236 OVERALL GIRME.LEMAY.AND HAMMOND 1994:Mikulincer.198:Rholes,Simpson.&Orina,1999 Simp- s,2012) was desioned to isnlate the I and behavioral response rela onship thr that sponses Anxious individuals hostil a）ari nd (h)he nce and care anxious vents we predicted that anxious individuals would feel more burt r in quality (Creasey,202:Sim pson ct al.1996:Tran& y their partner have found no ations be en adult attachment anxiety these predictions below. Attach veak indis inant (Creasey.2002 Paley. Cox.Burchinal. 1999) null or Bowlby (1969.1973.1980)theorized that an innate attachmen ange c of pegative and po sitive emotions 20001 unctioning of the attach systen m.Optimal functior vation t ge and and be ive care In adulthoo ng relat shin b 2010 s trust their partners and supportive. ll fail 1998:0 rall Sible 200 as individuals'o nt fig ionships. ooth-LaForce.Owen. Holland.2013).Indi Attachment Anxiety,Hurt Feelings,and Guilt hat. pts to secure love their Recent research has demonstrated the importance of differenti ated.which is char terized by chronic e distinet uences.Across four studi their contin vith lower de dence and con m about the relationship.More o involves vigil the par to restore their partner's a d ar hich rogat th ter's h urtful beh anger p 3009 and their h ed distress i evident to objective observers (Campbell:Simpson et motivation to repair the relationship.1994; Mikulincer, 1998; Rholes, Simpson, & Oriña, 1999; Simp￾son & Rholes, 2012). The current research was designed to isolate the specific emo￾tional 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 express￾ing their hurt feelings to induce guilt in their partner. Moreover, we expected that such guilt-induction strategies would provide anx￾ious 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 de￾clining 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 expec￾tations 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 (Ain￾sworth 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 hyperacti￾vated, 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 af￾fection (Campbell et al., 2005; Lemay & Dudley, 2011). Hyperactivation also involves vigilant monitoring of the part￾ner’s availability and an acute sensitivity to rejection, which pro￾duces more extreme reactions to relationship threat. Anxious in￾dividuals 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 re￾sponses. Anxious individuals report engaging in more hostile behavior during conflict (e.g., Feeney, Noller, & Callan, 1994; Gaines et al., 1997; Overall & Sibley, 2009; Scharfe & Bar￾tholomew, 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 relation￾ship satisfaction and stability. Despite a reputation that the links between attachment anxiety and hostile reactions to conflict are well-established, several stud￾ies 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 ef￾forts (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 rela￾tionships. Attachment Anxiety, Hurt Feelings, and Guilt Induction Strategies Recent research has demonstrated the importance of differenti￾ating between specific types of interpersonal emotions and behav￾ior 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 commit￾ment 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. More￾over, hurt and anger were linked with different goals and interper￾sonal consequences. Individuals who felt more hurt were moti￾vated 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