University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 2006 Adult attachment style, passionate love, and the frustration of intimacy goals. Michael L. Vernon University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses Vernon, Michael L., "Adult attachment style, passionate love, and the frustration of intimacy goals." (2006). Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014. 2436. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses/2436 This thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ADULT ATTACHMENT STYLE, PASSIONATE LOVE, AND THE FRUSTRATION INTIMACY GOALS A Thesis Presented By MICHAEL L VERNON Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fultillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS February 2006 Social Psychology © Copyright by Michael L Vernon 2006 All Rights Reserved ADULT AH ACHMl-NT SI YLI-, PASSION Al lv LQVi:, AND Till; I'lUISTRATION OF IN l lMACY GOALS A Master Thesis by MICHAHLL. VERNON Approved as of style and content by: Paula R. Pictromonaco, Chair George LeVinger, MemMir Melinda Novak, Department Head Psychology Department ABSTRACT ADULT ATTACHMENT STYLE, PASSIONATE LOVE, AND THE FRUSTRATION Ol' INTIMACY GOALS FEBRUARY 2006 MICHAEL L. VERNON, B.A., UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO M.A.. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Directed by: Professor Paula R. Pietromonaco The puipose of this study was to examine the associations of attachment style and passionate love wilh Ihc pursuit, attainment, and frustration of intimacy goals, and to examine three sources of goal interference (i.e., own behavior, partner behavior, and external circumstances). Both members of 146 dating couples independently completed an Internet survey designed to assess attachment, passion, and relationship goals. Analyses were performed usmg the Actor-Partner Independence Model (APIM) in HLM. Actors high in passionate love were more likely to be pursuing and attaining intimacy goals and were less likely to report interference by partners. Actors reported greater success in achieving goals when their partners were highly passionate. Actors high in attachment avoidance and anxiety were less likely to attain intimacy goals, were more frustrated, and were more likely to report that their own behavior, their partner's behavior, and external circumstances interfered with goal attainment. When passion was reciprocated, participants reported less frustration and interference from all three sources. These findings highlight the importance of assessing the perspectives of both couple members. iv CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT IV LIS 1 OF TABLES LIS rOL FIGURES CHAPTER 1 . INTRODUCTION Attachment Theory 2 Attachment Theory and Relationship Goals 3 Passionate Love Defined 4 Intimacy as a Goal 4 Passion as a Function of Changes in Intimacy and Its Attammcnt 5 Mismatches between Partners' Attachment Styles May Result in Frustration 6 Ivxisting lividence for the Goal Frustration Hypothesis 6 Reciprocated Passionate Love is the Exception to the Frustration Hypothesis 7 2. HYPOTHESES 8 Hypothesis 1 (III): Passionate Love and Intimacy Goal Frustration H Hypothesis 2 (112): Reciprocated Passionate Love 8 Fhc Interaction of Attachment Styles (H3, H4, & H5) 8 Hypothesis 3 (H3): Goal Frustration in Anxious-Anxious Pairs 8 Hypothesis 4 (114): Goal Frustration in Avoidant-Avoidant Pairs 9 Hypothesis 5 (115): Goal Frustration in Anxious-Avoidanl Pairs 9 Hypothesis 6 (H6): The Main Effects of Attachment Style 10 3. M E l HOD Overview Participants Procedure Measures Attachment Style Passionate Love Intimacy Goal Pursuit and Frustration Analysis Strategy The Centering of Predictors 4. RESUL TS V Sample Characteristics 17 l ests of hypotheses 17 Hypothesis 1 (HI): Passionate Love and hitimacy Goal Frustration 17 Hypothesis 2 (H2): Reciprocated Passionate Love 17 Hypothesis 3 (H3): hitimacy Goal Frustration in Anxious-Anxious Pairs 19 Hypothesis 4 (H4): Intimacy Goal Frustration in Avoidant-Avoidant Pairs 20 Hypothesis 5 (H5): Goal Frustration in Anxious-Avoidant Pairs 20 Hypothesis 6 (H6): The Main Effects of Attachment Style 20 Attachment Avoidance and Intimacy Goals 20 Attachment Avoidance and Distance Goals 21 Attachment Avoidance and Self-Regulation Goals 21 Attachment Avoidance and Support Goals 22 Attachment Anxiety and Intimacy Goals 22 Attachment Anxiety and Distance Goals 23 Attachment Anxiety and Self-Regulation Goals 23 Attachment Anxiety and Support Goals 23 5. DISCUSSION 25 6. LIMI I ATIONS 30 APPENDIX: TABLES AND GRAPHS 32 BIBLIOGRAPHY 53 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Pag^^ 1 . Correlations of Passionate Love. Attachment Style, and Goal Frustration 32 - 2. Level 1 Main Effects Intimacy Goals 32 - 3. Level 1 Main Effects and Interactions Intimacy Goals 33 4. Level 2 Interactions - Intimacy Goals 34 - 5. Level 1 Main Effects Distance Goals 34 - 6. Level 1 Main liffects and Interactions Distance Goals 35 7. Level 2 Interactions - Distance Goals 36 8. Level 1 Main Effects - Self-Regulation Goals 36 9. Level 1 Main Effects and Interactions - Self-Regulation Goals 37 10. Level 2 Interactions - Self-Regulation Goals 38 11. Level 1 Main Effects - Sex Goals 38 12. Level 1 Main Effects and Interactions - Sex Goals 39 13. Level 2 Interactions - Sex Goals 40 - 14. Level 1 Main Effects Support Goals 40 - 41 15. Level 1 Main Effects and Interactions Support Goals 16. Level 2 Interactions - Support Goals 42 vu LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Aclor by Partner . Passionate Love and Intimacy Goal Frustration 43 2. Actor by Partner Passionate Love and My Partner Interferes witb Intimacy Goals 43 3. Actor by Partner Passionate Love and My Behavior Interferes with Intimacy 44 4. Actor by Partner Passionate Love and External Circumstances Interfere with Intimacy Goals 44 5. Actor by Partner Passionate Love and Sex Goal Frustration 45 6. Actor by Partner Passionate Love and External Circumstances Interfere with Sex 45 7. Actor Avoidance by Partner Avoidance and Sex Goal 46 8. Actor by Partner Passionate Love and Distance Goals 46 9. Actor by Partner Passionate Love and the Achievement of Support Goals 47 10. Actor by Partner Passionate Love and the Frustration of Self-Regulation Goals 47 1 1 . Actor by Partner Passionate Love and My Partner Interferes with Self-Regulation Goals 48 12. Actor by Partner Passionate Love and My Behavior Interferes with Self-Regulation Goals 48 13. Actor Anxiety by Partner Anxiety and My Behavior Interferes with Support Goals 49 14. Actor Anxiety by Partner Anxiety and My Partner Interferes with Distance Goals 49 15. Actor Anxiety by Partner Anxiety and External Circumstances Interfere with Distance Goals 50 16. Male Avoidance by Female Anxiety and the Achievement of Intimacy Goals 50 51 1 7. Male Avoidance by Female Anxiety and the Pursuit of Support Goals Distance Goals 51 1 8. Male Avoidance by Female Anxiety and the Pursuit of 52 19. Male Avoidance by Female Anxiety and Distance Goal Frustration Vlll CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Passionate love (as described by Hatfield & Walster, 1978; rcnnov. 1979) may be one ol ihc most frequently occurring yet under-studied relationship phenomena identified by relafionship researchers. As a search of the literature reveals, during the past 20 years, fewer than 30 studies have been published in major psychology journals that have tested hypotheses associated with passionate love. In addition, only a small handful of these studies have focused how passion is associated with relationship functioning (e.g., relationship satisfaction) while the remainder ol" these studies have focused on theoretically distant correlates of passion (e.g., cross-cultural differences, self-esteem, and trait anxiety). Even when Hatfield and Sprecher (1986) validated the Passionate Love Scale, they neglected to show how well these scores correlate with even the most basic aspects of passionate love (i.e., emotional involvement, and the desire to achieve union with another). As Berscheid (1985) noted, the lack of interest in passionate love is possibly due to the lack of a coherent conceptual framework for understanding specific emotional states which has subsequently turned passionate love into a neglected stepchild in the study of attraction and close relationships. Nevertheless, theories regarding the dynamics of passionate love have been proposed by psychologists (Hatfield, 1988; Tennov, 1979) and non-academic scholars alike. Hatfield's ( 198S) review of these theories reveals a common theme with respect to the conditions that are believed to be necessary to maintain a state of passion, once it begins. Specifically, these theorists argue that passionate love nourishes primarily under conditions where goal attainment regarding the desired union with another is either uncertain or thwarted, but remains to be seen as obtainable. w ith the The puipose of this study is to examine the hypothesis that passionate love is associated frustration of goals aimed at achieving union with relationship partners. 1 The present study draws on attachment theory as a basis for understanding indn idual differences in interpersonal goals that, in turn, can be used to to predict the amount of mlimacy goal frustration that individuals are likely to encounter in romantic relationships. Attachment Theory