《社会心理学》课程教学资源（文献资料）Close relationship——Attachment Anxiety and Reactions to Relationship Threat - The Benefits and Costs of Inducing Guilt in Romantic Partners

团购合买资源类别：文库，文档格式：PDF，文档页数：22，文件大小：984.7KB

Attachment Anxiety and Reactions to Relationship Threat: The Benefits and Costs of Inducing Guilt in Romantic Partners Nickola C. Overall and Yuthika U. Girme University of Auckland Edward P. Lemay Jr. University of New Hampshire Matthew D. Hammond University of Auckland The current research tested whether individuals high in attachment anxiety react to relationship threats in ways that can help them feel secure and satisfied in their relationship. Individuals higher in attachment anxiety experienced greater hurt feelings on days they faced partner criticism or conflict (Study 1) and during observed conflict discussions (Study 2). These pronounced hurt feelings triggered exaggerated expressions of hurt to induce guilt in the partner. Partners perceived the hurt feelings of more anxious individuals to be more intense than low anxious individuals’ hurt and, in turn, experienced greater levels of guilt (Study 1). More anxious individuals were also rated by objective coders as exhibiting more guilt-induction strategies during conflict, which led to increases in partner guilt (Study 2). Moreover, partner guilt helped anxious individuals maintain more positive relationship evaluations. Although greater partner guilt had detrimental effects for individuals low in anxiety, more anxious individuals experienced more stable perceptions of their partner’s commitment and more positive relationship evaluations when their partner felt more guilt. Unfortunately, these benefits were accompanied by significant declines in the partner’s relationship satisfaction. These results illustrate that anxious reactions to threat are not uniformly destructive; instead, the reassuring emotions their reactions induce in relationship partners help anxious individuals feel satisfied and secure in their partner’s commitment. Keywords: attachment anxiety, relationship conflict, hurt feelings, guilt, anger A mass of research indicates that attachment anxiety undermines the quality of adult romantic relationships. Individuals high in attachment anxiety yearn for closeness and acceptance but harbor deep-seated fears that they will be rejected or abandoned (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980). Such fears create hypersensitivity to rejection and undermine coping when faced with relationship challenges (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). For example, highly anxious individuals experience more intense and prolonged distress and behave in less constructive ways during conflict (e.g., Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005; Overall & Sibley, 2009; Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996; Tran & Simpson, 2009). Unfortunately, such destructive reactions tend to incite aggressive and rejecting responses in the partner (Downey, Frietas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998), which prevents desired closeness and is likely to foster dissatisfaction in both partners. Yet, anxious individuals are also likely to respond to relationship threats in ways that are more conducive to their overarching goal to gain and maintain closeness. Relationship insecurities can simultaneously activate opposing motivations, including the motivation to protect against expected rejection, which tends to trigger anger and hostility, as well as the motivation to restore connection (Murray & Holmes, 2009). The combined rejection fears and need for closeness at the core of attachment anxiety exemplifies this motivational ambivalence. Accordingly, in situations which typically activate self-protection goals, such as separating from a romantic partner, anxious individuals also exhibit strong approach tendencies to maintain closeness (Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On, & Ein-Dor, 2010). Indeed, the emotionally-charged responses shown by anxious individuals during conflict likely represent protest at the potential loss of the relationship bond and attempts to ensure partners attend to the self and modify hurtful behavior—that is, sustain relationship connections (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1973; Cassidy & Berlin, This article was published Online First September 30, 2013. Nickola C. Overall and Yuthika U. Girme, School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; Edward P. Lemay Jr., Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire; Matthew D. Hammond, School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. This research was supported by Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund Grant UOA0811 and University of Auckland Science Faculty Research Development Fund Grant 3626244 awarded to Nickola C. Overall. Edward P. Lemay Jr.’s participation in this research was supported by a research grant awarded by the National Science Foundation (BCS 1145349). We thank Helena Struthers, Rosabel Tan, Kelsey Deane, Desmond Packwood, Briar Douglas, Phoebe Molloy, Shuai Han, David Pirie, Jan Trayes, and Lucy Travaglia for their contribution to data collection and observational coding. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nickola C. Overall, School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail: n.overall@auckland.ac.nz This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 106, No. 2, 235–256 0022-3514/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0034371 235

1994; Mikulincer, 1998; Rholes, Simpson, & Oriña, 1999; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). The current research was designed to isolate the specific emotional and behavioral responses to relationship threat that should (a) arise from anxious individuals’ doubts about their partner’s commitment and intense motivation to secure closeness and (b) be relatively successful in obtaining the reassurance and care anxious individuals crave. When faced with relationship threatening events, we predicted that anxious individuals would feel more hurt by their partner and try to repair closeness by strategically expressing their hurt feelings to induce guilt in their partner. Moreover, we expected that such guilt-induction strategies would provide anxious intimates the reassurance they need to feel secure and satisfied in their relationship, and thus help anxious individuals maintain more positive relationship evaluations across time. However, we also expected that these strategies might be accompanied by declining satisfaction in the partner. We outline the foundation for these predictions below. Attachment Anxiety and Reactions to Relationship Threat Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) theorized that an innate attachment system motivates humans to seek proximity to caregivers in times of need, but the outcome of those proximity-seeking efforts shapes the functioning of the attachment system. Optimal functioning is assumed to occur when proximity-seeking efforts have typically been successful in gaining responsive care. In adulthood, secure individuals trust their partners to be responsive and supportive, and confidently approach relationship challenges with positive expectations and pro-relationship motivations (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). When facing relationship conflict or hurtful partner behavior, secure individuals maintain faith that they are valued (e.g., Collins, Ford, Guichard, & Allard, 2006) and consequently adopt more constructive, problem-focused strategies to repair intimacy and connection (e.g., Simpson et al., 1996). Attachment anxiety is believed to arise when attachment figures have responded inconsistently to bids for love and support (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Fraley, Roisman, Booth-LaForce, Owen, & Holland, 2013). Individuals high in attachment anxiety deeply desire closeness and intimacy but fear that, regardless of their attempts to secure love, their partners may reject or abandon them (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). As a result, the attachment systems of anxious individuals become hyperactivated, which is characterized by chronic proximity-seeking to secure the acceptance they crave. For example, anxious individuals talk more about their relationships during routine conversations with their partners (Tan, Overall, & Taylor, 2012), continually seek reassurance of their partner’s regard (Shaver, Schachner, & Mikulincer, 2005), and feel better about their relationship when their partner is being supportive or explicitly communicating affection (Campbell et al., 2005; Lemay & Dudley, 2011). Hyperactivation also involves vigilant monitoring of the partner’s availability and an acute sensitivity to rejection, which produces more extreme reactions to relationship threat. Anxious individuals experience more pronounced feelings of rejection, stress, and hurt during conflict (Campbell et al., 2005; Overall & Sibley, 2009; Tran & Simpson, 2009), and their heightened distress is evident to objective observers (Campbell et al., 2005; Simpson et al., 1996) and apparent using physiological measures (Mikulincer, 1998; Powers, Pietromonaco, Gunlicks, & Sayer, 2006). This affective reactivity also leads to less constructive behavioral responses. Anxious individuals report engaging in more hostile behavior during conflict (e.g., Feeney, Noller, & Callan, 1994; Gaines et al., 1997; Overall & Sibley, 2009; Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1995; Simpson et al., 1996), and their conflict behavior has been rated by independent observers as less constructive and lower in quality (Creasey, 2002; Simpson et al., 1996; Tran & Simpson, 2009). These destructive reactions are understood to be a central reason why attachment anxiety can undermine relationship satisfaction and stability. Despite a reputation that the links between attachment anxiety and hostile reactions to conflict are well-established, several studies have found no associations between adult attachment anxiety and observed destructive behaviors during conflict (e.g., Bouthillier, Julien, Dube, Belanger, & Hamelin, 2002; Campbell et al., 2005; Roisman et al., 2007; Simpson et al., 1996) and no (e.g., Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 1997; Roisman et al., 2007) or weak indiscriminant (Creasey, 2002; Paley, Cox, Burchinal, & Payne, 1999) links with negative emotions. These null or weak effects are probably the result of gathering global measures that combine a range of negative and positive emotions or behaviors. While sensitivity to rejection produces heightened distress and hostility (Downey et al., 1998; Murray & Holmes, 2009), anxious individuals’ strong motivation to forge and sustain closeness should also generate emotions and behaviors that are directed toward restoring relationship bonds (Mikulincer et al., 2010). Broad indices combining responses will fail to detect the resulting mix of both negative reactivity and relationship preservation efforts (Guerrero, 1998; Overall & Sibley, 2009; Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 1997; Pistole, 1989). The goal of the current research was to identify the specific emotional and behavioral responses that should arise from anxious individuals’ obsessive proximity-seeking, and test whether these responses provide the reassurance anxious individuals’ need to maintain satisfying relationships. Attachment Anxiety, Hurt Feelings, and Guilt Induction Strategies Recent research has demonstrated the importance of differentiating between specific types of interpersonal emotions and behavior by showing that related emotions, such as hurt and anger, can have distinct antecedents and consequences. Across four studies, Lemay, Overall, and Clark (2012) illustrated that strong commitment and relationship dependence was associated with feeling greater hurt when partners behaved in rejecting ways, such as being critical or cold. In contrast, greater anger was associated with lower dependence and concern about the relationship. Moreover, hurt and anger were linked with different goals and interpersonal consequences. Individuals who felt more hurt were motivated to restore their partner’s acceptance and exhibited less hostile responses, such as partner derogation. Greater hurt also triggered guilt in the partner and associated reductions in the partner’s hurtful behavior. In contrast, anger predicted motivations to control the partner and more reciprocal hostility and destructive responses by the partner, including lower commitment and reduced motivation to repair the relationship. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 236 OVERALL, GIRME, LEMAY, AND HAMMOND

These distinct motivations and consequences have implications for understanding the reactions of anxious individuals when they encounter threats to their relationship. Anxious individuals yearn for closeness and security, are overly dependent on their partner’s support and acceptance, are strongly committed to sustaining their relationships, but tend to perceive devaluation by their partners. This combination should render anxious people particularly prone to experiencing pronounced hurt feelings when facing partner rejection, criticism or conflict. Supporting this prediction, the studies reporting significant associations between attachment anxiety and affective responses to threat have assessed self-reported or observer ratings of stress, upset, and hurt (e.g., Campbell et al., 2005; Feeney, 2005; Simpson, Ickes, & Grich, 1999; Simpson et al., 1996) or feelings of rejection (Campbell et al., 2005; Overall & Sibley, 2009; Tran & Simpson, 2009). Perhaps more important is the interpersonal outcomes associated with hurt feelings. Hurt feelings signal dependence, vulnerability, and commitment and in turn elicit pro-relationship motivations by the partner, evident by greater guilt and more positive and caring behavior (Lemay et al., 2012). This process is consistent with the relationship maintenance orientation of anxious individuals, and thus their hurt-based emotional reactions might actually help to restore the connection they crave. Moreover, given that relationship threats and associated hurt feelings will intensify anxious individuals’ need to secure proximity and reassurance, and hurt feelings tend to produce exactly what anxious individuals desire (i.e., responsive repair efforts from their partners), anxious individuals may purposively and overtly express their hurt to elicit reassurance and repair efforts from the partner. This possibility is consistent with the hyperactivation strategies that define attachment anxiety. Hyperactivation of the attachment system involves vigilant and compulsive proximityseeking in order to secure partner responsiveness. Relationship threatening contexts, therefore, should trigger forms of “protest” by anxious individuals, including overt emotional displays and insistent attempts to regain (or even coerce) care and attention from the partner (Bowlby, 1969, 1973; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). A central proximitymaintaining strategy theorized to operate in infancy (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994), adolescence (Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming, & Gamble, 1993), and adulthood (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2007) involves exaggerated emotional displays that emphasize dependence and vulnerability—precisely the qualities that hurt signals to relationship partners (Lemay et al., 2012). However, no prior research has provided evidence that anxious individuals intentionally communicate or exaggerate their hurt feelings in order to induce guilt and, in turn, to obtain reassurance and reparative responses from their partner. Guilt-induction strategies, including exaggerated expressions of hurt, are commonly employed in close relationships to influence others (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatheron, 1994, 1995; Vangelisti, Daly, & Rudnick, 1991). Sometimes referred to as manipulation and supplication (e.g., Bui, Raven, & Schwarzwald, 1994; Howard, Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1986; Overall, Fletcher, Simpson, & Sibley, 2009), guilt-induction strategies involve conveying or amplifying emotional expressions of hurt (e.g., tears, sulking, making sad face, pouting); stressing the negative impact the partner’s behavior or the situation is having on the self (“how much it hurts me”); and appealing to the partner’s love, concern, and relationship obligations. All of these tactics involve highlighting hurt, dependence, and vulnerability to guilt the partner into taking responsibility, attending to the self, and soothing hurt feelings. Moreover, because guilt powerfully motivates people to make amends, guilt-induction strategies tend to be successful in getting close others to apologize, cease hurtful behavior, and comply with goals and desires (Baumeister et al., 1994, 1995; Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, & Gramzow, 1992; Vangelisti et al., 1991). Not only do guilt-induction strategies lead to interpersonal benefits, such outcomes might be even more beneficial for individuals high in attachment anxiety. The immediate outcome of expressions of hurt and other guilt-induction strategies should be greater guilt in the partner. Partner guilt is likely an important and desirable endpoint for anxious individuals because successfully inducing guilt provides evidence of the partner’s caring. Guilt-inducing tactics only work to the extent that the targeted partner cares about and is committed to the relationship (Baumeister et al., 1994, 1995). Accordingly, the feeling and expression of guilt, even in the absence of reparative actions, can improve the hurt person’s emotional state because guilt communicates concern and commitment (Baumeister et al., 1994). This is likely to be the primary impetus for anxious individuals’ guilt-induction strategies; guilt ensures the partner is motivated to maintain the relationship and provides essential reassurance of the partner’s regard. For these reasons, the partner’s guilt might have positive effects on anxious individuals’ felt-security and relationship satisfaction. We consider this possibility next. Attachment Anxiety and the Long-Term Consequences of Guilt In examining the causes and consequences of guilt and guiltinduction strategies, prior research has relied on retrospective accounts of guilt-related experiences (Baumeister et al., 1995; Leith & Baumeister, 1998; Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & HillBarlow, 1996; Vangelisti et al., 1991), reactions to hypothetical scenarios (e.g., Covert, Tangney, Maddux, & Heleno, 2003; Lopez et al., 1997), self-reported use of guilt-based strategies (e.g., Bui et al., 1994; Howard et al., 1986), and associations with individual differences in guilt proneness (e.g., Covert et al., 2003; Tangney et al., 1992; Tangney, Wagner, Hill-Barlow, Marschall, & Gramzow, 1996). The results across studies indicate that guilt is associated with greater closeness and commitment to relationship partners, more empathy and concern, lower aggression, and more constructive problem solving and making amends. For these reasons, guilt is typically seen as a prosocial emotion that functions to maintain and enhance relationships. However, no prior research has examined how guilt experienced within important relationship interactions might shape relationship outcomes across time, or whether the outcomes of guilt depend on who is eliciting or feeling guilt. Benefits and Costs of the Partner Feeling Guilty The relationship-enhancing processes described above suggest that the partner’s guilt will have a variety of benefits for the hurt individual. As outlined above, in addition to repairing specific transgressions, partner guilt can signal care and commitment (Baumeister et al., 1994). This commitment-signaling function might be particularly important in building feelings of relationship This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ATTACHMENT ANXIETY AND PARTNER GUILT 237

security and satisfaction. Prior research has shown that partner responsiveness during relationship conflict builds trust, commitment, and satisfaction over time (Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999). On the other hand, there is also reason to suspect that the partner’s guilt should undermine satisfaction. Guilt might repair specific transgressions, but high levels of guilt also signify the partner’s responsibility and fault for hurtful transgressions, and may direct attention to the existence of high levels of conflict, hurtful partner behavior, and negative emotions in both partners (Baumeister et al., 1994). Greater negativity and partner transgressions have a deleterious impact on relationship quality (e.g., Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Kluwer & Johnson, 2007)— damage that may not be easily overcome regardless of how guilty the partner feels or what the partner does to make amends. Thus, greater partner guilt may also forecast more negative perceptions of the partner’s commitment and the relationship. Responses to a partner’s guilt may depend on individuals’ level of attachment anxiety and associated source of that partner’s guilt. We predicted that a key way anxious individuals manage relationship threats is to purposively elicit guilt to coerce the partner’s care and test their partner’s commitment. Successfully inducing guilt in the partner should, therefore, provide highly anxious individuals desired evidence of their partner’s commitment, and these benefits may overshadow any costs of the partner’s guilt. Accordingly, greater partner guilt might help sustain feelings of security and relationship satisfaction for anxious individuals. In contrast, individuals low in attachment anxiety are not preoccupied with their partner’s acceptance, are unlikely to seek reassurance via guiltinduction strategies, and, when guilt occurs, are less likely to focus on their partner’s guilt as evidence of their partner’s care. Hence, for low anxious individuals, the partner’s guilt may not have benefits. Instead, when not induced by low anxious individuals, the existence of high levels of partner guilt represents the partner’s culpability for hurtful transgressions, and thus is likely to foster relatively negative evaluations of the partner and relationship. In sum, we expected that greater partner guilt would predict more negative partner and relationship evaluations for individuals low in anxiety, but that the negative impact of guilt would be attenuated for individuals high in anxiety because, for them, the partner’s guilt also has the benefit of providing needed reassurance of their partner’s concern and commitment. Benefits and Costs of Feeling Guilt Guilt is also likely to be associated with a mix of positive and negative outcomes for the partner who feels guilty. On the positive side, prior research has shown that feeling guilt is associated with empathic concern, commitment, and closeness, and triggers reparative actions that should enhance relationships. People who are more committed and responsive to their partners, and who engage in more constructive relationship maintenance behavior, tend to foster healthier and happier relationships (e.g., Karney, & Bradbury, 1995; Rusbult, Bissonnette, et al., 1998; Wieselquist et al., 1999). Thus, the pro-relationship orientation underpinning guilt might mean that greater guilt will be associated with maintaining satisfying relationships. In contrast, to the degree that low guilt reflects lack of care and motivation to make amends, it should predict declines in relationship quality. On the other hand, there is also evidence that feeling guilty can have negative consequences. Frequently feeling guilt implies frequent negative experiences, which should undermine relationship satisfaction. Indeed, self-report data indicate that guilt-related cognition and behavior, such as perspective-taking and relationship maintenance efforts, are linked with positive relationship outcomes, but the (aversive) affective experience of guilt is not (Leith & Baumeister, 1998). Guilt is also often accompanied by other negative affective states, such as resentment, disappointment, low self-worth, and depressed mood (Jones & Kugler, 1993), particularly when guilt has been induced by others (Baumeister et al., 1994, 1995). Guilty partners might also feel that they cannot expect love and care from their partner, which combined with a focus on making amends, could result in receiving comparatively less relationship rewards (e.g., support and affection; Jones & Kugler, 1993). As before, whether guilt has these potential benefits and costs is likely to depend on the context of guilt experiences. When guilt is created by one’s own care and concerns for the relationship and reflects authentic or internally-generated pro-relationship motivation, it is likely associated with maintaining relationships. This should be the case for partners of individuals low in anxiety because it is unlikely their guilt will be intentionally induced. In contrast, when guilt is induced or amplified by anxious reactions, the negative consequences of guilt should be more likely. People feel guilty even when they do not intentionally hurt others or when they think the hurt reaction is unreasonable, and this situation tends to highlight discrepancies between couple members’ expectations (Baumeister et al., 1994, 1995). When the hurt individuals’ expectations are perceived to be unreasonable, the hurt is disproportionate to the offense, and guilt is induced to gain reassurance, feeling guilty will be an overall negative experience. These conditions all reflect the induced guilt we hypothesized would be associated with attachment anxiety, and so we expected that feeling guilty would lead to declines in satisfaction for the partners of highly anxious individuals. Summary and Research Overview The central goal of individuals high in attachment anxiety is to obtain closeness and acceptance—a goal that is served by intense proximity-seeking designed to secure the partner’s care and attention. Our primary aim was to isolate the emotional and behavioral reactions to relationship threat that capture this primary motivation for connection. Their dependence and intense desire to obtain closeness should lead anxious individuals to experience greater hurt feelings when faced with relationship threats and, in turn, enact exaggerated expressions of hurt to induce guilt and reassurance from their partner. Moreover, although partner guilt should tend to have relatively negative effects on relationships across time, successfully inducing partner guilt should provide anxious individual’s evidence of their partner’s care and commitment. Thus, we predicted that the partner’s guilt should help anxious individuals maintain feelings of security and satisfaction in their relationship. To test these predictions, we assessed both individuals and their partner’s emotional and behavioral reactions to relationship threats, including when encountering hurtful partner behavior and conflict during daily life (Study 1) and when discussing aspects of the self the partner desired to change (Study 2). We expected that anxious individuals would experience more hurt feelings in these This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 238 OVERALL, GIRME, LEMAY, AND HAMMOND

threatening contexts and, when hurt, purposively communicate or exaggerate their hurt to induce guilt in their partner. We also predicted that such guilt-induction attempts would be successful in producing feelings of guilt in the partner. We also tested whether guilt experienced across couple’s daily lives (Study 1) and during conflict-related discussions (Study 2) predicted longitudinal changes in relationship security and satisfaction. To the extent that the partner’s guilt reflects the partner’s culpability for hurtful partner transgressions, the more partners tend to feel high levels of guilt across couples’ interactions, the more individuals should experience declines in partner and relationship evaluations. However, because successfully inducing guilt provides desired evidence of the partner’s care and concern, we predicted that the partner’s guilt would reassure anxious individuals of their partner’s commitment and help them maintain more positive relationship evaluations. Unfortunately, we did not expect that these benefits would extend to anxious intimates’ partners. Instead, because their induced guilt should be disproportionate to their intentions and behaviors, we expected that when partners of anxious individuals feel greater guilt they would experience sharper declines in satisfaction. In both studies, we contrasted hurt feelings and guilt-induction strategies to two other common responses to relationship threat: anger and hostile behavior. We isolated hurt and guilt-induction as specific responses arising from the dependence and motivation to sustain relationships central to attachment anxiety. In contrast, anger is associated with lower dependence, is motivated by a desire to attain personal control, and triggers hostile behavior that generates distance and reciprocal animosity in the partner (Gottman, 1998; Lemay et al., 2012). Nonetheless, despite these opposing antecedents and consequences, hurt and anger are often strongly associated (see Lemay et al., 2012), and anxious intimates report greater anger and hostility during conflict (Feeney et al., 1994; Mikulincer, 1998; Overall & Sibley, 2009; Simpson et al., 1996). Indeed, anxious individuals’ intense need to obtain closeness and reactivity to rejection might simultaneously generate hurt-based guilt-induction attempts and anger-based hostility (Mikulincer et al., 2010; Murray & Holmes, 2009). Thus, we controlled for the links across hurt and anger to illustrate the specificity of the predicted effects. Finally, we also examined whether the predicted results could be due to other forms of insecurity. Another form of attachment insecurity, called avoidance, is characterized by a deep distrust of others, rigid self-reliance, and withdrawal from intimacy (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), and it has been shown to predict greater anger and defensive behavior during threatening interactions (Overall, Simpson, & Struthers, 2013; Simpson et al., 1996). Low self-esteem also shares similarities to attachment anxiety including sensitivity to rejection and reactivity to relationship threats (e.g., Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, & Kusche, 2002). Despite positive associations with avoidance and self-esteem, we expected that the specific hyperactivating strategies and resulting consequences of inducing guilt we targeted would be specific to attachment anxiety. Study 1 In Study 1, we asked both members of committed couples to report their emotions and threatening relationship events at the end of each day for three weeks. This method allows an examination of anxious reactions to relationship threat as they naturally occur across couples’ lives and provides a window to how these responses typically result in the partner feeling guilty. We predicted that individuals higher in attachment anxiety would respond to threatening relationship events with heightened hurt feelings. We also hypothesized that anxious individuals’ pronounced hurt feelings would trigger hyperactivating strategies in the form of exaggerated expressions of hurt to induce guilt in the partner. In Study 1, we tested this prediction by assessing whether, on days when people experienced and therefore might express or exaggerate hurt, individuals higher in anxiety were perceived by their partner to be feeling more hurt compared to individuals lower in anxiety who reported equivalent levels of hurt. If partners perceive more anxious individuals to feel greater hurt than low anxious individuals facing comparable levels of hurt, this suggests that anxious individuals express and exaggerate their hurt more to their partner. We also expected these guilt-inducing expressions would lead to anxious individuals’ partners feeling greater guilt. Our final aim was to investigate whether partner’s guilt has more positive effects for individuals high versus low in anxiety. To do this, we tested whether the partner’s guilt assessed during the 3-week diary was associated with relationship satisfaction gathered 9 months following the completion of the daily reports. By averaging across the diary period, we gathered an index of the degree to which couples’ interactions across the course of their normal life resulted in the partner feeling guilty, which should be associated with later satisfaction if guilt has important implications for how people come to feel and think about their relationship. Because greater guilt by the partner across daily life reflects more frequent and severe transgressions, and signals the partner’s fault for those transgressions, we expected that greater partner guilt would be typically associated with lower relationship satisfaction. However, because successfully inducing guilt communicates commitment and care, we expected that anxious intimates would fare better (i.e., experience lower declines or maintain levels of satisfaction) when their partner reported feeling greater guilt. However, we also expected that attempts to make partners feel guilty would have detrimental effects on the partner and, thus, partners of anxious intimates would feel less satisfied when they felt greater levels of guilt across the diary period. Method Participants. Seventy-eight heterosexual couples who replied to campus-wide advertisements were offered $90NZD for completing all phases of the study (an initial session, a 3-week daily diary, and a follow-up questionnaire 9 months later).1 Participants were on average 22.44 years of age (SD 4.81) and were involved in serious romantic relationships (11% married, 33% cohabiting, 1 This sample has been used previously to investigate the links between depressive symptoms and perceptions of daily behavior (Overall & Hammond, 2013), but there is no overlap in the questions, measures, or aims of this research, and the results presented are entirely unique. The longitudinal data have not been reported before. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ATTACHMENT ANXIETY AND PARTNER GUILT 239

50% serious, 6% steady) that were on average 2.57 years in length (SD 1.96).2 Materials and procedure. During an initial session, couples completed the scales described below and were given detailed instructions for completing a 3-week daily diary. Relationship satisfaction. Participants rated five items developed by Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew (1998) assessing their relationship satisfaction (e.g., “I feel satisfied with our relationship”; “Our relationship is close to ideal”; 1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree). Items were averaged to index relationship satisfaction (M 6.01, SD 0.83, .86). Attachment security. The Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ; Simpson et al., 1996) was competed with reference to romantic relationships in general. Nine items assessed attachment anxiety (e.g., “I often worry that my romantic partners don’t really love me”), and eight items assessed avoidance (e.g., “I’m not very comfortable having to depend on romantic partners”; 1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree). Anxiety (M 2.99, SD 1.05, .80) and avoidance (M 2.92, SD 1.04, .77) were positively associated (r .14, p .08). Self-esteem. Participants also completed Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item self-esteem scale (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”; M 5.24, SD 1.08, .89). Daily diary. At the end of the day for the following 21 days participants completed a web-based questionnaire assessing their relationship-related feelings and behavior that day. On average, participants completed 19.3 diary entries. Daily feelings. Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they experienced various emotions when interacting with their partner that day, including hurt feelings (“I was hurt by my partner”), anger (“I was angry at my partner”), and guilt (“I felt guilty”; 1 not at all, 7 very much). Participants also rated the degree to which they perceived their partner felt hurt that day (“My partner was hurt by me”). Relationship threatening events. We assessed relationship threatening events in two ways. Both couple members rated two items assessing the degree to which they behaved in a potentially hurtful manner toward their partner (e.g., “I acted in a way that could be hurtful to my partner”; “I was critical or unpleasant toward my partner”; 1 not at all, 7 extremely). We used the partner’s reports of hurtful behavior to predict individual’s emotional reactions. Participants also reported the amount of relationship conflict experienced that day (“I experienced conflict or disagreement with my partner”; 1 not at all, 7 extremely), which provided an additional index of rejection-related events that threatened the relationship. Longitudinal follow-up. Nine months after completing the diary, both couple members were contacted separately via e-mail and asked to complete an online questionnaire consisting of the relationship satisfaction measure described above. Fifteen couples dissolved within the 9-month longitudinal period, and a further 13 couples were either not able to be contacted or chose not to complete the follow-up questionnaire, leaving a sample of 50 couples for the longitudinal analyses reported below. Intact versus dissolved couples did not significantly differ across the study variables, with two exceptions: Attachment anxiety and daily hurt feelings were higher for dissolved couples (ts 2, p .05). Retained couples maintained high levels of relationship satisfaction across the follow-up period (M 5.92, SD 1.09, .92). Results Daily analyses: Attachment anxiety, hurt feelings, and partner guilt. Our daily analyses tested whether, compared to individuals low in attachment anxiety, individuals higher in anxiety (1) experienced greater hurt feelings on days they faced threatening relationship events and, when hurt, (2) were perceived by their partners as experiencing higher levels of hurt (suggesting that anxious intimates exaggerated their hurt) and, in turn, (3) had partners who felt greater guilt. We expected these effects to be specific to hurt and not anger. All analyses followed Kenny, Kashy, and Cook’s (2006) recommendations for analyzing repeated measures dyadic data using the MIXED procedure in SPSS 20. We included a number of covariates across analyses. To control for shared variance across different forms of insecurity, we controlled for the main effect of attachment avoidance. To isolate the unique associations of hurt, we controlled for the positive association between hurt and anger (hurt ¡ anger B .72, t 52.51, p .01) by either controlling for anger when predicting hurt (and vice versa) or including hurt and anger as simultaneous predictors (see Lemay et al., 2012). To capture residual change in the outcome variables, we also controlled for the level of the outcome variables the prior day. The intercept was modeled as random, and because we wanted to make direct comparisons across high and low anxiety at the same levels of relationship threat or hurt feelings, all predictors were grand-mean centered.3,4 Anxious reactions to threatening relationship events. To illustrate the analysis strategy, we tested the degree to which anxious individuals reacted with greater hurt feelings when encountering hurtful partner behavior by modeling hurt feelings on day i as a function of (a) hurt feelings on day i 1, (b) anger on day i to ensure the associations were specific to hurt, (c) attachment avoidance, (d) attachment anxiety, (e) hurtful behavior reported by the partner on day i, and (f) the interaction between the partner’s hurtful behavior and attachment anxiety. The results are shown in the top left of Table 1. The predicted interaction between anxiety and partners’ hurtful behavior was significant and is plotted in Panel A of Figure 1. We 2 The results reported did not differ according to age, relationship length (log-transformed), and relationship status (cohabiting vs. not), with the exceptions that the greater hurt and lower anger reported by anxious individuals when facing daily conflict were stronger when participants were older and (for anger) in longer, cohabiting relationships. 3 Comparable results emerged using person-mean centering and when conducting the analyses excluding these covariates. The one exception involved the links between attachment anxiety and anger (see Table 1): When hurt feelings were not controlled, the main and interaction effects of anxiety on anger were not significant. These null effects remain supportive of our overall conclusion that hurt is a primary response of individuals high in attachment anxiety and suggest that prior investigations capturing “negative” reactions of anxious individuals were more likely to be assessing hurt-based responses rather than anger. Moreover, this pattern highlights the importance of controlling for the associations between emotions that inevitably covary but have differential antecedents and consequences, such as hurt and anger (see Lemay et al., 2012). 4 We also tested the main and interaction effects of gender across analyses. Only two effects significantly differed between men and women. The interaction between attachment anxiety and daily conflict on hurt feelings shown in Table 1 was stronger for men (B .08, t 6.39, p .01) than women (B .03, t 2.32, p .05), but both were significant. The relatively lower anger in response to hurtful partner behavior by more anxious individuals was also significant for men (B –.07, t 4.13, p .01) but not for women (B –.01, t 0.54, p .59), despite this same reaction to conflict replicating for both men and women. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 240 OVERALL, GIRME, LEMAY, AND HAMMOND

consider two sets of simple effects to evaluate the meaning of the interaction. First, comparing the slopes of the lines in Figure 1A, the effect of hurtful partner behavior on hurt feelings was greater for individuals higher (dashed line; b .20, t 10.01, p .01) versus lower (solid line; b .08, t 3.53, p .01) in anxiety. Second, contrasting the differences between low and high in anxiety on days of low (left side of Figure 1A) versus high (right side of Figure 1A) hurtful partner behavior, anxious intimates felt greater hurt when their partner behaved in hurtful ways (b .16, t 4.99, p .01) but felt the same low levels of hurt in the absence of hurtful partner behavior (b .00, t 0.05, p .96). Thus, anxious individuals experienced greater hurt specifically on days they faced relationship threats. Analogous models predicting daily anger revealed the opposite pattern (shown in the right top of Table 1 and Panel B of Figure 1). Comparing the effects of partners’ hurtful behavior on anger at low versus high anxiety, individuals lower in anxiety (solid line; b .16, t 6.83, p .01) responded with greater anger compared to individuals higher in anxiety (dashed line; b .07, t 3.00, p .01). Examining differences between low and high anxiety on days of low (left side of Figure 1B) versus high (right side of Figure 1B) hurtful partner behavior, intimates higher in anxiety reported less anger when their partner behaved in hurtful ways (b –.12, t 3.43, p .01) and the same low levels of anger in the absence of hurtful partner behavior (b –.01, t 0.13, p .90). Thus, intimates higher in anxiety responded to relationship threats with less anger compared to individuals lower in anxiety. The pattern shown in Figure 1 was replicated when assessing reactions to conflict and disagreement with the partner (see bottom half of Table 1). Individuals higher in attachment anxiety reacted with greater hurt and less anger compared to intimates lower in Table 1 The Effects of Attachment Anxiety and Threatening Relationship Events on Daily Feelings of Hurt and Anger (Study 1) Attachment anxiety and threatening relationship events Predicting hurt Predicting anger B SE t B SE t Response to partner’s hurtful behavior Prior day criterion .05 .01 3.93 .09 .01 6.16 Other emotion .63 .01 46.18 .70 .02 45.60 Avoidance .03 .03 0.98 .07 .03 2.39 Anxiety .08 .03 2.94 .06 .03 2.09 Partner’s hurtful behavior .14 .02 8.98 .11 .02 6.68 Anxiety Partner’s Hurtful Behavior .06 .01 4.45 .04 .01 3.04 Response to conflict Prior day criterion .05 .01 3.98 .08 .01 6.74 Other emotion .55 .02 34.75 .55 .02 34.42 Avoidance .01 .03 0.49 .06 .03 2.37 Anxiety .07 .02 2.86 .06 .03 2.31 Conflict .15 .01 12.35 .25 .01 21.26 Anxiety Conflict .05 .01 6.15 .03 .01 3.96 p .05. p .01. Figure 1. The moderating effect of individuals’ attachment anxiety on the links between daily levels of partner’s hurtful behavior and individuals’ daily feelings of hurt (Panel A) and anger (Panel B) reported every day for a 3-week period (Study 1). This figure presents two separate two-way interactions (see the top half of Table 1). Panel A graphs predicted values of individuals’ hurt feelings, and Panel B graphs predicted values of individuals’ anger, as a function of their partner’s hurtful behavior and individuals’ level of attachment anxiety. High and low values are indexed at 1 SD above and below the mean. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ATTACHMENT ANXIETY AND PARTNER GUILT 241

anxiety. These results support that hurt feelings constitute a primary response to threatening events by anxious intimates, consistent with their dependence and relationship maintenance concerns. Attachment anxiety and guilt induction. Next, we tested whether (a) anxious intimates hurt was perceived to be more intense than the same level of hurt experienced by individuals low in anxiety and, thus, (b) generated greater guilt in the partner. Given equivalent levels of hurt, if partners perceive anxious individuals to feel more hurt than low anxious individuals, this may indicate that anxious intimates express and exaggerate their hurt more. However, anxious individuals should exaggerate hurt only when they are actually feeling hurt and not on days of no or low hurt when the threat that triggers hyperactivating strategies is absent. Thus, the expected difference should emerge on days of greater hurt feelings and not on days of very low levels (or no) hurt. This predicted pattern would be supported by a significant interaction between individuals’ anxiety and self-reported hurt feelings. Adopting the same dyadic approach as above, we predicted the partner’s perceptions of the individual’s hurt feelings on day i by (a) the partner’s perceptions on day i 1, the individual’s (b) attachment avoidance, (c) attachment anxiety, and (d) hurt feelings on day i, and (e) the interaction between attachment anxiety and hurt on day i, which tests our primary prediction. To show the hypothesized exaggerated expressions were specific to hurt, we also included the individual’s (f) anger on day i, and the (g) Anxiety Anger interaction. The results shown in the first column of Table 2 support our prediction. The significant interaction is displayed in Figure 2, Panel A. Partners perceived greater hurt feelings on days individuals’ experienced greater hurt, but this was stronger when individuals were high (b .40, t 11.03, p .01) versus low (b .29, t 9.19, p .01) in attachment anxiety. Revealing the hypothesized distinction, on days individuals experienced high levels of hurt (see right side of Figure 2A), anxious intimates’ hurt was perceived by their partners as more intense than non-anxious intimates hurt experiencing the same high levels of hurt (b .13, t 2.60, p .01). At very low (or no) hurt, when the lack of threat means guilt-induction strategies are not needed, there were no differences in the partner’s perceptions of hurt feelings across levels of anxiety (left side of Figure 2A; b –.02, t 0.37, p .71).5 We conducted parallel analyses predicting the partner’s guilt to test whether the partners of high (vs. low) anxious individuals felt greater guilt on days that individuals reported experiencing hurt. The results are shown in the second column of Table 2, and the significant interaction shown in Panel B of Figure 2. Partners generally reacted to individuals’ hurt feelings with greater guilt, but this tendency was significantly more pronounced for partners of individuals high (b .22, t 5.46, p .01) versus low (b .11, t 2.99, p .01) in anxiety. Specifically, on days that individuals experienced hurt feelings (right side of Figure 2B), the partners of anxious intimates reported greater guilt than partners of non-anxious intimates (b .13, t 1.96, p .05), but there were no differences in levels of partner guilt when individuals were not experiencing hurt feelings (left side of Figure 2B; b –.03, t 0.46, p .65). This pattern supports that when anxious individuals are hurt they express their hurt in ways that magnify the resulting guilt felt by their partner. We also tested whether the heightened guilt in partners of anxious individuals occurred because partners perceived anxious individuals to be more hurt—the indicator that anxious individuals were strategically expressing hurt to induce guilt. To do this, we reran the analyses predicting partner guilt, including the partner’s perceptions of hurt feelings as an additional predictor, and used procedures recommended by MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, and Lockwood (2007) to compute asymmetric confidence intervals for the indirect effects. The interaction between anxiety and hurt feelings on partner’s guilt was no longer significant (B .04, t 1.59, p .11) when partner’s perceptions of hurt were controlled (a strong predictor of the partner’s guilt; B .38, t 19.89, p .01), suggesting that the greater hurt perceived by partners of anxious intimates lead to the greater guilt felt by those partners on days anxious individuals experienced high levels of hurt (indirect effect .02, 95% CI [.01, .03]). Taken together, these results suggest that anxious intimates express or exaggerate their hurt, which leads to partners perceiving more intense hurt feelings and subsequently feeling greater guilt. In addition, although greater anger was also associated with greater perceptions of hurt and guilt in the partner, this was not magnified for individuals high in attachment anxiety (see Table 2) indicating that these guilt-inducing dynamics are specific to anxious individuals’ experiences and strategic expression of hurt rather than anger. Longitudinal analyses: Anxiety, partner’s guilt, and relationship satisfaction across time. Our final set of analyses examined whether the partner’s guilt experienced across the diary period was associated with changes in relationship satisfaction across the subsequent 9 months.6 Averaging partner guilt across the 3-week period provided an index of the degree to which couples’ interactions across the course of their day-to-day life typically resulted in the partner feeling guilty, which our diary analyses illustrated was amplified by anxious individuals’ expressions of hurt. Thus, any negative links between partners’ guilt and later satisfaction would indicate that these guilt-relevant processes can undermine relationship satisfaction (or vice versa). We first 5 An alternative test is to examine whether partners perceive anxious individuals to feel more hurt than the hurt actually reported by those individuals. The most up-to-date technique for testing bias in perceptions (West & Kenny, 2011) involves an equivalent analytic strategy with the exception that the partners’ perceptions of individuals’ hurt feelings (the dependent variable) are first centered on individuals’ actual self-reported hurt feelings (the predictor) so that the predicted values (as plotted in Panel A of Figure 2) represent the difference between partners’ perceptions of hurt feelings and individuals’ actual self-reported hurt feelings. Accordingly, this approach produced an identical pattern. On days individuals experienced high levels of hurt, partners of anxious intimates were more likely to overestimate the intensity of that hurt compared to partners of non-anxious intimates, indicating that anxious individuals express more hurt than they are actually feeling. 6 We also tested whether the same effects occurred when predicting diary-rated relationship evaluations. There was no evidence that partner’s guilt protected anxious individuals’ relationship evaluations in the shortterm as it did across time in Studies 1 and 2. However, the appeasing benefits of guilt will be muted in the short-term aftermath of specific relationship threats because any reassurance provided by partner guilt may simply dampen but not reverse the heightened reactivity of anxious individuals. Instead, the reassurance provided by partner guilt will build across time as anxious intimates typically encounter partner guilt in response to their proximity-seeking efforts. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 242 OVERALL, GIRME, LEMAY, AND HAMMOND

tested the associations between the partner’s guilt and individual’s relationship satisfaction. Following guidelines by Kenny et al. (2006), we regressed relationship satisfaction gathered 9 months post-diary completion (Time 2) on (1) relationship satisfaction gathered immediately prior to the diary (Time 1), (2) the partner’s guilt averaged across the diary, (3) attachment anxiety, and (4) the interaction between the partner’s guilt and anxiety. The results are shown in the top half of Table 3. As predicted, there was a significant interaction between the partner’s guilt and attachment anxiety, which is displayed in Figure 3, Panel A. The more their partner felt guilty across the diary period, the less individuals low in attachment anxiety were satisfied 9 months later (b –.60, t 2.56, p .02). In contrast, the partner’s guilt did not have a detrimental impact on the satisfaction of individuals high in attachment anxiety, who instead showed a non-significant trend in the opposite direction (b .20, t 1.03, p .31). Thus, at low levels of the partner’s guilt (see the left side of Figure 3A), there were no differences in Time 2 satisfaction across individuals low versus high in anxiety (b –.05, t 0.39, p .70), but when partner’s guilt were high (see the right side of Figure 3A), less anxious individuals reported lower satisfaction than more anxious individuals (b .50, t 3.13, p .01). These results indicate that partner’s guilt will typically be associated with lower satisfaction for individuals low in anxiety but not for individuals high in anxiety, in which case partner guilt might help to maintain satisfaction. We ran analogous models predicting the partner’s relationship satisfaction across time (see bottom half of Table 4). A significant interaction emerged and is shown in Panel B of Figure 3. The pattern suggested that experiencing greater guilt was associated with higher satisfaction for partners of individuals low in anxiety (b .46, t 1.89, p .06) but lower satisfaction for partners of individuals high in anxiety (b –.23, t 1.16, p .25), although neither of these slopes were significant. However, focusing on partners who experienced high levels of daily guilt (see the right side of Figure 3B), partners of individuals high (vs. low) in attachment anxiety were less satisfied when experiencing guilt (b –.42, t 2.70, p .01). There were no differences in satisfaction when partners felt low levels of guilt (see the left side of Figure 3B; b .07, t 0.51, p .62). This pattern provides some support that feeling greater guilt has more detrimental effects for partners of individuals high in attachment anxiety. Table 2 The Effects of Attachment Anxiety and Daily Feelings of Hurt and Anger on the Partner’s Perceptions of Hurt and Partner’s Own Feelings of Guilt (Study 1) Attachment anxiety and daily feelings Predicting partner’s perceptions of hurt Predicting the partner’s guilt B SE t B SE t Prior day criterion .09 .02 5.55 .10 .02 5.49 Avoidance .00 .04 0.06 .05 .05 0.92 Anxiety .06 .04 1.40 .05 .05 0.87 Hurt .34 .02 14.18 .16 .03 5.96 Anxiety Hurt .05 .02 2.36 .05 .02 2.20 Anger .22 .02 9.41 .12 .03 4.78 Anxiety Anger .03 .02 1.42 .05 .02 1.87 p .05. p .01. Figure 2. The moderating effect of individuals’ attachment anxiety on the links between individuals’ daily levels of hurt feelings on their partner’s perceptions of hurt feelings (Panel A) and their partner’s guilt (Panel B) reported every day for a 3-week period (Study 1). This figure presents two separate two-way interactions (see Table 2). Panel A graphs predicted values of the partner’s perceptions of hurt feelings, and Panel B graphs predicted values of the partner’s guilt feelings, as a function of individuals’ level of hurt feelings and attachment anxiety. High and low values are indexed at 1 SD above and below the mean. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ATTACHMENT ANXIETY AND PARTNER GUILT 243

Alternative explanations and additional analyses. Additional analyses illustrated that the daily and longitudinal effects of anxiety were not attributable to other forms of relationship insecurity. Avoidance predicted greater anger and not hurt (see Table 1), and adding avoidance interaction terms across models revealed that avoidant individuals’ hurt feelings were associated with lower perceived hurt (B –.06, t 2.36, p .02) and lower guilt (B –.05, t 1.81, p .07) by their partner (strengthening the effects of anxiety). Adding main and interaction terms of selfesteem revealed that low self-esteem was associated with greater anger (not hurt) on days of conflict (B .03, t 3.02, p .01) and greater partner guilt regardless of levels of anger or hurt (B –.15, t –2.88, p .01). Despite the link between anxiety and self-esteem (r –.32, p .01), the effects of anxiety in Tables 1 and 2 remained significant or (in two cases) marginally significant. Additional analyses also supported that the focal effects were not due to the presence of more severe transgressions or conflict in relationships involving individuals high in attachment anxiety. Greater attachment anxiety was linked with more conflict and hurtful partner behavior (Bs .14 and .11, t 1.87, p .07), but controlling average levels of conflict and partner’s hurtful behavior across the diary period did not alter the effects of threatening events for anxious intimates shown in Table 1. Conflict and partner’s hurtful behavior were strongly associated with the partner’s guilt (Bs .17 and .42, t 11.87, p .01). Additional analyses revealed that greater levels of conflict did not reduce or modify the impact of anxious individuals’ hurt on partner guilt shown in Table 2, but a three-way interaction revealed that anxious individuals’ hurt led to heightened guilt in the partner when that partner had engaged in hurtful behavior (b .09, t 2.43, p .02). This latter effect might indicate that partners only feel exacerbated guilt when they trace the source of anxious individuals’ hurt to their own behavior or when guilt-induction tactics focus specifically on actions of the partner. Finally, additional analyses revealed that the longitudinal effects of partner guilt were not due to individuals’ own guilt or hurt feelings, levels of conflict, or the partner’s hurt, anger, or hurtful behavior. Own guilt and hurt across the diary did not have independent effects on Time 2 satisfaction, and the effects in Table 3 and Figure 3 remained when these variables were controlled. The partner’s hurt and anger, or levels of conflict and partner’s hurtful behavior, also did not yield the same effects as partner’s guilt. These analyses support that the differential effects shown in Figure 3 are specific to the partner’s guilt. Discussion Study 1 provided initial support for our predictions. More anxious individuals felt greater hurt on days they encountered relationship threats and, when they were more hurt, their partners perceived their hurt to be more intense and subsequently felt more guilt (compared to partners of low anxious intimates facing the same levels of hurt). These results provide preliminary evidence Table 3 The Effects of the Partner’s Guilt and Attachment Anxiety on Relationship Satisfaction 9 Months Post-Completion of the Daily Diary (Study 1) Partner’s guilt and attachment anxiety B SE t Predicting own relationship satisfaction Own satisfaction at Time 1 .86 .14 6.16 Avoidance .20 .10 1.54 Anxiety .23 .10 2.34 Partner’s guilt .20 .14 1.44 Anxiety Partner’s Guilt .40 .16 2.41 Predicting the partner’s relationship satisfaction Partner’s satisfaction at Time 1 .87 .15 5.60 Avoidance .10 .10 1.02 Anxiety .17 .09 1.89 Partner’s guilt .11 .16 0.73 Anxiety Partner’s Guilt .34 .16 2.16 p .05. p .01. Figure 3. The moderating effect of individuals’ attachment anxiety on the links between partner guilt and individuals’ relationship satisfaction (Panel A) and partner guilt and partners’ relationship satisfaction (Panel B) gathered 9 months post-diary completion (Study 1). This figure presents two separate two-way interactions (see Table 4). The left panel graphs predicted values of individuals’ relationship satisfaction 9 months post-diary controlling for pre-diary levels of individuals’ relationship satisfaction. The right panel graphs predicted values of partners’ relationship satisfaction 9 months post-diary controlling for partners’ pre-diary levels of relationship satisfaction. High and low values are indexed at 1 SD above and below the mean. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 244 OVERALL, GIRME, LEMAY, AND HAMMOND

点击进入文档下载页（PDF格式）

共22页，试读已结束，阅读完整版请下载

点击下载（PDF格式）

浏览记录