Personal Relationships, 12 (2005), 149–168. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright Ó 2005 IARR. 1350-4126=05 Attachment theory and emotions 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 affect 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 pleasure. 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 emotion, 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 feelings as Within relational contexts, a person’s emo- acceptance, security, love, joy, gratitude, and tions can affect not only his or her own pride—on the positive side, and frustration, action tendencies, but also the partner’s re- rage, hatred, fear of rejection, humiliation, sponses and the resulting quality of the grinding disappointment, jealousy, grief, and dyadic interaction. In fact, basic emotions, despair—on the negative side? Close rela- such as anger, 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 anxiety- 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 confidence 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 pain 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 denial of attachment needs imity seeking as a protective strategy. The ap- and avoidance of emotional involvement, praisal of proximity as viable