrieved partner, r(63) ¼ .40, tations are involved in the arousal of shame, p , .01, less guilt, r(63) ¼ 2.43, p , .01, guilt, and hostility toward an aggrieved part- and less shame, r(63) ¼ 2.35, p , .01. No ner. For example, Lopez et al. (1997) dis- significant interaction was found between the covered correlations between self-reported anxiety and avoidance dimensions. Overall, attachment orientations and a scale measuring our findings imply that whereas attachment- shame proneness and guilt proneness (Test anxious individuals tend to feel ashamed in of Self-Conscious Affect). Whereas attach- response to partner distress, avoidant individ- ment security was associated with guilt prone- uals tend to feel hostile toward their dis- ness, a combination of high anxiety and high tressed partner without being aware of any avoidance (fearful avoidance) was positively self-conscious emotions. associated with shame proneness, and a com- bination of high avoidance and low anxiety Relationship-irrelevant partner distress. (dismissing avoidance) was negatively associ- When a close relationship partner feels dis- Attachment, emotions, and relationships 161 tressed because of relationship-irrelevant other’s ; and sometimes stems from threats or losses, people may adopt either an a disinclination to share, or get involved with, approach or an avoidance orientation to the another person’s painful predicament. Ac- partner’s needs—either attending and re- cording to Lazarus (1991), pity is ‘‘. a dis- sponding to the distress or distancing them- dainful or contemptuous , in which the selves from it. Theory and research have other person is regarded as reprehensible, connected these tendencies with three related inferior, or responsible for his/her own suffer- but distinct emotional responses: or ing. In pity, the person holds himself or her- compassion, personal distress, and pity (e.g., self apart from the afflicted person’’ (p. 288). Batson, 1991; Ben-Ze’ev, 2000; Lazarus, Thus, pity seems to be a blend of condescen- 1991). Empathic compassion involves attend- sion (feeling superior to the sufferer), insecu- ing to the partner’s needs and providing a rity (fearing the possibility of being in the partner-sensitive response; it includes feel- same situation as the sufferer), and distancing ings of , attachment, and tenderness (avoiding involvement with the distressed and fosters supportive behavior designed to partner). alleviate a partner’s suffering (Batson). This Although attachment theory deals mainly kind of response, which Bowlby (1969/1982) with results of a partner’s responses to one’s and his followers (e.g., Collins & Feeney, own needs (with the partner being conceptu- 2000; Kunce & Shaver, 1994) conceptualize alized as an attachment figure), the theory is in terms of the caregiving behavioral system, also extremely relevant for explaining one’s is based on a genuinely altruistic concern for own emotional reactions to a partner’s needs. the partner’s plight, which motivates the pro- Consider the sense of attachment security. It vision of support and care (Ben-Ze’ev). is an inner resource that encourages an ap- Being personally distressed is also com- proach orientation to a partner’s distress, pro- patible with an approach orientation toward motes empathic compassion, and inhibits a partner’s needs, but it includes self-protec- personal distress. In Bowlby’s (1969/1982) tive concerns that arouse fear, sadness, and analysis of the attachment system, he argued distress in relation to a partner’s plight that a sense of attachment security allows (Batson, 1991). Personal distress involves people to direct attention and energy to other strong identification with the suffering part- behavioral systems. As a result, securely at- ner as well as a sense of helplessness and tached people can devote more psychological inability to alleviate the partner’s suffering, resources to a partner’s needs and therefore which can interfere with taking action to provide more sensitive support and care. In soothe and support the partner. Research on short, security is a foundation for caregiving. parental caregiving styles (summarized by Secure people’s interaction goals and inter- George & Solomon, 1999) clearly shows that personal cognitions also foster empathic com- an attentional shift from a child’s needs to and the reduction of personal distress. a parent’s own distress impairs caregiving Their comfort with closeness and interdepen- and encourages intergenerational transmis- dence (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) facilitates sion of anxious and disorganized attachment. approach to a distressed partner because such We expect similar dysfunctional consequen- a partner typically seeks closeness and needs ces of personal distress in close relationships to depend on others (Lehman, Ellard, & between adults. Wortman, 1986). A secure person’s expecta- Unlike empathic compassion and personal tion that other people will be available and distress, pity reflects an avoidant orientation caring may make it easier to construe a dis- toward a partner’s distress. According to tressed partner as deserving sympathy and Ben-Ze’ev (2000) and Snow (1991), pity is compassion, and so may motivate the secure based on perceiving the distressed other as person to provide needed comfort to the part- inferior; reflects a passive, detached attitude ner. The secure person’s feelings of potency toward the partner’s suffering; allows one to and mastery may help him or her to maintain maintain a safe emotional distance from the emotional equanimity while addressing a 162 M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver partner’s needs, a task that can otherwise gen- of vulnerability and distancing of the self erate a great deal of tension and distress (e.g., from the source of distress. As a result, the Batson, 1987). avoidant person may defensively attempt to Insecurely attached people may be less feel superior to his or her distressed partner, inclined to feel empathic compassion toward less weak and vulnerable (‘‘I am immune to a distressed partner. Whereas an anxious per- such misfortunes’’), and hence experience son’s egoistic focus on personal threats and only disdainful pity for the suffering partner. unsatisfied attachment needs may draw im- In some cases, avoidant persons’ hostile atti- portant resources away from altruistically tudes toward a partner may transform pity attending to a partner’s needs, an avoidant into contemptuous gloating—actual enjoy- person’s lack of comfort with closeness and ment of a partner’s ill fate (in German, scha- hostile outlook on others may interfere with denfreude). In fact, Whitman and Alexander altruistic inclinations and inhibit compassion- (1968) argued that gloating implies resentment ate responses to a partner’s plight. This does toward a distressed partner combined with not mean, however, that anxious and avoidant a boost of one’s own sense of superiority. people will react in the same way to Although these ideas are somewhat specu- a partner’s distress. Whereas the anxious per- lative, recent studies of adult attachment pro- son’s hyperactivating strategies may intensify vide preliminary evidence compatible with the experience of personal distress, the avoi- them. For example, Florian, Mikulincer, and dant person’s deactivating strategies may Hirschberger (2000) reported that whereas encourage feelings of disdain and pity. self-reports of attachment security were asso- Anxiously attached people may become ciated with empathic compassion, self-reports emotionally overwhelmed in response to a of attachment avoidance were associated with partner’s distress. Their hyperactivating strat- pity in response to others’ needs. In West- egies may facilitate the associative reactiva- maas and Silver’s (2001) study of reactions to tion of self-focused worries and increase a person who had purportedly been diagnosed attentional focus on both the partner’s suffer- with cancer, attachment avoidance was asso- ing and the self’s personal distress. Despite ciated with less empathic compassion and less their focus on the partner’s suffering, how- support for the afflicted confederate. Attach- ever, anxious people’s lack of self-other dif- ment anxiety was related to greater distress ferentiation (Mikulincer & Horesh, 1999) during an interaction with the confederate. may prevent them from reacting with func- In a series of five experiments, Mikulincer tional empathy and compassion. (There is a et al. (2001) documented the facilitatory similar distinction in Buddhist psychology effects of attachment security on empathic between effective and ineffective empathic compassion for others’ needs. First, both at- compassion; Dalai Lama, 1999.) In fact, tachment anxiety and avoidance (as assessed Batson (1991) claimed that empathic compas- by the ECR) were associated with less sion involves self-other distinctiveness and empathic compassion, and attachment anxi- a corresponding ability to distinguish between ety was associated with more personal dis- the other person’s welfare and one’s own. tress in response to another person’s needs. Avoidant, deactivating strategies—dis- Second, contextual heightening of the sense tancing oneself from threats and suppressing of attachment security (asking participants to painful thoughts (Shaver & Mikulincer, recollect personal memories, read a story, or 2002)—may encourage emotional detach- watch a picture of supportive others or sub- ment from a partner’s plight, inhibit both em- liminally exposing them to proximity-related pathic compassion and personal distress, and words) increased reports of empathic com- favor the arousal of pity. For avoidant per- passion and reduced reports of personal dis- sons, a distressed partner can act as a mirror tress. In contrast, contextual activation of that makes salient the self’s own weaknesses attachment anxiety or avoidance (asking par- and vulnerability to life’s adversities. Deacti- ticipants to recall personal memories of rela- vation may require suppression of the sense tional episodes in which they felt attachment Attachment, emotions, and relationships 163 anxiety or avoidance) reduced empathic when they view promotion of the partner’s compassion. welfare and maintenance of relationship qual- ity as desirable personal goals. For anxiously Emotional reactions to a attached persons, who harbor serious doubts partner’s happiness about their value and potency (Mikulincer & Shaver), engendering a partner’s happiness In this section, we focus on emotions that occur may not result in a feeling of pride because in response to a partner’s appraisal of progress they cannot take credit for a partner’s happi- toward personal goals and the resulting expres- ness and attribute the partner’s good outcome sion of happiness. Again, we wish to distinguish to their own positive qualities. In fact, its between two kinds of partner happiness based seems possible that only securely attached on its apparent cause: (a) relationship-relevant individuals experience the full measure of partner happiness—casesinwhich the partner’s joy, love, and pride, which fit well with their happiness results from one’s own relationship- interaction goals, stable sense of self-worth, enhancing behavior (e.g., being available and and feelings of potency and mastery (Miku- supportive) and (b) relationship-irrelevant lincer & Shaver). partner happiness—cases in which the part- We suspect that avoidant individuals may ner’s happiness results from attaining goals experience pride of a particular kind, which outside the relationship (e.g., career-related the ancient Greeks called hubris, described achievements, personal accomplishments). by Lewis (2000) as exaggerated pride result- Relationship-relevant partner happiness. The ing not from success in enhancing a partner’s most common emotional response to welfare but from confirming one’s own bril- a partner’s relationship-relevant happiness is liance, superiority, and . This presumably an increase in one’s own happi- emotion is related to narcissistic construal of ness, love, and pride. In such cases, one’s oneself as especially worthy of praise and own behavior promotes a partner’s welfare, success (Morrison, 1989), which is one of the meets the partner’s needs and expectations, main goals of the avoidant individual’s deac- and enhances relationship quality and satis- tivating strategies. faction. As a result, the person who behaves In sharp contrast, anxiously attached indi- beneficially toward his or her partner is likely viduals may react to their apparent contribu- to feel good about the positive outcomes tions to a partner’s good outcomes with ‘‘fear obtained by the partner; if a person takes of success’’ feelings—distress related to some of the credit for the partner’s desirable doubts about their worthiness to claim credit outcome, he or she is likely to experience for the partner’s welfare. These people’s pride (Lazarus, 1991; Lewis, 2000). These fragile sense of self-worth may cause them to positive reactions can, in turn, further moti- fear that their current success in meeting their vate people to approach their partner and partner’s needs will increase the partner’s ex- promote his or her welfare, thereby contrib- pectations, leading to uncertainty and uting to relationship quality and stability. about future performance. As in the previous examples we have Unfortunately, adult attachment research- considered, however, this straightforward ers have not yet examined the possible role linkage may depend on a person’s attachment of attachment orientation in shaping emo- orientation. For avoidant persons, who do not tional reactions to a partner’s relationship- view promotion of a partner’s welfare and relevant happiness. In a study described in maintenance of a warm and comfortably the previous section of this chapter, however, interdependent relationship as personal goals we did attempt to fill part of this empirical (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), a partner’s gap by collecting preliminary data on the relationship-relevant happiness may not attachment-related dynamics of emotional re- engender one’s own happiness and love. actions to a partner’s happiness. Participants According to Lewis (2000), people may were asked to recall an episode in which they experience these positive emotions mainly made their partner happy. Then, after writing 164 M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver a brief description of the episode, they rated experience empathic happiness in response to the extent to which the recalled episode eli- a partner’s successes. cited pride, positive emotions, and distress- A partner’s accomplishments may not related emotions (as assessed by the pride sub- elicit happiness in avoidant individuals be- scale of the State Shame and Guilt scale and cause their tendency to maintain emotional a brief version of the Positive and Negative distance may inhibit identification with and Affect scale). The results were clear: Attach- empathic feelings toward the successful part- ment anxiety was associated with distress- ner. Rather, such people may appraise the related feelings, r(63) ¼ .41, p , .01, and less partner’s accomplishments as a threat to their pride and positive emotion, r(63) ¼ 2.33, p , own grandiose self because the partner’s suc- .01 and r(63) ¼ 2.35, p , .01. Attachment cesses threaten to blur the illusory asymmetry avoidance was also associated with less posi- between partner and self. This threat can tive emotion, r(63) ¼ 2.37, p , .01. No sig- increase avoidant individuals’ hostile feelings nificant interaction was found between the two and hateful attitudes toward their partners and attachment dimensions. provoke hostile envy—wanting what the part- The findings imply that whereas anxiously ner has accomplished or destroying/devaluing attached individuals are prone to express dis- the partner’s identity or possessions. Hostile tress rather than happiness and pride in re- envy is a negative, destructive emotion that sponse to a partner’s relationship-relevant involves feelings of discontent and resent- happiness, avoidant individuals are less likely ment, occurs in situations in which others’ to express personal happiness in reaction to accomplishments threaten a person’s self- a happy partner. This is only a tentative con- evaluation and cause feelings of inferiority, clusion, however. More systematic research and promotes aggressive responses toward should be conducted on how people with dif- the successful other (e.g., Ben-Ze’ev, 2000; ferent attachment styles react to relational Ortony et al., 1987; Smith, 1991). Among episodes in which their own actions make avoidant people, this kind of envy may be a their partners happy. defensive attempt to restore a shattered sense of superiority over the partner. Of course, this Relationship-irrelevant partner happiness. account is particularly viable for dismissively Although there is not a single empirical avoidant individuals who do not suffer from study dealing with attachment-style differ- attachment and self-related doubts. ences in reactions to a partner’s accomplish- However, it may be less applicable to fear- ments, we want to propose some tentative fully avoidant people who suffer from a nega- ideas about the way attachment orientations tive self-image. might shape emotional responses to this kind For anxiously attached people, a partner’s of situation. When a partner feels good about accomplishments may evoke a more ambi- attaining positive outcomes outside the rela- valent emotional response. For them, tionship, the most common response is what a partner’s accomplishments signal that the Clark et al. (2001) called ‘‘empathic happi- partner is a ‘‘stronger, wiser’’ person—the ness.’’ This reaction includes a sense of defining feature of the kind of security-pro- closeness and common fate along with joy viding attachment figure anxious people long and admiration for a partner’s progress to- for (Bowlby, 1988). As a result, anxious indi- ward his or her goals. Like other emotional viduals may feel happy and enjoy their part- reactions to a partner’s fate, however, em- ner’s accomplishments because they may feel pathic happiness depends on the extent to more confident in the security and support which a person feels comfortable with this strong partner can provide in times of closeness and positively inclined toward need. At the same time, however, an anxious warm, intimate, and interdependent relation- person may appraise the partner’s accom- ships (Clark et al.). As a result, secure peo- plishments as a potential threat to relation- ple, who feel comfortable with closeness, ship maintenance because the successful may be more likely than insecure people to partner may search for a more attractive and Attachment, emotions, and relationships 165 successful partner. As a result, these accom- should be viewed as a tentative, nonexhaus- plishments may fuel the anxious person’s tive schematic representation of attachment- of separation and abandonment as well related variations in emotional experience as worries about imaginary rivals who can within close relationships and as a preliminary poach his or her successful partner (Schachner guide for further research. As mentioned ear- & Shaver, 2002). Again, anxious people’s lier, adult attachment research has focused hyperactivating strategies may not allow mainly on a person’s emotional reactions to them to fully enjoy a partner’s successes be- his or her partner’s negative behaviors. We cause they raise the specter of separation and need more systematic research on the attach- abandonment. ment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to other kinds of relational events. In addi- tion, more research is needed on the way com- An Integrative Summary and Some binations of anxiety and avoidance can shape Concluding Remarks emotional reactions. As observed throughout An integration of the various emotional reac- our review of relevant findings, some emo- tions to relational events reveals that securely tions, such as hostile envy or shame, seem to attached individuals display the most differ- vary according to specific combinations of entiated pattern of emotions, ranging from attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. happiness, admiration, gratitude, and pride to In this article, we have focused mainly on compassion, guilt, and anger (see Table 1). the role of dispositional attachment orienta- In addition, their emotional reactions reflect tions in understanding emotional reactions a strong tendency to maintain and enhance within close relationships. However, relationship quality and a partner’s welfare, a person’s attachment orientation within the overcome relational obstacles, restore emo- specific relationship in which the emotions tional equanimity and relationship stability in arise might also be predictive of his or her times of need, and encourage a partner’s per- emotional reactions. Future studies should sonal development. These are all qualities assess both dispositional and relationship- that attachment researchers have found to be specific attachment orientations and assess associated with security-inducing parental their unique contributions to emotional reac- care, supporting our that, in the adult tions. Future studies should also consider the attachment realm as well, a person’s own at- attachment orientations of both partners in tachment security is an important foundation a relationship and examine whether a person’s for his or her provision of high quality care to emotional reactions are affected by the part- others. In contrast, insecurely attached individ- ner’s attachment orientation. When both part- uals exhibit a narrower range of emotions, ners are fully represented in the equation, we which are consistently biased by defensive will have a foundation on which to build a hyperactivation or deactivation of the attach- systemic model of attachment dynamics at ment system. Whereas an avoidant person’s both the personal and the interpersonal levels, emotional makeup consists largely of different that is, a foundation for understanding dyad- kinds of defensive self-enhancement and nega- composition effects on emotional experiences tive feelings toward a partner (e.g., hostility, within close relationships. We the cur- resentment, pity, gloating, contempt, hostile rent article stimulates research by other inves- envy) regardless of the nature of the relational tigators, and together we will create a more event, the anxiously attached person tends to complete and powerful theory of attachment be overwhelmed by distress-related feelings and emotion in close relationships. during negative relational episodes and to express ambivalent blends of positive and neg- ative emotions during what we would expect References to be positive relational episodes. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, Despite what we believe is its consider- S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: Assessed in the able heuristic value, this integrative summary strange situation and at home. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 166 M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver

Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic emotion. New York: Springer. attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging con- Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment troversies, and unanswered questions. Review of styles among young adults: A test of a four-category General Psychology, 4, 132–154. model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Frei, J. R., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Respect in close rela- ogy, 61, 226–244. tionships: Prototype definition, self-report assess- Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial : Is it ever truly ment, and initial correlates. Personal Relationships, altruistic? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experi- 9, 121–139. mental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65–122). New George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999). Attachment and care- York: Academic Press. giving: The caregiving behavioral system. In Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applica- Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2000). The subtlety of emotions. Cam- tions (pp. 649–670). New York: Guilford. bridge, MA: MIT Press. Gross, C. A., & Hansen, N. E. (2000). Clarifying the Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. experience of shame: The role of attachment style, Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books (1st gender, and investment in relatedness. Personality ed. published in 1969). and Individual Differences, 28, 897–907. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separa- Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love con- tion: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books. ceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Per- Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications sonality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. of attachment theory. London: Routledge. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal rela- Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). tions. New York: Wiley. Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An Horppu, R., & Ikonen-Varila, M. (2001). Are attachment integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. styles general interpersonal orientations? Applicants’ Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relation- perceptions and emotions in interaction with evalua- ships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford. tors in a college entrance examination. Journal of Buunk, B. P. (1997). Personality, birth order, and at- Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 131–148. tachment styles as related to various types of Izard, C. E., & Kobak, R. R. (1991). Emotion system jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, functioning and emotion regulation. In J. Garber & 997–1006. K. A. Dodge (Eds.), The development of emotion reg- Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influence of ulation and dysregulation (pp. 303–321). New York: attachment relationships. In N. A. Fox & J. J. Cam- Cambridge University Press. pos (Eds.), The development of emotion regulation: Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus Biological and behavioral considerations. Mono- behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and graphs of the Society for Research in Child Develop- rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, ment, 59, 228–249. 37, 1798–1809. Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its Johnson, S. M., Makinen, J. A., & Millikin, J. W. (2001). relationship with other defensive processes. In J. Attachment injuries in couple relationships: A new Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications perspective on impasses in . Journal of attachment (pp. 300–323). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. of Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 145–155. Clark, M. S., Fitness, J., & Brissette, I. (2001). Under- Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, standing people’s perceptions of relationships is W. S., & Gamble, W. (1993). Attachment and emo- crucial to understanding their emotional lives. In tion regulation during mother-teen problem solving: G. Fletcher & M. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook A control theory analysis. Child Development, 64, of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 231–245. 253–278). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and attachment theory perspective on support seeking and representations of self and others. Child Develop- caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of ment, 59, 135–146. Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1053–1073. Kunce, L. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). An attachment- Dalai Lama. (1999). Ethics for a new millennium. New theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic rela- York: Riverhead Books. tionships. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Ducharme, J., Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2002). Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 5, pp. Attachment security with mother and father: Associa- 205–237). London: Kingsley. tions with adolescents’ reports of interpersonal Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New behavior with parents and peers. Journal of Social York: Oxford University Press. and Personal Relationships, 19, 203–231. Lazarus, R. S., & Lazarus, B. N. (1994). Passion and Feeney, J. A. (1995). Adult attachment and emotional reason: Making sense of our emotions. New York: control. Personal Relationships, 2, 143–159. Oxford University Press. Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult attachment, emotional con- Lehman, D. R., Ellard, J. H., & Wortman, C. B. (1986). trol, and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, Social support for the bereaved: Recipients’ and 6, 169–185. providers’ perspectives of what is helpful. Journal of Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Hirschberger, G. (2000). Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 438–446. The anatomy of a problematic emotion: The con- Lewis, M. (2000). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrass- ceptualization and measurement of the experience ment, pride, shame, and guilt. In M. Lewis & J. M. of pity. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 19, Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 3–25. 623–636). New York: Guildford. Attachment, emotions, and relationships 167

Lopez, F. G., Gover, M. R., Leskela, J., Sauer, E. M., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment Schirmer, L., & Wyssmann, J. (1997). Attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psycho- styles, shame, guilt, and collaborative problem- dynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. solving. Personal Relationships, 4, 187–199. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy- Lutwak, N., & Ferrari, J. R. (1997). Understanding chology (Vol. 35). San Diego: Academic Press. shame in adults: Retrospective perceptions of paren- Morrison, A. P. (1989). Shame: The underside of narcis- tal bonding during childhood. Journal of Nervous sism. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press. and Mental Disease, 185, 595–598. Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1987). The cog- Magai, C., Hunziker, J., Mesias, W., & Culver, L. C. nitive structure of emotions. New York: Cambridge (2000). Adult attachment styles and emotional biases. University Press. International Journal of Behavioral Development, Overwalle, F. V., Mervielde, I., & De Schuyter, J. 24, 301–309. (1995). Structural modeling of the relationships McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). between attributional dimensions, emotions, and The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical performance of college freshmen. Cognition and topography. Journal of Personality and Social Emotion, 9, 59–85. Psychology, 82, 112–127. Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman Barrett, L. (1997). McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Working models of attachment and daily social inter- Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. actions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: ogy, 73, 1409–1423. II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Orina, M. M. (1999). of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586– Attachment and anger in an anxiety-provoking situa- 1603. tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. 76, 940–957. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Rom, E., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). Attachment theory Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, and group processes: The association between attach- 321–336. ment style and group-related representations, goals, Medway, F. J., Davis, K. E., Cafferty, T. P., & Chappell, memory, and functioning. Journal of Personality and K. D. (1995). Family disruption and adult attachment Social Psychology, 84, 1220–1235. correlates of spouse and child reactions to separation Schachner, D. A., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Attachment and reunion due to Operation Desert Storm. Journal style and human mate poaching. New Review of of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 97–118. Social Psychology, 1, 122–129. Mikulincer, M. (1998). Adult attachment style and indi- Schore, A. N. (2003). Affect dysregulation and disorders vidual differences in functional versus dysfunctional of the self. New York: Norton. experiences of anger. Journal of Personality and Searle, B., & Meara, N. M. (1999). Affective dimensions Social Psychology, 74, 513–524. of attachment styles: Exploring self-reported attach- Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The relationship ment style, gender, and emotional experience among between adult attachment styles and emotional college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, and cognitive reactions to stressful events. In J. A. 46, 147–158. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory Shaver, P. R., & Clark, C. L. (1994). The psychodynam- and close relationships (pp. 143–165). New York: ics of adult romantic attachment. In J. M. Masling & Guilford. R. F. Bornstein (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Hirschberger, G. (2002, object relations theory (Empirical studies of psycho- January). The dynamic interplay of global, relation- analytic theories, Vol. 5, pp. 105–156). Washington, ship-specific, and contextual representations of DC: American Psychological Association. attachment security. Paper presented at the annual Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic meetings of the Society for Personality and Social attachment: Theory and evidence. In D. Perlman & Psychology conference, Savannah, GA. W. Jones (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attach- (Vol. 4, pp. 29–70). London: Jessica Kingsley. ment styles, coping strategies, and posttraumatic psy- Shaver, P. R., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love chological distress: The impact of the Gulf War in as attachment: The integration of three behavioral Israel. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, systems. In R. J. Sternberg & M. Barnes (Eds.), The 64, 817–826. psychology of love (pp. 68–99). New Haven, CT: Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Halevy, V., Avihou, N., Yale University Press. Avidan, S., & Eshkoli, N. (2001). Attachment theory Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment- and reactions to others’ needs: Evidence that activa- related psychodynamics. Attachment and Human tion of the sense of attachment security promotes Development, 4, 133–161. empathic responses. Journal of Personality and Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2003, May). Attach- Social Psychology, 81, 1205–1224. ment, compassion, and altruism. Paper presented at Mikulincer, M., & Horesh, N. (1999). Adult attachment the Conference on Compassionate Love, Normal, IL. style and the perception of others: The role of projec- Shaver, P. R., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. tive mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of Psychology, 76, 1022–1034. a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Mikulincer, M., Horesh, N., Eilati, I., & Kotler, M. Social Psychology, 52, 1061–1086. (1999). The association between adult attachment Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). style and mental health in extreme life-endangering Conflict in close relationships: An attachment per- conditions. Personality and Individual Differences, spective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- 27, 831–842. ogy, 71, 899–914. 168 M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver

Smith, R. H. (1991). Envy and the sense of injustice. In Tucker, J. S., & Anders, S. L. (1999). Attachment style, P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and interpersonal perception accuracy, and relationship envy (pp. 79–99). New York: Guilford. satisfaction in dating couples. Personality and Social Snow, N. E. (1991). Compassion. American Philosophi- Psychology Bulletin, 25, 403–412. cal Quarterly, 28, 195–205. Walker, L. J., & Pitts, R. C. (1998). Naturalistic concep- Spangler, G., & Zimmermann, P. (1999). Attachment repre- tions of moral maturity. Developmental Psychology, sentation and emotion regulation in adolescents: A psy- 34, 403–419. chobiological perspective on internal working models. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achieve- Attachment and Human Development, 1, 270–290. ment motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, Tangney, J. P. (1990). Assessing individual differences in 92, 548–573. proneness to shame and guilt: Development of the Self Westmaas, J. L., & Cohen Silver, R. (2001). The role of Conscious Affect and Attribution Inventory. Journal attachment in responses to victims of life crises. of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 102–111. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, Tangney, J. P. (1992). Situational determinants of shame 425–438. and guilt in young adulthood. Personality and Social Whitman, R., & Alexander, J. (1968). On gloating. Psychology Bulletin, 18, 199–206. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 49, 732– Tangney, J. P., Hill-Barlow, D., Wagner, P. E., 738. Marschall, D. E., Borenstein, J. K., Sanftner, J., et al., Woike, B. A., Osier, T. J., & Candela, K. (1996). Attach- (1996). Assessing individual differences in construc- ment style and violent imagery in thematic stories tive versus destructive responses to anger across the about relationships. Personality and Social Psychol- lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy Bulletin, 22, 1030–1034. ogy, 70, 780–796. Zimmermann, P., Maier, M. A., Winter, M., & Tidwell, M. C. O., Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Grossmann, K. E. (2001). Attachment and adoles- Attachment, attractiveness, and social interaction: cents’ emotion regulation during a joint problem- A diary study. Journal of Personality and Social solving task with a friend. International Journal of Psychology, 71, 729–745. Behavioral Development, 25, 331–343.