Dissertation Manuscript

Version: January 2017

© Northcentral University, 2017
 ii

Competing Attachment

Dissertation Proposal

Submitted to Northcentral University

School of MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY

in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

by

ANABELLE L BUGATTI

San Diego, California

April, 2018

ii
 iii

Abstract
Competing attachment is a relational dynamic where one partner in a romantic relationship turns

to someone or something outside of the relationship for comfort, soothing, escape or other

attachment needs. The problem addressed by this quantitative non-experimental study was that

competing attachment may threaten the security and satisfaction of romantic relationships. The

security of these bonds may be influenced by outside threats differently based on the specific

type of attachment bond. Although attachment security may predict relationship satisfaction and

stability, it was unknown whether competing attachment might predict relationship satisfaction

and whether relationship specific attachment security mediated this relationship. The purpose of

this non-experimental, quantitative study was to determine whether competing attachment

predicted relationship satisfaction and whether this relationship was mediated by relationship

specific attachment security in adult romantic relationships. Attachment theory was the guiding

framework for this study. Participants (N=151) were adults 18 and over currently in a romantic

relationship, were recruited via convenience sampling and participated by taking three self-report

questionnaire instruments online. The three instruments used were the Competing Attachment

Scale (CAS), the State Adult Attachment Measure (SAAM), and the Couples Satisfaction Index-

16 (CSI-16). A path analysis was performed to determine whether the predictive relationship and

the mediation were significant. The results of this study found an inverse relationship between

competing attachment, relationship satisfaction and relationship specific attachment security.

The implications of this study suggest that competing attachment is a threat to romantic

relationships that may influence both the security and satisfaction of the relationship. The results

of this study provide a theoretical conceptual framework through which to view competing

attachment, contributes to attachment theory, as well as provides a guide post for therapists and
iii
 iv

clinicians to use attachment based interventions in the treatment of competing attachment in

romantic relationships.

iv
 v

Acknowledgements
“I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength” –Philippians 4:13
The completion of this dissertation would not have been a success without the help of

some very important people both personally and professionally. First and foremost I want to

thank my incredible dissertation committee team, specifically my chair Dr. Lettenberger-Klein

and my Subject Matter Expert Dr. David Fawcett. Both of them provided compassion and

expertise while never letting me doubt my ability or get discouraged. They graciously understood

my anxiety and provided so much support and encouragement. I am so thankful for their support

and having them on my team. Next I would like to acknowledge my dissertation coach, who

became more of a mentor to me throughout this process, Debra Wood. She was patient with me

and taught me so much. She was truly my saving grace throughout this process and I would not

have been able to successfully write my dissertation without her help. Next I’d like to mention a

dear friend and fellow researcher Dr. Gina Ruk, who volunteered her time and expertise and

helped coach and teach me through some of the most stressful portions of my dissertation. I owe

so much gratitude to her for her help and also would not have been able to successfully complete

my work without her.

I’d also like to acknowledge Dr. Sue Johnson, the pioneer of Emotionally Focused

Therapy for her influence and inspiration throughout my journey through learning EFT. Without

her model and influence, I would have never come up with the topic for my dissertation within

the EFT arena. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Rebecca Jorgensen, a supervisor,

trainer and personal mentor in EFT who helped shape my topic idea and provided important key

information and resources, as well as helped me create the Competing Attachment Scale. I would

also like to acknowledge Dr. Rory Reid at UCLA for his guidance and help as a co-author on the

Competing Attachment Scale.

v
 vi

I would also like to mention my incredible support system of family and friends. I want

to thank my husband George for his encouragement, love and constant support. I’d also like to

thank my parents, and especially my mom for her help staying up late nights with me on the

phone scanning my dissertation for spelling and grammar errors and organizing paragraphs. She

deserves a PhD of her own. And finally, I’d like to acknowledge my long time friend Dr. Keri

Maher, who always helped encourage and motivate me towards success in reaching for the top of

the highest mountains.

vi
 vii

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................................1  
Purpose of the Study..................................................................................................................4  
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework ..........................................................................................5  
Nature of the Study....................................................................................................................8  
Hypotheses...............................................................................................................................11  
Significance of the Study.........................................................................................................11  
Summary..................................................................................................................................14  

Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................16  

Theoretical Framework............................................................................................................18  
Broken Attachment Bonds and Attachment Distress ..............................................................41  
Relationship Satisfaction .........................................................................................................67  
Summary..................................................................................................................................73  

Chapter 3: Research Method .........................................................................................................76  

Research Methodology and Design .........................................................................................77  
Population and Sample ............................................................................................................78  
Materials/Instrumentation........................................................................................................80  
Operational Definitions of Variables.......................................................................................87  
Study Procedures .....................................................................................................................89  
Data Collection and Analysis ..................................................................................................91  
Limitations...............................................................................................................................97  
Ethical Assurances...................................................................................................................99  
Summary................................................................................................................................100  

Chapter 4: Findings .....................................................................................................................102  

Descriptive Analysis..............................................................................................................122  
Validity and Reliability of the Data.......................................................................................102  
Assumption Testing...............................................................................................................107  
Testing the Path Models ........................................................................................................122  
Evaluation of Findings...........................................................................................................146  
Summary................................................................................................................................148  

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions ...................................................150  

Implications ...........................................................................................................................152  
Recommendations for Practice ..............................................................................................155  
Recommendations for Future Research.................................................................................156  
Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................158  

References ...................................................................................................................................162

Appendices ..................................................................................................................................183  
Appendix A: Competing Attachment Scale ................................................................................184  
Appendix B: State Adult Attachment Measure with Coding ......................................................186  
vii
 viii

Appendix C: Couples Satisfaction Index.....................................................................................188  

Appendix D: Northcentral University IRB Approval Letter .......................................................190  
Appendix E: Recruitment Materials ............................................................................................192  
Appendix F: Informed Consent ...................................................................................................195  

viii
 ix

List of Tables

Table 1. Reliability Analysis for the Variables............................................................................103

Table 2. Cut Scores between the CAS and the CSI-16 ................................................................106

Table 3. Anova of the Competing Attachment Scale ...................................................................106

Table 4. Correlations between Instruments.................................................................................107

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables.................................................................108

Table 6. Skewness and Kurtosis z-scores Coefficients ................................................................113

Table 7. Skewness and Kurtosis Values for the Study Variables.................................................117

Table 8. Shapiro-Wilks Test of Normality ...................................................................................121

Table 9. Pearson Correlations Between the Model Variable......................................................122

Table 10. Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variable........................................................124

Table 11. Descriptive Statistics for the Model Variables across Gender ...................................126

Table 12. Descriptive Statistics for the Model Variables across Age .........................................127

Table 13. Descriptive Statistics for the Model across Relationship Length................................127

Table 14. Descriptive Statistics for the model across Race/Ethinicity........................................128

Table 15. Descriptive Statistics for the model across Education levels ......................................128

Table 16. Descriptive Statistics for the model across Income.....................................................129

Table 17. Fit Indices and their Threshold Values .......................................................................130

Table 18. Strength of Association................................................................................................132

Table 19. Correlation Analysis between the IV and the DV........................................................133

Table 20. Fit Indices for the Path Models ...................................................................................137

Table 21. Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients for Full Mediation ...................138

Table 22. Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients for Partial Mediation ..............140
ix
 x

Table 23. Path Coefficients for Partial Mediation with Attachment Insecurity ..........................142

Table 24. Path Coefficients for Partial Mediation with Secure and Insecure Attachment .........144

Table 25. Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients for Direct Effects Model..........145

x
 xi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Scatter plot with Fit line of Relationship Satisfaction and Competing Attachment ....109

Figure 2. Scatter plot with Fit line of RS Attachment Security and Competing Attachment .....110

Figure 3. Scatter plot with Fit Line of RS Attachment Security and Competing Attachment ....111

Figure 4. Scatter plot with Fit Line of RS Attachment Insecurity and Competing Attachment. 112

Figure 5. Standardized scatterplot of Competing Attachment and RS Attachment Security......114

Figure 6. Standardized scatterplot of Competing Attachment and RS Attachment Insecurity. ..115

Figure 7. Standardized scatterplot of Competing Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction.....116

Figure 8. Normal P-P Plot for Competing Attachment and RSAttachment Security..................118

Figure 9. Normal P-P Plot for Competing Attachment and RS Attachment Insecurity ..............119

Figure 10. Normal P-P Plot for Competing Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction .............119

Figure 11. Histogram of Competing Attachment and RS Attachment Security .........................120

Figure 12. Histogram of Competing Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction ........................120

Figure 13. Coefficients for the full mediation model ..................................................................136

Figure 14. Coefficients for the partial mediation model. ...........................................................139

Figure 15. Coefficients for the partial mediation with attachment insecurity ............................141

Figure 16. Coefficients for partial mediation with attachment insecurity and attachment security

.............................................................................................................................................143

Figure 17. Standardized coefficients for the direct effects model ...............................................145

xi
 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Introduction

Researchers have demonstrated the importance of our attachment bonds with a primary

attachment figure starting from infancy and continuing throughout the entire lifespan (Bowlby,

1988; Johnson, 2013). While individual attachment styles are typically stable, there is plasticity

in adult attachment relationships (Bowlby, 2005; Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, 2016; Johnson, 2013).

For instance, threats to relationship attachment bonds can shift them from secure to insecure and

negatively influence relationship satisfaction (Dalgleish, Johnson, Moser, Lafontaine, Wiebe, &

Tasca, 2014; Greenman & Johnson, 2013). Additionally, insecure adult attachment bonds can be

reshaped so that relationships can be moved towards security with lasting effects on the health,

satisfaction and longevity of relationships (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, 2016; Gardner, 2007;

Johnson, Moser, Beckes, Dalgleish, Halchuk, & Coan, 2013). These results have profound

implications for therapeutic intervention and relationship satisfaction.

Relationship specific attachment security. Relationship specific attachment security is

the subjective evaluation of an adult romantic relationship attachment bond as either secure or

insecure, and differs from an individual’s personal attachment style in that it may be influenced

by situational factors such as addictions, affairs, or other types of competing attachments

(Burgess-Moser, Johnson, Dalgleish, Lafontaine, Wiebe & Tasca, 2015; Gillath, Hart, Noftle, &

Stockdale, 2009; Gill, 2014; Johnson, 2008). Secure relationship attachment is characterized by

stable, consistent, sensitive and reliable emotional support by those in an attachment relationship
 2

(Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016). Insecure relationship attachment can take

three forms, a preoccupation with rejection or abandonment (anxious attachment), an avoidance

of bonding closely (avoidant attachment), or a vacillation between both anxious and avoidant

attachment styles (disorganized attachment) in a way that is usually associated with trauma,

neglect or abuse (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013; Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 2008).

When the security of romantic relationship bond is threatened, the bond has the potential to be

redefined as insecure and satisfaction decreases (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, 2016; Dalton,

Greeman, Classen, & Johnson, 2013; Johnson, 2013; Shaver & Hazen, 1993).

Competing attachment. Competing attachment is a specific type of threat to romantic

attachment bond in which one partner or spouse turns outside of the marriage or relationship to

something or someone else for escape, soothing, comfort, and or attention to substitute unmet

attachment needs (Furrow, Johnson, & Bradley, 2015; Gill, 2014; Johnson, 2008). It constitutes a

counterfeit attachment, and can include but is not limited to addictions, affairs, game systems,

smart phones, and family members; any of which can lead a spouse or partner to need to compete

with this “other” for the attachment bond with their partner (Flores, 2004; Furrow et al., 2011;

Reed, Tolman & Safyer, 2015). Competing attachment threatens the security of the attachment

bond even in couples that would consider themselves securely attached, making it difficult to

feel satisfied in a relationship as the bond becomes insecure and unstable (Cassidy & Shaver,

1999, 2016; Diamond, Brimall & Elliot, 2017; Johnson & Greenman, 2013; Sadikaj, Moskowitz,

& Zuroff, 2015).

 3

Relationship satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction is a multifaceted evaluation of

relationships or one’s partner in which the positive features are more salient and the negative

features are relatively absent or minor (Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000). This evaluation

may fluctuate over time (Diamond et al., 2017). Factors that contribute to the fluctuation in

relationship satisfaction could include but are not limited to conflict resolution patterns,

emotional availability, communication patterns, and attachment security (Bradbury et al., 2000;

Dalgleish et al., 2014; Fincham & Beach, 2010; Proulx, Helms, & Buehler, 2007; Rauer, Karney,

Garvan & Hou, 2008).

Self-reports of security in romantic relationships demonstrate that attachment security is

correlated with higher levels of relationship satisfaction (Mondor, Mcduff, Lussier, & Wright,

2011; Sadikaj et al., 2015). Competing attachment is one of the growing number of identified

threats that may negatively impact relationship security and satisfaction (Furrow et al., 2011;

Gill, 2014; Reid & Woolley, 2006). However, a search of the literature did not reveal findings

related to the influences of competing attachment specifically, on romantic relationship specific

attachment security and satisfaction.

Statement of the Problem

The problem addressed by this study was that competing attachment may threaten the

security and satisfaction of romantic relationships (Furrow et al., 2011; Johnson, 2008; Reed et

al., 2015; Reid & Woolley, 2006). Evidence supports the hypothesis that competing attachment

can have negative effects on the security of the attachment bond within a relationship (Cassidy &
 4

Shaver, 1999, 2016; Gardner, 2007; Mondor et al., 2011; Sadikaj et al., 2015). Lower

relationship satisfaction can lead to an increase in relational conflict, and or broken relationships

and marriages (Proulx et al., 2007; Rauer et al., 2008; Sadikaj et al., 2015; Sbarra, Hasselmo &

Nojopranoto, 2012). Previous attachment research has explored the symptoms of competing

attachment such as affairs or addictions (Flores, 2004; Johnson, 2008; Johnson et al., 2013; Reed

et al., 2015), but the relationship between competing attachment, romantic relationship specific

attachment security and satisfaction had yet to be explored. Insecure attachment has been linked

to lower levels of self-esteem, psychological, emotional, and physical health, and lower levels of

relationship satisfaction (Diamond et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2013; Kautzman-East, Simpson, &

Kress, 2013; MacIntosh & Johnson, 2008; Raque-Bogdan, Ericson, Jackson, Martin & Bryan,

2011; Sbarra et al., 2012).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this non-experimental, quantitative study was to determine whether

competing attachment predicts relationship satisfaction, and whether this relationship is mediated

by relationship specific attachment security. Attachment security is a strong predictor of

relationship satisfaction and success (Diamond et al., 2017; Gardner, 2007; Johnson 2013).

However, it was unknown whether competing attachment predicts relationship satisfaction and

whether the relationship was mediated by relationship specific attachment security. The predictor

variable was competing attachment; the criterion variable was relationship satisfaction and the

mediating variable was relationship specific attachment security. A path analysis was used to test
 5

the relationship between these variables (Creswell, 2014; Pelham & Blanton, 2013). Valid and

reliable instruments were used to measure the constructs, and were in survey questionnaire

format, which were accessible to study participants online through a secure data platform called

Psychdata. Competing attachment was measured using the Competing Attachment Scale (CAS;

Bugatti, Reid, & Jorgensen, 2015) see Appendix A, relationship satisfaction was measured using

the Couples Satisfaction Index-16 (CSI-16; Funk & Rogge, 2007) see Appendix B, and

relationship specific attachment security were measured using the State Adult Attachment

Measure (SAAM; Gillath et al., 2009) see Appendix C. The target population examined in this

study was adults (18 and over) in romantic relationships. The sample consisted of approximately

151 participants. Participants were recruited online using social media platforms, email

announcements, and therapy directories and list serves (e.g. emotionally focused therapy list

serve). Statistical power for the minimum sample size 100 was calculated through a power

analysis, in which the effect size was 0.35, α err prob: 0.001, which yielded sufficient power (1-β

err prob): 0.99 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang & Buchner, 2007).

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

The basic premise of attachment theory is that attachment, or bonding, is a connection

between one person and a primary attachment figure and the quality of this bond plays a vital

role in psychological and emotional development over the course of one’s lifespan (Bowlby,

1988; 2005; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Maunder & Hunter, 2008). If this bond is unstable either

through lack of consistency, abuse or neglect, a profound and dangerous effect on the
 6

relationship may occur (Bowlby, 1988; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Schore, 2001; 2010).

Attachment styles are a set of behavioral coping strategies used in the presence of threats to the

security of an attachment bond or disconnection from a primary attachment figure used to seek

or restore the connection to the attachment bond (Bowlby, 1988; Bowlby & Ainsworth, 1992;

Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, 2016; Johnson, 2004). While attachment styles may remain stable

throughout the lifespan, the definition of an attachment bond as either secure or insecure may

fluctuate depending on situational factors (Bowlby, 2005; Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Cassidy &

Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013).

Some of the main tenants of attachment theory state that humans are driven to be near the

people they are attached to; that a close and secure attachment bond is our strongest guarantee of

survival (Bowlby, 2005; Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, 2016; Johnson, 2013; Johnson & Greenman,

2013). Primary attachment figures provide an emotional secure base from which one can explore

the world around them, as well as a safe haven for one to return back to in times of trouble or

distress for comfort and safety in the face of threat, fear or danger (Bowlby, 2005; Cassidy &

Shaver, 2016; Johnson et al., 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Finally, in attachment

relationships, anxiety or stress occurs in the physical or emotional absence of attachment figures

(Bowlby, 2005), and complete emotional cut-off, rejection or isolation is the ultimate

traumatizing human experience (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, 2016; Mikulincer, Gillath & Shaver,

2002). These experiences can redefine an attachment bond as either secure or insecure (Burgess-

Moser et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2013).

 7

Studies on adult attachment have found that adults have the same innate drive to seek and

maintain attachment bonds with close significant others, and these bonds influence and organize

internal working models of the self and other in close relationships (Johnson & Greenman, 2013;

Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On & Sahdra, 2014; Wu, 2009). Emotional disconnection and threats to

secure bonding result in attachment distress both in childhood and adult romantic relationships

(Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; 2016; Mikulincer et al., 2014). Secure attachment bonds with a close

other help regulate intense emotions during emotional distress (Dalgleish et al., 2014;

Mikulincer, Shaver & Pereg, 2003). Couples with secure attachment bonds provide reciprocal

support and care for each other that help regulate moments of emotional distress or disconnection

during moments of need (Dalgleish et al., 2014; Denton, Wittenborn, & Golden, 2012;

Mikulincer, Shaver, & Horesh, 2006; Naaman, Johnson & Radwan, 2008). Insecure attachment

results from inconsistent or unreliable care-giving or lack of emotional responsiveness (Bowlby,

1988; Bolwby & Ainsworth, 1992; Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; 2016; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

This can lead to anxious and hyper-activated or avoidant de-activated attachment behaviors

(Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, 2016; Dalgleish et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2013; Mikulincer &

Shaver, 2016). Emotional threats to relationships, such as competing attachments, may have

negative effects on the security of attachment bonds as well as relationship satisfaction (Cassidy

& Shaver, 1999, 2016; Gardner, 2007; Mondor et al., 2011; Sadikaj et al., 2015). Evidence

suggests that attachment bonds can shift from secure to insecure, which has an impact on

relationship satisfaction (Ahmadi, Zarei, & Fallahchai, 2014; Burgess-Moser et al., 2015;
 8

Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, 2016; Dalgleish et al., 2014; Gardner, 2007; Mondor et al., 2011;

Wiebe, Johnson, Lafontaine, Moser, Dalgleish, & Tasca, 2016).

Nature of the Study

This research study involved a quantitative, non-experimental approach to exploring the

relationship between competing attachment, relationship specific attachment security, and

relationship satisfaction. Quantitative research designs are used to explore relationships between

variables, and to express these relationships in numeric form, which was the aim of this study

(Creswell, 2014; Pelham & Blanton, 2013). The current study used data from assessment scales

to explore numeric relationships.

There was no independent variable in this study that could have been manipulated,

making an experimental design not possible. The ethical limitations and infeasibility of using

random assignment to assign sample participants to groups required the use of a non-

experimental design (Creswell, 2014). It was impossible to randomly assign participants to

groups based on the variables being measured (Campbell & Stanley, 2015). Participants could

not be randomly assigned to secure attachment or insecure attachment groups, nor could they be

randomly assigned to competing attachment. The quantitative research design for this study

emphasized testing and verification, collected quantifiable data from study participants, and

asked specific, close ended, narrow questions (Campbell & Stanley, 2015; Creswell, 2014;

Pelham & Blanton, 2013). The instruments used to collect data for this study, the Couples

Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk & Rogge, 2007), State Adult Attachment Measure (SAAM;
 9

Gillath et al., 2009), and the Competing Attachment Scale (CAS; Bugatti et al., 2015), when

examined through data analysis, provided quantifiable outcome data that identified either a

positive or negative correlation, or no relationship at all. However, correlation studies do not

imply that one variable causes the other (Creswell, 2014; Pelham & Blanton, 2013). The data

analysis of this study determined what the relationship is between competing attachment,

relationship specific attachment security, and relationship satisfaction.

Computer based survey questionnaires were used to collect data on competing

attachment, relationship specific attachment security and relationship satisfaction. These

questionnaires were completed online through a website called Survey Monkey, with Likert

scale responses. Electronic surveys were a good fit for the study because the measurements did

not require direct observation, saved time and money, and offered the ability to collect a

response from a broader sample pool (Creswell, 2014; Pelham & Blanton, 2013). The survey

results yielded quantitative data regarding competing attachment and its relationship-to-

relationship satisfaction and relationship specific attachment security. A sample size of

approximately 100 participants was needed for this study. Sufficient statistical power to support

the sample size was attained through a power analysis, setting the parameters for a regression

analysis with an effect size of 0.35, α err prob: 0.001, which yielded sufficient power (1-β err

prob): 0.99 (Faul et al., 2007). The population was adult individuals (18 and over), who were

currently in a romantic attachment relationship. Convenience sampling through an online

platform as well as a wide range of participant recruitment strategies were used to collect
 10

samples from a diverse population. The collection of demographic information such as gender,

race, ethnicity, and age helped document the diversity of sample participants, helping to validate

the generalizability of the study results (Creswell, 2014; Pelham & Blanton, 2013).

Research Questions

Previous studies support the hypothesis that there is a relationship between competing

attachment, relationship specific attachment security and relationship satisfaction (Gardner,

2007; Johnson et al., 2013; Mondor et al., 2011). This study examined the following research

question, and used a path analysis to examine the relationship between the variables competing

attachment (predictor variable), the mediating variable relationship specific attachment security

and the dependent variable relationship satisfaction.

RQ1. What is the relationship between competing attachment, relationship specific

attachment security, and relationship satisfaction?

RQ1a. What is the relationship between competing attachment and relationship specific

attachment security?

RQ1b: What is the relationship between competing attachment and relationship

satisfaction?

RQ2. Does relationship specific attachment security mediate the relationship between

competing attachment and relationship satisfaction?

 11

Hypotheses

H10. There is no relationship between competing attachment, relationship specific

attachment security, and relationship satisfaction.

H1a. There is a relationship between competing attachment, relationship specific

attachment security, and relationship satisfaction

H1a0. Competing attachment will not predict relationship specific attachment security

H1aa. Competing attachment will predict relationship attachment security

H1b0. Competing attachment will not predict relationship satisfaction

H1ba. Competing attachment will predict relationship satisfaction

H20. Relationship specific attachment security will not mediate the relationship between

competing attachment and relationship satisfaction.

H2a. Relationship specific attachment security will mediate the relationship between

competing attachment and relationship satisfaction.

Significance of the Study

The outcome of this study expanded knowledge of competing attachment and whether it

predicts relationship satisfaction, as well as whether relationship specific attachment security

mediated this relationship, filling a gap in this area of research on romantic attachment distress

(Johnson, 2008). The goal of this study was to better understand the relationship between these

variables, and to formally define and operationalize the term competing attachment. Clarifying

the relationship among these variables was important because competing attachment may
 12

damage relationships and understanding its influence may help clinicians support relationship

health and satisfaction (Dalgleish et al., 2014; Flores, 2004; Furrow et al., 2011; Reed et al.,

2015). Additionally, researching attachment security and distress in couple relationships provides

valuable systemic information vital for clinical application (Cassidy, Jones & Shaver, 2013;

Greenman & Johnson, 2013). Formally identifying sources of attachment distress in adult love

relationships may help clinicians formulate effective and appropriate interventions for couples.

When couples and therapists understand what the sources of attachment distress are and the

effect it can have on the stability and happiness of romantic relationships, it can lead to

intervention and positive change, which can reshape the romantic attachment bond from insecure

to secure (Ahmadi et al., 2014; Halchuk, Makinen & Johnson, 2010; Johnson, 2013). This study

helped empirically support and expand the framework of attachment theory in the context of

adult romantic relationships. It also formally defined and operationalized the term competing

attachment. In an effort to inform therapists about competing attachment and how it might be

linked to relationship satisfaction, this study examined the relationship between competing

attachment, romantic relationship specific attachment security, and relationship satisfaction.

Definitions of Key Terms

Attachment. Attachment can be defined as a lasting and enduring bond or connection

with a primary attachment figure or lover (Bowlby, 1988; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson,

2013, Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

 13

Adult Attachment. Adult attachment can be defined as a lasting and enduring bond with

a romantic other or friend (Johnson, 2013).

Attachment Distress. Attachment distress can be defined as a sense of panic, anxiety, or

distress one experiences when the loss of their primary attachment relationship, whether this loss

is real or perceived (Bowlby & Ainsworth, 1992; Johnson, 2013; Tronick & Beeghly, 2011).

Competing attachment. Competing attachment can be defined as anything a person

turns to outside of their primary attachment relationship, instead of their primary attachment

figure or romantic other, to get their emotional or attachment needs met. This creates a sense of

competition between the primary attachment figure and that which their person is turning out to

(Flores, 2004; Gill, 2014; Johnson, 2008; Reid & Woolley, 2006; Woolley, 2015).

Insecure attachment. Insecure attachment can be defined as hesitation, fear, anxiety, or

discomfort in getting emotionally close with others, allowing others to be emotionally close with

them, and may also be defined by a preoccupation (anxious attachment) with being rejected or

abandoned by others, resulting in clinging onto, or avoidance of (avoidant attachment) bonding

closely with others (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013).

Relationship/Marital Satisfaction. Relationship or marital satisfaction can be defined as

a relationship where the perceived benefits of a relationship outweigh the costs, resulting in a

secure bond that is experienced as positive and satisfying (Bradbury et al., 2000; Fincham &

Beach, 2010; Proulx et al., 2007; Rauer et al., 2008).

 14

Relationship Specific Attachment. The characterization of a primary romantic

attachment bond as either insecure or secure, which is differentiated from an individual’s

personal attachment style (Greenman & Johnson, 2013; Johnson et al., 2013; Wiebe et al., 2016).

Secure attachment. Secure attachment can be defined as the ability to easily become

emotionally close to others, to depend on others and be depended on by others, in addition to a

lack of worry about being alone or not being accepted by others (Bowlby, 1988; 2005; Bowlby

& Ainsworth, 1992; Johnson, 2013).

Summary

When romantic attachment bonds become unstable and insecure, they become distressed,

which can have a lasting impact on relationship health and satisfaction, as well as physical and

emotional health (Cassidy et al., 2013; Greenman & Johnson, 2013; Johnson, 2013). To date,

research suggests that secure attachment helps people feel more capable and resilient in facing

whatever challenges may come their way or in facing the stresses of everyday life (Burgess-

Moser et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2013). Secure attachment helps people maintain higher states

of psychological well-being, and enjoy deeper and more satisfying relationships with others

(Cassidy et al., 2013; Greenman & Johnson, 2013; Johnson, 2013). Competing attachment is an

escape one partner or spouse turns to instead of their partner or spouse to get their physical,

emotional and or attachment needs met (Gill, 2014; Johnson, 2008; Reid & Woolley, 2006;

Woolley, 2015). This creates a dynamic where the spouse or partner feels shut out, as if they are

competing with whatever their spouse/partner is turning to, for the attachment bond with their
 15

spouse/partner (Johnson, 2013; Woolley, 2015). Understanding the dynamics of competing

attachment is important to expanding our knowledge of adult attachment distress and how it may

impact relationship specific attachment security, and relationship satisfaction. Helping couples to

remove obstacles to secure bonding and helping the relationship bond shift from insecure to

secure can improve relationship satisfaction and psychological well-being (Diamond et al., 2017;

Johnson et al., 2013; MacIntosh & Johnson, 2008).

Decades of research on adult attachment has helped expand important knowledge in the

area of romantic attachment bonds, but continued research into what may cause attachment

distress, how to create secure attachment, and improve relationship satisfaction becomes

imperative to keep up with societies that are continually growing, changing and evolving.

Additional evidence can help the more clinicians can expand and update their knowledge in

order to provide the most effective methods for helping couples repair their relationships and

create satisfying, secure bonds that are everlasting (Cassidy et al., 2013; Greenman & Johnson,

2013; Johnson, 2013). The outcome of this research helped provide a better understanding of

competing attachment, relationship specific attachment security, and relationship/marital

satisfaction in order to effectively help romantic attachment bonds in distress.

 16

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The purpose of this non-experimental, quantitative study was to examine the relationship

between threats to attachment bonds, specifically competing attachments, and the influence these

threats may have on the security of romantic attachment bonds and relationship satisfaction

(Furrow et al., 2011; Gill, 2014; Johnson, 2008; Reed et al., 2015). Evidence supports the

hypothesis that competing attachment may have negative effects on the security of a romantic

attachment bond and relationship satisfaction (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, 2016; Gardner, 2007;

Mondor et al., 2011; Sadikaj et al., 2015). There is a demonstrated interaction between

relationship specific attachment security and relationship satisfaction (Diamond et al., 2017;

Gallerová & Halama, 2016; Gardner, 2007). Relationship satisfaction is correlated with

relationship stability and success over time (Shafer, Jensen, & Larson, 2014). However, an

extensive search of literature concerning attachment has revealed a gap in knowledge as to

whether there are direct links in the relationships among these three variables. Understanding the

relationships among these variables is important to finding effective methods of helping couples

potentially minimize threats to the security and satisfaction of their romantic attachment

relationships.

This chapter presents an overview of attachment theory, including the main tenets of the

original theory. The evolution and expansion of attachment theory to adults is discussed followed

by the application of attachment theory to adult romantic relationships. This chapter also

contains a review of research on the following topics: attachment processes in adult romantic
 17

relationships, the security of romantic attachment bonds, relationship attachment distress,

competing attachments as threats to romantic attachment security, and a link between certain

types of competing attachment, relationship specific attachment security and relationship

satisfaction. This literature review focuses on competing attachment, relationship specific

attachment security, and relationship satisfaction in the context of attachment theory.

Documentation

The following search terms were used independently and in combination with one

another for the literature search: competing attachment, attachment distress and disruption,

threats to attachment security, attachment security, insecure attachment, relationship specific

attachment security, attachment security and relationship satisfaction, relationship satisfaction,

threats to romantic relationships, relationship threats, threats to adult pair-bonding, divorce,

attachment and health, neurobiology of attachment, addiction and attachment, pornography and

attachment, intrusive family bonds, relationship rivals, romantic rivalry, romantic competitors,

intrusion and attachment, infidelity, affairs, attachment injuries, attachment and relationship

satisfaction, insecure attachment and relationship dissatisfaction, divorce and relationship

satisfaction, relationship dissatisfaction, predictors of relationship satisfaction, trust, attachment

and trust. The following databases were used to conduct a search of literature: Psychinfo, Sage,

Ebscohost, Research gate, ProQuestion Dissertation and Theses database, and Google scholar.
 18

Theoretical Framework

Attachment theory provides a comprehensive account for understanding why humans

seek and maintain close emotional bonds with others, and why these bonds are so important over

the lifespan (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016). Empirical examination of attachment theory has

demonstrated that attachment and bonding are vital to the human condition (Bowlby, 2005;

Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Before discussing the main assumptions of

attachment theory, it is important to examine the key terms associated with the attachment

theory.

Attachment is defined as an enduring emotional bond to another across time and distance

(Bowlby, 1988; 2005; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016). These bonds are created through specific

behavioral strategies that an individual uses to either seek or avoid attachment with others, which

are known as a person’s attachment style (Bowlby, 1988; 2005; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016). The

most significant other with whom one forms a bond is called a primary attachment figure

(Bowlby, 1988; 2005; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). In order for an

attachment bond to be characterized as secure, a primary attachment figure must be reliably

emotionally accessible, responsive and engaged in the relationship, especially during moments of

high need (Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). In the absence this primary attachment

figure the person can experience distress, known as separation anxiety (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016;

Johnson, 2013). Therefore, an insecure attachment bond can be defined as an unstable emotional

bond in which a primary attachment figure is physically or emotionally inaccessible, and

 19

unreliably responsive or disengaged from the relationship, especially during moments of high

need (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Insecure attachment is

characterized as either anxious, defined as a consistent fear of rejection and abandonment by

others, or avoidant, which is defined as discomfort and avoidance of emotional closeness with

others (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). The security of an attachment

bond directly influences our view of self, also known as self-esteem, or perception of self as

worthy or deserving of love and comfort (Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). These

concepts are essential because they are central to attachment literature, and form the basis for the

core assumptions of attachment theory.

The body of research and literature on attachment has identified several core assumptions

central to attachment theory. The major assumptions of attachment theory include: (A) bonding

to a close other is a universal survival mechanism of all humans (Bowlby, 2005; Cassidy &

Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016), (B) Attachment bonds emotionally

function as a secure base and safe haven (Greenman & Johnson, 2013), (C) Attachment bonds

shape view of self and self-other in the world (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013;

Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016), (D) The lack of a secure attachment bond creates insecure

attachment and can have negative effects on physical and emotional development (Bolwby,

1988; 2005), (E) Attachment shapes emotional experiences and how emotions are regulated

(Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson & Greenman, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016), (F)

Strategies or individual styles for getting emotional needs met are formed during childhood, and
 20

may remain stable throughout one’s lifespan (Bowlby, 1988; Bowlby & Ainsworth, 1992;

Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013), (G) In attachment relationships, dependency and

autonomy are two sides of the same coin (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Greenman & Johnson, 2013;

Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016), (H) In attachment relationships, anxiety or stress occurs in the

absence of attachment figures (Bowlby, 2005), and complete emotional cut-off, rejection or

isolation is the ultimate traumatizing human experience (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson,

2013; Mikulincer, Gillath & Shaver, 2002), (I) The quality of these experiences can define or

redefine an attachment bond as either secure or insecure (Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Johnson et

al., 2013; Wiebe, Johnson, Burgess-Moser, Dalgleish, Lafontaine, & Tasca, 2016), (J) These

tenets are true in both child and adult relationships (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Greenman &

Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Expanding upon these assumptions, attachment theory states that humans are driven to be

near the people with whom they are attached and that a close and secure attachment bond is our

strongest guarantee of survival (Bowlby, 2005; Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; 2016; Johnson, 2013;

Johnson & Greenman, 2013). Primary attachment figures play an important role in one’s life by

providing an emotional secure base from which one can explore the world around them, as well

as a safe haven for one to return back to in times of trouble or distress for comfort and safety in

the face of threat, fear or danger (Bowlby, 2005; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson et al., 2013,

Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). It is the emotional responsiveness and accessibility of a primary

attachment figure that helps one regulate emotions in times of distress (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016;
 21

Dalgleish et al., 2014; Mikulincer et al., 2003). Thus, independence, the ability to function

autonomously in the world, is developed through secure attachment. Secure dependency is a

healthy function of secure attachment, and it is this security that enables autonomy (Bowlby,

2005; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013). While attachment strategies or styles may

remain stable throughout the lifespan, the definition of an attachment bond as either secure or

insecure may fluctuate depending on situational factors and the specific relationship (Bowlby,

2005; Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013; Wiebe et al., 2016).

These tenants of attachment theory have been demonstrated to be true for attachment

relationships across many different cultures and the entire lifespan (Bowlby, 2005; Cassidy &

Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Attachment theory has been modified and expanded as limitations of early research were

explored, and gaps in understanding were found (Hazen & Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer & Shaver,

2016). Validations of attachment theory were initially limited to child psychology, and

subsequently, results have suggested the importance of attachment adulthood (Bowlby, 1988;

Cassidy & Shaver, 2016). Adult attachment theory was not empirically comprehensive or

validated until researchers began to explore and expand attachment processes in adulthood,

developing a theory of adult attachment. Romantic love was later conceptualized under the

framework of attachment theory and processes (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, 2016; Hazen & Shaver,

1987). Outcomes of research have revealed similar patterns and processes of attachment in

adulthood, demonstrating the appropriate use of attachment theory for examining adult
 22

relationships (Cassidy & Shaver; 2016; Greenman & Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver,

2016).

History of attachment theory. The origins of attachment theory grew out of the

scientific inquiry into the mind and mental health. Freud, one of the first physicians to research

mental health, reasoned that attachment with a caregiver or loved one played a vital role in

human development (see Bowlby, 1988; 2005). Though Freud’s work is considered controversial

(Fongay & Campbell, 2015), he was one of the first to insist that the roots of a person’s mental

health are connected to infancy and early childhood development (Bowlby, 1988; 2005; Fongay

& Campbell, 2015). Early research explored the connection between early childhood experiences

and the structure and function of adult personality (Bowlby, 1988; 2005; Bowlby & Ainsworth,

1992; Harris, 1998). Freud’s initial formulations about the importance of infancy and childhood

experiences in the structure of psychological health as adults was initially dismissed by the

psychiatric community citing a lack of evidence to prove this foundation (Bowlby, 2005; Fongay

& Campbell, 2015). However, these early inquiries paved the way for further research and the

development of what is now known as attachment theory.

Erik Erikson was another theorist whose own work validated the effect of secure

attachment bonds (Erikson, 1964). Erikson’s theory of development over the lifespan also

proposed that the security or “trust” built during the first years of life serve as the foundation and

blue prints to all other relationships and stages of development over the course of one’s life. It

also means that if one does not development “trust”, they develop “mistrust”, which is
 23

theoretically the same concept as secure and insecure attachment (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016;

Erikson, 1964). Even early work by Freud discussed the vulnerability of infants in relation to

their survival being dependent on a caregiver for all of their needs (Freud, Strachey, Freud, &

Rothgeb, 1948). If an infant does not get their needs met; if they were cut off too early, or over-

indulged, a child might become stuck, or development basically becomes halted and frozen in

that developmental stage and the repercussions would echo into adulthood in the form of

psychological fixation or disorders (Freud et al., 1948; Schore, 2001; 2010).

Attachment processes from birth to adulthood. According to attachment theory, the

attachment system in early life functions to protect an infant from harm by keeping them close to

their primary caregiver, leading them to seek contact and proximity when experiencing a

potentially dangerous or threatening situation (Bowlby, 2005). Most primary attachment figures

in childhood constitute a parent, guardian or primary caregiver (Bowlby, 1988; Cassidy &

Shaver, 2016). Comfort and contact with their primary attachment figure is key to helping infants

regulate feelings of distress (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016). Distress drives one towards an attachment

figure who will provide them with a safe haven, a felt sense of security and comfort and relieving

emotional distress (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). If one has a secure

attachment figure and consistent care giving during early childhood, they are likely to view the

world and others in it as safe and trustworthy, and themselves as loveable and worthy of care

(Bowlby, 1988; 2005; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Erikson, 1964, Johnson, 2013).
 24

Mary Ainsworth’s experiment known as the ‘strange situation’ demonstrated that anxiety

or stress occurs in the absence of attachment figures (Ainsworth, 1991; Bowlby, 2005;

Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Additionally, complete emotional cut-off, rejection or isolation is

the ultimate traumatizing human experience (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013; Johnson et

al., 2013; Mikulincer et al., 2002). If the bond with a primary attachment figure is unstable either

through lack of consistency, abuse or neglect, a profound and dangerous effect on the individual

may occur. Early observations of attachment in neglected children uncovered that a child’s

physical and mental development may become halted or arrested, regressed, and prolonged cut-

off or abuse during infancy may even result in death (Bowlby, 1988; 2005; Cassidy & Shaver,

2016; Schore, 2001; 2010). Additionally, the bond with a primary attachment figure plays a

primary role in developing one’s internal working models of themselves in relation to important

others in the world (Greenman & Johnson 2013; Johnson, 2013; Johnson et al., 2013; Johnson &

Greenman, 2013; Wu, 2009).

The process of attaching to a primary attachment figure includes learning what behaviors

invoke attachment responses in the other to get needs met. The way to engage contact, comfort

and connection with a specific person is unique, based on the dynamics of the relationship and

human behavior (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013). This process can be shaped, as the

person learns through the responses of the other (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013;

Tronick & Beeghly, 2011). The behavioral patterns that succeed in engaging contact and

connection from the primary attachment figure may become that person’s lifelong attachment
 25

mode or strategy (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016). As a child, this process serves as the blueprint for

relatedness with others throughout their lifespan. Distress may occur when primary attachment

strategies do not succeed in engaging or evoking a caring response from an attachment figure

(Bowlby, 2005; Johnson, 2013; Main, 2000; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Researchers have

demonstrated that these tenants are true in both child and adult relationships (Bowlby, 2005;

Johnson, 2013; Main, 2000; Mikulincer, Shaver & Pereg, 2003).

Adult attachment processes and romantic love. Expanding and validating Bowlby’s

theoretical premise in adulthood, Hazen and Shaver (1987) were the first to propose that

attachment bonds and processes in adult romantic relationships resembled those between infants

and their primary caregivers (Shaver & Hazen, 1993). While adults have a variety of

relationships (such as family members, children, friends) that can serve attachment functions,

Hazen and Shaver (1987) explicitly examined attachment processes in romantic relationships

because romantic partners are often primary attachment figures for adults (Mikulincer & Shaver,

2016; Shaver & Hazen, 1993). What researchers discovered is that adults follow similar

normative attachment patterns proposed by Bowlby, such as seeking and maintaining close

attachment bonds with a primary attachment figure, usually in the form of a romantic other

(Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Researchers have demonstrated that the significance of an attachment bond with a

romantic partner become as important to an individual as the primary care giver to an infant

(Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). However, adult romantic relationships
 26

differ from parent-child relationships in three ways: First, adult romantic relationships are more

representational, meaning they are more easily able to carry around mental representations of

their loved one and access it for soothing and comfort during times of stress, whereas the

younger the child, the higher the need for a tangible attachment figure for comfort (Mikulincer et

al., 2014; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Second, adult romantic relationships are sexual. Sexual

behavior is viewed as an attachment behavior because it is an intimate expression of attachment

needs, and a form of proximity seeking behavior that can deepen the emotional bond between

two people (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Additionally, oxytocin, a bonding hormone, is released

in both male and female adults during intimate behavior together (Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer &

Shaver, 2016). Third, adult relationships are reciprocal, whereas a parent is expected to take the

lead in a parent-child relationship (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). While

these differences exist, attachment processes in both child and adulthood share the same

universal principals of attachment theory (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer &

Shaver, 2016). The differences can be accounted for in the expansive nature of attachment

relationships in adulthood, and the larger variety of attachment relationships experienced in

adulthood.

Research on adult attachment has demonstrated that the security of attachment

relationships in adulthood influences how individuals view themselves and others, as well as the

perceived stability of their primary love relationship (Ahmadi et al., 2014; Johnson, 2013;

Johnson & Greenman, 2013; Mikulincer et. al, 2014). Similarly to childhood, adults have a
 27

general working model of self, but they differ in that they also have relationship specific working

models of attachment that are mental representations of their attachment figures that guide how

they respond to and interact with each other in a variety of different relationships (Mikulincer &

Shaver, 2016). Furthermore, as attachment processes and internal working models of the self and

important others are shaped during childhood, adults differ individually in their attachment

strategies based on their experiences with their first primary attachment figure. If an adult

experienced consistent caring (secure attachment) from their primary attachment figures during

childhood, they are likely to view romantic partners as safe and trustworthy (Cassidy & Shaver,

2016; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Adults with secure attachment experiences are also more

likely to associate positive feelings and experiences with relationships and bonding closely to a

romantic partner (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Those who experienced inconsistent or

unavailable care giving from their childhood primary attachment figures, may either approach or

avoid relationships out of insecurities based on the perceived unreliability of romantic others to

care for their emotional needs (Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Early research on attachment distress demonstrated that separation from a loved one can

be distressing and that our internal working model of self and other moderates this distress

(Bowlby, 2005; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Greenman & Johnson, 2013). In adult romantic

relationships, this separation is not always physical separation, but emotional separation, which

can result in attachment insecurity (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Emotional separation may be even more distressing for adults, especially when it occurs while a
 28

couple may be physically close, living under the same roof (Johnson, 2013). Attachment

insecurity in adults has been typically conceptualized and measured across two main dimensions:

attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Mikulincer & Shaver,

2016).

Research has further shown that attachment anxiety has a similar manifestation in both

adulthood and childhood: a fearful preoccupation with the possibility of rejection and

abandonment by their primary attachment figure (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Mikulincer & Shaver,

2016). Anxious attachment in adults is associated with hyper-activation of attachment strategies

that lead these individuals to become highly vigilant for signs of relational threats or problems,

quick and strong reactivity to signs of relational threats, proximity seeking strategies in the face

of threat (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Insecurely attached individuals with anxious attachment

styles may either anxiously and excessively pursue romantic partners, constantly fearing loss,

rejection or abandonment by their partner (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Similarly, adults with

attachment avoidance will have attachment styles characterized by a fear of intimacy and

discomfort with closeness, which is usually also as a protective defense against loss or hurt

(Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). These individuals avoid relationships

and closely bonding with others in an effort to avoid the pain that results from anticipated loss,

rejection or abandonment by a romantic partner (Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Attachment avoidance, particularly at high levels, is associated with the deactivation of the

attachment system through attempts to increase distance from an attachment figure or romantic
 29

partner. Attachment avoidance is also associated with an increase in need for control and self-

reliance, and a suppression of thoughts or memories that may be distressing (Cater, Zeigler-Hill

& Besser, 2016; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Individuals with high attachment avoidance may

have an expectation that suppressing feelings of neediness or vulnerability is a better outcome

that leads to less distress. However, individual attachment insecurity does not prohibit

individuals from forming a relationship that is securely attached (Wiebe et al., 2016).

Researchers have demonstrated a relationship between attachment significance and how

the brain processes and experiences the presence of real or perceived danger in adult romantic

relationships (Johnson et al., 2013). While conducting studies examining couples of varying

attachment styles and attachment qualities, participants were told they would receive a light

shock to their ankles while holding the hand of their romantic partner, or a stranger during an

fMRI brain scan to capture how the brain processes and experiences potential threats in both

secure and distressed relationships (Johnson, 2013; Soltani, Molazadeh, Mahmoodi & Hosseini,

2013). This particular study examined the relationship between the brain and attachment security

and how these processes are related and shaped by using emotionally focused therapy, an

attachment based model of therapy aimed at reshaping a couple’s attachment bond from insecure

to secure (Johnson, 2013; Soltani et al., 2013). These brain scans were conducted on couples

both before and after receiving therapy to capture how the brain might process, code and

experience potentially threatening situations differently as the attachment bond is reshaped

(Ahmadi et al., 2014; Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Johnson et al, 2013; Soltani et al., 2013).
 30

Neurological data collected from this study reveal that those with insecure attachment bonds

were more likely to neurologically experience and code the shocks, real or perceived as painful

and threatening, while those who reported secure attachment bonds neurologically did not

experience the same threats as intensely (Ahmadi et al., 2014; Johnson, 2013; Johnson et al.,

2013). Consistent with the assumptions of attachment theory, results of this study suggested that

romantic attachment bonds can help individuals regulate emotions during distressing events.

Essentially, attachment security or insecurity plays a role in one’s regulating experiences of pain

or threats of danger (Ahmadi et al., 2014; Greenman & Johnson, 2013; Johnson, 2013; Johnson

& Greenman, 2013).

Other studies have validated the effect of secure attachment bonds on psychological and

emotional resiliency in fighting terminal illnesses and traumatic life experiences (Fitzgerald &

Thomas, 2012; Naaman et al., 2008). Multiple studies have been conducted covering a series of

different major life traumas, demonstrating the effect secure attachment has on healing trauma

from childhood sexual abuse (Dalton et al., 2013; MacIntosh & Johnson, 2008), veterans coming

back from war suffering from PTSD (Weissman et al., 2011), and those struggling with major

self-esteem issues and eating disorders (Johnson, Maddeaux & Blouin, 1998). In this way, adult

attachment research has bridged the gap that existed between attachment premises in childhood

and the entire lifespan, providing support and validation for the application of attachment

theory’s core assumptions across the lifespan (Cassidy et al., 2013). Although research on
 31

attachment has continued to validate and support the original theoretical premises and

assumptions, these assumptions have been met with some challenges and criticism.

Criticisms and alternatives to attachment theory. There are four main criticisms of

attachment theory. First, early critics of attachment theory did not consider bonding to be a basic

survival need (see Fongay & Campbell, 2015; Thompson & Raikes, 2003). Second, attachment

theory was dismissed as a viable explanation for mental illness (Freud et al., 1948). Third, critics

cite the limitation of initial studies on attachment theory by Bolwby and Ainsworth while

disputing the idea of attachment as universal across culture or lifespan (Fongay & Campbell,

2015; Thompson & Raikes, 2003). Finally, there are criticisms concerned with the application of

attachment theory in clinical settings (Schnarch, 2012). These criticisms are debated by

researchers, and the research is examined in more detail below.

Historically, criticisms of early attachment theory came from psychiatrists and other

medical doctors who were in favor of an evolutionary approach to bonding (Fongay & Campbell,

2015). This approach suggested that bonding was not a survival need by itself, but rather a

behavior used to secure food needed for infant survival (Fongay & Campbell, 2015). However,

the evolutionary approach to bonding focuses mainly on mating instincts and reproduction, and

becomes limited in its ability to conceptualize the complexities of adult relationship dynamics

(Garcia & Gomez, 2014). Freud, whose own research made implications in regards to the

important role of early childhood experiences and mental health, suggested that attachment in

childhood was driven purely by a need for infants to seek food and that the primary attachment
 32

figure served a function of providing a food source (Fongay & Campbell, 2015; Freud et al.,

1948). His criticisms suggested that attachment was not a human need beyond infant survival,

and that forming close bonds with others was not necessary, as adult humans could adapt and

survive without (Fongay & Campbell, 2015; Freud et al., 1948).

Studies conducted by Harlow and Zimmerman (1959) on Rhesus monkeys directly

contradicted theoretical criticisms by Freud and evolutionary psychologists, demonstrating that

attachment in infancy was not driven solely by a need for food. Bolwby (1988), who studied

children in orphanages and hospitals, conducted early attachment research. He found that

children who had inconsistent or intermittent periods of care giving actually regressed in their

physical development (Bowlby, 1988; 2005; Schore, 2001; 2010). Additionally, children who

were neglected or who had little to no contact with a caregiver died (Bowlby 1988; 2005).

Evolutionary Psychology has provided some additional support for the biological need of

humans to form pair-bond relationships and has demonstrated that attachment is not an option

that humans can live without, it’s a biological survival need (Bunnk, Massar, & Dijkstra, 2007;

Manor, Miller, Rouby, & Gailliot, 2009).

Other criticisms of attachment theory have referenced the lack of research and empirical

support of the relationship between attachment and mental health, stating that attachment theory

was not a viable explanation for the origins of mental illness (Fongay & Campbell, 2015). Some

critics have rejected attachment theory on the grounds that attachment disruption is not the root

of all mental illness and psychological or emotional disturbances (Fonagy & Campbell, 2015;
 33

Thompson & Raikes, 2003). However, attachment theory does not claim to be the one-size-fits

all explanation as the root cause of all mental illness and psychological disturbances (Johnson,

2013). What attachment theory does propose is that the attachment bond is so significant to the

human condition, that when the bond is unstable, insecure or completely disconnected during

infancy, the result can be psychological and emotional “disorders” and disturbances (Bowlby,

2005; Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer et al., 2014). While attachment disturbance has been identified

as a possible contributing factor in the development of some disorders and distress, such as

dissociative identity disorder and addictions for example (Matè, 2012; Sachs, 2017), mental

illness can still occur even with secure attachment (Bowlby, 1988; 2005). The theory of

attachment takes into account that genetics and other environmental experiences can also shape

and impact the development of psychological disorders and emotional distress (Bowlby, 2005;

Thompson & Raikes, 2003). Relatedly, while the attachment relationship may not be at the root

cause of the distress, attachment has been demonstrated to have an influence on psychological

and emotional resiliency (Mikulincer et. al, 2014). Therefore, the quality and security of the bond

can play a key role in how one copes with the distress from mental illness.

Furthermore, the connection between attachment security and mental illness has been the

subject of additional research studies. Results from longitudinal studies have provided empirical

support demonstrating a link between insecure attachment and mental illness (Matè, 2012; Sachs,

2017; Wiltgen et al., 2015), as well as attachment disruptions, disorganized attachment,

psychopathology and criminal adult behavior (Bailey & Shelton, 2014; Schimmenti, Passini,
 34

Pace, Manzella, Carlo, & Careti, 2014). Research suggests that trauma suffered in childhood,

perpetrated by an attachment figure not only predicted later mental illness, but that the type and

frequency of trauma that took place (sexual abuse or physical violence for example) also

predicted the type and intensity of mental disorder one would later develop (Matè, 2012; Sachs,

2017). This research correlates to a central tenant of attachment theory, that attachment helps

regulate emotions, and impacts psychological and emotionally resiliency in coping with these

traumatic events (Johnson et al., 2013; Mikulincer, Shaver & Horesh, 2006; Mikulincer et al.,

2014; Weissman et al., 2011).

Several studies have demonstrated a link between secure attachment bonds and the ability

to effectively cope, heal and recover from various stressors and traumas including: childhood

sexual abuse (Dalton et al., 2013; MacIntosh & Johnson, 2008), eating disorders (Johnson,

Maddeaux, & Blouin, 1998), depression (Denton et al., 2012), cardiac problems (Kidd, Poole,

Ronaldson, Leigh, Jahangiri & Steptoe, 2016), and PTSD (Mikulincer, Shaver & Horesh, 2006;

Weissman et al., 2011). Further results have demonstrated a strong link between attachment

security and self-esteem (Mikulincer et al., 2014; Towler & Stuhlmacher, 2013) and a link

between self-esteem and psychological resiliency (Mikulincer, Shaver & Horesh, 2006;

Mikulincer et al., 2014; Sadikaj et al., 2015). Secure attachment helps people feel more capable

in getting through pain and distress, fostering resiliency, and the support provided by secure

attachment figures will provides comfort in a way that helps reduce emotional anguish during the
 35

healing process (Denton et al., 2012; Johnson, 2013; Johnson & Wiebe, 2017; Mikulincer et al.,

2014).

Cross-cultural comparisons demonstrate a criticism of attachment theory. This criticism

points to under developed countries where attachment and close bonding do not appear to be an

integral component of survival and psychological well-being (Hossfeld, 1991). The economic

structure of such countries is based on getting basic survival needs met: having enough food to

eat from one day to the next, finding fresh water sources, etc. (Cain, 1982). Research has shown

that when basic survival threats are activated, the basic survival system overrides the attachment

system (Dalton et al., 2013; Weissman et al., 2011). It is difficult to worry about attachment

relationships when one’s basic daily survival is threatened (Johnson, 2013; Weissman et al.,

2011). Family structures in those societies are not structured around marrying for love or

maintaining long lasting love relationships. They are arranged usually on the basis of economic

survival (Cain, 1982; Coontz, 2004). Also, there is a large discrepancy as to what constitutes

healthy functioning between modern industrialized nations and underdeveloped countries.

Survival in developed, industrialized nations carries far different requirements and

meanings that it does in nations where people are starving and dying of basic illnesses due to

lack of sanitary conditions and medical care (Coontz, 2004; Hossfield, 1991). It has been

observed that if one transitioned from a third world country to a modern industrialized nation, the

same set of skills would not ensure survival, nor would the same structure of living constitute

functionality (Coontz, 2004; Hossfield, 1991). Furthermore, research as far back as the 1960’s
 36

has demonstrated that as underdeveloped countries are receiving aid from industrialized nations,

the influence of technology and education is changing the landscape of their society and family

structure (Coontz, 2004; Hossfield, 1991). As basic survival becomes less of an imminent danger

and easier to accomplish in day-to-day living the focus has begun to shift from that of emotional

autonomy to attachment bonding. Because people are now living longer, they are in relationships

longer, and marrying for love rather than economic reasons have begun to become more

prominent (Coontz, 2004; Hossfield, 1991). This further demonstrates the universal nature of

attachment bonding.

Critics citing limitations of attachment theory have been challenged and tested, and met

with empirical results that continue to support, validate and expand Bowlby’s initial findings

across the lifespan (Greenman & Johnson, 2013; Johnson, 2013; Johnson et al., 2013). While

Bowlby’s initial theoretical development and subsequent research focused on attachment in

children, the premises was theoretically applied to attachment across the entire lifespan.

Recognizing a gap in research and empirical support for the applicability of attachment theory to

adulthood, Hazen and Shaver (1987) began examining Bowlby’s premises; conducting new

studies to empirically support and expand attachment theory into adulthood. In the 1980s, Hazen

and Shaver applied attachment theory to adult romantic relationships, developing a measure to

assess attachment styles specific to adult romantic attachment bonds (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999,

2016; Hazen & Shaver, 1987). Continued research has demonstrated that romantic relationship

problems are best conceptualized in the context of adult attachment (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016;
 37

Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Continued research on adult attachment conducted

by Johnson and colleagues provided further empirical support and validation for the universality,

function, and significance of attachment bonds in adult romantic relationships (Johnson &

Wiebe, 2017). These studies have provided empirical validation for the theoretical premise of

attachment bonding across the lifespan.

Recent attachment research has received some criticism, not regarding the validity of

attachment theory itself, but rather the application of attachment theory to the creation of

therapeutic interventions (Schnarch, 2012). A recent critic disputes the notion that couples

problems stem from a lack of secure attachment, and that attachment-based interventions

promote dependency rather than resiliency (Schnarch, 2012). Arguments presented by this critic

make it clear that they have formulated an opinion without a full understanding of attachment

theory nor do they provide research to empirically support the basis for their criticism. What

attachment theory has proposed, and current research has supported, is that humans do depend on

each other for survival, and that secure attachment promotes resiliency (Johnson & Wiebe,

2017). Moreover, those with attachment disruptions or insecure attachment bonds feel less

capable and resilient to face life’s challenges (Johnson & Wiebe, 2017; Kidd et al., 2016;

Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Outcomes studies examining attachment based models of

counseling such as Emotionally Focused Therapy, whose aim is to increase secure attachment

have demonstrated high levels of efficacy and lasting positive effects on the couple relationship

(Dalgleish et al., 2014; Soleimani et al., 2015; Wiebe et al., 2016).

 38

Alternative frameworks. Few theories on human relationships have been as well

researched or rival the empirical validation of attachment theory (Shaver & Hazen, 1993; Wiebe

& Johnson, 2016). For example, evolutionary psychology has provided some important empirical

support for attachment theory, and modern studies on evolutionary psychology have begun to

provide information that further overlaps with attachment theory (Auger, Hurley & Lydon, 2015;

Buunk, Massar & Dijkstra, 2007; Klavina & Buunk, 2013; Manor et al., 2009; Sobraske, 2016).

However, evolutionary psychology still maintains a strong focus on relationships and pair-bonds

through the lens of mating and reproduction, and has yet to provide a more viable, well-rounded

framework for conceptualizing the complexities of human relationships (Buunk et al., 2007;

Manor et al., 2009, Sobraske, 2016). Alternative theories in the discipline of marriage and family

such as general and family systems provide some theoretical framework for understanding how

relationships maintain themselves or become unstable by explaining relationships in terms of a

system (White & Bregman, 2011). A family system is an emotional unit, whereby a person

cannot be understood individually in isolation from others, but rather as part of their family (The

Bowen Center, 2017; White & Bregman, 2011). Theories of marriage and family overlap in

general ways when it comes to the importance of a stable family unit to society and overall

healthy psychological functioning.

However, General systems theory (including family systems theory), and attachment

theory are among the most widely recognized theories of relationships and families (Johnson &

Wiebe, 2017; The Bowen Center, 2017). There is some overlap in the overall framework of these
 39

theories because systems theory predated and provided some foundation for attachment theory

and research. For example, congruent with attachment theory, family systems theory states that

individuals cannot be understood apart from one another in isolation, but in context of their

relationships, as part of family, which is an emotional unit (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; The Bowen

Center, 2017; White & Bregman, 2011). Systems theory can be used to explain how

relationships function, but not why they function or the meaning and significance of relationships

(Cassidy et al., 2013; Greenman & Johnson, 2013). While attachment theory encompasses and

integrates systems theory into its framework, attachment researchers make the case that it is the

significance and meaning of these bonds that provides the basis for how and why these systems

function (Johnson & Greenman, 2013). Expanding on systems theory, the attachment framework

offers an integrative and well-researched theory for understanding why humans seek out and

form relationships, the importance these connections serve in human functioning, and the

complexities of maintaining these relationships (Cassidy et al., 2013; Greenman & Johnson,

2013; Johnson, 2008; Johnson & Wiebe, 2017).

Systems theory might also attempt to provide alternative explanations to attachment

dynamics and threats to pair bonding such as competing attachment. According to systems

theory, a triadic relationship is considered the smallest stable unit because it can tolerate more

tension, which gets shifted around among the triangle (Pedro, Ribeiro, & Shelton, 2015; The

Bowen Center, 2017; White & Bregman, 2011). Through this lens, competing attachments such

as affairs would be conceptualized as triangulation where a dyadic relationship in distress will

 40

bring in a third person creating a triadic relationship to ease the tension (Pedro et al., 2015;

White & Bregman, 2011). However, according to attachment theory, a dyadic relationship can be

the smallest, most stable unit (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016), and bringing in a third has been shown

in several contexts to be the source of tension, not the solution to it (Johnson, 2008). In addition,

this concept in family systems theory might have possibly contributed to the relational myth that

having children will repair an unstable marriage (Pedro et al., 2015). Furthermore, attachment

research has established that distressed and insecure relationships are not made more stable by

adding more people to the relational dynamic, and that two people can maintain a stable,

successful, and satisfying relationship (Johnson, 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

The family systems perspective also postulates that one’s actions in a triangle are

considered a reflection of their intention to assure their attachment to important others and that

triangulation is a process of getting needs met or gaining attention (Pedro et al., 2015; The

Bowen Center, 2017). Research on various types of competing attachment demonstrates that

triangulation would be not relieve dyadic stress, but instead create more distress because it can

be experienced as a threat to the relationship when one partner turns out of the dyad to the third

(Johnson, 2008; Woolley, 2015). According to attachment theory, turning outside of a

relationship to a third is not viewed as a strategy of assuring attachment connections to their

dyadic partner, but as a mechanism of getting needs met without the dyadic partner (Johnson,

2008; Reid & Woolley, 2006; Woolley, 2015). The family systems perspective does conjecture

that triangulation can be negative if it prevents the dyadic relationship from solving its issues
 41

(Pedro et al., 2015). However, reaching out to a third has been demonstrated through research to

become its own relationship issue because it can be experienced as a threat that can negatively

impact relationship security and satisfaction (Flores, 2004; Gill, 2014; Johnson, 2008; Reid &

Woolley, 2006; Roberts & David, 2016; Rodriquez, Overup, & Neighbors, 2013). A relationship

threat is anything that may come in between people in an attachment relationship that might

weaken or sever the bond (Overall, Girme, Lemay, & Hammond, 2014). Because there are a

growing number of attachment threats that one might turn out to, it is important to further

explore these attachment threats in relation to romantic relationship distress. Even through the

attachment lens, further research on understanding the specific types of threats that contribute to

or cause relationship distress is vital to helping shape and maintain secure and satisfying

attachment bonds (Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Cassidy, Jones & Shaver, 2013; Johnson, 2013;

Johnson & Greenman, 2013; Tronick & Beeghly, 2011).

Broken Attachment Bonds and Attachment Distress

In romantic relationships, distress occurs when relational attachment security is

threatened, and during the experience of rejection or emotional cut-off by a romantic partner

(Johnson et al., 2013; Mikulincer et al., 2014). Relational threats, such as competing attachments,

may be emotional or sexual, and are organized by severity, the presence of a specific rival versus

a partner's disinterest, and the level of partner deception versus honesty (Sobraske, 2016).

Resulting attachment distress is dependent on the type of relational threat, severity and level of

deception involved (Johnson, 2008; Sobraske, 2016). Results of studies on romantic attachment
 42

have found that attachment distress can impact the security of the attachment bond, as well as the

stability and satisfaction of the relationship (Johnson & Wiebe, 2017). This has led researchers to

start focusing some attention on understanding and identifying the origins and outcomes of

attachment distress and insecurity. Consistent with the goals of these researchers, the goal of this

study is to understand competing attachment as an origin of attachment distress.

From the perspective of attachment researchers, relationship distress results from

partners’ rigid engagement in negative interaction cycles that develop from partners’ unmet

attachment needs within their relationship (Ahmadi et al., 2014; Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer et al.,

2014). These rigid patterns are a result of insecure attachment and chronic relational

disconnection from a romantic partner (Johnson & Wiebe, 2017). Partners may attempt to

minimize relational distress by utilizing insecure attachment strategies such as heightened

proximity seeking, or emotional withdrawal (Johnson & Wiebe, 2017). Additionally, some

insecure attachment strategies also involve partners turning outside of the relationship to self-

soothe the pain of relational distress (i.e. addiction; Flores, 2004; Maté, 2012), or to find

alternate ways of getting emotional needs met (Gill, 2014; Johnson, 2013).

Clinicians have recognized the significance of attachment distress as couples in therapy

describe their relationship in terms of life and death (Johnson, 2013). Results of the studies

conducted on couples in attachment-based therapy indicate that when a person experiences

attachment insecurity and distress, neurologically the brain encodes this as threatening and

dangerous (Johnson et al., 2013; Wiebe et al., 2016). Additionally, studies have demonstrated
 43

that emotional distress is neurologically encoded in the pain center of the brain, demonstrating

and illuminating the brain’s felt experiences of emotionally distressed relationships as

threatening and painful (Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2013; Maté, 2012). This

explains the heightened sense of panic and pain couples and individuals express when their

relationship becomes distressed (Johnson, 2013). Additionally, these studies found that couples

that were able to shift their romantic attachment bond from insecure back to secure, were able to

access their romantic partner for comfort and support, no longer experienced the same distress or

level of pain in the face of danger or a threat (Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2013;

Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On, & Sahdra, 2014; Wiebe et al., 2016). These studies provide

important empirical support for the distressing nature of insecure attachment, that healing the

distress can be restore the security of the relationship bond, and emphasizes the nature of the

attachment relationship in providing a secure base and safe haven in the face of threat (Burgess-

Moser et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2013; Mikulincer et al., 2014; Soltani et al., 2013; Wiebe et

al., 2016).

There are only a finite number of ways one has to regulate powerful emotions when the

security of a bond is threatened (Johnson, 2008; 2013). The strategies of coping with the real or

perceived threat of loss manifest themselves through individual behavioral attachment styles

classified as either secure, anxiously insecure or avoidant insecure (Johnson, 2013; Johnson et

al., 2013; Mikulincer et al., 2014). If the individual that activated an attachment threat can

respond to their partner on an emotional level, in an open and honest, caring manner, showing
 44

remorse and taking responsibility, the bond may transition back to securely attached (Burgess-

Moser et al., 2015). If the individual is not willing to take responsibility, minimizes or

diminishes the activation of the attachment threat, the other partner will either hyper-activate

their attachment anxieties or attempt to deactivate their needs and fears through defensive

avoidance (Johnson, 2008; Mikulincer et al., 2014). In this case, the bond likely will not shift

from insecure back to secure. In this way, attachment theory offers a map to the emotional

realities and responses of partners in a romantic relationship (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson,

2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

While individual attachment coping strategies may remain relatively stable throughout

one’s lifespan, these styles and strategies are separate from one’s felt sense of the romantic

attachment bond as either secure or insecure (Burgess-Moser et al., 2015). For example, two

individuals with anxious attachment strategies may be able to form and maintain a secure

romantic attachment bond. This demonstrates that one’s individual attachment style may not be

indicative of the quality and security of the attachment bond in one’s adult romantic relationships

(Bowlby, 2005; Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Johnson, 2013; Mondor et al., 2011; Sadikaj et al,

2015).

Romantic Relationship Attachment Security. Attachment security in romantic

relationships is based on a sense that an individual exists in the mind of their lover, especially

when separated by time or distance, and that they are cherished and important to them (Johnson,

2008; 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Romantic relationship attachment security is
 45

characterized by a sense of an attachment relationship as either secure or insecure (Burgess-

Moser et al., 2015; Wiebe et al., 2016). Insecure attachment bonds are more likely to become

distressed or broken (Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Mikulincer et al, 2016; Wiebe et al., 2016). As

related to the goals of this study, this section explores how attachment security is shaped, and the

factors such as competing attachments, that may have a role in shaping the security of romantic

attachment bonds.

The security of relationship bonds can be influenced by a of variety factors. Secure

attachment in romantic relationships is characterized by the ability to depend on an attachment

figure when their partner needs them, and that romantic attachment partners protect each other

rather than reject or abandon in times of need (Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). This

might include the view of one’s partner as reliable during moments of need, as well as consistent

emotional accessibility, responsiveness and engagement help to formulate secure attachment

bonds in romantic relationships (Johnson, 2013; Wiebe et al., 2016). Emotional accessibility can

be understood as knowing one’s partner is open and available to their partner, while

responsiveness is a sense that one’s partner will respond to their cues or calls for connection or

distress (Johnson, 2013). Emotional engagement in relationships consists of a sense of interest in

and responsiveness to another (Johnson, 2013; Wiebe et al., 2016). Attachment bond security in

romantic relationships has been demonstrated to be a strong predictor of relationship satisfaction

(Dalgleish et al., 2014; Diamond et al., 2017; Wiebe et al., 2016). Couples with secure romantic

attachment bonds report higher levels of relationship satisfaction and those with insecure
 46

attachment bonds report lower levels of relationship satisfaction (Dalgleish et al., 2014; Diamond

et al., 2017; Gardner, 2007). Therefore, when a romantic attachment bond shifts from secure to

insecure, the couple is likely to also experience higher conflict and lower relationship satisfaction

(Dalgleish et al., 2014; Diamond et al., 2017; Fincham & Beach, 2010; Gardner, 2007; Wiebe et

al., 2016).

These shifts in security can occur when the attachment bond and emotional connectivity

are threatened (Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Johnson, 2013). When these shifts occur, the sense of

emotional security is shattered and can be experienced as a traumatic loss resulting in separation

distress and reactive coping strategies (Burgess-Mosert et al., 2015; Johnson, 2013). These

threats activate the nervous system creating a felt sense of emotional distress that also activates

the brain’s pain center (Johnson et al., 2013), also eliciting feelings of depression and despair,

and possibly lowering relationship satisfaction (Dalgleish et al., 2014; Diamond et al., 2017;

Johnson, et al., 2013; Mikulincer et al., 2014; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Romantic attachment

threats may temporarily transition the security of that attachment bond from secure to insecure,

unless the threat is removed and the emotional connection is restored (Burgess-Moser et al.,

2015; Wiebe et al., 2016). Emotional threats to the security of romantic attachment bonds are

significant because the resulting distress and disconnection is threatening and painful (Johnson et

al., 2013; Soltani et al., 2013; Wiebe & Johnson, 2016). If the threat continues and is not

resolved or removed, it may permanently shift the attachment bond from secure to insecure and
 47

may ultimately result in the demise of the relationship (Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Dalgleish et

al., 2014; Johnson, 2008; Johnson et al., 2013).

Another factor that may influence the security and satisfaction of an attachment bond is

the specific type of relationship an individual is engaged in (Wiebe et al., 2016). For example,

factors that may threaten the security of a romantic attachment bond may not threaten the

security of an attachment bond between siblings or friends (Burgess-Moser et al., 2015).

Similarly, one may experience secure attachment in a relationship with a close friend but

simultaneously experience an insecure attachment bond with a romantic partner. This suggests

that the security of romantic attachment bonds may be more susceptible to threats than other

types of attachment relationships.

Compounding the problem of attachment insecurity, which can occur across all types of

attachment relationships, are the behaviors and defense mechanisms one might use to cope with

attachment distress (Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Johnson, 2013). These reactive coping strategies

such an addiction or an affair, may also in turn, become a threat to the attachment security

leading to more attachment distress (Flores, 2004; Johnson, 2008; Maté, 2012; Sadikaj et al.,

2015). This may create a cycle where lack of attachment security leads one to turn to something

outside of the relationship to cope with or escape from the emotional distress; but the turning

outside of the relationship inhibits the emotional connection between partners, thereby creating

more attachment distress and insecurity (Johnson, 2013; Johnson et al., 2013; Mikulincer et al.,

2014). This suggests the possibility that a bidirectional relationship may exist between
 48

attachment security and competing attachment. One of the goals of this study was to examine the

relationship between competing attachment and attachment security.

Competing Attachment: Threats to Romantic Attachment Bond Security. In

romantic relationships, individuals sometimes turn outside of the relationship to have their needs

met (to feel emotionally safe, secure, loved, connected; Flores, 2004; Gill, 2014; Johnson, 2013).

Among emotionally focused clinicians, this has been referred to as “competing attachment”,

coined for clinical training in emotionally focused therapy (Furrow et al., 2011; Woolley, 2015).

A goal of this study was to formally define and operationalize competing attachment as

discussions of the term in the literature have yet to do so (Furrow et al., 2011; Reid & Woolley,

2006; Rheem et al., 2012). Competing attachment occurs in relationships where individuals may

seek activities that are a distraction from the emotional pain of not having their needs met in their

romantic relationship. These alternative activities (e.g., food, alcohol, drugs, pornography, being

with family/friends, work, affair-partners, exercise, gambling, cell phones, Internet, gaming, a

personal hobby) require time and attention that competes with the attachment bond with their

romantic partner and are formally called competing attachments (Gill, 2014; Pedro et al., 2015;

Reid & Woolley, 2006; Woolley, 2015).

Having a balanced lifestyle and hobbies and interests outside of a romantic relationship is

healthy. However, when one or both partners focus too much time and attention on another

activity or person, competing attachments can arise (Pedro et al., 2015; Reid & Woolley, 2006;

Rheem, Woolley, & Weissman, 2012). The time and attention invested on the other activity or
 49

person can be an attempt to have relationships needs met or to compensate for a belief that such

needs won’t be fulfilled by their romantic partner (Pedro et al., 2015; Reid & Woolley, 2006;

Woolley, 2015). These threats involve a spouse, partner, lover, primary attachment figure turning

away from their romantic partner, and turning to something or someone else, either for soothing,

comfort, love or escape (Reid & Woolley, 2006; The Bowen Center, 2017; Woolley, 2015). The

other partner develops a sense of competition with this other attachment for their loved one’s

time, attention, and or affection, which undermine the security of the relational attachment bond

(Flores, 2004; Johnson, 2008; Woolley, 2015).

Some research findings suggest in addition to competing attachments threatening

relationship attachment security and satisfaction, insecure attachment may also contribute to the

reason’s one might turn out of the primary love relationship to get emotional and attachment

needs met (Flores, 2004; Johnson, 2013). This suggests the possibility that a bi-directional

relationship between romantic attachment security and competing attachment may exist. The

competing attachment becomes in a way, a substitute attachment figure, meeting some emotional

needs that would otherwise and ideally be met by their romantic partner. This becomes a

competing attachment within the primary love relationship resulting in relationship distress

(Johnson, 2008; Reid & Woolley, 2006; Woolley, 2015).

While competing attachment describes a specific type of threat, it also implies some

degree of a connection to, frequency or a pattern of one partner turning out to an outside source

to get their needs met (Johnson, 2008; Sobraske, 2016). These attachments may be considered as
 50

a rival relationship for a partner’s attention, love or comfort (Sobraske, 2016). Competing

attachment may influence romantic relationships differently depending on the type, of

competition, depth of the turning out dynamic and the frequency of turning out (Sobrakse, 2016).

This dynamic often creates feelings of sadness, frustration, emotional pain, or disconnection in

relationships (Johnson, 2008; Reid & Woolley, 2006; Woolley, 2015). According to attachment

theory, a secure bond is comprised of mutual emotional accessibility, engagement and

responsiveness, all of which are diminished if not eliminated by competing attachments (Cassidy

& Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013). Additionally, competing attachments often divert emotional

responsiveness, accessibility and engagement from the partner to the alternate activity or person

outside of the relationship (Johnson, 2008; 2013; Pedro et al., 2015; Woolley, 2015).

Researchers are continuing to develop knowledge of what experiences and behaviors

constitute threats to attachment security in romantic relationships. While specific types of

competing attachment threats have been identified, competing attachments can refer to anything

one turns to instead of their partner in their love relationship to meet their attachment needs

(Johnson, 2008; Pedro et al., 2015; Reid & Woolley, 2006; Woolley, 2015). Competing

attachments may be emotional or sexual, and calibrated by severity, the presence of an outside

specific rival versus a partner's disinterest, and the level of partner deception involved (Johnson,

2008; Sobraske, 2016). Evolutionary psychology has contributed some important findings to the

understanding of competing attachments. According to findings, because humans are

biologically designed to seek attachment pair bonds, likewise, they are wired with instincts to
 51

detect threats to their pair bond relationships (Pham, DeLecce, & Shackelford, 2017).

Additionally, these threats trigger natural instinctual reactive strategies to protect these bonds

(Auge et al., 2016; Hanson Sobraske, Gaulin, & Boster, 2014; Pham et al., 2017). View of self

and low self-esteem are also found to be a factor in the perception and sensitivity to competing

attachment threat cues (Hanson Sobraske et al., 2014). These finding are consistent with

attachment theory and the premise that competing attachments trigger attachment security threats

and reactive coping strategies (Johnson, 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Some evidence supports that attachment security threats may be triggered differently for

men and women. Research on heterosexual couples found that competing attachment threats for

men may be triggered by the number of male friends his partner has, as well as how much extra

time is spent with these other males (Pham et al., 2017). Threats for females may be triggered by

the presence of a rival who is perceived as more attractive (Hanson Sobraske et al., 2014). In

many relationships, infidelity is one of the prime contexts for competing attachment (Johnson,

2008; Pham et al., 2017). As previously stated, competing attachments may consist of, but are

not limited to, addictions, affairs, feeling second place to a spouse’s job, and even most recently,

being tuned out (conceptualized as partner phubbing) for a smart phone or electronic device such

as an iPad or video game system (Reed et al., 2015). Research has demonstrated the potentially

devastating threat competing attachments have on attachment security (Johnson, 2008; Reid &

Woolley, 2006). These threats hyper-activate the other spouse’s attachment fears and needs,
 52

creating a crisis of relationship distress that must be addressed and resolved if the relationship is

to survive and reconnect (Johnson, 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Competing attachment can be a source of attachment distress, but may also be triggered

by attachment distress as a coping method, especially if the individual feels exiting or repairing

the relationship are not possible (Johnson, 2008; 2013; Woolley, 2015). Competing attachments

create attachment injuries in romantic relationships, which may include feelings of betrayal,

jealousy (Dijkstra, Barelds, & Groothof, 2009), and attachment related anxiety or avoidance

(Cater et al., 2015). These undermine the security of the attachment bond, and in turn, may lower

relationship satisfaction (Auger et al., 2015; Johnson, 2008; Sobraske, 2016). These attachment

threats do not represent independent dimensions but instead may represent a continuum

expressing the degree to which romantic attachment security and satisfaction are affected

(Sobraske, 2016). This is an important theme that has emerged on the radar of modern adult

attachment relationships.

Types of Competing Attachments. Research has yet to explore every type of competing

attachment individually and its respective impact on relationship security and satisfaction.

However, there are a few types of competing attachments that have been examined through

research for their impact on relationship security and satisfaction. The types discussed in this

dissertation include addictions, such as substance abuse or pornography; affairs; rival

relationships; intrusive family members; and technology such as smart phones and gaming

systems.
 53

Substance Abuse. Research on addiction and attachment has helped explain how

disrupted early life attachment bonds and adaptive mechanisms, when left untreated, can become

barriers to emotional flexibility and bonding in adult romantic relationships (Flores, 2004; Gill,

2014; Maté, 2012). When emotional regulation and soothing has not been taught in the context

of attachment bonds with a loved one, it may leave one more vulnerable to turning to a substance

to soothe and escape (Gill, 2014). Fundamentally, failed attachment to a primary attachment

figure creates attachment to survival mechanisms and defenses which eventually transition into

attachments to substances and or other compulsive behaviors in an attempt to find comfort,

soothing, safety, protection, and security (Flores, 2004; Gill, 2014, Maté, 2012). Medical studies

have also demonstrated that attachment disruptions in early childhood alter a child’s stress

mechanisms and affect how they react to and copes with stress later in life (Maté, 2012).

Additionally, these altered stress mechanisms from early trauma and attachment disruption

creates more sensitivity to pain, and therefore more defenses needed to block the pain (Maté,

2012). Addicts lack the ability to internally self-regulate their emotions and frequently turn to

substances or compulsions to regulate feelings of pain and emotional experiences (Gill, 2014;

Maté, 2012). They use addictions to calm and soothe, or numb out uncomfortable or unpleasant

emotional experiences or memories (Maté, 2012). Even non-chemical substances such as

pornography and gambling are demonstrated to have similar effects on the brain as chemical

substances, and can be used by a person to achieve the same effect (Flores, 2004; Gill, 2014).

Substances are shown to have analgesic affects, which aid in the numbing out of emotionally
 54

painful experiences and situations and may become a substitute for human connection (Gill,

2014; Maté, 2012).

The more frequently one turns to the addiction to meet their attachment needs, the less

often one seeks connection with other people (Flores, 2004; Gill, 2014). These addictions then

become a substitution for human connection, which becomes a false sense of connection, or a

counterfeit attachment because a true and secure attachment bond is a reciprocal relationship

(Flores, 2004; Gill, 2014; Reid & Woolley, 2006; Woolley, 2015). While a substance may not

pick a fight with its user, it offers no form of responsive care giving or connection. This can

become very dangerous to the security of an attachment relationship because emotionally secure

and satisfying relationships depend on human connection for survival (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016).

The consequences on the non-addicted partner is they are left emotionally, and often times,

physically alone to deal with emotional distress, and the stress of responsibilities of daily living.

Additionally, it is hard to build a secure and satisfying connection with a partner who is not

emotionally present, engaged or accessible because of the addiction. The result is a relationship

higher in conflict, less emotionally engaged, unstable or insecure, and less satisfying (Foulstone,

Kelly, Kifle, & Baxter, 2016). Critics of the application of attachment theory to addiction cite

that not all addicts have struggled with broken or disrupted attachment bonds in early life, though

continued research has demonstrated that broken attachment is strongly associated with addiction

(Flores, 2004; Maté, 2012). While attachment disruption in childhood may not be at the root of

all addiction, attachment theory still offers a credible and viable explanation for the relational
 55

processes involved in an addicts primary love relationship and the impact the addiction has on

both the quality and security of the bond (Flores, 2004; Gill, 2014; Johnson, 2013).

Social media, gaming and smart phones. With the advancement and availability of new

technology, the types and frequency of competing attachments have also risen and changed.

Several newer forms of competing attachment involving technology specifically have begun to

rise (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016). Internet addiction is a general term used to understand and

encompass a wide range of problematic online behavior for individuals and relationships. For

instance, addiction to Facebook, an online social media site, has also been cited as intrusive in

relationships and is associated with relationship dissatisfaction (Elphinston & Noller, 2011;

Oldmeadow, Quinn & Kowert, 2013). Internet addiction might include online social media use,

online gaming, gambling, and sexual encounters (Kuss & Billieux, 2016). Technoference is the

term applied to the interference of technology in romantic relationships (McDaniel & Coyne,

2016). As game systems have developed and morphed from simple electronic devices to

interaction and participation online, so has the interaction with live humans decreased (Northrup

& Shumway, 2014). Additionally, addiction to online gaming and social media has also

increased relationship dissatisfaction (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016; Northrup & Shumway, 2014).

Qualitative studies on online gamers have revealed that over one-third are married, and that

online adult gamers have indicated a need to sacrifice major aspects of their life in order to

maintain their online gaming status (Northrup & Shumway, 2014).

 56

‘Gaming widows’ is the name given to those whose spouse frequently spends more time

online gaming than with their romantic partner (Ahlstrom, Lundberg, Zabriskie, Eggett, &

Lindsay, 2012; Northrup & Shumway, 2014). Partners report technology such as gaming and

smart phones frequently interrupt quality time, reduce going to bed together at night, and leisure

activities with their romantic partner, and feel that their relationship has been displaced by online

gaming activity (Lianekhammy & Van de Venne, 2015; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016). Partners

have also reported that technoference sends an implicit message about what their partner values

most (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016). Online gamers have self-reported relationships as an area of

their personal life that gets sacrificed in order to maintain their gaming habits (Northrup &

Shumway, 2014). Additionally, interviews of romantic partners have revealed technoference

lowers relationship satisfaction and increases relationship conflict (Ahlstrom et al., 2012;

Lianekhammy & Van de Venne, 2015, McDaniel & Coyne, 2016). This has become so

problematic in romantic relationships that support groups have been created for gaming widows

suffering from technoference (Ahlstrom et al., 2012; Lianekhammy & Van de Venne, 2015).

Attachment insecurity is associated with a higher likelihood of online addiction while those with

secure attachment are reported to be less likely to become addicted (Monacis, Palo, Griffiths, &

Sinatra, 2017; Odaci & Çikrikçi, 2014; Oldmeadow et al., 2013). Additionally, studies show that

these types of competing attachments may trigger attachment insecurity and reactive coping

behaviors such as electronic intrusion like social media spying and stalking their romantic

partner online for example, for soothing and anxiety relief (Reed et al., 2015).
 57

Smart phones are another a useful invention, however, they have recently developed into

a form of competing attachment called partner phubbing (Phubbing, 2016). This is the term

applied to phone snubbing, or choosing to turn ones attention to a smart phone instead of others

in a social or personal setting (Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016; Phubbing, 2016). Partner

phubbing is the term applied to the dynamic in which individuals use and are distracted by their

smart phones while in the company of their romantic relationship partner (Phubbing, 2016;

Roberts & David, 2016; Wang, Xie, Wang, Wang & Lei, 2017). Constant text messaging also

leads some individuals to pay more attention to their cell phone than their romantic partner

(Halpern & Katz, 2017). Those who have been phubbed report feeling that their romantic partner

favors a virtual world over time and interaction with them (Phubbing, 2016). Research has

revealed a grown concern about the impact of phubbing on relationships and social interactions

(Broaddus, 2017; Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016; Darrow, 2015; Roberts & David, 2016;

Wang et al., 2017). It is also suggested that phubbing may be a consequence as well as a cause of

relationship dissatisfaction, that partners may turn to their cell phone to avoid their romantic

partner (Halpern & Katz, 2017). Partner phubbing has been linked to higher levels of depression,

attachment insecurity, and lower levels of relationship satisfaction (Chotpitayasunondh &

Douglas, 2016; Darrow, 2015; Halpern & Katz, 2017; Wang et al., 2017).

Pornography. Pornography is another competing attachment that is unique as it borders

on the line of two different types of competing attachments, both as an addiction, and infidelity

as many spouses or partners view pornography as a form of infidelity (Resch & Alderson, 2014).
 58

Pornography in that way involves the addicted partner turning outside of the relationship to

another person in a sexual way, even though that person may be virtual, or in video format and

may not interact with the addict in a direct way (Resch & Alderson, 2014). Often the person

addicted turns to pornography for soothing shame and disconnection in the romantic relationship

(Weinstein, Katz, Eberhardt, Cohen & Lejoyeux, 2015). Research into the experience of the

partner of a porn addict shows self-reports of feeling in competition with the pornography or the

actors in the pornographic material (Kohut, Fisher & Campbell, 2016). Pornography has also

been demonstrated through research to affect an addict’s perception of their partners, and has

even been shown to lower sexual desire for the non-addicted spouse (Gill, 2014). Additionally,

Internet based pornography users gradually spend less time with real people and more solitary

time viewing the sexual material online (Gill, 2014). This can fuel the non-addicted partner’s

belief that the pornography is more sexually desirable to the addicted partner.

Research findings on pornography use in relationships have uncovered attachment-

related impacts on romantic relationships (Zitzman & Butler, 2009). First, pornography use that

is perceived as attachment infidelity leads to the development of a disruption in attachment

security and disconnection between partners (Johnson, 2008; Zitzman & Butler, 2009). As one

partner develops a sense of distance and disconnection from the addicted spouse, this

disconnection and relational distress widens the attachment breakdown (Johnson, 2008).

Attachment research data on pornography has found a resulting culmination of

attachment estrangement from a self-reported sense of being emotionally and psychologically

 59

unsafe in the relationship, demonstrating a relational shift from a secure to an insecure

attachment bond (Johnson, 2008; Zitzman & Butler, 2009). The non-porn viewing spouse

develops a global mistrust consistent with attachment breakdown (Zitzman & Butler, 2009). Data

collected on the impact of pornography in relationships is consistent with the attachment

perspective of addiction (Flores, 2004; Gill, 2014; Johnson, 2008; Zitzman & Butler, 2009).

Research dating back to 1998, when the Internet started becoming accessible to virtually

all American families, cites that 53 percent of internet addicts’ relationship problems were due to

online affairs and sexual behavior (Gill, 2014). A 2002 survey of matrimonial lawyers reported

that even in the early years of Internet use by the masses, 62 percent of divorces that year cited

problematic Internet use (fightthenewdrug.org, 2015). 56 percent of those cases involved an

obsessive interest in Internet porn by one partner (fightthenewdrug.org, 2015). Data also

suggests that individuals who view pornography throughout their marriages are more likely to

get a divorce than non-porn viewing peers (Shultz, 2016). Additionally, critics say that it is the

lying and deception involved in the addiction cycle that damages and erodes the relationship

satisfaction and the security of the bond, not the addiction itself. Lying and deception do have

harmful effects on relationships, and certainly undermine the security of the attachment bond as

well as lower relationship satisfaction (Flores, 2004; Kohut et al., 2016). However, turning

outside of the relationship to an addiction has also been shown to have an effect on the security

of a relationship bond as well as relationship satisfaction (Kohut et al., 2016; Resch & Alderson,

2014).
 60

Affairs and infidelity. Infidelity, the act of being unfaithful in a romantic relationship, is

considered to be one of the most potent threats to romantic attachment security and relationship

satisfaction (Johnson, 2008; Russell, Baker & McNulty, 2013). It comes in a variety of forms,

takes on different meanings or definitions for different people, and can be interpreted in different

ways, even by partners in the relationship (Johnson, 2008). Infidelity may be sexual or emotional

without any sort of sexual activity involved. What constitutes appropriate or inappropriate

behavior, and sex or sexual expression with someone other than their romantic attachment

partner can take on different meanings for different people. For one partner, a one-time

encounter where their partner turns to another may be acceptable, whereas another partner may

find small flirtations that do not result in sexual intercourse unacceptable (Fincham & May,

2017). For others, finding inappropriate, provocative or sexual pictures or messages exchanged

between their partner and another may constitute infidelity.

Relationship infidelity constitutes a violation of trust that brings the whole relationship

into question and must be dealt with if the relationship is to repair and reconnect (Johnson, 2008;

Parker & Campbell, 2017; Schade & Sandberg, 2012). Research supports a general consensus

that infidelity, even if only perceived, is experienced as a threat to adult love relationships and

undermines the trust, security and satisfaction of these relationships (Cater et al., 2016; Johnson,

2008; Parker & Campbell, 2017). Studies show that infidelity related behaviors on social media

are also associated with attachment insecurity and lower levels of relationship satisfaction

(Dijkstra et al., 2009; McDaniel, Drouin, & Cravens, 2017). Infidelity is one of the leading
 61

causes of divorce and one of the leading threats of competing attachment (Fincham & May,

2017; Pham et al., 2017; Russell et al., 2013). Additionally, infidelity also bears high costs to

individual mental health, relationship satisfaction and stability, and offspring (Finchan & May,

2017).

Statistical estimates reflect a growing occurrence of infidelity occurring at some point

during the lifetime of a specific romantic relationships from 20%-25% of married or committed

partners around twenty years ago to 60% - 75% by more recent estimates (Fincham & May,

2017; Parker & Campbell, 2017; Russell et al., 2013). This demonstrates a pressing need for

understanding and addressing causes of relational infidelity. Some identified individual factors

such as personality type, individual attachment styles, cultural changes, addiction and changes

attitudes towards sex and commitment have been associated with the increased occurrence of

infidelity (Campbell, 2017; Fincham & May, 2017; Fish, Pavkov, Wetchler, Parker & Bercik,

2012).

Relationship factors such as commitment, investment in the relationship and cohabitation

have also been identified as factors in predicting infidelity (Fincham & May, 2017). Other

relationship factors such as attachment security and satisfaction have been demonstrated as both

a consequence and cause of infidelity (Fincham & May, 2017). Studies have provided evidence

demonstrating a link between attachment avoidance and interest in other partners (Allen &

Baucom, 2004; Bogaert & Sadava, 2002; Dewall et al., 2011). Additionally, research findings
 62

support strong associations between attachment insecurity and infidelity in relationships

(Fincham & May, 2017, Johnson, 2008; Parker & Campbell, 2017; Russell et al., 2013).

Unmet attachment needs and low levels of relationship satisfaction may also be a

contributing factor to partners seeking connection and sex outside of their primary love

relationship (Johnson, 2008; Schade & Sandberg, 2012). When an individual does not feel that

they get their needs for love, attention, affection, sex, and emotional connection within their

relationship, they may find themselves vulnerable and more at risk for accepting attention and

affection given to them by another, resulting in turning outside of the relationship for these needs

(Johnson, 2008; Schade & Sandberg, 2012). Research has suggested that anxious attachment is

correlated with reactive behaviors of constant attention seeking and heightened needs for

reassurance. Data from longitudinal studies have provided evidence that attachment insecurity

predicts infidelity in relationships and is associated with lower relationship satisfaction

(Campbell & Parker, 2017; Fincham & May, 2017; Russell et al., 2013; Schade & Sandberg,

2012).

Rival Relationships. A rival relationship is a form of competing attachment that may be

any non-romantic relationship a partner has with another person outside of their romantic love

relationship (Ma et al., 2015; Wang & Griskevicius, 2014). This may be a friend of the opposite

sex or even a family member such as an in-law (Manzi, Parise, Iafrate, Sedikides, & Vignoles,

2015). In these relationships, one partner may consistently turn out to a friend or family member

to discuss private emotional topics, seek comfort or validation, or share friendly connections that
 63

are not shared with their partner or spouse within the romantic love relationship. The cue for a

threat may signal when the non-turning out partner perceives they are left out or on the outside of

a friendship or relationship. This may look like a partner who exchanges text messages, emails or

phone calls, and or engages in private get-togethers with another outside the relationship, from

which their romantic partner is excluded and never invited to (Johnson, 2008; McDaniel et al.,

2017). Other signals that might cue a threat is the sense that their partner is turning out to this

other person more often than they share these types of personal discussions and conversations

within the relationship. External relationships may not constitute or result in infidelity, but they

are experienced as a competing attachment threat to the romantic bond (Klavina & Buunk,

2013).

One form of rival relationship that may present a more significant threat to the stability of

a romantic relationship is the perceived emotional or sexual connection with another attractive

opposite-sex person (Ma, Zhao, Tu & Zheng, 2015). These may be friends, acquaintances or

coworkers, who may not have any romantic interest, however, they are perceived as an

intrasexual rival for their romantic partner (Ma et al., 2015). Studies conducted by social

cognitive evolutionary approaches have found that women tend to be more threatened by the

physical attractiveness of another female, whereas a male may be more threatened by a perceived

rival’s social status and dominance (Buunk et al., 2007). The presence of close relationships with

others that are perceived as attractive alternatives can threaten relationship satisfaction,
 64

engagement, and commitment to their romantic partner, and is a predictor of relationship

breakup (Ma et al., 2015).

Research findings suggest that these threats may become more distressing for males when

their mate declines sexual activity and has recently spent more time with other male friends or

coworkers (Pham et al., 2017). These findings also suggest that some reactive behaviors for men

when threatened include more frequent, deeper, and more aggressive sexual copulation with their

romantic partner (Pham et al., 2017). Additionally, males may hyper-activate their sexual

behavior as a method of increasing the sexual experience of their romantic partner in the

relationship, which might decrease the risk of their partner turning out to another (Pham et al.,

2017). A relationship defense strategy used by both men and women is in changing their self-

views to be similar to that of a rival who are perceived as more attractive to their mate (Slotter,

Lucas, Jakubiak, & Lasslett, 2013). Studies have found that reactive emotions of jealousy from

competing attachment threats for females hyper-activate strategies to capture their partner’s

attention (Huang, Dong & Wyer, 2017). This may include the use of attention grabbing products

and adornment of luxury items as an attempt to lower the threat by signaling to potential rivals

that they are well cared for by their romantic partner (Huang et al., 2017; Wang & Griskevicius,

2014).

Defensive or dismissive responses when confronted by a partner may heighten the sense

of relational distress (Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Consequently, the threat of

attractive alternative partner can undermine the security of the romantic attachment bond (Ma et
 65

al., 2015). While these rival competing attachment relationships may not always be romantic in

nature, literature from social cognitive and evolutionary perspectives discuss the experienced

threat these others may pose to one’s romantic relationship (Wang & Griskevicius, 2014). A

common reaction to these threats is a sense of jealousy and competition, which occurs when an

individual perceives a rival as a threat to their romantic relationship (Huang et al., 2017; Slotter

et al., 2013).

Intrusive family members. Rival relationships in the form of family members, often

described as intrusive family members, are associated with a weaker couple identity and are

demonstrated to predict the quality of the couple’s bond (Manzi et al., 2015). Romantic

relationship intrusiveness by family members implies an imbalance between couple autonomy

and relatedness with a family member (Drummund, 2016). This may also feel like the turning-

out partner is putting the needs, concerns, or opinions of another outside of the relationship

ahead of their romantic partner’s (Lee, 2015). An individual may feel threatened when their

partner is constantly seeking validation or emotional support from a family member, for

example, a son who asks for his mother’s opinion or advice more often than his wife’s (Freud,

2013; Hillman, 2012; Lee, 2015).

The most common described rival family relationship is an enmeshed emotional bond

between a mother and son, resulting in connection with the wife or female partner at a distance

(Drummund, 2016; Freud, 2013). This dynamic often involves emotional intimacy and

dependency between mother and son, turning to her for comfort, support and approval more than
 66

the male turns to his wife or partner (Lee, 2015; Merrill, 2007). This type of competing

attachment threat often goes undetected as society tends to dismiss enmeshed mother son

relationships as problematic, despite the consequences to the son’s marriage or romantic

relationship (Drummund, 2016; Freud, 2013; Hillman, 2012; Lee, 2015). This dynamic does not

discourage a healthy bond between mother and son, but reflects a dynamic where an unhealthy

attachment between a parent and child exists, resulting in the failure of the either person to

securely transition their attachment appropriately when necessary (Freud, 2013; Hillman, 2012).

Males who have frequently put their mother first by meeting her every need, tend to maintain

this behavior after they marry (Hillman, 2012; Merrill, 2007). The mother-in-law then retains a

position as her son’s primary female attachment figure, and as a priority above the spouse

(Drummund, 2016; Freud, 2013; Lee, 2015; Merrill, 2007). This leads to feelings of distress by

the wife, and feeling like an outsider in the family that must compete with her mother-in-law for

the emotional connection with her husband (Hillman, 2012; Lee, 2015; Merrill, 2007). This form

of competing attachment is present cross-culturally even among societies where multi-

generations reside under one roof and intergenerational relationships are highly valued (Lim &

Lim, 2012).

These various types of competing attachments have each been studied individually under

different theoretical frameworks. The outcomes of these studies show a common link between

each type of competing attachment and attachment security and relationship satisfaction. The

common link is attachment consequences and outcomes. Therefore, combining these types of
 67

competing attachments under one theoretical framework offers a single coherent lens through

which to understand them. Through this study, the types of competing attachments were

integrated and synthesized through the theoretical framework of attachment theory.

Relationship Satisfaction

To understand the relationship between competing attachment and relationship

satisfaction, it is important to understand how relationship satisfaction is defined. Relationship

satisfaction is the subjective evaluation of one’s relationship as pleasurable, valuable, and

enjoyable (Cooper, Totenhagen, Curran, & Randall, 2017). The structure of relationship

satisfaction may be defined by the quality of a variety of factors including but not limited to

trust, attachment security, intimacy, communication, conflict, shared values and effort (Bradbury

et al., 2000; Cooper et al., 2017; Shafer et al., 2014). Relationship satisfaction is an important

factor in relationship longevity and personal health (Kautzman-East et al., 2013; Proulx et al.,

2007). Research indicates that relationship satisfaction should remain relatively high and stable

over time for most couples in securely attached relationships (Hadden, Smith, & Webster, 2013).

Lower levels of relationship satisfaction are associated with higher relational conflict and are

more likely to result in relationship dissolution (Hadden et al., 2013; Kautzman-East et al., 2013;

Miller et al., 2012; Rauer et al., 2008). Some of these elements of relationship satisfaction are

interconnected, for instance, trust and intimacy may also be qualities or outcomes of good

communication (Overall & McNulty, 2017). Additionally, each of these factors is also

components of securely attached relationships (Johnson & Wiebe, 2017).

 68

Factors that shape relationship satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction can be described

as a dynamic in which the perceived benefits of a relationship are higher than the perceived costs

(Fincham & Beach, 2010). High relationship satisfaction is associated with trust, attachment

security, intimacy, good communication, low levels of conflict, sacrifice motives, shared values

and effort (Bradbury et al., 2000; Cooper et al., 2017; Shafer et al., 2014). The evaluation of

communication in relationships is largely based on effectiveness in promoting connection and

cohesion in relationships, both in times of connection and conflict (Overall & McNulty, 2017).

Good communication is both verbal and nonverbal can be evaluated as levels of openness,

opposition rather than cooperation during conflict, and levels of directness with each other or

indirectness (Overall & McNulty, 2017). Whether or not communication is harmful is subjective

and contextual (Overall & McNulty, 2017). Trust in a relationship is based on the felt sense that

partners in a committed relationship can be relied upon to be upfront, open, honest and

transparent with their partner (Kim, Weisberg, Simpson, Oriña, & Farrell, 2015). Additionally,

trust also encompasses a lack of withholding or omitting information or details about something,

as well as masking or concealing information or truth from one’s partner (Kim et al., 2015).

Couples with high levels of trust tend to view their partner and their relationship in a positive and

constructive manner, which is associated with higher levels of relationship satisfaction (Kim et

al., 2015).

Research shows that secure and satisfying relationships require work, they do not occur

by chance (Rauer et al., 2008; Sadikaj et al., 2015; Shafer et al., 2014). Relationship effort can be
 69

considered both a partner’s willingness and behavioral actions toward investing time and

emotions into their relationship (Shafer et al., 2014). Additionally, relationship effort can be

described as how much effort one puts into their relationship, their willingness to take care of

their partner’s needs, an overall willingness towards forgiveness of mistakes, level of

engagement in connection with their partner, and their level of actively participating in open and

honest communication with their partner (Shafer et al., 2014). The amount of effort one puts into

their romantic relationship is associated with relationship stability and satisfaction (Shafer et al.,

2014). Furthermore, the ability to make sacrifices for one’s partner, as well as their motivations

for making sacrifices can influence relationship satisfaction as well (Cooper et al., 2017).

Positive motivations such as selflessly acting toward the good of their partner or relationship in a

way that can enhance positive feelings in the relationship for both partners is associated with

relationship satisfaction (Cooper et al., 2017).

Attachment security is also strongly associated with relationship satisfaction (Burgess-

Moser et al., 2015; Diamond et al., 2017; Gallerová & Halama, 2016; Mondor et al., 2011;

Sadikaj et al., 2015). As previously mentioned, attachment security is characterized by a felt

sense of the attachment relationship as being either secure or insecure (Burgess-Moser et al.,

2015; Wiebe et al., 2016). It is also based on a sense that an individual exists in the mind of their

lover, especially when separated by time or distance, and that they are cherished and important to

them (Johnson, 2008; 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). The security of the relationship can be

influenced by a variety of factors including the evaluation of one’s partner as trustworthy and
 70

reliable during moments of need. Additionally, emotional accessibility, responsiveness and

engagement are also qualities of security in romantic attachment relationships (Johnson, 2013;

Wiebe et al., 2017). High levels of trust and positive communication as well as the ability of one

to recognize their communication or behavior as harmful or beneficial to their partner and

relationship, and to quickly repair any hurt are associated with relationship security (Johnson &

Wiebe, 2017).

Relationship dissatisfaction. Relationship dissatisfaction is considered a lack of pleasure

or satisfaction with one’s relationship, and the perception that the costs of the relationship

outweigh the benefits (Fincham & Beach, 2010; Rauer et al., 2008). Similar factors that

influence relationship satisfaction also influence dissatisfaction, but in a converse manner. For

example, relationships with a lack of trust may result in feelings of jealousy, poor

communication, and lack of security in the attachment bond (Shafer et al., 2014; Wang &

Griskevicius, 2014). Lack of trust may also lead partner’s to assign negative attributes or

motivations to their partner’s behaviors, which can also lead to conflict (Shafer et al., 2014).

Relationships that are lacking in trust, have lower levels of effective communication, and are

higher in conflict are associated with relationship dissatisfaction (Overall & McNulty, 2017;

Rauer et al., 2008). Poor communication can constitute a lack of openness, honesty, omission of

facts, commissions of false statements or information, embellishment of details that distort facts,

failure to communicate information in a manner that creates respect and trust (Overall &

McNulty, 2017). According to Gottman and Gottman (2017) the presence and frequency of
 71

criticism of one’s partner, expression of contempt or disgust for one’s partner, defensiveness, and

stonewalling (the act of blocking or tuning out one’s partner or their opinion), within couple

communication are strong predictors of a relational apocalypse (Werrbach, 2014). Relationships

lacking quality and effective communication as well as trust are also associated with lower levels

of sexual and emotional intimacy (Johnson, 2008).

Lack of effort in maintaining the relationship and meeting a partner’s needs is also

associated with relationship dissatisfaction (Cooper et al., 2017). If one person consistently puts

in more effort than the other partner, they may start to feel less appreciated and not as valuable to

in the relationship. Relationship dissatisfaction may also be a cause and consequence of putting

efforts into something outside of the relationship rather than into the relationship itself. Research

also shows that time spent on other activities is a contributing factor in relationship

dissatisfaction (Margelish, Schneewind, Violette, & Perrig-Chiello, 2017). This is evident by the

research on various types of competing attachments that have demonstrated an association with

lower relationship satisfaction. Infidelity, for example, is one of the top threats to and causes of

lower relationship satisfaction (Fincham & May, 2017; Johnson, 2008). Addiction is correlated

to higher levels of relational conflict, lower levels of relationship satisfaction, and higher levels

of divorce (Foulstone et al., 2016; Gill, 2014; Owens, Hallgren, Ladd, Rynes, Mccrady, &

Epstein, 2013). Time spent with rival partners or relationships is also a factor in relationship

dissatisfaction (Ma et al., 2015). Problematic pornography use is also associated with lower

levels of relationship satisfaction (Gill, 2014; Resch & Alderson, 2014). The intrusive
 72

relationship of some family members, video game addiction and smart phone use has also been

demonstrated to have an impact on relationship satisfaction (Lim & Lim, 2012; Northrup &

Shumway, 2014; Reed et al., 2015; Roberts & David, 2016). These factors may cause the cost of

the relationship to rise and the benefits to decrease (Rauer et al., 2008). Additionally, sacrifices

made out of a motivation of avoiding conflict or upsetting their partner rather than to enhance the

relationship is associated with relationship dissatisfaction (Cooper et al., 2017). Each of these

may also contribute to a shift in the security of the attachment bond from secure to insecure

(Johnson & Wiebe, 2017). Insecure attachment is correlated with low levels of relationship

satisfaction, or relationship dissatisfaction (Diamond et al., 2017).

Outcomes of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Relationship satisfaction is associated with

relationship stability and success over time (Bradbury et al., 2000; Cooper et al., 2017; Fincham

& Beach, 2010; Shafer et al., 2014). It has also been demonstrated to be associated with

relational longevity, overall levels of happiness, lower relational conflict, deeper levels of

intimacy, attachment security, and an ability to cope more effectively with every day stress

(Dalgleish et al., 2014; Margelish et al., 2017). Relationship satisfaction can also lead to higher

levels of psychological resilience, improve quality of life and overall health, and lead to longer

life (Margelisch et al., 2017). Those with secure and satisfying relationships are less likely to

participate in extradyadic relationships (Owens, Rhoades, & Stanley, 2013).

Dissatisfaction in a relationship however, is associated with higher conflict, relationship

instability, attachment insecurity, and low levels of trust (Kim et al., 2015; Margelisch et al.,
 73

2017; Shafer et al., 2014). These factors have also been demonstrated to have negative effects on

relationship outcomes (Kim et al., 2015; Shafer et al., 2014). Individuals who report low levels

of trust in their partner also report lower levels of commitment to their relationships, poor or

worsening relationship quality, and low or unstable evaluations of their relationship satisfaction

and quality over time (Kim et al., 2015; Shafer et al., 2014). Relationship dissatisfaction has also

been linked to declines in physical and psychological health (Kautzman-East et al., 2013;

Margelisch et al., 2017). Lower levels of relationship satisfaction are also correlated with higher

levels of divorce and relationship dissolution (Kautzman-East et al., 2013). Overall relationship

satisfaction is an important factor in determining relationship stability and longevity (Cooper et

al., 2017; Hadden et al., 2013; Owens et al., 2013). The literature demonstrates the importance of

maintaining secure and satisfying relationships, supporting this study’s examination of the

relationship between competing attachment, relationship specific attachment security, and

relationship satisfaction.

Summary

Attachment is an integrative theory for understanding the importance of attachment

bonds, how they are formed and maintained, and how this influences emotional regulation and

responses (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson & Wiebe, 2017; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). It

synthesizes humanistic experiential and systemic perspectives under a framework for

understanding basic universal intrapsychic needs and fears, as well as the trauma of

disconnection from important others, loss and isolation (Bowlby, 2005; Cassidy & Shaver, 2016;
 74

Johnson, 2008; 2013). Research demonstrates that the need to maintain a close attachment bond

with a loved one is universal survival need that spans from infancy to death (Bowlby, 2005;

Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Because of this need,

humans are not only biologically wired to form attachment bonds (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016;

Johnson, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016), they are also wired to detect threats to their pair-

bond relationships (Buunk et al., 2007; Klavina & Buunk, 2013; Manor et al., 2009). Research

on adult romantic attachment has begun to uncover what happens when these pair-bonds become

threatened, unstable, and the consequences this has on both the relationship and the individual

(Hadden et al., 2013; Johnson, 2008; 2013; Mikulincer et al., 2014; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

It has been demonstrated that relational threats are best conceptualized in the context of

adult attachment (Cassidy & Shaver, 2016; Johnson, 2008; 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Competing attachments threaten the security of romantic attachment bonds and become pivotal

moments that can redefine a relationship as unsafe, and create an impasse to relational trust,

stability and satisfaction (Johnson, 2008; Kohut et al., 2016; Reed et al., 2015; Sobraske, 2016).

Data from studies on some specific forms of competing attachment have already demonstrated a

link between these attachment threats, relationship specific attachment security and relationship

satisfaction (Cater et al., 2016; Owens et al., 2013; Reed et al., 2015; Roberts & David, 2016;

Rodriguez et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2017). It is possible that competing attachments also impact

relationship satisfaction because they also impact relationship specific attachment security. This
 75

supports the hypothesis that relationship specific attachment security mediates the relationship

between competing attachments and relationship satisfaction.

However, an extensive search of literature yields limited information directly available on

the exact nature of competing attachment and their influence on relationship security and

satisfaction, revealing an important gap in knowledge. The issue identified through this gap in

knowledge “echoes a larger issue in the field of couple and family therapy: the lack of a coherent

well-researched theory of adult love to serve as a context–a meaning frame for understanding”

(Johnson, 2008, p.18) the nature of relational threats in the form of competing attachments and

their impact on romantic attachment bonds. Data has identified that the security of these bonds

has an influence on the quality and satisfaction of romantic relationships (Burgess-Moser et al.,

2015; Dalgleish et al., 2014; Diamond et al., 2017; Gallerová & Halama, 2016; Wiebe et al.,

2016). Relationship satisfaction is also a demonstrated factor in the ability of people to

successfully maintain romantic relationships and marriages (Gallerová & Halama, 2016;

Kautzman-East et al., 2013; Mondor et al., 2011; Rauer et al., 2008; Sadikaj et al., 2015).

Therefore, understanding these threats is important for developing a coherent framework for

understanding the nature of the relationship between these constructs. An additional goal of this

study was to use the data and outcomes to help inform theory and clinical practice in a way that

may help clinicians develop methods of effectively helping couples minimize and cope with

threats to the security of their relationships and achieve relationships that are emotionally secure

and satisfying.
 76

Chapter 3: Research Method

In some romantic relationships, one partner or spouse turns outside of the relationship to

something or someone else to substitute unmet attachment needs (Furrow et al., 2011; Flores,

2004; Johnson, 2008; Woolley, 2015). This turning outside of the relationship to something or

someone for escape, comfort, soothing, has been referred to as competing attachment (Furrow et

al., 2011; Reid & Woolley, 2006; Woolley, 2015). Competing attachment can be perceived as a

threat to the relationship and can cause distress to the attachment bond and may lead to

attachment insecurity. Attachment insecurity has been linked to declines in relationship

satisfaction (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, 2016; Johnson & Greenman, 2013; Sadikaj et al., 2015).

The purpose of this non-experimental quantitative study was to examine the relationship between

competing attachment and relationship satisfaction, and whether or not this relationship is

mediated by relationship specific attachment security in adult romantic relationships.

Using a quantitative approach this study used Internet based survey questionnaires to

collect data from the sample population. It was important to explore the relationship between

competing attachment and relationship satisfaction because insecure attachment is co-related to

lower levels of relationship satisfaction (Diamond et al., 2017; Gardner, 2007). Competing

attachment threatens the security of the attachment bond even in couples that would consider

themselves securely attached, making it difficult to feel satisfied in a relationship as the bond

becomes insecure and unstable (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, 2016; Johnson & Greenman, 2013;

Sadikaj et al., 2015). Low marital satisfaction leads to various types of distress and is also
 77

correlated with higher divorce rates, declines in physical health and higher rates of early

mortality (Kautzman-East et al., 2013; Sbarra, et al., 2012). It was important to explore the

relationship between competing attachment and relationship specific attachment security because

insecure attachment leads to declines in relationship satisfaction, and attachment security

(Diamond et al., 2017; Gardner, 2007; Johnson et al., 2013). In this chapter the research design

and methodology used to examine the research questions are presented and the population and

sample are described. Materials and instruments, and data analysis procedures used to examine

the study variables are outlined. Finally, assumptions, limitations, delimitations and ethical

assurances are discussed.

Research Methodology and Design

A quantitative non-experimental design was used for this study to better understand the

relationship between competing attachment and relationship satisfaction, and whether or not this

relationship was mediated by relationship specific attachment security (Pelham & Blanton, 2013;

Punch, 2014). An experimental design was not possible for this study because a control group

could not be formed, nor could random assignment to groups be used without violating ethical

considerations (Fox, Murray, & Warm, 2010). The purpose of the study and the research

questions concerned the prediction of outcomes and quantitative designs were well suited to

study hypotheses based on these types of questions (Punch, 2014). Path analysis using regression

modeling explicitly allowed for the testing of an independent variable’s prediction of an outcome

variable, as well as the effect of a mediator (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Hayes, 2013; Wuensch,
 78

2016). Therefore path analysis was appropriate for this study. Qualitative design and methods

were inappropriate for this study because the data collected concerned the description of

phenomena, experiences and perceptions from the point of view of the participants (Miles,

Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Results were used to make inferences concerning the relationship

between the independent variable, competing attachment, the mediating variable of relationship

specific attachment security, and the dependent variable, relationship satisfaction (Edwards &

Lambert, 2007).

This quantitative, non-experimental study examined questions that concern the

relationship between competing attachment and relationship satisfaction, and whether or not this

relationship is mediated by relationship specific attachment security. The research questions

were whether high competing attachment will or will not predict low relationship satisfaction,

and if relationship specific attachment security will or will not mediate the relationship between

competing attachment and relationship satisfaction. Elements regarding the population,

measurement and analysis are discussed below.

Population and Sample

The population for this study consisted of adult individuals (18 and over), in a romantic

attachment relationship, married or unmarried, heterosexual or same-sex couples. The sample

consisted of 39.5% adults between ages 18 and 35, 81.5% Caucasian, 78.1% reported having

graduate school education with 27.8% earning $100,000 or more. Additionally, 28.5% of study

participants’ self-reported being in their current relationship for a period of one to five years.
 79

Participants were recruited online using convenience sampling through email announcements

and Facebook. Convenience sampling was used because random sampling was resource

prohibitive (Pelham & Blanton, 2013). According to Omnicore statistics (2017), 53% of

Facebook users are female and 47% are male, this covers the normal distribution of gender. In

the United States alone, 82% of online users age 18 to 29 are on Facebook, 79% of people age 30

to 49 and 63% of those aged 50-64 also use Facebook. Additionally, 84% of senior citizens in

the United States use the Internet and 56% of online seniors 65 and older use Facebook (Aslam,

2017). This made Facebook and online recruiting strategies an appropriate method to study this

population. Email announcements were sent out to therapy listerves for Emotionally Focused

Therapy. Facebook recruitment entailed a posting in online Facebook groups for therapists and a

posting on the researcher’s Facebook business page available to the general public. Incentives

were not offered in exchange for participation to avoid undue influence or coercion (Creswell,

2014). Data collection continued until the minimum sample number was been collected.

Using G*Power 3.1 to compute the sample size, a power analysis yielded a required

minimum sample size of 100, to achieve a power estimate of .95 (Faul et al., 2007). A larger

sample size helps with greater validity and reliability of the study’s results (Creswell, 2014). The

only screening criteria for sampling procedures required anyone over the age of 18, and anyone

currently in romantic relationship. This sample was appropriate because anyone who is an adult

falls under the lens of adult attachment, and has had the potential to experience attachment

distress and competing attachment. A basic assumption of this study was that attachment needs
 80

are a universal phenomenon; therefore other selection criteria were not needed for the study.

Only age, gender, currently in a romantic relationship, and the ability to speak English were

established as parameters for recruiting participants, and the minimum age for participation was

18 (the legal adult age threshold in the United States) as the study collected data on adult

romantic attachment, children were not appropriate for this sample population. This sample

population yielded results that are generalizable because of its broad and diverse sample pool

(Aslam, 2017).

Materials/Instrumentation

Competing Attachment. The Competing Attachment Scale (CAS; Bugatti et al., 2015)

measured the predictor variable, competing attachment, and how often one experiences

competing attachment in their relationship. The initial item pool for the CAS was derived from

multiple sources including observations gathered from clinical experience, anecdotal reports, and

a review of literature. To address item construction limitations due to new measurement

construction, items were created following recommendations from several experts in test

development (Anastasi, 1988; DeVellis, 1991; Hambleton, Merenda & Spielberger, 2005; Kline,

2015; Noar, 2003; Reid, Garos & Fong, 2012). Specifically, “items were written in clear and

concise language that (a) avoided double-barreled queries; (b) avoided the use of double

negatives, which can lend ambiguity to test items; (c) was free from gender bias; and (d) covered

the breadth of the hypothesized content domain” (Reid et al., 2012, p. 118).
 81

The initial item pool consisting of twelve items were evaluated for face validity

(Martinez, 2017) by three licensed clinical psychologists, a research psychologist with expertise

in psychometrics, and one licensed clinical social worker with expertise in attachment using the

criteria outlined above. These individuals also assessed the items for face validity and judged the

items to fall within the domain of the construct being assessed (Martinez, 2017). Evaluations and

assessments were made concerning item singularity, relevance, brevity and clarity (Fishman &

Galgeura, 2003; Martinez, 2017). After feedback and reassessment, the final pool was reduced

for the CAS to five items, each item referring to the frequency of experience of competing

attachment within the romantic relationship. Specifically, these five items capture frequency of

competing attachment, frequency of turning outside of the relationship, frequency of time and

attention given to competing attachments, frequency of hurtful experiences from competing

attachment, and frequency of disruption to the romantic attachment bond because of competing

attachment.

A final total of five items were generated using a five-point response format (0 = Never;

1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often; 4 = Very Often) with Likert type categories of responses

in an effort the make the interpretability of responses clear (Reid et al., 2012; Weijters, Cabooter

& Schillewaert, 2010). The total score for the scale will range from zero to 25. Scores closer to

zero will reflect little to no competing attachments while scores closer to 25 will demonstrate

high competing attachment. This presents a possible threat to validity of the data from the

competing attachment scale, but no alternative scale to measure competing attachment exists.
 82

Throughout this study, some aspects of validity and reliability for this scale were examined,

however a full study will be needed in the future to collect the parametrics of this scale, which is

discussed in the limitations section of this study. Permission to use this measure was granted by

the authors of this measure (Bugatti et al., 2015). A copy of the CAS is included in Appendix A.

Relationship Specific Attachment Security. The State Adult Attachment Measure

(SAAM; Gillath et al., 2009) measured the mediating variable, romantic relationship specific

attachment security. The SAAM was designed to measure fluctuations in relationship specific

attachment security (Gillath et al., 2009). The SAAM was derived from a factor analysis of self-

report measures of adult attachment, as well as a rewording of items from the ECR (Brennan,

Clark & Shaver, 1998; Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011) to reflect a state specific

context. The initial item pool for the SAAM included 52 items. Using an exploratory factor

analysis to examine the underlying structure of the SAAM and testing 1, 2, 3 and 4-factor

solutions, researchers identified a three factor model as the most valid and reliable structure for

the SAAM (Bosmans, Bowles, Dewitte, Winter & Braet, 2014; Gillath et al., 2009). Further

factor analysis on the 52-item pool reduced items to 32. Final scale items were obtained by

filtering the remaining 32 items and by eliminating items below 0.50 in factorial space and

testing the psychometric properties of the final 21 items. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the

final 21 items on the SAAM range is between .83-.87 (Gillath et al., 2009).

The SAAM’s twenty-one self-report items measure attachment security across three

subscales: secure attachment, and insecure attachment in two areas, anxiety and avoidance
 83

(Gillath et al., 2009). These subscales are broken down into seven questions for each dimension.

Each question is given a response range from one (disagree strongly) through seven (agree

strongly), with four indicating a neutral or mixed response (Gillath et al., 2009). Participants are

asked to evaluate their feelings on statements such as: right now “I wish someone would tell me

they really love me” (Gillath et al., 2009). Each question is individually coded for the aspect of

attachment it measures (Gillath et al., 2009). For example, question number one assesses for

relationship specific anxiety; a “strongly agree” answer will demonstrate high attachment anxiety

while a “strongly disagree” answer will demonstrate low attachment anxiety. Question four is

coded to capture relationship specific attachment security; a “strongly agree” answer will

demonstrate to securely attached while a “strongly disagree” answer will demonstrate low

relationship specific attachment security (Gillath et al., 2009). Each individual question is coded

to capture a score of one of three particular relationship attachment subtypes: secure, insecure, or

avoidant. The total score for the scale will range from one to twenty-one for each of the three

dimensions of attachment security. High and low scores will reflect levels of either attachment

security, or levels of either type of attachment insecurity (Gillath et al., 2009).

The results of “exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded three reliable

subscales measuring state levels of attachment-related anxiety, avoidance, and security.

Additional studies demonstrated both convergent and discriminant validity of the new measure,

and its sensitivity to a variety of experimental manipulations” (Gillath et al., 2009, para. 1) also

yielding a Cronbach alpha coefficient range between .83-.87. Confirmatory factor analysis
 84

conducted on the SAAM yielded a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) score of .90 and a Root Mean

Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) score of .07 (Trentini, Foschi, Lauriola, & Tambelli,

2015). This instrument is a useful tool to measure relationship specific attachment security as

defined in this study because it measures the fluctuations in attachment security possibly as a

result of a competing attachment entering the relationship and temporarily creating attachment

insecurity. Other measurement tools can assess for relationship specific attachment security

however, the SAAM is the only established reliable and valid assessment tool that measures

fluctuations in adult relationship specific attachment security as these fluctuations are connected

to the hypothesis in this study (Bosmans et al., 2014; Gillath et al., 2009). The SAAM has been

published with permissions for free usage by researchers and clinicians (Gillath et al., 2009). A

copy of the SAAM is included in Appendix B.

Relationship Satisfaction. The dependent variable, relationship satisfaction, was

measured using the Couples Satisfaction Index-16 (CSI-16; Funk & Rogge, 2007). The Couples

Satisfaction Index is a sixteen-item survey derived from a pool of relationship satisfaction

assessment tools, including the Marital Adjustment Scale (MAT), the Experiences in Close

Relationships Revised (ECR-R) and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), the previous of which

demonstrated more statistical noise (Funk & Rogge, 2007). The CSI was condensed from

twenty-one items into a shorter, sixteen-item response questionnaire and its ability to maintain
 85

reliability and validity has been confirmed with an alpha coefficient of α= .98 (Funk & Rogge,

2007).

The contents of the CSI-16 captured relationship satisfaction through an evaluation of

relationship warmth, strength, happiness, hopefulness, comfort, fragility, interesting, fullness,

enjoyableness, cohesion, and how rewarding or interesting the relationship is (Funk & Rogge,

2007). Each question is given a different set of ratings, though each question response ranges

from 0 (Extremely unhappy/Never/Not True/Not at all) to 5 (extremely happy/all of the

time/completely true/good) (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Only one question gives a 6th option response

of describing the relationship beyond extremely happy to “perfect” (Funk & Rogge, 2007).

Scores ranging at five or close to five are associated with positive feelings about the relationship

while scores ranging close to or at zero are associated with negative feelings about the

relationship (Funk & Rogge, 2007).

The evaluation of satisfaction on the CSI-16 is in a range from zero to five, which

depending on the item zero could equal, not at all, extremely unhappy, never, not true at all, or

bad or discouraging. A score of 1 = A little, fairly unhappy, rarely, to a range between bad and

good. A score of 2 = A little happy, more often than not, somewhat true, to a range between bad

to good (Funk & Rogge, 2007). A score of 3 = Happy, more often than not, mostly true, to a

range between bad to good. A score of 4 = Very happy, most of the time, almost completely true,

or a range closer to good than to bad. A score of 5 = Extremely Happy, all of the time,
 86

completely, and good, enjoyable and hopeful. The CSI-16 is scored by summing the responses

across all of the items (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Total scores can range from zero to 81. Higher

scores indicate higher levels of relationship satisfaction. CSI-16 scores falling below the cut-off

score of 51.5 suggest notable relationship dissatisfaction (Funk & Rogge, 2007).

The CSI has demonstrated better reliability, validity and discriminability in its ability to

detect differences in levels of relationship satisfaction (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Analysis has

demonstrated convergent and construct validity of the CSI scales, each of which were found to

be internally consistent with a score of α = .98 (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Analysis on the CSI also

demonstrated strong correlations to existing measures of relationship satisfaction the CSI was

measured against, such as the Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures (ECR-

RS), the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), and the Marital Adjustment Test (MAT) (Funk &

Rogge, 2007; Rusu, Hilpert, Turliuc & Bodenmann, 2016). The shortened version of the CSI

eliminates longer surveys, which is more agreeable for participants to take and complete the

survey in its entirety (Funk & Rogge, 2007). All versions of the CSI have been published for

free use to researchers and clinicians (Funk & Rogge, 2007). A copy of the CSI-16 is included in

Appendix C.
 87

Operational Definitions of Variables

This study explored three variables: competing attachment, romantic relationship specific

attachment security and relationship satisfaction. A summarized description of how these

variables are operationally defined is included below.

Competing attachment. The independent variable, competing attachment, was defined

as the frequency of turning outside of the relationship, frequency of time and attention given to

competing attachments, frequency of hurtful experiences from competing attachment, and

frequency of disruption to the romantic attachment bond because of competing attachment (CAS;

Bugatti et al., 2015). Competing attachment was defined in this study as a continuous predictor

interval-level variable, as it is divided into five continuous categories with Likert scale response

items (Bugatti et al., 2015; Pelham & Blanton, 2013). Total score captures the presence and

frequency of competing attachment (Bugatti et al., 2015). Additionally, data analysis used the

scores to test the hypothesis if competing attachment predicts relationship satisfaction.

Relationship specific attachment security. The mediator, relationship specific

attachment security, was assessed using the State Adult Attachment Measure (SAAM; Gillath et

al., 2009), and was defined as being loved, feeling alone, dependability, closeness versus

distance, sharing feelings, feeling cared about, emotional support, and trust. These elements were

measured across three dimensions: security, and insecurity subtypes of anxiety and avoidance

(Gillath et al., 2009). Relationship specific attachment security is a continuous criterion interval-

level variable, as items are divided into continuous categories with Likert scale response items
 88

(Pelham & Blanton, 2013). Each dimension makes up seven questions of the total twenty-one

questions. Each of the questions is given a response range from 1 (disagree strongly) through 4

(neutral/mixed), through 7 (agree strongly) (Gillath et al., 2009). Scores were used to assess the

level of relationship specific attachment security or insecurity for each participant. Additionally,

scores were used to test the hypothesis regarding the presence and the strength of the mediation

between the independent and dependent variable.

Relationship Satisfaction. The dependent variable, relationship satisfaction, was

measured using the Couples Satisfaction Index-16 (CSI-16; Funk & Rogge, 2007). It was

defined as relationship warmth, strength, happiness, hopefulness, comfort, fragility, interesting,

fullness, enjoyableness, cohesion, and how rewarding or interesting the relationship is (Funk &

Rogge, 2007). This construct is a continuous criterion interval level variable, as response items

are divided into continuous categories with Likert scale response items (Pelham & Blanton,

2013). Each question gives a different set of ratings, though each question response ranges from

0 (Extremely unhappy/Never/Not True/Not at all) to 5 (extremely happy/all of the

time/completely true/good) (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Scores range from zero to 81 with higher

scores correlating to higher levels of relationship satisfaction and lower scores correlating to

lower levels of relationship satisfaction (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Additionally, scores were used to

help determine if the independent variables predicted the dependent variable, and if this

prediction was mediated by the mediating variable, relationship specific attachment security.
 89

Study Procedures

After receiving approval from the Northcentral University IRB, the researcher began

recruitment of study participants. Recruitment of study participants used convenience sampling,

which involved sending out an email announcement requesting volunteer participation,

informing the inclusion criteria and included a direct link to the survey. This email

announcement was emailed to the Emotionally Focused Therapy listserve for therapists, most of

which are located all over the United States. Additionally, a study recruitment announcement

was posted in several Facebook groups for therapists, specifically Therapists of Las Vegas

Facebook group, Therapists in Private Practice Facebook Group, Emotionally Focused Therapy

Facebook group, as well as the researcher’s business Facebook page, which is open to the

general public that have access to the Internet. Participants were recruited until the number of

completed assessments reached at least 100 participants. The recruitment announcement and

Facebook announcement are included in Appendix C.

Once potential participants received the announcement, participants logged into a secure

study website called Survey Monkey, to participate in the survey. Once in the website,

participants initially viewed the welcome page which stated the title, described the purpose of the

study, and identified the criteria for participation. If study participants agreed to continue, they

were then directed next to the informed consent page, which advised participants that their

participation was voluntary and that participation could be withdrawn by exiting from the study

at any time. The informed consent page also advised participants of the study procedure,
 90

potential risks, protection of confidentiality and benefits of the study. Additionally, the informed

consent page included the researcher’s and advisor’s names, business addresses, University

affiliation, and email addresses. Participants either agreed to continue with their participation by

clicking the “begin survey” or selected “exit survey” to withdraw if they did not wish to

participate. Participants who began the survey entered the actual assessment and received

instructions for completion. Demographic information such as age, and race/ethnicity, gender,

length of current relationship, education and income level were collected to examine the

diversity among the sample participants. The online assessment was designed to take

approximately 15 and 25 minutes to complete.

Survey Monkey was used to collect participant responses because of its high level of

security. Survey Monkey does not allow data to be stored on a personal computer, Internet file

history, or as a cached item. Once the browser window containing the survey closes, Survey

Monkey also prevents temporary files from the survey being stored in the browser history. The

target sample size for this study was 100 participants. All surveys were accessible by the

researcher. Additionally, all study results and electronic documents from Survey Monkey and

SPSS were stored on an encrypted flash drive in a locked filing cabinet in the researcher’s locked

private therapy practice to ensure confidentiality. Electronic files were securely stored and will

be destroyed after three years according to Federal regulations. No hard copies of the data were

obtained.
 91

Data Collection and Analysis

Scores from each of the three instruments and demographic data were loaded into the

SPSS software (IBM, 2013) to conduct the data analysis. Data was analyzed in two steps. The

first step included analyzing descriptive statistics to describe the scores for each variable and the

sample, to explore any relationships between the variables, and to determine if there were

significant differences on the major variables based on demographics (Punch, 2014). This initial

analysis determined the range, distribution, frequency, statistical mean, and the standard

deviation of all the main study variables, including the sub-dimensions of attachment security

(Punch, 2014). An assumption of this study was that the sample and the variables were normally

distributed, but the analysis examined the skewness and kurtosis to detect changes. The skewness

showed if the results were moving toward the left or right, and kurtosis showed if the curve was

higher or lower than the normal distribution. The results of descriptive statistics are presented

graphically for each variable, which present the results of the study variables compared to the

normal distribution (Pelham & Blanton, 2013; Punch, 2014).

During the second step of data analysis, the total score and sub-scores of each variable,

examined the relationship between the independent, predictor, continuous interval-level variable

competing attachment. This analysis used a path analysis to examine the first hypothesis with

SPSS software with AMOS (IBM, 2013; Pelham & Blanton, 2013; Punch, 2014; Wuensch,

2016). The path analysis analyzed the direct relationship between the independent, predictor

variable (competing attachment) and the dependent, criterion variable (relationship satisfaction);
 92

the independent variable and the mediator relationship specific attachment security (including

the sub-dimensions of attachment insecurity); the mediator and the dependent variable; and the

indirect relationship between the independent and dependent variable through the mediator and

its sub-dimensions of attachment insecurity (Punch, 2014; Wuensch, 2016). Path analysis is a

widely used contemporary model of analysis that includes a series of multiple linear regressions,

and utilizes structural equation modeling, that provide estimates of the magnitude and

significance of hypothesized connections between sets of variables (Punch, 2014; Wuensch,

2016). Path analysis also allowed for the calculation of the continuous variables and

simultaneous evaluation of the variables in the model. Traditional multiple regression requires

analysis in linear sequential steps (Punch, 2016). This would have precluded the analysis of the

interconnected relationship among the variables, which are triangular in the path analysis.

Therefore, the path analysis provided a more accurate analysis of data collection results (Punch,

2016; Wuensch, 2016). Variable scores were converted into Z scores in order to calculate the

path coefficients for the path analysis. Additionally, a correlational analysis was conducted to

determine if there was a relationship between all three variables, competing attachment,

relationship specific attachment security, and relationship satisfaction, and the descriptive

variables of age, ethnicity and gender. Relationship specific attachment security was also broken

down according to its sub-dimension attachment insecurity, including the two types of

attachment insecurity (anxious and avoidant) for further analysis. This was appropriate as all of

these variables are continuous (Wuensch, 2016).

 93

Figure 1 below illustrates the hypothesized relationship between the variables that was

analyzed using a path analysis:

To test the first hypothesis, a path analysis consisting of a multiple regression analysis

determined if competing attachment predicted relationship satisfaction. Additionally, the path

analysis included all three variables and demonstrated differences between a bivariate and a

multivariate relationship (Wuensch, 2016). To examine the second hypothesis, a basic mediation

analysis was used for a three variable path analysis to test if relationship specific attachment

security mediated the relationship between competing attachment and relationship satisfaction.

Relationship specific attachment security was also broken down into its sub-dimension

attachment insecurity, and each of its subtypes was also analyzed through the path model.

Results of the path analysis determined if relationship specific attachment security had a

complete, partial or no mediating effect on the relationship between competing attachment and

relationship satisfaction (Wuensch, 2016).

 94

Additionally, using a mediated path analysis model to further examine the second

hypothesis, only the predictor variable, competing attachment was exogenenous, meaning it is

not affected by the other variables in this model (Carey, 1998; Williams, 2015). The correlations

were then decomposed into direct and indirect effects; summing these together gave the total

effect (Carey, 1998). According to the hypothesis, competing attachment directly and indirectly

affects relationship satisfaction. The observed correlation between competing attachment and

relationship satisfaction was decomposed into three components: first is the direct effect of

competing attachment on relationship satisfaction. Second is the indirect influence of competing

attachment on relationship satisfaction (through the moderating variable, relationship specific

attachment security); and third, a spurious relationship where competing attachment and

relationship satisfaction are each caused by coincidence or some third unforeseen variable

(Carey, 1998; Williams, 2015). The variance of the dependent variable was also decomposed

using the path analysis by using the variable as both the first variance and the second variable

(Williams, 2015). To do this, the analysis started with relationship satisfaction and all paths were

traced that end in relationship satisfaction. Results of the final path analysis are presented

graphically in a path diagram to show how the independent variable through the path of the

mediating variable influences the dependent variable.

Additionally, a correlated cause model of path analysis was conducted with the same

decompositions, but under the separate assumption that both competing attachment and

relationship specific attachment security are exogeneous, creating an additional decomposition

 95

component where the correlation between these two variables was left unanalyzed (Carey, 1998;

Williams, 2015). This model of path analysis assumed that part of the correlation between

competing attachment and relationship satisfaction was due to the correlation between competing

attachment and relationship specific attachment security (Carey, 1998; Williams, 2015).

Additional, this extra analysis did not have a significant effect on the mathematical portion of the

path analysis, but may have affected the interpretation of the sources of correlation (Williams,

2015). Results of the additional analysis are presented graphically in a path diagram.

All data were tested for violations of the assumptions of multiple regression. These

assumptions included: testing for a linear relationship between the outcome variable relationship

satisfaction, and the independent variable competing attachment; the variables were normally

distributed; No multicollinearity, and finally the test of homoscedasticity (Garson, 2014). The

assumption of linear relationship was tested with P-P scatterplot for outliers. A violation of this

assumption can be corrected by excluding outliers in the data. Violations of normal distribution

might be corrected through a non-linear transformation (Garson, 2014). If a violation of

multicollinearity occurs, the violation may be corrected by centering the data by deducting the

mean score from each observation, or by conducting a factor analysis before the regression

analysis. If the violation of multicollinearity is due to an autocorrelation in the data, this can be

corrected with a Durbin-Watson test (Garson, 2014). Finally, a violation of homoscedasticity

might be corrected through a non-linear correction (Garson, 2014). Additionally, several

regression analyses were conducted to examine the significance of coefficients establishing a

 96

zero-order relationship among the variables and support for the mediation (Baron & Kenny,

1986; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). If findings do not support mediation, or support partial

mediation, Bootstrapping may be used to obtain standard point estimates and confidence

intervals in order to assess the significance or non-significance of the mediator (Preacher &

Hayes, 2008).

Assumptions

Assumptions were made in order to develop this research study. Theoretical assumptions

included that attachment needs are universal, transcending age, culture, and demographics. Also

assumed, as supported by the literature, is that relationship specific attachment security can be

affected by multiple factors, not limited exclusively to threats of competing attachment (Burgess-

Moser et al., 2015). This study exclusively examined the influence of competing attachment on

relationship satisfaction and relationship specific attachment security. Methodological

assumptions made by the principal investigator included that although convenience sampling is

used for participant recruitment, the inclusion criteria used to screen potential participants is

accurate. Therefore, researchers can assure that the sample of participants was an appropriate and

accurate representation of the population: adult couples in romantic relationships. Additionally, it

was assumed that participants have a sincere desire to participate in the study, and do not have

any other motives, such as receiving compensation, as a result of participating. Next, the

participants responded to data collection questionnaires in an honest, and candid manner.

Statistical assumptions included the sampling data was normally distributed. As predicted, the
 97

statistical procedures enabled the principle investigator to make conclusions and generalizations

about the nature of the relationship between competing attachment, relationship specific

attachment security and relationship satisfaction.

Limitations

The primary limitation of this study was the use of convenience sampling versus random

sampling, since convenience sampling may impact the external validity or generalizability of the

results (Creswell, 2014). The data analysis provided enough descriptive data to allow researchers

to make reliable conclusions about the demographics and variables despite the sampling

limitations. The data analysis mitigated limitations presented by convenience sampling.

Additionally, because this study was explorative and the first to directly study the relationship

between these variable, results will provide a good basis for conclusions and directions for future

studies. Future studies might be able to find an ethical way of using random sampling to increase

the level of generalizability of results.

The further limitation that convenience sampling presented was that it precludes

participation of those that did not have access to the Internet or technology, or were not

technologically adept at using the online modalities employed by this study. This does not render

the study results ungeneralizable, however it means the pool of sample participants may be

narrower than the population. A second limitation was that while the Competing Attachment

Scale has been tested for face validity (Bugatti et al., 2015) and some aspects of validity and

reliability for this scale were examined during this study, a full study will be needed in the future
 98

to collect the parametrics of this scale. Finally, while this study is applicable to other cultures,

the instruments are currently only validated in the English language, with the exception of the

SAAM, which was also validated in Italian (Trentini et al., 2015). The instruments would need to

be translated into other languages and tested for validity in those languages before it can be

repeated in non-English speaking cultures. It is assumed that the advantages outweighed these

limitations so that the pool or research results will be rich enough for data analysis and provide a

strong foundation for future studies.

Delimitations

A theoretical delimitation of this study was the unique concept of studying relationship

satisfaction through the pattern of competing attachment, as competing attachment is a threat

conceptualized under the umbrella of relationship specific attachment security, a relationship that

is theoretically suggested to possibly be bidirectional (Johnson, 2008; Woolley, 2015). A

methodological delimitation of this study was the unique opportunity to use the Competing

Attachment Scale, which was specifically constructed for this research study (Bugatti et al.,

2015). Upon investigation of research and literature, there was no existing instrument that

measured the construct of competing attachment or any instrument that could be substituted in its

place. Results of extensive searches of literature and research in the field of attachment, adult

attachment, competing attachment, broken attachment bonds, and broken romantic attachment

bonds yielded only measures of attachment security and attachment styles and no measures of

competing attachment specifically. Only one published source, a clinical handbook for therapists
 99

training in the counseling model Emotionally Focused Therapy, directly discusses competing

attachment, but does not discuss how to measure the construct (Furrow et al., 2011). With these

two delimitations it is believed that this study will add a rich body of knowledge to our

understanding of these topics, and will formally define and operationalize the term competing

attachment.

Ethical Assurances

This study involved minimal risk to human participants. Possible ethical limitations

included protection from harm, informed consent, right to privacy, and honesty with the reported

data outcomes (Pelham & Blanton, 2013; Sparks, Collins, & Kearns, 2016). First, data was not

collected nor were any study participants recruited before receiving approval from Northcentral

University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). This was to help protect participants from harm,

and to maintain a minimal risk level (Sparks et al., 2016). The survey included an informed

consent, which participants were required to read and agree to before the survey allowed them

access to participate in the study (Fox et al., 2010). The study did not collect names or any other

personal information other than gender and age (to confirm they are of legal age to participate in

the study). Therefore participants’ information and survey answers were completely anonymous

and confidential. Recruited participants were also not required to participate in the study even

though they may have agreed to receive an email invitation to participate. Participants were free

to withdraw their consent and stop participation at any time for any reason.
 100

Because the questions contained in the survey may trigger sensitive topics or feelings in

participants, participants were able to end their participation in the study at any time. Participants

were not offered compensation to participate in the study. Data collected from the study will be

stored securely on an encrypted flash drive and will be stored in a locked cabinet in the

researcher’s locked private practice office. All electronic data will be destroyed after seven years

by erasing the contents of the flash drive. A committee of professional researchers and clinical

professors examined the results of the data analysis to ensure that the reported outcomes match

the actual data collection results. The researcher conducted a blind neutral study, unable to

identify the participants in the actual study or which results belonged to which participant. By

not knowing who ended up participating, it was assumed some biases were eliminated, since

random sampling was not be used (Sparks et al., 2016).

Summary

The present study examined the relationship between competing attachment as a

predictor of relationship satisfaction and hypothesis that relationship specific attachment security

will mediate this relationship. The methodological design included a quantitative non-

experimental study using convenience sampling. Instruments used to study the relationship

between the variables included, the Competing Attachment Scale (CAS; Bugatti et al., 2015), the

State Adult Attachment Measure (SAAM; Gillath et al., 2009), and the Couples Satisfaction

Index-16 (CSI-16; Funk & Rogge, 2007). The sample included 100 adult participants, age 18 and

over that are currently in a romantic relationship. Quantitative analysis included statistical
 101

procedures using a path analysis, which provided data from a series of multiple regressions. The

statistical analysis allowed researchers to examine the impact of the independent and the

mediating variable on the dependent variables, and the way in which they are related (Punch,

2014). With this information this study was able to test the hypothesis that competing attachment

influences relationship satisfaction, and that relationship specific attachment security mediates

this relationship.
 102

Chapter 4: Findings

This quantitative, non-experimental study was conducted with the purpose of determining

whether the threat of competing attachment influenced relationship specific attachment security

and satisfaction in romantic attachment relationships. Study participants were recruited online

via Facebook and an email listserve. In this research, three self-report instruments, the

Competing Attachment Scale (CAS; Bugatti et al., 2015), the State Adult Attachment Measure

(SAAM; Gillath et al., 2009) and the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI-16; Funk & Rogge, 2007),

were used to collect data online from 200 participants. Of the 200 participants, 151 complete

responses were collected. Using these instruments, the data analysis included the following

statistical procedures: Descriptive statistics, tests of assumptions of multiple regression, and a

regression and path analysis. The statistical data was used to explore the study research questions

regarding understanding the relationship between the main study variables, as well as to test the

hypothesis that competing attachment predicts relationship satisfaction and to explore whether

this relationship is mediated by relationship specific attachment security. The results of the data

analysis are presented for the study hypotheses. This chapter will present the reliability and

validity of the study results, data analysis results including demographic information, and an

evaluation of the findings.

Validity and Reliability of the Data

In preparing the raw data for statistical analysis, cases that had systematic missing data

such as from respondents withdrawing from the survey after only completing less than 75% of
 103

all survey questions were eliminated, which led to a more robust data set (Silva & Zárate, 2014).

Upon reviewing cases with missing data, it was found that all missing data was from respondents

exiting or dropping out of the survey. After conducting an elimination of these cases from the

entire dataset (Silva & Zárate, 2014), the final dataset was narrowed to 151 completed responses

with no missing data. The final sample size exceeded the minimum sample size of 100

established through a G*power analysis. Internal consistency reliability analyses were calculated

for the three instruments used in this study. These include the Competing Attachment Scale

(CAS; Bugatti et al., 2015), the State Adult Attachment Measure (SAAM; Gillath et al., 2009)

and the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI-16; Funk & Rogge, 2007). Cronbach alpha scores for

each scale are represented in Table 1 below.

Table 1
Reliability Analysis for the Variables
Criterion Variable Number of Items Cronbach Alpha (α)
Relationship Satisfaction 16 0.964

Relationship Specific 21 0.643

Attachment Security
Competing Attachment (IV) 5 0.920

Note. Total N = 151

Validity and reliability estimations of the Competing Attachment Scale. As the

competing attachment scale was created for use in this study, an exploratory factor analysis was
 104

conducted to assess for the initial reliability and validity of the scale. Items were analyzed for

extreme scores, heterogeneity of variance, sphericity, and tolerance. Analysis of scale items

using the data from this study examined the validity and reliability of the competing attachment

scale (CAS; Bugatti et al., 2015). As a part of examining the reliability and validity of the scale,

initial analysis examined the data set to determine if it met the assumptions of normality. Data

met the requirements of test assumptions of normality (normally distributed) as assessed by

Shapiro-Wilks Test (p ≤ .001) displayed in Table 8, linearity (the degree to which plotted results

conform to a straight line), homoscedasticity (same variance), homogeneity (internal

consistency), and multicollinearity (item correlation; Salkind, 2010). Subsequently no

transformations were conducted (Kline, 2011). A scale could not be considered homogenous

unless all of its items were interrelated or correlated (Salkind, 2010). If items are correlated then

the scale can be said to be measuring the same concept, or has internal consistency (Rogelberg,

2017). The more the relationship between variables or items deviates from a straight line, the

lower the observed correlation and the lower the reliability of the scale. Homoscedasticity refers

to the equality of variance throughout the range of scores, an assumption important to the

reliability and validity of a scale (Salkind, 2010; Singh, Junnarkar, & Kaur, 2016).

Multicollinearity examines the degree to which each scale item correlates with all other items on

the scale (Rogelberg, 2017; Salkind, 2010). This helps determine the deletion of scale of items

that are not strongly related to the total score (Singh et al., 2016).
 105

A Principal Component factor analysis was conducted using varimax rotation and

possible factors were examined based on Eigen value size supporting one factor. Item analysis

suggested internal reliability could be slightly improved by removing item 1, but this was not

significant enough to warrant or justify this modification. Reliability analysis of the final scale,

calculated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, found high internal reliability for the overall items

in the scale (α = .92).

Correlation analyses were used to provide support for the concurrent and divergent

validity of the competing attachment scale (CAS; Bugatti et al., 2015) in order to determine the

degree of association with theoretically related and unrelated measures. Specifically, it is

expected that high scores on the CAS would be correlated with relationship distress as measured

by the CSI, more specifically, those who reported greater levels of being negatively impacted by

competing attachment showed lower levels of relationship satisfaction (r = -.765, p < .0001).

Moreover, according to the results, those who felt competing attachments were prevalent in their

relationships also felt less securely attached in their relationship (r = .50, p < .0001).

In order to assess clinical utility of the CAS, multi-variate statistics were used to assess

how the measure differed between couples that self-reported feeling satisfied with their current

relationship compared to those who did not. Group membership was assigned based on

recommended cut-scores on the CSI-16 of 52 and higher reflecting satisfaction and below 52

reflecting dissatisfaction. As hypothesized, group differences emerged on CAS scores between

 106

those who reported being relationally satisfied (M = 12.1, SD=3.8) compared to those reporting

being dissatisfied (M=19.3, SD=3.9) in their relationships [F(1,150) = 82.1, p < . 0001]. Results

are presented in the tables below.

Table 2
Cut Scores between the CAS and the CSI-16

Std. Std.
N Mean Deviation Error
Satisfied 124 12.09 3.796 0.341
Dissatisfied 28 19.32 3.897 0.737

Total 152 13.42 4.729 0.384

Table 3
ANOVA of the Competing Attachment Scale

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1194.921 1 1194.921 82.139 0.000

Within Groups 2182.131 150 14.548

Total 3377.053 151

 107

Table 4
Correlations between instruments
CSI-16 Avoid_
Total Anx_Atta Attach_ Secure_Attac
CAS Score ch_Total Total h_Total
CAS 5-Item Pearson 1 -.756** .203* .158* -.503**
Total Score Sig. (2- 0.000 0.011 0.050 0.000
tailed)
N 170 152 156 155 156
CSI-16 Total Pearson -.756** 1 -.279** -.327** .651**
Score Sig. (2- 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
tailed)
N 156 152 156 155 156

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Assumption Testing

Assumption tests for the analyses were carried out prior to statistical analysis. All data

were tested for violations of the assumptions of multiple regression. The researcher examined the

mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis of the independent and dependent variable as

part of the analysis of the data for violations of the assumptions of normality (Miles, Huberman,

& Saldaña, 2014). The skewness of relationship satisfaction and relationship specific attachment

security was negative. The skewness values indicated whether distribution was symmetrical or

nonsymmetrical. The data displayed in Table 5 shows that skewness values were lightly skewed

to the left. However, the data was insignificantly skewed and did not violate normality among

the sample.
 108

Table 5
Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables
Std.
Min Max Mean Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Relationship Satisfaction 1.25 5.69 4.12 1.033 -0.878 0.140
RS Attachment 1.21 5.50 3.21 0.932 -0.151 -0.461
Insecurity
RS Attachment Security 2.86 7.00 6.00 1.014 -1.059 -0.461
Competing Attachment 1.00 5.00 2.67 0.946 .0479 -0.125

Additionally, a test of a simple linear relationship between the dependent and

independent variables was conducted. A simple scatter plot with a linear fitted line was

conducted to examine the linearity between the variables. A negative linear relationship was

revealed between competing attachment and relationship satisfaction (Figure 1). Results of the

analysis on the study variables competing attachment and relationship specific attachment

security reveal that across the dimensions of secure attachment and insecure attachment, a linear

relationship existed. The analysis also revealed a negative linear relationship between competing

attachment and relationship specific attachment security, and a positive linear relationship

between relationship specific attachment insecurity and competing attachment. A positive linear

relationship was demonstrated between relationship specific attachment security and relationship

satisfaction, and a negative linear relationship between relationship specific attachment

insecurity and relationship satisfaction. Results are shown in Figures 1 through 4 below.
 109

Figure 1. Simple Scatter plot with Fit line of Relationship Satisfaction and Competing
Attachment
 110

Figure 2. Simple Scatter plot with Fit line of Relationship Specific Attachment Security and
Competing Attachment
 111

Figure 3. Simple Scatter with Fit Line of Relationship Specific Attachment Security by
Competing Attachment
 112

Figure 4. Simple Scatter with Fit Line of Relationship Specific Attachment Insecurity by
Competing Attachment.

Data was checked for significant outliers on the dependent variable (Relationship specific

attachment security) and the independent variable (Competing Attachment). Raw data was

transformed to z-scores and compared the z-sores to a critical value. Values that exceed ± 3.29

standard deviation away from the mean were identified as outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell 2011).

The distributions were evaluated and revealed no cases with univariate outliers as shown in

Table 6.
 113

Table 6
Skewness and Kurtosis z-scores Coefficients
Variables Min Max

z-scores: Relationship Satisfaction -2.784 1.509

z-scores: Relationship Specific Security -3.021 2.412

z-scores: Competing Attachment -1.773 2.454

The assumption of homoscedasticity was also tested, which indicates the variance of

errors (residuals) that are constant across the values of the independent variable (Miles et al.,

2014). The variance of error met the assumption. Results are presented below in a scatterplot for

standardized and unstandardized residual values (Figures 5 through 7).

 114

Figure 5. Standardized scatterplot of Competing Attachment and Relationship Specific

Attachment Security.
 115

Figure 6. Standardized scatterplot of Competing Attachment and Relationship Specific

Attachment Insecurity.
 116

Figure 7. Standardized scatterplot of Competing Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction

Tests of normality. Before data specific to the research questions were analyzed, the

basic parametric assumptions were tested. Total composites were created for the study variables.

Per Kline (2011), a variable is normally distributed if its skewness index (i.e., skewness

statistic/standard error) is less than three and if its kurtosis index (i.e., kurtosis statistic/standard

error) is less than 20. As displayed in Table 7, all but one of the variables had a skewness index

below three. Because the secure attachment and relationship satisfaction variables were highly

skewed they were transformed using a natural log function (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The

skewness indices of the transformed variables were below or just slightly above three (i.e., -.20

and -3.19 respectively); therefore, these transformed variables were used in subsequent
 117

inferential procedures.

Table 7
Skewness and Kurtosis Values for the Study Variables (N = 151)
Skewness Kurtosis

Variable Statistic Index Statistic Index

Competing attachment .48 2.43 -.14 -.35

Attachment security -1.03 -5.20 .18 .46

Attachment insecurity -.15 -.76 -.48 -1.23

Anxious attachment -.05 -.26 -.70 -1.79

Avoidance attachment .47 2.40 -.74 -1.88

Relationship satisfaction -.86 -4.35 .11 .28

Note. SE for skewness statistic = .20. SE for kurtosis statistic = .39.

The researcher tested normality for the dependent variables (relationship specific

attachment security and relationship satisfaction) and the independent variable (competing

attachment). Normality was evaluated using P-Plot and no violations were observed (Figures 8

through 10). To test if the distribution was normally distributed, the researcher examined the

skewness and kurtosis z-scores coefficients critical values as shown in Table 6. Values that

exceed ± 3.29 standard deviation away from the mean may indicate non-normality. However, the

variables were found to be normally distributed and the assumption of normality was not violated

as shown in figures 8 through 10. Normality of the distribution was visually assessed using
 118

histograms and variable distributions were assumed not to be significantly skewed. Furthermore,

normality was evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilks Test. Results indicated that relationship

specific attachment security was significant (p ≤ .001) as shown in Table 2. However,

Tabachnick and Fidell (2011) concluded that for a sample size that exceeded 100, statistical tests

that utilize the general linear model, such as simple regression, are robust against violations of

normality. The variables were found to be slightly normally distributed. However, the data was

skewed very little; thus, the assumption of normality was accepted for the sample. These results

are presented in the figures and tables below.

Figure 8. Normal P-P Plot for Competing Attachment and Relationship Specific Attachment
Security
 119

Figure 9. Normal P-P Plot for Competing Attachment and Relationship Specific Attachment
Insecurity

Figure 10. Normal P-P Plot for Competing Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction
 120

Figure 11. Histogram of Competing Attachment and Relationship Specific Attachment Security

Figure 12. Histogram of Competing Attachment and Relationship Satisfaction

 121

Table 8
Shapiro-Wilks Test of Normality
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig.
Relationship Specific Security .990 150 .342
Relationship Satisfaction .177 150 .000
Note. N = 151

Correlations between the variables. The Pearson correlations (tested using a two-tailed

alpha of .05) between the study variables are summarized in Table 9. Competing attachment

scores were significantly associated with anxious attachment (r = .24, p = .003) and relationship

satisfaction (r = -.73, p < .001) scores. Anxious attachment scores were significantly positively

correlated with avoidant attachment scores (r = .24, p = .003) but significantly negatively

associated with relationship satisfaction scores (r = .31, p < .001). Avoidance attachment scores

were significantly negatively associated with relationship satisfaction scores (r = -.28, p < .001).
 122

Table 9
Pearson Correlations between the Model Variables (N = 151)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5

1 Competing attachment

2 Attachment security -.46 ***

3 Attachment insecurity .26 ** -.52 ***

4 Anxious attachment .24 ** -.29 *** .87 ***

5 Avoidance attachment .15 -.60 *** .69 *** .24 **

6 Relationship satisfaction -.73 *** .52 *** -.37 *** -.31 *** -.28 ***
*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Descriptive Analysis

The study questionnaire included demographic questions to capture the demographic

characteristics of the sample population participating in this study. Though this study employed

convenience sampling, the recruitment of volunteer participants from the Internet via the social

media platform Facebook, whose users comprise a diverse range of age, gender, socioeconomic

and educational status, and cultural background across multiple countries and regions, helped

create a diverse sample appropriate for this study. Demographic information is presented in the

section below. Descriptive analysis on participant demographic information included the

frequency in percentages for age, gender, education, race, length of current relationship, and

income level.
 123

Demographic Variables. Participants in this study were asked to anonymously answer

questions about their demographic information as part of the online survey. Demographic

information was collected and descriptive analysis consisting of the frequency in percent, were

calculated on age, gender, education, race, length of current relationship, and income level (See

Table 10). According to the descriptive demographic data, 84.8% of the sample self-reported as

female, which is higher sample than the 50.8% found in the national population as projected by

the U.S. Census Bureau (2016). Data from the sample demographics also reveal that 94.7% were

between the ages of 18 and 65, whereas according to current population estimates in the United

States, only 63% of the adult population falls within this age range (US Census Bureau, 2016).

Table 10 below also shows that 81.5% of the participants self-reported their ethnicity as

Caucasian, which is close to the population of the United States; recent estimates are that 76.9%

identify as Caucasian (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Twenty-eight and one-half percent of the

participants self-reported having been in their current relationship one to five years. According to

an analysis of the 2015 Census Bureau data, about 56% of Americans self-report as being

married, and an additional 8% of unmarried Americans report cohabitating with a romantic

partner, and an additional 11% identify as being in a committed romantic relationship (Pew

Research Center, 2017). The demographic data also showed that 78.1% of participants reported

their level of education as graduate school level, whereas the census information estimates only

30.3% of the population has earned a bachelor’s degree or higher (US Census Bureau, 2016).

Also represented in Table 10, data for income reveal that largest majority of the sample
 124

comprising 27.8% of the study participants reported earning $100,000 or more per year, whereas

census information would identify only about 10% of the US population earns an annual income

of $100,000 or more (US Census Bureau, 2016).

Table 10
Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables
Participant Demographics
Variable # of Participants %
Gender
Male 21 13.9
Female 128 84.8
Prefer Not To Answer 2 1.3
Age
18-35 60 39.7
36-50 54 35.8
51-65 29 19.2
65-80 8 5.3
Race/Ethnicity
Asian 3 2.0
Black/African American 10 6.6
Hispanic/Latino 11 7.3
White/Caucasian 123 81.5
Other 4 2.6
Length of Current Romantic
Relationship
1 year or less 7 4.6
1-5 years 43 28.5
6-10 years 25 16.6
11-15 years 24 15.9
16-20 years 24 15.9
25 years or more 28 18.5
 125

Table 10 Continued
Participant Demographics
Variable # of Participants %
Education
Some College 10 6.6
Trade/Technical School 2 1.3
College Graduate 19 12.6
Graduate School 118 78.1
Other 2 1.3
Income
$0-$40,000 20 13.2
$41,000-$60,000 35 23.2
$61,000-$80,000 26 17.2
$81,000-$100,000 17 11.3
$100,000+ 42 27.8
Prefer Not To Answer 11 7.3
Note. N=151

Demographics across study variables. The means and standard deviations for

competing attachment, attachment security including the sub-dimension of attachment insecurity,

and relationship satisfaction within demographic variable categories are summarized in Tables

11 through 16. Corresponding inferential statistics (t- or F-values, depending on the number of

categories) are also presented. The findings reveal that the major study variables did not

generally differ across gender (Table 11), age (Table 12), relationship length (Table 13), race

(Table 14), levels of education (Table 15), and income levels (Table 16). However, attachment

insecurity, a sub-dimension of attachment security broken down into the two measured subtypes

of anxious and avoidant attachment, did differ significantly across income levels, F(2, 149) =

6.92, p = .001 as displayed in Table 16. Post-hoc Tukey HSD (honest significant difference) test
 126

results revealed that respondents who earned $40,000 or less had significantly higher attachment

insecurity scores (M = 55.05, SD = 11.03) than respondents who earned between $41,000 and

$100,000) (M = 44.03, SD = 13.78; p = .002) and respondents who earned $101,000 or more (M

= 43.45, SD = 11.31; p = .002).

Table 11
Descriptive Statistics for the Model Variables across Gender for Females and Males
Females Males
(N = 128) (N = 22)
Variables M (SD) M (SD) t
Competing attachment 13.42 (4.65) 13.23 (5.39) .18

Attachment security 42.11 (7.16) 40.77 (7.20) .81

Attachment insecurity 45.14 (12.99) 45.36 (14.52) -.07

Relationship satisfaction 66.01 (16.33) 65.64 (18.71) -.10

*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
 127

Table 12
Descriptive Statistics for the Model Variables across Age Groups
18 to 35 36 to 50 51 or Older
(N = 60) (N = 54) (N = 38)
Variables M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F
Competing attachment 12.63 (4.45) 14.43 (4.50) 13.24 (5.31) 2.11

Attachment security 45.53 (6.34) 41.61 (7.42) 41.50 (7.95) .34

Attachment insecurity 45.57 (13.77) 45.44 (13.07) 44.58 (12.45) .07

Relationship satisfaction 67.73 (14.58) 62.52 (17.28) 68.03 (17.90) 1.84

*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Table 13
Descriptive Statistics for the Model Variables across Length of Relationship
5 Years or Less 6 to 15 Years 16 Years or More
(N = 50) (N = 50) (N = 52)
Variables M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F
Competing attachment 12.46 (4.25) 13.68 (5.39) 14.10 (4.42) 1.65

Attachment security 42.24 (6.57) 42.36 (6.85) 41.27 (7.93) .36

Attachment insecurity 46.94 (12.60) 43.80 (14.28) 45.10 (12.50) .72

Relationship satisfaction 68.06 (14.02) 66.84 (17.41) 63.08 (17.73) 1.27

*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
 128

Table 14
Descriptive Statistics for the Model Variables across Whites and Non-Whites
White Non-White
(N = 124) (N = 28)
Variables M (SD) M (SD) t
Competing attachment 13.36 (4.83) 13.68 (4.35) -.32

Attachment security 41.98 (7.05) 41.82 (7.55) .10

Attachment insecurity 45.81 (13.33) 42.93 (12.08) 1.05

Relationship satisfaction 66.09 (16.35) 65.36 (17.54) .21

*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Table 15
Descriptive Statistics for the Model Variables across Levels of Education
Less Than College Bachelor’s Degree Graduate Degree
(N = 12) (N = 19) (N = 119)
Variables M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F
Competing attachment 13.00 (5.24) 13.37 (5.80) 13.37 (4.45) .03

Attachment security 39.17 (7.51) 41.58 (6.86) 42.31 (7.14) 1.09

Attachment insecurity 42.17 (15.72) 45.74 (15.07) 45.44 (12.70) .35

Relationship satisfaction 65.17 (18.98) 67.74 (20.73) 65.99 (15.38) .12

*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
 129

Table 16
Descriptive Statistics for the Model Variables across Income Levels
$40,000 or Less $41,000 to $101,000 or More
(N = 20) $100,00 (N = 52)
(N = 79)
Variables M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F
Competing attachment 14.90 (4.10) 12.87 (4.57) 13.68 (5.11) 1.60

Attachment security 40.05 (6.75) 42.25 (7.06) 42.21 (7.37) .82

Attachment insecurity 55.05 (11.03) 44.02 (13.78) 43.45 (11.31) 6.92 **

Relationship satisfaction 61.25 (16.57) 66.73 (16.52) 66.57 (16.53) .94

*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Testing the Path Models

Procedure

The path models were tested. According to literature (Kline, 2011), the fit of structural

models was assessed via the chi-square statistic and the fit indices shown in Table 17. Note that

several models were just identified, therefore fit statistics were not reported for these models. To

test for the mediating effects of anxiety attachment and avoidance attachment, bootstrapping

procedures (N = 2000 samples; 95% bias-corrected intervals) were conducted to determine the

significance of the direct and indirect effects. According to Kline (2011), a variable is deemed a

mediator when the following criteria are met: the independent variable significantly predicts the
 130

mediator; the mediator significantly predicts the dependent variable; and the indirect effect is

statistically significant but the direct effect is not statistically significant.

Table 17
Fit Indices and Their Threshold Values
Index Threshold Reference

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .95 Hu & Bentler, 1999

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < .06 Brown & Cudeck, 1993

Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) < .08 Hu & Bentler, 1999

Testing the first research questions and hypotheses. The first research questions asked

what the relationship is between competing attachment, relationship satisfaction, and attachment

security. A Pearson’s correlation was conducted to explore the relationship between competing

attachment, relationship specific attachment security including the sub-dimensions of attachment

insecurity, and relationship satisfaction. A preliminary analysis demonstrated a linear

relationship among the variables. The strength of association to determine a positive or negative

relationship as suggested by Kline (2011) is displayed in Table 18. The results should show a

significant value p < 0.05 and a correlation -1 < r > 1. The results indicated in Table 19 displays

the correlations between competing attachment, relationship specific attachment security (both

secure and insecure), and relationship satisfaction. A significant positive relationship between

competing attachment and relationship specific insecurity r(149) = 0.250, p < 0.05 was also
 131

revealed. Examination of the relationship between competing attachment and relationship

specific attachment security indicated that a significant moderately negative correlation exists

between the two variables r(149) = -0.486, p < 0.05. A negative correlation indicates that as one

variable increases the other decreases (Kline, 2011). Therefore, as relationship specific

attachment security attachment decreased, competing attachment increased. Further examination

of the relationship between competing attachment and relationship satisfaction revealed a

significant strong negative relationship between the two variables r(149) = -0.755, p < 0.05. The

results suggested that as relationship satisfaction increased, competing attachment decreased.

The Pearson r also examined the relationship between the two broad dimensions of

relationship specific attachment security, both secure and insecure attachment. The results

displayed a significant moderately negative relationship r(149) = -0.467, p < 0.05. Based on the

data, as attachment security increased, insecure attachment decreased. The correlation between

relationship specific attachment security and relationship satisfaction was also examined. The

results indicated a significant strong positive relationship between the two variables r(149) =

0.649, p < 0.05. This is consistent with the data displayed in Table 19, which shows that as

relationship specific attachment security increased, relationship satisfaction also increased. Data

analysis also examined if a relationship existed between relationship specific attachment

insecurity and relationship satisfaction. The results showed a significant moderately negative

relationship r(149) = -0.380, p < 0.05. Based on the data, as relationship specific attachment

insecurity increased, relationship satisfaction decreased. These findings provided enough support
 132

to test the first set of hypotheses, which stated that competing attachment would predict both

relationship specific attachment security and relationship satisfaction. The findings in Table 23

(see the section on partial mediation) reveal that competing attachment significantly predicted

relationship satisfaction, β = -.62, p < .001. Competing attachment significantly predicted

attachment insecurity, β = .26, p = .001. Competing attachment also significantly predicted

attachment security, β = -.46, p < .001. Thus, the first set of hypotheses were supported, rejecting

the null hypothesis.

Table 18
Strength of Association
Coefficient, r
Positive Negative
Weak .1 to .3 -0.1 to -0.3
Moderately .3 to .5 -0.3 to -0.5
Strong .5 to 1.0 -0.5 to -1.0
(Kline, 2011)
 133

Table 19
Correlation Analysis between the Independent and Dependent Variables
Correlations
Competing Attachment Attachment Relationship
Attachment Insecurity Security Satisfaction
**
Competing Pearson Correlation 1 .250 -.486** -.755**
Attachment Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .000
N 150 151 151
**
Attachment Pearson Correlation 1 -.467 -.380**
Insecurity Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 150 150
Attachment Pearson Correlation 1 .649**
Security Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 151
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Note. N= 151

Testing the second research question and hypothesis. The second research question

and hypothesis stated that attachment security (including its subtypes of insecurity measured

across two dimensions of anxious and avoidant attachment) would mediate the relationship

between competing attachment and relationship satisfaction. As noted earlier, according to Kline

(2011), a variable is deemed a mediator when the following criteria are met: the independent

variable significantly predicts the mediator; the mediator significantly predicts the dependent

variable; and the indirect effect is statistically significant but the direct effect is not statistically

significant (for full mediation) or the direct effect is still statistically significant (for partial
 134

mediation). Bootstrapping procedures were conducted to determine the significance of the direct

and indirect effects (Edwards & Lambert, 2007).

Assessing the mediating effect of anxious attachment. As shown in Table 22, competing

attachment significantly predicted the subtype of insecure attachment, anxiety attachment, β =

.24, p = .002. Therefore, the first criterion for mediation was met. But anxious attachment did not

significantly predict relationship satisfaction, β = -.10, p = .063. Thus, the second criterion for

mediation was not fulfilled. Therefore, anxious attachment did not mediate the relationship

between competing attachment and relationship satisfaction.

Assessing the mediating effect of avoidant attachment. The findings in Table 22 indicate

that competing attachment did not significantly predict the specific subtype of attachment

insecurity, avoidant attachment, β = .15, p = .063. Accordingly, the first criterion for mediation

was not met. Thus, avoidant attachment did not mediate the relationship between competing

attachment and relationship satisfaction.

Assessing the mediating effect of attachment insecurity (based on Figure 16 model).

The findings in Table 24 reveal that competing attachment significantly predicted attachment

insecurity, β = .26, p = .001. Therefore, the first criterion for mediation was met. Attachment

insecurity also significantly predicted relationship satisfaction, β = -.20, p < .001. Thus, the

second criterion for mediation was fulfilled. Lastly, the indirect effect of competing attachment

on relationship satisfaction was statistically significant, β = -.05, p = .002. Therefore, attachment

 135

insecurity significantly mediated the relationship between competing attachment and relationship

satisfaction.

Assessing the mediating effect of attachment insecurity (based on Figure 17; direct

effects model). To examine the direct influence of competing attachment on the sub-dimension

attachment insecurity using a direct effects path model, the findings in Table 24 reveal that

competing attachment significantly predicted attachment insecurity, β = .26, p = .001. Therefore,

the first criterion for mediation was met. Attachment insecurity also significantly predicted

relationship satisfaction, β = -.12, p = .023. Thus, the second criterion for mediation was

fulfilled. Lastly, the indirect effect of competing attachment on relationship satisfaction was

statistically significant, β = -.11, p = .012. Therefore, attachment insecurity significantly

mediated the relationship between competing attachment and relationship satisfaction.

Assessing the mediating effect of attachment security (based on Figure 17; direct

effects model). To examine the direct influence of competing attachment on attachment security

using a direct effects path model, the findings in Table 24 show that competing attachment

significantly predicted attachment security, β = -.46, p < .001. Therefore, the first criterion for

mediation was met. Attachment security also significantly predicted relationship satisfaction, β =

.18, p = .003. Thus, the second criterion for mediation was fulfilled. Lastly, the indirect effect of

competing attachment on relationship satisfaction was statistically significant, β = -.11, p = .012.

Therefore, attachment security significantly mediated the relationship between competing

attachment and relationship satisfaction.

 136

Results for the Path Models for Research Question 2

Full mediation model. The full mediation model, shown in Figure 13, did not fit the data

well. The findings in table 14 reveal that the CFI was only .22 and below the acceptable

threshold; the RMSEA was high at .60 and above the acceptable threshold of .06; the SRMR was

also above the acceptable threshold of .08. The model accounted for only 12% of the variance of

relationship satisfaction. As shown in Table 21, all but one path coefficient was statistically

significant.

Figure 13. Standardized coefficients for the full mediation model

 137

Table 20
Fit Indices for the Path Models
Index Full Partial 1 Partial 2

Chi-square 109.71 6.89 37.11

Degrees of freedom 2 1 1

Probability level .00 .01 .00

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .22 .96 .83

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .60 .20 .49

Lower bound 90% confidence interval .51 .08 .36

Upper bound 90% confidence interval .70 .35 .63

P-close .00 .02 .00

Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) .21 .06 .12

Note. Partial 1, anxious and avoidant attachment; Partial 2, attachment insecurity and security.
 138

Table 21
Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients for the Full Mediation Model
Path B SE β t

Competing attachment to:

Anxious attachment .51 .17 .24 3.06 **

Avoidant attachment .24 .12 .15 1.86

Anxious attachment to relationship satisfaction -.02 .01 -.25 -3.31 ***

Avoidant attachment to relationship satisfaction -.02 .01 -.23 -2.95 **

*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Partial mediation model. The partial mediation model, where a direct path from

competing attachment to relationship satisfaction was included, is depicted in Figure 14. This

model fit the data better than the full mediation model, Δχ2(1) = 102.82, p < .001. It also met the

acceptable criterion for two out of the three fit indices (see Table 20). The CFI was .96 and

above the acceptable threshold of .95; its SRMR was .06 and below the acceptable value of .08.

Only the RMSEA was unacceptable. The model accounted for 56.4% of the variance of

relationship satisfaction. As shown in Table 22, three out of the five path coefficients were

statistically significant.
 139

Figure 13. Standardized coefficients for the partial mediation model.

 140

Table 22
Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients for the Partial Mediation Model
Path B SE β t

Competing attachment to:

Insecure anxious attachment .51 .17 .24 3.06 **

Insecure avoidant attachment .21 .12 .15 1.86

Relationship satisfaction -.10 .00 -.68 -12.08 ***

Anxious attachment to relationship satisfaction -.01 .01 -.10 -1.86

Avoidant attachment to relationship satisfaction -.02 .01 -.16 -2.90 **

*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Partial mediation model with attachment insecurity. The partial mediation model with a

single attachment insecurity variable is illustrated in Figure 15. This model was just identified so

had perfect model fit. The model accounted for 56.3% of the variance of relationship

satisfaction. As shown in Table 22, all path coefficients were statistically significant and in the

predicted direction.
 141

Figure 15. Standardized coefficients for the partial mediation model with attachment insecurity

Table 23
Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients for the Partial Mediation Model with
Attachment Insecurity
Path B SE β t

Competing attachment to:

Attachment insecurity .72 .22 .26 3.26 **

Relationship satisfaction -.10 .01 -.67 -12.06 ***

Attachment insecurity to relationship satisfaction -.01 .00 -.20 -3.55 ***

*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
 142

Partial mediation model with attachment insecurity. The partial mediation model with

attachment insecurity and attachment security is illustrated in Figure 16. This model had

mediocre fit (see Table 20) as it did not meet any of the criteria for good fit. But the model

accounted for 57.4% of the variance of relationship satisfaction. As shown in Table 24, all path

coefficients were statistically significant and in the predicted direction.

 143

Figure 16. Standardized coefficients for the partial mediation model with attachment insecurity
and attachment security
 144

Table 24
Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients for the Partial Mediation Model with
Attachment Insecurity and Attachment Security
Path B SE β t

Competing attachment to:

Attachment insecurity .72 .22 .26 3.26 **

Attachment security -.08 .01 -.46 -6.34 ***

Relationship satisfaction -.09 .01 -.62 -10.02 ***

Attachment insecurity to relationship satisfaction -.01 .00 -.12 -2.25 *

Attachment security to relationship satisfaction .15 .05 .18 2.95 **

*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Direct effects model. The direct effects model is illustrated in Figure 17. This model was

just identified so had perfect model fit. The model accounted for 56.7% of the variance of

relationship satisfaction. As shown in Table 25, two out of the three path coefficients were

statistically significant, therefore the null hypothesis for the second hypothesis was rejected.
 145

Figure 17. Standardized coefficients for the direct effects model

Table 25
Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients for the Direct Effects Model

Path B SE β t

Competing attachment to relationship satisfaction -.10 .01 -.68 -12.18 ***

Anxious attachment to relationship satisfaction -.01 .00 -.10 -1.82

Avoidant attachment to relationship satisfaction -.02 .01 -.16 -2.84 **

*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
 146

Evaluation of Findings

Literature from previous research studies has established that relationship specific

attachment security is associated with relationship satisfaction (Burgess-Moser et al., 2015;

Dalgleish et al., 2014; Diamond et al., 2017). Couples in securely attached romantic relationships

experience higher levels of relationship satisfaction, whereas insecurely attached couples

experience lower relationship satisfaction (Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Dalgleish et al., 2014;

Diamond et al., 2017). The various forms of competing attachments (though not previously

conceptualized through the lens of attachment theory specifically) were found to influence both

relationship specific attachment security and relationship satisfaction separately. This study

bridges a gap in current knowledge linking the direct relationship between all three constructs of

competing attachment, relationship specific attachment security, and relationship satisfaction.

Hypotheses developed from the literature on previous research examined the direct

relationship between the constructs of competing attachment, relationship specific attachment

security and relationship satisfaction. The findings from this hypothesis were generally

consistent with findings of previous research that measured some of these constructs separately.

This study established that competing attachment has a direct relationship with relationship

satisfaction, and in fact, is demonstrated to predict relationship satisfaction. Additionally, the

findings demonstrate that competing attachment has a direct relationship with relationship

specific attachment security; more specifically it predicts both dimensions of both attachment

security and insecurity.

 147

As scores in competing attachment rise, indicating the presence and frequency of

competing attachment in a relationship, relationship satisfaction decreased. Alternately, as

competing attachment scores decreased, indicating low to no presence of competing attachment

in a relationship, relationship satisfaction increased. Additionally, as competing attachment

scores increased, relationship specific attachment security scores decreased, and attachment

insecurity increased. Which demonstrates a positive relationship between competing attachment

and relationship specific attachment insecurity and a negative relationship between competing

attachment and relationship specific attachment security. Since there are no previous studies

examining the relationship among these variables, there is no previous data for comparison.

Consistent with previous research studies (Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Dalgleish et al., 2014;

Diamond et al., 2017; Sadikaj et al., 2015), this study demonstrated that as relationship specific

attachment security increased, relationship satisfaction also increased. Alternately, as

relationship specific attachment security decreased, and insecurity increased, satisfaction

decreased.

In accordance with the second research question, it was hypothesized that relationship

specific attachment security would mediate the relationship between competing attachment and

relationship satisfaction. Because the relationship among these variables has not previous been

examined, the findings of this study are the first to provide results on this relationship. The

findings of the analysis conducted on the second hypothesis reveal that when broken down

between the two dimensions of insecure attachment, neither anxious attachment and avoidant
 148

attachment significantly mediated the relationship between competing attachment and

relationship satisfaction. However, attachment insecurity as a whole, including both dimensions

of insecure attachment computed together significantly mediated the relationship between

competing attachment and relationship satisfaction. Additionally attachment security

significantly mediated the relationship between competing attachment and relationship

satisfaction.

Summary

Competing attachment is an important subject in the area of both relationship specific

attachment security and relationship satisfaction. Previous research has examined the

relationship between relationship specific attachment security and relationship satisfaction

(Diamond et al., 2017; Dalgleish et al., 2014; Gardner, 2007; Mondor et al., 2011; Sadikaj et al.,

2015), and various forms of competing attachment (though not conceptualized through the lens

of attachment theory) have also been examined in relation to relationship satisfaction and

relationship specific attachment security independently. This study conceptualized the various

forms of competing attachment through the lens of attachment theory, and was the first to

examine the direct relationship between the variables competing attachment, relationship specific

attachment security and relationship satisfaction. This quantitative study utilized descriptive

statistics and both a regression and path analysis to test the study hypotheses. Though the

interaction among demographic variables was not an area of direct examination in this study, the

findings did reveal that the major study variables did not generally differ across gender, age,
 149

relationship length, race, levels of education. However, the sub-dimension of attachment

insecurity did differ significantly across income. More specifically, those who earned self-

reported earning $40,000 or less had significantly higher scores attachment anxiety than those

who reported their income as $41,000 to $100,000 or more. The first hypotheses examined in

this study stated that competing attachment would predict both relationship satisfaction and

relationship specific attachment security. The second study hypothesis stated that relationship

specific attachment security would mediate the relationship between competing attachment and

relationship satisfaction.

The findings of this quantitative analysis in this research study show that competing

attachment predicted both relationship specific attachment security and relationship satisfaction.

The results show that as competing attachment increases, relationship satisfaction decreases, and

relationship specific attachment security decreases (while insecurity increases). These results

support a rejection of the null hypothesis. Additionally, in accordance with the second

hypothesis, the findings demonstrated that relationship specific attachment security and

insecurity did mediate the relationship between competing attachment and relationship

satisfaction. These findings also support rejecting the second null hypothesis.
 150

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions

The problem addressed by this study was that competing attachment may threaten the

security and satisfaction of romantic attachment relationship bonds (Furrow et al., 2011;

Johnson, 2008; Reed et al., 2015, Reid & Woolley, 2006; Woolley, 2015). This quantitative

research study was conducted with several purposes. The first purpose was to examine the direct

relationship between competing attachment, relationship specific attachment security and

relationship satisfaction. A second purpose of this study was to determine whether competing

attachment predicted relationship satisfaction, and whether this relationship was mediated by

relationship specific attachment security. Finally, a third purpose was to fill a gap in current

knowledge in adult attachment theory about the potential direct relationship among these three

constructs.

This study examined the relationship between three variables, competing attachment,

relationship specific attachment security, and relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, the

examination of attachment security included the sub-dimension of attachment insecurity and its

sub-scales of anxious and avoidant attachment. These variables were measured through the use

of three corresponding survey instruments. First, the Competing Attachment Scale (CAS;

Bugatti, Reid, & Jorgensen, 2015) see Appendix A, measured the independent variable

competing attachment, which captured the presence and frequency competing attachment in

romantic relationships. The second instrument, the Couples Satisfaction Index-16 (CSI-16; Funk

& Rogge, 2007) see Appendix B, measured the dependent variable, relationship satisfaction. The
 151

third instrument, the State Adult Attachment Measure (SAAM; Gillath et al., 2009) see

Appendix C, measured the mediating variable, relationship specific attachment security, across

three dimensions, security and insecurity (broken down into two subtypes anxious and avoidant

attachment).

The minimal sample size needed for this study was 100 participants (Faul et al., 2007).

The final sample size consisted of 151 participants. The participants were recruited online from

Facebook and an email listserve for EFT therapists, using convenience sampling. Participants

anonymously completed their surveys online via Survey Monkey. The quantitative analysis for

this study included descriptive statistics, and both a regression and path analysis to examine the

research questions and hypotheses. This study included two sets of hypothesis. The first set of

research hypothesis stated that competing attachment would predict relationship satisfaction and

relationship specific attachment security. The second hypothesis stated that relationship specific

attachment security would mediate the relationship between competing attachment and

relationship satisfaction.

The results of the analysis support both research hypotheses, and suggest that competing

attachment predicts both relationship satisfaction and relationship specific attachment security,

and that relationship specific attachment security mediates the relationship between competing

attachment and relationship satisfaction. The findings suggest that as competing attachment

increases, relationship specific attachment security decreases, and relationship satisfaction

decreases. Additionally, as competing attachment increases, relationship specific attachment

 152

insecurity also increases. As the presence of competing attachment decreases, relationship

specific attachment security increases, relationship satisfaction increases, and it was shown that

relationship specific attachment insecurity decreases. The above findings are consistent with

previous research (Diamond et al., 2017; Gallerová & Halama, 2016; Gardner, 2007; Sadikaj et

al., 2015; Weibe et al., 2016). However, this study is the first to present findings examining the

direct relationship between all three-study variables, filling in a gap in knowledge. It is also

important to emphasize that the construct of competing attachment, while used and understood in

context of training material for clinicians in the field of Emotionally Focused Therapy, prior to

this study had yet to be officially clinically defined and examined.

Finally, despite the limitations created by convenience sampling and using a new

instrument that had not been previously validated, this study was able to provide a meaningful

first step towards understanding the relationship between competing attachment, relationship

specific attachment security, and relationship satisfaction. Additionally, this study contributed to

research on attachment by providing a conceptual framework for understanding the construct of

competing attachment through the lens of attachment theory. This chapter will discuss the

implications of the findings of this study, as well as for clinical practice, limitations, directions

for future research, and overall study conclusions.

Implications

According to the literature on attachment, threats to relationship attachment bonds can

lead to attachment insecurity and negatively influence relationship satisfaction (Dalgleish et al.,
 153

2014; Greenman & Johnson, 2013). In accordance with the first hypothesis, the findings of this

study show that as competing attachment increases, relationship specific attachment security

decreases, attachment insecurity increases, and relationship satisfaction decreases. These

findings suggest that competing attachment is a threat to romantic relationships that can

potentially decrease the security of the attachment bond, increase the insecurity of the attachment

bond, and decrease the satisfaction of the relationship. As consistent with the literature (Cassidy

& Shaver, 1999, 2016; Diamond et al., 2017; Gardner, 2007; Johnson, 2008; Mondor et al.,

2011; Reed et al., 2015; Sadikaj et al., 2015), the results of the path analysis support

conceptualizing competing attachment as a threat to relationships through the lens of attachment

theory. The findings show a mediating effect of relationship specific attachment security

between competing attachment and relationship satisfaction. Because increases in competing

attachment were negatively related to attachment security and relationship satisfaction, and

because decreases in attachment security have previously been linked to decreases in relationship

satisfaction (Diamond et al., 2017; Mondor et al., 2011; Sadikaj et al., 2015), it can be reasoned

that competing attachment has a direct relationship with relationship satisfaction because it also

has a direct relationship with relationship specific attachment security. Additionally, these

findings are consistent with existing literature on attachment and support the research problem

presented by this study.

The interpretation of the study results might be influenced by several factors. First, it was

expected that the recruitment strategies would have resulted in a more even distribution of
 154

participants among the genders. The final sample pool included just 21 male participants of 151

total participants. Though this study assumed that experiences across genders are the same, a

more even distribution among gender in a future study would allow for verification of whether

experiences of competing attachment are the same across genders and reduce any possibility of

gender bias (McHugh, 2017). Second, some of the distributions among the variables were not

normally distributed, which can be a consequence of convenience sampling. Additionally,

because demographic questions did not capture which recruitment area, Facebook or the EFT

listserve, the participant came into the study by, this could possibly implicate that the cluster of

distributions around high and low score extremes could be due to the possibility that the majority

of participants joined the study from the EFT listserve (which consists of therapists). Therapists

in general may possibly have healthier relationships due to the nature of their profession and

tendency for their professional skills to enhance their personal development (Orlinsky &

Rønnestad, 2015). Therefore, this could possibly account for the majority of participants that

self-reported little to no presence of competing attachment and high relationship satisfaction.

Finally, though demographic variables and their relationship to the main study variables

were not an area of exploration in this study, the data analysis did reveal some unexpected

findings that might implicate merit for future exploration. The results of the descriptive analysis

on the demographic data revealed that participants who self-reported their income below $40,000

had an increase in anxious attachment. Because this study was not specifically designed around

examining the relationship between demographics and attachment styles, there may be too many
 155

possible factors that might account for this finding. Data analysis results also did not indicate a

significant relationship between income and competing attachment. These findings do not

implicate a relationship related to the research questions under examination in this study, but

may implicate a relationship between attachment style and income outside the relationship

between the variables examined in this study. Little is known about the relationship between

attachment style and income or money, revealing another gap in knowledge. The few studies that

have been conducted do suggest a relationship between money seeking and insecure forms of

attachment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008; Zhou & Goa, 2008). The findings of this study

regarding income and anxious attachment may point to a possible relationship, which suggests

possible future research is needed as described below.

Recommendations for Practice

The findings of this research study offer a new, single conceptual framework through

which to understand the various forms of competing attachment, and their influence on the

security of romantic attachment bonds, and relationship satisfaction. This conceptualization

through the lens of attachment theory could offer a guidepost for treatment models, strategies

and interventions for couples that come to therapy that report the presence of competing

attachment. For example, previous research and literature on Emotionally Focused Therapy

(EFT), an attachment theory based model of counseling, has been demonstrated to be effective in

helping couples restructure their attachment bond from insecure to secure, and thus increasing

the relationship satisfaction (Johnson et al., 2013; Wiebe et al., 2016; Weibe, Johnson,
 156

Lafontaine et al., 2016). Based on the findings of this study, if a couple comes to therapy

reporting the presence of competing attachment, therapists can infer that this competing

attachment is having a negative influence on the security and satisfaction of the romantic

attachment bond. Therapists could then consider the use of attachment based models, strategies

and interventions to help their couples with distress related to competing attachment.

Recommendations for Future Research

Recommendations for future research were developed based on the study findings,

limitations and delimitations of this study. The primary limitations include the use of

convenience sampling and the use of a new measurement instrument (CAS; Bugatti et al., 2015)

which had not been previously validated. These limitations will be discussed in addition to

suggestions for improvements and recommendations for future research.

A primary limitation of this study was the use of convenience sampling, instead of

random sampling. Recruitment strategies prohibited the guarantee of equal participation between

genders, resulting in the majority of study participants being female. Based on the findings from

this study, it is recommended that future research on competing attachment consider the use of a

different recruitment and sampling strategy to avoid the limitations of interpretation of results, as

caused by uneven distributions, extreme scores, and lack of diversity as a consequence of

convenience sampling. A second limitation created by the use of convenience sampling, was the

very small sub sample of participants self-reporting experiences of the main construct of interest

in this study, competing attachment. Future research should collect a much larger sample
 157

population in order to capture a larger sub sample of participants with high competing

attachment scores. The survey collection method (i.e. Survey Monkey) can be adapted in a way

to use competing attachment as an inclusion criterion without creating ethical dilemmas created

by openly labeling subjects on recruitment material.

A third limitation was the use of the Competing Attachment Scale (CAS; Bugatti et al.,

2015), which was created for use in this study, was not pilot tested to verify its validity and

reliability. This study was able to produce some data on the reliability and validity of the

instrument, but a future study will be needed to fully examine the reliability and validity of the

Competing Attachment Scale. It is recommended that future research consider standardizing, and

better validating the reliability of the competing attachment scale (CAS; Bugatti et al., 2015).

Some revisions to the competing attachment scale might be considered as well. Estimations of

internal consistency and divergent validity provided by the data in this study suggest possible

overlap of item one and two on the competing attachment scale, suggesting possible duplication

of items, and the possibility that item one may be eliminated. Additionally, an item ascertaining

whether the participant or the participant’s partner is the one with the competing attachment

could be added to the instrument. Revisions to the competing attachment scale should be tested

for reliability and validity. Authors of the competing attachment scale may also consider

translating the instrument into other languages, and testing the translations for validity and

reliability. The translation of the instrument into other languages would allow future researchers
 158

to study this construct across cultures without the limitation of the language barrier (Hambleton

et al., 2005; Trentini et al., 2015).

Additional research should be done on fully validating the reliability of the competing

attachment scale, including any suggested revisions and translations, and to reexamine the same

variables on a much larger sample population. This would allow researchers to extend the

findings of this research by collecting data on more diverse cultures and populations that were

limited by the constraints found in this study. Of the types of competing attachment discussed in

this study, it is unknown what the most frequently reported problematic types of competing

attachment are. Future research might consider capturing which types of competing attachment

are most frequently reported as problematic in relationships. Future research might also consider

studying competing attachment across other types of attachment relationships, in addition to

romantic attachment relationships. Finally, though the relationship among demographic variables

was not an area of direct examination in this study, the results did reveal some findings that

suggest a significant relationship between income and attachment insecurity. The nature of this

relationship is unknown therefore a future study could consider examining the relationship

between attachment style and income to better understand the relationship among these

variables.

Conclusions

Previous research has established the importance of examining factors that may influence

attachment distress and relationship satisfaction. When romantic attachment relationships

 159

become insecure, they become distressed, which can have a lasting impact on relationship health,

stability and satisfaction, as well as physical and emotional health (Cassidy et al., 2013;

Greenman & Johnson, 2013; Johnson, 2013). Research suggests that secure attachment is

important to relationships as it helps people feel more capable and resilient in facing life’s

stresses and challenges (Burgess-Moser et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2013). People with secure

attachment tend to maintain higher states of psychological well-being, and enjoy deeper and

more satisfying relationships with others (Cassidy et al., 2013; Greenman & Johnson, 2013;

Johnson, 2013). Therefore factors that may threaten the security of attachment bonds become

increasingly important to understand. As demonstrated by this study, competing attachment is a

threat to the security and satisfaction of romantic attachment relationships as it is an escape one

partner or spouse turns to outside of their relationship, instead of their romantic partner or spouse

to get their physical, emotional and or attachment needs met (Woolley, 2015). Helping couples

remove obstacles to secure bonding and restore their bonds from insecure to secure can improve

relationship satisfaction and psychological well-being (Diamond et al., 2017; Johnson et al.,

2013; MacIntosh & Johnson, 2008).

Decades of research on adult attachment bonds has helped expand important knowledge

in the area of romantic relationships, but continued research into causes of attachment distress,

creating secure attachment in relationships, and improving relationship satisfaction becomes

imperative to keeping up with the changing world. This study provided an important first look

into the nature of competing attachment, however, further investigation is still important to
 160

helping fully develop the body of knowledge around these relationship dynamics. Future

research can continue to expand what is known about competing attachment across cultures, and

further examine the continued effects of competing attachment on the security and satisfaction of

romantic attachment bonds. Continued research on competing attachment can help clinicians

expand and update their knowledge in order to provide the most effective methods for helping

couples repair their attachment bonds and create satisfying, secure relationships that are stable

and everlasting (Cassidy et al., 2013; Greenman & Johnson, 2013; Johnson, 2013).

This study provided new and important findings regarding the threat of competing

attachment on the security and satisfaction of romantic relationships. This quantitative study

examined the direct relationship between competing attachment, relationship specific attachment

security, and relationship satisfaction. Results identified that as competing attachment increased,

the security of the attachment bond decreased, as did the satisfaction of the relationship. The

findings of the study results suggest that competing attachment creates attachment distress in

relationships, and threatens attachment bonds in a way that can be damaging to the security and

satisfaction of romantic relationships. The outcome of this research study provides a better

understanding of competing attachment, relationship specific attachment security, and

relationship/marital satisfaction in a way that might inform both theory and practice with the goal

of helping therapists effectively treat romantic attachment bonds in distress.

Competing attachment is a growing concern among therapists in clinical practice, and has

a growing presence among couples coming to therapy (Flores, 2004; Johnson, 2008; Johnson et
 161

al., 2013; Reed et al., 2015), making this study an important step in understanding the dynamics

involved. As the presence and frequency of competing attachment increases, as well as the types

of competing attachment continue to expand and increase, it emphasizes the importance of

continued study on competing attachment and its relationship to attachment distress. This study

is the first to provide an official conceptualization of competing attachment through the lens of

attachment theory. This conceptualization provides therapists in therapeutic settings a guidepost

for understanding and treating couples reporting the presence of competing attachment.

Additionally, this conceptualization adds to the existing literature and research on attachment

theory and attachment distress, bridging an important gap in the literature.

 162

References

Ahlstrom, M., Lundberg, N. R., Zabriskie, R., Eggett, D., & Lindsay, G. B. (2012). Me, my
spouse, and my avatar. Journal of Leisure Research, 44(1), p. 22.

Ahmadi, F.S., Zarei, E., & Fallahchai, S.R. (2014). The effectiveness of emotionally-focused
couple therapy in resolution of marital conflicts between the couples who visited the
consultation centers. Journal of Education and Management Studies, 4(1), 118-123.

Ainsworth, M. (1991). Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In C.M.
Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 33-
51). London: Routledge.

Ajanthan, A. (2013). The relationship between dividend payout and firm profitability: A study of
listed hotels and restaurant companies in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Scientific
and Research Publications, 3(6), 1-6.

Allen, E. S., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Adult attachment and patterns of extradyadic
involvement. Family Process, 43, 467–488. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.00035.x

Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th Ed.). New York, NY: Macmillian
Aslam, S. (2017). Facebook by the numbers: Stats, demographics & fun facts. Retrieved
September 09, 2017, from https://www.omnicoreagency.com/facebook-statistics/

Auger, E., Hurley, S., & Lydon, J.E. (2015). Compensatory relationship enhancement: An
identity motivated response to relationship threat. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 7(3), 223-231. doi:10.1177/1948550615616461

Bailey, C., & Shelton, D. (2014). Self-Reports of faulty parental attachments in childhood and
criminal psychopathy in an adult-incarcerated population: an integrative literature review.
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 21(4), 365-374.
doi:10.1111/jpm.12086

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
 163

Bogaert, A. F., & Sadava, S. (2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Personal
Relationships, 9, 191–204. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00012

Bosmans, G., Bowles, D., Dewitte, M., Winter, S. D., & Braet, C. (2014). An experimental
evaluation of the state adult attachment measure: The influence of attachment primes on
the content of state attachment representations. Journal of Experimental
Psychopathology, 5(2). doi:10.5127/jep.033612
Bowlby, J., & Ainsworth, M. (1992) The origins of attachment theory. Developmental
Psychology, 28, 759-775.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. New York, NY:
Brunner-Routledge

Bowlby, J. (2005). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Routledge.

Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and
determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 62, 964–980.

Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: An integrative overview. In Simpson, J.A., Rholes, W.S. (1998). Attachment
theory and close relationships. (pp.46-76), New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Broaddus, B. (2017). The smartphone effect. Baylor Business Review, 10-12. Retrieved from
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=1bbfaa0
1-b672-4cee-8334-4ce96c0f6bbd%40sessionmgr4009

Brown, M.W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K.A.,
Long, J.S. (editors). Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bugatti, A., Reid, R., & Jorgensen, R. (2015). Competing attachment scale. Unpublished
instrument, Department of Marriage and Family Sciences, Northcentral University,
Prescott, Arizona.

Burgess-Moser, M., Johnson, S. M., Dalgleish, T. L., Lafontaine, M., Wiebe, S. A., & Tasca, G.
A. (2015). Changes in relationship-specific attachment in emotionally focused couple
therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,42(2), 231-245. doi:10.1111/jmft.12139
 164

Buunk, A. P., Massar, K., & Dijkstra, P. (2007). A social cognitive evolutionary approach to
jealousy: The automatic evaluation of one’s romantic rivals. In Evolution and the social
mind: Evolutionary psychology and social cognition, (pp. 213-229). New York: NY,
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Byrne, B.M. (2011). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,
and programming, (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cain, M. (1982). Perspectives on family and fertility in developing countries. New York, NY:
Population Council.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (2015). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Carey, G. (1998). Multiple regression and path analysis. Retrieved September 3, 2017, from
http://ibgwww.colorado.edu/~carey/p7291dir/handouts/pathanal2.pdf

Cassidy, J., Jones, J., & Shaver, P. (2013). Contributions of attachment theory and research:
A framework for future research, translation, and policy. Developmental
Psychopathology, 25(4, 0-2), 1415–1434. doi: 10.1017/S0954579413000692

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: theory, research, and clinical
applications. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Handbook of attachment: theory, research, and clinical
applications(3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Cater, T., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Besser, A. (2016). Exposure to an infidelity threat manipulation:
The role of adult attachment dimensions in anticipated relationship evaluation responses.
Journal of Individual Differences, 37(2), 119-127. doi.org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1027/1614-
0001/a000196

Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2016). How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The
antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human
Behavior, 63, 9-18. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018
Coontz, S. (2004). The world historical transformation of marriage. Journal of Marriage and
Family Therapy, 66(4), 974-979. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00067.x
 165

Cooper, A. N., Totenhagen, C. J., Curran, M. A., & Randall, A. K. (2017). Daily relationship
quality in same-sex couples: Attachment and sacrifice motives. Evolutionary Behavioral
Sciences, 11(2), 146-160. doi: 10.1037/ebs0000089.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dalgleish, T. L., Johnson, S. M., Moser, M. B., Lafontaine, M., Wiebe, S. A., & Tasca, G. A.
(2014). Predicting change in marital satisfaction throughout emotionally focused couple
therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,41(3), 276-291. doi:10.1111/jmft.12077

Dalton, J., Greeman, P., Classen, C., & Johnson, S. M. (2013). Nurturing connections in the
aftermath of childhood trauma: A randomized controlled trial of emotionally focused
couple therapy (EFT) for female survivors of childhood abuse. Couple and Family
Psychology: Research and Practice, 2(3), 209-221.

Darrow, B. (2015). Yes, your smartphone is hurting your love life: Study. Retrieved September
23, 2017 from http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/smartphones-hurt-your-love-life/

Denton, W. H., Wittenborn, A. K., & Golden, R. N. (2012). Augmenting antidepressant

medication treatment of women with emotionally focused therapy for couples: A
randomized pilot study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 23-38. doi:
10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00291.x
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
DeWall, C. N., Lambert, N. M., Slotter, E. B., Pond, R. S., Deckman, T., Finkel, E. J., . . .
Fincham, F. D. (2011). So far away from one's partner, yet so close to romantic
alternatives: Avoidant attachment, interest in alternatives, and infidelity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1302–1316. doi:10.1037/a0025497

Diamond, R. M., Brimhall, A. S., & Elliott, M. (2017). Attachment and relationship satisfaction
among first married, remarried, and post-divorce relationships. Journal of Family
Therapy. doi:10.1111/1467-6427.12161

Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P., & Groothof, H. A. (2009). An inventory and update of jealousy-
evoking partner behaviours in modern society. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy,
17, 329-345. doi:10.1002/cpp.668
 166

Drummund, D. K. (2016). Mama’s boy: One type of identity negotiated in mother-son

relationships. Florida Communication Journal, 44(1), 25-32.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A
general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods,
12(1), 1-22. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1
Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the implications
for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social
Networking, 14(11), 631-635. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0318

Erikson, E. H. (1964). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3 (2007). G*Power
software, version 3.1.3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social,
behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175- 191.
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Marriage in the new millennium: A decade in review.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 630–649. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00722.x
Fincham, F. D., & May, R.W. (2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships. Relationships and
stress, Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 70-74. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.008

Fish, J. N., Pavkov, T. W., Wetchler, J. L., & Bercik, J. (2012). Characteristics of those who
participate in infidelity: The role of adult attachment and differentiation in extradyadic
experiences. American Journal of Family Therapy, 40(3), 214-229.
doi:10.1080/01926187.2011.601192
Fishman, J. A., & Galgeura, T. (2003). Introduction to test construction in the social and
behavioral sciences: A practical guide. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Fitzgerald, J., & Thomas, J. (2012). A report: Couples with medical conditions, attachment
theoretical perspectives and evidence for emotionally-focused couples therapy.
Journal of Contemporary Family Therapy, 34(2), 277-281.

Fonagy, P., & Campbell, C. (2015), Bad blood revisited: Attachment and psychoanalysis.
British Journal of Psychotherapy, 31, 229–250. doi:10.1111/bjp.12150
 167

Foulstone, A.R., Kelly, A. B., Kifle, T., & Baxter, J. (2016). Heavy alcohol use in the couple
context: A nationally representative longitudinal study. Substance Use & Misuse, 51(11),
1441-1450. doi:10.1080/10826084.2016.1178295

Fox, J., Murray, C., & Warm, A. (2010). Conducting research using web-based questionnaires:
Practical, methodological, and ethical considerations. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 6(2), 167-180. doi:10.1080/13645570210142883

Flores, P. J. (2004). Addiction as an attachment disorder. Lanham: Jason Aronson, Inc.

Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The experiences in
close relationships-relationship structures questionnaire: A method for assessing
attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23, 615-625.

Freud, H.C. (2013). Men and mothers: The lifelong struggle of sons and their mothers. London:
Karnac Books.

Freud, S., Strachey, J., Freud, A., & Rothgeb, C. L. (1948). The standard edition of the complete
psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol.19). London: Hogarth Press.

Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing
precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the couples satisfaction
index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572–583.

Furrow, J. L., Johnson, S. M., & Bradley, B. A. (2011). Emotionally focused casebook: New
directions in treating couples. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gallerová, P., & Halama, P. (2016). Relationships between attachment and marital satisfaction in
married couples. Psychology and its Contexts, 7(1), 37-50.

Garcia, V.C., & Gomez, V. A. (2014). Limitations of evolutionary theory in explaining marital
satisfaction and stability of couple relationships. International Journal of Psychological
Research, 7(1), 81-93.

Gardner, T. (2007). Adult attachment and the link to relationship satisfaction: A review of the
literature. Masters thesis, Pacific University. Retrieved from
http://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1158&context=spp
 168

Garson, G.D. (2014). Multiple regression. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishers.

Gill, R. (2014). Addictions from an attachment perspective: do broken bonds and early trauma lead
to addictive behaviours? London: Karnac.
Gillath, O., Hart, J., Noftle, E. E., & Stockdale, G. D. (2009). Development and validation of a state
adult attachment measure (SAAM). Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 362-373.

Gottman, J., & Gottman, J. (2017). The natural principles of love. Journal of Family Theory &
Review, 9(1), 7-26. doi: 10.1111/jftr.12182

Greenman, P., & Johnson, S. (2013). Process research on EFT for couples: linking theory to
practice. Family Process, Special Issue on Couple Therapy, 52(1), 46-61.

Hadden, B.W., Smith, C.V., & Webster, G.D. (2013). Relationship duration moderates
associations between attachment and relationship quality. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 18(1), 42-58.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.L., (2010). Multivariate data analysis, (7th
ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Halchuk, R., Makinen, J., & Johnson, S. M. (2010). Resolving attachment injuries in couples
using emotionally focused therapy: A 3 year follow-up. Journal of Couple and
Relationship Therapy, 9, 31–47. doi:10.1080/ 15332690903473069

Halpern, D., & Katz, J. E. (2017). Texting’s consequences for romantic relationships: A cross-
lagged analysis highlights its risks. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 386-394. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.051
Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., & Spielberger, C. D. (2005). Adapting educational and
psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.
Hanson Sobraske, K., Gaulin, S., & Boster, J. (2014). Functional variation in sensitivity to cues
that a partner is cheating with a rival. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(7), 1267-1279.
doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-0283-5

Harlow, H. F., & Zimmermann, R. R. (1959). Affectional response in the infant monkey:
Orphaned baby monkeys develop a strong and persistent attachment to inanimate
surrogate mothers. Science, 130(3373), 421-432. doi:10.1126/science.130.3373.421
 169

Harmful effects of pornography 2016 reference guide. (2015). Retrieved September 17, 2017,
from http://www.fightthenewdrug.org

Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York:
Free Press.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press

Hazen, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.

Hillman, O. (2012). Mother-son bonding-repairing the marriage breach. Retrieved September

11, 2017, from
www.intheworkplace.com/apps/articles/default.asp?articleid=78496&columnid=1935

Hossfeld, K.J. (1991). Pondering the post-modern family. Socialist Review, 3-4, 187-194.

Hu, L.T. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

Huang, X. I., Dong, P., & Wyer, Jr, R.S. (2017). Competing for attention: The effects of jealousy
on preference for attention-grabbing products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(2),
171-181. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2016.12.001

IBM Corp. Released 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM
Corp.

Johnson, S.M. (2008). Broken bonds: An emotionally focused approach to infidelity. Journal of
Couple & Relationship Therapy, Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions,
4(2-3), 17-29. doi:10.1300/J398v04n02_03

Johnson, S.M. (2013). Love sense: The revolutionary new science of romantic relationships.
New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
 170

Johnson, S., Maddeaux, C., & Blouin, J. (1998). Emotionally focused family therapy for
bulimia: Changing attachment patterns. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice,
35(2), 238-247.

Johnson, S.M., Moser, M.B., Beckes, L., Smith, A., Dalgleish, T., Halchuk, R.,…Coan, J.A.
(2013). Soothing the threatened brain: Leveraging contact comfort with Emotionally
Focused Therapy. PLOS ONE, 8(11): e79314.

Johnson, S., & Greenman, P. (2013). Commentary: Of course it is all about attachment!
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39(4), 421-423.

Johnson, S.M., & Wiebe, S.A. (2017). Creating relationships that foster resilience in emotionally
focused therapy. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 65-69.
doi:10.1016/j/copysyc.2016.05.001
Johnson, S.M., & Wittenborn, A.K. (2012). New research findings on emotionally focused
therapy: Introduction to special section. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38,
Supplement s1, 18-22.
Kautzman-East, M., Simpson, S., & Kress, V. (2013). Marriage, divorce, and mental health:
An encyclopedia. 1, 416-419. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC.

Kidd, T. Poole, L., Ronaldson, A., Leigh, E., Jahangiri, M., & Steptoe, A. (2016) Attachment
anxiety predicts depression and anxiety symptoms following coronary artery bypass graft
surgery. British Journal of Health Psychology, 21(4), 796-811.

Kim, J. S., Weisberg, Y. J., Simpson, J. A., Oriña, M. M., Farrell, A. K., & Johnson, W. F.
(2015). Ruining it for both of us: The disruptive role of low-trust partners on conflict
resolution in romantic relationships. Social Cognition, 33(5), 520-42.
Klavina, L., & Buunk, A.P. (2013). Intergroup intrasexual competition: Reactions towards
outgroup members as romantic rivals. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 11(3), 93-
120. doi: 10.1556/JEP.11.2013.3.1
Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, (3rd ed.). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Kline, P. (2015). A handbook of test construction: introduction to psychometric design. London:
Routledge.
 171

Kohut, T., Fisher, W.A., & Campell, L. (2016). Perceived effects of pornography on the couple
relationship: Initial findings of open-ended, participant-informed, “bottom-up”
research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 585-602. doi:10/1007/s10508-016-0783-
6
Kuss, D. J., & Billieux, J. (2017). Technological addictions: Conceptualization, measurement,
etiology and treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 64, 231-233.
doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.04.005.

Lee, J. (2015). Breaking the mother-son dynamic: Resetting the patterns of a man’s life and
loves. Deerfield Beach: HCI

Lianekhammy, J., & Van de Venne, J. (2015). World of warcraft widows: Spousal perspectives
of online gaming and relationship outcomes. American Journal of Family Therapy, 43(5),
454-466. doi: 10.1080/01926187.2015.1080131

Lim, S., & Lim, B.K. (2012). Po xi wen ti: The “mother-in-law problem’, navigating tradition
and modernity in transforming familial relationships in the Chinese family. Journal of
Family Psychotherapy, 23(3), 202-216. doi: 10.1080/08975353.2012.705649

Livingston, G., & Caumont A. (2017). 5 facts on love and marriage in America. Pew Research
Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/13/5-facts-about-
love-and-marriage/

Lyons-Ruth, K., & Jacobvitz, D. (2008). Attachment disorganization: Genetic factors, parenting
contexts, and developmental transformation from infancy to adulthood. In J. Cassidy &
P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications
(2nd ed., pp.666-697). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ma, Y., Zhao, G., Tu, S., & Zheng, Y. (2015). Attentional biases toward attractive alternatives
and rivals: Mechanisms involved in relationship maintenance among Chinese women.
PLoS ONE, 10(8), 1-16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136662

MacIntosh, H.B., & Johnson, S. (2008). Emotionally focused therapy for couples and childhood
sexual abuse survivors. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34(3), 298-315.
 172

Main, M. (2000). The organized categories of infant, child, and adult attachment: Flexible vs.
inflexible attention under attachment-related stress, Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association, 48(4), 1055-1096, p.1093.

Manor, K., Miller, S., Rouby, D., & Gailliot, M. (2009). Intrasexual vigilance: The implicit
cognition of romantic rivalry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 74-
87. doi:10.1037/a0014055
Margelisch, K., Schneewind, K.A., Violette, J., & Perrig-Chiello, P. (2017). Martial stability,
satisfaction and well-being in old age: Variability and continuity in long-term
continuously married older persons. Aging & Mental Health, 21(4), 389-398.
doi:10.1080/13607863.2015.1102197
Martinez, L. S. (2017). Validity, face and content. In M. Allen (Ed.), The sage encyclopedia of
communication research methods(pp. 1822-1824). SAGE Publications.
Maté, G. (2012). Addiction: Childhood trauma, stress and the biology of addiction. Journal of
Restorative Medicine, 1(1), 56-63. doi:10.14200/jrm.2012.1.1005

Maunder, R. G., & Hunter, J. J. (2008). Attachment relationships as determinants of physical

health. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic
Psychiatry, 36, Special Issue: Psychoanalysis and Psychosomatics, 11-32.
https://doi.org/10.1521/jaap.2008.36.1.11
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). ‘Technoference’: The interference of technology in
couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being.
Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1), 85-98. doi: 10.1037/ppm0000065

McDaniel, B.T., Drouin, M., & Cravens, J.D. (2017). Do you have anything to hide? Infidelity-
related behaviors on social media and martial satisfaction. Computers in Human
Behavior, 66, 88-95. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.031

McHugh, M. C. (2017). Gender bias in research. In SAGE Encyclopedia of psychology and

gender: E-I, (pp. 621-625).

Merrill, D. M. (2007). Mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law: Understanding the relationship

and what makes them friends or foe. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group
 173

Miller, R. B., Anderson, S., Marquardt, E., Blankenhorn, D., Lerman, R., Malone-Colon, L.,
…Wilcox, B. (2012). The president’s marriage agenda for the forgotten sixty
percent. Retrieved June 08, 2017, from http://stateofourunions.org/

Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of the attachment system in
adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of
attachment figures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 881-89.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The
dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies.
Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 77-102. doi: 10.1023/A:1024515519160

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Horesh, N. (2006). Attachment bases of emotion regulation
and posttraumatic adjustment. Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to
dysfunction and health., 77-99. Washington DC: American Psychological Association
doi:10.1037/11468-004

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Bar-On, N., & Sahdra, B. K. (2014). Security enhancement,
self-esteem threat, and mental depletion affect provision of a safe haven and secure base
to a romantic partner. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 630–650.
doi:10.1177/0265407514525887

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: structure, dynamics, and
change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Can’t buy me love: An attachment perspective on
social support and money as psychological buffers. Psychological Inquiry, 19(3-4), 167-
173. doi: 10.1080/10478400802631295
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Monacis, L. Palo, V., Griffiths, M., & Sinatra, M. (2017). Exploring individual differences in
online addictions: The role of identity and attachment. International Journal of Mental
Health & Addiction, 15(4), 853-868. doi: 10.1007/s11469-017-9768-5

Mondor, J., Mcduff, P., Lussier, Y., & Wright, J. (2011). Couples in therapy: Actor-partner
analyses of the relationships between adult romantic attachment and marital
 174

satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 39(2), 112-123.

doi:10.1080/01926187.2010.530163

Naaman, S., Johnson, S.M., & Radwan, K. (2008). Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of
emotionally focused therapy on psychological adjustment of couples facing early breast
cancer (Doctoral Dissertation). School of Clinical Psychology, University of Ottawa,
Canada.

Noar, S. M. (2003). The role of structural equation modeling in scale development. Structural
Equation Modeling, 10(4), 622–647.
Northrup, J.C., & Shumway, S. (2014). Gamer widow: A phenomenological study of spouses of
online video game addicts. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42, 269-281. doi:
10.1080/01926187.2013.847705
Odacı, H., & Çıkrıkçı, Ö. (2014). Problematic internet use in terms of gender, attachment
styles and subjective well-being in university students. Computers in Human Behavior,
32, 61–66. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.019

Oldmeadow, J. A., Quinn, S., & Kowert, R. (2013). Attachment style, social skills, and
Facebook use amongst adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1142–1149.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.006

Orlinsky, D. E., & Rønnestad, M. H. (2015). Therapists growing older: A study of senior
practitioners. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 71(11), 1128-38. doi:10.1002/jclp.22223
Overall, N. C., Girme, Y. U., Lemay, E. P., & Hammon, M. D. (2014). Attachment anxiety and
reactions to relationship threat: the benefits and costs of inducing guilt in romantic
partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 235-256.
doi: 10.1037/a0034371
Overall, N. C., & McNulty, J. K. (2017). What type of communication during conflict is
beneficial for intimate relationships? Relationships and stress, Current Opinion in
Psychology, 13, 1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.002
Owens, M.D., Hallgren, K.A., Ladd, B.O., Rynes, K., Mccrady, B.S., & Epstein, E. (2013).
Associations between relationship satisfaction and drinking urges for women in alcohol
behavioral couples and individual therapy. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 31(4), 415-
430. doi:10.1080/07347324.2013.831668
 175

Owens, J., Rhoades, G. K., & Stanley, S. M. (2013). Sliders versus deciding in relationships:
Associations with relationship quality, commitment and infidelity. Journal of Couple &
Relationship Therapy, 12(2), 135-149. doi:10.1080/15332691.2013.779097
Parker, M., & Campbell, K. (2017). Infidelity and attachment: The moderating role of
race/ethnicity. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 39(3), 172-183.
doi: 10.1007/s10591-017-9415-0
Pedro, M. F., Ribeiro, T., & Shelton, K. H. (2015). Romantic attachment and family functioning:
the mediating role of marital satisfaction. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 24(11),
3482-3495. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0150-6
Pelham, B. W., & Blanton, H. (2013). Conducting research in psychology: Measuring the weight
of smoke. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Pham, M. N., DeLecce, T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Sperm competition in marriage: Semen
displacement, male rivals, and spousal discrepancy in sexual interest. Personality and
Individual Differences, 105, 229-232. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.056

Phubbing. (2016). Prevention, 68(4), p. 14. Retrieved from

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=b62cc932-0a65-
47e3a782ff5e1c5e43fb%40sessionmgr4009&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#d
b=a9h&AN=113696613

Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 576–593.

Punch, K.F. (2014). Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches (3rd
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Rauer, A. J., Karney, B. R., Garvan, C. W., & Hou, W. (2008). Relationship risks in context: A
cumulative risk approach to understanding relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 70, 1122–1135. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00554.x

Raque-Bogdan, T. L., Ericson, S. K., Jackson, J., Martin, H. M., & Bryan, N. A. (2011).
Attachment and mental and physical health: Self-compassion and mattering as
mediators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 272-278.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023041
 176

Reed, L., Tolman, R., & Safyer, P. (2015). Too close for comfort: Attachment insecurity
and electronic intrusion in college students’ dating relationships. Computers in Human
Behavior. 50, 431-438

Reid, R. C., Garos, S., & Fong, T. (2012). Psychometric development of the hypersexual
behavior consequences scale. Journal of Behavioral Addictions,1(3), 115-122.
doi:10.1556/jba.1.2012.001
Reid, R. C., & S. R. Woolley. (2006). Using emotionally focused therapy for couples to resolve
attachment ruptures created by hypersexual behavior. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity,
13(2-3), 219-239. doi: 10.1080/10720160600870786

Resch, M. N., & Alderson, K. G. (2014). Female partners of men who use pornography: Are
honesty and mutual use associated with relationship satisfaction? Journal of Sex and
Marital Therapy, 40(5), 410–424. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2012.751077.

Rheem, K. D., Woolley, S. R., & Weissman, N. (2012). Using emotionally focused couples
therapy with military couples. In Handbook of counseling military couples, (pp. 89-
112). New York, NY: Routledge.
Roberts, J.A., & David, M.E. (2016). My Life has become a major distraction from my cell
phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners.
Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 134-141. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058
Rodriguez, L.M., Overup, C.S., & Neighbors, C. (2013). Perceptions of partners’ problematic
alcohol use affect relationship outcomes beyond partner self-reported drinking: Alcohol
use in committed romantic relationships. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(3),
627-638. doi:10.1037/a0031737

Rogelberg, S.G. (2007). Measures of association/correlation coefficient. In Encyclopedia of

industrial and organizational psychology, (Vol.1, pp.470-473). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412952651
Russell, V. M., Baker, L. R., & Mcnulty, J. K. (2013). Attachment insecurity and infidelity in
marriage: Do studies of dating relationships really inform us about marriage? Journal of
Family Psychology, 27(2), 242-251. doi: 10.1037/a0032118.
Rusu, P. P., Hilpert, P., Turliuc, M. N., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). Couples satisfaction index--
romanian version. PsycTESTS Dataset. doi:10.1037/t60781-000
 177

Sachs, A. (2017). Through the lens of attachment relationship: Stable DID, active DID, and other
trauma-based mental disorders. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 18(3), 319-339.
doi:10.1080/15299732.2017.1295400

Sadikaj, G., Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2015). Felt security in daily interactions as a
mediator of the effect of attachment on relationship satisfaction. European Journal of
Personality,29(2), 187-200. doi:10.1002/per.1988

Salkind, N. J. (2010). Instrumentation. In Encyclopedia of research design (607-610). Thousand

Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.

Sbarra, D. A., Hasselmo, K., & Nojopranoto, W. (2012). Divorce and death: A case study for
health psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(12), 905-919.
doi:10.1111/spc3.12002

Schimmenti, A., Passanisi, A., Pace, U., Manzella, S., Carlo, G.D., & Careti, V. (2014). The
relationship between attachment and psychopathy: A study with a sample of violent
offenders. Current Psychology, 33(3), 256-270. doi:10.1007/s12144-014-9211-z

Schnarch, D. (2012, April 10). The great attachment debate [Web log interview]. Retrieved from
https://www2.psychotherapynetworker.org/blog-communities/NP0016

Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development,

affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22(1-2), 7-66.
doi:10.1002/1097-0355(200101/04)22:1<7::aid-imhj2>3.0.co;2-n

Schore, A.N. (2010). Attachment, affect regulation, and the developing right brain: Linking
developmental neuroscience to pediatrics. Pediatrics in Review, 25(6), 204-217.
doi: 10.1542/pir.26-6-204

Shafer, K., Jensen, T.M., & Larson, J.H. (2014). Relationship effort, satisfaction, and stability:
Differences across union type. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 40(2), 212-232.
doi:10.111/jmft.12007

Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic attachment: Theory and evidence. In D.
Perlman & W. Jones (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, 4, 29-70. London:
Jessica Kingsley.
 178

Shultz, D. (2016, August 26). Divorce rates double when people start watching porn. Science
Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/divorce-rates-
double-when-people-start-watching-porn

Silvo, L.O., & Zárate, L.E. (2014). A brief review of the main approaches for treatment of
missing data. Intelligent Data Analysis, 18(6), 1177-1198. doi:10.3233/IDA-140690

Singh, K., Junnarkar, M., & Kaur, J. (2016). Norms for test construction. In Measures of positive
psychology: Development and validation (pp. 17-31). New Delhi: Springer

Slotter, E.B., Lucas, G.M., Jakubiak, B., & Lasslett, H. (2013). Changing me to keep you: State
jealousy promotes perceiving similarity between the self and a romantic rival. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1280-1292. doi:10.1177/0146167213492427

Sobraske, K. (2016). Threats to romantic relationships: How they are perceived and how they are
guarded against in an uncommon mate market. Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 76(9-B)(E). Retrieved from ProQuest
Information & Learning (UMI No. AAI3689995)

Soltani, M., Molazadeh, J., Mahmoodi, M., & Hosseini, S. (2013). A study on the effectiveness
of emotionally focused couple therapy on intimacy of couples. Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 82, 461-465.

Sparks, H., Collins, F.L., & Kearns, R. (2016). Reflecting on the risks and ethical dilemmas of
digital research. Geoforum, 77, 40-46. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.09.019

Tabachnick, B., C. & Fidell, L., S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th edition). Boston,
MA: Pearson.

The Bowen Center. (2017) Eight concepts: Triangles. Retrieved September 30, 2017, from
https://thebowencenter.org/theory/eight-concepts/

Thompson, R. A., & Raikes, H. A. (2003). Toward the next quarter-century: Conceptual and
methodological challenges for attachment theory. Development and
Psychopathology, 15(03), 691-718. doi:10.1017/s0954579403000348

Towler, A.J., Stuhlmacher, A.F. (2013). Attachment styles, relationship satisfaction, and well-
being in working women. Journal of Social Psychology, 153(3), 279-298.
 179

doi: 10.1080/00224545.2012.735282

Trentini, C., Foschi, R., Lauriola, M., & Tambelli, R. (2015). The State Adult Attachment
Measure (SAAM): A construct and incremental validity study. Personality and
Individual Differences, 85, 251-257. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.016
Tronick, E., & Beeghly, M. (2011). Infants' meaning-making and the development of mental
health problems. American Psychologist, 66(2), 107-119. doi:10.1037/a0021631

U.S. Census Bureau (2016). United States quick facts. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216

Wang, X., Xie, X., Wang, Y., Wang, P., & Lei, L. (2017). Partner phubbing and depression
among married Chinese adults: The roles of relationship satisfaction and relationship
length. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 12-17.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.014

Wang, Y., & Griskevicius, V. (2014). Conspicuous consumption, relationships, and rivals:
Women's luxury products as signals to other women. Journal of Consumer Research,
40(5), 834-854. doi:10.1086/673256

Weijters, B., Cabooter, E. & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on
response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 236–247.
Weinstein, A., Katez, L., Eberhardt, H., Cohen, K., & Lejoyeux, M. (2015). Sexual compulsion-
Relationship with sex, attachment, and sexual orientation. Journal of Behavioral
Addictions, 4(1), 22-26.

Weissman, N., Batten, S.V., Dixon, L., Pasillas, R.M., Potts, W., Decker, M., … Brown, C.H.
(2011). The effectiveness of emotionally focused couples therapy (EFT) with veterans
with PTSD. Poster presented at the Veterans Affairs National Annual Conference:
Improving Veterans Mental Health Care for the 21st Century, Baltimore, MD.

Werrbach, M. (2014). Predicting Divorce: The four horsemen of the apocalpyse. Psych
Central. Retrieved on October 1, 2017, from https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/
2014/07/06/predicting-divorce-the-four-horsemen-of-the-apocalpyse/
 180

White, C.M., & Bregman, O.C. (2011). Bringing systems thinking to life: Expanding the
horizons for bowen family systems theory. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wiebe, S.A., & Johnson, S.M. (2016). A review of the research in emotionally focused
therapy for couples. Family Process, 55(3), 390-407.
Wiebe, S., Johnson, S. M., Burgess-Moser, M., Dalgleish, T., Lafontaine, M., & Tasca, G.
(2016). Predicting follow-up outcomes in Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy: The
role of change in trust, relationship-specific attachment, and emotional engagement.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 43(2), 213-226.
Wiebe, S. A., Johnson, S. M., Lafontaine, M., Burgess- Moser, M., Dalgleish, T. L., & Tasca, G.
A. (2016). Two-year follow-up outcomes in emotionally focused couple therapy: An
investigation of relationship satisfaction and attachment trajectories. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy,43(2), 227-244. doi:10.1111/jmft.12206
Wiltgen, A., Adler, H., Smith, R., Rufino, K., Frazier, C., Shepard, C., …Fowler, J.C. (2015)
Attachment insecurity and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder among inpatients
with serious mental illness. Journal of Affective Disorders, 174, 411-415.
doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.011

Woolley, S. R. (2015). Healing affairs using emotionally focused therapy. Retrieved September
30, 2017, from http://www.couplesconference.com/cc2016/?wpfb_dl=25

Wu, C. (2009). The relationship between attachment style and self-concept clarity: The
mediation effect of self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(1), 42-46.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.043

Wuensch, K.L. (2016). An introduction to path analysis. Retrieved from

http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/MV/SEM/Path.pdf on 1 September 2017.

Zhou, X., & Gao, D. G. (2008). Social support and money as pain management
mechanisms. Psychological Inquiry, 19(3-4), 127-144. doi:
10.1080/10478400802592315

Zitzman, S.T., & Butler, M.H. (2009). Wives’ experience of husbands’ pornography use and
concomitant deception as an attachment threat in the adult pair-bond relationship. Sexual
Addiction and Compulsivity. The Journal of Treatment & Prevention, 16(3), 210-240.
Retrieved from doi.org/10.1080/10720160903202679.
 181

Appendices
 182

Appendix A: Competing Attachment Scale

Competing Attachment Scale

Definition of Competing Attachment:

In romantic relationships, people sometimes turn elsewhere to have their needs met (e.g. need to

feel emotionally safe, secure, loved, connected, etc…) or in some cases, they might engage in

activities that distract themselves from the pain of not having such needs met in their

relationship. The time and attention given to these alternative activities (e.g., food, alcohol,

drugs, pornography, being with family/friends, work, sex, affair-partners, exercise, gambling,

cell phones, Internet, gaming, a personal hobby, etc…) competes with the attachment

relationship with their romantic partner and are called “competing attachments.” While having a

balanced lifestyle and interests outside a romantic relationship is typically healthy, competing

attachments arise when one or both partners focus too much time and attention on another

activity or person in an attempt to have their relationships needs met or compensate for their

belief that such needs won’t be met by their partner/spouse. Competing attachments often create

feelings of sadness, frustration, emotional pain, or disconnect between couples and this measure

attempts to understand the extent to which you may experience competing attachments in your

relationship.
 183

1. Based on the definition above, how often do you experience competing attachments in the

relationship with your partner?

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often

0 1 2 3 4

2. How often does your partner turn elsewhere to have their needs met rather than turning to

you?

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often

0 1 2 3 4

3. How often does your partner give too much time and attention to other activities or people

rather than spending time with you?

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often

0 1 2 3 4

4. Based on the definition above, how often do you feel hurt by competing attachments in your

relationship with your partner?

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often

0 1 2 3 4

5. How often do you believe competing attachments negatively affect your ability to have a
healthy bond with your partner?
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often

0 1 2 3 4
 184

Appendix B: State Adult Attachment Measure with Coding

SAAM

The following statements concern how you feel right now. Please respond to each statement by

indicating how much you agree or disagree with it as it reflects your current feelings. Please

circle the number on the 1-to-7 scale that best indicates how you feel at the moment:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Disagree Strongly ......... ......... Neutral/Mixed ......... ......... Agree Strongly

Right now…

Anx 1. I wish someone would tell me they really love me

Avo 2. I would be uncomfortable having a good friend or a relationship partner close

to me

Avo 3. I feel alone and yet don't feel like getting close to others

Sec 4. I feel loved

Anx 5. I wish someone close could see me now

 185

Sec 6. If something went wrong right now I feel like I could depend on someone

Sec 7. I feel like others care about me

Anx 8. I feel a strong need to be unconditionally loved right now

Avo 9. I'm afraid someone will want to get too close to me

Avo 10. If someone tried to get close to me, I would try to keep my distance

Sec 11. I feel relaxed knowing that close others are there for me right now

Anx 12. I really need to feel loved right now

Sec 13. I feel like I have someone to rely on

Anx 14. I want to share my feelings with someone

Avo 15. I feel like I am loved by others but I really don't care

Avo 16. The idea of being emotionally close to someone makes me nervous

Anx 17. I want to talk with someone who cares for me about things that are worrying

me

Sec 18. I feel secure and close to other people

Anx 19. I really need someone's emotional support

Sec 20. I feel I can trust the people who are close to me

Avo 21. I have mixed feelings about being close to other people
 186

Appendix C: Couples Satisfaction Index

Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI-16)

Please indicate the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship.

Extremely Fairly A Little Very Extrem

Unhappy Unhappy Unhappy Happy Happy ely Perfect
0 1 2 3 4 Happy 6
5

All Most More

the of the often Occa-
time time than sionally Rare- Never
not ly
In general, how often do you 5 4 3 2 1 0
think that things between you
and your partner are going well?

Not A Some- Almost

at all little what Mostly Completely Completely
TRU TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
E

Our 0 1 2 3 4 5
relationship is
strong

My 0 1 2 3 4 5
relationship
with my
partner makes
 187

me happy
I have a warm 0 1 2 3 4 5
and
comfortable
relationship
with my
partner

I really feel 0 1 2 3 4 5
like part of a
team with my
partner

Not A Some- Almost

at little what Mostly Completely Completely
all
How rewarding is your 0 1 2 3 4 5
relationship with your
partner?
How well does your 0 1 2 3 4 5
partner meet your
needs?

To what extent has 0 1 2 3 4 5

your relationship met
your original
expectations?
In general, how 0 1 2 3 4 5
satisfied are you with
your relationship?
 188

For each of the following items, select the answer that best describes how you feel about your

relationship. Base your responses on your first impressions and immediate feelings about the

item.

INTERESTING 5 4 3 2 1 0 BORING

BAD 0 1 2 3 4 5 GOOD

FULL 5 4 3 2 1 0 EMPTY

STURDY 5 4 3 2 1 0 FRAGILE

DISCOURAGING 0 1 2 3 4 5 HOPEFUL

ENJOYABLE 5 4 3 2 1 0 MISERABLE

PERMISSION FOR USE: We developed the CSI scales to be freely available for research and

clinical use. No further permission is required beyond this form and the authors will not generate

study-specific permission letters.

SCORING: To score the CSI-16, you simply sum the responses across all of the items. The point

values of each response of each item are shown above. NOTE – When we present the scale to

participants, we do not show them those point values. We just give them circles to fill in (on pen-

and-paper versions) or radio buttons to click (in online surveys) in place of those point values.
 189

INTERPRETATION: CSI-16 scores can range from 0 to 81. Higher scores indicate higher levels

of relationship satisfaction. CSI-16 scores falling below 51.5 suggest notable relationship

dissatisfaction.

CITATION: If you are using this scale, then you should cite the research article validating it as

follows:

Funk, J.L., & Rogge, R.D. (2007). Testing the Ruler with Item Response Theory: Increasing

Precision of Measurement for Relationship Satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index.

Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572-583.

 190

Appendix D: Northcentral University IRB Approval Letter

Date: 1/12/2018

PI Name: Anabelle Bugatti

Chair Name (if applicable): Cassandra Lettenberger-Klein

Application Type (Initial, Continuing, Pilot): Initial

Review Level (Exempt, Expedited, Full Board): Exempt Category 2

Study Title: Competing Attachment in Romantic Relationships

Approval Date: 1/12/2018

Continuing Review Date: N/A

Expiration Date: 1/12/2019

Dear Anabelle,

Congratulations! The purpose of this letter is to inform you that your IRB

application has been approved. Your responsibilities include the following:

1. Follow the protocol as approved. If you need to make changes, please

submit a modification form requesting approval of any proposed
changes before you make them.
2. If there is a consent process in your research, you must use the consent
form approved with your final application. Please make sure all
participants receive a copy of the consent form.
3. Continuing review is required as long as you are in data collection or if
data have not been de-identified. Failure to receive approval of the
 191

continuing review before the expiration date means the research must
stop immediately.
4. If there are any injuries, problems, or complaints from participants,
you must notify the IRB at IRB@ncu.edu within 24 hours.
5. IRB audit of procedures may occur. The IRB will notify you if your
study will be audited.
6. When data are collected and de-identified, please submit a study
closure form to the IRB.
7. You must maintain current CITI certification until you have submitted
a study closure form.
8. If you are a student, please be aware that you must be enrolled in an
active dissertation course with NCU in order to collect data.

Congratulations from the NCU IRB. Best wishes as you conduct your

research!

Respectfully,

Northcentral University Institutional Review Board

Email: irb@ncu.edu
 192

Appendix E: Recruitment Materials

Recruitment Message for the Email Listserve:

Dear Therapists, I am currently collecting data for my dissertation research on competing

attachment via an Internet survey. You are invited to join in a research study exploring the

relationship between competing attachment and how this may threaten the stability and

happiness of romantic relationships. Please read carefully.

Statement of Informed Consent

I am the principal investigator (PI), Anabelle Bugatti, a doctoral candidate at Northcentral

University, School of Marriage and Family Therapy Sciences. My Chair is Dr. C Lettenberger-

Klein. I am available to answer any questions regarding the research. Please ask any questions

you have prior to agreeing to participate in the study. You can reach me at

A.Bugatti7417@email.ncu.edu or my chair at clettenbergerklein@ncu.edu

Joining in this study is voluntary and anonymous.

You can participate this study if you are:

• At least 18 or older
• Currently in a romantic relationship
• Have access to the Internet
• Speak English

You may choose not to join in or discontinue participation without any consequence. By

clicking on the study link you are acknowledging that you are at least 18 years of age or older,

currently in a romantic relationship, and speak English. You also acknowledge that you do not
 193

have a language or education barrier that prohibits your understanding of the explanations and

information in this consent form.

Here is the link to participate:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/competingattachmentsurvey

Signature:

Anabelle Bugatti

Recruitment Ad For Facebook:

Please help a PhD student by joining in my research study about romantic relationships. I

am conducting a survey to learn about competing attachment and how this may threaten the

stability and happiness of romantic relationships. I am the principal investigator (PI), Anabelle

Bugatti, a doctoral candidate at Northcentral University, School of Marriage and Family Therapy

Sciences. I am looking to collect information from adults 18 and over, both male and female,

who are currently in a romantic relationship, and speak English. Click on the link below to

participate in study, a brief survey that should take no longer than 15-25 minutes to complete.

Please contact the researcher (me) with any questions at: A.Bugatti7417@email.ncu.edu

Statement of Informed Consent

I am conducting a survey to learn about competing attachment and how this may threaten

the stability and happiness of romantic relationships. Please read carefully.

 194

You can participate the study if you are:

• At least 18 or older
• Currently in a romantic relationship
• Have access to the internet
• Speak English

I am the principal investigator (PI), Anabelle Bugatti, a doctoral candidate at Northcentral

University, School of Marriage and Family Therapy Sciences. My Chair is Dr. C Lettenberger-

Klein. I am available to answer any questions regarding the research. Please ask any questions

you have prior to agreeing to participate in the study. You can reach me @

A.Bugatti7417@email.ncu.edu or my chair at clettenbergerklein@ncu.edu

Joining in this study is voluntary and anonymous. You may choose not to join in or

discontinue participation without any problem. By clicking on the study link you are

acknowledging that you are at least 18 years of age or older, currently in a romantic relationship,

and in the United States. You also acknowledge that you do not have a medical condition,

language or education barrier that makes it hard to understand the explanations and information

in this consent form.

Here is the link to participate:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/competingattachmentsurvey

Signature:

Anabelle Bugatti
 195

Appendix F: Informed Consent

Informed Consent

My name is Anabelle Bugatti, I am a PhD student at Northcentral University. I am conducting a

survey because I want to know about competing attachment and how this may impact the

stability and happiness of romantic relationships. I invite you to join my study.

If you want to join the study, you will:

1. Answer a survey online via a website called Survey Monkey. The total time to complete the

survey should take approximately 15-25 minutes.

You can join if you:

• Are at least 18 or older

• Currently in a romantic relationship
• Have access to the internet
• You speak English

You cannot join if you:

• You are under the age of 18

• Not currently in a romantic relationship
• Do not have access to the internet
• You do not speak English

You can join the study if you want to. You can say no if you want to. You are not in trouble if

you say no.

 196

If you join, you might feel nervous answering questions about your romantic relationship. You

can stop when you want and leave the survey. You will never be asked to give your name or any

personal identifying information. I will keep your answers in a safe place where no one else can

have access to them, and they will be deleted after 7 years. The only people allowed to see the

answers to the survey are my dissertation committee members, the review board at my school,

and my dissertation coaches who will help me make sure I analyze the answers correctly.

Remember, your name or personal information will never be asked or known.

Joining the study may not directly help you. This study may help therapists and researchers

understand and identify things that might threaten or hurt romantic relationships, in order to find

ways to prevent this or help couples heal their relationships.

Ask me any questions by emailing me at: A.Bugatti7417@email.ncu.edu

Or my dissertation chair’s name is Dr. Cassandra Lettenberger-Klein. She works at Northcentral

University and is supervising me on this research. You can contact her at:

clettenbergerklein@ncu.edu.

If you have questions about your rights in this research survey, or if a problem has happened, or

if you are injured during your participation, please contact the Institutional Review Board at:

irb@ncu.edu or 1-888-327-2877 ext 8014.

Signature:

Anabelle Bugatti