Partner Buffering of Attacbment Insecurity 55 and motivates them to turn to their attachment figures for Simpson,2013).As the top left of Figure 1 shows stressful/threatening events activate the prototypic con remove the sou distress cems of insecurely attached people(targets).The nondis pec partners (Mikulincer Shaver,2007). and console him or her.Buffering behaviors can be There are two primary types of insecurity.Anxiously enacted deliberately (consciously and intentionally)or attached people,who have r automatically (non offering e the them (Mikulincer Shaver.2003).Conse quently anxious wishes/needs.using "softerinfluence tactics when trying to persuade the target during conflicts,and providing the right type of support the target needs to regulate his or an vior in rel- ssful when the conflicts (Simpson.Rholes.Phillips.1996)or when partners do not provide sufficient support (Collins associated with the target's attachment orientation This"hypervigilant"form of coping allow hich or and ga attention c em they are love port attempting to fulfill their wishes and nceds or and dissatisfaction in their partners (Downey,Freitas, assuaging their relationship-relevant concerns.Avoidantly Michaelis,&Khouri.19) should benefit more rlic people.who permi them to maint ain th when trying to change their traits or opinions and provid- learn to suppress their needs for closeness and intimacy ing instrumental forms of support designed to "fix"the andeonmcteidrnndeendentndsciria When problem and meet their needs while allowing them to eir pan e园 and become t'sbrol and re anstrean inclined to seek or nin (Simpson,Rholes,Nelligan,1992).This strategy allows omy an dence so can enave more const dle the e20023 and beha Both types of insecurity destabilize relationships by iors occurs repeatedly.targets should come to view them selves mor positively and report greater overal positive experienc satisfaction,and agent heir better 007)Ho 11 Lemay and Dudley (2011)suggested that the partners of Returning to Matthew and Helen,if Matthew (who is insecure individuals can regulate those individuals'inse- hip.The folle des e nent tha and Helen are having. may directl th nd why recounting avoidant individuals in relationship-threatening contexts. fastly committed to their relationship This buffering attempt should make Matthew feel more secure in the The Dvadic Regulation Model of on,which sh uld help him feel better,cont h Insecurity Buffering latile more p Our research has been guided by the dyadic regulation model of insecurity buffering(see Fig.1 for a schematic negative thoughts and feelings whenever he feels threat- .201Partner Buffering of Attachment Insecurity 55 and motivates them to turn to their attachment figures for comfort and support to reduce negative affect and remove the source of distress. This collaborative, “prob￾lem-focused” style of coping helps securely attached people build further closeness and intimacy with their partners (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). There are two primary types of insecurity. Anxiously attached people, who have received mixed or inconsis￾tent care/support earlier in life, crave acceptance and closeness yet worry that their partners might hurt or leave them (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Consequently, anxious individuals are vigilant to signs of both their partner’s love and their partner’s possible rejection, which gener￾ates strong distress and dysfunctional behavior in rela￾tionship-threatening situations, such as major relationship conflicts (Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996) or when partners do not provide sufficient support (Collins & Feeney, 2000). This “hypervigilant” form of coping allows anxious individuals to monitor and gain the attention of their partners, which makes them feel less insecure. Unfortunately, these responses typically produce anger and dissatisfaction in their partners (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998). Avoidantly attached people, who have been rejected or dismissed by earlier attachment figures, believe they cannot trust and depend on others. Accordingly, they learn to suppress their needs for closeness and intimacy and become rigidly independent and self-reliant. When stressed, avoidant individuals withdraw from their part￾ners emotionally (Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 1997) and become less inclined to seek or give support (Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992). This “distancing” strategy allows avoidant people to maintain sufficient autonomy and independence so they can regulate their emotions and handle the source of distress on their own (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Both types of insecurity destabilize relationships by lowering satisfaction, aggravating relationship problems, and curtailing the positive experiences that could be gained from having happier partners and better function￾ing relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). However, Lemay and Dudley (2011) suggested that the partners of insecure individuals can regulate those individuals’ inse￾curity to protect the relationship. The following describes how we have conceptualized and studied, with a focus on conflict, the ways partners can buffer anxious and avoidant individuals in relationship-threatening contexts. The Dyadic Regulation Model of Insecurity Buffering Our research has been guided by the dyadic regulation model of insecurity buffering (see Fig. 1 for a schematic illustration), which considers how couples behave during attachment-relevant dyadic interactions (see also Overall & Simpson, 2013). As the top left of Figure 1 shows, stressful/threatening events activate the prototypic con￾cerns of insecurely attached people (targets). The nondis￾tressed partner (agent), however, may enact buffering behaviors to reduce (downregulate) the target’s distress and console him or her. Buffering behaviors can be enacted deliberately (consciously and intentionally) or automatically (nonconsciously or unintentionally) by agents and may include offering reassurance of contin￾ued love and support, accommodating the target’s wishes/needs, using “softer” influence tactics when trying to persuade the target during conflicts, and providing the right type of support the target needs to regulate his or her emotions more constructively. Buffering ought to be successful when the agent’s behavior is responsive to the particular concerns/needs associated with the target’s attachment orientation. Anxiously attached targets should benefit most from buff￾ering behaviors that reassure them they are loved and supported, such as providing sufficient emotional sup￾port, attempting to fulfill their wishes and needs, or assuaging their relationship-relevant concerns. Avoidantly attached targets should benefit more from buffering behaviors that permit them to maintain their autonomy and independence, such as using softer influence tactics when trying to change their traits or opinions and provid￾ing instrumental forms of support designed to “fix” the problem and meet their needs while allowing them to retain personal control and remain self-reliant. If the agent’s buffering works, insecure targets should report greater felt security during stressful/threatening interactions. This increase in felt security, in turn, should lead them to feel less distressed, manage their emotions better, and behave more constructively (see the middle of Fig. 1). If this pattern of stress/threat→responsive partner buffering→positive relationship perceptions and behav￾iors occurs repeatedly, targets should come to view them￾selves more positively and report greater overall relationship satisfaction, and agents should experience better relationship outcomes with their better adjusted insecure partners (see the right of Fig. 1). Returning to Matthew and Helen, if Matthew (who is anxiously attached) feels threatened by a major disagree￾ment that he and Helen are having, Helen may directly reassure Matthew of her unwavering love, recounting all of his wonderful traits and why she remains so stead￾fastly committed to their relationship. This buffering attempt should make Matthew feel more secure in the discussion, which should help him feel better, control his volatile emotions, and act more positively toward Helen. If this cycle continually reoccurs, Matthew should begin to automatically associate Helen with the dissipation of negative thoughts and feelings whenever he feels threat￾ened, thereby strengthening the emotional bond between them (especially for Matthew; see Simpson, 2007). Over Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com by Cai Xing on February 9, 2014