Personal Relationships, 13 (2006), 243259. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright 2006 IARR. 1350-4126=06

Working models of romantic attachment and the

subjective quality of social interactions across
relational contexts

CHRIS G. SIBLEY AND JAMES H. LIU

Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Abstract
Two diary studies examined the effects of domain-specific representations of romantic relationships (assessed using
the Relationship Questionnaire in Study 1 and the Revised Experiences in Close Relationships questionnaire in
Study 2) on the subjective quality of social interactions across four relational contexts: those with a romantic part-
ner, family member, platonic friend, or acquaintance/other. In both studies, domain-specific romantic attachment,
particularly attachment avoidance, was more strongly related to subjective experiences of social interactions involv-
ing a romantic partner than those with family members, platonic friends, or acquaintances/others. These results com-
plement previous diary research using earlier categorical measures of attachment and elaborate upon the contextual
effects of the attachment behavioral system in naturally occurring social interactions with different relational part-
ners. The conditions under which working models of different relationship domains should influence interpersonal
functioning are discussed, and a context-congruence hypothesis of attachment effects, which encompasses the cur-
rent findings and generates further predictions, is detailed.

The effects of adult attachment on various of others), which corresponds to discomfort

aspects of interpersonal and romantic relation-
ship functioning and quality are thought to
stem from variation in two working models
or cognitive subsystems (Brennan, Clark,
& Shaver, 1998; Griffin & Bartholomew,
1994a; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003).1 The first
of these dimensions is commonly referred to as
attachment anxiety (or model of self), defined
by Fraley and Shaver (2000, pp. 142143) as
an individuals predisposition toward anxiety
and vigilance concerning rejection and aban-
donment. The second dimension is often
referred to as attachment avoidance (or model
We thank Chris Fraley, Garth Fletcher, and Marc Wilson
for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this
article. This research was supported by a research grant
from the Foundation for Research Science and Technol-
ogy, New Zealand. This article comprises part of Chris G.
Sibleys doctoral dissertation completed under the super-
vision of James H. Liu and Ronald Fischer.
Correspondence should be addressed to Chris G. Sibley,
Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Private
Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand, e-mail: c.sibley@
auckland.ac.nz.
with closeness and dependency or a reluctance
to be intimate with others. Together, these
two attachment dimensions cast a net that
encompasses a majority of the variance in a
range of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors
in both attachment and close interpersonal
relationships (see Feeney, 1999, for a review).
Consistent with Bowlbys (1982/1969)
original theorizing, extant research indicates
that adults working models of attachment
1. Following Mikulincer and Shaver (2003), we define
these two dimensions as cognitive representations that
may be most aptly characterized as reflecting variation
in the attachment subsystems governing the use of
hyperactivating and deactivating secondary attachment
strategies. In order to remain consistent with the major-
ity of the literature on adult attachment, and pending
resolution of the most appropriate terminology for
describing these two dimensions, we use the terms
model and representation interchangeably when refer-
ring to the different hierarchically ordered components
theorized to underlie individual differences in these two
dimensions (see, e.g., Crittenden, 1990; Fraley &
Shaver, 2000; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2004, for com-
mentaries on this issue).

243
244
relationships are hierarchically organized, with
models of specific persons nested under more
global representations of different relationship
domains (Collins & Read, 1994; Overall,
Fletcher, & Friesen, 2003). Elaborating upon
this notion, Collins and Read suggested that
attachment representations of a given relation-
ship domain (e.g., that of romantic relation-
ships) should exert their strongest effects on
interpersonal behaviors and related cognitions
and emotions in social interactions with attach-
ment figures belonging to that domain (in this
instance, ones current romantic partner).
Event sampling methods, such as the social
interaction diary, are uniquely suited for exam-
ining predictions derived from Collins and
Reads (1994) theoretical framework regarding
the generality and boundary conditions of the
attachment behavioral system. To date, only
a handful of diary studies have considered the
association between individual differences in
adult attachment and the subjective quality of
naturally occurring social interactions (i.e.,
Bradford, Feeney, & Campbell, 2002; Feeney,
Noller, & Callan, 1994; Kafetsios & Nezlek,
2002; Pierce & Lydon, 2001; Pietromonaco &
Feldman Barrett, 1997; Shaver, Schachner, &
Mikulincer, 2005; Sibley, Fischer, & Liu, in
press; Tidwell, Reis, & Shaver, 1996). Previous
diary research in this area provides important
insights into the contextual influences of the
attachment system in social interaction. How-
ever, the ways in which different domains of
social interaction have been classified in pre-
vious diary research are inconsistent with
distinctions between domains of attachment
representation identified in the sociocognitive
literature (Collins & Read; Overall et al.,
2003). As such, future research remains neces-
sary in order to systematically test predictions
derived from Collins and Reads theoretical
framework regarding the generality of attach-
ment representations across different categories
of relational context that are consistent with
different attachment domains.
The present research details two social
interaction diary studies that seek to extend
research in this area by examining the associ-
ation between domain-specific representations
of romantic relationships and the subjective
quality of social interactions across four dis-
C. G. Sibley and J. H. Liu
tinct relational contexts. These four contexts
are derived from the distinction between cog-
nitive representations of different relationship
domains identified by Collins and Read (1994)
and Overall et al. (2003), and represent cate-
gories of social interaction involving a roman-
tic partner, family member, platonic friend, or
acquaintance/other.
Attachment effects in social interaction
The attachment system is thought to be acti-
vated when the individual perceives signs of
either an external or an internal threat (see
Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Once activated,
the primary objective of this behavioral system
is to attain the set goal of felt security (Sroufe &
Waters, 1977). According to Mikulincer and
Shavers model, this process is governed by
perceptions of attachment figure availability
and attentiveness that are based in subjective
experiences and stored, at least partially, in con-
sciously accessible memory. If the threshold for
perceiving ones partner as available and atten-
tive is met, then the individual experiences felt
security and will tend to adopt security-based
strategies, which further reduce perceived
threat and allow the person to proceed with non-
attachment activities. In the present context,
this process is thought, for instance, to result
in increased levels of the enjoyment and per-
ceived quality of daily social interactions with
ones romantic partner.
If the threshold for perceiving attachment
figure availability is not met, however, then
attachment insecurity is compounded, leading
to either hyperactivation or deactivation of the
attachment system. The adoption of one or the
other, or a combination, of these two secondary
attachment strategies is governed by a second
cognitive subsystem involved in determining
the subjective viability of proximity seeking.
In conditions where proximity seeking is
deemed to be viable, the individual will tend
to adopt hyperactivating strategies, such as
increasing the effort made to maintain proxim-
ity and elicit attention from an attachment fig-
ure. When proximity seeking is deemed not to
be viable, the individual will, in contrast, tend
to adopt a deactivating strategy, which inhibits
attachment system activation and downplays
Attachment and social interaction quality
the desire for proximity. Elaborating upon the
suggestion that different attachment styles
reflect prototypic strategies used to regulate
attachment insecurity (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988;
Kobak & Sceery, 1988), Mikulincer and Shaver
(2003) argued that dimensional and categori-
cal measures of attachment anxiety and avoid-
ance may be operationalized as measures of
variation in the tendency to rely on hyperacti-
vating and deactivating secondary attachment
strategies, respectively.
The dynamics through which hyperactivat-
ing and deactivating strategies influence the
subjective experience of emotion in social
interaction are undeniably complex. It does
appear, however, that the chronic use of either
of these secondary strategies results in de-
creased levels of global relationship satisfaction
and social interaction quality, possibly because
hyperactivating strategies (as indexed by mea-
sures of attachment anxiety) foster expectations
and needs that are unlikely to be fully and con-
sistently met by most partners, whereas deacti-
vating strategies (as indexed by measures of
attachment avoidance) generally inhibit both
intense positive and negative emotion in inter-
personal relations (see Fraley & Shaver, 1997;
Mikulincer, 1998). It has been suggested that
the effects of attachment anxiety and avoidance
(and thus the use of associated hyperactivating
and deactivating strategies) may vary according
to relationship longevity, with attachment anx-
iety thought to play a greater role in marital and
longer term relationships (Feeney, 1994, 2002).
Attachment avoidance in contrast, is thought to
be more predictive of emotional experiences
and relationship quality in shorter term dat-
ing relationships (e.g., Shaver et al., 2005), pre-
sumably because the development of intimacy
is highly salient in the earlier stages of a
relationship.
Recent research using event sampling tech-
niques, such as the social interaction diary, pro-
vides one line of evidence consistent with the
dynamics outlined in Mikulincer and Shavers
(2003) model of the attachment behavioral sys-
tem. In one of the few diary studies to (a) assess
attachment using continuous measures and (b)
analyze diary data using appropriate multilevel
modeling techniques, Pierce and Lydon (2001),
for example, reported that people low in attach-
245
ment anxiety and avoidance tended to perceive
their social interactions with close others as
higher in intimacy and of a greater overall qual-
ity. However, Pierce and Lydon examined the
effects of attachment anxiety and avoidance
using separate analyses, rather than considering
the concurrent effects of these two attachment
dimensions. Research by Bradford et al. (2002)
focusing explicitly on social interactions with
ones romantic partner in dating relationships
provides further insight into the cumulative and
interactive effects of domain-specific romantic
attachment anxiety and avoidance on the sub-
jective experience of social interaction. Elab-
orating upon Pierce and Lydons findings,
Bradford et al. reported that people low in both
romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance
(characteristics of a secure attachment style)
reported higher levels of intimacy and satisfac-
tion in social interactions with their romantic
partners than people low in only one or the
other of these dimensions.
Attachment effects in social interaction
across relational contexts
Research also suggests that the effects of differ-
ent domains of attachment representation, and
thus the tendency to use hyperactivating and
deactivating strategies, may vary systematically
across relational contexts. In one of the first
studies to consider this issue, Tidwell et al.
(1996, p. 730) theorized that attachment-related
effects should be moderated by the nature of a
given relationship, with the strongest effects
expected in social interactions involving ones
romantic partner. We propose that the follow-
ing caveat be added to this hypothesis, namely,
that the effects of attachment representations
of a given relationship domain should exert
their greatest effects in interpersonal relation-
ships encompassed by that relationship domain.
Consistent with this proposition, Tidwell et als
results indicated that the distinctions between
Hazan and Shavers (1987) tripartite measure
of domain-specific romantic attachment were
accentuated in social interactions involving
a romantic partner. Romantic attachment dif-
ferences in the subjective quality (e.g., inti-
macy, enjoyment) of social interactions were
also evident in interactions with opposite-sex
246
others, relative to same- and mixed-sex inter-
actions. However, such effects may have
occurred because this more general category
included a large number of interactions with
(heterosexual) romantic partners.
These results are consistent with the sug-
gestion that the cognitive subsystems influenc-
ing attachment-related behaviors may be
hierarchically organized and contain both
a global component or model that Collins
and Read (1994, p. 58) argued may apply to
a wide range of relationships and situations,
although it may not describe any one of them
very well, and a series of more detailed com-
ponents reflecting variation in models of dif-
ferent relationship domains (e.g., romantic
relationships, close platonic friendships).
According to Collins and Read (1994; Overall
et al., 2003), these latter, more specific models
should exert stronger influences on interper-
sonal behavior in relational contexts consistent
with that particular relationship domain (see
also Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr, Enns, & Koh-
Rangarajoo, 1996; Crittenden, 1990).
Recent diary research using multilevel
modeling further implicates the possible con-
textual effects of attachment representations of
different relationship domains on the per-
ceived quality of social interactions with per-
sons of different relationship types. In a recent
diary study, Sibley et al. (in press) reported
that domain-specific romantic attachment
was more strongly related to feelings of enjoy-
ment, interpersonal anxiety, and interpersonal
avoidance in social interactions with a roman-
tic partner than they were in social interactions
with participants most frequently recorded
family member or close platonic friend. Simi-
larly, Kafetsios and Nezlek (2002) reported
that the effects of (presumably) domain-
specific models referring to romantic relation-
ships were stronger in social interactions with
close friends than they were in social interac-
tions involving less close friends.
However, contrary to both Tidwell et al.
(1996) and Sibley et al. (2005), Kafetsios and
Nezlek (2002) reported that the effects of
domain-specific attachment on experiences
of social interaction were comparable across
opposite-, same-, and mixed-sex interactions.
These contrasting results could be due to var-
C. G. Sibley and J. H. Liu
ious factors, including differences in the sta-
tistical analyses and attachment measures used
in these studies, differences in the delay
between when attachment and diary measures
were administered, and the limited number of
interactions involving a romantic partner
included in Kafetsios and Nezleks data. Addi-
tional contrasting findings have also been docu-
mented by Pietromonaco and Feldman Barrett
(1997), who reported that the domain-specific
romantic attachment effects observed in their
research were comparable across both close and
nonclose relationships (closeness was opera-
tionalized in their analyses using a continuous
rating, rather than by examining categories of
relationship type).
Consistent with Collins and Reads (1994)
concept of a global default model theorized to
encompass models of specific relationship
types and persons, Pietromonaco and Feldman
Barrett (1997, p. 1421) concluded that work-
ing models of attachment show some character-
istics of a general interpersonal style and thus
exert broad pervasive effects across all kinds of
social interactions. Existing diary research is
also consistent with predictions derived from
Collins and Read, indicating that the effects of
domain-specific models of romantic attachment
relationships vary according to the relational
context in which social interactions occur, with
stronger effects observed in relational contexts
consistent with the particular attachment domain
being assessed (most often those with roman-
tic partners and close others).
The ways in which previous diary research
has operationalized different relational con-
texts in social interactions are, however, some-
what inconsistent across studies (e.g., romantic
partner vs. opposite-sex others, romantic part-
ner vs. the family member or close friend that
one most frequently interacted with, close friends
vs. friends, close vs. nonclose others, opposite-
vs. mixed- vs. same-sex others). In addition,
previous diary research lacks a systematic
typology of relational contexts identified in
naturally occurring social interactions that is
consistent with the distinction between differ-
ent domains of attachment representation iden-
tified by Collins and Read (1994; see Weiss,
1998, for related comments). As such, we con-
tend that a typology of relational contexts
Attachment and social interaction quality
observed in diary research that is consistent
with different domains of attachment represen-
tation remains necessary in order to systemat-
ically test predictions derived from Collins and
Reads theoretical framework regarding the
generality of the attachment behavioral system
across different contexts.
Identifying relational contexts in naturally
occurring social interaction
At the most detailed level, social interactions
may be classified on a person-by-person basis,
which may in turn be differentiated into in-
teractions with persons with whom one has
formed an attachment bond and interactions
with persons with whom one has not formed
such a bond. Consistent with such an approach,
Trinke and Bartholomew (1997) developed a
comprehensive series of criteria identifying
those particular relationships that constitute
genuine attachments. Trinke and Bartholomew
(1997, p. 623) reported that young adults evi-
denced approximately 56 attachments and
concluded that most young adults have mul-
tiple attachment figures, including family mem-
bers, romantic partners, and friends (see also
Doherty & Feeney, 2004). Research detailing
the cognitive structure of attachment represen-
tations also emphasizes the importance of
attachment bonds in each of these three rela-
tionship domains and suggests that models of
specific others are organized in a hierarchical
network that distinguishes between three broad
relationship domains: parents/family members,
friends, and romantic partners (Collins &
Read, 1994; Overall et al., 2003). These three
domains are thought to be nested under a super-
ordinate default model, which encompasses for participation. Fifty-six participants identified
even broader categories of social relation and
may include nonclose and less familiar others.
Overview and guiding hypotheses
We categorized social interactions into four dis-
tinct relational contexts that were consistent
with Collins and Reads (1994) distinction
between different domains of attachment re-
presentation: (a) interactions with a romantic
partner, (b) interactions involving a family
member, (c) interactions with close friends, and
247
(d) interactions with all others, referred to here
as acquaintances/others. Two studies exam-
ined the association between domain-specific
representations of romantic relationships and
the subjective quality of social interactions
across these four relational contexts. Study 1
assessed domain-specific romantic attachment
using the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ;
Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), whereas
Study 2 used the recently developed Revised
Experiences in Close Relationship (ECR-R)
questionnaire (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan,
2000). In both studies, it was hypothesized that
domain-specific romantic attachment anxiety
and avoidance would be significantly nega-
tively related to perceptions of the quality of
social interactions involving a romantic part-
ner. Similar trends were also expected in social
interactions across other relational contexts;
however, given that the measures of attach-
ment used in these studies assessed models of
romantic relationships specifically, such effects
were expected to be notably weaker than those
involving a romantic partner.
Study 1
Method
Participants. Participants were 71 (21 males,
50 females) undergraduate psychology students
studying at a New Zealand university who were
involved in a romantic relationship and who
reported regularly interacting (i.e., at least once
per week) with a romantic partner, one or more
family members,2 and their friends. Participants
ranged from 17 to 37 years of age (M 20.96,
SD 3.95) and received partial course credit
as New Zealand European (the majority ethnic
2. Unfortunately, detailed information differentiating
more specific types of familial relation (e.g., social
interactions with parents, siblings, extended family
members) were unavailable in both Study 1 and Study
2. Previous research sampling similar undergraduate
populations suggests, however, that a parent was the
primary interactant in the majority (approximately
80%) of participants familial social interactions
(Sibley et al., in press). Future diary research assessing
the effects of domain-specific models of familial
attachment could profit from further delineating cate-
gories of familial relation (see also Cook, 2000).
248
group in New Zealand), four identified as Maori,
two identified as Asian, five were of Pacific
Nations ancestry, and four people did not report
their ethnicity.
Procedure and materials. Participants first
rated how accurately Bartholomew and Horo-
witzs (1991) secure, dismissing, fearful, and
preoccupied RQ prototypes described their
overall experiences in romantic/love rela-
tionships on scales ranging from 1 (does
not describe me at all) to 9 (describes me very
well). Romantic attachment anxiety (M
25.34, SD 4.35) and avoidance (M
22.66, SD 3.84) were then calculated using
the difference score procedure outlined by
Griffin and Bartholomew (1994b; attachment
anxiety [preoccupied 1 fearful] [secure 1
dismissing]; attachment avoidance [dis-
missing 1 fearful] [secure 1 preoccupied]).
The two resulting attachment dimensions were
orthogonal, r(69) .02, p .86, and ranged
from a minimum possible score of 216 to a max-
imum possible score of 16. Higher scores indi-
cated higher levels of anxiety and avoidance.
Participants were then administered a vari-
ant of Wheeler and Nezleks (1977) social
interaction diary, which they completed for
the next 14 consecutive days. Consistent with
Wheeler and Nezlek, participants were asked
to complete a diary entry for every social inter-
action lasting 10 min or longer. A detailed
tutorial outlined instructions for completing
the diary accurately. The importance of updat-
ing the diary as often as possible with a mini-
mum of two or three times a day in order to
improve the accuracy of ratings was stressed.
Participants were also contacted after the first
week in order to assess their performance and
answer any additional queries.
Each social interaction diary record form
contained the standard descriptive measures
outlined by Wheeler and Nezlek (1977; e.g.,
date, time, number, and gender of interactants).
Participants also indicated their relationship to
each interactant (e.g., romantic partner, family
member, friend, acquaintance, colleague). If
the person fulfilled multiple relationship roles,
then participants were instructed to code the
relationship as the more interpersonally close
of the two options (in order of romantic part-
C. G. Sibley and J. H. Liu
ner, family member, friend, and acquaintance/
other). If, for example, a person fulfilled the
roles of both a romantic partner and a friend or
family member (e.g., husband, wife), then they
were instructed to code them as a romantic
partner. Similarly, the category friend was
reserved for people with whom participants
reported a lasting platonic relationship and/or
to whom they considered themselves particu-
larly close, rather people who were more aptly
categorized as flatmates, colleagues, members
of sports teams or study groups, and so forth
(these latter relationship types were classified
as acquaintance/other). This definition of friend-
ship is thus similar to the category of close
friend in Kafetsios and Nezleks (2002) research.
Elaborating upon the procedure used by
Pierce and Lydon (2001), if the interaction
involved two or more people, then participants
listed these people in order according to the
amount of time and attention they gave to each
person during the interaction. Each social
interaction was then classified into one of four
mutually exclusive categories: interactions in
which a romantic partner was listed as the pri-
mary interactant, interactions in which a family
member was listed as the primary interactant,
interactions with a platonic friend, and inter-
actions with an acquaintance/other.
Consistent with previous research (e.g.,
Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 1997; Tidwell
et al., 1996), participants rated the overall inti-
macy of each interaction (not at all intimate to
very intimate), and their feelings of enjoyment
(very unpleasant to very pleasant) and accep-
tance (totally accepted/valued to not at all
accepted/valued) during each interaction on
scales ranging from 1 to 7. These items were
averaged to form an overall measure of the
subjective quality of each interaction. Higher
scores reflected higher mean levels of per-
ceived social interaction quality. In order to
assess the reliability of this aggregate measure,
a separate Cronbachs alpha was calculated for
each participants ratings of these three measures
across interactions. The weighted alpha across
participants was then calculated using the meta-
analytic procedures outlined by Rosenthal
(1991), which indicated an acceptable level
of reliability, weighted a .78 (SD across
participants .12).
Attachment and social interaction quality 249

Description of the data structure and ana-

interaction quality
Overall ratings of
lyses. Of the total 5,243 social interactions

5.68 (.75)
5.09 (.86)
4.94 (.59)
4.47 (.73)
5.08 (.55)
recorded by the 71 participants in this study,
a romantic partner was coded as the primary
interactant in 25.06% (77% of which were
dyadic, and 23% of which were group interac-
tions), a family member was the primary inter-
actant in 14.32%, a platonic friend was the

Enjoyment
5.69 (.81)
5.12 (.94)
5.27 (.52)
4.61 (.80)
5.22 (.50)
primary interactant in 40.94%, and the re-
maining 19.68% were interactions with an
acquaintance/other (see Table 1 for additional
information). These data may be conceived of
as hierarchical or multilevel in nature. The first
(i.e., lower) level comprised the multiple social

Acceptance
5.80 (.83)
5.59 (.86)
5.41 (.62)
4.97 (.83)
5.43 (.62)
interactions recorded by each participant across
these different relational contexts, whereas the
second (i.e., higher) level referred to each parti-

Table 1. Simple descriptive statistics for the social interaction diary data across relational contexts
cipant. In this sense, social interactions (Level 1)
were nested within persons (Level 2).

4.55 (1.23)
4.15 (1.12)
3.24 (1.13)
Intimacy
5.56 (.88)

4.41 (.87)
Current research suggests that such data
structures may be most appropriately ana-
lyzed using Multilevel Random Coefficient
Modeling, often referred to as Hierarchical
Linear Modeling (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 18.50 (12.22)
10.58 (11.67)
30.24 (15.92)
14.54 (12.92)
73.86 (25.82)
2002). As Nezlek (2003) noted, in one sense,
Average n

HLM may be thought of as calculating a sepa-

rate regression slope for each persons social
interactions with the romantic partner (i.e.,
within persons) and then treating these slopes
as the dependent variable in comparisons
25.06, n 1,314

40.94, n 2,147
19.68, n 1,031
% of interactions

100, n 5,243

across persons. However, HLM is superior to

14.32, n 751

traditional Ordinary Least Squares-based anal-

yses of this type as it provides methods for
simultaneously modeling the error involved
with sampling observations at multiple levels,
that is, both the between-person error (Level 2)
and the between-social-interaction error (Level 1;
refer to Nezlek, an accessible introduction to
Interactions with an acquaintance/other

Note. Standard deviations displayed in brackets.

the use of HLM in diary research and to

Interactions with a romantic partner
Interactions with a family member

Raudenbush & Bryk, for more technical dis-

Interactions with a platonic friend

cussion of this issue).

Average across all interactions

Results
Simple descriptive statistics. Simple de-
scriptive statistics for the social interaction
Interaction type

diary data, including the number of recorded

interactions and mean within-person @aggre-
gates for the perceived quality of differ-
ent types of interaction, are presented in
Table 1.
250
Overview of the model. Diary ratings of
social interaction quality across the four rela-
tional contexts were treated as Level 1 (social
interaction level) variables that were nested
within participants. Individual differences in
participants romantic attachment anxiety and
avoidance were, in turn, treated as Level 2
(participant level) variables. Following recom-
mendations outlined by Nezlek (2003), the dif-
ferent relational contexts were represented by
four dummy-coded (0, 1) variables, each of
which indicated the presence or absence of one
of the four (mutually exclusive) categories.
Following HLM conventions (see Nezlek,
2003), the interaction-level (Level 1), no-intercept
model may thus be expressed as follows:
yij b1j romantic partner 1 b2j friends
1 b3j family members
1 b4j acquaintances=others 1 rij 1 Together, domain-specific romantic attach-
where yij was the perceived social interaction
quality (subscripted i) rated by each participant
(subscripted j) and rij represented error. b1j, b2j ,
b3j, and b4j were random coefficients represent-
ing the mean of yij across social interactions in
each of the four relational contexts.
The relationship between individual dif-
ferences in domain-specific romantic attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance (Level 2) and
ratings of social interaction quality (Level
1) was then analyzed. Consistent with proce-
dures outlined by Nezlek and Leary (2002),
models for each of the four relational con-
texts were expressed as follows:
Partner: bij c10 1c11 avoidance
1c12 anxiety
1c13 avoidance
anxiety1u1j
Friends: b2j c20 1c21 avoidance
1c22 anxiety
1c23 avoidance
anxiety1u2j
Family: b3j c30 1c31 avoidance
1c32 anxiety
1c33 avoidance
anxiety1u3j
Others: b4j c40 1c41 avoidance
1c42 anxiety
1c43 avoidance
anxiety1u4j
2
where, with regards to interactions with a
romantic partner, for example, b1j was a random
C. G. Sibley and J. H. Liu
coefcient representing the mean of yij across
interactions in which a romantic partner was
the primary interactant, c10 represented the
intercept, c11 represented the effect due to
romantic attachment avoidance, c12 repre-
sented the effect due to romantic attachment
anxiety, c13 represented the effect due to the
multiplicative centered interaction of anxiety
and avoidance (i.e., the moderated effect; see
Aiken & West, 1991; Baron & Kenney, 1986),
and u 1j represented error.
HLM analyses. Analyses of the baseline
intercept model, yij b0j 1 rij, showed that
21.28% of the variance in ratings of social
interaction quality was at the between-person
level (indicative of individual differences),
and the remaining 78.72% (including error)
was at the between-social-interaction level.
ment anxiety and avoidance explained 6% of
the within-person variance in the quality of
social interactions with a romantic partner,
and their interaction explained an additional
3.1%. These three predictors (including the
interaction term) explained notably less vari-
ance in the quality of social interactions
involving a family member (2.1% explained
variance), platonic friend (4.1%), or acquain-
tance/other (1.73%).3
The c coefficients from Equation 2 are
presented in Table 2. These coefficients are
functionally equivalent to unstandardized re-
gression coefficients and may be interpreted
along similar lines. Effect sizes were also com-
puted for all analyses using the procedure out-
lined by Rosenthal and Rosnow (1984; i.e., r
square root of t 2/t 2 1 df).
As shown in Table 2, comparison of the
significance and size of the effects of roman-
tic attachment on the subjective quality of
social interaction revealed the expected trends
across relational contexts. Romantic attach-
ment avoidance was significantly negatively
related to perceptions of the quality of social
interactions with a romantic partner, c 2.06,
effect size (r) .36, as was the multiplicative
interaction of anxiety and avoidance, c 2.01,
3. These estimates were calculated using equation 4.12
from Raudenbush and Bryk (2002).
Attachment and social interaction quality 251

Table 2. c coefficients for the relationships between Relationship Questionnaire measures of

domain-specific romantic attachment (avoidance, anxiety) and the quality of social interactions
in different relational contexts

Social interaction quality

Relational context c coefficienta t value Effect size (r)b
Interactions with a romantic partner
Intercept 5.69 70.16**
Avoidance 2.06 23.18** .36
Anxiety 2.03 21.21 .15
Avoidance
Anxiety interaction .01 2.00* .24
Interactions with family members
Intercept 5.04 52.08**
Avoidance 2.04 21.05 .13
Anxiety .05 2.01* .24
Avoidance
Anxiety interaction .01 1.63 .20
Interactions with platonic friends
Intercept 4.95 74.76**
Avoidance 2.03 21.73 .21
Anxiety 2.03 21.75 .21
Avoidance
Anxiety interaction .00 .85 .10
Interactions with acquaintances/others
Intercept 4.42 63.59**
Avoidance 2.03 21.59 .19
Anxiety 2.01 2.26 .03
Avoidance
Anxiety interaction .00 .09 .01

Note. Analyses were based on 5,243 observations from 71 participants.

a
unstandardized c coefficients. bEffect sizes were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnows (1984) formula: r square
root of (t 2/t 2 1 df).
*p , .05. **p , .01.

effect size (r) .24. Thus, these results indi-
cate that every one-unit increase in RQ ratings
of avoidance (note that this measure was
scored on a scale ranging from 216 to 16)
resulted in a .06-unit decrease in ratings of
the enjoyment of social interactions involving
a romantic partner (note that diary ratings were
scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 7). Esti-
mates of the (r equivalent) effect size of this
association suggested that this particular effect
may be appropriately described as of a medium
or moderate magnitude.
The interaction between anxiety and avoid-
ance was graphed using the procedures out-
lined by Aiken and West (1991). As shown
in Figure 1, the interaction indicated that peo-
ple low in both anxiety and avoidance (indic-
ative of a secure attachment style) reported
higher levels of interaction quality with their
romantic partners than people with either high
anxiety and low avoidance (indicative of a pre-
occupied prototype), low anxiety and high
avoidance (indicative of a dismissing style),
or high anxiety and high avoidance (indicative
of a fearful style).
Romantic attachment anxiety was also sig-
nificantly negatively related to the perceived
quality of social interactions involving a family
member, c 2.05, effect size (r) .24; how-
ever, as predicted, romantic attachment anxi-
ety, avoidance, and their interaction were
unrelated to perceptions of the quality of social
interactions involving a platonic friend or
acquaintance/other.
252
Figure 1. Interactive (moderated) effects of
domain-specific Relationship Questionnaire
romantic attachment avoidance and anxiety
on the subjective quality of social interactions
with a romantic partner.
Additional analyses. Similar trends in both
the magnitude and significance of all effects
were observed when diary ratings of intimacy,
acceptance, and enjoyment were examined
separately. Additional analyses were also con-
ducted in which both the number of interac-
tants present during each interaction and the
duration of each interaction were entered as
additional Level 1 variables. The entry of these
two variables did not alter any of the reported
analyses. Gender differences were also consid-
ered; however, consistent with similar analy-
ses reported by Pierce and Lydon (2001), the
effects of both participants and interactants
genders were minimal and did not alter any of
the reported analyses. All analyses were also
conducted using only the data from dyadic
interactions. All results remained comparable
when data were analyzed in this way.
Discussion
To summarize, the results of Study 1 indicated
that people with higher levels of romantic
attachment avoidance (assessed using the RQ)
tended to experience lower levels of social
interaction quality (indexed by the combina-
tion of intimacy, enjoyment, and acceptance)
in social interactions with their romantic part-
ners. In addition to this main effect, there was a
significant interaction between romantic at-
tachment anxiety and avoidance, further sug-
gesting that people who were low in both these
C. G. Sibley and J. H. Liu
dimensions (characteristics of a secure attach-
ment style) reported the highest levels of social
interaction quality in their relations with their
romantic partners (see Figure 1). Similar trends
were also observed across social interactions
with a family member, platonic friend, or ac-
quaintance/other. However, these trends were
nonsignificant, with the sole exception of ro-
mantic attachment anxiety predicting decreased
quality of interaction with family members.
Taken together then, these results suggest that
romantic attachment provided a notably better
predictor of the subjective experience of inter-
actions in which a romantic partner was the
primary interactant than they were of interac-
tions in other relational contexts (i.e., interac-
tions with a family member, platonic friend, or
acquaintance/other).
Study 2
Study 2 sought to replicate the results observed
in Study 1. This second study also differed from
Study 1 in three important ways. First, the RQ
measure of adult attachment used in Study 1
was replaced with the more recently developed
ECR-R (Fraley et al., 2000). The ECR-R pro-
vides one of the most valid and reliable mea-
sures of adult romantic attachment developed
to date (Fraley et al.; Sibley & Liu, 2004; Sibley
et al., in press). Second, given that comparable
results were observed when ratings of intimacy,
acceptance, and enjoyment were examined
separately in Study 1, only a single item (i.e.,
enjoyment) was used to measure social interac-
tion quality in this second study. Furthermore,
this item referred explicitly to participants feel-
ings toward the primary interactant in each
social interaction (diary ratings in the first study
referred to the overall characteristics of the
interaction across all persons involved). Third,
a detailed follow-up was also included in order
to assess the validity of participants social
interaction diary data.
Method
Participants. Participants were 76 (16
males, 60 females) undergraduate students
studying at a New Zealand university who
were involved in a romantic relationship and
who reported regularly interacting (i.e., at least
Attachment and social interaction quality
one social interaction per week) with their
romantic partners, one or more family mem-
bers, and their friends. Participants ranged from
18 to 44 years of age (M 22.60, SD 6.82).
Approximately two thirds of the participants
received partial course credit for participation,
whereas the remaining third were solicited
extramurally.4 Seven participants were mar-
ried, and the remaining 69 were in an ongoing
romantic/dating relationship of at least 3
months in duration. Fifty-four participants
identified as New Zealand European (the
majority ethnic group in New Zealand), 14
identified as Maori, 5 were of Pacific Nations
ancestry, 1 identified as Asian, and 2 people
did not report their ethnicity.
Comparison of Studies 1 and 2 suggested
that participants sampled in Study 2 may have
been marginally older than participants sam-
pled in Study 1, F(1, 145) 3.15, p .08,
g2 .02. The two samples did not differ, how-
ever, in the distribution of males and females,
v2(1, N 147) 1.42, p .23, or different
ethnic groups, v2(4, N 147) 5.11, p .28.
Procedure and materials. Participants first
completed the ECR-R (Fraley et al., 2000),
which contained 18 items assessing romantic
attachment anxiety (e.g., I worry that roman-
tic partners wont care about me as much as I
care about them, a .93, M 3.00, SD
1.10) and 18 items assessing romantic attach-
ment avoidance (e.g., I prefer not to be too
close to romantic partners, a .91, M
2.74, SD 1.03). These items were rated on
a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 7 (strongly agree). Items were aver-
aged to provide an index of anxiety and
avoidance that ranged from 1 to 7, where
higher scores indicated higher levels of the
construct in question. These two dimensions
were moderately positively correlated, r(74)
.50, p , .01. Consistent with previous research
assessing domain-specific models of romantic
relationships (e.g., Pierce & Lydon, 2001),
participants were instructed to Please take
a moment to think about your experiences in
romantic relationships, including both your
4. All results remained comparable when this difference
in sampling was entered as a covariate.
253
previous and current relationship experiences.
Please answer the following questions with
these experiences in mind, when completing
the ECR-R.
Participants were then administered a vari-
ant of Wheeler and Nezleks (1977) social
interaction diary. This diary used identical
procedures and instructions to those described
in Study 1 and contained all the same standard
descriptive ratings (e.g., date, time, number,
and gender of interactants). Participants then
completed a series of scales assessing the sub-
jective characteristics of each interaction.
Social interaction quality was assessed using
the single item referring to the enjoyment of
the interaction, which was rated on a scale
ranging from 1 (very unpleasant) to 7 (very
pleasant). Participants were instructed to com-
plete this item with regards to their feelings
toward the primary interact of each interac-
tion. The remaining items assessed other
aspects of the interaction, such as feelings of
femininity and masculinity, which were
included as part of a separate research project
and are not discussed further.
As a validity check, all participants were
contacted by an independent research assistant
1 month after completing the diary and person-
ally handed a declaration that they were asked
to sign and post back to the researchers using
a postage-paid envelope if and only if they had
maintained the social interaction diary regu-
larly (i.e., a minimum of once per day) and
accurately (i.e., made sure not to miss any
interactions). The declaration stressed that
the researchers had absolutely no interest in
identifying individual students and simply
wanted to make sure that the data were as
accurate as possible for research purposes.
Thus, if a signed declaration was not received,
their data would be excluded from all analyses.
Eleven people failed to return this declaration
and were, therefore, removed from the sample.
Description of the data structure and ana-
lyses. Of the total 6,042 social interactions
recorded by the 76 participants included in this
study, a romantic partner was coded as the
primary interactant in 31.10% (76.90% of
which were dyadic and 23.10% of which were
group interactions), a family member was the
254
primary interactant in 14.20%, a platonic
friend was the primary interactant in 28.90%,
and the remaining 25.80% were interactions
with an acquaintance/other (see Table 3 for
additional information). Consistent with Study
1, these results were analyzed using HLM, in
which the multiple social interactions recorded
by each participant (Level 1) were nested
within persons (Level 2).
Results
Simple descriptive statistics. Simple de-
scriptive statistics showing the number of
recorded interactions and mean within-person
aggregates for the perceived enjoyment of
interactions in different relational contexts
are presented in Table 3.
Overview of the model. Consistent with
Study 1, diary ratings of enjoyment across
the four different relational contexts were
treated as Level 1 (social interaction level)
variables that were nested within participants.
Individual differences in participants roman-
tic attachment anxiety and avoidance were, in
turn, treated as Level 2 (participant level) var-
iables. These analyses used Equations 1 and 2
described in Study 1.
HLM analyses. Analyses of the baseline
intercept model, yij b0j 1 rij , showed that
16.42% of the variance in ratings of enjoyment
was at the between-person level (indicative of
individual differences), and the remaining
83.53% (including error) was at the between-
social-interaction level. Together, romantic
Table 3. Simple descriptive statistics for the social interaction diary data across relational
contexts
Interaction type
Interactions with a romantic partner
Interactions with a family member
Interactions with a platonic friend
Interactions with an
acquaintance/other
Average across all interactions
Note. Standard deviations displayed in brackets.
C. G. Sibley and J. H. Liu
attachment anxiety and avoidance explained
27.03% of the within-person variance in
enjoyment in social interactions with a roman-
tic partner, and their interaction explained an
additional 1.41%. These three predictors
explained a comparable proportion of the
variance in enjoyment in social interactions
with family members (29.78%); however,
they explained notably less variance in the
enjoyment of social interactions with a pla-
tonic friend (6.57%) or acquaintance/other
(1.01%).
Comparison of the significance and size of
the effects of romantic attachment on the sub-
jective quality of social interactions (shown
in Table 4) revealed the expected trends
across relational contexts. Consistent with
Study 1, romantic attachment avoidance was
significantly negatively related to perceptions
of the quality of social interactions with
a romantic partner, c 2.33, effect size (r)
.41. The multiplicative interaction of anx-
iety and avoidance was also marginally sig-
nificant at p , .06, c 2.12, effect size (r)
.22. As shown in Figure 2, the interpretation
of this interaction differed somewhat from
that of Study 1 and indicated that people high
in both anxiety and avoidance (indicative of
a fearful attachment style) reported lower lev-
els of enjoyment in their interactions with
their romantic partners.
Romantic attachment avoidance was also
significantly negatively related to enjoyment
in social interactions involving a family mem-
ber, c 2.35, effect size (r) .39; however,
consistent with Study 1, romantic attachment
anxiety, avoidance, and their interaction were
% of interactions Average n Enjoyment
31.10, n 1,878 24.71 (13.41) 5.50 (.74)
14.20, n 859 11.77 (10.67) 5.47 (.91)
28.90, n 1,746 23.59 (20.02) 5.54 (.65)
25.80, n 1,559 20.51 (16.40) 4.97 (.78)
100, n 6,042 79.50 (28.18) 5.37 (.57)
Attachment and social interaction quality 255

unrelated to perceptions of the quality of social Discussion

interactions involving a platonic friend or
acquaintance/other.
Additional analyses. Consistent with Study
1, additional analyses were also conducted in
which both the number of interactants present
during each interaction and the duration of
each interaction were entered as additional
Level 1 variables. The entry of these two var-
iables did not alter any of the reported ana-
lyses. Gender differences were also considered;
however, the effects of both participants and
interactants genders were minimal and did not
alter any of the reported analyses. All analyses
were also conducted using only the data from
dyadic interactions. All results remained com-
parable when data were analyzed in this way.
Study 2 replicated and elaborated upon the
results observed in the first study. Consistent
with Study 1, people with higher levels of
romantic attachment avoidance (assessed
using the ECR-R) rated their daily interactions
with their romantic partners as lower in quality
(indexed using a measure of enjoyment).
In contrast to Study 1, romantic avoidance
was also related to the perceived quality of
interactions with family members. In both stud-
ies, however, romantic attachment was not sig-
nificantly related to perceptions of the quality
of social interactions with friends or acquain-
tances/others, suggesting that working models
of romantic attachment were more influential in
social interactions with ones romantic partner.

Table 4. c coefficients for the relationships between Experiences in Close Relationships

measures of domain-specific romantic attachment (avoidance, anxiety) and the quality of social
interactions in different relational contexts

Social interaction enjoyment

Relational context c coefficienta t value Effect size (r)b
Interactions with a romantic partner
Intercept 5.49 76.12**
Avoidance 2.33 23.83** .41
Anxiety 2.04 2.50 .06
Avoidance
Anxiety interaction 2.12 21.91 .22
Interactions with family members
Intercept 5.46 61.40**
Avoidance 2.32 23.56** .39
Anxiety .00 .01 .00
Avoidance
Anxiety interaction .00 .04 .00
Interactions with platonic friends
Intercept 5.51 79.71**
Avoidance 2.11 21.49 .17
Anxiety 2.10 21.40 .16
Avoidance
Anxiety interaction .07 1.26 .15
Interactions with acquaintances/others
Intercept 4.97 60.25**
Avoidance 2.07 2.82 .10
Anxiety 2.06 2.78 .09
Avoidance
Anxiety interaction 2.02 2.35 .04

Note. Analyses were based on 6,042 observations from 76 participants.

a
Unstandardized c coefficients. bEffect sizes were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnows (1984) formula: r square
root of (t 2/t 2 1 df).
*p , .05. **p , .01. p , .06.
256
Figure 2. Interactive (moderated) effects of
domain-specific Experiences in Close Rela-
tionships romantic attachment avoidance and
anxiety on the subjective quality of social
interactions with a romantic partner.
The multiplicative product of these two attach-
ment dimensions explained additional variance
in perceptions of the quality of social inter-
actions with ones romantic partner but not in
other relational contexts. Contrary to Study 1,
however, this interaction appeared to have
occurred because people who were high in both
anxiety and avoidance (characteristics of a fear-
ful attachment style) reported the lowest levels
of social interaction quality in their relations
with their romantic partner (see Figure 2).
General Discussion
Previous research using categorical measures
of attachment has implicated different catego-
ries of social interaction, or relational context,
as an important factor that may moderate the
effects of attachment on the subjective experi-
ence of emotion in social interaction (e.g.,
Kafetsios & Nezlek, 2002; Pietromonaco &
Feldman Barrett, 1997; Tidwell et al., 1996).
The two diary studies reported here elaborate
upon earlier research in this area and document-
consistent trends in which domain-specific
romantic attachment avoidance (assessed using
the RQ in Study 1 and the ECR-R in Study 2)
exerted its strongest effect on subjective expe-
rience in social interactions with romantic
partners (average r of avoidance .39), fol-
lowed by those with family members (average
r of avoidance .25) and platonic friends
(average r of avoidance .19). Attachment
C. G. Sibley and J. H. Liu
effects in social interactions with an acquain-
tance or nonclose other were, in contrast, ex-
tremely weak and nonsignificant in both studies
(average r of avoidance .14).5 Domain-
specific romantic attachment anxiety, in con-
trast, exerted relatively weak effects across all
four of these relational contexts (average rs
ranged from .06 to .18). As far as we are aware,
these are first diary studies to examine the
association between domain-specific romantic
attachment and social interaction quality across
categories of relational context that are con-
sistent with the distinction in cognitive repre-
sentations of different relationship domains
identified by Collins and Read (1994; Overall
et al., 2003).
Toward a context-congruence hypothesis of
attachment effects
The current findings provide converging evi-
dence demonstrating that, on average, the
effects of domain-specific representations of
romantic attachment were strongest in social
interactions with a romantic partner. Failure to
support this proposition could have, for
instance, raised concerns regarding the dis-
criminant validity of attachment measures the-
orized to refer to a particular relationship
domain (in this case romantic relationships).
The reverse effects, in contrast, should be
observed in research assessing attachment rep-
resentations of familial or friendship-based
domains. Indeed, we argue that such domain-
specific effects should be observed in any
relational context for which people are thought
to have rich and highly detailed models refer-
ring to that particular relationship domain (see
Doherty & Feeney, 2004; Trinke & Bartholomew,
1997). Thus, although there is undoubtedly
some consistency in peoples attachment rep-
resentations across different relationship domains
5. These effect sizes were calculated by first converting
the t values generated using HLM into effect sizes
equivalent to r. This transformation was conducted
using the formula reported in Rosenthal and Rosnow
(1984) and was consistent with analyses conducted by
Davila and Sargent (2003). Average effect sizes were
then calculated using standard Fishers r-to-z and z-to-r
transformations (as described in Rosenthal, 1991),
which were weighed using the Level 2 degrees of free-
dom (i.e., those based on the number of participants).
Attachment and social interaction quality
(Cook, 2000), we predict that representations of
a given relationship domain should nevertheless
exert their strongest effects on attachment-
related behaviors and emotions with persons
belonging to that domain.
This prediction elaborates upon Collins and
colleagues (Collins & Allard, 2001; Collins,
Guichard, Ford, & Feeney, 2004; Collins &
Read, 1994; Shaver, Collins, & Clark, 1996)
prediction that a given model will be more
likely to be used and hence be more predictive
of attachment-related cognitions and outcomes,
when features of the situation match features
of the working model under examination
(Collins & Allard, 2001, p. 69). Building upon
this premise, we argue that the relational con-
texts identified in naturally occurring social
interaction described here (i.e., interactions
with a romantic partner, family member, friend,
or acquaintance/other) provide an index of
situational features that map onto key distinc-
tions in models of different relationship do-
mains identified in other research (e.g., Overall
et al., 2003). We, therefore, detail a more spe-
cific version of Collins premise, which we
term the context-congruence hypothesis of
attachment effects. Simply put, this hypothesis
states that models of a particular person, rela-
tionship domain, or more global orientation will
exert their strongest effects on interpersonal
behaviors, cognitions, and emotions, when the
relational context in which social interaction
occurs is consistent with the domain and con-
tent of that model. Furthermore, as Collins and
Read (1994, p. 60) have argued, all other
things being equal, more specific models will
be preferred over more global ones. Thus,
superordinate or global models that encompass
cognitive representations of a range of rela-
tionship types but detail none should (a) exert
their strongest effects in social interactions
consistent with the acquaintance/other cate-
gory described here and (b) account for the
possible association between models of a spe-
cific relationship domain and perceptions of
social interaction quality in other noncongru-
ent relational contexts. Accordingly, we pre-
dict that global models should fully mediate
the relatively weak association between domain-
specific representations of romantic attach-
ment and perceptions of the quality of social
257
interactions with family observed both here
and by Sibley et al. (in press).
Caveats and conclusions
One caveat worth noting is that both samples
contained a high proportion of female partic-
ipants. Although the effects of both participants
and interactants genders were minimal and
did not alter any of the results reported here,
this does not preclude the possibility that gen-
der differences may moderate the effects of
attachment on certain aspects of social inter-
action (see, for instance, Bradford et al., 2002).
However, we expect that the domain specific-
ity of such effects should be relatively consis-
tent across genders, given that previous
research suggests that males and females dis-
play similarly organized cognitive representa-
tions of different attachment domains (Overall
et al., 2003).
In sum, research using social interaction
diary-type methods, such as those described
here, provides an important methodology for
testing predictions derived from Collins the-
orizing and their application to Mikulincer and
Shavers (2003) model of the attachment
behavioral system in greater detail. Like
almost all previous diary research in this area,
the current studies focused explicitly on the
role of models of attachment in the romantic
relationship domain (cf. Pierce & Lydon,
2001). Building upon this research, however,
the current studies comprehensively docu-
mented and compared the effects of romantic
attachment on social interaction quality across
different relational contexts and demonstrated
that such effects were evident primarily in
romantic-based relational contexts. Together
these findings pave the way for future research
examining the effects of relational models of
romantic partners, family members, and pla-
tonic friends in congruent and incongruent
relational contexts. These results also speak
to the need for an operational definition and
understanding of the effects of more global
and superordinate models of social relations
theorized to encompass models of all three of
these relationship types. Overall, it is hoped
that such research will aid in our understand-
ing of the generality and boundary conditions
of the attachment behavioral system and
258
related interpersonal processes in both attach-
ment and nonattachment relations.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. London:
Sage.
Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., &
Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive concep-
tualization of attachment working models: Availability
and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71, 94109.
Baron, R. M., & Kenney, D. A. (1986). The moderator-
mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consid-
erations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 51, 11731182.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment
styles among young adults: A test of a four-category
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61, 226244.
Bowlby, J. (1982/1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1.
Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Bradford, S. A., Feeney, J. A., & Campbell, L. (2002).
Links between attachment orientations and disposi-
tional and diary-based measures of disclosure in dating
couples: A study of actor and partner effects. Personal
Relationships, 9, 491506.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-
report measurement of adult attachment: An integra-
tive overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 4676).
New York: Guilford Press.
Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its
relationship with other defensive processes. In
J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implica-
tions of attachment (pp. 300323). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Collins, N. L., & Allard, L. M. (2001). Cognitive repre-
sentations of attachment: The content and function of
working models. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark
(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology:
Interpersonal processes (pp. 6085). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Collins, N. L., Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., & Feeney, B.
C. (2004). Working models of attachment: New devel-
opments and emerging themes. In W. S. Rholes & J. A.
Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research,
and clinical implications (pp. 196239). New York:
Guilford Press.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representa-
tions of attachment: The structure and function of
working models. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman
(Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5.
Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 5390).
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Cook, W. L. (2000). Understanding attachment security in
family context. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 78, 285294.
Crittenden, P. M. (1990). Internal representational models
of attachment relationships. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 11, 259277.
Davila, J., & Sargent, E. (2003). The meaning of life
(events) predicts changes in attachment security. Per-
C. G. Sibley and J. H. Liu
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1383
1395.
Doherty, N. A., & Feeney, J. A. (2004). The composition
of attachment networks throughout the adult years.
Personal Relationships, 11, 469488.
Feeney, J. A. (1994). Attachment style, communication
patterns, and satisfaction across the life cycle of mar-
riage. Personal Relationships, 1, 333348.
Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult romantic attachment and cou-
ple relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clin-
ical applications (pp. 355377). New York: Guilford
Press.
Feeney, J. A. (2002). Attachment, marital interaction, and
relationship satisfaction: A diary study. Personal Rela-
tionships, 9, 3955.
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Callan, V. J. (1994). Attach-
ment style, communication and satisfaction in the early
years of marriage. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman
(Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5.
Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 269308).
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment
and the suppression of unwanted thoughts. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 10801091.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic
attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging con-
troversies, and unanswered questions. Review of Gen-
eral Psychology, 4, 132154.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An
item response theory analysis of self-report measures
of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 350365.
Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994a). Models of the
self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying
measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 67, 430445.
Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994b). The meta-
physics of measurement: The case of adult attachment.
In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in
personal relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment processes
in adulthood (pp. 1752). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love concep-
tualized as an attachment process. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 52, 511524.
Kafetsios, K., & Nezlek, J. B. (2002). Attachment styles in
everyday social interaction. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 32, 719735.
Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late
adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and
representations of self and others. Child Development,
59, 135146.
Mikulincer, M. (1998). Attachment working models and
the sense of trust: An exploration of interaction goals
and affect regulation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 12091224.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment
behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychody-
namics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 35, pp. 53152). New York: Academic Press.
Nezlek, J. B. (2003). Using multilevel random coefficient
modeling to analyze social interaction diary data. Jour-
nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 437469.
Nezlek, J. B., & Leary, M. R. (2002). Individual differ-
ences in self-presentational motives in daily social
Attachment and social interaction quality
interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
tin, 28, 211233.
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Friesen, M. D. (2003).
Mapping the intimate relationship mind: Comparisons
between three models of attachment representations. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 14791493.
Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. E. (2001). Global and specific
relational models in the experience of social interac-
tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80, 613631.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman Barrett, L. (1997). Work-
ing models of attachment and daily social interactions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
14091423.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical
linear models: Applications and data analysis methods
(2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of
behavioral research: Methods and data analysis.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shaver, P. R., Collins, N., & Clark, C. L. (1996). Attach-
ment styles and internal working models of self and
relationship partners. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness
(Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships:
A social psychological approach (pp. 2562). Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2004). What do self-
report attachment measures assess? In W. S. Rholes
& J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory,
259
research, and clinical implications (pp. 1754). New
York: Guilford Press.
Shaver, P. R., Schachner, D. A., & Mikulincer, M. (2005).
Attachment style, excessive reassurance seeking, rela-
tionship processes, and depression. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 343359.
Sibley, C. G., Fischer, R., & Liu, J. H. (2005). Reliability
and validity of the Revised Experiences in Close Rela-
tionships (ECR-R) self-report measure of adult roman-
tic attachment. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 31, 15241536.
Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2004). Short-term temporal
stability and factor structure of the Revised Experien-
ces in Close Relationships (ECR-R) measure of adult
attachment. Personality and Individual Differences,
36, 969975.
Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, W. (1977). Attachment as an
organizational construct. Child Development, 48,
11841199.
Tidwell, M.-C. O., Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1996).
Attachment, attractiveness, and social interaction:
A diary study. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 71, 729745.
Trinke, S. J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of
attachment relationships in young adulthood. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 603625.
Weiss, R. S. (1998). A taxonomy of relationships. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 671683.
Wheeler, L., & Nezlek, J. (1977). Sex differences in social
participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 35, 742754.