30 OVERALL GIRME.LEMAY.AND HAMMOND i6纸eatemneae257yesnkeaeh Results nd pre Durine an initial sessio Daily analyses Attachment anxiety,hurt feelings,and par pleted the se described belo ow i atta ety.individuals iety (1 rated five items deve d21 days th oped by Rusbult. Martz.an (1998) ssing their cing higher levels ng that se to ideal".I=st ndex relationship sati r.All analyses followed Kenny.Kashy.and Cook's (2006)re nent security. The Adult Attachment N competed with nxiety (e.g. I often worry that my ro tic partners don't really en hurt and anger (hu and vice versa)or in dine hurt and ange ositive ciated (r =14.p 08 of the ariables the prior day.The intercept was modeled as ndom.and =5.24.SD=1.08 891 day for tered 3 nship-re atedfeoeliogan rior that day.On average g relationship pants were asked to rate the deon with eater hurt feeling hey experie intcractn f(hurt feel da anger ("I er")and guilt (l fel fic to hurt.(c)atta nce.(d hat day (My was hurt by me We havior was significant and is plotted in Panel A of Figure 1.We sing the degre to which they behaved in a potentially ould be hurtful tom was critical o way tha rd my partner used the that lower aneer ro reactions ted the ar unt of relation r and with r olled the Nine months after ting the di .hig fmail and s dissolved in the bmonthlongitmd tion effects of send es shown in Table gswere higher for disolved were s es (s 1.09.a-9250% 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 devel￾oped by Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew (1998) assessing their rela￾tionship 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 satis￾faction (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 emo￾tional reactions. Participants also reported the amount of relation￾ship 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 di￾ary, both couple members were contacted separately via e-mail and asked to complete an online questionnaire consisting of the relation￾ship 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 part￾ner guilt. Our daily analyses tested whether, compared to individ￾uals 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 part￾ners 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) rec￾ommendations 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 avoid￾ance. 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 il￾lustrate 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 be￾havior 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 “neg￾ative” 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