Personal Relationships, 18 (2011), 617-629. Printed in the United States of America Copyright © 2010 IARR; DOL: 10,111 1/.1475-6811.2010.01325.x Attachment insecurities and interpersonal processes in Spanish couples: A dyadic approach FERNANDO MOLERO," PHILLIP R. SHAVER, EMILIO FERRER,” ISABEL CUADRADO,' ayo ITZIAR ALONSO-ARBIOL! “Spanish Open University (UNED), Spain; "University of California, Davis; of Almeria, Spain; ‘University of the Basque Country, Spain "University Abstract ‘Several attachment-related phenomena in Spanish couples using dyadic-level analyses were examined. A sample of 295 heterosexual couples completed measures of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance, self-esteem, social sellellicacy. and relationship satisfzction, Results, analyzed ftom a dyadic perspective using the actor~partner interdependence model (APIM), indicate that (a) there are actor but no partner effects of attachment insecurities on intrapersonal variables such as self-esteem and social self efficacy, (b) there are aetor and partner elects of avoidant attachment on relationship satisfaction, and (e) actor anxiety is associated with partner avoidance, and actor avoidance is associated with partner anxiety. Overall, the results reveal the importance of a dyadic perspective on ‘couple members’ attachment insecurities and their associations with intrapersonal and interpersonal processes and relationship adjustment. They also show that attachment variables and correlates studied mainly in English-speaking countries are useful in understanding Spanish couple dynamics. Attachment theory has stimulated hundreds of studies in the past two decades, show- ing how attachment insecurities of two kinds, anxiety and avoidance, are related to other psychological processes, such as affect reg- ulation, and to dyadic processes, such as conflict and forgiveness. in close interpe sonal relationships (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for a review). Nevertheless, many of the studies have involved only individuals rather than members of established couple: and most studies have been conducted in English-speaking countries (ie., the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Femando Molero, Department of Social and Organi- zational Psychology, Spanish Open University (Uni- Versidad Nacional de Edueacisn Distancia), Madrid, ‘Spain: Philip R. Shaver and Emilio Ferrer, Department Of Psychology, University of California, Davis: Isabel Cuadrado, Department of Social Psychology. University of Almeria, Almeria, Spain; Itziar Alonso-Arbiol, Fac- uty of Psychology, University of the Basque Country, ‘San Sebastian, Spain Comespondence should be addressed to Femando Molero, Departamento de Psicologia Social y de las Organizaciones, Universidad Nacional de Educacién a Distancia, Madrid, Spain, e-mail: fmolero@psinedes. Australia). These are the important limita tions of research on couple relationships, because. first, couple relationships cannot be understood solely in terms of individual- level factors, and second, it cannot simply be assumed that relationship processes stud- ied in one sociocultural context are universal Although adult attachment studies conducted in different countries have so far suggested considerable universality, some cross-cultural differences have been reported (see Shaver, Mikulincer, Alonso-Arbiol, & Lavy, 2010, for a review and commentary). More germane to this study are recent findings showing that Spanish university students (Alonso-Arbiol, Balluerka, Shaver, & Gillath, 2008) and American students of Hispanic ethnicity (Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Zakalik, 2004) score higher than the other groups examined so far on attachment anxiety. If higher levels of attachment anxiety are normative in Spanish populations, it may reduce the negative effects, of this kind of insecurity on couple dynamics. Understanding the universalities and cul- tural differences in adult attachment processes 617618 depends on increasing the number of studies conducted in non-English-speaking societies. This study addresses this need by examining, from a dyadic perspective, attachment-related phenomena in couples residing in Spain. Attachment in romantic relationships Attachment theory was initially formulated by Bowlby (1969/1982) and tested empiri- cally by Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978), who identified three major patterns of. infant attachment to primary caregivers (usu- ally the infant's mother), which here we will label secure, anxious, and avoidant attach- ment. Some years later, Hazan and Shaver (1987) proposed applying Bowlby’s theory and Ainsworth and colleagues’ rescareh find: ings to late adolescent and adult romantic love and couple relationships. Subsequently, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) argued that what Hazan and Shaver had called “romantic attachment” could be understood in terms of two conceptually independent dimensions —model of self and model of oth- ers which together defined four attachment styles: secure, preoccupied, fearful, and dis- missing. Empirical analyses (e.g. Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Fraley & Waller, 1998; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994) sup ported this conception of attachment patterns, and most recent studies have been based on measures of the two main dimensions that underlie the four-category typology: anxious attachment (characterized by concerns about rejection and abandonment) and avoidant attachment (characterized by discomfort with closeness and interdependence and a pref- erence for self-reliance). Numerous studies based on these two dimensions have been published, and the majority of them have been reviewed by Mikulincer and Shaver (2007). Recently, the measure used in most of these studies, the Experiences in Close Rela- tionships inventory (ECR; Brennan et al., 1998), was translated into Spanish and was shown to have good reliability and preliminary construct validity (Alonso-Arbiol, Balluerka, & Shaver, 2007). These early validity studies did not, however, include multilevel analyses to explore couple dynamics, self-esteem, and F. Molero et a social sel-ettivaey, which are the focus of this study. Associations between attachment insecurities and intrapersonal processes ‘Two intrapersonal variables have received considerable attention from social and per- sonality psychologists, self-esteem and self clficacy. Several authors (e.g. Kirkpatrick & Ellis, 2001; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995) have characterized self-esteem as the read-out of a “sociometer” that may have evolved to monitor a person's level of social inclusion or rejection by a relation ship partner or group—a valuable psycho- logical asset for members of a highly social species. Because attachment insecurities are thought to stem from the lack of adequate acceptance and support by caregivers during, childhood, it is reasonable to expect measures of these insecurities, especially attachment anxiety (fear of rejection or abandonment), to be inversely correlated with measures of self-esteem. Such negative correlations have in fact been reported over the years by researchers ranging from Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) to Schmitt and Allik (2005), the latter of whom found a significant negative correlation between attachment anxiety and scores on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) in 49 countries including Spain. The association between avoidant attach- ment and self-esteem is less clear. Although avoidance is a form of attachment insecu- rity, avoidant individuals are highly motivated to be, and to view themselves as, indepen- dent and self-reliant, which may make them reluctant to acknowledge low or unstable self-esteem. In their review of the research literature on adult attachment, Mikulincer and Shaver (2007) found negative correla- tions between self-esteem and avoidance in about half of the 60 studies they reviewed. These correlations suggest that the defen- Wve strategies of avoidant people—which include suppressing thoughts of vulnerability and dependence—are not always successful Regarding the association between attach- ment insecurities and a slightly differentAttachment insecurities in Spanish couples construct. sell-eflicaey (Bandura, 1977), the results also differ with respect to attachment anxiety and avoidance. The majority of stud- ies have found that attachment anxiety is associated with relatively low: sell-efticacy across all life domains studied (e.g., globai, social, academic, and athletic). In contra avoidance is often associated positively with pereeived sel-eiicacy in nonsocial domains, such as personal achievement, but associated negatively with self-efficacy in interpersonal domains (often referred to as relationship or social self-efficaey: eg. Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005; Taubman-Ben-Ari, Findler, & Mikulincer, 2002; Wei, Russell, & Zakalik, 2005). As with other studies of adult attach- ment and couple relationships, most of the studies published to date have involved only English-speaking participants. Attachment and relationship satisfaction Many researchers and literature reviewers have concluded that satisfaction or adjustment in long-term romantic relationships is impor- tant for people’s health and well-being (for a review, see Berscheid & Reis, 1998). In Spain, which is of special interest here, two national surveys (Centro de Investigaciones Sociol6gicas [CIS], 2002, 2004) showed that for almost all participants family was very (78.5%) or quite (20.4%) important, and most. participants were highly satisfied with their families (averaging 8.2 on a 1-10 scale). In their comprehensive review of attachment studies (mostly conducted in English-speaking, countries), Mikulincer and Shaver (2007) found that attachment insecurities (both att- achment anxiety and avoidance) and rela- tionship satisfaction were negatively corre- lated among both women and men, However, although anxiety and avoidance were roughly equally predictive of women’s dissatisfaction, avoidance was more consistently associated with relationship dissatisfaction in men. Although the majority of studies have focused on the association between one per- son’s attachment insecurities and his or her own relationship satisfaction, there are some studies of the joint influence of both partners" insecurities. This research generally shows 619 that partners of relatively anxious or avoidant individuals have lower relationship satis- faction than partners of relatively secure individuals (Banse, 2004; Feeney, 2002; Kachadourian, Fincham, & Davila, 2004; Shaver, Schachner, & Mikulincer, 2005). Some researchers (¢.g., Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr, Enns, & Koh Rangarajoo, 1996; Frazier, Byer, Fischer, Wright, & DeBord, 1996; Klohnen & Luo, 2003) have considered whether partners’ attachment styles are related to each other, as might be expected based on the well-researched general hypothesis that similarity enhances attraction (Byrne, 1971). There is some evidence that secure individ- uals are more attracted to secure individu- als, anxious individuals are more attracted to anxious individuals, and avoidant indi als are more attracted to avoidant indi als, although this pattem is not always found (see Holmes & Johnson, 2009, for a review). Regarding the effects of different attachment- style pairings on relationship satisfaction, it seems that the combination of an anxious person with an avoidant one is detrimental to relationship satisfaction, as is the combi- nation of two anxious individuals (Allison, Bartholomew, Mayseless, & Dutton, 2008; Feeney, 1994; Roberts & Noller, 1998). The dyadic perspective on adult attachment As Kenny, Kashy, and Cook (2006, p. 144) noted: “Virtually all major theories of roman- tic relationships, including theories of equity, commitment, trust, interdependence, and at- tachment, acknowledge the idea that one part- ner’s attributes and behaviors can affect the other partner's outcomes.” However, most of the research on adult attachment has been conducted at the individual level of analy- sis. Often, only one member of each couple is studied. Nevertheless, in the last few years several studies have been conducted from a dyadic perspective. For example, Brassard, Shaver, and Lussier (2007) and Butzer and Campbell (2008) documented the influence of both members’ attachment insecurities on both partners’ sexual and marital satisfac- tion. Millings and Walsh (2009) explored the relation between attachment and caregiving in620 long-term couples, and Simpson, Winterhedl, Rholes, and Minda Orifia (2007) explored the relation between attachment and the reac- tions to different forms of caregiving from romantic partners. These studies all involved English- or French-speaking couples in the United States and Canada, To analyze the mutual influences between two couple members, a dyadic perspective is required. In this study, we adopt this per- spective and analyze several correlates of attachment insecurities that have received lit- tle attention in the literature, especially in Spain, Specifically, we examine 1. the effects of actor and partner attach- ment insecurities (attachment anxiety and avoidance) on intrapersonal_pro- cesses such as self-esteem and per- ceived sovial sel-eticacy the influence of actor and partner attach- ment insecurities on both partners’ rela- tionship satisfaction; 3. the existence of similarity or comple- mentarity between the attachment ori entations of relationship partners. Objectives and hypotheses Our goal was to examine attachment-related phenomena within established couples resid- ing in Spain, using both individual-level and dyadic-level analyses. On the basis of adult attachment theory (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), the findings from previous studies. and advances in dyadic analysis. methods, we tested several hypotheses using multilevel modeling (MLM), as suggested by creators of the actor—partner interdependence model (APIM; Kashy & Kenny, 2000; Kenny et al, 2006). The APIM will be explained in more detail in the Analyses section. HI (Model 1): Actors’ attachment inse~ curities (anxiety and avoidance) will be negatively correlated with their own self-esteem. Inverse associations between actor attach- ‘ment insecurities and actor self-esteem have been reported in the literature (e.g., Schmitt & F. Molero et a Allik, 2005), but little is known about associa- tions between one relationship partner's inse- curities and the other partner's self-esteem. This association will be examined in our anal- yses, but we advance no a priori hypothesis about it. H2 (Model 2): Actor attachment insecu- rities will be inversely associated with actor social self-efficacy As is the case of self-esteem, there are a number of studies reporting an inverse asso- ciation between attachment insecurities and actor social sell-etticacy (e.g. Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005; Wei et al., 2005), Nevertheless, the possible links between one partner's inse~ curities and the other's social selt-elficaey are unclear. This will be explored in Model 2. H3_ (Model 3): Actor and partner attach- ment insecurities will be inversely associated with both partners’ rela- tionship satisfaction. Several studies have documented the negative associations between one person's attachment insecurities and his or her own. relationship satisfaction. The associations be- tween one partner's insecurities and the other partner’ satisfaction have been less often ex- plored, although a few studies have found the expected negative associations (e.g., Banse, 2004) H4 (Models 4 and 5): One partner attachment anxiety will be associated with the other partner's avoidance and vice versa, because anxious indi- viduals should cause their partners to draw away, and avoidant individ- uals should cause their partners 10 ‘feel insecure, anxious, and desirous of greater closeness. Method Participants and procedure ‘The participants, 295 heterosexual couples were recruited and interviewed by under- graduate psychology students at the UNEDAttachment insecurities in Spanish couples (National Open University, Spain) who re- ceived practicum credits for conducting the interviews. Each student was asked to inter- view both members of at least three heterosex- ual couples (regardless of relationship length) using the questionnaire described below. Par- ticipant couples resided in various parts of Spain, 26% in large cities (with a pop- ulation of more than I million), 43% in middle size cities (with 50,000 to 1 million inhabitants), and 31% in small towns (with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants). The age of the participants ranged from 17 to 77 years (M = 34.3, SD = 12.05). Relationship length ranged from 6 months to 60 years, with a mean of 6.02 years and a SD of 9.21 years. Instruments Attachment Participants answered a Spanish version (Alonso-Arbiol et al., 2007) of the ECR (Brennan et al., 1998). The ECR contains two 18-item scales that measure attachment- related anxiety and avoidance. The mea- sure has been used in scores of studies in a variety of countries and language: since 1998 (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for a review). In this study, the internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach's us) of the Spanish versions of the scales were 84 and .85 for anxiety and avoidance, respectively. Self-esteem We used a Spanish translation (Expdsito & Moya, 1999) of the 10-item Rosenberg Self- Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), which con- tains items such as “I am able to do things as well as most other people” and “On the whole, Tam satisfied with mysell.” Ratings were made on a scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). In this study, the coefficient « for the scale was .76. Social self-efficacy We used the six-item Social Self-Ffficacy Scale designed by Sherer and colleagues (1982) to measure self-perceived social and 621 relationship skills. This scale was validated in Spain by Lépez-Torrecillas, Garcfa, Cafiadas, Uclés, and de la Fuente (2006). The fol- lowing items are representative: “I do not handle myself well in social gatherings” (reversed), “Il is difficult for me to make new friends” (reversed), and “I have acquired my friends through my personal abilities at mak- ing friends.” Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree}. In this study. the covtti- cient ,: for this scale was .78. Relationship satisfaction ‘The participants answered the following ques- tion, “Lo what extent are you satisfied with your current relationship?” using a 5-point seale ranging from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (ery satisfied). Although single-item scales have psychometric limitations, they can be useful in the absence of more extensive measures and can be adequate alternatives to longer scales (Barrett & Paltiel, 1996; Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001). Sociodemographic variables The participants also provided sociodemo- graphic information (e.g., relationship dura- tion, age, gender, and education level) Analyses The analyses were conducted from a dyadic perspective using the APIM. When individuals are members of a couple, their outcomes can- not be assumed to be independent; they are likely to be a function of both their own characteristics (actor effects) and their part- ner’s characteristics (partner effects). Finding partner effects in the data provides evi- dence of the couple members’ interdepen- dence (Kenny et al., 2006). To statistically estimate the actor and partner effects, we used MLM, a flexible approach that allows for the testing of interactions (Campbell & Kashy, 2002; Kenny et al., 2006). In particular, our MLM approach treated data from each partner as nested within their dyad. We coded gender as a dummy variable (—1 for women and 1 for men).622 Table 1. Descriptive statistics for all variables, F. Molero et a broken down by gender ‘Women Men Variables M SD M SD t Cohen's d Anxiety 3.07 592.99 62 1,93° 0.16 Avoidance 2.01 52. 2.12 54-253" 021 Self-esteem 3.92 58 58-231" 0.19 Social selt-efti 339 7 88 = 1.24 0.10 Relationship satisfaction 4.21 83 4.40 15 —3.16" 0.26 Note. Scores could range from to 5. p< 05." p <1 Results Descriptive statistics and correlations The means and standard deviations for all variables are shown in Table 1, separately for men and women. Because the sample size was large. there were significant gender differences on all variables, with the excep- tion of social self-efficacy, Nevertheless, the effect sizes were small in all cases. Men were slightly less anxious, more avoidant, higher in self-esteem, and more satisfied with their rela- tionships than women. ‘These results fit with gender-role stereotypes (see, e.g., Deaux & Kite, 1993; Spence & Buckner, 2000). Table 2 displays the zero-order correlations among the variables, separately for men and women. Most of the correlation coefficients are in the same directions and of roughly similar sizes for men and women, but there are some signif- icant differences in the correlations involving avoidance. The correlation between avoidance and self-esteem is more strongly negative for ‘men than for women (z = 1.96, p = .05, two- tailed), and the correlation between avoidance Table 2. Pearson correlations among variables and relationship satisfaction is more strongly negative for women than for men (z = 2.23, p< 05, two-tailed). Table 3 presents the zero-order correlations, between men’s and women’s variables. In the diagonal of this table, it can be seen that there are significant correlations beoween men’s and women’s avoidance, self-esteem, and relation- ship satisfaction scores. These correlations indicate that the couple members’ scores are not independent, which indicates the value of a dyad-level analyses (Kenny et al., 2006, p. 28). Hypothesis tests based on the APIM ‘To simplify the presentation of results we report only significant effects. Model 1 (Hypothesis 1) This model tests the actor and partner eff- ects of attachment insecurities (anxiety and avoidance) on self-esteem, and the result was expected to be a negative relation between the Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Anxiety — =.02 23" =19 12 2. Avoidance 01 — 21 =.09 —45' 3. Self-esteem =1T —36"* — 30"* 12° 4, Social selt-etticacy -.14" 24" 38" = =.04 5. Relationship satisfaction —.04 =.29" 19 04 = Note. Wonven’s vvetliconts are above the diagonal, whereas men’s coefficients awe below the diagonal p< 05." p <0Attachment insecurities in Spanish couples 623 ‘Table 3. Pearson correlations between men's and women's variables Variables 1) 2(W) 30W) 4(W) SW) L. Anxiety (M) 07 240 —01 04 = —22"" 2. Avoidance (M) 2 27 =13% —08 24" 3. Self-esteem (M) =04 — =09 18" 10 a 4, Social self-eilicaey (M) 03 =e 06 03 02 5. Relationship satisfaction (M) = —.11" — —.23"" 1 03 Ab Note, W = women; M = men, p< 05. \p <0) insecurity scores and self-esteem. The pre- dictor variables in the model included gen- der and both actor and partner scores on the anxiety and avoidance scales. As can be seen in Table 4, actors’ attachment anxiety and avoidance scores were negatively associ- ated with their own self-esteem, as predicted, but there were no partner or gender effect suggesting that couple members’ self-esteem was not affected by their partners’ attachment insecurities. ‘Table 4. Actor and partner effects of anxiety and avoidance on self-esteem and social self efficacy (Models 1 and 2) Self-esteem Predictor variables b SE ob SE Intercept 5.03" 19 4.59% 26 Gender 08 16 17.25 Attachment anxiety Actor effect. —.20'' 03 —.22"" 06 Partner effect .06 .03 02.06 Attachment avoidance Actor effect —33'' 04 —.28"" 07 Partner effect 01.04 01.07 Note. b coetticien p <.001 represents an landized regression Model 2 (Hypothesis 2) This model tests the actor and partner effects of attachment insecurities (anxiety and avoid- ance) on social self-efficacy, and negative associations were expected. The predictor variables in the model included gender and both actor and partner scores on the anxiety and avoidance scales. As can be seen in Table 4, actors’ attachment anxiety and avoid- ance scores were negatively related to their ‘own social self-effieaey, but as in the test of Hypothesis 1, there were no partner or gender effects. Model 3 (Hypothesis 3) This model tests the actor and partner effects of attachment insecurities (anxiety and avoid- ance) on relationship satisfaction. The predic- tor variables in the model included gender and. actor and partner scores on the anxiety and avoidance scales. As can be seen in Table 5, there were actor and partner effects of avoid- ance on relationship satisfaction, But in the case of attachment anxiety, there was only an effect of the partner; with the other variables in the model, actor attachment anxiety did not affect actor's own relationship satisfac- tion, There was also a significant main effect of gender, as already seen in Table 1, indi- cating that men were, on average, more satis- fied with their relationships than were women, Moreover, there was a significant interac~ tion between actor avoidance and gender: Avoidant women wei avoidant men. To determine whether the effect of ac- tor’s avoidance on relationship satisfaction less satistied than624 Table 5. Actor and parmer effects of anxi- ety and avoidance on relationship satisfaction (Model 3) Predictor variables b SE Intercept 624 27 Gender 03 Attachment anxiety Actor effect 06 Partner effect 05 Attachment avoidance Actor effect 06 Partner effect 06 Interactions, Actor Avoidance x oAS* 06 Gender Note. represents an unstandardized regression coeftisient p< 08."'p < 001 (b = —A46) was significantly greater than the effect of actor’s anxiety (b= —.05), as it seems to be, we used a Wald test, which is based on the estimates of the parameters to be compared in relation to the standard error of their difference.’ The result was highly sig- nificant, F(1, 292) = 30.58, p < 001. The effects of partner avoidance (b = —.21) and 1. Tosformally evaluate whether the two eoelliients were different from each other, we used a Wald test based fon the estimates of the parameters in question and the standard error of the difference between them, Specitically. this approach is based on two premises oo fa = fa =O, and Hc +18 #2om, from which An appropriate test statistic for this hypothesis is as follows: oh + oy 2onae ( om Vai toh foun In other words, the observed value minus the predicted value (from the null hypothesis ~ f= 0) is divided by the standard error of the difference F. Molero et a anxiety (b = —.13) on satisfaction were com- pared in the same way, and the difference was not significant, F(1, 292) = 1.20, p > .05. To explore the possible influence of actor and partner self-esteem and social sell-eflicacy on relationship satisfaction, we tested another model including these two variables together with the attachment insecurity variables (anx- iety and avoidance). None of the four vari- ables—actor self-esteem, partner self-esteem, actor social sel-elficacy. and partner social sell was significantly associated with relationship satisfaction, and their pres- ence in the model did not change the pattern of associations between the two attach- ment insecurity variables and relations satisfaction, Models 4 and 5 (Hypothesis 4) Model 4 examines the extent to which actor anxiety is related to actor or partner avoid- ance when the effects of gender are controlled. As predicted in Hypothesis 4, actor anxiety was positively associated with partner avoid- ance. Model 5 tests the extent to which actor avoidance is affected by actor or partner anx- iety when the effects of gender are controlled. As predicted in Hypothesis 4, actor avoid- ance was positively associated with partner anxiety. Results for both models are reported in Table 6. These results indicate a potentially destructive relationship dynamic in which one partner's anxiety increases the other's avoid- ance, and one partner's avoidance increases the other partner's anxiety. Discussion The main objective of this study was to examine attachment-related phenomena in a sample of Spanish couples. The study has three characteristics that distinguish it from most previous studies of adult attachment and. romantic or marital relationships: Analyses were conducted at both the individual and the dyadic levels, participants were members of established couples living outside a col- lege or university context, and the study was conducted in a non-English-speaking coun- ty. Spain, Overall, the results confirm linksAttachment insecurities in Spanish couples ‘Table 6. Actor and partner effects of anxiety ‘on avoidance and vice versa (Models 4 and 5) Anxiety Avoidance Predictor —_— — variables b SE ob SE Intercept 264) 13 1.540 17 Gender =.00 00 0203 Attachment anxiety Actor effect — —-02 03 Partner effect. =— — 20 03 Attachment avoidance Actor effect Partner effect Note. b ropeeseats 2 cient. p<.0 between partners’ attachment insecurities and personal and relationship well-being, and they also confirm the value of the APIM in couple relationship studies Intrapersonal effects of attachment insecurities As predicted by Hypothesis 1, higher levels of anxiety and avoidance were associated with lower levels of self-esteem at the individual level when controlling for partner’ ‘on attachment insecurities. These results are consistent with the literature on attachment anxiety (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Schmitt & Allik, 2005) and are compatible with a number of studies that have found an association between avoidance and low self-esteem (e.g., Gentzler & Kerns, 2004). jggest that attachment insecu- rity and more general forms of self-doubt are related, either because of shared genetic influ ences (Crawford et al., 2007; Donnellan, Burt, Levendosky, & Klump, 2008; Gillath, Shaver, Baek, & Chun, 2008) or because of the shared. influences of personal history emphasized by attachment theory (see reviews in Cas- sidy & Shaver, 2008). Within this constella- tion of insecurities, however, only the attach- ment insecurities were significantly related scores 625 to partners’ relationship outcomes in our study, There way a significant correlation between partners’ self-esteem levels. Longitudinal stu- dies would be needed to determine whether people with similar levels of self-esteem tend to form relationships with each other or, alternatively, one partner's self-esteem influ- ences the other partner's self-esteem, perhaps through associated personal qualities, such as assertiveness or communication skills, across time. Interestingly, in the APIM analyses, self-esteem did not predict relationship sat- isfaction when the attachment variables were included in the model. As predicted in Hypothesis 2, attachment insecurities were inversely related to per- ceived sovial self-efficacy” at the individual level when controlling for partne attachment insecurities (see also Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005; Wei et al., 2005). As with self esteem, there were no significant associations between one partner's attachment insecuri lies and the other partner's sovial sell-etfieucy or relationship satisfaction. Thus, social self efficacy, at least when measured in gen ral (rather than intimate relationship-specitic terms), seems to be a self-perception that does not play a role in dyadic processes. scores on Associations between actor and partner attachment insecurities and relationship satisfaction As predicted by Hypothesis 3, both actor and partner avoidance were negatively associated with both partners’ relationship satisfaction. That is, avoidant people tended to be less satislied with their relationships, and_ their relationship partners were also less satisfied, For attachment anxiety, however, we found partner but not actor effects in the APIM analyses, suggesting that anxious people may feel satisfied with their relationships even if their attachment-related behavior reduces their partner's satisfaction, There was also a main effect of gender Men reported higher levels of relationship satisfaction than women. There was also an interaction between actor avoidance and gen- der, indicating that for women avoidance was626 more closely related to dissatisfaction. This is similar to findings trom the United States reported by Collins and Read (1990), and it may be a result of men’s avoidance being ‘more congruent than women’s avoidance with gender roles and stereotypes. The model including self-esteem and social self-efficacy in addition tw the two attach ment insecu ant effects of sell-esteem or sovial self-efficacy an relationship satisfaction. This in the case of social self-efficacy. because it ‘was not correlated with satisfaction in Table 2 either, but it suggests that the negative cor relation between self-esteem and satisfaction in Table 2 was a function of the connection between self-esteem and attachment insecuri ties. (And in fact, in an analysis not reported in the Results section, we found that the asso- ciation between self-esteem and relationship satisfaction disappeared when the attachment insecurity variables were partialed.) The fail- ure of social self-etficaey as measured in this study to be related to relationship satisfaction may be a result of our having measured it in a_general rather than in relationship-specitic way. The results suggest that avoidance is more detrimental than anxiety to relationship sati faction, at least in Spain, where adults gener- ally report higher attachment anxiety scores than adults in the United States (Alonso- Arbiol et al., 2008; Wei et al., 2004), Attach- ment anxiety may be more acceptable in Spain than in the United States—an issue that should be examined directly in future studies. scores revealed no signi Joint effects of attachment insecurities in both members of a couple The results for Hypothesis 4 indicate that couple members’ attachment insecurity scores were interrelated. In particular, one partner's, anxiety was related to the other partner's avoidance (see Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994, and Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994, for compa- rable findings in the United States). Because our study was cross-sectional, we cannot determine whether anxious and avoidant indi- viduals were attracted to each other because F. Molero et a of preexisting attachment orientations, or the two people’s insecurities developed over time as one partner withdrew and the other pur- sued (Bartholomew & Allison, 2006). This is another important topic for future research. Although our study contributes to. the understanding of the role of attachment inse- curities in long-term couple relationships, it is limited in certain respects. First, we used only self-report measures rather than behav- ioral observations. Second, although the study was cross-sectional in design, we conceptual- ized the analysis mainly in terms of the effects of attachment insecurities on other variable: including both partners’ relationship satisfac- tion. It is. also possible that difficulties. in a relationship, leading to lower satisfaction, affect attachment anxiety and avoidance over time, perhaps especially avoidance, which involves backing away from intimacy and interdependence. Attachment theory views attachment insecurities primarily as outcomes of actual relationship experiences, so the causal model in the case of adults may involve bidirectional forces operating over time. That is, all variables in the model are subject to change and therefore warrant study over time. Finally, regarding the issue of cultural dif- ferences and similarities, we obtained many findings similar w those obtained in prior English-language studies. Attachment insecu- rities were related, at the individual level, to lower self-esteem and lower social self efficacy, and men’s avoidance scores were slightly higher than women’s avoidance scor- es, which sometimes occurs in English-lang- uage studies as well. Avoidance was more associated than anxiety with low relationship satisfaction, which is also common in English- language studies (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for a review). One partner's anxiety was related negatively to the other partner's satisfaction and avoidance, suggesting that attachment anxiety causes difficulties ina relationship, especially for avoidant partners. In some English-language studies, wo- men’s attachment anxiety seems to be a greater problem for their male partners’ sat- isfaction than men’s attachment anxiety is a problem for their female partners’ satisfaction (e.g. Collins & Read, 1990), but this was not,Attachment insecurities in Spanish couples the case in this study. If anything, men’s anx- ety was a greater problem for their female partners than women’s anxiety was a prob- lem for their male partners, as indicated by the correlation coefticients of —.22 and —.11 in Table 3, but these coefficients were not sig. nificantly different Thus. overall, the pattern of findings tor Spanish couples was very consistent with the pattern of findings in most English-language studies, suggesting cross-culturally general patterns, as have been found in studies of infant—parent attachment as well (see review by van [zendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008). It remains to be seen if this generality extends to nations and cultures more different than Spain and Anglo-American countries and cultures. References Ainsworth, M.D. S., Blehar, MC, Waters, EB, & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: Assessed in the Strange Situation and at home. Hillsdale, NJ: Exl- baum, Allison, C., Bartholomew, K., Mayseless, 0., & Dutton, D.G, (2008), Love as a butiletield: Relationship) dynamics in couples identified for male partner vio lence. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 125-150. ‘Alonso-Arbiol, L, Balluerka, N., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). ‘A Spanish version of the Experiences in Close Rela- tionships (ECR) adult attachment questionnaire. Per sonal Relationships, 14, 45-63 Alonso-Arbiol, L,Balluerka, N., Shaver, P. R., & Gillath, ©. (2008). Psychometric properties ofthe Spanish and American versions of the ECR adult attachment ques- tionnaire: A comparative study. European Jounal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 9-13, Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J.P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive concep- ‘walizaton of attachment working models: Availabil- ity and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality ‘and Social Psychology, 71, 94—108. Bandura, A. (097), Sele Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review 84, 191-215, Banse, R. (2004). Adult attachment and marital satis- faction: Evidence for dyadic configuration effects, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2 273-282, Barret, P.T., & Paltiel, L. (1996). Can a single item replace an entire scale? POP vs the OPQ 5.2. Selection ‘and Development Review, 12, 1-4. Bartholomew, K., & Allison, C. (2006). An attachment perspective on abusive dynamics in intimate rlation- ships. In M. Mikulincer & G. S. Goodman (Eis), Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, ‘and sex (pp. 102-127). New York: Guilford, 627 Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, LM. (1991). Attach- ‘ment styles among young adults: A test of a four category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244, Berscheid, E, & Reis, H.T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, 8. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (ath ed,, pp. 193-281). New York: MeGrav-Hill, Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1 Attach- ‘ment (nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. (Original ‘work published 1969) Brassard, A., Shaver, P. R.,& Lussier, Y. (2007). Ata ‘ment, sexual experience, and sexual pressure in romantic relationships: A dyadic approach. Personal Relationships, 14, 475~493. Brennan, KA., Clark, CL, & Shaver, P.R. (1998), Sel-report measurement of adult romantic attach- ‘ment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46~76). New York: Guilford Buver, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachmer sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15, lal-1s4, Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academie Press. Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327-342. Cassidy, J, & Shaver, PR. (EUs.). (2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical appli- cations (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford, Centro de Investigaciones SociolSgicas. (2002). Datos de Opinidn [Opinion Data], 29. Retieved December 1 2008, from hutp:/www cis.es/cisfopencmsBoletines 29/BSO_29 Relaciones_ personales humlifelicidad Centro de Investigaciones Sociolsgicas. (2004). Opin jones y Actitudes sobre la Familia [Opinions and attiudes regarding family]. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from hitp:/Wwww.cises/cisfopencmv/ES/I_encue stavestudiov/ver jsp2estudio=4556 Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult attachment ‘working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 58, 644-663, Crawiord, T.N., Livesley, W. J, Jang, KL, Shaver, P.R., Cohen, P., & Ganiban, J. (2007). Insecure attachment and personality disorder: A twin study of adults. European Jounal of Personality, 21, 191-208, Deaux, K, & Kite, M. (1993). Gender stereotypes. In FLL. Denmark & M.A. Paludi (Eds), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (pp. 107-139). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Donnellan, M.B., Burt, S.A, Levendosky, A.A, & ‘Klump, K.L. (2008). Genes, personality, and at- tachment in adults: A multivariate behavioral genetic analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, #4, 3-16.628 Expésito, F,, & Moya, M. (1999). Soledad y apoyo social Loneliness and social support]. Revista de Psicologia Social, 14, 297-316, Feeney, J. A. (1994), Attachment style, communication patterns, and satisfaction across the life cycle of smusriage. Personal Relationships, 1, 333-348, Feeney, JA. (2002). Attachment, marital interaction, ‘and relationship satisfaction: A diary study, Personal Relationships, 9, 39-55. Fraley, RC, & Waller, N.G. (1998). Adults attach- ‘ment pattems: A test of the typological model. In J.A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77-114). New York: Guilford, Frazier, P_ A., Byer, A. L.,Fischer, A. R., Wright, D. M., & DeBord, K. A. (1996). Adult attachment style and partner choice: Correlations ings. Personal Relationships, 3, 117-136. er, AL, & Kerns, KA. (2008) between insecure attachment and sexual experiences. Personal Relationships, 11, 249-268. Gillath, O., Shaver, P.R., Baek, J-M., & Chun, D. S, (2008). Genetic correlates of adult attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1396—1405 Gritin, D.W., & Bartholomens, K. (1994, Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying ‘measures of adult attachment, Journal of Personality ‘and Social Psychology, 67, 430-445 Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love con- ceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Pe- sonality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-24. Holmes, B.M., & Johnson, K. R. (2009). Adult attach- ‘ment and romantic partner preference: A. review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 833-852, Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F, & Davila, 1. (2008), The tendency to forgive in dating and married cou- ples: The role of attachment and relationship saisfac- tion. Personal Relationships, 11, 373-393. Kashy,D.A, & Kenny, DA. (2000), The analysis fof data from dyads and. groups. In H. T. Reis. & C.-M. Judd (Eus.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 451-477). New York: Cam- bridge University Pres. .D. A, Kashy, D.A, & Cook, W.L. (2006) Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford. Kirkpatrick, L.A, & Davis, KE, (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychot- (gy, 66, 502-512. Kirkpatrick, L.A, & Ells, B. J. (2001). An evolutionary approach (0 self-esteem: Multiple domains and mul- tiple functions. In G. J. 0. Fletcher & Clark, M. S. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology interpersonal processes (pp. 411-436). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Kirkpatrick, L.A, & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment style ‘and close relationships: A four-year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1, 123-142. and experimental tind “Associations F. Molero et a Kohnen, E. C., & Luo, $. (2003). Interpersonal attrac- tion and personality: What is atractive-self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity or attachment secu- rity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709-723, Leary, M.R., Tambor, E.S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995), Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: ‘The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality ‘and Social Psychology, 68, $18~530. L6per-Torrecillas, F., Garefa, J, Caftadas, G. A., Uelés, LR, & de Ia Fuente, E. 1 (2006).Validity of self cfticaey seale scores for a Spanish sample, Psyeho- logical Reports, 98, 437-450. Mallinckrodt, B., & Wei, M. (2005). Attachment, social competencies, social support, and psychological dis- tress. Joumal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 358-367, Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, PR. (2007). Attachment in ‘adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change, New York: Guilford. Millings, A., & Walsh, J. (2009). A dyadic exploration ff attachment and caregiving in long-term couples Personal Relationships, 16, 437-453, Roberts, N., & Noller, P. (1998). The associations between adult attachment and couple violence: The role of communication patterns and relationship sat- isfuetion, In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds), Auachment theory and close relationships (pp. 317-350). New York: Guilford Robins, R.W., Hendin, HM, & Tizesniewshi, K. HL (2001), Measuring global self-esteem: Construct val- idation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg ‘Self-Esteem Scale, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151-161 Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self- Jmage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous admin- istration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Seale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality ‘and Social Psychology, 89, 623-642. Shaver, PLR, Mikulincer, M., Alonso-Arbiol, L, & Lavy, S. (2010). Assessment of adult attachment ‘across cultures: Conceptual and methodological con- siderations. InP. Erdman & K. M. Ng. (Eds), Auachnent: Expanding the cultural connections (pp. 89-108). New York: Routledge, Shaver, PLR. Schaehner, D.A., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Attachment style, excessive reassurance seek- lationship processes, and depression. Personal- ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 343-359. Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercadante, B., Prentice- Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The Self Eilicuey Seale: Construction and validation, Psy chological Reports, 51, 663-671 Simpson, J. A., Winterheld, H. A, Rholes, W.S., & Minda Orifa, M. (2007). Working models of atach- ment and reactions to different forms of caregiving from romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 93, 466-471Attachment insecurities in Spanish couples Spence, J.T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive waits, wait stereotypes, and sex- ist ates, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44-62. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O, Findler, L, & Mikulincer, M. (2002), The effeets of mortality salience on relation- ship strvings and beliefs: The moderating role of attachment style. British Journal of Social Psychol- ogy, 41, 419-441 van Uzendoorn, M.H., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2008). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Bus), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, 29 and clinical applications (2nd. ed., pp. 880-908). New York: Guilford, Wei, M., Russell, D.W., Mallinckrodt, B, & Zakalik, R.A, (2004). Cultural equivalence of adult attach- ‘ment across four ethnic groups: Factor structure, structured means, and associations with negative moods. Jounal of Counseling Psychology, ST, 408-417. Wei, M., Russell, D. W., & Zakalik, R.A. (2005), Adult attachment, social seleficacy. self-disclosure, lon Tiness, and subsequent depression for freshman col- lege students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Coun seling Psychology, 52, 602-614.