244 OVERALL GIRME.LEMAY.AND HAMMOND Diary (Study D age levels of confict and partner's hurful beha Partner's guilt and attachment anxiety B SE ts for shown in Table 1.Conflict and Predicting n relatic tner's 66 mpact of anxious individual hurt c gu ety ciaaTnehpatisfaction artner's Guil 02 .09,1 人eyX"Partner's Guilt p<05."p<.01 lings partner's burt. er.or hurtfu vere not at ble to other unt and Figure 3 remained when these variab ms across tha 01 d par 05,1 -1.81.p=07)by thei partner (strengther are spec partner Discussion nger (not hurt)on days of confict (03. 3.02 Study 1 provided initial sup 15.1=-2.88.p 01).Despite the link between ous individals felt greater hurt on days they encountered rela effects ot anxie Additional ses alsc ous inti tes facing the due to the presenc ese results provide preliminary evidenc A.Individuals'Relationship Satisfaction B.Partners'Relationship Satisfaction 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.4 -High Anxiet 6.2 6.2 60 6.0 68 5.6 54 5.0 75.0 ow Partner Guilt High Partner Guilt Low Partner Guilt High Partner Guilt Figure 3 moderating effect of individ nxiety on the links be ary cor cgyptenctions rolling f ndividuals'relatiAlternative explanations and additional analyses. Additional analyses illustrated that the daily and longitudinal effects of anx￾iety 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 self￾esteem 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 behav￾ior 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 part￾ner’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 exac￾erbated 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 inde￾pendent 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 anx￾ious individuals felt greater hurt on days they encountered rela￾tionship 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