10.
1177/0146167203256374
PERSONALITY
Davila, Sargent /AND
LIFESOCIAL
EVENTSPSYCHOLOGY
AND ATTACHMENT
BULLETIN
SECURITY ARTICLE
The Meaning of Life (Events) Predicts
Changes in Attachment Security
Joanne Davila
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Erica Sargent
State University of New York, Buffalo
Building on prior research, which has failed to find consistent
effects of life events on change in self-reported adult attachment
security over time, the present study tested the hypothesis that it is
the meaning people assign to events, rather than the objective
features of events, that is associated with changing levels of secu-
rity. Participants engaged in an 8-week daily diary study, dur-
ing which they completed daily self-report measures of attach-
ment security, negative life events, perceptions of loss associated
with events, and mood. Hierarchical linear modeling revealed
that perceptions of greater interpersonal (but not achievement)
loss associated with life events were significantly associated with
greater insecurity on a day-to-day basis, even controlling for
objective features of events and for mood. Trait levels of security
did not moderate this association. Results are discussed with
regard to social-cognitive models of attachment security and the
utility of understanding the meaning of life events to under-
stand how attachment models may be confirmed or
disconfirmed.
Keywords: attachment; stress; daily experiences; loss
The literature on self-reported adult attachment has
consistently shown that attachment patterns are mean-
ingful individual differences in adulthood and that levels
of security are associated with a variety of important
interpersonal outcomes (see Cassidy & Shaver, 1999;
Hazan & Shaver, 1994). Much of this research has consid-
ered self-reported attachment in adulthood to be a rela-
tively fixed trait (see also Pierce & Lydon, 2001). And,
even if researchers have not conceptualized attachment
as such, their measurement of it and research designs
have resulted in studying it as such. There are two prob-
lems with this.
First, at the conceptual level, there is growing evi-
dence that self-reported adult attachment, whether mea-
1383
sured as categorical patterns or as levels of security, changes
over time (e.g., Baldwin & Fehr, 1995; Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr,
Enns, & Koh-Rangarajoo, 1996; Davila, Burge, & Ham-
men, 1997; Davila, Karney, & Bradbury, 1999; Pierce &
Lydon, 2001). Therefore, in addition to guiding inter-
personal functioning, adult attachment also may be
guided by the interpersonal environment. This is consis-
tent with Bowlby’s original premise that working models
of attachment accommodate as well as assimilate new
information (Bowlby, 1973). It is also consistent with
recent conceptualizations of adult attachment security
as a social-cognitive variable that may have some trait-like
properties but that also may have state-dependent prop-
erties that are open to and result in change (e.g.,
Baldwin et al., 1996; Davila et al., 1999).
For example, Baldwin and colleagues (e.g., Baldwin,
1999; Baldwin et al., 1996) conceptualize attachment
patterns as relational schemas, which are defined as
declarative knowledge structures that provide scripts for
interpersonal relating. Their work and that of others has
shown that relational schemas can differ across situa-
tions, can be primed by contextual factors, and once
primed, affect interpersonal thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors (e.g., Baldwin et al., 1996; Mikulincer, Gillath,
Authors’ Note: The authors would like to thank Jonna Pitts, Dawn
Baumgarden, Monica Howard, Pamela Cocol, Pamela Wickham,
Veronika Peterson, Shiho Manabe, Heather Trigg, Kristin Schulz,
Christine Mattison, Tom Lee, and Maribel Montanez for their assis-
tance with data collection, coding, and entry; Sandra Murray for help-
ful comments on an earlier draft of the article; and the State University
of New York, Buffalo, undergraduates who generously gave their time
to participate in the study. Correspondence may be addressed to Jo-
anne Davila, Department of Psychology, SUNY Stony Brook, Stony
Brook, NY 11794-2500; e-mail: joanne.davila@stonybrook.edu.
PSPB, Vol. 29 No. 11, November 2003 1383-1395
DOI: 10.1177/0146167203256374
© 2003 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
1384 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
et al., 2001; Mikulincer, Hirschberger, Nachmias, &
Gillath, 2001). Similarly, Davila and Cobb (2003) have
suggested that when we assess self-reported attachment
security, we are assessing people’s consciously held
beliefs, which, like any other consciously held beliefs or
attitudes, are naturally prone to change based on peo-
ple’s current context (e.g., mood, social circumstances,
environmental factors) (e.g., Bower, 1981; McGuire,
McGuire, Child, & Fujioka, 1978; Morse & Gergen, 1970;
Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Hence, a richer conceptualiza-
tion of the complexities of people’s beliefs about attach-
ment security and the factors that promote change or
stability over time is necessary.
Conceptualizing attachment security in a more com-
plex way would help bring the adult attachment litera-
ture more in line with how social-personality psycholo-
gists conceptualize other variables that have traditionally
been viewed as individual differences. For example, the
literature on self-esteem has moved from conceiving of
self-esteem as a stable trait to considering both its trait-
and state-like properties (e.g., Kernis, 1993). Doing so
has yielded important information about how and why
self-esteem fluctuates and has shown that the stability of
self-esteem, in addition to the level of self-esteem, is a
unique aspect of self-esteem with distinct associations
with individual functioning (e.g., Greenier et al., 1999;
Kernis et al., 1998). Similarly, the literature on personal-
ity now focuses on personality as a dynamic construct
that has both stable and changing components (e.g.,
Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Nezlek, Feist, Wilson, & Plesko,
2001; R. W. Robins, Fraley, Roberts, & Trzesniewski,
2001). In doing so, we have developed a better under-
standing of how the individual and the environment
interact to produce continuity or change in personality
and behavior over time. The literature on adult attach-
ment may benefit from a similar focus.
The second problem with considering self-reported
adult attachment as a relatively fixed trait is at the mea-
surement level. Most studies have examined self-
reported attachment security at one point in time. Even
those designed explicitly to examine stability and
change have typically examined relatively few data
points spread over rather long time periods (4 months to
2 years) (e.g., Baldwin & Fehr, 1995; Davila et al., 1997,
1999; Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994; Pierce & Lydon, 2001;
Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1994). However, if we construe
self-reported attachment as a more dynamic, social-
cognitive construct that may vary over short-term, even
moment-to-moment time frames, then we would need to
study short-term variations in security to best understand
the state-like component of adult attachment (i.e., the
component that is open to revision and that can change)
and the factors to which it is responsive.
The present study was designed to address state
changes in self-reported adult attachment security, with
the goal of predicting whether daily experiences
account for variance in daily levels of security. In doing
so, not only can the findings speak to the circumstances
that allow for or promote changes in people’s levels of
attachment security but they can also speak to broader
issues regarding the effects of everyday interpersonal
experiences on beliefs and feelings about the self and
others. There is a growing literature on topics related to
how self-esteem and social-cognitive processes affect and
are affected by experiences in close relationships (e.g.,
Baldwin, 1999; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995;
Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000; Pierce & Lydon, 2001).
This literature clearly shows that this is a topic of rele-
vance to our understanding of interpersonal processes
and has the potential for important applications in
regard to relationship and individual well-being.
What type of daily experiences might account for vari-
ance in daily levels of security? This study tested the
hypothesis that subjective views of daily life experiences,
or the meaning that people assign to daily events, would
best predict changes in levels of security. One of the orig-
inal hypotheses to be tested regarding predictors of
change in self-reported adult attachment patterns was
that negative interpersonal life events would lead to
increased insecurity over time (e.g., Schar fe &
Bartholomew, 1994). Surprisingly, little support was
found for this hypothesis. Except for two studies that
examined significant romantic relationship experiences
(Davila et al., 1999; Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994), no other
study was able to document associations between life
events and change in attachment patterns or beliefs
(Baldwin & Fehr, 1995; Davila et al., 1997; Scharfe &
Bartholomew, 1994). This was unusual, especially given
that studies of change in attachment patterns during
childhood or from childhood to adulthood generally
supported the role of life events in attachment change
(e.g., Beckwith, Cohen, & Hamilton, 1999; Egeland &
Farber, 1984; Egeland & Sroufe, 1981; Vaughn, Egeland,
Sroufe, & Waters, 1979; Weinfeld, Sroufe, & Egeland,
2000). This may be due to the fact that such studies used
behavioral and interview measures of attachment pat-
terns, which likely tap different aspects of the attach-
ment system compared to those tapped by self-report
(see Bartholomew & Shaver, 1998; Collins & Read, 1994;
Crowell, Fraley, & Shaver, 1999; Davila & Cobb, 2003;
Shaver, Belsky, & Brennan, 2000).1 Still, it was striking
that self-reported adult attachment beliefs and patterns
were not more strongly and consistently associated with
life events. Why might this be the case?
One possibility is that it is not simply the occurrence
of events, or the type and number of events, that makes
them salient enough to affect change in adults but rather
 Davila, Sargent / LIFE EVENTS AND ATTACHMENT SECURITY
that it is the meaning of the event(s) to the person.
There is ample evidence that the manner in which peo-
ple view events, or the meaning that they assign to events,
is an important determinant of how they will be affected
by those events (e.g., Beck, 1967; Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). Hence, prior research, by examining only the
type and number of events, may have failed to define
events in a way that is truly meaningful to people’s beliefs
about attachment security. Attachment theorists suggest
that attachment beliefs and patterns are likely to change
only in response to interpersonally relevant, emotionally
significant life circumstances (e.g., Collins & Read,
1994). To date, researchers have attempted to objec-
tively define which events fit those criteria. It may be
more appropriate to consider the subjective experiences
of the people to whom events occur. The present study
does so by asking people not only to indicate whether
they experienced negative events on a daily basis but also
to rate the extent to which each event was associated with
two types of loss (interpersonal and achievement).
Loss, particularly interpersonal loss, was selected as a
relevant way to define subjective meaning because of its
centrality to attachment theory and its likelihood for
emotional significance (e.g., Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980;
Brown & Harris, 1978). Attachment theory assigns a
prominent role to interpersonal loss. Proximity and
availability of attachment figures are key to feelings of
security, and activation of the attachment system is based
on assessments of the availability of the caregiver in times
of stress. From an attachment perspective, then, inter-
personal loss is indicative of the unavailability of the
attachment figure. We believe that assessments of inter-
personal loss resulting from life stress in adulthood may
be construed as the extreme perception of the unavail-
ability of important others and, as such, may result in
changes in feelings of security. Therefore, ratings of
interpersonal loss associated with daily life events were
expected to be associated with daily levels of security.
Data on achievement loss also were collected to deter-
mine whether it was interpersonal loss specifically that
was associated with security, rather than loss more gener-
ally defined.
An alternative to this hypothesis is that it is the objec-
tive features of the life events (e.g., type, number) that
are associated with fluctuation in daily levels of security.
Although prior research largely rules against this possi-
bility, prior findings may be due to conceptual and meth-
odological limits. As noted earlier, recent social-
cognitive conceptualizations of self-reported adult
attachment security emphasize the malleable nature of
people’s beliefs about security that renders those beliefs
prone to constant change. If self-reported adult attach-
ment beliefs and patterns are construed in this way, then
it is not surprising that they do not show lasting change
1385
in response to life events, especially when assessed over
relatively long periods of time. It may instead be the case
that life experiences are related to changing levels of
attachment security on a day-to-day basis. Such day-to-
day assessment may capture the natural fluctuation of
attachment security in response to environmental cir-
cumstances. As such, when examined at the daily level,
life events may be associated with fluctuations in levels of
security.
Yet another alternative to the hypothesis that it is the
meaning of life events that is associated with daily levels
of security is that daily self-reported attachment security
is a function of daily mood. If this were true, it would
mean that people report feeling more or less secure sim-
ply because they are in a better or worse mood. If the
findings were to support this possibility, then they would
cast doubt on the idea that self-reported attachment
security is a valid, unique construct. However, if predic-
tors of daily levels of attachment security were identified,
above and beyond mood, this would strengthen confi-
dence in the validity of the self-reported adult attach-
ment construct. Hence, mood was included as a
covariate in all analyses.
Because adult attachment security may have both trait
and state properties, and because of the extensive evi-
dence for individual differences in attachment security,
we also examined whether attachment security mea-
sured at the trait level moderated the state-level attach-
ment effects. Specifically, we examined whether people
who were more or less secure showed different magni-
tudes of state attachment change over time and whether
they showed different associations between events, loss
ratings, and daily security. Doing so allows for a consider-
ation of dynamic/reciprocal associations between peo-
ple and their environments. Similar to personality and
mood (e.g., Davila, Karney, Hall, & Bradbury, in press;
Hammen, 1991; Snyder & Cantor, 1998), daily attach-
ment security may be both responsive to and have an
effect on daily experiences as people both construct and
react to their circumstances. Identifying such associa-
tions may shed light on how working models accommo-
date and assimilate information on a day-to-day basis.
To summarize, this study tested the hypothesis that
changes in daily levels of self-reported attachment secu-
rity would be associated with the meaning that people
assign to daily life events. Specifically, levels of security
should vary to the extent that events are viewed as involv-
ing more or less interpersonal (but not achievement)
loss. In addition, the study attempted to rule out two
alternative hypotheses. First, that it is the objective,
rather than subjective, features of the events that are
associated with changing levels of security, and second,
that it is daily mood that best predicts daily levels of secu-
rity. Effects of trait security on the proposed associations
1386 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
also were examined. These hypotheses were tested in an
8-week daily diary study in which participants made daily
ratings of life events, the meaning of those events (e.g.,
loss ratings), mood, and their level of security.
METHOD
Procedure
Participants took part in an 8-week (56-day) daily
diary study during the last 10 weeks of the 2001 spring
semester at State University of New York (SUNY), Buf-
falo. Participants attended an initial in-person labora-
tory session during which they were instructed about
daily diary completion. They were instructed to com-
plete one diary each evening for the next 56 days. Diaries
were to be returned twice weekly to a drop box in the Psy-
chology Department. When diaries were not returned, a
reminder phone call was made to participants. Partici-
pants were informed that everyone who turned in all dia-
ries on time would be entered into a lottery to win $100.
During the week following the last day of the study (day
56), participants returned to the lab, turned in their
remaining diaries, completed exit questionnaires, and
received debriefing information.
Participants
Participants were 154 undergraduates enrolled in
introductory psychology at the University at Buffalo who
participated in exchange for experimental credit. They
averaged 19.3 years of age (SD = 2.5). Sixty-five percent
were freshmen, 64% were women, and 60% were Cauca-
sian. Initially, 204 students consented to participate.
However, 43 were dropped from analyses because they
provided fewer than 10 days of data. Another 7 partici-
pants were dropped from analyses because on exit ques-
tionnaires they indicated that their data were not trust-
worthy. Of the 154 in the final sample, 140 provided
complete data. Of them, 22 provided fully on-time data
and were entered into the lottery. For the 14 (of 154)
who did not provide complete data, the mean number of
missing data points (days) was 8.7 (SD = 8.2). Among the
154 participants, the average number of days on which
diaries were turned in late was 14.2 (SD = 12.7, median =
11, mode = 0). Hence, on average, participants turned in
75% of their diaries on time.
Measures
Each day, participants completed paper-and-pencil
questionnaire measures of negative life events, loss asso-
ciated with events, mood, and attachment security.
Attachment security. Attachment security was assessed
with the 18-item Revised Adult Attachment Scale
(RAAS) (Collins & Read, 1990). Items were rated on a 5-
point scale ranging from 0 to 4. The RAAS includes three
subscales: close, which measures the extent to which
people feel comfortable being close to others; depend,
which measures the extent to which people are comfort-
able relying on others and believe that others are
dependable; and anxiety, which assesses fears about
abandonment and of being unloved. Many attachment
scholars consider avoidance of intimacy and anxiety
about abandonment to be the two dimensions underly-
ing all attachment styles (e.g., Brennan, Clark, & Shaver,
1998; see Crowell et al., 1999). The close and depend
subscales tap aspects of avoidance of intimacy. As such,
their mean was computed as a measure of comfort with
intimacy (low scores = avoidance of intimacy). In an
attempt to capture state-like beliefs about security rather
than trait-like ones, each day, participants were
instructed to “think about all of your relationships and
respond in terms of how you feel RIGHT NOW.”
To measure trait-like security, the means of anxiety
about abandonment and comfort with intimacy were cal-
culated across the 56 days of the study. Trait-like security
was thus defined as the average security level over the
study period. Although this differs from how trait secu-
rity is usually measured (e.g., with a one-time report of
security based on how participants generally feel), it
could be argued that the present assessment is actually a
more valid indicator of trait security because it takes into
account the natural variation in security that people
experience.
Mood. Mood was assessed with the Positive and Nega-
tive Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS lists 10 positive affects and
10 negative affects. For each item, participants were
instructed to report on “how much you have felt this way
today” on a 5-point scale ranging from very slightly or not at
all (1) to extremely (5). One negative mood score and one
positive mood score were computed by summing the
negative and positive item ratings, respectively.
Negative life events and loss ratings. Each day, partici-
pants were presented with a list of 60 negative life events
regarding school (e.g., received an F on an exam, paper,
or project; found out you were unable to get desired
courses or program), employment (e.g., reprimanded at
work; lost job, laid off, or fired), family (e.g., death of a
parent or guardian; conflict, argument, or disagreement
with parent), friends (e.g., left out of activities by friend;
conflict, argument, or disagreement with friend), close
(romantic) relationships (e.g., romantic relationship
ended; conflict, argument, or disagreement with roman-
tic partner), illness (e.g., injured or became ill), living
situations (e.g., conflict, argument, or disagreement
with roommate/housemate), and extracurricular activi-
ties (e.g., activity run by your group was a failure).
 Davila, Sargent / LIFE EVENTS AND ATTACHMENT SECURITY
Participants were instructed to “circle the events that
have happened to you in the last 24 hours.”
For each event circled, participants were asked to
make a series of ratings as to how much loss was associ-
ated with each event on a 7-point scale ranging from no
loss (0) to great loss (6). Four items were used to compute
a measure of total interpersonal loss (How much did this
event result in loss of emotional support that I had or
wanted to have; closeness or affection I had or wanted to
have; friendship or companionship I had or wanted to
have; trust that I had for someone) and four items were
used to compute a measure of total achievement loss
(How much did this event result in loss of succeeding at
what I do; accomplishing what I wanted; reaching my
goals or fulfilling my hopes for how I do; meeting my
expectations or performing up to my own standards).
To determine whether it was the meaning assigned to
events (based on the loss ratings) rather than the events
themselves that was associated with attachment security,
it was necessary to group the events into categories con-
sistent with the types of loss ratings being made (inter-
personal and achievement). Rather than rely on arbi-
trary categorization, an independent sample was asked
to rate each event according to how much interpersonal
and achievement loss it entailed (using the scales
described above). To ensure the most normative ratings,
participants first completed measures of dependency
and achievement/perfectionism (Sargent, 2000).2 Only
loss ratings from participants who scored within 1 stan-
dard deviation of the sample means on these measures
were included (n = 96, 67% men, 95% 18 to 22 years of
age, 50% Caucasian, 61% freshmen). Each participant
in the independent sample was asked to rate 10 of the 60
events to minimize fatigue. Each event was thus rated by
11 to 17 participants. Mean interpersonal and achieve-
ment loss ratings for each event were then examined. An
event was categorized as interpersonal when mean inter-
personal loss ratings were at least one point higher than
mean achievement loss ratings. Typical interpersonal
events included romantic partner was disapproving of
you; death of a parent or close relative; separated from a
good friend; conflict, argument, or disagreement with
roommate/housemate; and conflict with coworkers or
supervisor. An event was categorized as achievement ori-
ented when achievement loss ratings were at least one
point higher than mean interpersonal loss ratings. Typi-
cal achievement events included received an F on an
exam, paper, or project; found out you were unable to
get desired courses or program; sought-after promotion
or raise was denied; activity run by your group was a fail-
ure; and received rejection of an application to graduate
or professional schools. A number of events did not meet
these criteria and were thus categorized as “mixed”
1387
events. Of interest, these mixed events included conflicts
with romantic partners, parents, friends, and classmates,
which have typically been considered interpersonal
events in prior research. Other mixed events included
demoted at work, lost job, fired, or laid off. The number
of interpersonal, achievement, and mixed events occur-
ring each day were used in the analyses.
It is important to note that the above-described nor-
mative event ratings were used for objective event cate-
gorizing purposes only. Participants in the diary study
made interpersonal and achievement loss ratings for
every event that they reported occurred (of the 60).
Hence, loss ratings do not pertain to any one type of
event. If interpersonal loss ratings are significantly asso-
ciated with levels of security, it will indicate that it is rat-
ings of loss, independent of the objective type of event,
that predict ratings of security; that is, regardless of
whether a person has interpersonal or achievement
events (as categorized by objective standards), it is their
perceptions of the amount of loss associated with those
events that are important.
DATA ANALYSIS STRATEGY
First, between-subjects descriptive and correlation
analyses were conducted. The rest of the analyses were
conducted to examine within-subject associations using
multilevel modeling (also called hierarchical linear mod-
eling [HLM]) (e.g., Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992) with the
HLM/2L computer program (Bryk, Raudenbush, &
Congdon, 1994). Benefits of this approach for analyzing
diary data have been described in detail elsewhere and
will not be presented here (see Nezlek, 2001). For the
present purposes, the multilevel approach to diary data
allows for the analysis of daily covariation between
repeated measures of multiple variables (attachment
security, events, loss, and mood) that are nested within
person. In these analyses, daily security is treated as an
outcome variable to be predicted by daily events, loss,
and mood. In addition, to examine temporal associa-
tions between the variables, daily attachment security
was predicted from daily events, loss, and mood, control-
ling for level of security on the prior day. As such,
changes in security from day to day are predicted. Multi-
level modeling also allows for the examination of
between-subject differences in the within-subject associ-
ations just described. In these analyses, within-subject
intercepts and slopes are treated as outcomes to be pre-
dicted by the between-subject variables. Therefore, we
can examine whether individual differences in trait-like
security moderate the within-subject associations
between, for example, loss and security.
1388 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Between-subjects descriptive data and correlations. Table 1
presents the weekly means and standard deviations for
attachment security scores, number of life events, loss
ratings, and mood. Because of space limitations, weekly
rather than daily data were presented (daily data can be
obtained from the first author). As the table shows, com-
fort with intimacy tended to increase throughout the 8
weeks, whereas all other variables showed decreases. On
average, participants experienced relatively few events.
This is not surprising given that the events assessed were
relatively major discrete ones and not daily hassles or
ongoing circumstances. On average, participants
reported moderate levels of loss (note that loss averages
were computed only for days on which events occurred).
Table 2 presents the correlations between the weekly
attachment ratings from week to week and from week 1
to week 8. These correlations are quite strong, suggest-
ing significant stability even in the face of instructions
designed to pull for instability (i.e., “respond in terms of
how you feel RIGHT NOW”). However, it is important to
note that these correlations reflect relative stability,
which refers to the consistency of the rank order of indi-
viduals within a group over two time points. Such corre-
lations, although appearing to indicate high levels of sta-
bility, may be misleading because it is possible to have
high relative stability while still having significant indi-
vidual change. For example, we computed the within-
subject standard deviations across the 56 study days for
anxiety about abandonment and comfort with intimacy,
resulting in measures of within-person variability on
security. The average within-subject standard deviation
was 2.26 (range = 0 to 7.28, SD = 1.18) for anxiety about
abandonment and 3.24 (range = .51 to 9.12, SD = 1.51)
for comfort with intimacy, suggesting that despite the
high relative stability in the sample, there is quite a bit of
variability at the within-subject level. It is this individual
change, we would argue, that is of most relevance to
understanding changes in attachment security over
time. The rest of our analyses were designed to examine
such individual change.
Within-subject baseline trajectory models. Although the
attachment variables were not expected to show any sys-
tematic change over time (but rather vary randomly),
baseline trajectory models were estimated to explore
this possibility. Specifically, a model of linear change was
examined. The linear model can be understood as a
within-subjects regression of an individual’s attachment
scores onto the time of each assessment. To evaluate this
model, the following function was specified to describe
the data from each individual:
Yij = β0j + β1j (Time) + rij, (1)
where Yij is the attachment security (either anxiety about
abandonment or comfort with intimacy) of individual j
at time i, β0j is the attachment security of individual j at
Time 0 (i.e., the initial level of security of individual j), β1j
is the rate of the linear change in security for individual j
(over the 56 days), and rij is the residual variance in re-
peated measurements for individual j, assumed to be in-
dependent and normally distributed across subjects.
Unexpectedly, for both anxiety about abandonment
and comfort with intimacy, the linear parameter was
reliable and significant. Its sign indicated that anxiety
about abandonment (unstandardized coefficient = –0.02,
t = –3.49, p = .001) decreased linearly over the 8-week
period and comfort with intimacy increased linearly
(unstandardized coefficient = 0.02, t = 2.93, p = .004). On
one hand, this may reflect the tendency for people to
become relatively more secure over time (e.g., Klohnen
& John, 1998), although 8 weeks is a relatively short time
frame in which to see maturation toward security.
Instead, the change may somehow be a product of the
study design. Completion of the same items daily for 8
weeks may result in systematic changes, or the linear
change may reflect a general increase in positivity as the
semester draws to an end. Because these linear parame-
ters were significant, they were included in all subse-
quent analyses. Hence, the primary analyses provide
information about the association between daily experi-
ences and daily security, controlling for the fact that
security increases linearly over time.
As described earlier, we also were interested in
whether trait security affects the trajectory of change in
daily security over time. The above analyses were
reconducted including mean security scores (anxiety
about abandonment and comfort with intimacy) as pre-
dictors of the attachment intercepts and slopes. For the
model predicting changes in anxiety about abandon-
ment, mean anxiety scores were significantly associated
with the trajectory of change (p = .008). People with
higher mean anxiety scores showed weaker linear
declines than other people, suggesting that people
higher on trait anxiety about abandonment are more
likely to stay anxious over time. For comfort with inti-
macy, mean comfort scores were significantly associated
with the trajectory of change (p = .001). In this case, peo-
ple with higher mean comfort scores showed stronger
linear increases than others, suggesting that people
higher on trait comfort with intimacy are likely to get
more comfortable over time.
 Davila, Sargent / LIFE EVENTS AND ATTACHMENT SECURITY 1389

TABLE 1: Means and Standard Deviations of all Variables by Week

Variable Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8

Anxiety about abandonment 9.07 (5.91) 8.55 (6.03) 8.59 (6.34) 8.49 (6.11) 8.38 (6.25) 8.22 (6.32) 8.32 (6.38) 8.03 (6.36)
Comfort with intimacy 27.83 (7.83) 28.20 (8.03) 28.16 (8.44) 28.04 (8.14) 28.47 (8.26) 28.74 (8.32) 28.79 (8.67) 28.98 (8.64)
Number of interpersonal
events .13 (.36) .09 (.30) .07 (.26) .09 (.30) .08 (.29) .08 (.28) .06 (.25) .06 (.26)
Number of achievement
events .12 (.34) .09 (.32) .06 (.26) .09 (.30) .05 (.22) .06 (.25) .05 (.24) .06 (.24)
Number of mixed events .13 (.37) .08 (.30) .10 (.32) .09 (.31) .06 (.26) .06 (.24) .07 (.28) .05 (.23)
Interpersonal loss 9.86 (9.63) 9.24 (9.25) 11.17 (9.22) 10.22 (9.35) 8.35 (7.54) 8.39 (7.71) 9.11 (8.48) 8.18 (8.08)
Achievement loss 11.42 (9.80) 12.44 (11.46) 10.83 (10.04) 12.00 (9.70) 10.66 (8.03) 11.36 (9.06) 11.51 (9.15) 12.14 (9.20)
Positive mood 27.17 (8.96) 26.77 (9.04) 26.74 (9.68) 25.84 (8.89) 26.53 (9.46) 26.46 (9.45) 26.99 (9.39) 27.53 (9.28)
Negative mood 16.96 (7.03) 16.51 (7.39) 15.72 (6.52) 16.15 (6.97) 15.60 (6.90) 15.33 (6.63) 15.28 (6.40) 15.36 (6.57)

NOTE: N = 154. Standard deviations are in parentheses.

TABLE 2: Correlations Between Attachment Scores Across Weeks ety about abandonment) for individual j, β2j is the num-
ber of interpersonal events of individual j at time i, β3j is
Anxiety About Comfort
Time Abandonment With Intimacy the number of achievement events of individual j at time
i, β4j is the number of mixed events of individual j at time
Week 1 to Week 2 .92 .94 i, β5j and β6j are the positive and negative mood scores of
Week 2 to Week 3 .96 .94 individual j at time i, β7j is the other type of attachment se-
Week 3 to Week 4 .95 .94
Week 4 to Week 5 .94 .94 curity (in this case, comfort with intimacy, entered as a
Week 5 to Week 6 .97 .95 covariate to control for the association between the two
Week 6 to Week 7 .97 .94 dimensions), β8j is the previous day’s level of attachment
Week 7 to Week 8 .97 .96 security (anxiety about abandonment in this case), and
Week 1 to Week 8 .79 .82
rij is the residual variance in repeated measurements for
NOTE: N = 151. individual j. One analysis for each attachment security
variable was conducted.3
Results of the first analysis, predicting anxiety about
Primary Analyses abandonment (controlling for comfort with intimacy
Before examining whether interpersonal loss ratings and the previous day’s anxiety about abandonment), are
were associated with levels of security, analyses were con- shown in the top section of Table 3. As can be seen, a
ducted to examine the effects of daily mood and number greater number of achievement and mixed events were
of daily events on daily security, controlling for the previ- significantly associated with greater anxiety. Interper-
ous day’s security. Building on the baseline model sonal events were marginally associated. Negative (but
described above, the following function, which included not positive) mood was also a significant predictor.
the event, mood, and security variables as time-varying Results of the second analysis, predicting comfort with
covariates (group mean centered), was specified to intimacy (controlling for anxiety about abandonment),
describe the data from each individual. The example showed a similar pattern, although only mixed events
below describes the model predicting anxiety about predicted less comfort with intimacy and both positive
abandonment: and negative mood predicted changes in comfort with
intimacy (see Table 3, bottom section). These findings
Yij (anxiety about abandonment) = β0j + β1j (time) + indicate that objective features of events and daily mood
β2j (interpersonal events) + β3j (achievement events) + are associated with daily levels of security. Specifically, on
β4j (mixed events) + β5j (positive mood) + β6j (negative days that people have more events and report a worse
mood) + β7j (comfort with intimacy) + β8j (yesterday’s mood, they also report lower levels of security compared
anxiety about abandonment) + rij, (2) to the levels of security on the previous day.4
The next set of analyses tested the primary hypothesis
by examining whether loss ratings made a unique contri-
where Yij is the level of attachment security of individual j bution to security, controlling for mood and events. For
at time i (anxiety about abandonment in this model), β0j these analyses, the two loss variables (interpersonal loss
is the attachment security of individual j at Time 0 (i.e., ratings and achievement loss ratings) were included as
the initial level of anxiety about abandonment of individ- time-varying covariates (group centered) in the models
ual j), β1j is the rate of the linear change in security (anxi- described above. The results for anxiety about abandon-
1390 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

TABLE 3: Results of Multilevel Modeling Predicting Daily Attach- TABLE 4: Results of Multilevel Linear Model Predicting Daily At-
ment Security From Daily Events and Daily Mood tachment Security From Daily Loss Rating, Controlling for
Daily Events and Daily Mood
Effect
a
Coefficient t p Sizeb Effect
a b
Coefficient t p Size
Anxiety about abandonment
Intercept 8.711 19.66 .000 Anxiety about abandonment
Time –0.008 –2.53 .012 .20 Intercept 8.710 19.68 .000
Number of interpersonal Time –0.008 –2.52 .012 .20
events 0.138 1.78 .075 .14 Interpersonal loss 0.242 4.87 .000 .37
Number of achievement Achievement loss –0.043 –0.89 ns
events 0.221 2.75 .006 .22 Number of interpersonal
Number of mixed events 0.449 5.78 .000 .42 events –0.124 –1.11 ns
Positive mood –0.000 –0.11 ns Number of achievement
Negative mood 0.222 7.55 .000 .52 events 0.079 –0.64 ns
Comfort with intimacy –0.173 –25.92 .000 .90 Number of mixed events 0.041 –0.33 ns
Yesterday’s anxiety about Positive mood 0.000 0.00 ns
abandonment 0.357 37.59 .000 .95 Negative mood 0.210 7.09 .000 .50
Comfort with intimacy Comfort with intimacy –0.171 –25.59 .000 .90
Intercept 28.252 48.53 .000 Yesterday’s anxiety about
Time 0.006 1.34 ns abandonment 0.356 37.47 .000 .95
Number of interpersonal Comfort with intimacy
events –0.098 –0.87 ns Intercept 28.255 48.52 .000
Number of achievement Time 0.006 1.33 ns
events 0.126 1.08 ns Interpersonal loss –0.278 –3.87 .000 .30
Number of mixed events –0.611 –5.45 .000 .40 Achievement loss 0.113 1.63 ns
Positive mood 0.075 15.08 .000 .77 Number of interpersonal
Negative mood –0.303 –7.16 .000 .50 events 0.109 0.67 ns
Anxiety about abandonment –0.346 –25.44 .000 .90 Number of achievement
Yesterday’s comfort with events 0.157 0.88 ns
intimacy 0.304 32.15 .000 .93 Number of mixed events –0.222 –1.26 ns
Positive mood 0.075 14.99 .000 .77
NOTE: N = 154, df = 153. Negative mood –0.294 –6.89 .000 .49
a. Unstandardized. Anxiety about abandonment –0.342 –25.09 .000 .90
b. Effect sizes were computed with the following formula (Rosenthal & Yesterday’s comfort with
Rosnow, 1984) and are presented for significant effects only: r = square intimacy 0.303 32.10 .000 .93
root of (t 2 / t 2 + df).
NOTE: N = 154, df = 153.
ment are shown in the top section of Table 4. As pre- a. Unstandardized.
b. Effect sizes were computed with the following formula (Rosenthal &
dicted, higher ratings of daily interpersonal loss were Rosnow, 1984) and are presented for significant effects only: r = square
associated with higher levels of daily anxiety about aban- root of (t 2 / t 2 + df).
donment, controlling for number of events, mood, and
yesterday’s level of anxiety about abandonment. More- accounted for by the amount of interpersonal loss peo-
over, this was not the case for achievement loss ratings, ple perceive in those events. Finally, there was no
suggesting that perceptions of interpersonal loss are evidence that the effects of loss on security were moder-
uniquely related to security levels. Mood did retain a sig- ated by trait levels of security.5
nificant association with security but number of events
(of all types) did not. This suggests that loss ratings Supplementary Analyses
accounted for the effect of events on changes in anxiety An additional alternative explanation of the results
about abandonment. suggests that interpersonal loss ratings are the best pre-
The results of the analysis predicting comfort with dictor of daily security because they assess the same con-
intimacy are shown at the bottom of Table 4. Again, as struct as security. If this were the case, then not only
predicted, higher ratings of daily interpersonal loss were would loss ratings be better predictors of security than
associated with lower levels of daily comfort with inti- are events (as we have shown) but security would be a
macy, controlling for events, mood, and yesterday’s level better predictor of loss ratings than are events; that is, if
of comfort with intimacy. Again, this was not the case for loss ratings are simply a proxy for security, then they
achievement loss ratings. In addition, although mood would have more to do with security levels than with the
remained a significant predictor, number of events (of actual events with which they are associated. To examine
all types) became nonsignificant, again suggesting that this possibility, we conducted an analysis predicting daily
the effect of events on changes in security is largely interpersonal loss ratings from number of daily interper-
 Davila, Sargent / LIFE EVENTS AND ATTACHMENT SECURITY
sonal events, number of daily achievement events, num-
ber of daily mixed events, daily positive and negative
mood, the prior day’s anxiety about abandonment, the
prior day’s comfort with intimacy, and the prior day’s
interpersonal loss ratings. The prior day’s security vari-
ables were included because we were interested in how
preexisting feelings of security (i.e., feelings of security
present before the events and consequent loss ratings)
affected subsequent loss ratings. A variable for time also
was included to control for any baseline changes in loss
ratings over time. The analysis revealed that the event
variables were all significant predictors of interpersonal
loss (ps < .001). However, of the security variables, only
the prior day’s anxiety about abandonment was a signifi-
cant predictor (p < .05); comfort with intimacy was not (p
= .48). This suggests that interpersonal loss ratings are
only partly a function of prior levels of security. They are
also a function of the actual events experienced. In addi-
tion, negative mood was also a significant predictor.
In another analysis, we included concurrent security
variables, despite the fact that these ratings were made
subsequent to the loss ratings. Not surprisingly, the con-
current security ratings were significantly associated with
interpersonal loss (p < .001). However, the event vari-
ables (and negative mood) also were significant (p <
.001). Of interest, in both analyses, when the trait secu-
rity variables were included as moderators, they did not
change the effect of daily security on loss but they did
moderate the effect of events on loss. Interpersonal and
mixed events had a stronger effect on loss ratings for
people with higher mean levels of anxiety about aban-
donment (p < .002). Mixed events had a stronger effect
on loss ratings for people with lower mean levels of com-
fort with intimacy in the concurrent analysis (p < .001),
although in both analyses interpersonal events had a
stronger effect on loss ratings for people with higher
mean levels of comfort with intimacy (p < .02).
In sum, although security levels do affect how much
loss people perceive when they experience a negative
event, which is very consistent with a large body of
research showing that attachment security guides inter-
personal expectations and functioning, interpersonal
loss ratings are also a function of the objective events that
people experience, particularly for insecure people.
Attachment security, on the other hand, is much more a
function of perceived loss than of objective events,
regardless of trait levels of security.
DISCUSSION
This study used an 8-week daily diary methodology to
examine changes in levels of self-reported adult attach-
ment security. It was predicted that people’s views of
events, rather than objective features of the events them-
1391
selves, would be associated with daily variation in secu-
rity. This hypothesis was strongly supported.
Before describing the results, however, it is important
to note that consistent with prior research, and with con-
ceptualizations of attachment security as a social-
cognitive variable (e.g., Baldwin, 1999; Baldwin et al.,
1996; Davila et al., 1999), levels of self-reported attach-
ment security did indeed vary over time. Of importance,
this variability was more evident at a within-subject level
rather than a between-subject level, suggesting that
between-subject analyses (i.e., relative stability) may miss
some of the variability that people actually experience.
Moreover, this within-person variability was predicted by
daily experiences, supporting the psychological mean-
ingfulness of the variability in adult attachment security.
The present study is the first to demonstrate such daily
changes, and their existence suggests that change pro-
cesses need to be explicitly integrated into our models of
adult attachment.
As for the primary hypothesis, as noted above, strong
support was found. Although a greater number of nega-
tive life events were associated with greater insecurity
when views of events (i.e., loss ratings) were not included
in the model, when views were included, events lost their
predictive power. Specifically, viewing events as resulting
in interpersonal loss was associated with increases in
insecurity (less comfort with intimacy and more anxiety
about abandonment) on a daily basis regardless of the
number and type of life events experienced. As such, it
appears that it is the meaning that people assign to life
events that is most associated with changing levels of
attachment security.
Moreover, it is not just any meaning that is associated
with daily variation in attachment security; rather, it is
viewing life events as resulting in interpersonal loss that
specifically affects change. Ratings of achievement loss
were not associated with security. This further confirms
the importance of relational loss to people’s sense of
security (Bowlby, 1980). It is also somewhat consistent
with other recent models of how interpersonal loss
affects the self, such as the sociometer model of self-
esteem (Leary et al., 1995). Although focused on inter-
personal rejection, which overlaps only partially with
interpersonal loss, the model suggests that changes in
state self-esteem are indicators of the current quality of
interpersonal relations, specifically the extent to which
people feel excluded by others. Changes in attachment
security seem to function in a similar manner—as indica-
tors of the extent to which people feel they have lost nec-
essary social support.
The specificity of the findings to interpersonal loss
also suggest that no matter what the event, be it one that
we think of as interpersonal (e.g., a relationship breakup)
or one that we think of as not interpersonal (e.g., failing
1392 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
an exam), it has the potential to be associated with inter-
personal loss and, consequently, with variability in feel-
ings of security. An interesting next step would be to
examine whether perceptions of interpersonal loss and
the associated decreases in comfort with intimacy and
increases in fear of abandonment translate into interper-
sonal/relationship behavior and into further changes in
security. Again, similar to the sociometer model of self-
esteem (Leary et al., 1995) and to Bowlby’s original
hypotheses, when security is decreased it may motivate
people to behave in ways that attempt to restore security.
Of importance, the results held even when control-
ling for daily mood. Although mood was significantly
associated with variations in security, such variations
were not only a product of changing moods. These find-
ings lend support to the validity of the adult attachment
construct.
We also examined whether the effects of loss on secu-
rity were moderated by trait-like levels of security. Of
interest, they were not. Regardless of people’s trait level
of security, perceptions of greater loss were associated
with decreased security. This was true despite the finding
that, on average, trait levels of security are associated
with trajectories of security over time in a manner that
suggests confirmation of models. Specifically, people
who were most anxious about abandonment were least
likely to show decreases in anxiety about abandonment
over time. Similarly, people who were most comfortable
with intimacy were most likely to show increases in such
comfort over time. Therefore, although, on average, as
trait levels of security become more extreme they limit
the range of change, there is still daily variation at the
within-person level that occurs in response to how much
people construe interpersonal loss in their daily life cir-
cumstances, and this variation does not differ based on
trait levels of security—all people appear to respond to
perceptions of loss with fluctuations in security.
One concern with our analyses is that our measures of
security and perceptions of interpersonal loss may not
tap distinct constructs. The supplementary analyses help
allay this concern at least to some degree. If the measures
were not distinct, then not only would loss ratings be the
best predictor of security compared to events (which we
found) but security would be the best predictor of loss
ratings. The latter was not the case. Instead, loss ratings
were predicted by both security and number of events,
suggesting that loss ratings are at least in part a response
to objective features of life circumstances (whereas secu-
rity is not). These findings do, however, support the
notion of dynamic/reciprocal processes whereby levels
of security are both a response to and a predictor of daily
experiences, particularly views of the world.
In sum, the findings suggest that, in adults, it may be
necessary to consider how people construe their life cir-
cumstances—how they define events—to best under-
stand the effect of those life circumstances on views of
self and others, at least on those views that are con-
sciously reported. Bowlby (1973) proposed that people
both assimilate and accommodate new information into
their working models. Accommodation and, hence,
change in level or type of attachment security should
result when new information disconfirms existing mod-
els. The present research suggests that a focus on the
meaning that people assign to their life circumstances
may help us begin to identify how working models get
disconfirmed and ultimately changed. Presumably, this
could be true not only for attachment models but for
more generalized self- and other views.
Future research might be directed at continuing to
examine how trait-like models of attachment security
affect people’s likelihood for change and also at examin-
ing how daily variation in self-reported levels of security
in response to perceptions of life events (i.e., state levels
of security) may be related to more long-lasting change
in trait-like working models of attachment. That both
state and trait models of attachment security exist is con-
sistent with findings that people hold both global and
specific attachment, or relational, models (e.g., Pierce &
Lydon, 2001). The existence of specific relational mod-
els implies that people may experience different levels of
security depending on their circumstances and the spe-
cific model that is activated. Moreover, that trait models
may be affected by state models over time is consistent
with Pierce and Lydon’s (2001) findings that specific
relational models predicted change in global models
over time. Hence, people’s varying experiences in and
perceptions of their interpersonal worlds may affect
their more global, trait models of security over time.
It is important to interpret the present results with the
following in mind. First, participants completed paper-
and-pencil diaries, which were collected twice weekly.
This methodology is comparable to other recently pub-
lished diary studies (e.g., Armeli, Carney, Tennen,
Affleck, & O’Neil, 2000; Bolger, Zuckerman, & Kessler,
2000; Nezlek & Leary, 2002; Pierce & Lydon, 2001). In
addition, steps were taken to ensure timely completion
of diaries (e.g., phone calls, lottery) and the majority of
the daily diaries were turned in on time. However, unlike
newer, more technologically advanced methods (e.g.,
palm pilot data collection, internet data collection) (see
Feldman Barrett & Barrett, 2001; Shiffman & Hufford,
2001), the exact time at which participants completed
diaries cannot be determined. Hence, it is possible that
some participants may have completed multiple diaries
on the same day rather than one diary per day.
Second, there are other ways of assessing trait security,
such as interview-based assessments, that may provide
additional information about how trait security affects
 Davila, Sargent / LIFE EVENTS AND ATTACHMENT SECURITY
state security over time. Third, the study exclusively
focused on how negative events and perceptions of loss
were related to levels of security. As such, we have no
information about whether and how positive events or
positive perceptions, or for that matter any other type of
perceptions, are associated with variability in security
over time. This is an important limitation of the present
work and of the larger literature on attachment stability
and change that future research will need to address.
One fruitful way to pursue this issue would be to examine
both positive and negative perceptions about both posi-
tive and negative events. If the logic outlined here is
accurate that it is the meaning people assign to events
rather than the events themselves that lead to changes in
attachment security, then any event, depending on how
it is viewed, may be a contender for contributing to
attachment change. For example, a negative event could
lead to changes toward security if it is viewed in a security-
enhancing way or a positive event could lead to changes
toward insecurity if it is viewed in a security-depleting
way. Such an investigation of the meaning of events, both
at the daily level and over longer time periods, has the
potential to shed more light on how people may confirm
or disconfirm their attachment models.
Fourth, as noted in the earlier discussion about global
versus specific attachment models, there are questions
about the extent to which levels of attachment security
differ across relationships, with most research suggest-
ing that they do (Baldwin et al., 1996; Bridges, Connell,
& Belsky, 1988; Cook, 2000; LaGuardia, Ryan,
Couchman, & Deci, 2000; Lamb, 1977; Main & Weston,
1981). In the present study, participants were asked to
report about daily security across all relationships, which
might best be considered a global attachment model.
This is reasonable given the goals of the study, which
were to examine how perceptions of general interper-
sonal loss for all types of negative events relate to chang-
ing levels of security rather than to examine loss or
events specific to any one relationship. However, the
extent to which the present findings also explain
variability in specific attachment models must be
determined.
Finally, related to the above issue, in assessing global
attachment security, the extent to which participants’
security ratings referred to an actual attachment rela-
tionship (e.g., one that involves secure base functions) is
unknown. As such, consistent with Pierce and Lydon
(2001), it may be best to consider the present assessment
of security as relational security rather than attachment
security per se. The concept of relational models and
relational security is less tied to propositions about
secure base functioning in attachment relationships and
more consistent with the notion of interpersonal
schemas or scripts that could be held about any person
1393
or relationship, regardless of whether that relationship
can be construed as an attachment relationship
(Baldwin, 1999).
However, regardless of whether the results are construed
as pertaining to attachment security or to the broader
construct of relational security, the take-home message is
the same. The meaning people assign to life events, par-
ticularly the extent to which people believe that they
have lost interpersonal support or connection, is an
important predictor of people’s daily thoughts and feel-
ing about how comfortable they are being intimate with
others and how fearful they are of being rejected. This
suggests that to the extent that we can understand the
meaning people find in life circumstances, we may be
able to better understand what allows them to change or
remain the same over time.
NOTES
1. The conceptualization and measurement of different aspects of
the attachment system is a fairly controversial issue, although less so
within social and personality psychology than between social and devel-
opmental psychology. However, it is beyond the scope of this article to
elaborate these issues in detail.
2. The dependency and achievement/perfectionism measures
(Sargent, 2000) were derived from principal components factor analy-
ses of commonly used measures of sociotropy and autonomy (Beck,
Brown, Steer, & Weissman, 1991; C. J. Robins et al., 1994) and depend-
ence and self-criticism (Bagby, Parker, Joffe, & Buis, 1994). Internal
consistency in a sample of 576 undergraduates was .78 for dependency
and .83 for achievement.
3. All results presented from this point forward are from models in
which the time-varying covariates were specified as fixed effects at level
2. Although it is recommended that time-varying covariates be speci-
fied as random (e.g., Nezlek, 2001), doing so resulted in substantially
reduced sample sizes (ns ranged from 81 to 102) and also led to prob-
lems with colinearity and ill-conditioning of the matrices. However,
analyses with the random effects yielded the same pattern of findings as
did those with fixed effects. Hence, the findings were robust regardless
of whether the predictor variables were specified as random or fixed.
4. As noted, mixed events were significant predictors of security but
interpersonal events were not—a somewhat surprising result. In an
attempt to determine what it is about mixed events that accounts for
their association with security, we conducted a series of additional anal-
yses. First, because the mixed events contained many interpersonal
conflict events, which could be relevant to security, we divided the
mixed events into conflict events and nonconflict events and included
these variables in the analysis. Both conflict and nonconflict events
were significant predictors of security, suggesting that it is not interper-
sonal conflict that accounts for the association between mixed events
and security. Next, because some mixed events were rated as having
high levels of both interpersonal and achievement loss, whereas other
mixed events were rated as having low levels of both, we wondered
whether the events with high levels of both account for the association
between mixed events and security (e.g., when an event is character-
ized by high levels of multiple types of loss it may have the greatest
effect on security). Therefore, we divided the events into those with
high levels of both types of loss (high/high) and those with low levels of
both types of loss (low/low). We did this first using median splits on loss
ratings across the mixed events (i.e., medians derived from ratings of
mixed events only) and then using median splits of loss ratings across
all events (i.e., medians derived from ratings of all events). In both
cases, both high/high and low/low mixed events were significant pre-
dictors of security (anxiety about abandonment and comfort with inti-
macy). Hence, the factors that account for the association between
mixed events and security remain unclear.
1394 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
5. Some readers might suggest that a more convincing set of analy-
ses would predict today’s security levels from yesterday’s loss ratings.
Although on the surface that seems like a better way to tease apart the
temporal associations between the variables, we believe that such an
analysis is conceptually problematic. Yesterday’s loss ratings are based
on events that people experienced yesterday. To predict today’s secu-
rity from such ratings ignores the fact that people may have had com-
pletely different events today that result in completely different types
of loss ratings. We are arguing that people’s security today is a direct
response to what happened to them today and how they construed it.
Yesterday’s feelings of loss may, therefore, be completely unrelated to
today’s feelings of security. In fact, in analyses designed to examine this
issue (the same models as described in the text, except including yes-
terday’s rather than today’s loss), that is exactly what we found.
Whereas some readers might argue that this takes away from the impor-
tance of our findings because they do not speak to lasting changes in
security, we believe that these findings demonstrate an important
aspect of the dynamics of day-to-day interpersonal social cognition.
Future research will be necessary to determine the extent to which
such day-to-day changes are related to broader changes in security over
time or even to the construction of stability.
REFERENCES
Armeli, S., Carney, M., Tennen, H., Affleck, G., & O’Neil, T. P. (2000).
Stress and alcohol use: A daily process examination of the stressor-
vulnerability model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,
979-994.
Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., Joffe, R. T., & Buis, T. (1994). Recon-
struction and validation of the depressive experiences question-
naire. Assessment, 1, 59-68.
Baldwin, M. W. (1999). Relational schemas: Research into the social-
cognitive aspect of interpersonal experience. In D. Cervone & Y.
Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of con-
sistency, variability, and organization. New York: Guilford.
Baldwin, M. W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment
style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2, 247-261.
Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo,
E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment work-
ing models: Availability and accessibility effect. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 71, 94-109.
Bartholomew, K., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Methods of assessing adult
attachment: Do they converge? In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes
(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 25-45). New
York: Guilford.
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Causes and treatments. Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press.
Beck, A. T., Brown, G., Steer, R. A., & Weissman, A. N. (1991). Factor
analysis of the dysfunctional attitude scale in a clinical population.
Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 3, 478-483.
Beckwith, L., Cohen, S. E., & Hamilton, C. E. (1999). Maternal sensi-
tivity during infancy and subsequent life events relate to attach-
ment representation at early adulthood. Developmental Psychology,
35, 693-700.
Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, A. (2000). Invisible support and
adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
953-961.
Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36,
129-148.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and
anger. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Basic
Books.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report mea-
surement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A.
Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relation-
ships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford.
Bridges, L., Connell, J. P., & Belsky, J. (1988). Similarities and differ-
ences in infant-mother and infant-father interaction in the
strange situation. Developmental Psychology, 24, 92-100.
Brown, G. W., & Harris, T. O. (1978). Social origins of depression: A study
of psychiatric disorder in women. London: Tavistock.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models:
Application and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bryk, A. S., Raudenbush, S. W., & Congdon, R. T. (1994). HLM: Hier-
archical linear modeling with the HLM/2L and HLM/3L programs.
Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications. New York: Guilford.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working mod-
els, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of
attachment: The structure and function of working models.
Advances in Personal Relationships, 5, 53-90.
Cook, W. L. (2000). Understanding attachment security in family
context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 285-294.
Crowell, J. A., Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Measurement of
individual differences in adolescent and adult attachment. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (pp. 434-468). New York: Guilford.
Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment
style change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 826-838.
Davila, J., & Cobb, R. (2003). Predicting change in self-reported and
interviewer-assessed adult attachment: Tests of the individual dif-
ference and life stress models of attachment change. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 859-870.
Davila, J., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Attachment change
processes in the early years of marriage. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76, 783-802.
Davila, J., Karney, B. R., Hall, T., & Bradbury, T. N. (in press). Depres-
sive symptoms and marital satisfaction: Dynamic associations and
the moderating effects of gender and neuroticism. Journal of Fam-
ily Psychology.
Egeland, B., & Farber, E. A. (1984). Infant-mother attachment: Fac-
tors related to its development and changes over time. Child Devel-
opment, 55, 753-771.
Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1981). Attachment and early maltreat-
ment. Child Development, 52, 44-52.
Feldman Barrett, L., & Barrett, D. J. (2001). An introduction to com-
puterized experience sampling in psychology. Social Science Com-
puting Review, 19, 175-185.
Greenier, K. D., Kernis, M. H., McNamara, C. W., Waschull, S. B.,
Berry, A. J., Herlocker, C. E., et al. (1999). Individual differences
in reactivity to daily events: Examining the roles of stability and
level of self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 67, 185-208.
Hammen, C. L. (1991). The generation of stress in the course of uni-
polar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 555-561.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational
framework for research on close relationships. Psychological
Inquiry, 5, 1-22.
Kernis, M. H. (1993). The roles of stability and level of self-esteem in
psychological functioning. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem:
The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 167-182). New York: Plenum.
Kernis, M. H., Whisenhunt, C. R., Waschull, S. B., Greenier, K. D.,
Berry, A. J., Herlocker, C. E., et al. (1998). Multiple facets of self-
esteem and their relations to depressive symptoms. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 657-668.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close
relationships: A four-year prospective study. Personal Relationships,
1, 123-142.
Klohnen, E. C., & John, O. P. (1998). Working models of attachment:
A theory-based prototype approach. In J. A. Simpson & W. S.
Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 115-
142). New York: Guilford.
LaGuardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000).
Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-
determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfill-
 Davila, Sargent / LIFE EVENTS AND ATTACHMENT SECURITY
ment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
367-384.
Lamb, M. E. (1977). Father-infant and mother-infant interaction in
the first year of life. Child Development, 48, 167-181.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New
York: Springer.
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, 518-530.
Main, M., & Weston, D. R. (1981). The quality of toddler’s relation-
ship to mother and father: Related to conflict behavior and the
readiness to establish new relationships. Child Development, 52,
932-940.
McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., Child, P., & Fujioka, T. (1978).
Salience of ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept as a function
of one’s ethnic distinctiveness in the social environment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 511-520.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Halevy, V., Avihou, N., Avidan, S., &
Eshkoli, N. (2001). Attachment theory and reactions to others’
needs: Evidence that activation of the sense of attachment security
promotes empathic responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 81, 1205-1224.
Mikulincer, M., Hirschberger, G., Nachmias, O., & Gillath, O. (2001).
The affective component of the secure base schema: Affective
priming with representations of attachment security. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 81, 305-321.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of
personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics,
and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102,
246-268.
Morse, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency,
and the concept of self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
16, 148-156.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and
the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attach-
ment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478-
498.
Nezlek, J. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event-
and interval-contingent data in social and personality psychology
research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771-785.
Nezlek, J. B., Feist, G. J., Wilson, C. F., & Plesko, R. M. (2001). Day-to-
day variability in empathy as a function of daily events and mood.
Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 401-423.
Nezlek, J. B., & Leary, M. R. (2002). Individual differences in self-
presentational motives in daily social interaction. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 211-223.
1395
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know:
Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-
259.
Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. E. (2001). Global and specific relational mod-
els in the experience of social interactions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 80, 613-631.
Robins, C. J., Ladd, J., Welkowitz, J., Blaney, P., Diaz, R., & Kutcher, G.
(1994). The Personal Style Inventory: Preliminary validation stud-
ies of new measures of sociotropy and autonomy. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 277-300.
Robins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., Roberts, B. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H.
(2001). A longitudinal study of personality change in young adult-
hood. Journal of Personality, 69, 617-640.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research:
Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sargent, E. L. (2000). Personality Orientation Scale. Unpublished manu-
script, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of
adult attachment patterns. Personal Relationships, 1, 23-43.
Shaver, P. R., Belsky, J., & Brennan, K. (2000). The adult attachment
interview and self-reports of romantic attachment: Associations
across domains and methods. Personal Relationships, 7, 25-43.
Shiffman, S., & Hufford, M. (2001). Methods of measuring patient experi-
ence: Paper versus electronic patient diaries [White paper]. Invivodata,
Inc.
Snyder, M., & Cantor, N. (1998). Understanding personality and
social behavior: A functionalist strategy. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1,
4th ed., pp. 635-679). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Vaughn, B. E., Egeland, B. R., Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1979). Indi-
vidual differences in infant/mother attachment at twelve and
eighteen months: Stability and change in families under stress.
Child Development, 50, 971-975.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The
PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-
1070.
Weinfeld, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from
infancy to early adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, dis-
continuity, and their correlates. Child Development, 71, 695-702.
Received April 25, 2002
Revision accepted November 23, 2002