Capstones, Theses and
\nDissertation
\nConsidering the Role of Relationship-Contingent
\nSelf-Esteem: Attachment Style, Conflict Behaviors,
\nand Relationship Satisfaction<\/p>\n
ii
\nTABLE OF CONTENTS
\nPage
\nLIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. iv
\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………………………………………….v
\nABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. vi
\nCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………….1
\nCHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………………………………..9
\nAttachment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
\nRelationship-Contingent Self-Esteem……………………………………………………………………..25
\nConflict Behaviors ……………………………………………………………………………………………….33
\nRelationship Satisfaction ………………………………………………………………………………………39
\nAttachment, Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem, Conflict Behaviors,
\n& Relationship Satisfaction…………………………………………………………………………….41
\nThe Present Study ………………………………………………………………………………………………..51
\nResearch Hypotheses ……………………………………………………………………………………………54
\nCHAPTER 3: METHOD …………………………………………………………………………………………………56
\nParticipants………………………………………………………………………………………………………….56
\nProcedure ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………58
\nMeasures and Materials ………………………………………………………………………………………..59
\nCHAPTER 4: RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………64
\nCHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………………………74
\nAttachment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….74
\nRelationship-Contingent Self-Esteem……………………………………………………………………..77
\nConflict Behaviors ……………………………………………………………………………………………….78
\nRelationship Satisfaction ………………………………………………………………………………………79
\nLimitations………………………………………………………………………………………………………….82
\nFuture Research …………………………………………………………………………………………………..85
\nImplications for Practice ……………………………………………………………………………………….87
\nREFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………88
\nAPPENDIX A. BARTHOLOMEW & HOROWITZ\u2019S (1991) MODEL OF
\nSELF AND OTHERS………………………………………………………………………………………….101
\nAPPENDIX B. IRB APPROVAL …………………………………………………………………………………..102
\niii
\nAPPENDIX C. INFORMED CONSENT…………………………………………………………………………103
\nAPPENDIX D. DEMOGRAPHICS & RELATIONSHIP HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE …….105
\nAPPENDIX E. CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE TASK \u2013 EXAMPLES OF
\nQUESTIONS USED………………………………………………………………………………………….106
\nAPPENDIX F. EXPERIENCES IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIP \u2013 SHORT FORM………………..107
\nAPPENDIX G. RELATIONSHIP-CONTINGENT SELF-ESTEEM…………………………………..108
\nAPPENDIX H. RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION…………………………………………………………109
\niv
\nLIST OF TABLES
\nPage
\nTable 1. Participant Demographics……………………………………………………………………………………..57
\nTable 2. Sample Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Study Measures ……………………….66
\nTable 3. Correlations Among Measures ………………………………………………………………………………67
\nTable 4. Partial Correlations Among Measures and Insecure Attachment………………………………..68
\nTable 5. RCSE as a Moderator of Pure Anxious Attachment and Detrimental
\nDecision Endorsement ……………………………………………………………………………………………69
\nTable 6. RCSE as a Moderator of Pure Anxious Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction……….70
\nTable 7. RCSE as a Mediator of Pure Anxious Attachment and Detrimental
\nDecision Endorsement ……………………………………………………………………………………………71
\nTable 8. RCSE as a Mediator of Pure Anxious Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction…………71
\nTable 9. ANCOVA \u2013 Sex Differences in Pure Anxious Attachment Scores …………………………….72
\nTable 10. ANOVA \u2013 Sex Differences in RCSE Scores………………………………………………………….72
\nTable 11. ANOVA \u2013 Sex Differences in RS Scores………………………………………………………………73
\nTable 12. ANOVA \u2013 Sex Differences in CYOA Scores………………………………………………………..73
\nv
\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS
\nI would like to express my thanks to Dr. Loreto Prieto, my graduate advisor and committee chair,
\nfor his unending support and patience throughout this research project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees). His continual
\nencouragement and belief in my ability to complete my thesis were so appreciated.
\nI would also like to thank Dr. Meifen Wei and Dr. Carolyn Cutrona, my committee members, for
\nagreeing to be on my committee and for their excellent advice and willingness to answer
\nquestions and generate solutions.
\nLastly, I would like to express my gratitude to my family. To my mother, for always believing
\nthat I could do whatever I set my mind to. To my partner, whose support, love, and reminders for
\nself-care were endless and helped me make it through this process.
\nvi
\nABSTRACT
\nResearch has empirically demonstrated that adult attachment style directly affects
\ncommunication between partners in romantic relationships, in particular, how partners address
\nand handle conflicts in the relationship. The construct of relationship-contingent self-esteem
\n(RCSE) suggests that individuals behave differently in romantic relationships based on the
\ndegree to which their personal self-esteem is connected to successes or failures in that
\nrelationship. However, few studies have examined how these two independent constructs are
\nrelated to one another in terms of relationship communication behaviors during conflict. The
\npurpose of my study was to examine the moderating and mediating effect of RCSE on the
\nrelation between attachment styles in romantic relationships and conflict behaviors in romantic
\nrelationships, as well as its moderating and mediating effect on the relation between attachment
\nstyles and relationship satisfaction. Results indicated that anxious attachment scores were
\nsignificantly positively correlated with RCSE, anxious and avoidant attachment characteristics
\nwere significantly negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction, and that RCSE neither had
\na moderating or mediating effect on the relations between pure anxious attachment and number
\nof detrimental decisions endorsed during conflict scenarios, or level of relationship satisfaction.
\nImplications for continued examination of role that RCSE plays in the context of conflict in
\nromantic relationships, as well as implications for clinical work are discussed.
\nKeywords: adult attachment; relationship-contingent self-esteem; conflict behaviors in
\nromantic relationships; relationship satisfaction
\n1
\nCHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
\nThe way in which we think of ourselves depends on our social relationships with others.
\nOur sense of identity is constructed within the context of our social roles, particularly our key
\ninteractive relationships (Deaux, Reid, Mizrahi, & Ethier, 1995). Of particular interest to
\nclinicians and researchers are romantic relationships, as individuals think, feel, and act in
\nsignificantly different ways in romantic relationships than they do in other social relationships
\n(Knee, Canevello, Bush, & Cook, 2008). For example, some individuals in romantic
\nrelationships cling to significant others who are abusive to them (Bartholomew, Henderson, &
\nDutton, 2001; Lesser, 1990; Steinmetz, 1977), while they would not do so if treated this way in
\nother social relationships. Though not all individuals put themselves in these kinds of positions,
\nsuch observations demonstrate that our need to connect with others at times leads us to act in
\nways that may not be adaptive, and that these needs for connection may in fact be more
\nimportant to some individuals than their emotional safety or well being. One well established
\nway in which behavior in romantic relationships has been conceptualized is through the
\ntheoretical lens of attachment theory; this theory has been cited as a key way in which individual
\ndifferences in behavior within familial, platonic, and romantic relationships can be understood
\n(Bowlby, 1969; 1973; 1979; 1983; 1988; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; 1990; 1994).
\nIn its initial development, attachment theory described relational styles present for infants
\nin relation to their caregivers (typically mothers). Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978)
\ntermed these styles as secure, anxious\/ambivalent, and avoidant. A secure attachment is
\ncharacterized by minimal distress when separated from the caregiver, as well as low levels of
\nanxiety when exploring the environment independently. Infants with anxious\/ambivalent or
\navoidant attachments to caregivers (what are generally known as insecure attachments) are
\n2
\nhighly distressed or withdrawn when separated from a caregiver, and are hesitant to or fail to
\nexplore environments on their own. Some individuals (especially those with anxious\/ambivalent
\nattachment styles), due to evolving maladaptive beliefs about joining with others and fear of
\nenvironments (Barber & Buehler, 1996), seek enmeshment with their attachment figures.
\nEnmeshment refers to a lack of individuation between those in a relationship. For those whose
\nrelationships are characterized by high levels of enmeshment, removal (real or imagined) from
\nthat relationship serves as a large threat to their sense of self and sense of safety.
\nThose with more avoidant styles of attachment seek a self-protective distance with
\nattachment figures and relationships, as a way of coping with the threat of losing the presence of
\ntheir caregiver, despite experiencing a strong need for their attachment figure. Avoidance refers
\nto an underlying resistance to close bonding in a relationship, due to perceptions that regard
\ncaregivers are unreliable in their presence and attention. For those acting from an avoidant
\nposition, behaviorally they appear self-protective and evince a nonplussed presentation under
\nthreat of separation and also appear to overtly devalue their relationship with the attachment
\nfigure (Evraire, Ludmer, & Dozois, 2014). These different attachment styles are the result of
\ncognitive schemas that individuals have learned throughout their infant and childhood
\nrelationships with their caregivers that continue to shape their beliefs into adulthood regarding
\ntheir desire for closeness, self-protection, and coping style to retain partners in relationships.
\nA second key conceptualization that aids clinicians and researchers in better
\nunderstanding the behavior of individuals within romantic relationships concerns relationshipcontingent self-esteem (RCSE; Knee et al., 2008). The literature surrounding general contingentself-esteem (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001) has demonstrated that individuals highly invest their sense
\nof self-esteem and sense of worth into particular domains of their lives (e.g., academics, work,
\n3
\nreligion, family, romantic relationships) so that these individuals become significantly more
\nsensitive to successes and failures within these specific domains. Scholars have outlined how
\nRCSE and the dynamic of self-esteem investment occurs within romantic relationships; that is,
\nthose who have high levels of RCSE are more vulnerable to negative or threatening events
\nwithin their romantic relationships, and are more positively impacted by affirming or positive
\nevents (Knee et al., 2008). High levels of RCSE bring individuals to maintain their romantic
\nrelationships because their core self-esteem is contingent upon its success (Crocker & Park,
\n2004); failure in this core relationship would create a severe blow to the low-self esteem of such
\nan individual. RCSE likely acts as a contributor to differences in how individuals think, feel, and
\nact in their romantic relationships, and likely has some interaction with the underlying
\nattachment style regarding how they behave toward their romantic partners.
\nPrevious studies have provided insight into the ways in which those with insecure
\nattachments and high levels of RCSE behave maladaptively within their romantic relationships.
\nFor instance, those with insecure attachments typically \u201cshut down\u201d in the face of conflict, and
\ntry to avoid conflict all together (Creasey & Hesson-McInnis, 2001; Shi, 2003; Dominigue &
\nMollen, 2009) because of the negative implications conflict might pose to the stability of their
\nrelationship. As well, those with high levels of RCSE are typically more distressed by
\nrelationship conflict; for example, they may be more likely to engage in unwanted pursuit
\nbehaviors after a relationship has ended (DiBello, Rodriguez, Hadden, & Neighbors, 2015; Park,
\nSanchez, & Brynildsen, 2011; Rodriguez, Knee, & Neighbors, 2014). These findings illustrate
\nhow individuals with insecure attachment styles and high RCSE do not manage conflict well,
\nand serves as a point of interest, as these response tendencies give insight into how clinicians can
\nwork with individuals who present with relationship concerns. Examining and working with
\n4
\nconflict behaviors, and promoting more adaptive conflict behaviors, serves as a meaningful
\ntherapeutic goal.
\nFinally, how individuals view the stability of their relationships and how they deal with
\nconflict may significantly impact the degree to which they are happy or satisfied in those
\nrelationships (Heavey, Christensen, & Malamuth, 1995). Relationship satisfaction serves as
\nanother critical variable to examine within the interaction of attachment style, communication
\nduring conflict in romantic relationships, and RCSE. How satisfied individuals are with their
\nromantic relationship influences their mental and physical health. For example, those who are
\nhappy with, and satisfied in, their relationships are typically more mentally and physically
\nhealthy and are less severely impacted by stress (Gove, Hughes, & Style, 1983; Holt-Lunstad,
\nBirmingham, & Jones, 2008; Kolves, Ide, & De Leo, 2012), whereas individuals with lower
\nsatisfaction in their relationships, including those who are separated and divorced, are more
\nlikely to endorse suicidal ideation, hopelessness, and depression, and attempt suicide (Stack,
\n1990; Wyder, Ward, & De Leo, 2009; Batterham, Fairweather-Schmidt, Butterworth, Calear,
\nMackinnon, & Christensen, 2014; Till, Tran, & Niederkrotenthaler, 2016). In fact, the
\nrelationship status of divorce has been found to be a strong predictor of suicide rates (Stack,
\n1992). Examining individuals\u2019 level of relationship satisfaction in their current relationships is
\ncritical, as it lends insight into what individuals might be doing in the relationship to promote
\nincreased relationship satisfaction, and highlights the differentiation between relationship
\nsatisfaction as a primary goal, versus simply being in a relationship as a primary goal.
\nIn my study, I will examine this cluster of constructs (attachment, RCSE, conflict
\nbehaviors, and relationship satisfaction), and how these variables interact with one another to
\ninfluence behaviors within romantic relationships. Previous literature has already demonstrated
\n5
\nhow attachment style and RCSE are related to maladaptive behaviors within relationships (De
\nSmet, Uzieblo, Loeys, Buysse, & Onraedt, 2015; Knee et al., 2008; Park et al., 2011). Yet, few
\nstudies have empirically examined how RCSE is related to relationship behaviors above and
\nbeyond the influence of attachment style. My contribution to the literature will be to specifically
\nexamine the moderating role of RCSE on the relation between attachment style and conflict
\nbehaviors as well as the effect these variables have on relationship satisfaction.
\nExtant Research in the Area
\nThe literature to date regarding attachment styles, relationship-contingent self-esteem,
\nconflict behaviors, and relationship satisfaction has, to a degree, examined the interplay of these
\nvariables within the dynamics of an adult romantic relationships. For example, these variables
\ncan affect conflict styles employed by those with secure vs. insecure attachment styles (Shi,
\n2003; Domingue & Mollen, 2009; Creasey & Hesson-McInnis, 2001); the coping behaviors used
\nby those with high relationship-contingent self-esteem (DiBello et al., 2015); and, adaptive or
\nmaladaptive post-break up behaviors (De Smet et al., 2015), thoughts (Brenner & Vogel, 2015),
\nand growth (Marshall, Bejanyan, & Ferenczi, 2013), dependent upon attachment tendencies and
\nlevel of RCSE.
\nTo date, most studies examining conflict dynamics in romantic relationships have
\noperated under the assumption that participants can self-report on imagined behaviors (e.g,
\nCollins, 1996) in response to relationship conflict, but this method may not be the most effective
\nmeans by which to accurately capture decisions made during real life conflict, because conflict,
\nby nature, is not a static entity. In addition, there is likely a qualitative difference between how
\nresearch participants imagine they will respond to conflict in a given static conflict situation
\nversus how they (re)act to an iterative set of changing and response-contingent communication
\n6
\nstimuli in an ongoing conflict situation (Axelrod, 1984; Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, &
\nLipkus, 1991). By utilizing a forward moving and stimulus specific methodology in which
\nparticipants find their (re)actions have direct consequences on their partners’ return responses in
\na conflict, a more accurate picture of real life conflict dynamics may reveal itself (Vicary &
\nFraley, 2007).
\nIn summary, attachment style has frequently been referenced as a primary explanation for
\ndifferences in conflict dynamics in relationships (Shi, 2003; Domingue & Mollen, 2009; Creasey
\n& Hesson-McInnis, 2001; Ben-Naim, Hirschberger, Ein-Dor, & Mikulincer, 2013), but RCSE,
\nan equally important relationship variable, has not been well studied as to its impact with these
\nvariables. Studying these two constructs in tandem, as well as their influence on the nature of
\nconflict responses and relationship satisfaction, aids in a more thorough understanding of
\nindividual differences in communication patterns within romantic relationships.
\nThe Present Study
\nTheoretically and empirically, the existing evidence within the attachment and RCSE
\nliterature suggests that those who are more insecure in their attachments in romantic
\nrelationships will behave in maladaptive ways within their romantic relationships, especially
\nduring the course of conflict. Those who are more secure in their relationships are likely better
\nable to manage the conflict present within relationships, and generally have more confidence in
\nthemselves and their partners to adaptively resolve conflict. However, the relations among
\nattachment, responding within relationship conflict, and relationship satisfaction are not yet
\nknown.
\nThe findings within the literature on relationship-contingent self-esteem (RCSE) suggest
\nthat the extent to which individuals\u2019 core self-esteem depends on the successes and failures of
\n7
\ntheir romantic relationships can influence the manner in which they handle conflict and how they
\nevaluate their relationships overall. Although research findings show an association between
\nattachment styles and levels of contingent self-esteem (Knee et al., 2008; Park et al., 2011), the
\nassumption that individuals with an anxious or avoidant attachment style will endorse high levels
\nRCSE (and that those with a secure attachment style will endorse low levels of RCSE) has not
\nyet been demonstrated. RCSE could conceivably play a stronger role in negative emotions felt
\nduring relationships, as the potential loss of a relationship partner immediately represents (and
\nRCSE is conceptually related to) a steep decrease in self-esteem and self-worth if a relationship
\nis in jeopardy (such as in conflict situations). Given this, I will investigate the potential
\nmediating and moderating role of relationship-contingent self-esteem on the relation between
\nattachment style and response decisions made during conflict, and the relations among
\nattachment style, RCSE, and relationship satisfaction.
\nThe findings in the literature concerning the effects of an avoidant attachment on
\nbehaviors in romantic relationship is inconsistent (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970; Ainsworth et al.,
\n1978; Main, 1979; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Creasey & HessonMcInnis, 2001); however, research findings concerning anxious attachments in this area are more
\ndefinitive and consistent. For example, anxiously attached individuals would be expected to
\nendorse higher levels of RCSE and experience a greater degree of distress during relationship
\nconflict (Creasey & Hesson-McInnis, 2001; Knee et al., 2008; Domingue & Mollen, 2009; BenNaim et al., 2013). However, those endorsing high levels of an avoidant attachment style, may or
\nmay not possess similar internal reactive states, given that their coping behaviors would seem to
\nindicate less perceived risk to esteem (e.g., Creasey & Hesson-McInnis, 2001). Given this, I will
\n8
\nemploy avoidant attachment tendencies in participants as a covariate of anxious attachment
\nendorsements, generating an overall insecure attachment style score.
\nImportance of Present Study
\nThe extent to which attachment styles and relationship-contingent self-esteem together
\ncan influence how individuals behave in their relationships, as well as how satisfied they are with
\ntheir relationships, has not been well examined to date. Further, no studies to date have examined
\nRCSE in the context of continuous iterative conflict communications. My study adds a broader
\nunderstanding of the interplay of these variables to the attachment literature, and provide further
\ninformation that can be used by clinicians and researchers to understanding the process of
\nconflict in romantic relationships. Assessing the mediating or moderating role played by RCSE
\non the relation between attachment style and conflict communication tendencies and relationship
\nsatisfaction, sheds light on why some individuals handle challenges and threats to their
\nrelationships in more productive ways than others, and generates implications for psychotherapy
\nwith clientele dealing with conflict oriented difficulties surrounding romantic relationship issues.
\n9
\nCHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
\nOne central focus of research in the area of romantic relationships has examined why and
\nhow conflict affects individuals differently (Domingue & Mollen, 2009; Creasey & HessonMcInnis, 2001; Shi, 2003). For example, some individuals in romantic relationships embrace
\nconflict and view it as relationship-enhancing, while others may see the slightest disagreement as
\na sign that the relationship will fail (Domingue & Mollen, 2009). In addition, the degree to which
\nromantic partnership affects individuals\u2019 self-esteem and self-worth is another key factor
\naffecting behavior in romantic relationships (Knee et al., 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003;
\nMikulincer & Shaver, 2007), such as how they handle conflict (DiBello et al., 2015) or the
\ntermination of a relationship (Park et al., 2011). Finally, how a couple manages conflict (i.e.,
\nconstructively or destructively) can influence how satisfied one or both partners are in the
\nrelationship (Heavey et al., 1995; McGinn, McFarland, & Christensen, 2009). Relationship
\nsatisfaction has been shown to have substantial impact on both physical and mental health (Gove
\net al., 1983; Kolves et al., 2012), demonstrating its importance in the conflict and romantic
\nrelationship literature.
\nThese three constructs \u2013 how people attach themselves to their romantic partners, the
\ndegree to which people make their self-esteem contingent upon their romantic relationships, and
\nhow these elements of their relationship affect their satisfaction with their romantic relationships
\n\u2013 are important for applied psychologists to understand, especially with respect to how their
\nclients experience conflict in their romantic relationships. Specifically, examining the relations
\nof these constructs can help to clarify for psychologists the implications that differential
\nattachment styles, levels of relationship contingent self-esteem, and pattern of communication in
\nrelationship conflicts have for clients\u2019 adjustment, growth, and future behavior in their romantic
\n10
\nrelationships. Examining the relations of these three variables is the focus of my study. In the
\nnext sections, I will detail these variables, what past research indicates as far as their effects
\nwithin romantic relationships, and what I will be doing specifically to explore the inter-relations
\namong these variables. Next, I will review the theory of attachment style and models of self and
\nothers, and how those relate to our behaviors in relationships.
\nAttachment
\nAttachment as an action within relationships has been defined as a \u201clasting psychological
\nconnectedness between human beings\u201d (Bowlby, 1969, p.194). The creator of attachment theory,
\nJohn Bowlby (1982), referred to attachment behavior as \u201cany form of behavior that results in a
\nperson attaining or maintaining proximity to some other clearly identified individual who is
\nconceived as better able to cope with the world\u201d (p. 668). Attachment was originally studied
\nwithin the context of infants\u2019 connectedness with their caregivers, typically their mothers
\n(Bowlby, 1969).
\nInfant attachment. Bowlby (1969) first investigated the attachment construct within
\ninfant-mother relationships. The classic Ainsworth et al. (1978) \u201cstrange situation\u201d experiment
\nhelped to clearly differentiate the behaviors of infants with different attachment styles. When
\nseparated from their mothers, infants reacted based on how they currently attached to that
\nattachment figure, where behaviors ranged from comfortable exploring to constant crying.
\nBowlby (1988) later described four characteristics of attachment. Proximity maintenance refers
\nto the desire to be near the people to whom we are attached. We see our attachment figures as
\nsafe havens, and therefore return to them for comfort and safety in the face of a fear or threat.
\nThe attachment figure also acts as a base of security from which the child can explore the
\n11
\nsurrounding environment. And finally, separation distress refers to anxiety that occurs in the
\nabsence of the attachment figure.
\nBased on these characteristics, styles of infant and childhood attachment have been coded
\ninto four different categories: secure, anxious-resistant, anxious-avoidant, and disorganized\/
\ndisoriented (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970; Ainsworth et al., 1978). Essentially, a securely attached
\ninfant is able to confidently explore its environment freely and engage with strangers in a nonfearful way when the attachment figure (caregiver) is present. Although securely attached infants
\nbecome visibly upset when their attachment figure leaves, these infants are soothed easily and
\nbecome happy again when their attachment figure returns. In general, those infants with a secure
\nattachment are presumed, given behavioral and emotional evidence, to experience the attachment
\nfigure as a \u2018secure base\u2019: a caregiver that is consistently available to them and will be there as an
\nanchor for them from which they explore the world. Research shows that caring, consistently
\nresponding, and attentive caregivers best promote the development of secure attachments within
\ninfants (Dunst & Kassow, 2008; Aronoff, 2012). Overall, the development of a secure
\nattachment in children is seen as the most adaptive and mentally healthy attachment style for
\nthem to acquire (Ainsworth et al., 1978). The remaining three styles are classified under the
\numbrella of insecure attachments and represent less than optimal resolutions of infants\u2019
\nexperiences with, and trust of, caregivers as a stable base of safety and support from which they
\ncan explore the world.
\nAnxious-resistant attachment (also referred to as ambivalent or dismissing attachment;
\nAinsworth et al., 1978) is an insecure attachment style. In the presence of the attachment figure,
\nan anxious-resistant infant is significantly hesitant to leave the caregiver and explore the
\nenvironment and is uneasy, suspicious and fearful around strangers. When the attachment figure
\n12
\nleaves, the anxious-resistant infant becomes highly distressed. Some of the infant\u2019s distress
\nremains upon the return of the attachment figure, resolving only to a worried, unsure sense of
\nsafety and support (versus the confident and consistent sense of support that the securely
\nattached child demonstrates). An anxious-resistant attachment is believed to develop in response
\nto a caretaker that is inconsistent in responding in a safe and supportive way toward the infant.
\nAs such, the infant develops a sense of ambivalence toward the caregiver, who sometimes is a
\nsource of nurturance, yet, simultaneously, is not a stable source of safety, support, and comfort
\nupon which the child can rely (Crittenden, 1999).
\nA second insecure attachment style has been labeled as an anxious-avoidant type. This
\nstyle of attachment is characterized by a child who, when the caregiver is present, generally
\navoids or ignores the attachment figure, showing little emotion at all when the attachment figure
\nleaves or returns (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Ainsworth and Bell (1970) suggested that those infants
\nwith an anxious-avoidant attachments act in the observed indifferent and unemotional manner in
\norder to cope with and mask their internal distress surrounding the instability of their bond with
\ntheir caregiver. Those who embody an anxious-avoidant attachment likely due to a history of
\nrejection from caretakers in response to expressing attachment needs (Main, 1979). Avoidant
\nbehavior allows these individuals to maintain proximity to their attachment figures while
\navoiding the potential for rejection.
\nFinally, the fourth category, one which has been less well empirically supported and
\naccepted, is the disorganized\/disoriented attachment style. This attachment is characterized by a
\ngeneral lack of consistency in infants\u2019 reactions to the attachment figure and their departure and
\nreturn (Ainsworth et al., 1978). These infants are described as displaying overtly contradictory
\nbehaviors and emotions, random movements, and even periods of disengagement from
\n13
\nenvironmental stimuli. Scholars have criticized this category, because its descriptors are too
\nencompassing, it does not possess sufficient unique and discriminating characteristics, and it
\noverlaps substantially with characteristics associated with the anxious attachment style
\n(Crittenden, 1999). The disorganized\/disoriented style is not considered as valid as the other
\nattachment styles, and in much of the current literature, including attachment measures, this style
\nis not taken into account.
\nBaumeister and Leary (1995) and Park (2006) have referred to our need for interpersonal
\nattachments as a fundamental human motivation; as we seek to relate to others because of our
\nsocial needs, we form psychological and emotional attachments to them, in both real and
\nsymbolic ways. The attachment formed between an infant and a caregiver, and how that
\nrelationship develops and functions, has implications for infants\u2019 future relationships, as these
\ninitial, highly impactful relational patterns form our expectations and reactive behaviors in later
\nrelationships (Sund & Wichstr\u00f8m, 2002). Bowlby\u2019s attachment theory (1969) proposed that
\nworking models obtained in childhood would continue across development and relationships. As
\nchildren grow and distance from caregivers naturally evolves, future relationships (particularly
\nromantic ones) begin to serve as our primary source for love and psychological support.
\nRomantic relationships are particularly important to investigate as individuals (for the
\nmost part) chose those with whom they form romantic relationships. Investigators have shown
\nthat attachment plays a major part in our relationships as we mature, particularly within romantic
\nrelationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; 1990; 1994). Much like a caregiver provides love and
\nsecurity for an infant, a romantic partner provides love and security from which individuals
\nreceive psychological support and emotional comfort. Choice of partners may reveal much about
\nhow an individual attaches psychologically to others (Frazier, Byer, Fischer, Wright, & DeBord,
\n14
\n1996; Latty-Mann & Davis, 1996; Chappell & Davis, 1998; Collins, Cooper, Albino, & Allard,
\n2002). As such, examining the attachment styles of adult individuals with respect to their
\nromantic relationships can be very informative and has clinical implications for treatment of
\npotentially maladaptive behaviors within their relationships. Next, I will detail how the early
\nattachment style of children evolves into those held later in life as an adult.
\nAdult attachment. Hazan and Shaver (1987; 1990) were among the first researchers to
\nsuggest the attachment framework could be extended from the infant-mother relationship to
\nromantic relationships. They noted similarities between infant\/caregiver relationships and adult
\nromantic partners. Within both kinds of relationships, partners feel safe when the other is close
\nand responsive; partners engage in close, intimate, bodily contact; partners have emotional
\nreactions when separating from and rejoining one another; and, partners even engage in \u201cbaby
\ntalk\u201d, mimicking earlier patterns of communication heard from childhood caregivers. Like
\nBowlby described the central characteristics of infant-mother attachment (1988), Fraley and
\nShaver (2000) described the central tenets of adult attachment as they relate to childhood
\nattachment. First, the emotional and behavioral dynamics of the two relationships are governed
\nby the same biological system. Next, the kinds of individual differences expressed via attachment
\nbehavior are similar across the two types of relationships. Further, the individual differences in
\nadult attachment behavior are reflections of people\u2019s experiences in close relationships (e.g.,
\nrelationship with parents). Finally, a romantic relationship involves an interplay of attachment,
\ncaregiving, and intimacy.
\nWhen applied to adult romantic relationships, attachment categories are labeled as
\nsecure, anxious-preoccupied, dismissive-avoidant, and fearful-avoidant (Bartholomew &
\nHorowitz, 1991; Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997). In comparison to childhood attachment, this
\n15
\ncategorization finds childhood anxiety-related styles melded into a single dimension, and
\navoidant styles instead broken down into two dimensions. Relatedly, much of the adult
\nattachment literature, and many common adult attachment scales employed in research, combine
\nthe dismissive-avoidant and fearful-avoidant into a single \u201cavoidant\u201d category given their
\nunderlying commonality surrounding individuals\u2019 psychological needs resulting in two different
\nbehavioral expressions for avoidant behavior. In fact, the main body of adult attachment research
\nposits two main dimensions on which individual differences can be assessed: attachment anxiety
\nand attachment avoidance (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Cassidy & Kobak, 1988; Mikulincer
\n& Shaver, 2003; 2007). For this reason, many of the scales measuring attachment focus on
\nmeasuring anxiety and avoidance, where low scores on both scales constitute secure attachment.
\nThe anxiety dimension is characterized by a desire for closeness and protection, intense worries
\nabout partner availability and the value one has to the partner, and use of hyperactivating
\nstrategies (e.g. hyper-vigilance of potential threats to relationship, exaggerated appraisal of
\nthreats, rumination over past threatening experiences, excessive reassurance seeking) in attempts
\nto avoid or cope with insecurity and distress. The avoidance dimension, on the other hand, is
\ncharacterized by a discomfort with closeness, lack of trust in using romantic partners as a secure
\nbase, a desire to be emotionally distant and self-reliant, and use of deactivating strategies (e.g.
\nlack of monitoring of potential threats, inhibition\/suppression of threat-related thoughts) to cope
\nwith insecurity and distress (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Regardless, for clarity of the
\ndevelopment of adult attachment research, I will briefly review the four categories below.
\nA secure adult attachment is viewed as an extension of a secure childhood attachment.
\nAs with infant attachment, secure attachment is promoted by having a caregiver who is
\nemotionally available, responsive to need behaviors, and capable of regulating his\/her own
\n16
\npositive and negative emotions (Sable, 2008). In adulthood, individuals with secure attachments
\nhave largely consistently warm and responsive interactions with their romantic partners. Those
\nwith secure adult attachments typically have a positive view of themselves, their partners, and
\ntheir relationships (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). They far less frequently feel or behave in
\nways similar to those with insecure attachment styles (Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller,
\n1990).
\nAnxious-preoccupied attachments are characterized by individuals having consistently a
\nhigh need to receive intimacy, approval, and responsiveness from their romantic partners
\n(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), beyond what those who are securely attached would
\ndemonstrate. Because of the strength of these desires, someone with an anxious-preoccupied
\nattachment may become overly dependent on a partner, primarily driven by the negative selfviews possessed by those who have this style of attachment. Those with preoccupied attachments
\nstrive for acceptance by valued others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Hazan & Shaver, 1987;
\nMain, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). Characteristics of the preoccupied group include high levels of:
\ndepth (vs. superficial) of descriptions of self and other, self-disclosure, emotional expressiveness,
\nfrequency of crying, reliance on others, crying in front of others, high levels of relationship
\ninvolvement, and low levels of coherence and balance of control in friendships (Bartholomew &
\nHorowitz, 1991). Individuals who are attached in an anxious-preoccupied manner tend to see
\nthemselves as less than worthy partners, and blame themselves when their relationships do not
\nfunction well (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). On the whole, people in this attachment group are
\nhighly emotionally expressive, and spend a lot of time worrying and acting impulsively in their
\nrelationships in order to gain the soothing they require to feel stable and secure in themselves and
\ntheir relationships (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
\n17
\nAdults with avoidant attachments have a fundamentally different perspective and set of
\npsychological and relational needs. Those with dismissive-avoidant attachments highly value
\ntheir personal independence in romantic relationships and do not have an easy time trusting or
\nforming deep attachments with others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Characteristics of the
\ndismissive group include high self-confidence and low emotional expressiveness; low frequency
\nof crying and warmth (compared to other styles); low self-disclosure, intimacy, level of
\ninvolvement in relationships, and capacity to rely on others; and, being more in control than
\ncounterparts in both friendships and romantic relationships (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). In
\ntheir relationships, they tend to exhibit less emotional intimacy, as they view their partners less
\npositively than they view themselves. Those with a dismissive-avoidant attachment typically
\nsuppress or hide their feelings of normal emotional need and bonding out of a lack of trust and
\nvaluing of their partners (Creasey & Hesson-McInnis, 2001). This lack of trust and valuing
\nresults from their long standing (and previously learned) deep-seeded sense of unworthiness:
\nwhen they are faced with rejection from a caregiver, often due to their overwhelming demands
\nand needs, they tended to distance themselves to cope with the loss (Ainsworth et al., 1978;
\nMain, 1979).
\nIndividuals with fearful-avoidant attachments, on the other hand, tend to be distant in, or
\nabstain from, relationships for different reasons than dismissive-avoidant individuals. These
\nindividuals have mixed feelings about close relationships. They want to be emotionally close
\nwith someone, but they are also uncomfortable with feeling emotionally close due to their
\nnegative views of themselves and others (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Bartholomew & Horowitz,
\n1991). Characteristics of the fearful group include low self-confidence and balance of control in
\nfriend and romantic relationships, and low self-disclosure, intimacy, level of relationship
\n18
\ninvolvement, and reliance on others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Similar to those with a
\ndismissive-avoidant attachment, individuals with fearful-avoidant attachments do not seek high
\nlevels of intimacy in relationships and do not express affection often. As well, individuals with
\nfearful-avoidant attachments have core psychological concerns surrounding their own
\nunworthiness, driven by their anticipation that their partners will ultimately disappoint them, be
\ninconsistent in their care, and will fail to care for them because of the core belief of being
\nunworthy of such love. For both dismissive and fearful avoidant attachments, the avoidant
\nattachment behavior helps protect them against potential disappointment (Bartholomew &
\nHorowitz, 1991), but brings difficulty with being able to connect with friends or romantic
\npartners.
\nThough infant and adult attachment styles may appear similar in many ways across the
\nfour respective categories, there are mixed thoughts about whether individuals\u2019 attachment style
\nas an infant determines their adult attachment. The basis of attachment theory is that the
\nattachment system is organized by early experiences with caregivers, which then shape and
\nsustain working models of self and others (Bowlby, 1973). This is consistent with Piaget\u2019s
\n(1953) theory of cognitive development, where he argued that people assimilate new information
\nto existing knowledge structure. If we develop an insecure attachment in infancy, throughout our
\nlives, we may seek to confirm our negative models of self and others. Bowlby (1973) also argued
\nthat we attract relationship partners who fit our working models as a means to remain congruent
\nwith our attachment experiences and models. However, Bowlby (1969; 1982) also noted that
\nattachment working models reflect actual experiences in relationships, and so are subject to
\nrevision. People with a secure attachment who find their partners have engaged in infidelity may
\ndevelop a measure of insecurity as a new part of their working model, and people with insecure
\n19
\nattachments who experience a consistently positive experience with a partner may increase a
\nsense of security in their working model of relationships.
\nThere is mixed evidence about the stability of an infant attachment style continuing into
\nadulthood. Fraley\u2019s (2002) meta-analysis found a mean correlation of .32 (N = 896) for
\nattachment patterns across the second year of life (1-12 months); .35 (N = 161) for attachment
\npatterns at one and four years old; and .67 (N = 131) for attachment patterns over six years. This
\nsuggests that as children age, their primary attachment styles become more stable. However,
\nFraley (2002) reports a low correlation (.27; N = 218) between ‘Strange Situation’ scores (in
\ninfancy) and Adult Attachment Interview scores (19-20 years old). This is consistent with the
\nabove findings that as time goes on attachment styles are more stable, and that as time goes on,
\nattachment styles from contiguous periods of development are more highly correlated than those
\ncompared across longer developmental times. Last, supporting Bowlby\u2019s argument, that
\nattachment styles are also subject to change based on more recent relationship experiences.
\nIn sum, the literature on attachment in adults has been boiled down to a model of views
\nof self (levels of dependence) and others (levels of avoidance) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;
\nDomingue & Mollen, 2009). A secure attachment is characterized by a positive view of self and
\nothers: a sense of self as lovable and of others as accepting. A dismissing attachment is
\ncharacterized by a positive view of self and a negative view of others, leading to distancing in
\nclose relationships. A preoccupied attachment is characterized by a negative view of self and a
\npositive view of others: a sense of self as unworthy, leading to striving for acceptance by valued
\nothers. Finally, a fearful attachment is characterized by a negative view of self and others: sense
\nof unworthiness combined with expectations that others will be untrustworthy and rejecting (see
\nAppendix A for visual representation).
\n20
\nAdult attachment in romantic relationships. Given these established working models
\nof self and others that influence individuals’ perceptions of partners and relationships, empirical
\nevidence has demonstrated marked differences in the ways that individuals behave in their adult
\nromantic relationships. In my study, I will focus on the way individuals respond to a perceived
\nthreat.
\nRomantic relationships require people to make a deep emotional investment in their
\npartners. How people experience and regulate their emotions directly relates to their general
\nnavigation of relationships and how they handle events with their partners (Marroqu\u00edn & NolenHoeksema, 2015; Burk & Seiffge-Krenke, 2015). Attachment styles have been shown to have a
\nsubstantial impact on how people experience and regulate their emotions (e.g. Ben-Naim et al.,
\n2013). How a partner views and acts on emotions during conflict in a relationship is important to
\nunderstand in relation to other relationship variables, such as relationship satisfaction. How
\nconflict is handled in a relationship (behaviors empirically related to attachment style) can play a
\nsubstantial part in determining the extent to which one or both partners are satisfied in the
\nrelationship, and whether they choose to continue being together. I will briefly review typical
\nbehavioral characteristics associated with each attachment style in response to relationship
\nconflict.
\nSecure. In relationships where both partners have a secure attachment, their
\ncommunication patterns during conflict show higher levels of direct verbal engagement, selfdisclosure, and mutual discussion and understanding. These individuals use integrating and
\ncompromising strategies, meaning they listen to the needs of both partners and work towards
\nhow both can get their needs mostly met. As such, both individuals are less likely to engage in
\nwithdrawal and verbal aggression (Shi, 2003). Securely attached individuals see conflict in
\n21
\nrelationships as an opportunity to eventually increase intimacy and adjust to each other\u2019s needs.
\nPeople with secure attachments are confident enough to be assertive and trust their partner will
\nrespond supportively (Domingue & Mollen, 2009). This type of communication, especially
\nduring conflict, between secure individuals would most often be viewed as a healthy way in
\nwhich to advocate for one’s needs getting met.
\nInsecure. Research suggests that those with insecure attachments have more difficulties
\nmanaging conflict (Creasey & Hesson-McInnis, 2001). These individuals tend to become
\nclinging, to make demands, stonewall communication with their partners (i.e., give their partner
\nthe ‘silent treatment’), or withdraw from their partners because they believe their partner will
\nreject them (Domingue & Mollen, 2009).
\nAvoidant. Those with avoidant attachments are less likely to report emotional distress
\nduring altercations. Rather, they are more likely to say and do hurtful things during conflict, and
\nto engage in this behavior in a cool or detached manner (Creasey & Hesson-McInnis, 2001).
\nThose with an avoidant attachment typically withdraw from conflict, and are less likely to
\nengage in behaviors that promote each individual to speak about and compromise their needs
\nbecause engaging these behaviors can mean creating an expectation of reward for showing acts
\nof love and care. In turn, this expectation could lead to eventual disappointment if their partner
\ndoes not provide such reward. Instead, they turn away from partners when they are distressed as
\na self-protective coping mechanism in case they lose their connection with their partner. Those
\nwith an avoidant style can also be dominant in conflict as a means to protect themselves from a
\nloss of connection with their partner. They pursue temporary relief from these fears by directing
\nthe outcome or resolution of the conflict, rather than negotiating an agreement with their partners
\nsurrounding behaviors to be changed to avoid future conflict (Shi, 2003).
\n22
\nAnxious. Anxiously attached individuals, who possess a negative model of self as
\nunworthy, are more invested in their relationships and view relationship success as a validation
\nof self. During conflict, they have little confidence in their ability to control their negative
\nemotions, and tend to ground their conflict management behavior in hostility. As a result, when
\nthey are active in the conflict, they are more hurtful towards their partner (Creasey & HessonMcInnis, 2001). As their relationship success is a measure of their self-validation, they fight for
\nthe continuance of their relationships. Unfortunately, this struggle means exercising pressure on
\ntheir partners, dominating conflict resolution processes, and displaying greater hostility. On the
\nwhole, there is a lack of mutual discussion and understanding when anxiously attached
\nindividuals are involved in conflict. As a result of their hostility, these individuals tend to feel
\nmore guilt, worry, and hurt once conflict has ended. At the same time, they are more resistant to
\npressure from their partner to improve the relationship or communicate more effectively. This set
\nof behaviors and conflict resolution process portray a general withdraw pattern (Shi, 2003). In
\nsum, those who are insecurely attached fluctuate between demanding and withdrawing,
\ndepending on their upset or fear of abandonment.
\nBuilding off of the research summarized earlier in this paper, research also indicates that
\npart of the variation in why people do not respond to similar situations in similar ways is because
\nof one\u2019s working models (Collins, 1996). Because those with secure attachments are faithful in
\ntheir partner\u2019s ability to be dependable and responsive to their needs, they are less likely to get
\nhighly distressed in conflict situations. Those with insecure attachments, on the other hand, do
\nnot have this faith in their partners, and therefore do become more distressed. This then suggests
\nthat individuals interpret and understand events in ways that reinforce their expectations \u2013
\nleading them to behave in ways that confirm rather than disconfirm their assumptions about
\n23
\nrelationships. The self-esteem literature, for example, supports this relation: those who have a
\nhigh self-esteem seek to self-enhance themselves (increase positive perception of self), whereas
\nthose with lower self-esteem seek to self-verify (Swann, 1990; 1992), even if those views of self
\nare negative. As such, working models of others is a major determinant of how individuals
\nengage in conflict with their romantic others.
\nAttachment dynamics. Attachment captures a working model of self and others, and is
\nassociated with either hyperactivation or deactivation of the attachment system. Different
\nattachment views and concerns affect how people generally are in relationships, and also how
\nthey act and react moment to moment. Ben-Naim et al. (2013) found evidence for moment-bymoment cognitive, emotional, and physiological reactions during conflict. These considerations,
\ndriven by working models, influence what individuals say and do next. Within this area of
\nresearch, how those with secure versus insecure attachments make decisions during conflict is an
\nimportant focus that gives insight into what individuals perceive as threats to their relationships.
\nFor those with insecure attachments, the more threat they perceive, the more likely they are to
\nmake destructive choices during conflict.
\nVicary and Fraley (2007) utilized a methodology in which they focused on the iterative
\nnature of decision-making in relationships, in which a behavioral choice in one part of the story
\nrequired the participant to skip ahead in the conflict sequence to see how their decision affected
\nthe process of the conflict. Participants read an interactive story in which, at 20 time points, they
\nwould be presented with two types of choices (one coded as \u201crelationship-enhancing\u201d, and the
\nother \u201cdetrimental to the relationship\u201d). At each choice point, participants would select the
\nchoice they would most likely make in an actual relationship. The authors created several
\nconditions in which: a) the story evolved regardless of participants\u2019 choices; b) the partner in the
\n24
\nstory was consistently supportive regardless of participants’ choices; c) the partner in the story
\nwas consistently unsupportive regardless of participants’ choices; and, d) the simulated partner\u2019s
\nlevel of supportiveness was based on the participants\u2019 choices (relationship-enhancing
\nreciprocated with supportive; detrimental to the relationship reciprocated with unsupportive).
\nAcross all conditions, securely attached individuals started off making relationship-enhancing
\ndecisions, and continued to do so across all choice points, whereas insecure individuals
\ncontinually made detrimental relationship choices or made relationship-enhancing decisions at a
\nslower rate than securely attached individuals.
\nTuran and Vicary (2010) extended on Vicary and Fraley\u2019s (2007) study, to examine
\nwhether those who make choices detrimental to the relationship are aware of the negative effects
\ntheir choices can carry. Their results indicated that anxiously attached individuals were as aware
\nas securely attached individuals were in terms of knowing which choice would be relationshipenhancing, but still chose not to employ it. In other words, anxious attachment is associated with
\na knowledge of adaptive decision-making, but also difficulty in applying that knowledge to
\nsituations in which perceived abandonment risks are high.
\nThese latter studies provide evidence that attachment style influences individuals\u2019
\nconflict behaviors in romantic relationships. When presented with conflict, those with insecure
\nattachments are more likely to become distressed and either seek reassurance or withdraw from
\nthe conflict situation. How those with insecure attachments appraise and perceive conflict is key
\nto their consequent behavior in choosing how to deal with conflict. Given this, attachment style
\nis a key factor in the conflict-based, behavioral choices individuals make during relationship
\nconflict.
\n25
\nRelationship Contingent Self-Esteem
\nHistory and definition. The study of self-esteem can be traced back to William James,
\nwho identified the idea of ‘self-concept’, which included multiple dimensions of the self: the \u201cIself\u201d and the \u201cMe-self,\u201d where the \u201cI-self\u201d concerns processes of knowing, and the \u201cMe-self\u201d
\nconcerns resulting knowledge about the self (1892). The \u201cMe-self\u201d is said to be composed of
\nthree parts: the material self (representations of the body and possessions), the social self (all
\ncharacteristics recognized by others), and the spiritual self (representations and evaluative
\ndispositions regarding the self). Next, I will lay out how the social self is most related to what is
\ntoday commonly referred to as self-esteem.
\nThe notion that self-esteem is a product of our social interactions has been prominent in
\nthe literature. For example, Cooley\u2019s (1902) looking-glass self argues that others act as a mirror
\nthrough which people come to see and understand themselves. According to Cooley, our selfconcept is comprised of a) how we think we appear to others, b) our interpretation of others\u2019
\njudgments of our appearance, and c) our Assessment of that interpretation (e.g. shame, pride).
\nOthers\u2019 impressions (whether true or imagined) largely form one\u2019s self-esteem, and therefore
\ngetting positive feedback increases our self-esteem, and getting negative feedback decreases our
\nself-esteem. Relatedly, reflected appraisals theory (e.g. Mead, 1934) asserts that our selfknowledge comes from how we have interacted with others. In addition, Leon Festinger\u2019s social
\ncomparison theory (1954) argues that we evaluate ourselves via comparisons against others. The
\nearly works on the self-concept demonstrate how outside others play a crucial role in our
\ndevelopment of a sense of self.
\nAs self-concept and self-image has become more widely studied, it became necessary to
\nclearly define what these two terms were: what do they measures and what are their components.
\n26
\nMorris Rosenberg (1965) conceptualized self-image as \u201can attitude toward an object\u2026. In other
\nwords,\u2026people have attitudes about objects, and that the self is one of the objects toward which
\none has attitudes\u201d (p. 5). Rosenberg aimed to capture how individuals saw and felt about
\nthemselves, and the dimensions on which they evaluated themselves: content, direction,
\nintensity, importance, salience, consistency, stability, and clarity. Given the literature on the
\ndevelopment of the self-image (Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934; Festinger, 1954), individuals\u2019 social
\ninteractions inevitably influence how we see and feel about ourselves, and affect the domains on
\nwhich we evaluate ourselves. Rosenberg therefore conceptualized self-esteem as a feeling of
\nself-worth. In the construction of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale, he included items assessing
\nthe degree to which individuals felt satisfied with themselves, and worthy\/of import to others.
\nEven though a self-esteem scale by nature is intended to assess how individuals feel about
\nthemselves, it is impossible to tease out social influences and social comparisons since these are
\nso central to our conceptions of self.
\nAcknowledging the importance of social groups in the development and maintenance of
\nself-esteem, Rosenberg (1979) further argued that self-esteem is enhanced when individuals are
\nmembers of social groups they value and that are perceived as better than other groups,
\nsuggesting group memberships also influence our self-esteem. Social identity theory (e.g., Tajfel,
\n1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1982) argues that our construction of our self-concept is a
\ncombination of personal and social attributes: how do we see ourselves and how do others see us.
\nHow we see ourselves in relation to our social groups has a strong influence on our behaviors.
\nLow self-esteem is characterized by \u201cbehavioral plasticity\u201d (Brockner, 1984). That is, people
\nwith low self-esteem are easily and heavily influenced by others, and thereby change their
\nbehaviors to be more accepted by others. On the other hand, inflated, unrealistic, or fluctuating
\n27
\nforms of self-esteem are vulnerable to ego threats (Kernis, Granneman, & Barclay, 1989), and
\ntherefore provoke these individuals to act aggressively towards those who criticize them. This
\nprocess allows these individuals to protect their self-esteem (Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, &
\nGramzow, 1992). These studies illustrate how individuals behave in order to enhance or preserve
\ntheir self-esteem in the context of social settings. Overall, there is evidence that collective selfesteem (perception of one\u2019s social group as positive) is correlated with personal self-esteem
\n(Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992), especially for members of racial or ethnic minorities (Crocker,
\nLuhtanen, Blaine & Broadnax, 1994).
\nExpanding on Rosenberg’s idea of self-esteem, Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) studied
\ncore self-Assessments, which they defined as individuals’ fundamental Assessments about
\nthemselves, their abilities, and their control. These self-Assessments have been proven to be
\npredictive of general life satisfaction (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998). Judge et al.
\nargued that self-esteem is the primary self-Assessment dimension because it encompasses how
\npeople feel about themselves overall. Smith and Mackie (2007) posit that a self-concept is what
\nwe think about the self, while self-esteem refers to how we feel about the self \u2013 our positive and
\nnegative Assessments of ourselves.
\nAll of the literature thus far has summarized global self-esteem. Recent literature has
\nexamined domain-specific self-esteem, which examines our self-esteem in relation to distinct
\naspects of life including physical appearance, scholastic competence, and athletic competence
\n(von Soest, Wichstr\u00f8m, & Kvalem, 2015). This field of research suggests self-esteem can
\nsimultaneously be present in some areas and entirely lacking in others: someone might be highly
\nconfident in their physical appearance but completely insecure in their romantic relationships,
\nand these domain-specific self-esteems can change over time (von Soest et al., 2015). In this
\n28
\nsense, self-esteem is a more complex variable than the global self-esteem people generally
\nconsider when evaluating themselves.
\nHistorically, the self-esteem literature has focused on how we come to develop a sense of
\nself through our relationships with others, and specifically the positive or negative feedback
\nreceived from others. The literature has recently shifted towards examining how self-esteem
\naffects performance in different domains (academics, relationships). More recently, research on
\nself-esteem is examining the complexity of self-esteem (trait, state, domain-specific), and how
\nthese different types help or hinder our functioning, and relate to our thoughts and behaviors
\nabout ourselves and others.
\nSocio-relational functions of self-esteem.
\nSociometer theory. Leary, Tambor, Terdal, and Downs (1995) developed sociometer
\ntheory, which posits that self-esteem is a measure of the health of one\u2019s social relationships; that
\nis, people acquire and maintain high self-esteem when they have a sense that they are liked by
\nothers, and develop low self-esteem when they experience rejection. Because of our fundamental
\nneed to connect with and be liked or loved by others, experiences with social exclusion or
\nrejection are related to hostile actions (e.g. insults, rejecting and\/or degrading others) (e.g.
\nTwenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001). An experience with rejection is related to a
\nsubsequent view of the world as hostile and aggressive (DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & Baumeister,
\n2009), and so we then reciprocate those aggressive behaviors. Even further, rejection is
\nassociated with emotional and physical numbness as a means to increase pain threshold and
\ntolerance (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006). A meta-analysis (Leary & Kowalski, 1995) found the
\naverage correlation between social anxiety (fear of social rejection) and self-esteem to be -.50,
\nsuggesting a highly interpersonal basis to self-esteem. These studies illustrate how negative
\n29
\nsocial feedback creates negative cognitive and emotional experiences for victims of rejection,
\nand also provokes them to expect and subsequently give back negative feedback to others.
\nMating sociometer. Certain researchers argue a separate type of sociometer exists
\nspecific to romantic relationships. As opposed to the general sociometer, which reflects
\nsuccesses or failures in social situations, these investigators suggest that individuals monitor their
\ndesirability as romantic or sexual partner via a mating sociometer (Bale & Archer, 2013).
\nKavanagh, Robins, and Ellis (2010) found that manipulating rejection or acceptance by attractive
\nopposite-sex confederates altered heterosexual participants’ ideas of who there were compatible
\nwith as a potential romantic partner. Participants who were rejected reported feeling more
\nromantically compatible with those in low-attractiveness profiles, while those who were accepted
\nexpressed feeling more romantically compatible with those in high-attractiveness profiles.
\nFurther, Kavanagh, Fletcher, and Ellis (2014) found that romantic acceptance by an opposite-sex
\nconfederate increased self-esteem and lowered satisfaction with and commitment to current
\nromantic partners, and also increased the appeal individuals felt about dating people outside of
\ntheir current relationships. Results from these studies suggest sociometric self-esteem has
\nsignificant consequences for experiences in romantic relationships, and that self-esteem based
\nupon relational sociometry is domain-specific, and different from other specific types or a
\ngeneral sense of self-esteem.
\nContingent self-esteem. The broader self-esteem literature has examined how selfesteem may influence different variables, such as academic achievement, happiness, and
\nsatisfaction in romantic relationships. Sociometer theory, including the mating sociometer, starts
\nto cover how our self-esteem changes as a result of successes or failures we encounter in social
\nsituations. General self-esteem can be gained or lost from a number of different contributing
\n30
\nsources, such as successes or failures at work, in school, in relationships. As opposed to being
\ndomain-specific, general self-esteem captures how individuals feel across pertinent domains,
\nand, for the most part, across extended periods of time (Stake, Huff, & Zand, 1995; Robins &
\nTrzesniewski, 2005; Hank, 2015). Higher levels of self-esteem are argued to be reached when
\nneeds for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are well met (Deci & Ryan, 2000). However,
\nand more specifically, contingent self-esteem is said to arise when contributing sources of selfesteem are challenged (Knee et al., 2008). When individuals endorse a contingent self-esteem
\n(e.g., to academic competence, appearance, the approval of others, the love of one’s family;
\nCrocker & Wolfe, 2001), by definition, individuals compromise their ability to determine their
\nsense of self-esteem on their own.
\nContingent self-esteem theory argues that, when we invest ourselves in a particular
\ndomain (work, school, religion, family, romantic relationships), our self-esteem becomes
\ndependent upon events in that domain (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Crocker, Luhtanen,
\nCooper, & Bouvrette, 2003; Crocker & Park, 2004). Research on contingent self-esteem (CSE)
\nhas examined the different venues that contribute to individuals’ overall sense of self-esteem, and
\nsought to identify domains people rely most on to determine their value. Further, investigators
\nhave focused on how, when, and why particular events, within particular domains, affect the
\ndegree to which we hold ourselves in esteem (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). CSE theory argues that
\nwhen we invest our personal sense of esteem in outcomes within a particular domain (e.g., the
\nsuccess of our romantic relationships), events occurring within that domain will specifically
\naffect our sense of esteem within that same domain, moreso than events that lie outside of that
\ndomain. Related, successes and failures in domains relevant to our personal sense of esteem are
\nassociated with an increased intensity of affect and potential fluctuations in our general self-
\n31
\nesteem (Crocker, Karpinski, Quinn, & Chase, 2003). In other words, the outcomes and meaning
\nof events within these critical self-contingent domains will tend to be generalized by individuals
\nto the global way in which they (do or do not) value themselves. As such, contingent self-esteem
\ncan strongly impact an individual\u2019s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Crocker & Park, 2004) as
\nthey engage in efforts to seek or recover esteem within a domain in which it has been lost. Given
\nthe research on the function of self-esteem as indicators of our social well-being, it makes sense
\nto study contingencies of self-esteem in relational contexts.
\nRelationship-contingent self-esteem. Relationship-contingent self-esteem (RCSE) is a
\nspecific domain researchers argue is a contributor to general self-esteem. RCSE examines the
\nextent to which individuals\u2019 sense of self-esteem depends on the security of their romantic
\nrelationship (Knee et al., 2008). RCSE is thought to arise when fundamental sources of selfesteem (e.g., relatedness) are challenged (Knee et al., 2008). Such challenges can bring an
\nintense focus on the specific domains (such as romantic relationships) in order to regain a sense
\nof esteem in the domain of relatedness. The literature on self-regard and relationships has
\ndemonstrated that individuals\u2019 view of themselves is greatly affected by their relationships
\n(Cross & Morris, 2003), with key elements of this self-regard concerning feeling invested in and
\ncommitted to a relationship (Rusbult, 1983), and a heightening of the extent to which people
\ninclude their relationship as a primary contributor to their general self-concept (Aron & Aron,
\n1996).
\nThe construct of RCSE specifically refers to how self-regard is linked to the nature,
\nprocess, and outcome of a relationship (Knee et al., 2008). People higher in RCSE tend to view
\nminor relationship events (e.g. partner spends time with friends instead of significant other) as
\nthreatening because of the imagined implications such an event could have for the security of the
\n32
\nrelationship as well as the potentially negative effect such an event could have on their selfesteem. In terms of RCSE, successes or failures in the relationship domain dissertation writing service UAE influence how
\nindividuals perceive themselves in other non-relationship domains. Therefore, individuals strive
\nto succeed in those areas within which they have predicated their self-esteem (Crocker & Park,
\n2004). Those higher in RCSE will be more vulnerable to self-esteem loss when confronted with
\nreal or perceived threats in their relationships than those lower in RCSE.
\nRCSE in romantic relationships. Those who have a high degree of RCSE will think,
\nfeel, and behave differently about themselves and their relationships than those with lower
\nRCSE, and will incorporate different coping strategies to deal with typical but difficult
\nrelationship events, like conflict or dissolution (e.g. DiBello et al., 2015; Park et al., 2011). The
\ninfluence of RCSE has been reflected in a set of studies by Spielmann, MacDonald, Maxwell,
\nJoel, Peragine, Muise, & Impett, (2013), which demonstrated that people who are currently
\nwithout a romantic partner and fear being single show a greater likelihood of entering a less than
\noptimal or desirable romantic relationship. Further, those with higher levels of RCSE report
\nbeing more committed to, but not happier with, their relationships (Knee et al., 2008), depicting a
\ndifficult situation for these individuals \u2013 they are unsatisfied but in a relationship they are afraid
\nof leaving. For those relationships that do end, those high in RCSE are shown to engage in
\nunwanted pursuit behaviors (stalking, repeatedly reaching out) (Park et al., 2011), have more
\nalcohol-related problems (Rodriguez et al., 2014; DiBello et al., 2015), and experience a greater
\namount of distress (Park et al., 2011). These negative coping behaviors and consequences are a
\nresult of an extreme blow to one\u2019s RCSE: losing the relationship that determined self-esteem
\nmeans no basis on which to garner self-esteem. In an effort to regain their self-esteem,
\n33
\nindividuals try to reestablish the relationship. If they cannot do that, they drink to cope with their
\nloss of a significant other and their self-esteem.
\nThese few studies on relationship-contingent self-esteem demonstrate the extreme way in
\nwhich those with high RCSE cling to their relationships. For those with high levels of RCSE,
\nhaving a satisfactory relationship is not as important as simply having a relationship as a means
\nto boost their self-esteem. When these relationships do not go well, they experience more
\ndistress, and work harder to repair the relationship. Because of their intense emotional reactions
\nto distress and strong attempts to restore relationships, RCSE is an important construct to relate
\nto conflict behaviors and relationship satisfaction. My study will help to close that gap in the
\ncurrent research. In the next section, I will focus on describing basic issues with conflict in
\nromantic relationships and its connection with the other variables of interest in my study.
\nConflict Behaviors
\nConflict in relationships is typical, and constructive if resolved well. However, too much
\nconflict, and, more importantly, a maladaptive manner of handling conflict, has the potential to
\nbe detrimental to a relationship bond. John Gottman (2015) described the \u201cFour Horsemen of the
\nApocalypse\u201d (i.e., signs people know a relationship will fail) as criticism, contempt,
\ndefensiveness, and stonewalling. Criticism refers to attacking the personal attributes of a partner
\n(e.g., personality, character) with the intent of being \u201cright\u201d and a partner \u201cwrong.\u201d Contempt
\noccurs when a partner\u2019s sense of self is assailed as a means to insult or psychologically abuse.
\nDefensiveness manifests in the form of seeing the self as the victim. Finally, stonewalling refers
\nto withdrawing from the relationship to avoid conflict. Although a significant amount of past
\nresearch has sought to clearly define and illustrate the different conflict styles (e.g., concern for
\nself vs other, including integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising, Blake &
\n34
\nMouton, 1964; Rahim, 1983), more recently this area of research has focused on the construct of
\n\u201cdemand and withdraw.\u201d
\nDemand\/Withdraw. Demand\/withdraw is a pattern in which a relationship partner
\n(typically the woman, in heterosexual relationships) is likely to advocate for the relationship via
\nexpressing negative affect and complaining during discussion (Christensen, 1987, 1988). The
\nother relationship partner (typically the man, in heterosexual relationships), on the other hand, is
\nmore likely to withdraw from the discussion, or avoid it altogether. Theorists suggest that, due to
\ngender role socialization, there are gender-based patterns of communication within couples
\n(Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Heavey, Layne, & Christensen, 1993; Henley & Kramarae,
\n1991). Jacobson (1989) argued that women are more likely to be the agents of change in a
\nrelationship, as they are neither experiencing need fulfillment nor have an interest in maintaining
\nthe status quo in which women have less power in their relationships than men. Men, on the
\nother hand, are invested in preserving the status quo, as they are experiencing need fulfillment
\nand are satisfied with the status of their relationship where they have more power in their
\nrelationships than women. As a result, men are more likely to withdraw from conflict to preserve
\nthe status quo and avoid confrontation outcomes that might force them to change.
\nNewer conceptualizations of demand\/withdraw suggest that \u201cdemand\u201d is more complex
\nthan simple expression of negative affect and complaints, and that \u201cwithdraw\u201d is more
\ndimensional than purely avoiding discussion. That is, demand includes the various characteristics
\nof blaming, accusing, criticizing, nagging, and pressuring, and withdraw is divided into different
\ntwo different categories; withdrawing (e.g., avoiding, failing to respond, being silent\/defensive,
\npassive inaction) and submitting (e.g., deferring, giving in, yielding, surrendering, complying)
\n(Knobloch-Fedders, Critchfield, Boisson, Woods, Bitman, & Durbin, 2014). These newer
\n35
\nconceptualizations show the multitude of ways in which communication can occur during
\nconflict between romantic partners.
\nThere is evidence that an overall pattern of demand\/withdrawal communication is
\ndetrimental to long-term relationship satisfaction (Heavey et al., 1995) and tends to lead to
\ngreater miscommunication between partners (Henley & Kramarae, 1991; Maltz & Borker, 1982;
\nTannen, 1990). However, ironically, there is also some research that indicates women benefit
\nfrom a male-demand\/female-withdraw pattern, as a one-year follow-up with couples employing
\nthis gender-based strategy showed an increase in relationship satisfaction (Heavey et al., 1993;
\nNoller, Feeney, Bonnell, & Callan, 1994). Acitelli (1992) suggested this finding might be
\nexplained by women’s appreciation of men\u2019s’ willingness to actively discuss relationship issues.
\nThe potential negative effects of the male-demand\/female-withdraw pattern for women is an
\nunder-examined area of research. Therefore, the line between appreciating male partners’
\nwillingness to talk about the relationship while women withdraw from these conversations, and
\nwhere this overall known pattern of problematic interaction may begin to become detrimental to
\nrelationships, is not yet known.
\nResearch has shown that the demand\/withdraw pattern happens significantly more often
\nduring relationship conflict discussions (e.g., financial stressors) than personal problem
\ndiscussions (e.g., one person wants to get in shape), and that, overall, the demand\/withdraw
\npattern is greater for distressed than non-distressed couples. As well, the typical gender disparity
\nof female-demand\/male-withdraw happens across both relationship and personal problem
\ndiscussions when the issue was about a change in the husband (Eldridge, Sevier, Jones, Atkins,
\n& Christensen, 2007). This finding suggests gender\/sex plays a large role in the development and
\nfulfillment of conflict styles, and how subsequent conflict plays out.
\n36
\nIn studying the consequences of the demand\/withdraw pattern, McGinn et al. (2009)
\nfound that higher levels of the demand\/withdraw pattern in couples’ communications predicted
\nlower satisfaction with the outcome of a conflict. In their study, 60% of conflicts that occurred,
\nusing this pattern, were considered unresolved by at least one of the partners. Even for conflicts
\nthat were considered resolved, one or both individuals were not satisfied with the outcome, and
\nat least one individual may have left the interaction feeling misunderstood. The concept of selfverification stresses the extent to which an individual felt understood by his\/her partner, and is an
\nimportant concept to consider in the presence of conflict. Self-verification was found to mediate
\nthe relationship between the demand\/withdraw pattern and satisfaction for husbands, but it only
\npartially mediated the relationship for wives. These results give evidence for how the process of
\nconflict matters as much, if not more than, the outcome. These findings also give further
\nevidence that withdrawing from a conflict in progress is detrimental to both the process and the
\noutcome of the conflict. In addition, how an individual interprets the conflict strategy employed
\nby a partner, or even how the couple interacts post-conflict, have a larger influence on respective
\npartners’ Assessments of relationship satisfaction.
\nConflict Structure Theory. Conflict-structure theory (Christensen & Heavey, 1990;
\nHeavey et al., 1993) suggests that the role each individual takes on in a conflict depends on the
\nnature of the conflict. Whichever individual brings up a topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) for discussion is referred to as the
\nperson who desires a change. The person who is on the receiving end is the one who experiences
\na \u201cburden of change\u201d (Eldridge et al., 2007). Once the requestor has asked for a desired change,
\nthey must rely on their partner to hear and work towards change. The requestor might then
\nengage in more behaviors to elicit the desired change in the partner. These behaviors are
\ncommonly expressed through complaints, demands, and pressure to change. The partner with the
\n37
\nburden of making a change may find these behaviors to be uncomfortable and aversive, and, as a
\nway to cope with their discomfort, withdraw from the situation and avoid the topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) to reduce
\nconflict and avoid having to make the desired change. An exception to this pattern of conflict is
\nwhen the person who desires a change also carries the burden of it (e.g. \u201cI want to exercise
\nmore\u201d). This is referred to as a personal problem discussion, rather than a relationship problem
\ndiscussion (e.g. \u201cI want you to exercise more\u201d) (Eldridge et al., 2007). In either case, the
\ncognitive processes that are elicited during conflict are important to highlight, as they provide a
\nkey insight into conflict dynamics.
\nAttributions and Efficacy. Doherty (1981a; 1981b) suggested that conflict in close
\nrelationships initiates two cognitive processes, as explained by two different theories. Attribution
\ntheory aims to determine why the conflict arose. When a problem is pointed out in the
\nrelationship, individuals look for causal loci: self, other, relationship, external environment,
\ntheological causes, or luck\/chance\/fate. Having a sense of why the problem arose, and where the
\nproblem arose from, gives information about how to \u201cfix\u201d the problem. While there are some
\npartner-specific concerns that may arise in relationships (e.g., my partner does not put enough
\ntime in our relationship, my partner does not communicate well with me), there are also many
\nfactors outside of the relationship itself that may cause a conflict (e.g., finances, living situation,
\nfamily\/friends). When the causal locus is outside of the relationship, the power to \u201cfix\u201d their
\nrelationship concerns is, to some extent, outside of their control. How couples then choose to
\nattribute that loss of control within the relationship, then, may cause additional conflict (e.g.,
\n\u201cyou spend too much money\u201d; \u201cyou have too much stuff and we don’t have room for it all\u201d).
\nSecond, efficacy theory highlights individuals\u2019 thought processes as they try to determine
\nwhether the conflict can be resolved. Efficacy expectations refer to individuals’ expectations to
\n38
\nengage in, and effectively solve, problems. An individual with high self-efficacy is more likely
\nto be persistent in attempts to resolve conflicts. Someone with low self-efficacy, on the other
\nhand, is more likely to engage in helpless responses \u2013 giving up, doing nothing to try to resolve
\nthe conflict. These findings are consistent across investigations (e.g. Fincham & Bradbury,
\n1987). However, when the cause of conflict is stable (e.g., finances, family), efficacy
\nexpectations are likely to be low (e.g., \u201cyour family constantly meddles in our relationship; no
\nmatter what we have tried it does not stop your family from meddling\u201d). When a source of
\nconflict is stable, individuals might interpret this conflict permanence as a sign of defeat \u2013 that
\nnothing they do will make the problem go away. Over time, these messages reduce an
\nindividual\u2019s self-efficacy beliefs about their ability to engage in effective problem-solving
\nactivity, in their current and future relationships (e.g., \u201cin future relationships where my partner’s
\nfamily meddles, that kind of situation will not change\u201d).
\nFincham and Bradbury (1987) expanded on Doherty\u2019s work and asserted the presence of
\na responsibility attribution. If and when a causal locus is identified, the question then becomes
\nwho is accountable for working towards, and being responsible for, changing the conflict or
\nsituation to suit one or both partners. These authors argue that responsibility attribution is more
\nclosely related to current concerns about the partner and the relationship. When the locus of the
\nproblem is within a partner in the relationship (e.g., you spend too much time with your family
\nand not enough time with me), partners can assume that this identified partner also carries the
\nresponsibility to change the situation to achieve a desired outcome. As such, when the partner
\naccepts and agrees to take responsibility for resolving the conflict, the partner demanding the
\ndesired change will be more satisfied with their relationship. If the partner with whom the locus
\nhas been identified does not accept and agree to the burden of change, both individuals might
\n39
\nexperience a decrease in their satisfaction with their relationship. The partner with the burden of
\nchange feels attacked for her\/his behavior, which they do not perceive to be a problem for the
\nrelationship. The partner demanding change sees this as evidence that her\/his partner is unwilling
\nto change and is insensitive to their needs.
\nHowever, when the causal locus is seen as being outside of the relationship, it is difficult
\nfor partners to assign responsibility for change, and further, to expect change to occur. With this
\nsense of hopelessness, the demanding partner might incorrectly attribute her\/his negative affect
\nonto their feelings about the relationship generally, and become less satisfied in the relationship.
\nPartners\u2019 comfort with, and ability to, handle their emotions during conflict is
\nfundamentally tied to their attachment and level of RCSE (Ben-Naim et al., 2013; Park et al.,
\n2011). If individuals are less secure in themselves and in their relationships, in a conflict
\nsituation they become more distressed and may withdraw, simply submit to partner demands
\nwithout further communication or attempt to compromise, or avoid all responsibility for
\nresolution of the problem \u2013 all potentially maladaptive ways to cope with a conflict situation.
\nAccounting for the role RCSE plays in conflicts arising within romantic relationships, along with
\nthe role of attachment style, will lend a more thorough understanding into what influences and
\nmotivates partners’ behaviors during conflict situations.
\nIn the next section, I will discuss the construct of relationship satisfaction and its
\nassociated role with other variables of interest in my study.
\nRelationship Satisfaction
\nAs social beings, the extent to which individuals are happy with and satisfied in their
\nromantic relationships is an important construct to investigate. Relationship satisfaction has been
\nassociated with increases in individuals\u2019 general happiness and life satisfaction (Glenn &
\n40
\nWeaver, 1981; Markey, Markey, & Gray, 2007). Relationship satisfaction is also a strong
\npredictor of general mental health (Gove et al., 1983; Logan, Hall, & Karch, 2011). For these
\nreasons, those in happy and stable relationships report better mental and physical health (Gove et
\nal., 1983; Holt-Lundstad et al., 2008; Kolves et al., 2012), have a greater buffer against the
\nharmful effects of stress (Coyne & DeLongis, 1986; Markey et al., 2007), have lower morbidity
\nand mortality rates (Kietcolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001), and are less inclined to commit suicide
\n(Gove et al., 1983; Kolves et al., 2012; Batterham et al., 2014). These findings indicate that the
\nbenefits of maintaining a supportive and satisfying romantic relationship can bolster general
\nmental health. Conversely, dissatisfaction with a romantic relationship can leave individuals
\nvulnerable to many negative mental health consequences.
\nFor example, Markey et al. (2007) asked couples to report on the extent to which their
\nsignificant others impact their health. Both sexes perceived that their partners were a positive
\ninfluence on their health (i.e., quality of nutrition, amount of physical exercise). Notably, women
\nrated their relationship partners as more being more influential on their health than men rated
\ntheir partners. For both sexes, a higher level of perception that partner’s were a positive influence
\non health, was associated with a greater the amount of relationship satisfaction and the
\nperception of being more healthy.
\nThe lack of a satisfying relationship, then, has the potential to mitigate the presence of
\nthese positive benefits and can leave individuals vulnerable to greater amount of distress. Those
\nin unsatisfactory relationships, who are separated, or who are divorced endorse greater feelings
\nof depression, as well as suicidal ideation (Stack, 1990; Wyder et al., 2009; Batterham et al.,
\n2014; Till et al., 2016). Till et al. (2016) demonstrated that those with low satisfaction in their
\nrelationships reported higher levels of suicidal ideation, hopelessness, and depression. The extent
\n41
\nto which low satisfaction within a relationship is detrimental was further amplified by these
\nauthors who also reported finding that risk factors for suicide were higher among those who
\nreported low satisfaction in their romantic relationships, as compared with those in higher levels
\nof satisfaction relationships. Similar to this finding, a longitudinal study by Bruce and Kim
\n(1992) found that divorced men were 45 times more likely to meet criteria for major depression
\nas compared to happily married men, and were 14 times more likely to meet criteria for major
\ndepression as compared to unhappily married men. Relationship satisfaction is particularly
\nimportant to consider in conjunction with the anxious thoughts and maladaptive concerns of
\nthose possessing insecure attachment and high levels of RCSE. Anxious attachment and high
\nlevels of RCSE are both characterized by a high level of interpersonal distress and low level of
\nemotion regulation (e.g., Ben-Naim et al., 2013; Park et al., 2011). Given this, it is likely those
\nwith anxious attachments and\/or high levels of RCSE are more likely to endorse feelings of
\ndepression or suicidal ideation in the presence of an unsatisfactory relationship, and especially
\nwhen a relationship is threatened or possibly headed toward termination.
\nAttachment, RCSE, Conflict Behaviors, and Relationship Satisfaction
\nAttachment & Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem. Attachment and relationshipcontingent self-esteem both concern individual differences with respect to the central importance
\nby which significant others are regarded, as well as individuals’ appraisals and reactions to
\nthreats in romantic relationships. Given these similarities, there is some conceptual overlap
\nbetween the two constructs. However, attachment is related to working models of self and others,
\nand thoughts about secure others\u2019 availability, whereas RCSE is concerned with the degree to
\nwhich successes and failures in romantic relationships determines one\u2019s self-esteem (Knee et al.,
\n2008). Few studies have explicitly examined the relation between attachment styles and RCSE.
\n42
\nThe meta-analytic article on RCSE (Knee et al., 2008) found positive associations between
\nRCSE and attachment anxiety (r = .52, p < .001) and a manic (r = .48, p < .001) and selfless (r =
\n.27, p < .001) attitude towards love, as well as low magnitude negative association between
\nRCSE and avoidant attachment (r = -.10, p < .01). In follow up studies, Knee et al. found a
\ncorrelation of .26 (p < .001) between RCSE and anxious attachment. They also sex differences in
\nthis effect, where women with anxious attachments demonstrated a stronger relation with RCSE
\n(r = .29, p < .001) than men with anxious attachments (r = .12, p < .01).
\nPark et al. (2011) found, in comparison to attachment, RCSE better predicted emotional
\ndistress and obsessive (unwanted) pursuit behaviors after relationship dissolution. This relation
\nalso remained significant after controlling for attachment style. These findings give evidence that
\nalthough RCSE and attachment have similarities, RCSE captures unique variance concerning
\nexperiences in romantic relationships. Other researchers have also found RCSE to be significant
\nin predicting relationship satisfaction while controlling for anxious attachment and trait selfesteem, supporting RCSE alone as responsible for observed statistical effects (Rodriguez et al.,
\n2014). Finally, Knee et al. (2008), found that significant correlations between RCSE and their
\nother study constructs, generally remained significant after controlling for attachment anxiety.
\nOverall, these studies suggest that although anxious attachment and RCSE have some conceptual
\nand empirical relation, they are measuring distinct emotions and attitudes that individuals
\nexperience in relationships.
\nAttachment and Conflict Behaviors. In addition to demand\/withdraw research, other
\nresearch has demonstrated a marked difference in the perceptions of, and actions taken, during
\nconflict given attachment style. For example, Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, and Kashy (2005)
\nconducted a two-part study in which individuals completed diaries for two weeks (Part 1) and
\n43
\nwere then observed discussing a major problem with their partner (Part 2). In Part 1, higher
\nlevels of anxious attachment were associated with more perceived conflict between partners, and
\nparticipants reported that these conflicts typically escalated in severity. In Part 2, higher levels of
\nanxious attachment were associated with higher levels of distress experienced during the conflict
\nconversation, and were reported by observers as appearing more distressed and as the source of
\nescalating the severity of conflict. In comparison to those low in anxious attachment, highly
\nanxiously attached individuals reported a decrease in relationship satisfaction, a lower sense of
\nthe stability in the relationship, and a lower sense of their partner\u2019s perception of the stability of
\nthe relationship when they experienced conflict.
\nAttachment captures a working model of self and others, and is associated with either
\nhyper-activation or deactivation of the attachment system. Different attachment-based concerns
\naffect how people generally behave in relationships, and how they act and react moment to
\nmoment, especially in conflict situations. Ben-Naim et al. (2013) sought to take a holistic
\napproach to measuring distress during conflict. In addition to traditional scale measurement (i.e.
\nattachment, affect post conflict), they measured physiological markers as well, such as skin
\nconductance response, skin temperature, and heart rate, and also trained observers to code for
\nemotional behavior. These authors asked couples to either suppress their negative
\nemotions\/expressions or maintain a positive mindset (i.e., think about positive aspects of their
\npartner) throughout the course of a 15-minute conflict-based conversation with their partner.
\nHigher levels of avoidant attachment with suppression of emotion\/expression were
\nassociated with less cardiovascular arousal and experience of sadness, and more expressions of
\ndisgust. However, higher levels of anxious attachment, with suppression of emotion\/expression,
\nwere associated with higher experiences and expression sadness. This indicates that suppression
\n44
\nmay not meet the immediate needs, during conflict situations, of those who are anxiously
\nattached, and that experiencing and expressing their emotions may be core part of coping with
\nconflict for them. Conversely, participants maintaining a positive mindset demonstrated less
\ncardiovascular arousal and showed fewer expressions of contempt. Overall, the findings by BenNaim et al. (2013) indicate the ways in which people regulate their emotions has a moment-bymoment effect on how they proceed with conflict, especially given their perceptions of how their
\npartner is feeling during the conflict. Interestingly, either suppression of emotion\/expression or
\nkeeping a positive mindset could be beneficial or detrimental depending, in part, on partners’
\nunderlying attachment style. These researchers describe their results as a \u201csecond hand smoke
\neffect\u201d of emotion regulation; that is, affective suppression affects both the individual and the
\npartner. Suppressing emotions is not only very difficult for people to do, but it may also
\nironically increase the experience and expression of negative emotions. Suppression appears to
\nbe a toxic communication strategy, except for those with avoidant attachments. Capturing and
\nrevealing these moment-by-moment relationship dynamics during conflict is a strong
\ncontribution to the field, as measurement of these communication dynamics is not typically
\nhandled in this way.
\nBy and large, measurement of conflict behaviors observed in the lab has suffered from
\ntoo great of a reliance of the external validity of its findings; the idea that how people behave in
\nconflict situations in the lab is an accurate representation of their real-life behavior in conflict
\nsituations. Vicary and Fraley (2007) disagreed with this assumption of external validity, noting
\nthat individuals\u2019 choices in lab-based conflict methods (such as those employing vignette
\nscenarios), should be assessed in terms of how participant responses impact both their partners in
\nthe conflict, and the progression of the conflict itself. In other words, these authors argued that
\n45
\ninvestigators need to reveal how the potentially negative response base of those with insecure
\nattachments is present in a detrimental way across communication patterns within a conflict
\nsituation. To address this desired methodological advance, these authors devised a vignette
\nscenario (\u201cChoose Your Own Adventure\u201d) in which they focused on the iterative nature of
\ndecision-making in relationships during conflict, where a communication choice at one part of a
\nvignette conflict sequence affected the on-going process of the conflict. In the Vicary and Fraley
\n(2007) study, participants read an interactive story in which, at 20 choice points, they were
\npresented with two types of choices (one coded as \u201crelationship-enhancing\u201d and the other
\n\u201cdetrimental to the relationship\u201d). At each choice point, participants would select the choice they
\nwould most likely make in an actual relationship.
\nThe authors (Vicary & Fraley, 2007) created several conditions in which: a) the story
\nevolved regardless of participants\u2019 choices; b) the partner in the story was consistently
\nsupportive regardless of participants’ choices; c) the partner in the story was consistently
\nunsupportive regardless of participants’ choices; and, d) the simulated partner\u2019s level of
\nsupportiveness was based on the participants\u2019 choices – relationship-enhancing responses were
\nreciprocated with supportive reactions and responses detrimental to the relationship were
\nreciprocated with unsupportive partner responses. Across all conditions, securely attached
\nindividuals started off making relationship-enhancing decisions, and continued to do so across all
\nchoice points, whereas insecure individuals continually made detrimental relationship choices or
\nmade relationship-enhancing decisions at a slower rate than securely attached individuals. This
\nmulti-part study illustrated how, regardless of being presented with positive or negative
\nconsequences for relationship detrimental communication choices, those with insecure
\nattachments still continue to make detrimental communication choices during conflict.
\n46
\nTuran and Vicary (2010) extended Vicary and Fraley\u2019s (2007) study, to examine whether
\nthose who make choices detrimental to the relationship are aware of the negative effects their
\nchoices can carry. They employed the same methodology as Vicary and Fraley (2007), but gave
\nparticipants a new task: they used two separate samples in which one sample was asked \u201cwhich
\nchoice would you choose\u201d (like the 2007 study) and the other sample was asked \u201cwhich choice
\nshould you choose.\u201d This latter condition aimed to capture points of decision-making where
\nparticipants knew what they \u201cshould\u201d do in response to the conflict process (i.e., what is the most
\nconstructive response choice), even if they still did not follow through on using a relationship
\nenhancing response. Their results indicated that anxiously attached individuals were as aware as
\nsecurely attached individuals in knowing which choice would be relationship-enhancing, but still
\nchose the detrimental decisions. In other words, anxious attachment is associated with an internal
\nknowledge of adaptive decision-making, but also difficulty in applying that knowledge to
\nsituations in which perceived abandonment risks are high.
\nThese latter studies serve as evidence that attachment style influences moment-bymoment conflict dynamics in romantic relationships. When presented with a point of conflict,
\nthose with insecure attachments are more likely to become distressed and either seek reassurance
\nor withdraw from the conflict situation. How those with insecure attachments appraise and
\nperceive threat is key in the consequent behavior they choose in dealing with conflict.
\nAttachment and Relationship Satisfaction. Research has consistently found negative
\neffects from attachment-based anxiety and avoidance on relationship satisfaction (Hadden et al.,
\n2014; Mikulincer, Florian, Cowan, & Cowan, 2002). The general trends in findings indicate that,
\nin heterosexual relationships, women\u2019s attachment anxiety negatively impacts men\u2019s relationship
\nsatisfaction, and conversely, that men\u2019s attachment avoidance negatively impacts women\u2019s
\n47
\nrelationship satisfaction (Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994;
\nGivertz, Woszidlo, Segrin, & Knutson, 2013). In addition, those higher in attachment avoidance
\nand anxiety experience a decline in relationship satisfaction over time (e.g., Sadikaj, Moskowitz,
\n& Zuroff, 2015). Studying attachment and relationship satisfaction in the context of other
\nvariables (like RCSE and conflict communication behaviors) is critical in parsing out the
\nindividual differences and additional contextual factors that contribute to relationship
\nsatisfaction.
\nRelationship-contingent self-esteem and conflict behaviors. To date, research has not
\nexplored RCSE in the context of conflict behaviors. Some of the research on RCSE makes
\nevident that those high in RCSE are more distressed and tend to engage in more maladaptive
\ncoping strategies in response to relationship distress (Park et al., 2011; Rodriguez et al., 2014;
\nDiBello et al., 2015). However, no research has examined RCSE and conflict behaviors directly.
\nRelationship-contingent self-esteem and Relationship Satisfaction. Investigating how
\nRCSE impacts relationship satisfaction is a fruitful area of study. Theoretically, individuals
\nhigher in RCSE should be more affected by their own, and perceptions of their partners’, level of
\nrelationship satisfaction, as low relationship satisfaction and the potential of losing a relationship
\npartner both serve as a sense of failure and concern over abandonment (Knee et al., 2008).
\nFor those who highly base their self-esteem on the successes and failures of their romantic
\nrelationships, satisfaction in the relationship is of import, but may function in a differential
\nmanner. That is, relationship satisfaction may not so much be about being authentically happy
\nwith, and committed to, a partner. Rather, conceptually, as reflected by RCSE, relationship
\nsatisfaction may more likely be about preserving an individual’s self-regard and esteem. For
\nthose who highly endorse RCSE, a failure of the relationship is regarded as a personal failure.
\n48
\nResearch has also indicated, for example, that those with high RCSE and low relationship
\nsatisfaction are more likely to engage in negative coping strategies, such as increased drinking
\n(Rodriguez et al., 2014). Therefore, the negative effects of low relationship satisfaction on
\nmental health summarized above (e.g., depression, hopelessness, suicidal ideation) could be
\nexacerbated for those with higher levels of RCSE.
\nBecause RCSE is a relatively recent construct, this variable has not been explored to the
\nextent that other relationship-relevant variables (such as attachment) have been in relation to
\noutcome variables like communication patterns in conflict or relationship satisfaction. In a metaanalysis of studies concerning RCSE\u2019s correlations with other relationship-based variables, Knee
\net al. (2008) found a low correlation of .08 between RCSE and relationship satisfaction. As this
\ncorrelation was significant across five samples, was of low magnitude, and its statistical
\nsignificance likely reflected the power present in the sample size (total N = 1,661), this finding
\nreflects that RCSE fundamentally assesses a different construct than anxious attachment, which
\ntypically holds a moderate to strong correlation with relationship satisfaction. For example,
\nHadden et al. (2014) demonstrated in a meta-analysis of 57 studies effect sizes ranging from -.09
\nto -.71 for females, and .08 to -.66 for males, between anxious attachment and relationship
\nsatisfaction. As Knee et al. (2008) stressed, RCSE is more related to viewing the presence of a
\nromantic relationship as primary import, as opposed to reflecting the extent to which an
\nindividuals\u2019 emotional needs are met in the relationship. A recent study by Rodriguez, Wickham,
\n\u00d8verup, and Amspoker (2016) illustrated how even former relationships can influence the
\nrelationship satisfaction of those high in RCSE. These investigators asked participants who
\nregularly communicated with former partners, even though they were in current relationships, to
\ncomplete nightly measures, over the span of three weeks, of communication and satisfaction with
\n49
\ncurrent and former relationships. They found that those endorsing higher levels of RCSE
\nexperienced lower current relationship satisfaction and higher former relationship satisfaction if
\nthey frequently communicated with their former partner. The same patterns were not evident
\namongst those lower in RCSE. This finding suggests those with high RCSE find greater personal
\nsatisfaction in experiencing evidence that a former relationship is not a \u201cfailed\u201d one.
\nRelated, Spielmann et al. (2013) found people who are currently without a romantic
\npartner and fear being single show a greater likelihood of entering a less than optimal or
\nsatisfying romantic relationship. Conceptually, RCSE, in part, can be associated with a fear of
\nbeing single, as not having a relationship to base self-esteem upon can be problematic for those
\nhigh in RCSE. If evidence suggests that those who fear being single would rather be in an
\nunsatisfactory relationship than no relationship at all, this is concerning inasmuch as research on
\nlow relationship satisfaction suggests the potential for negative consequences for the mental
\nhealth for such individuals. As Knee et al. (2008) suggested, having a high level of RCSE puts
\nindividuals in a difficult position in which they are unsatisfied with their relationships, but afraid
\nto leave them. This situation has a high likelihood of influencing conflict behaviors in romantic
\nrelationships, and will a significant point of interest for investigators to examine in the future.
\nConflict Behaviors and Relationship Satisfaction. As aforementioned, a
\ndemand\/withdraw pattern of communicating during conflict is related to decreased satisfaction in
\nrelationships (Heavey et al., 1995; McGinn et al., 2009). The extent to which people view
\nconflict as beneficial to a long-lasting relationship, or a sign the relationship may end, is
\ndependent upon a number of variables, including attachment style and RCSE. For those who do
\nnot view conflict positively by either seeing their partner as too demanding or feeling as though
\nconflict highlights their own weaknesses, conflict may lead to a decrease in relationship
\n50
\nsatisfaction, as attachment needs for love and a secure base are not being met. How people
\ncommunicate, especially during conflict, has an influence on the extent to which individuals are
\nsatisfied in their relationships.
\nA study by Gilbert, Murphy, and \u00c1valos (2011) examined individuals\u2019 levels of
\nsatisfaction with their real-life romantic relationships, as well as their level of satisfaction with a
\nvirtual partner. They found that participants rated the level of communication to be significantly
\nbetter within their virtual relationship, and as a result reported a higher level of relationship
\nsatisfaction with their virtual partner than with their real-life relationship. This finding
\ndemonstrated that individuals find more satisfaction within a relationship that has good
\ncommunication with a partner, even when the relationship is not \u201creal.\u201d Further, recent research
\nhas found individuals in relationships with unresolved conflicts (often a by-product of poor
\ncommunication) reported higher levels of suicidal ideation, hopelessness, and depression than
\nthose in relationships where conflicts were resolved (Till et al., 2016).
\nLast, Liu, Cui, & Han (2014) found that (in heterosexual relationships) males\u2019 scores of
\nconstructive conflict resolution were positively related to partners\u2019 scores of relationship
\nsatisfaction. Specifically, females\u2019 relationship satisfaction is, in part, dependent on how well
\ntheir male partners handle conflicts in their relationships. This finding is in line with the
\ndemand\/withdraw research which indicates females may benefit from seeing the males
\nsuccessfully engage in conflict, as it may serve as an indicator that the males are committed to
\nmaking their relationships work (cf., Acitelli, 1992). These above research findings highlight
\nhow critical communication and conflict resolution are to the level of satisfaction experienced
\nwithin a relationship.
\n51
\nSummary. The research I have outlined above describes how attachment, relationshipcontingent self-esteem, conflict communication behaviors, and relationship satisfaction are interrelated. No studies to date have examined how all four of these variables are related. Utilizing
\nthe lens of mating sociometer, those with insecure attachments and high relationship-contingent
\nself-esteem see a continuing relationship as an indicator that they are worthwhile, and therefore
\nthey experience an increase in self-esteem. However, due to the importance of their relationships,
\nthey may likely strongly fear any sign of potential partner abandonment or loss of a relationship
\n(such as conflict), and engage in hyper-activating strategies to ensure the stability of their
\nrelationships and their ability to cope with threats to their relationships. In my study, I will look
\nat how all four of these constructs interact, and also explore the ability of RCSE to moderate or
\nmediate the relation between attachment style and conflict communication behaviors, as well as
\nrelationship satisfaction. This research represents a significant and important addition to the
\nextant literature in this area.
\nThe Present Study
\nThe vast literature on attachment theory has provided many explanations as to why
\nindividuals behave and react differently to conflict in romantic relationships. The recent
\nliterature on relationship-contingent self-esteem has helped to refine explanations surrounding
\nthese behavioral differences. However, few studies that have worked toward investigating how
\nthese two constructs relate to one another within the realm of conflict inside of romantic
\nrelationships. Although anxious attachment and RCSE reflect personal insecurity and insecurity
\nsurrounding the stability of romantic relationships, these constructs represent different
\nconceptual ideas and need to be examined as to their inter-play surrounding conflict in romantic
\nrelationships. Finally, as RCSE is a relatively new addition to the literature surrounding behavior
\n52
\nin romantic relationships, its role within conflict in romantic relationships has not been well
\nexamined.
\nThose with high levels of RCSE are highly attuned to signs that the relationship is
\nproceeding successfully or in danger of failing. Interpretation of what conflict in a romantic
\nrelationship means and how it should be handled by partners, can serve as a sign for insecure
\nindividuals that their relationship is at risk. The RCSE literature has indicated that those high in
\nRCSE are more distressed during difficult junctures of relationships (such as conflict), but has
\nnot made clear how these individuals handle their distress, especially during the evolving process
\nof conflict. Theoretically, one reason that those who possess anxious attachment and\/or endorse
\nhigh levels of RCSE become either highly anxious and seek to ensure the continuance of a
\nrelationship, or withdraw during relationship conflict to protect themselves from rejection, is
\nbecause of intensity of the distress they experience in conflict situations, which can lead to
\nmaladaptive conflict communication behaviors, even when individuals know these will be
\ndetrimental to their relationship. However, no study has yet examined these theoretical links.
\nSpecifically, little is known as to how RCSE relates to conflict dynamics or relationship
\nsatisfaction. This is an important connection to examine as the literature indicates several
\npotential negative effects for those in unsatisfactory relationships.
\nIn my study, I have extended Vicary and Fraley\u2019s (2007) study of how individuals make
\ncommunication decisions during conflict. In addition to assessing attachment styles, I assessed
\nfor level of RCSE so as to clarify its relation to communication behaviors during conflict, and
\nhow it might moderate or mediate the relation between attachment style and responses that are
\ndetrimental to the relationship. Finally, I assessed how RCSE might moderate or mediate the
\nrelation between attachment style and the level of relationship satisfaction participants report.
\n53
\nI suspected that more anxiously attached individuals endorsed higher levels of RCSE than
\nthose endorsing higher levels of avoidant attachment, given the tendency for individuals with
\navoidant attachment to respond in a nonplussed manner or withdraw during conflict. Further, as
\ninsecure attachments have been consistently empirically linked to more maladaptive conflict
\ncommunication behaviors (i.e., over-expression of emotion, expressions of disgust for partners,
\nwithdrawal from conflict), I suspected those with higher levels of insecure attachments to
\nendorse more relationship-detrimental choices. However, given that past research has shown
\nthose with a primarily avoidant attachment style tend to generate conflict responses that do not
\nshow parity with those issued by individuals who are anxiously attached, I partialled out (via
\ncovariance) participants\u2019 avoidant attachment scores out of their anxious attachment scores to
\nbest account for the influence of anxious attachment scores in participant responses to the CYOA
\nscenarios. Throughout the remainder of this paper, \u201canxious attachment\u201d refers to anxious
\nattachment including the variance of avoidant attachment, while \u201cpure anxious attachment\u201d
\nrefers to anxious attachment with avoidant attachment partialled out.
\nAs well, past research has noted that men may have different core concerns than women
\nthat pertain to their satisfaction in romantic relationships and their approach to conflict inside of
\nthese relationships, contingent upon their attachment style (e.g., Del Giudice, 2011). Therefore, I
\nexamined sex-based differences on the key variables of anxious attachment, avoidant attachment,
\nRCSE, relationship detrimental responses within conflict situations, and relationship satisfaction
\nto ascertain whether or not the sexes in the sample demonstrate differential patterns of
\nendorsement on these variables.
\nGiven this conceptual and empirical evidence, the following hypotheses appeared
\nwarranted:
\n54
\nResearch Hypotheses:
\nHypothesis 1a. Pure anxious attachment scores will statistically significantly correlate, in
\na positive manner, with the number of detrimental decisions endorsed during the CYOA
\nconflict scenarios.
\nHypothesis 1b. Pure anxious attachment scores statistically significantly correlate, in a
\npositive manner, with RCSE scores.
\nHypothesis 1c. Pure anxious attachment scores will statistically significantly correlate, in
\nan indirect manner, with participants\u2019 endorsement of satisfaction with their current romantic
\nrelationships.
\nHypothesis 2. RCSE will have an enhancing moderating effect on the relation between
\npure anxious attachment style and number of detrimental decisions endorsed during
\nrelationship conflict, with high levels of anxious attachment and high levels of RCSE
\nincreasing the number of negative responses to the CYOA scenario.
\nHypothesis 3. RCSE will have a moderating effect on the relation between pure anxious
\nattachment style and participants\u2019 endorsement of satisfaction with their current romantic
\nrelationships, with low levels of anxious attachment and low levels of RCSE, increasing the
\nendorsed level of current satisfaction with romantic relationships.
\nHypothesis 4. RCSE will have a mediating effect on the relation between pure anxious
\nattachment style and number of detrimental decisions endorsed during relationship conflict,
\nwith RCSE bringing the relation between attachment style and detrimental decision scores
\nduring the CYOA conflict scenarios to statistical non-significance.
\nHypothesis 5. RCSE will have a mediating effect on the relation between pure anxious
\nattachment style and participants\u2019 endorsement of satisfaction with their current romantic
\n55
\nrelationships, with RCSE bringing the relation between insecure attachment style and level of
\nendorsed of satisfaction with current romantic relationships to statistical non-significance.
\nHypothesis 6. Mean pure anxious attachment scores across the sexes will be statistically
\nsignificantly different, with men demonstrating lower levels of pure anxious attachment than
\nwomen.
\nHypothesis 7. Mean RCSE scores across the sexes will be statistically significantly
\ndifferent, with men demonstrating lower levels of RCSE than women.
\nHypothesis 8. Mean relationship satisfaction scores across the sexes will not be
\nstatistically significantly different.
\nHypothesis 9. Mean detrimental decision scores across the sexes, made during the CYOA
\nscenarios, will not be statistically significantly different.
\n56
\nCHAPTER 3. METHOD
\nParticipants
\nMy study was approved by the Iowa State University Institutional Research Board (see
\nAppendix B). I obtained informed consent from participants at the beginning of the study (see
\nAppendix C). Undergraduate college students at Iowa State University voluntarily participated in
\nthis study via the SONA system in the Department of Psychology. Participants confirmed that
\nthey were currently in a romantic relationship and that they were over 18 years of age. Students
\nwere awarded one research credit for their participation in this study. Courses that require
\nresearch credits within the department include: Introduction to Psychology, Developmental
\nPsychology, Social Psychology, and Introduction to Communication Studies. Each participant
\nwas enrolled in at least one of these courses; however, participants could participate in the study
\nonly once.
\nA total of three hundred fifteen undergraduate students participated in the study. Nine
\ncases were discarded because these participants responded only to one item and then
\ndiscontinued the survey, and one case was discarded because this participant discontinued the
\nsurvey halfway through the CYOA task. In addition, 58 cases were discarded because they
\nreported being \u201csingle\u201d at the time of participation. Two cases did not respond to the \u2018current
\nrelationship status\u2019 item, and were discarded.
\nA total of 245 cases were included for data analysis. The sample had a mean age of 19.4
\nyears old and consisted of 135 female-identified participants (55% of the sample). Most of the
\nsample (78%) identified as European American and primarily identified as heterosexual (95%) in
\ntheir sexual orientation. The average length of relationship at the time of the study was 14.5
\nmonths and 86 participants (35%) identified their relationship as long-distance. On average,
\n57
\nparticipants were 15.9 years old at the age of their first relationship, and reported to date having
\nbeen in 3.1 romantic relationships since their first relationship (including their current
\nrelationship). Participants indicated seeing their partner, on average, at intervals between once a
\nday and once a week. On average, participants indicated being between \u201cQuite close\u201d and
\n\u201cExtremely close\u201d to their partners, and believed their partners felt \u201cQuite close\u201d and \u201cExtremely
\nclose\u201d to them. See Table 1 for a full breakdown of participants\u2019 demographic statuses.
\nTable 1
\nParticipant Demographics
\nItems N Mean SD Range
\nSex
\nMale 110
\nFemale 135
\nAge 19.4 1.5 18-28
\nSexual Orientation
\nHeterosexual 233
\nBisexual 6
\nGay\/Lesbian 3
\nQuestioning 2
\nRace\/Cultural Affiliation
\nAmerican Indian or Alaskan Native 2
\nAfrican American 3
\nHispanic (the best nursing writing service, a studybay for your papers) or Latino American 10
\nMiddle Eastern 3
\nAsian American 10
\nHawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1
\nEuropean American (White) 191
\nBi\/Multi racial\/Other 10
\nInternational Student 15
\nLength of current relationship (mos) 14.5 14.0 0-72
\nAge at first relationship (in years) 15.9 1.9 11-22
\n58
\nTable 1 (continued).
\nItems N Mean SD Range
\nNumber of relationships to date 3.1 2.3 1-24
\n(including current)
\nLong-distance relationship 86
\nProximal relationship 159
\nFrequency of seeing partner
\nRarely (couple times a year) 9
\nOnce per month 51
\nOnce per week 58
\nDaily 127
\nEmotionally close to partner 4.29 .77 1-5
\nPerception of partner\u2019s emotional
\ncloseness 4.36 .80 1-5
\nProcedure
\nStudents voluntarily signed up for participation in the study through the SONA system.
\nUpon sign-up for the study, participants were directed to the Qualtrics\u00ae survey site, where they
\naffirmatively endorsed an informed consent document and were extended an invitation to
\ncomplete research materials. After obtaining informed consent, participants provided information
\non a demographic and relationship history questionnaire, and completed the CYOA, ECR-SF,
\nRCSE, and Relationship Satisfaction measures. At the end of the survey, participants were
\ninstructed to follow a link where they verified their participation in order to receive research
\ncredit. All data records were anonymous.
\n59
\nMeasures and Materials
\nDemographic & Relationship History Questionnaire
\nParticipants completed a demographic questionnaire, soliciting information on sex, age,
\nsexual orientation, race\/ethnicity, current relationship status, sex of current romantic partner,
\nlength of current relationship, age of first romantic relationship, number of romantic
\nrelationships to date, nature of current relationship (i.e. long distance or not), frequency of face
\nto face interaction with partner, how emotionally close participants feel towards their partners,
\nand how close they believe their partners feel toward them (see Appendix D).
\nChoose Your Own Adventure Task (CYOA)
\nVicary and Fraley (2007) developed a measure to assess both relationship enhancing and
\nrelationship detrimental patterns of communication across a series of potentially conflictual
\ninteractions in a romantic relationship, based upon the Choose Your Own Adventure task
\n(Montfort, 2003; see Appendix E). The CYOA task presented a narrative story of ongoing
\ninteractions or situations, with 20 predetermined points at which participants needed to make a
\nforced-choice response decision. Participants could either chose a relationship-enhancing
\nresponse (e.g., understanding, accepting, supportive) to their partner\u2019s communication, or a
\ndetrimental response (e.g., critical, unsupportive, conflict continuing). Participants were
\ninstructed to make responses during the narrative according to how they would respond in real
\nlife with their current romantic partner. The CYOA measure yields a total of 20 enhancing and
\ndetrimental decision choices made. In their original study, Vicary and Fraley utilized a
\nregression scoring method, to assess the rate by which individuals made relationship-enhancing
\ndecisions over the course of the 20 scenarios. For the purposes of my study, the number of
\nrelationship detrimental (negative) responses were summed and utilized as the outcome score for
\n60
\nthe measure. There is no established validity for this scoring approach, as it has never been used
\nwith the CYOA task. However, I believed that negative responses would best reflect the
\ninfluence of pure anxious attachment style on key variables of interest, and would be most
\ncomparable to data reported on in the literature concerning relationship detrimental behaviors
\nengaged in by those reporting primarily or largely anxious attachment styles. For the current
\nsample, participants endorsed an average 4.8 detrimental decisions across the 20 response choice
\npoints.
\nExperiences in Close Relationship Scale-Short Form (ECR-SF)
\nThe Experiences in Close Relationship-Short Form (ECR-SF; Wei, Russell,
\nMallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007), based on the Experiences in Close Relationship (ECR) scale
\n(Brennan et al., 1998), is designed to measure how individuals emotionally experience their
\nrelationships, and categorizes these internal perceptions into anxious and avoidant attachment
\nstyle tendencies. The ECR-SF is a 12-item questionnaire, employing a seven-point Likert scale
\n(1 = \u201cStrongly Disagree\u201d to 7 = \u201cStrongly Agree\u201d, with a midpoint anchor of \u201cNeutral’\u201d). I
\nconverted the anchors on the extant Likert scale items of the ECR-SF to a five-point Likert scale
\nconsisting of the individually worded anchors of \u201cCompletely Disagree\u201d; \u201cSlightly Agree\u201d;
\n\u201cSomewhat Agree\u201d; \u201cMostly Agree\u201d; and \u201cStrongly Agree.\u201d This was done based on an interest
\nin measuring only the degree to which participants felt that each item personality attribute within
\nECR-SF actually applied to them versus the extent to which each attribute item did or did not
\napply to them. This approach avoids conceptual and empirical confusion with obtained data with
\nrespect to correctly interpreting and analyzing participant scores endorsed at or around the
\noriginal ECR-SF midpoint anchor of \u201cNeutral\u201d (cf. Rossiter, 2011). As well, scholars have
\nindicated that unipolar scales have a stronger ability to provide a more nuanced assessment of an
\n61
\nattribute, given that finer distinctions can be made among the increasing intensity of anchors
\nwithin a unipolar versus bipolar Likert scale (cf. Wolf, Joye, Smith, & Fu, 2016). I also labeled
\neach Likert anchor in my converted scale (as opposed to those on the ECR-SF), as scholars have
\nindicated that such point-by-point labeling increases the possibility of more accurate self-ratings
\nby respondents (cf. Sangster, Willits, Saltiel, Lorenze, & Rockwood, 2001). Last, research
\nconcerning personality attribute measurement has found similar (if not superior) reliability and
\nvalidity indices using unipolar Likert scale anchors on items originally designed to operate on a
\nbipolar Likert anchor basis (Tzeng, Ware, & Bharadwaj, 1991; Tzeng, Ware, & Chen, 1989).
\nThe two ECR-SF subscales assess attachment-related anxiety (six items) and attachmentrelated avoidance (six items) within intrapersonal experiences in relationships. Example items
\ninclude: \u201cI worry a lot about my relationships\u201d (anxiety), and \u201cI am nervous when partners get
\ntoo close to me\u201d (avoidance) (see Appendix F). Four of the twelve items were reverse scored,
\nand items on each subscale (anxious and avoidant) were summed and divided by the number of
\nitems in their respective subscales, so that mean scores aligned with the five-point Likert scale
\nqualitative anchors. As to interpretation, higher average scores on each scale indicate tendencies
\ntoward greater anxious or avoidant (insecure) attachments in relationships.
\nPrevious research suggests that the relation of avoidant attachment to various variables of
\ninterest (e.g., RCSE, relationship satisfaction, and communication patterns in romantic
\nrelationships) may not be consistent due to the ways in which avoidant individuals internalize
\ntheir emotional experiences, and react in ways that are often in contrast to how they feel (e.g.,
\nHadden et al., 2014; Ainsworth & Bell, 1970; Main, 1979; Creasey & Hesson-McInnis, 2001).
\nTherefore, in my study, scores relating to avoidant attachment on the ECR-SF were partialled out
\n62
\nof anxious attachment scores to control for their effect on anxious attachment style, and to create
\na \u201cpure\u201d anxious attachment score.
\nValidity was established for the ECR-SF across a series of studies conducted by Wei et
\nal. (2007), utilizing exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to reduce their original 36-item
\nform. The CFA model yielded good fit indices (CFI = .95, RMSEA = .09, SMRs = .10). An
\ninternal reliability coefficient of .78 and .84 was found for the anxiety and avoidance subscales,
\nrespectively. Test-retest reliability over a 1-month interval was r = .80 and .83 for the anxiety
\nand avoidance subscales, respectively. For the current sample, the average score on the anxious
\nattachment subscale was 2.62 (2 = \u201cSlightly Agree\u201d to 3 = \u201cSomewhat Agree\u201d). Internal
\nreliability for the anxiety subscale was .72. The average score on the avoidance attachment
\nsubscale was 1.8 (1 = \u201cCompletely Disagree\u201d to 2 = \u201cSlightly Agree\u201d). Internal reliability for the
\navoidance subscale was .78.
\nRelationship-Contingent Self-Esteem (RCSE)
\nThe Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem scale (RCSE; Knee, Patrick, & Neighbors,
\n2001) measures the extent to which individuals base their self-esteem on their romantic
\nrelationships. The RCSE is based upon the more general Contingent Self-Esteem Scale (Kernis &
\nGoldman, 2006) and the Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001).
\nThe RCSE is an 11-item measure, employing a five-point Likert scale (1 = \u201cNot at all
\nlike me\u201d to 5 = \u201cVery much like me\u201d). Participants rated the extent to which they agree to items
\nsuch as \u201cMy feelings of self-worth are based on how well things are going in my relationship\u201d
\nand \u201cWhen my partner and I fight, I feel bad about myself in general\u201d (see Appendix G). Three
\nof the 11 items were reverse scored, and the scale items were summed and divided by total
\nnumber of items, so mean scores aligned with the five-point Likert qualitative anchors. Higher
\n63
\nscores indicate that individuals base of their self-esteem to a greater extent on the presence and
\nstatus of their romantic relationships.
\nKnee et al. (2008) conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the RCSE on data
\nfrom a sample of 675 college students. They extracted a single factor, with eleven items, with
\nfactor loading weight coefficients ranging from .53 to .70. With respect to concurrent validity,
\nthe RCSE correlated positively with two subscales from the Contingences of Self Worth Scale
\n(CSWS), demonstrating r values of .61 with general contingent self-esteem, and .44 on items
\nreflecting a need for others\u2019 approval (both correlations were significant at p < .001). An internal
\nreliability coefficient of .90 was obtained for the RCSE, and a two-week test-retest reliability of
\n.78 (Knee et al., 2008). For the current sample, average score on the RCSE scale was 3.5 (3 =
\n\u201cSomewhat like me\u201d). Internal reliability for the sample on the RCSE scale was .85.
\nRelationship Satisfaction
\nThe Relationship Satisfaction measure (RS; Conger et al., 1990) is a two-item measure,
\nemploying a five-point Likert scale (1 = \u201cExtremely unhappy\/Not at all satisfied\u201d to 5 =
\n\u201cExtremely happy\/Completely satisfied\u201d). Participants rated the extent to which they agreed with
\nthe items \u201cHow happy are you, all things considered, with your current relationship?\u201d and \u201cAll
\nin all, how satisfied are you with your current relationship\u201d (see Appendix H). The two items
\nwere summed and divided by two, so that mean scores aligned with the five-point Likert
\nqualitative anchors. As to interpretation, higher scores indicate greater happiness and
\nsatisfaction with a current romantic relationship.
\nThe RS measure has demonstrated good reliability; for example, Lei et al. (2016)
\nreported a Cronbach\u2019s alpha of .88 and test-retest across a one-year period of .91 with a sample
\nof people who reported being in satisfying romantic relationships. Bryant, Conger, and Meehan
\n64
\n(2001) demonstrated the validity of the RS measure by comparing partner satisfaction on the
\nMarital Success Scale with the RS items, finding correlations that ranged from .64 to .88. For the
\ncurrent sample, average score on the relationship satisfaction was 4.06 (\u201cModerately
\nhappy\/satisfied\u201d). Internal reliability for this sample on the Relationship Satisfaction scale was
\n.74.
\n65
\nCHAPTER 4. RESULTS
\nMissing Data
\nWithin the 245 useable cases, a total of 13 participants each failed to endorse a single
\nitem, across study measures. Four participants failed to endorse a single item on a CYOA choice
\npoint; these missing data points were simply allowed to be treated as missing cases in analyses,
\nso as to not affect detrimental decision endorsement totals. Six participants failed to respond to
\none item, on either the anxiety or avoidance subscales of the ECR-SF, or on the RCSE scale. For
\nthese six cases, the extant average of each individual\u2019s respective subscale score on the ECR-SF,
\nor full scale RCSE was calculated and used as that participant\u2019s missing data point. Finally, three
\nparticipants did not provide data on the \u2018number of relationships to date\u2019 item. The sample
\naverage for ‘number of relationships to date’ was entered for these three missing data points.
\nStatistical Analysis Procedures
\nFor all descriptive analyses and analyses of variance, I used the Statistical Package for
\nthe Social Sciences (SPSS; 2016, version 24.0). For all moderation and mediation analyses, I
\nused the Hayes PROCESS module (2015, version 2.15) for SPSS (2016, version 24.0) for
\nanalysis. More specifically, in terms of moderation and mediation analyses, the PROCESS
\nmodule employs bootstrapping techniques, which are a method of repeated re-sampling of data
\nin order to determine existing confidence intervals and dispersion parameters within the data.
\nThis technique is a powerful method for testing the effects and relations of an intervening
\nvariable on the relation of independent and dependent variables (MacKinnon et al., 2004;
\nWilliams & MacKinnon, 2008). The confidence intervals determined by repeated re-sampling
\ntests are used to indicate whether the indirect effects of intervening variables are statistically
\nsignificantly related to the distributional relations of independent and dependent variables (e.g.,
\nShrout & Bolger, 2002).
\n66
\nDescriptive Statistics
\nIn this section, I present the means, standard deviations, and sample ranges for the study
\nmeasures (CYOA, ECR-SF, RCSE, and Relationship Satisfaction; see Table 2).
\nTable 2
\nInstruments Anxious Avoidant RCSE CYOA RS
\nTotal Sample
\nM 2.62 1.79 3.54 4.81 4.06
\nSD .75 .66 .67 2.44 .95
\nMales
\nM 2.51 1.87 3.58 4.52 4.08
\nSD .65 .62 .63 2.37 .96
\nFemales
\nM 2.71 1.72 3.51 5.05 4.04
\nSD .81 .68 .71 2.48 .95
\nPossible range 1-5 1-5 1-5 0-20 1-5
\nSample range 1.17-5 1-3.67 1.64-4.91 0-12 1-5
\nNote. RCSE = relationship-contingent self-esteem; CYOA = total number of detrimental choices
\nendorsed; RS = relationship satisfaction.
\nInter-correlations of Study Measures
\nIn this section, I present the inter-correlations and alpha coefficients for the ECR-SF,
\nRCSE, CYOA, and Relationship Satisfaction items (see Table 3). Anxious attachment and
\navoidant attachment were significantly positively related to each other (r = .24), indicating that
\nwhile the two insecure attachment patterns are similar, they are also fundamentally different.
\nAnxious and avoidant attachments were significantly positively related to number of detrimental
\ndecisions endorsed, and anxious attachment had a stronger relation to this variable in comparison
\nto avoidant attachment (r = .25 and .15, respectively). Both anxious and avoidant attachments
\nwere significantly negatively related to degree of satisfaction with current relationship, where
\navoidant attachment had a stronger relation to this variable in comparison to anxious attachment
\n(r = -.42 and -.27, respectively). Anxious attachment was significantly positively related to
\nRCSE (r = .32), whereas avoidant attachment was significantly negatively related to RCSE (r = –
\n67
\n.21), suggesting that the characteristics present for those who endorse high levels of RCSE are
\nalso present for those who endorse high levels of anxious attachment, but not avoidant
\nattachment. Finally, relationship satisfaction was significantly negatively related to number of
\ndetrimental decisions endorsed (r = -.17), suggesting that those who are more satisfied in their
\nrelationships endorse fewer detrimental decisions.
\nTable 3
\nCorrelations Among Measures
\nInstruments 1 2 3 4 5
\n1. Anxious .72
\n2. Avoidant .24*** .78
\n3. RCSE .32*** -.21** .85
\n4. CYOA .25*** .15* .10 –
\n5. RS -.27** -.42*** .04 -.17** .74
\nNote. *Coefficients significant at p < .05. **Coefficients significant at p < .01. ***Coefficients
\nsignificant at p < .001. Alpha coefficients are on the diagonal. RCSE = relationship-contingent
\nself-esteem; CYOA = total number of detrimental decisions endorsed; RS = relationship
\nsatisfaction.
\nECR-SF
\nThe average sample score on the anxious attachment subscale was 2.62 (2 = \u201cSlightly
\nAgree\u201d to 3 = \u201cSomewhat Agree\u201d; SD = .75; Range = 1.2 \u2013 5). The average sample score on the
\navoidant attachment subscale was 1.8 (1 = \u201cCompletely Disagree\u201d to 2 = \u201cSlightly Agree\u201d; SD =
\n.66; Range = 1 \u2013 3.7). Together, these low means indicate the individuals in this sample fall at
\nthe more “secure” end of the spectrum than insecure (anxious or avoidant).
\nRCSE
\nThe average score on the RCSE was 3.54 (SD = .67; Range = 1.64 – 4.91), indicating that
\nthe sample, on average, endorsed having their self-esteem based \u201csomewhat\u201d on the successes
\nand failures of their romantic relationships.
\n68
\nCYOA
\nAcross the 20 choice points, participants, on average, endorsed 4.8 detrimental decisions
\n(SD = 2.4; Range = 0 – 12). With regard to the extreme totals, 6 participants did not endorse any
\ndetrimental decisions, and 8 participants endorsed at least 10 detrimental decisions.
\nRelationship Satisfaction
\nThe average score on the relationship satisfaction items was 4.06 (SD = .95; Range = 1 –
\n5), indicating that participants, on average, were \u201cmoderately\u201d satisfied in, and happy with, their
\nromantic relationships.
\nResearch Hypotheses
\nHypothesis 1
\nThe partial correlations among the ECR-SF, RCSE, CYOA, and Relationship Satisfaction
\nscales (see Table 4), address my first hypothesis in which I predicted that pure anxious
\nattachment would be significantly positively correlated with the number of detrimental decisions
\nendorsed during the CYOA scenario, RCSE scores, and significantly indirectly correlated with
\nrelationship satisfaction, respectively. To guard against inflating the Type I error rate, I used a
\nBonferroni corrected alpha of p < .008 to determine statistical significance. My first hypothesis
\nwas supported: pure anxious attachment positively correlated with RCSE scores (r = .39), CYOA
\nscores (r = .22), and relationship satisfaction scores (r = -.19).
\nTable 4
\nPartial Correlations Among Measures and Pure Anxious Attachment
\nMeasures Anxious
\nRCSE .39***
\nCYOA .22***
\nRS -.19***
\nNote. CYOA = total number of detrimental decisions endorsed; Anxious = Residual anxious
\nattachment scores with avoidant score variance partialled out; RCSE = relationship-contingent
\nself-esteem; RS = relationship satisfaction. *Coefficients significant at p < .05. **Coefficients
\nsignificant at p < .01. ***Coefficients significant at p < .001.
\n69
\nHypothesis 2
\nI predicted that RCSE would significantly moderate the relation between pure anxious
\nattachment and number of detrimental decisions endorsed during the CYOA scenarios. Anxious
\nattachment scores were entered as the independent variable, number of detrimental decisions
\nendorsed was entered as the outcome thesis writing service Dubai variable, and RCSE scores were entered as the moderator.
\nAvoidant attachment scores were entered as a covariate to control for its effects on anxious
\nattachment scores. The results of the moderation analysis are presented in Table 5. The
\ninteraction effect of RCSE scores with anxious attachment on detrimental decisions endorsed
\nduring the CYOA scenario was not significant. My second hypothesis was not supported.
\nTable 5
\nRCSE as a Moderator of Pure Anxious Attachment and Detrimental Decision Endorsement
\nModel b se t
\nAnxious Attachment .63 .29 2.17*
\nAvoidant Attachment .42 .26 1.62
\nRCSE .25 .29 .88
\nInteraction (Anxious x RCSE) .27 .33 .80
\nR-square increase due to
\ninteraction:
\n\uf044R
\n2 F df1 df2 p
\nInteraction .00 .64 1 236 .43
\nNote. RCSE = relationship-contingent self-esteem. Avoidant attachment scores were controlled
\nfor in anxious attachment scores. *Coefficients significant at p < .05.
\nHypothesis 3
\nI predicted that RCSE would significantly moderate the relation between pure anxious
\nattachment and relationship satisfaction. Anxious attachment scores were entered as the
\nindependent variable, relationship satisfaction was entered as the outcome variable, and RCSE
\nscores were entered as the moderator. Avoidant attachment scores were entered as a covariate to
\ncontrol for its effects on anxious attachment scores. The results of the moderation analysis are
\n70
\npresented in Table 6. The interaction effect of RCSE scores with anxious attachment on
\nrelationship satisfaction was not significant. My third hypothesis was not supported.
\nTable 6
\nRCSE as a Moderator of Pure Anxious Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction
\nModel b se t
\nAnxious Attachment -.24 .10 -2.48**
\nAvoidant Attachment -.54 .10 -5.60***
\nRCSE .03 .09 .29
\nInteraction (Anxious x RCSE) .03 .11 .30
\nR-square increase due to
\ninteraction:
\n\uf044R
\n2 F df1 df2 p
\nInteraction .00 .09 1 240 .76
\nNote. RCSE = relationship-contingent self-esteem. Avoidant attachment scores were controlled
\nfor in anxious attachment scores. **Coefficients significant at p < .01. ***Coefficients
\nsignificant at p < .001.
\nHypothesis 4
\nI predicted that RCSE would mediate the relation between pure anxious attachment and
\nnumber of detrimental decisions endorsed. Anxious attachment scores were entered as the
\nindependent variable, number of detrimental decisions endorsed during the CYOA scenario was
\nentered as the outcome variable, and RCSE scores were entered as the mediator. Avoidant
\nattachment scores were entered as a covariate to control for its effects on anxious attachment
\nscores. The results of the mediation analysis are presented in Table 7. The relation between
\nanxious attachment and detrimental decisions endorsed during conflict was not mediated by
\nRCSE. My fourth hypothesis was not supported.
\n71
\nTable 7
\nRCSE as a Mediator of Pure Anxious Attachment and Detrimental Decision Endorsement
\nModel b se t
\nModel 1 (RCSE as DV)
\nAnxious Attachment .35 .05 6.46***
\nAvoidant Attachment -.32 .06 -5.24***
\nModel 2 (CYOA as DV)
\nAnxious Attachment .66 .23 2.93***
\nAvoidant Attachment .43 .25 1.72
\nRCSE .23 .25 .90
\nNote. CYOA = total number of detrimental decisions endorsed; RCSE = relationship-contingent
\nself-esteem. Avoidant attachment scores were controlled for in anxious attachment scores.
\n***Coefficients significant at p < .001.
\nHypothesis 5
\nI predicted that RCSE would mediate the relation between pure anxious attachment and
\nrelationship satisfaction. Anxious attachment scores were entered as the independent variable,
\nrelationship satisfaction was entered as the outcome variables, and RCSE scores were entered as
\nthe mediator. Avoidant attachment scores were entered as covariates to control for its effects on
\nanxious attachment scores. The results of the mediation analysis are presented in Table 8. The
\nrelation between anxious attachment and relationship satisfaction was not mediated by RCSE.
\nMy fifth hypothesis was not supported.
\nTable 8
\nRCSE as a Mediator of Pure Anxious Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction
\nModel b se t
\nModel 1 (RCSE as DV)
\nAnxious Attachment .35 .05 6.58***
\nAvoidant Attachment -.31 .06 -5.15***
\nModel 2 (RS as DV)
\nAnxious Attachment -.24 .08 -2.90***
\nAvoidant Attachment -.54 .09 -6.03
\nRCSE .02 .09 .25
\nNote. RCSE = relationship-contingent self-esteem. Avoidant attachment scores were controlled
\nfor in anxious attachment scores. ***Coefficients significant at p < .001.
\n72
\nHypothesis 6
\nI predicted that mean endorsement of pure anxious attachment scores would significantly
\nvary between men and women, with men demonstrating lower endorsement of pure anxious
\nattachment. I conducted an ANCOVA between men and women on anxious attachment scores,
\ncontrolling via covariance, for avoidant attachment scores. ANCOVA analyses indicated a
\nsignificant difference in average pure anxious scores across the sexes, where females had higher
\npure anxious scores than males (see Table 9). My sixth hypothesis was supported.
\nTable 9
\nANCOVA \u2013 Sex Differences in Pure Anxious Attachment Scores
\nVariable M SD F (df)
\nMale 2.49 .07
\nFemale 2.73 .06
\nANCOVA
\nAvoidant Attachment<\/p>\n
17.17***
\n(1, 242)
\nSex<\/p>\n
6.97**
\n(1, 242)
\nNote. **Coefficients significant at p < .01. ***Coefficients significant at p < .001.
\nHypothesis 7
\nI predicted that mean endorsement of RCSE scores would significantly vary between men
\nand women, with men demonstrating lower endorsement of RCSE. ANOVA analyses indicated
\nno significant difference between RCSE scores by sex (see Table 10). My seventh hypothesis
\nwas not supported.
\nTable 10
\nANOVA \u2013 Sex Differences in RCSE Scores
\nVariable M SD F (df)
\nMale 3.58 .63
\nFemale 3.51 .71
\nANOVA .60 (ns)
\n(1, 243)
\nNote. RCSE = relationship-contingent self-esteem; (ns) = non-significant.
\n73
\nHypothesis 8
\nI predicted that mean endorsement of relationship satisfaction would not significantly
\nvary between men and women. ANOVA analyses indicated no significant difference between
\nrelationship satisfaction scores by sex (see Table 11). My eighth hypothesis was supported.
\nTable 11
\nANOVA \u2013 Sex Differences in RS Scores
\nVariable M SD F (df)
\nMale 4.10 .96
\nFemale 4.00 .95
\nANOVA .09 (ns)
\n(1, 243)
\nNote. RS = relationship satisfaction; (ns) = non-significant.
\nHypothesis 9
\nI predicted that mean endorsement of detrimental decisions made during the CYOA
\nscenario would not vary between men and women. ANOVA analyses indicated no significant
\ndifference in average number of detrimental decisions endorsed by sex. My ninth hypothesis was
\nsupported.
\nTable 12
\nANOVA \u2013 Sex Differences in CYOA Scores
\nVariable M SD F (df)
\nMale 4.52 2.37
\nFemale 5.05 2.48
\nANOVA 2.84 (ns)
\n(1, 239)
\nNote. CYOA = total number of detrimental decisions endorsed; (ns) = non-significant.
\n74
\nCHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION
\nThe purpose of my study was to examine and understand the influence of attachment and
\nrelationship-contingent self-esteem on decisions made during conflict in relationship
\ncommunication and relationship satisfaction. The main goal of my research was to advance an
\nunderstanding the RCSE construct and how it interacts with attachment and influences individual
\ndifferences in behaviors in relationships.
\nAs a new construct, RCSE has been examined with respect to its relation to attachment,
\nand, to a smaller extent, relationship satisfaction. However, research has not yet investigated the
\nrole of RCSE during relationship conflict, specifically with regard to how individuals high in
\nRCSE behave and make decisions during conflict. I attempted to address this gap in the research
\nliterature by including and examining all of these variables simultaneously. By gaining further
\ninformation on the influence of RCSE on conflict behavior, investigators can continue to
\nexamine the individual differences associated with this construct in relationship behavior, as well
\nas ways in which to increase the presence of adaptive conflict behaviors.
\nAttachment
\nAttachment style is understood to be a psychological connectedness between people
\n(Bowlby, 1969), and attachment theory provides working models of how individuals view
\nthemselves and those around them (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Attachment style
\ninfluences the degree of emotional security individuals feel in their familial, platonic, and
\nromantic relationships, which in turn influences their thoughts, behaviors, and ability to cope
\nwith distress within these relationships (Bowlby, 1988). Individuals with secure attachments are
\nmore likely to engage in adaptive relationship behaviors, such as acting independently of others
\nand being motivated towards open communication (e.g., Shi, 2003). Those with insecure
\n75
\nattachments (anxious or avoidant) are more likely to engage in maladaptive relationship
\nbehaviors, such as excessive reassurance seeking and shutting down in the face of conflict
\n(Shaver, Schachner, & Mikulincer, 2005; Domingue & Mollen, 2009). Anxious attachment has
\nbeen found to relate to maladaptive relationship behaviors, particularly with regard to conflict
\ncommunication (cf., Vicary & Fraley, 2007). This detrimental manner of handling of conflict, as
\nwell as the general worry-filled thoughts characteristic of those with anxious attachment, has
\nbeen associated with less satisfaction experienced in romantic relationships (e.g., Hadden et al.,
\n2014). In my study, I predicted that anxious attachment would be related to a higher number of
\ndetrimental behaviors endorsed during relationship conflict, as well as lower self-reported
\nsatisfaction with current romantic partner. I, in fact, found anxious attachment to be significantly
\nrelated to the number of detrimental decisions endorsed during conflict, as well as level of
\nsatisfaction felt within current relationship. These relations retained significance even after
\naccounting for the variance contributed to anxious scores via avoidant attachment patterns.
\nFurther, I found avoidant attachment to be a significant variable influencing number of
\ndetrimental decisions endorsed during conflict, as well as level of satisfaction felt within current
\nrelationship.
\nThese findings corroborate the findings of a meta-analysis that previously found avoidant
\nattachment patterns to relate more strongly to lower relationship satisfaction in comparison to
\nanxious attachment (Hadden et al., 2014). With regard to detrimental decisions endorsed during
\nconflict, Vicary and Fraley (2007) found that whether individuals more highly endorsed anxious
\nor avoidant attachment, they endorsed relationship-enhancing decisions at a slower rate than
\nthose with secure attachments, indicating that both insecure attachment styles are related to
\ndetrimental decision-making during conflict (or at least increased resistance to make
\n76
\nrelationship-enhancing decisions during conflict). In my findings, the relation between anxious
\nattachment patterns and number of detrimental decisions endorsed was stronger than that of
\navoidant attachment patterns and detrimental decisions. These results corroborate findings by
\nTuran and Vicary (2010) that suggest anxious attachment is related to a knowing of which
\ndecisions would be relationship-enhancing, but finding difficulty in applying that knowledge to
\ntheir actions.
\nOn the whole, the individuals in this sample were relatively secure in their attachments,
\nendorsing low levels of anxious and avoidant attachments. This may be due in part to the average
\nlength of relationships (14.5 months) participants were in at the time of study, as well as the
\nnumber of relationships they have experienced thus far (M = 3.1). Bowlby\u2019s notions (1969;
\n1982) that individuals\u2019 attachment varies based on experiences in relationships might explain
\nwhy individuals in my sample were relatively secure; the longer the length of the relationship,
\nthe more secure a person feels in that relationship. While one year is a relatively short period of
\ntime to be in a relationship \u2013 in that the couple may not have had enough time for serious
\ndisagreements to be raised and resolved \u2013 some research indicates one year in a relationship is
\nenough to influence degree of security. For example, researchers have suggested attachment
\ncharacteristics are stronger for romantic partners early on in the relationship (i.e., first year or
\ntwo) in comparison to preferences for friends, but after some time in the relationship, attachment
\ncharacteristics are weaker for partners and stronger for friends (e.g., Fraley & Davis, 1997;
\nHazan & Zeifman, 1994; Umemura, Lacinov\u00e1, Macek, & Kunnen, 2017). These previous
\nfindings suggest romantic partners spend a significant amount of time and energy solidifying the
\nstability of their relationships, and once they have achieved this stability (i.e., they feel they are
\nin a long-term relationship), they put less energy into ensuring a secure relationship. As the
\n77
\naverage length of relationships in my study was over a year, it is possible that the low insecure
\nattachment scores are reflecting the attachment needs of individuals being met.
\nI also found a significant difference in pure anxious attachment between the sexes, with
\nfemales in my sample endorsing higher levels of pure anxious attachment than males. This is
\nconsistent with research that indicates differences in the sexes between types of insecure
\nattachment (e.g., Del Giudice, 2011), and may also be suggestive of the nature of traditional
\ngender role socialization, where women tend to bear a greater burden of stabilizing heterosexual
\nrelationships than their male partners, and may feel more anxiety over accomplishing this goal.
\nHowever, the difference in mean pure anxious attachment scores between the sexes was
\napproximately one-quarter of one point in the Likert anchors I employed. Although this
\ndifference was significant, this difference was likely due to power inherent in the sample size; a
\ndifference of .24 of a point between sexes likely demonstrates a very little \u201creal world\u201d
\ndifference in women\u2019s level of pure anxious attachment.
\nRelationship-Contingent Self-Esteem
\nMy sample expressed a medium to high level of relationship-contingent self-esteem, with
\nno significant differences noted between the sexes. This level of RCSE could be due to the age of
\nthe participants, and the life stages they are navigating. Developmental psychologist Erik
\nErikson\u2019s theory of psychosocial development (1950) suggests traditional college-aged students
\n(18-22) fall across two different critical life stages: Fidelity (identity vs. role confusion) and
\nLove (intimacy vs. isolation). In these two stages, individuals work to answer questions of \u201cWho
\nam I and what can I be?\u201d and \u201cCan I love?\u201d Within that theoretical framework, college-aged
\nstudents struggle to balance who they are (which inherently informs partner selection, which may
\nthen also inform self-identity), and how much to blend their identities with their friends and
\n78
\nsignificant others. As RCSE is related to individuals basing their self-esteem on their
\nrelationships, it makes conceptual sense that RCSE levels are somewhat higher in this sample.
\nPrevious studies found RCSE to be a strong predictor of emotional distress and unwanted
\npursuit behaviors after relationship dissolution (Park et al., 2011), relationship satisfaction
\n(Rodriguez et al., 2014), and other relationship-based variables, such as negative emotion and
\ninclusion of other in self (Knee et al., 2008), even after controlling for attachment style.
\nHowever, in my study, I found no significant relations between RCSE and number of detrimental
\ndecisions endorsed or level of relationship satisfaction. Given the previous studies, it is possible
\nthat RCSE is more related to differences in intensity of emotions felt or the current status of the
\nrelationship (more strained vs. more secure), but not necessarily differences in actual behaviors.
\nRCSE may relate to behavioral choices in a way different than attachment style does, where
\nemotion tends to override individuals\u2019 knowledge that certain behaviors are maladaptive (Turan
\n& Vicary, 2010). The case may also be that the level of import placed on keeping the
\nrelationship, as tapped by RCSE, leads one to make more relationship-enhancing decisions, even
\nwhen they are extremely distressed. Regardless, my study did not find a negative relation
\nbetween RCSE and number of detrimental decisions endorsed.
\nConflict Behaviors
\nPrevious literature has demonstrated the tendency for those with insecure attachments to
\nbehave in relationship detrimental ways during the course of conflict (Creasey & HessonMcInnis, 2001; Shi, 2003; Domingue & Mollen, 2009; Vicary & Fraley, 2007; Turan & Vicary,
\n2010). The results of my study corroborated these previous findings, and found significant low to
\nmoderate correlations between anxious and avoidant attachment characteristics and number of
\ndetrimental decisions endorsed during the CYOA task. These findings, while in line with my
\n79
\nhypotheses, are rather surprising, as the correlational magnitudes are on the low side, and
\nprevious literature might have predicted stronger relations between these variables. As
\nattachment systems are (de)activated by an attachment threat, it is possible that participants were
\nnot perceiving high amounts of threat during the CYOA task, and thus they did not experience a
\nsubstantial increase in distress. Therefore, participants may have felt more confident in their
\nability to manage the fictitious CYOA conflict and make relationship-enhancing choices, or not
\nfelt enough of a \u2018real life\u2019 connection with the conflict in the CYOA scenarios given their current
\nsatisfaction with, and experiences in, their \u2018real life\u2019 romantic relationships. The case may be that
\nlab-based attachment style research may not sufficiently activate \u2018real world\u2019 triggers for
\nindividuals who have more insecure attachment styles. As participants were instructed to base
\ntheir decisions on what they would most likely do in their current relationships, the fact remains
\nthat the actual CYOA conflict scenarios were not happening in vivo, and may not have been
\nreadily imaginable by participants as occurring within their current relationships. Therefore,
\nmore heightened emotion\/attachment concerns may not have been as strongly present in the
\nCYOA task.
\nRelationship Satisfaction
\nThe benefits of relationship satisfaction and detriments of low relationship satisfaction
\nhave been well established (e.g., Markey et al., 2007; Batterham et al., 2014). My study found
\nthat both anxious and avoidant attachment had low to moderate negative relations with
\nrelationship satisfaction. These results corroborate previous research indicating that both types of
\ninsecure attachment are negatively related with relationship satisfaction, and that avoidant
\nattachment is more strongly correlated with relationship satisfaction (e.g., Hadden et al., 2014).
\nThe relation between insecure attachment and relationship satisfaction poses potentially negative
\n80
\nconsequences for individuals with insecure attachments, as the literature suggests an increased
\nrisk for depression and hopelessness for such individuals (Stack, 1990; Wyder et al., 2009;
\nBatterham et al., 2014; Till et al., 2016). Given these negative correlations, it is surprising again
\nthat the relation between insecure attachments and number of detrimental decisions were low to
\nmoderate; one would assume someone less satisfied in a relationship would make more
\ndetrimental decisions given their current level of dissatisfaction. However, making more
\nenhancing decisions during conflict may be reflective of individuals\u2019 desires to maintain the
\nrelationship, even if it is unsatisfactory, or perhaps especially because it is unsatisfactory, due to
\nan effort to increase their satisfaction.
\nWith regard to RCSE as a predictor of relationship satisfaction, my study found a very
\nlow correlation between the two variables. This is consistent with Knee et al.\u2019s (2008) metaanalysis, which found a similar low magnitude correlation (r = .08) between these variables.
\nHigh RCSE is a function based on individuals\u2019 greater personal concern with having a
\nrelationship on which to base their self-esteem, and as such the construct is not directly related to
\nthe extent to which an individual\u2019s needs are met in a romantic relationship. Further, this relation
\nmay be connected in an unknown way to the Eriksonian developmental stage task \u2013 that is,
\ncollege-aged participants may have their relationship-contingent self-esteem connected to simply
\nbeing in a romantic relationship, not as a way to preserve their personal self-esteem, but rather as
\na way to discover for the first time in their lives if they can \u2018love\u2019 and operate well in a romantic
\nrelationship. This may also explain the low magnitude correlation between RCSE and
\nrelationship satisfaction.
\n81
\nSummary of Findings
\nOverall, the participants in my sample were heterosexual, European American, nineteenyear old men and women. On average, they reported having their first romantic relationships at
\nage 15 (approximately four years before sampling), and indicated they had an average of three
\ndifferent relationships during those four years (including their current relationship). They
\nreported being in their current relationship for a little over a year. The majority reported being in
\na relationship with someone who lived nearby them, and a majority reported that they saw their
\npartners on a daily basis. On average, they reported feeling quite emotionally close to their
\npartners, and reported feeling that their partners felt similarly toward them.
\nParticipants endorsed a low number of detrimental decisions in the CYOA conflict
\nscenario; reported low levels of anxious and avoidant attachment characteristics (generally
\nreporting more secure attachments); reported a moderate sense of relationship-contingent selfesteem (whether from developmental phase or specific insecurity is not clear); and, reported a
\nhigh level of satisfaction with their current relationships.
\nThose who reported higher levels of anxious or avoidant characteristics in their
\nattachment style also reported lower levels of relationship satisfaction; women endorsed higher
\nlevels of insecure characteristics in their attachment style than did men, but did not report feeling
\nless satisfied in their relationships as compared to men. Levels of relationship-contingent selfesteem were not related to relationship satisfaction, and there was no difference by sex in the
\namount of relationship-contingent self-esteem expressed. Neither was there a sex difference in
\ndetrimental decisions endorsed during the CYOA conflict task.
\nFinally, RCSE was neither a moderator nor mediator of the relation between pure anxious
\nattachment characteristics and detrimental decisions made during the CYOA conflict task. In
\n82
\naddition, RCSE was neither a moderator nor mediator of the relation between pure anxious
\nattachment characteristics and relationship satisfaction.
\nLimitations
\nSample
\nA sample of college students was used; therefore, my findings may not be generalizable
\nto community samples. However, as many college students are in romantic relationships, it is
\nhelpful to understand the relationship concerns and dynamics of these individuals. Nevertheless,
\nthere are several sample-based limitations in my study.
\nAge. This is a college-aged sample. Extrapolating findings to older individuals should be
\ndone with caution. Again, Erikson\u2019s theory of psychosocial development (1950) would suggest
\ntraditional college-aged students (18-22) fall across the Fidelity (identity vs. role confusion) and
\nLove (intimacy vs. isolation) stages. Given the majority of this sample would conceptually be in
\nthe early part of the Eriksonian Love stage, it is likely they are still facing crises and confusion in
\ntheir resolution of self-identity and capacity for forming and sustaining romantic relationships.
\nAs such, the findings from my study might look different for those who are developmentally
\nfurther along in these Eriksonian stages or who have more successfully resolved the Fidelity and
\nLove stages.
\nNature of relationship. A sizeable proportion (35%) of the sample identified as being a
\npart of a long-distance relationship. The literature suggests that while those in long-distance or
\nproximal relationships do not differ in relationship satisfaction, those in long-distance
\nrelationships (LDRs) report lower general anxiety, depression, and fatigue, and better diet and
\nexercise behaviors (e.g., Du Bois, Sher, Grotkowski, Aizenman, Slesinger, & Cohen, 2016). At
\nthe same time, those in proximal relationships (PRs) report better maintenance of the
\n83
\nrelationship, including a higher frequency of meeting sexual needs and lower levels of
\nrelationship stress. Preliminary tests of key variables in my study across the condition of LDR
\nvs. PR revealed only the average amount of avoidant characteristics endorsed was significantly
\ndifferent between the groups (LDRs M = 1.7 vs. PRs M =1.8; p < .05), so I pooled the data for
\nanalyses given the small amount of difference existing between them, and the use of \u2018pure
\nanxiety\u2019 as an index of insecure attachment. Regardless, it may not be prudent to assume these
\ntwo groups possess similar attachment style (de)activation levels, relationship-contingent selfesteem, conflict communication behaviors, or relationship satisfaction. The element of LDR
\nstatus was not one considered pre-data collection; this element of relationship status deserves
\nfurther attention.
\nSexual orientation. The majority of my sample identified as heterosexual (95%).
\nTherefore, I was unable to determine if my main variables of interest (attachment, RCSE,
\nCYOA, relationship satisfaction) operate differently for those identifying as non-heterosexual.
\nAlthough preliminary analyses indicated no differences between the two groups on these key
\nvariables of interest, I did not collect sufficient numbers of participants identifying as LGBTQ to
\neither assert generalizability of my findings to these groups or to robustly test any extant
\ndifferences between these groups on key variables of interest.
\nRace\/ethnicity. Only 54 participants identified as people of color in my sample, and were
\nscattered across several different racial\/ethnic groups. This low number of participants of color is
\nnot sufficient or representative enough to assert generalizability of my findings to all groups of
\ncolor; my findings are best generalized to European Americans.
\n84
\nMeasures and Instruments
\nCYOA. Although the CYOA task has been utilized in other studies (Turan & Vicary,
\n2010), reliability and validity of the CYOA task is hard to ascertain. As I did not include a check
\non the emotional arousal of participants as they took part in completing the CYOA task, I cannot
\nensure either a sufficiently high or consistent enough emotional arousal was elicited by the
\nconflict task, which in turn, could have affected relations of the CYOA to attachment, RCSE, or
\nrelationship satisfaction measures. Without fear of a true threat to the relationship or a sufficient
\narousal of emotional response generated by the conflict task, the number of detrimental decisions
\nmade in the CYOA task may not be reflective of how people feel during conflict in \u2018real world\u2019
\nromantic relationships. In addition, although the CYOA task aims to better capture the iterative
\ndynamics of conflict within relationships, the tool is still made for employment in a lab-based
\nstudy, and therefore, the external validity of the tool remains in question.
\nIn addition, the forced-choice, \u201ceither-or\u201d decision-making method used by the CYOA
\nmeasure prevented more subtle use of adaptive and maladaptive conflict communication
\nresponses; participants might have verbalized their real life concerns differently than the verbal
\nchoices available in the CYOA task. As well, I did not assess for social desirability, which also
\ncould explain why some individuals endorsed more relationship-enhancing than detrimental
\ndecisions. Turan and Vicary (2010) demonstrated that those endorsing anxious attachments do
\nhave an accurate knowledge of which choice would be enhancing to the relationship; if neither
\nchoice accurately reflected what an individual might do, this may have led participants to simply
\nendorse the choice that is more adaptive for fear of being seen as insecure or because the text of
\nthe enhancing choice was closer to what they might actually say to their \u2018real world\u2019 partner than
\nthe text that was present in the detrimental choice.
\n85
\nFinally, though previous investigators utilizing the CYOA (Vicary & Fraley, 2007; Turan
\n& Vicary, 2010) used a regression scoring method to assess CYOA responses, I used a summing
\nmethod in which I examined the number of relationship detrimental decisions endorsed by each
\nparticipant. This method of analyzing the CYOA responses has not been previously done, and
\ntherefore there is no validity information associated with this method. As such, I do not know if
\nmy findings related to CYOA responses would have shown different results using a different
\nscoring method. Further research is needed on ways in which various scoring methods affect
\nresults obtained with the CYOA, and the relations these results have with other variables of
\ninterest.
\nECR-SF. This instrument has well-established reliability and validity; however, I changed
\nthe anchors of the scale to measure degrees of agreement with attachment anxiety and avoidance
\nto avoid a bi-polar Likert array. In my study, the ECR-SF subscales demonstrated sufficient
\nreliability indices; however, the original ECR-SF had slightly higher reliability coefficients for
\nthe anxiety and avoidant subscales.
\nFuture Research
\nInvestigators should seek to recruit individuals of a more diverse age range and capture
\nmore individuals from non-heterosexual orientations, as well as follow up on potential
\ndifferences between long distance and proximal relationships. A comparison of findings from
\nsuch samples will help to highlight commonalities and indicate which variables (i.e., attachment
\nand RCSE) have a greater influence on conflict behaviors and satisfaction felt in relationships
\nacross individuals from various demographic groups. Future studies should also seek to replicate
\nmy findings with more racially diverse samples.
\n86
\nTo address the limitations in my study related to the relatively low reporting of insecure
\nattachments, future studies should actively seek out individuals from both shorter and longer
\nterm relationships to examine the potential differences in attachment patterns. My sample
\nreported being in relationships that were only an average of approximately 14 months long. In
\naddition, researchers should continue to examine the interaction of RCSE and attachment style
\nwith populations that have a greater range in their current levels of relationship satisfaction to
\ndetermine how RCSE affects both emotional and behavioral differences. Continuing to
\nunderstand how RCSE operates within romantic relationships, given differently held attachment
\nstyles, will help to inform clinical treatment planning and interventions.
\nWith regard to the utilization of the CYOA task, future studies might incorporate a
\nmeasure of state emotion or affect during the conflict scenario to examine differences between
\nattachment style and levels of RCSE by level of perceived stress or threat experienced. As well,
\nfuture investigations could incorporate a measure of participants\u2019 current willingness to stay in,
\nor leave, their current relationship, as well as participants\u2019 perceived purpose in making more
\nrelationship-enhancing decisions, to examine the potential effect these variables have on
\nrelations among attachment, RCSE, conflict behaviors, and relationship satisfaction.
\nAn additional and relevant area for future research is how to use and apply the results
\nfound in my study. One main purpose behind conducting my study was to better understand what
\ninfluences individuals\u2019 choices to make decisions that are detrimental to their relationships, in
\nhopes that intervention methods could be developed to help individuals maintain their
\nrelationships by making more relationship-enhancing decisions during conflict. Investigators
\nshould continue to examine the intersection of attachment style and RCSE, to determine under
\nwhat circumstances one might be more influential than the other in conflict response.
\n87
\nImplications for Practice
\nThe respective attachment and RCSE literatures lay out the ways in which those who feel
\nless secure, or base their self-esteem in their relationship, fear the loss of a romantic relationship.
\nImportant to consider is how these variables influence one another in order to predict other
\nrelationship variables, such as conflict communication and relationship satisfaction. Although
\nprevious studies have found that the distress experienced by those reporting high levels of RCSE
\nexplains maladaptive conflict behaviors above and beyond anxious attachment (i.e., Park et al.,
\n2011; Rodriguez et al., 2014; Knee et al., 2008), my study did not find such a relation using the
\nCYOA task. Regardless, insecure attachments and high levels of RCSE both represent a
\nfundamentally worried state of being regarding the stability of romantic relationships. Clinicians
\nshould focus on both attachment patterns as well as level of RCSE, as both have a significant
\ninfluence on individual differences in relationships. My study found that the two are positively
\ncorrelated with one another, yet have different relations with other relationship-based variables.
\nClinicians incorporating a focus on both of these variables stand to gain a more thorough
\nknowledge of the complexity with which individuals think about, and deal with, conflict within
\ntheir relationships.
\n88
\nREFERENCES
\nAcitelli, L. K. (1992). Gender differences in relationship awareness and marital satisfaction
\namong young married couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 102-
\n110.
\nAinsworth, M. D., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by
\nthe behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41(1), 49-67.
\nAinsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
\npsychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum: Oxford.
\nAron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1996). Self and self-expansion in relationships. In G. O. Fletcher and J.
\nFitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological
\napproach, (pp. 325\u2013344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
\nAronoff, J. (2012). Parental nurturance in the standard cross-cultural sample: Theory, coding,
\nand scores. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 46(4),
\n315-347.
\nAxelrod, R. M. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
\nBale, C., & Archer, J. (2013). Self-perceived attractiveness, romantic desirability and selfesteem: A mating sociometer perspective. Evolutionary Psychology, 11(1), 68-84.
\nBarber, B. K., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different constructs,
\ndifferent effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 433-441.
\nBartholomew, K., Henderson, A., & Dutton, D. (2001). Insecure attachment and abusive intimate
\nrelationships. Adult attachment and couple psychotherapy: The ‘secure base’ in practice
\nand research. (pp. 43-61) Brunner-Routledge, New York, NY.
\nBartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a
\nfour-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.
\nBatterham, P. J., Fairweather-Schmidt, A. K., Butterworth, P., Calear, A. L., Mackinnon, A. J.,
\n& Christensen, H. (2014). Temporal effects of separation on suicidal thoughts and
\nbehaviours. Social Science & Medicine, 111, 58\u201363.
\nBaumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
\nattachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
\nBen-Naim, S., Hirschberger, G., Ein-Dor, T., & Mikulincer, M. (2013). An experimental study
\nof emotion regulation during relationship conflict interactions: The moderating role of
\nattachment orientations. Emotion, 13(3), 506-519.
\n89
\nBlake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
\nBowlby J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.
\nBowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation, Anxiety, and Anger. New York:
\nBasic Books.
\nBowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock.
\nBowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of
\nOrthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664-678.
\nBowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base: Clinical Applications of Attachment Theory. London:
\nRoutledge.
\nBrennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
\nattachment: A n integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
\nAttachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.
\nBrenner, R. E., & Vogel, D. L. (2015). Measuring thought content valence after a breakup:
\nDevelopment of the positive and negative ex-relationship thoughts (PANERT) scale.
\nJournal of Counseling Psychology, 62(3), 476-487.
\nBrockner, J. (1984). Low self-esteem and behavioral plasticity: Some implications for
\npersonality and social psychology. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social
\npsychology (Vol. 4, pp. 237\u2013271). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
\nBruce, M. L., & Kim, K. M. (1992). Differences in the effects of divorce on major depression in
\nmen and women. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 914\u2013917.
\nBryant, C. M., Conger, R. D., & Meehan, J. M. (2001). The influence of in-laws on change in
\nmarital success. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 614\u2013626.
\nBurk, W. J., & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2015). One-sided and mutually aggressive couples:
\nDifferences in attachment, conflict prevalence, and coping. Child Abuse & Neglect, 50,
\n254-266.
\nCampbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and
\nsupport in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality
\nand Social Psychology, 88(3), 510-531.
\nCassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its relationship with other defensive
\nprocesses. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment, (pp.
\n300-323). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
\n90
\nChappell, K. D., & Davis, K. E. (1998). Attachment, partner choice, and perception of romantic
\npartners: An experimental test of the attachment-security hypothesis. Personal
\nRelationships, 5, 327-347.
\nChristensen, A. (1987). Detection of conflict patterns in couples. In K. Hahlweg & M. J.
\nGoldstein (Eds.), Understanding major mental disorder: The contribution of family
\ninteraction research (pp. 250\u2013265). New York, NY: Family Process Press.
\nChristensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In P. Noller & M. A.
\nFitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 31-52). Clevedon, Avon,
\nEngland: Multilingual Matters.
\nChristensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand\/withdraw
\npattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73-81.
\nCollins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and
\nbehavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810-832.
\nCollins, N. L., Cooper, M. L., Albino, A., & Allard, L. (2002). Psychosocial vulnerability from
\nadolescence to adulthood: A prospective study of attachment style differences in
\nrelationship functioning and partner choice. Journal of Personality, 70(6), 965-1008.
\nCollins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality
\nin dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.
\nConger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Simons, R. L., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L.,
\nWhitbeck, L. B., Huck, S., & Melby, J. N. (1990). Linking economic hardship to marital
\nquality and instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 643\u2013656.
\nCooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Scribner\u2019s.
\nCoyne, J. C., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Going beyond social support: The role of social
\nrelationships in adaptation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 454\u2013460.
\nCreasey, G., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (2001). Affective responses, cognitive appraisals, and
\nconflict tactics in late adolescent romantic relationships: Associations with attachment
\norientations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(1), 85-96.
\nCrittenden, P. M. (1999). Danger and development: The organization of self-protective
\nstrategies. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 64(3), 145-
\n171.
\nCrocker, J., Karpinski, A., Quinn, D. M., & Chase, S. K. (2003). When grades determine selfworth: Consequences of contingent self-worth for male and female engineering and
\npsychology majors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 507\u2013516.
\n91
\nCrocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B., & Broadnax, S. (1994). Collective self-esteem and
\npsychological well-being among white, black, and Asian college students. Personality
\nand Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 503\u2013513.
\nCrocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130,
\n392\u2013414.
\nCrocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108,
\n593-623.
\nCross, S. E., & Morris, M. L. (2003). Getting to know you: The relational self-construal,
\nrelational cognition, and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
\n512\u2013523.
\nDeci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The \u201cwhat\u201d and \u201cwhy\u201d of goal pursuits: Human needs and
\nthe self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227\u2013268.
\nDe Smet, O., Uzieblo, K., Loeys, T., Buysse, A., & Onraedt, T. (2015). Unwanted pursuit
\nbehavior after breakup: Occurrence, risk factors, and gender differences. Journal of
\nFamily Violence, 30(6), 753-767.
\nDeaux, K., Reid, A., Mizrahi, K., Either, K. A. (1995). Parameters of social identity. Journal of
\nPersonality and Social Psychology, 68, 280-291.
\nDel Giudice, M. (2011). Sex differences in romantic attachment: A meta-analysis. Personality
\nand Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(2), 193-214.
\nDeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no pain: Effects of social
\nexclusion on physical pain tolerance and pain threshold, affective forecasting, and
\ninterpersonal empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1-15.
\nDeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). It\u2019s the thought that
\ncounts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion.
\nJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 45\u201359.
\nDiBello, A. M., Rodriguez, L. M., Hadden, B. W., & Neighbors, C. (2015). The green eyed
\nmonster in the bottle: Relationship contingent self-esteem, romantic jealousy, and
\nalcohol-related problems. Addictive Behaviors, 49, 52-58.
\nDoherty, W. J. (1981a). Cognitive processes in intimate conflict: I. extending attribution
\ntheory. American Journal of Family Therapy, 9(1), 3-13.
\nDoherty, W. J. (1981b). Cognitive processes in intimate conflict: II. efficacy and learned
\nhelplessness. American Journal of Family Therapy, 9(2), 35-44.
\n92
\nDomingue, R., & Mollen, D. (2009). Attachment and conflict communication in adult romantic
\nrelationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(5), 678-696.
\nDu Bois, S. N., Sher, T. G., Grotkowski, K., Aizenman, T., Slesinger, N., & Cohen, M. (2016).
\nGoing the distance: Health in long-distance versus proximal relationships. The Family
\nJournal, 24(1), 5-14.
\nDunst, C. J., & Kassow, D. Z. (2008). Caregiver sensitivity, contingent social responsiveness,
\nand secure infant attachment. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 5(1),
\n40-56.
\nEldridge, K. A., Sevier, M., Jones, J., Atkins, D. C., & Christensen, A. (2007). Demandwithdraw communication in severely distressed, moderately distressed, and nondistressed
\ncouples: Rigidity and polarity during relationship and personal problem
\ndiscussions. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 218-226.
\nErikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
\nEvraire, L. E., Ludmer, J. A., & Dozois, D. J. A. (2014). The influence of priming attachment
\nstyles on excessive and negative reassurance seeking and negative feedback seeking in
\ndepression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 295-318.
\nFeeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic
\nrelationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 281-291.
\nFestinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117\u2013140.
\nFincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). Cognitive processes and conflict in close
\nrelationships: An attribution-efficacy model. Journal of Personality and Social
\nPsychology, 53(6), 1106-1118.
\nFraley, R. C. (2002) Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic
\nmodeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6,
\n123-151.
\nFraley, R. C., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults\u2019 close
\nfriendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131\u2013144.
\nFraley, R. C, & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments,
\nemerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4(2),
\n132\u2013154.
\nFrazier, P. A., Byer, A. L., Fischer, A. R., Wright, D. M., & DeBord, K. A. (1996). Adult
\nattachment style and partner choice: Correlational and experimental findings. Personal
\nRelationships, 3(2), 117-136.
\n93
\nGilbert, R. L., Murphy, N. A., & \u00c1valos, M. C. (2011). Communication patterns and satisfaction
\nlevels in three-dimensional versus real-life intimate relationships. Cyberpsychology,
\nBehavior, and Social Networking, 14(10), 585-589.
\nGivertz, M., Woszidlo, A., Segrin, C., &Knutson, K. (2013). Direct and indirect effects of
\nattachment orientation on relationship quality and loneliness in married couples. Journal
\nof Social and Personal Relationships, 30(8), 1096\u20131120.
\nGlenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1981). The contribution of marital happiness to global
\nhappiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 161\u2013168.
\nGottman, J. M. (2015). Principia amoris: The new science of love. Routledge\/Taylor & Francis
\nGroup, New York, NY.
\nGove, W. R., Hughes, M., & Style, C. R. (1983). Does marriage have positive effects on the
\npsychological well-being of the individual? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24,
\n122\u2013131.
\nHadden, B. W., Smith, C. V., & Webster, G. D. (2014). Relationship duration moderates
\nassociations between attachment and relationship quality meta-analytic support for the
\ntemporal adult romantic attachment model. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
\n18, 42\u201358.
\nHank, P. (2015). Beyond an informal everyday concept of self-esteem: A latent state-trait model.
\nJournal of Individual Differences, 36(4), 237-246.
\nHazan C., & Shaver, P.R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
\nJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511\u2013524.
\nHazan, C., & Shaver, P.R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment theoretical perspective.
\nJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270\u2013280.
\nHazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on
\nclose relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 1-22.
\nHazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bartholomew & D.
\nPerlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment processes in
\nadulthood (pp. 151\u2013178). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
\nHeavey, C. L., Christensen, A., & Malamuth, N. M. (1995). The longitudinal impact of demand
\nand withdrawal during marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
\nPsychology, 63(5), 797-801.
\nHeavey, C. L., Layne, C., & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and conflict structure in marital
\ninteraction: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
\n61, 16-27.
\n94
\nHenley, N. M., & Kramarae, C. (1991). Gender, power, and miscommunication. In N. Coupland,
\nH. Giles, & J. Wiemann (Eds.), Problem talk and problem contexts (pp. 18-43). Newbury
\nPark, CA: Sage.
\nHolt-Lunstad, J., Birmingham, W., & Jones, B. Q. (2008). Is there something unique about
\nmarriage? The relative impact of marital status, relationship quality, and network social
\nsupport on ambulatory blood pressure and mental health. Annals of Behavioral Medicine,
\n35, 239\u2013244.
\nJacobson, N. S. (1989). The politics of intimacy. Behavior Therapist, 12, 29-32.
\nJames, W. (1892). Psychology: The briefer course. New York: Henry Holt.
\nJudge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction:
\nA core Assessments approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151\u2013188.
\nJudge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on
\njob and life satisfaction: The role of core Assessments. Journal of Applied Psychology,
\n83(1), 17\u201334.
\nKavanagh, P. S., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Ellis, B. J. (2014). The mating sociometer and attractive
\nothers: A double-edged sword in romantic relationships. The Journal of Social
\nPsychology, 154(2), 126-141.
\nKavanagh, P. S., Robins, S. C., & Ellis, B. J. (2010). The mating sociometer: A regulatory
\nmechanism for mating aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1),
\n120-132.
\nKernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). Assessing stability of self-esteem and contingent selfesteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem issues and answers: A sourcebook of current
\nperspectives (pp. 77-85). New York: Psychology Press.
\nKernis, M. H., Granneman, B. D., & Barclay, L. C. (1989). Stability and level of self-esteem as
\npredictors of anger arousal and hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
\n56, 1013\u20131022.
\nKirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: a
\nlongitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 502\u2013512.
\nKnee, C., Canevello, A., Bush, A.L., & Cook, A. (2008). Relationship-contingent self-esteem
\nand the ups and downs of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
\nPsychology, 95, 608\u2013627.
\nKnobloch-Fedders, L., Critchfield, K. L., Boisson, T., Woods, N., Bitman, R., & Durbin, C. E.
\n(2014). Depression, relationship quality, and couples\u2019 demand\/withdraw and
\n95
\ndemand\/submit sequential interactions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(2), 264-
\n279.
\nKolves, K., Ide, N., & De Leo, D. (2012). Fluctuations of suicidality in the aftermath of a marital
\nseparation: 6-Month follow-up observations. Journal of Affective Disorders, 142, 256\u2013
\n263.
\nLatty-Mann, H., & Davis, K. E. (1996). Attachment theory and partner choice: Preference and
\nactuality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(1), 5-23.
\nLeary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an
\ninterpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
\nPsychology, 68, 518\u2013530.
\nLeary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. (1995). Social anxiety. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
\nLei, M., Beach, S. R. H., Simons, R. L., Barr, A. B., Cutrona, C. E., & Philibert, R. A. (2016).
\nStress, relationship satisfaction, and health among african american women: Genetic
\nmoderation of effects. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(2), 221-232.
\nLesser, B. (1990). Attachment and situational factors influencing battered women’s return to their
\nmates following a shelter program. Research explorations in adult attachment. (pp. 81-
\n128) Peter Lang Publishing, New York, NY.
\nLiu, Z., Cui, M., & Han, Y. (2014). Adult attachment, conflict resolution behaviors and close
\nrelationship satisfaction in young couples. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 28(8), 597-
\n601.
\nLogan, J., Hall, J., & Karch, D. (2011). Suicide categories by patterns of known risk factors: A
\nlatent class analysis. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68, 935\u2013941.
\nLuhtanen, R. K., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-Assessment of one\u2019s
\nsocial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302\u2013318.
\nMacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect
\neffect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral
\nResearch, 39, 99-128.
\nMain, M. (1979) The “ultimate” causation of some infant attachment phenomena. Behavioral
\nand Brain Sciences, 2, 640-643.
\nMain, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A
\nmove to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
\nDevelopment, 50(1-2), 66-104.
\n96
\nMaltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In
\nJohn A. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 195-216). New York:
\nCambridge University Press.
\nMarkey, C., Markey, P., & Gray, H. (2007). Romantic relationships and health: An examination
\nof individuals\u2019 perceptions of their romantic partners\u2019 influences on their health. Sex
\nRoles, 57, 435\u2013445.
\nMarroqu\u00edn, B., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2015). Emotion regulation and depressive symptoms:
\nClose relationships as social context and influence. Journal of Personality and Social
\nPsychology, 109(5), 836-855.
\nMarshall, T. C., Bejanyan, K., & Ferenczi, N. (2013). Attachment styles and personal growth
\nfollowing romantic breakups: The mediating roles of distress, rumination, and tendency
\nto rebound. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e75161.
\nMcGinn, M. M., McFarland, P. T., & Christensen, A. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of
\ndemand\/withdraw. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(5), 749-757.
\nMead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
\nMikulincer, M., Florian, V., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2002). Attachment security in
\ncouple relationships: a systemic model and its implications for family dynamics. Family
\nProcess, 41, 405\u2013434.
\nMikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood:
\nActivation, psychodynamic, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances
\nin experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53\u2013152). San Diego, CA: Academic
\nPress.
\nMikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and
\nchange. New York: Guilford Press.
\nNoller, P., Feeney, J. A., Bonnell, D., & Callan, V. J. (1994). A longitudinal study of conflict in
\nearly marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(2), 233-252.
\nPark, L. E., Sanchez, D. T., & Brynildsen, K. (2011). Maladaptive responses to relationship
\ndissolution: The role of relationship contingent self\u2010worth. Journal of Applied Social
\nPsychology, 41(7), 1749-1773.
\nPiaget, J. (1953). Origins of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge.
\nPietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (1997). Working models of attachment and daily social
\ninteractions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1409-1423.
\n97
\nRahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of
\nManagement Journal, 26, 368-276.
\nRobins, R. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2005). Self-esteem development across the lifespan.
\nCurrent Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 158-162.
\nRodriguez, L. M., Knee, C. R., & Neighbors, C. (2014). Relationships can drive some to drink:
\nRelationship-contingent self-esteem and drinking problems. Journal of Social and
\nPersonal Relationships, 31(2), 270-290.
\nRodriguez, L. M., Wickham, R. E., \u00d8verup, C. S., & Amspoker, A. B. (2016). Past and present,
\nday by day: Communication with former romantic partners, relationship-contingent selfesteem, and current relationship outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 65, 62-67.
\nRosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
\nUniversity Press.
\nRosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books.
\nRossiter, J. R. (2011). Marketing measurement revolution: The C-OAR-SE method and why it
\nmust replace psychometrics. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11\/12), 1561-1588.
\nRusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job
\nsatisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives,
\nand investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 429\u2013438.
\nRusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation
\nprocesses in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of
\nPersonality and Social Psychology, 60, 53-78.
\nSable, P. (2008). What is adult attachment? Clinical Social Work Journal, 36, 21\u201330.
\nSadikaj, G., Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2015). Felt security in daily interactions as a
\nmediator of the effect of attachment on relationship satisfaction. European Journal of
\nPersonality, 29(2), 187-200.
\nSangster, R. L., Willits, F. K., Saltiel, J., Lorenze, F. O., & Rockwood, T. H. (2001, August).
\nThe effects of numerical labels on response scales. In Annual Meeting of the American
\nStatistical Association, Atlanta, GA (pp. 2-9).
\nShaver, P. R., Schachner, D. A., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Attachment style, excessive
\nreassurance seeking, relationship processes, and depression. Personality and Social
\nPsychology Bulletin, 31, 343\u2013359.
\nShi, L. (2003). The association between adult attachment styles and conflict resolution in
\nromantic relationships. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(3), 143-157.
\n98
\nShrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Meditation in experimental and nonexperimental studies:
\nNew procedures and recommendations. Psychological methods, 7, 422-445.
\nSimpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of
\nPersonality and Social Psychology, 59, 971\u2013980.
\nSmith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Social Psychology (Third ed.). Hove: Psychology Press.
\nSpielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., Maxwell, J. A., Joel, S., Peragine, D., Muise, A., & Impett, E.
\nA. (2013). Settling for less out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality and Social
\nPsychology, 105(6), 1049-1073.
\nStack, S. (1990). New micro-level data on the impact of divorce on suicide, 1959\u20131980: A test of
\ntwo theories. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52, 119\u2013127.
\nStack, S. (1992). Marriage, family, religion, and suicide. In R. W. Maris, A. L. Berman, J. T.
\nMaltsberger, & R. I. Yufit (Eds.), Assessment and prediction of suicide (pp. 540\u2013552).
\nNew York, NY: Guilford.
\nStake, J. E., Huff, L., & Zand, D. (1995). Trait self-esteem, positive and negative events, and
\nevent- specific shifts in self-Assessment and affect. Journal of Research in Personality,
\n29(2), 223-241.
\nSteinmetz, S. K. (1977). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology, 2(3-4), 499-509.
\nSund, A. M., & Wichstr\u00f8m, L. (2002). Insecure attachment as a risk factor for future depressive
\nsymptoms in early adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
\nPsychiatry, 41(12), 1478-1485.
\nSwann, W. B. (1990). To be adored or to be known? The interplay of self-enhancement and selfverification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Motivation and cognition (pp.
\n404\u2013448). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
\nSwann, W. B. (1992). Seeking \u201ctruth,\u201d finding despair: Some unhappy consequences of a
\nnegative self-concept. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 15\u201318.
\nTajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33,
\n1\u201359.
\nTajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel &
\nW. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7\u201324). Chicago, IL:
\nNelson-Hall.
\n99
\nTangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Fletcher, C., & Gramzow, R. (1992). Shamed into anger? The
\nrelation of shame and guilt to anger and self-reported aggression. Journal of Personality
\nand Social Psychology, 62, 669-675.
\nTannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in communication. New York:
\nWilliam Morrow.
\nTill, B., Tran, U. S., & Niederkrotenthaler, T. (2016). Relationship satisfaction and risk factors
\nfor suicide. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention.
\nTuran, B., & Vicary, A. M. (2010). Who recognizes and chooses behaviors that are best for a
\nrelationship? the separate roles of knowledge, attachment, and motivation. Personality
\nand Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 119-131.
\nTurner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
\nSocial identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15\u201340). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
\nUniversity Press.
\nTwenge, J. M., Baumeister, B. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can\u2019t join them,
\nbeat them: The effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality
\nand Social Psychology, 81, 1058\u20131069.
\nTzeng, O. C., Ware, R., & Bharadwaj, N. (1991). Comparison between continuous bipolar and
\nunipolar ratings of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Educational and Psychological
\nMeasurement, 51(3), 681-690.
\nTzeng, O. C., Ware, R., & Chen, J. M. (1989). Measurement and utility of continuous unipolar
\nratings for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(4),
\n727-738.
\nUmemura, T., Lacinov\u00e1, L., Macek, P., & Kunnen, E. S. (2017). Longitudinal changes in
\nemerging adults\u2019 attachment preferences for their mother, father, friends, and romantic
\npartner: Focusing on the start and end of romantic relationships. International Journal of
\nBehavioral Development, 41(1), 136-142.
\nVicary, A. M., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). Choose your own adventure: Attachment dynamics in a
\nsimulated relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(9), 1279-1291.
\nvon Soest, T., Wichstr\u00f8m, L., & Kvalem, I. L. (2015). The development of global and domainspecific self-esteem from age 13 to 31. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
\nAdvance online publication.
\nWei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The experiences in close
\nrelationship scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of
\nPersonality Assessment, 88(2), 187-204.
\n100
\nWilliams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods
\nfor testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 23-51.
\nWolf, C., Joye, D., Smith, T. E., Smith, T. W., & Fu, Y. C. (Eds.). (2016). The SAGE Handbook
\nof Survey Methodology. SAGE.
\nWyder, M., Ward, P., & De Leo, D. (2009). Separation as a suicide risk factor. Journal of
\nAffective Disorder, 116, 208\u2013213.
\n101
\nAPPENDIX A. BARTHOLOMEW & HOROWITZ\u2019S (1991)
\nMODEL OF SELF AND OTHERS
\nModel of Self
\n(Dependence)
\nPositive
\n(Low)
\nNegative
\n(High)
\nModel of Other
\n(Avoidance)
\nPositive
\n(Low)
\nSecure
\nComfortable with
\nintimacy and
\nautonomy
\nPreoccupied
\nPreoccupied with
\nrelationships
\nNegative
\n(High)
\nDismissing
\nDismissing of
\nintimacy
\nCounter-dependent
\nFearful
\nFearful of intimacy
\nSocially avoidant
\nFigure 1. Based on Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among
\nyoung adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social
\nPsychology, 61(2), 226-244.
\n102
\nAPPENDIX B. IRB APPROVAL
\n103
\nAPPENDIX C. INFORMED CONSENT
\nTitle of Study: Psychological Dynamics of Romantic Relationships
\nInvestigators: Amanda Buduris, BA; Loreto Prieto, PhD
\nThis is a research study. Please take your time in deciding if you would like to participate.
\nIntroduction
\nThe purpose of this study is to understand factors that influence peoples\u2019 behaviors in romantic
\nrelationships.
\nDescription of Procedures
\nParticipants will voluntarily sign up to take part in this study via the SONA website. If you are
\neligible and decide to participate in this study you will be granted access to a link to an online
\nsurvey via the SONA website. Your responses to the survey will be confidential, no identifying
\ncomputer (IP addresses) or personal information will be collected, and all data will be reported in
\naggregate form.
\nYou will be asked to respond to scenarios about how you would likely respond to a relationship
\ncommunication exchange. After responding to these scenarios, you will be asked to complete a
\nseries of items related to the scenarios as well as items assessing your general thoughts, feelings,
\nand behaviors about romantic relationships. Once you reach the end of the survey, if you have
\nmade a good faith effort to complete the research materials, you will be redirected to a new URL,
\nwhere you can obtain your SONA credit.
\nRisks
\nWe do not anticipate this study will cause participants any discomfort whatsoever, but there is a
\nminimal risk associated with a research topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) surrounding communicating in romantic
\nrelationships. Individuals who are currently experiencing relationship or psychological distress,
\nwho have a history of psychological or mental health difficulties, or who have recently gone
\nthrough a significant life difficulty may feel some discomfort when considering their relationship
\nsituation or completing the research materials. If you feel any discomfort answering any specific
\nitems in the study, you may skip them. As well, at any point, you may end your participation in
\nthe study. Last, listed below are several resources that you can utilize if you are feeling
\ndiscomfort while or after participating in this study.
\n\u2022 Thielen Student Health Center (ISU: 515-294-5801)
\n\u2022 Student Counseling Services (ISU: 515-294-5056)
\n\u2022 Central Iowa Psychological Services (Ames: 515-233-1122, Des Moines: 515-222-1999)
\nBenefits
\nThere will be no direct benefits to you by participating in the study. However, we hope to learn
\ninformation that could help researchers better understand the situations of those experiencing
\nrelationship difficulties. You have other methods of obtaining the required course research credit.
\nConsult your course syllabi for this information.
\n104
\nCosts and Compensation
\nYou will be awarded one SONA research credit for your good faith participation in this study.
\nThe estimated amount of time required to complete this study is 15-30 minutes. Please be aware
\nthat you will not be able to save your responses and return to the survey at another time –
\ntherefore complete all research materials in one sitting.
\nParticipant Rights
\nYour participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may refuse to participate or end
\nyour participation at any time, without any penalty or negative consequences. In order to receive
\nyour SONA research credit, you must make a good faith effort to complete the items and reach
\nthe end of the survey. However, you have the right to not answer any questions on the survey
\nthat you do not wish to answer (simply skip the questions by using the forward arrow buttons at
\nthe bottom of each page on the Qualtrics survey).
\nConfidentiality
\nResearch records and data will be kept confidential to the extent permitted by applicable laws
\nand regulations and will not be made publicly available. However, federal government regulatory
\nagencies, auditing departments of Iowa State University, and the Institutional Review Board (a
\ncommittee that reviews and approves human subject research studies) may inspect and\/or copy
\nresearch records for quality assurance and data analysis. These records may contain private
\ninformation.
\nTo ensure confidentiality to the extent permitted by law, the following measures will be taken: 1)
\nno information that could directly identify you will be solicited; 2) no physical copies of consent
\nforms will be obtained to protect participants’ identities; 3) all research materials will be stored in
\na locked file cabinet in a locked lab; and, 4) all raw data will be kept on password protected
\ncomputers. If the results are published, your identity will remain confidential, no individual will
\nbe identified in any research report as all data will be described in aggregate form.
\nQuestions or Problems
\nYou are encouraged to ask questions at any time about this study.
\n\u2022 For further information about the study contact Amanda Buduris at abuduris@iastate.edu
\n(515.294.1742) or Dr. Loreto Prieto at lprieto@iastate.edu (515.294.2455).
\n\u2022 If you have any questions about the rights of research subjects or research-related injury,
\nplease contact the IRB Administrator, (515) 294-4566, IRB@iastate.edu, or Director,
\n(515) 294-3115, Office for Responsible Research, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
\n50011.
\n******************************************************************************
\nI. PARTICIPANT SIGNATURE
\nBy checking the \u201cYes, I agree to participate\u201d box, I am confirming that I have read and fully understood the
\ninformed consent form, that I am currently in a romantic relationship, and that I am at least 18 years of age. I
\nvoluntarily agree to participate in this study, if I have questions, the study has been fully explained to me, and I have
\nbeen given the time to read the informed consent document and understand it. By checking the \u201cNo, I do not agree
\nto participate\u201d box, you will immediately end your participation in this study. We strongly recommend that you print
\nthis form for your records.
\nYes, I agree to participate. No, I do not agree to participate.
\n105
\nAPPENDIX D. DEMOGRAPHICS & RELATIONSHIP HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE
\nInstructions: Please answer the following demographic and history questions.
\n1) Sex M____ F____ Other (please identify)
\n2) Age ____
\n3) Sexual orientation Heterosexual Bisexual Gay\/Lesbian
\nTranssexual Questioning Other (please identify)
\n4) Racial\/Cultural Affiliation
\n____ American Indian or Alaskan Native ____ Asian American
\n____ African American ____ Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
\n____ Hispanic (the best nursing writing service, a studybay for your papers) or Latino American ____ European American (White)
\n____ Middle Eastern American ____ Bi\/Multiracial\/Other
\n____ International Student
\n5) Current relationship status Single____ In a romantic relationship____
\n6) What is the sex of your current romantic relationship partner? Male Female Other
\n7) How long have you been with your current partner? ____
\n8) At what age did you have your first romantic relationship? ____
\n9) Number of romantic relationships you have been in to date (including current one) ____
\n10) Is your current romantic relationship ‘long-distance’ (your partner spends most of her\/his time
\ngeographically far from you)?
\n11) How frequently do you see your romantic partner?
\nRarely (couple times a year) Once a month
\nOnce a week Daily
\n12) How ’emotionally close’ do you feel toward your current romantic partner?
\n1 2 3 4 5
\nNot close A little Somewhat Quite Extremely
\nat all close close close close
\n13) How ’emotionally close’ do you think your current romantic partner feels toward you?
\n1 2 3 4 5
\nNot close A little Somewhat Quite Extremely
\nat all close close close close
\n106
\nAPPENDIX E. CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE TASK \u2013 EXAMPLES OF QUESTIONS
\nUSED
\nDinner is ready so everyone sits down to eat. Halfway through dinner, the doorbell rings. In
\nwalks a boy your age. Quickly walking over to your partner, he gives her a hug. Your partner
\nintroduces him as her parents’ next door neighbor whom she grew up with.
\nWhen the boy leaves, he gives your partner a new phone number and tells her to call sometime.
\nOnce you’re back in the car, do you:
\n(a) Not say anything, assuming they are just old friends.
\n(b) Tell your partner you would prefer she not call.
\nOn the way home, you ask your partner if she wants to go to dinner tomorrow night. “I already
\nhave plans to go out with my friends,” she tells you. You’ve gone out many times in the past with
\nyour partner and her friends, so you’re surprised when she lets the subject drop without inviting
\nyou.
\nDo you say:
\n(a) “Is it a girls\u2019 night out?\u201d
\n(b) “Is something wrong?”
\nYour partner tells you that the girls are just getting together to hang out and it’s no big deal. You
\ndrop your partner off and nothing more is said about the weekend.
\nThe next night, a friend calls you up and you make plans to go out. You meet up with a bunch of
\npeople at a local bar and are sitting off to the side talking when you see your partner come in
\nwith her group of friends.
\nDo you:
\n(a) Immediately go up to her to say hello.
\n(b) Stay off to the side, thinking you’ll be able to see how she acts when you’re not around.
\nNote. Participants own partners\u2019 sex was inserted into the stories. Versions were made for both
\nheterosexual and LGBT coupled partners. For each entry in this table, \u201ca\u201d indicates the
\nrelationship-enhancing choice, and \u201cb\u201d represents the choice that is detrimental to the
\nrelationship.
\n107
\nAPPENDIX F. EXPERIENCES IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIP \u2013 SHORT FORM
\nInstructions: Please use the scale below for the following items. Please respond to them as you
\nhave usually found yourself thinking, feeling, and behaving in past\/current romantic
\nrelationships. Be as honest and straightforward as you can in answering these questions.
\n1 2 3 4 5
\nCompletely Slightly Somewhat Mostly Strongly
\nDisagree Agree Agree Agree Agree
\nIt helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need.
\nI need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner.
\nI want to get close to my partner, but I keep pulling back.
\nI find that my partner doesn’t want to get as close as I would like.
\nI turn to my partner for many things, including comfort and reassurance.
\nMy desire to be very close sometimes scares partners away.
\nI try to avoid getting too close to my partner.
\nI do not often worry about being abandoned.
\nI usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner.
\nI get frustrated if romantic partners are not available when I need them.
\nI am nervous when partners get too close to me.
\nI worry that romantic partners won\u2019t care about me as much as I care about them.
\n108
\nAPPENDIX G. RELATIONSHIP-CONTINGENT SELF-ESTEEM
\nInstructions: Please use the scale below to answer the following items. Please respond to the
\nitems as you usually find yourself thinking, feeling, and behaving in your current romantic
\nrelationship. Be as honest and straightforward as you can in answering these questions.
\n1 2 3 4 5
\nNot at all Somewhat Very much
\nlike me like me like me
\nI feel better about myself when it seems like my partner and I are getting along.
\nI feel better about myself when it seems like my partner and I are emotionally connected.
\nAn important measure of my self-worth is how successful my relationship is.
\nMy feelings of self-worth are based on how well things are going in my relationship.
\nWhen my relationship is going well, I feel better about myself overall.
\nIf my relationship were to end tomorrow, I would not let it affect how I feel about myself.
\nMy self-worth is unaffected when things go wrong in my relationship.
\nWhen my partner and I fight, I feel bad about myself in general.
\nWhen my relationship is going bad, my feelings of self-worth remain unaffected.
\nI feel better about myself when others tell me that my partner and I have a good relationship.
\nWhen my partner criticizes me or seems disappointed in me, it makes me feel really bad.
\n109
\nAPPENDIX H. RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION
\nInstructions: Please answer the following questions based on your current relationship.
\nHow happy are you, all things considered, with your current relationship?
\n1 2 3 4 5
\nExtremely Somewhat Extremely
\nunhappy happy happy
\nAll in all, how satisfied are you with your current relationship?
\n1 2 3 4 5
\nNot at all Somewhat Completely
\nsatisfied satisfied satisfied<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Capstones, Theses and Dissertation Considering the Role of Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem: Attachment Style, Conflict Behaviors, and Relationship Satisfaction ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………………………………….\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10601,10596,10882,479,537,172,478,10597,10599,10595],"tags":[10524,10522,10890,10561,10883,10889,10515,10521,10696,10518,10888,10887,10886,10885,10884,10525],"class_list":["post-124709","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-assignment-help-by-uks-no-1-writing-service","category-assignment-writers-canada-university-cost","category-free-ai-english-assignment-writers-china","category-nursing-course-hero","category-nursing-essay-pro","category-nursing-study-bay","category-nursing-study-pool","category-professional-assignment-writers-usa","category-uae-1-cheap-assignment-writing-service","category-write-a-word-essay","tag-apa-citation-format-assignment","tag-assignment-writers-australia-college-student","tag-best-nursing-case-study-writing-services","tag-buy-essay-usa","tag-case-study-nursing-writing-services-for-care-plans","tag-free-nursing-case-study-writing-services","tag-help-write-a-page-assignment","tag-i-need-someone-to-do-my-assignment-within-hours","tag-need-assistance-completing-the-assignment","tag-need-to-write-an-essay","tag-nursing-case-studies-with-answers","tag-nursing-case-study-paper-example","tag-nursing-case-study-template-examples-of-case-studies-nursing","tag-pharmacology-case-study","tag-soap-note-case-study","tag-write-pages"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124709","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124709"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124709\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124709"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124709"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124709"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}