Partner Buffering of Attacbment Insecurity 57 avoidant people.As predicted.avoidant targets felt cool-down task.However,when their partners displaved greater anger and displayed more coder-rated withdrawal better conflict recovery,insecure individuals felt much more positive about th e relationship,and these couple year which involved being sensitive to the target's autono duced more beneficial longer-ter outcomes including needs,validating his or her viewpoint,and acknowledg- stronger relationship stability across time. ing his or her constructive efforts and good qualities Conclusions,Caveats,and Applications cussions were more successful. Simpson,Winterheld,Rholes,and Orina (2007)had ched par to resolve their most important relationship problem.At reasons.However.partner buffering should also occur in peak distress points during each discussion(the triggering other situations,such as when insecure targets need sup i).the ohc()the port.When partners (agents)provide more dpartner (the agent) nd (b)the port,anxi nsh her partner's caregiving attempts.Securely attached indi- ple prefer to manage stress by themselves,more indirect viduals were rated as more calmed when their partners ess emotio ally foc ge them e(e.g.,er of threatening interactions.Lemay and Dudley (2011 because they manage stress by suppressing their emotions found that partners exaggerate their affection when ther ure,which makes anxiou in avo pted ar secure.More frequen calmed when their partners delive （agns which buffers insecu imbued and more instrumental caregiving (e.g,giving individuals (targets)from relationship dissatisfaction cittle concrete advice/suggestions for how to solve the problem McNulty,Russell,2010). discussing the pro em in an intel tual/rational manner he other s udies des ing hehavio smust be tailored to th inse nle hir who cemns.and defenses of insecure targets curity. Certain components of our model need to be Buffering insecurity after conflict more fully,and ehaviors no Finally we have examined what individuals do to buffer nt i ry.our mode their insecure partners in the aftermath of conflict discus can also be applied to other forms of insecurity (e.g. sions.In a longitudinal study by Salvatore,Kuo,Steele, neuroticism,rejection sensitivity,low self-esteem)known to produ -regulation ditficul (rated in th.sowe s ad ch Situati )fo in these individuals.Immediately aftera videotaped discus well and directly they address the underlving motives sion of a major relationship problem,each couple did a and reasons for a target's regulation difficulties.However. "cool-down"discussion task during which they talked of buffering behaviors uickhe aspect of p.W b:eco buffering "recovered"from the prior conflict discussion.In e thereby failing to quell their distress (Lemay Clark attached individuals (rated as insecure as children 20 2008).When buffering attempts repeatedly fail,agents years earlier)had more trouble recovering and were more likely to reengage" the conflict during thePartner Buffering of Attachment Insecurity 57 avoidant people. As predicted, avoidant targets felt greater anger and displayed more coder-rated withdrawal during these discussions, which resulted in less success￾ful problem resolution. Some partners, however, buffered avoidant defenses by softening their influence attempts, which involved being sensitive to the target’s autonomy needs, validating his or her viewpoint, and acknowledg￾ing his or her constructive efforts and good qualities. Avoidant targets whose partners displayed more soften￾ing exhibited less anger and withdrawal, and their dis￾cussions were more successful. Simpson, Winterheld, Rholes, and Oriña (2007) had romantic partners complete the Adult Attachment Inter￾view, which assesses attachment orientations to one’s par￾ents. One week later, each couple was videotaped trying to resolve their most important relationship problem. At peak distress points during each discussion (the triggering event in Fig. 1), coders rated the extent to which (a) the less distressed partner (the agent) displayed emotional, instrumental, or physical caregiving behaviors; and (b) the more distressed partner (the target) was calmed by his or her partner’s caregiving attempts. Securely attached indi￾viduals were rated as more calmed when their partners gave them more emotional care (e.g., encouraging them to talk about their emotions/experiences with the problem, conveying unequivocal emotional support). However, because they manage stress by suppressing their emotions and limiting emotional closeness with partners, emotional caregiving should exacerbate distress in avoidant individu￾als. Accordingly, avoidant individuals were rated as more calmed when their partners delivered less emotionally imbued and more instrumental caregiving (e.g., giving concrete advice/suggestions for how to solve the problem, discussing the problem in an intellectual/rational manner). These findings confirm that, to be effective, partner-buffer￾ing behaviors must be tailored to the specific needs, con￾cerns, and defenses of insecure targets. Buffering insecurity after conflict Finally, we have examined what individuals do to buffer their insecure partners in the aftermath of conflict discus￾sions. In a longitudinal study by Salvatore, Kuo, Steele, Simpson, and Collins (2011), one partner in each couple had been studied since birth, so we had childhood attach￾ment scores (rated in Ainsworth’s Strange Situation) for these individuals. Immediately after a videotaped discus￾sion of a major relationship problem, each couple did a “cool-down” discussion task during which they talked about the most positive aspect of their relationship. We assessed how quickly and completely each partner “recovered” from the prior conflict discussion. Insecurely attached individuals (rated as insecure as children 20 years earlier) had more trouble recovering and were more likely to “reengage” the conflict during the cool-down task. However, when their partners displayed better conflict recovery, insecure individuals felt much more positive about the relationship, and these couples were more likely to still be dating 2 years later. Thus, as depicted on the right of Figure 1, partner buffering pro￾duced more beneficial longer-term outcomes, including stronger relationship stability across time. Conclusions, Caveats, and Applications These studies of romantic couples engaged in conflict highlight the critical role that partner buffering plays in protecting relationships that have insecurely attached part￾ners. We have focused on conflict because it is threatening to both anxious and avoidant people, albeit for different reasons. However, partner buffering should also occur in other situations, such as when insecure targets need sup￾port. When partners (agents) provide more visible/direct support, anxious people tend to be happier and more optimistic about their relationships (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005). Conversely, because avoidant peo￾ple prefer to manage stress by themselves, more indirect, less emotionally focused forms of support are required to circumvent their avoidant defenses (Simpson et al., 2007). Buffering behaviors are also important outside the context of threatening interactions. Lemay and Dudley (2011) found that partners exaggerate their affection when they perceive that targets feel insecure, which makes anxious individuals feel more accepted and secure. More frequent or satisfying sex can also improve the perceived emotional availability of partners (agents), which buffers insecure individuals (targets) from relationship dissatisfaction (Little, McNulty, & Russell, 2010). Our research and the other studies described herein show that attachment insecurity does not spell doom for insecure people or their relationships; partners who enact appropriate behaviors can—and do—buffer inse￾curity. Certain components of our model need to be tested more fully, and additional partner behaviors not depicted in our model might also buffer insecurity. Although we focused on attachment insecurity, our model can also be applied to other forms of insecurity (e.g., neuroticism, rejection sensitivity, low self-esteem) known to produce emotion- and behavior-regulation difficulties in stressful or threatening situations. Partner-buffering behaviors will differ in effectiveness depending on how well and directly they address the underlying motives and reasons for a target’s regulation difficulties. However, even the “right kind” of buffering behaviors must be delivered skillfully; exaggerated or prolonged buffering attempts could be perceived as insincere by insecure tar￾gets, thereby failing to quell their distress (Lemay & Clark, 2008). When buffering attempts repeatedly fail, agents may burn out and stop trying to console insecure targets, which amplifies agents’ dissatisfaction (Lemay & Dudley, Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com by Cai Xing on February 9, 2014