Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110409

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Associations between the broad autism phenotype, adult attachment, and T

relationship satisfaction among emerging adults
Jenna H. Beffela, , Kyla M. Carya, Amy K. Nuttalla, William J. Chopikb, Megan K. Maasa
⁎

a
Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Michigan State University, United States of America
b
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, United States of America

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Traits comprising the broad autism phenotype (aloof personality, pragmatic language deficits, and rigid per-
Broad autism phenotype sonality) have been linked to difficulty forming and maintaining close relationships, as well as attachment
Adult attachment insecurity. The present study examined how the three individual broad autism phenotype traits were associated
Relationship satisfaction with emerging adults' romantic relationship satisfaction via attachment anxiety and avoidance. Results of a
Emerging adulthood
parallel mediation model revealed that aloof personality was associated with lower relationship satisfaction via
anxiety and avoidance, pragmatic language was associated with lower relationship satisfaction via avoidance,
and rigidity was associated with lower relationship satisfaction via anxiety. In conclusion, individuals high in
BAP may be at risk for lower relationship satisfaction as a result of higher attachment insecurity.

1. Introduction relationship formation and maintenance is associated with a variety of

Subclinical traits of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) referred to as
the broader autism phenotype (BAP) are of growing interest to re-
searchers (Ruzich et al., 2016). BAP is comprised of three key char-
acteristics: aloof personality, pragmatic language deficits, and rigid
personality (Hurley et al., 2007). BAP is common among family mem-
bers of individuals with ASD (Sasson et al., 2013) and in the general
population (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001; Constantino and Todd, 2003). In
both populations, studies have consistently demonstrated that BAP is
associated with risks for relational outcomes. However, further research
is needed to understand the influence of BAP on adult attachment and
relationship satisfaction in order to inform practitioners and educators
focused on healthy relationship development and maintenance.
1.1. BAP and relationship satisfaction
BAP is associated with fewer friendships (Jobe and Williams White,
2007) and lower relationship satisfaction among individuals in ro-
mantic relationships (Pruitt et al., 2018), highlighting the risks BAP
poses to relational outcomes. The effects of BAP are particularly salient
among emerging adults, given the stage-salient developmental task of
forming and maintaining meaningful romantic relationships (Collins
and van Dulmen, 2007). During emerging adulthood, intimate
positive outcomes. Romantic attachments are each associated with
greater life satisfaction among emerging adults (Guarnieri et al., 2015).
Romantic relationship experiences in emerging adulthood are pre-
dictive of perceived adulthood and identity development (Barry et al.,
2009). Similarly, romantic relationship quality predicts happiness and
well-being among emerging adults (Demir, 2008; Gómez-López et al.,
2019). Although the association between ASD traits and romantic re-
lationship satisfaction has been observed in adult, married couples
(Pollmann et al., 2010; Pruitt et al., 2018), research of this association
within emerging adulthood is lacking. Given the regarding social
struggles experienced by individuals high in ASD traits (Jobe and
Williams White, 2007), potential pathways between ASD traits and
relationship satisfaction deserve further exploration.
ASD traits such as those that comprise BAP result in challenges in
establishing and maintaining social connections (American Psychiatric
Association, 2013). As such, one would expect that individuals high in
BAP would struggle to maintain romantic relationships. Although the
quality of non-romantic relationships has been found to be impacted by
an individual's BAP level (Faso et al., 2016), the impact on the quality
of romantic relationships remains under-studied. Among a sample of
heterosexual married couples, individuals higher in subclinical traits of
ASD similar reported lower martial satisfaction (Pollmann et al., 2010;
Pruitt et al., 2018). Yet, the mechanisms involved in the associations

Corresponding author at: 552 West Circle Drive, 13D Human Ecology, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States of America.
⁎

E-mail addresses: beffelje@msu.edu (J.H. Beffel), carykyla@msu.edu (K.M. Cary), nuttall@msu.edu (A.K. Nuttall), chopikwi@msu.edu (W.J. Chopik),
maasmeg1@msu.edu (M.K. Maas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110409
Received 6 July 2020; Received in revised form 17 September 2020; Accepted 19 September 2020
Available online 24 September 2020
0191-8869/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.H. Beffel, et al.
between BAP and romantic relationship satisfaction remain unknown.
When studying the risks BAP poses to relational outcomes, it is
important to investigate how the three key BAP characteristics may
differentially impact outcomes. Extant literature demonstrates that
aloofness, pragmatic language deficits, and rigid personality may have
distinct effects on relational outcomes. Although aloofness and rigid
personality have been shown to be negatively associated with re-
lationship satisfaction, pragmatic language difficulties have shown no
association with relationship satisfaction (Pruitt et al., 2018). Thus, we
aim to re-examine associations between individual BAP traits and re-
lationship satisfaction.
1.2. The mediating role of attachment
Adult romantic attachment is well-established as critical for main-
taining romantic relationship satisfaction and well-being (Butzer and
Campbell, 2008; Galinha et al., 2014; Mikulincer and Shaver, 2005).
Attachment styles—initially formed in childhood between caregivers
and infants—are carried over into and influence adult romantic re-
lationships (Hazan and Shaver, 1987), as evidenced by research de-
monstrating that individual attachment styles are fairly stable over time
(Fraley, 2002; Fraley et al., 2011). Insecurely attached adults may be
high in romantic attachment anxiety (i.e., preoccupation with social
support and fear of abandonment/rejection) and/or high in romantic
attachment avoidance (i.e., avoidance of intimacy and discomfort of
closeness) (Brennan et al., 1998).
Both adult attachment and BAP have heritable components and
likely share common sources of variance (Barbaro et al., 2017; Chen
and Johnson, 2012; Constantino and Todd, 2003).1 BAP is thought to
precede the development of adult attachment, as BAP has clearer ge-
netic determinants, emerges early in life, and persists in a more stable
way compared to contemporary frameworks of adult attachment (Parr
et al., 2015). Further, BAP may influence adult attachment primarily
through its effects on empathic deficits that accumulate through
childhood and adolescence (Lamport and Turner, 2014). Indeed, prior
research has consistently found associations between ASD traits and
insecure adult attachment. For example, among a sample of emerging
adults, higher levels of ASD traits were associated with more avoidance,
suggesting that individuals higher in ASD traits are less likely to ex-
perience emotional closeness and intimate communication with their
romantic partners (Gallitto and Leth-Steensen, 2015). Similarly, addi-
tional research demonstrates that BAP is positively associated with both
anxiety and avoidance (Lamport and Turner, 2014). Moreover, adult
attachment plays an important role in determining the success of ro-
mantic relationships (Butzer and Campbell, 2008; Jones and
Cunningham, 1996). Thus, these associations between individuals
higher in BAP may experience detriments in romantic relation-
ships—possibly through their associations with insecure attachment.
1
There is now little controversy about whether there is substantial herit-
ability in psychological traits (like adult attachment and BAP; Barbaro et al.,
2017; Constantino and Todd, 2003). However, finding the exact genetic me-
chanisms (i.e., single nucleotide polymorphisms; SNPs) linking the two traits
has proved elusive. Although there is evidence that the oxytocin receptor gene
might play a causal role in explaining variation in adult attachment and BAP
(Chen and Johnson, 2012), more representative work finds that the effect sizes
of individual SNPs linking the two likely explain small amounts of variance and
are not replicable, particularly when examining adult attachment (Fraley et al.,
2013). We acknowledge that both traits likely share some sources of genetic
variation but encourage future research to more formally examine the sources
of this variation in large, population-wide studies (Briley et al., 2019). Never-
theless, given the likely shared sources of variation in both, it is important to
keep this in mind when examining associations between the two.
2
Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110409
1.3. The present study
The present study examined the BAP traits of aloofness, pragmatic
language, and rigidity as they relate to relationship satisfaction among
emerging adults. We modeled the three BAP traits separately due to
evidence supporting differential associations between each BAP trait
and relational outcomes (Pruitt et al., 2018). Additionally, we ex-
amined the potential mediating effects of attachment anxiety and
avoidance on the association between BAP traits and relationship sa-
tisfaction. We hypothesized that 1) BAP traits would be associated with
lower levels of relationship satisfaction; 2) BAP traits would be asso-
ciated with higher levels of attachment anxiety and avoidance; and 3)
higher levels of anxiety and avoidance would mediate the relationship
among BAP traits and relationship satisfaction.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Participants and procedures
Data was collected from an online survey study of romantic and
family relationships among college students at a large, midwestern
university. Survey and procedures were approved by the university's
Institutional Review Board. Participants were recruited through a uni-
versity subject pool and compensated with course credit. The study
included 263 undergraduate students who were currently in a romantic
relationship. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 25 years old
(M = 20.15, SD = 1.52; 79.5% women). In identifying race/ethnicity,
58.6% of participants identified as White/Caucasian, followed by
19.4% Asian or Pacific Islander, 16% Black or African American, 6.8%
Hispanic or Latinx, 1.9% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 3.4%
other.
Questionnaires were given in order of levels of proximity: First, we
asked about parent relationships, then sibling relationships and, lastly,
romantic relationships. If participants indicated that they were not
currently in a romantic relationship, they ended the survey after the
sibling questionnaires.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Broad autism phenotype questionnaire (BAPQ; Hurley et al., 2007)
The BAPQ is a 36-item, self-report questionnaire measuring the sub-
clinical expressions of the defining features of ASD among individuals
who are not diagnosed with ASD. Participant responses are recorded on
a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very rarely) to 6 (very often) and
mean scores for each scale were calculated. The BAPQ consists of three
subscales: aloof personality (12 items; α = 0.89), rigid personality (12
items; α = 0.80), and pragmatic language deficits (12 items; α = 0.74).
Sample items include, “I would rather talk to people to get information
than to socialize” for aloof personality, “people have to talk me into
trying something new” for rigid personality, and “I find it hard to get
my words out smoothly” for pragmatic language deficits.
2.2.2. Experiences in close relationships questionnaire-revised (ECR-R;
Fraley et al., 2000)
The ECR-R is a 38-item, self-report questionnaire that assesses an-
xious and avoidant attachment. Participants responded to the questions
on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). Mean scores were calculated for each subscale. The ECR-R in-
cludes two subscales: attachment anxiety (18 items; α = 0.93) and
attachment avoidance (18 items; α = 0.95). Example items for the
attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance subscales include, “I
worry that my partner doesn't really love me” and, “I prefer not to show
a partner how I feel deep down”, respectively.
2.2.3. Couple satisfaction index-16 (CSI-16; Funk and Rogge, 2007)
The CSI-16 is a 16-item, self-report questionnaire measuring
J.H. Beffel, et al.
relationship satisfaction among individuals currently in a romantic re-
lationship. For 15 of the CSI-16 items, responses are recorded on a 6-
point Likert scale which ranges from 0 to 5. For the remaining one
question, responses are recorded on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from
0 to 6; all 16 items were summed for a total score (α = 0.96) Sample
items include: “Please indicate the degree of happiness, all things
considered, of your relationship” with response options ranging from 0
(extremely unhappy) to 6 (perfect) and, “in general, how often do you
think that things between you and your partner are going well?” with
response options ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (all the time).
2.3. Analytic strategy
Path analyses were used to evaluate (1) the association between
BAP traits (aloof personality, pragmatic language deficits, rigidity) with
relationship satisfaction, (2) BAP traits with anxiety and avoidance, and
(3) indirect effects of BAP traits on relationship satisfaction via both
anxiety and avoidance in a parallel mediation model (Hayes, 2018).
View the hypothesized mediation model2 in Fig. 1. Mediation was
tested using the percentile bootstrap method with 1000 bootstrapped
samples to construct 95% confidence intervals (Falk, 2018; Hayes and
Scharkow, 2013). The model was tested in Mplus version 8.1 (Muthén
and Muthén, 2018) using full information maximum likelihood to ac-
count for missing data.
3. Results
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are reported in
Table 1. The model was saturated. Unstandardized path coefficients are
presented in Table 2, and standardized effects are reported here in text.
Aloofness (b = 0.18, p = .03), pragmatic language (b = 0.27,
p < .001), and rigidity (b = 0.17, p = .01) were positively associated
with anxiety. Aloofness was positively associated with avoidance
(b = 0.23, p = .01), but pragmatic language was not associated with
avoidance (b = 0.16, p = .06). Interestingly, rigidity was negatively
associated with avoidance (b = −0.15, p = .02). The direct effects of
aloofness (b = −0.03, p = .68) and rigidity (b = −0.07, p = .32) on
relationship satisfaction were not significant. However, pragmatic lan-
guage had a positive direct effect on relationship satisfaction (b = 0.18,
p = .01). Anxiety (b = −0.25, p < .01) and avoidance (b = −0.41,
p < .001) had negative direct associations with relationship satisfac-
tion.
The indirect effect of aloofness on relationship satisfaction through
anxiety was estimated to lie between −1.65 and − 0.004 with 95%
confidence, indicating a significant indirect effect. Higher levels of
aloofness were associated with higher anxiety, which was associated
with less relationship satisfaction. The indirect effect of aloofness on
relationship satisfaction through avoidance was estimated to lie be-
tween −3.17 and − 0.42 with 95% confidence, indicating a significant
indirect effect. Higher levels of aloofness were associated with higher
avoidance, which was associated with lower relationship satisfaction.
The direct effect of aloofness on relationship satisfaction was estimated
to lie between −3.16 and 2.07 with 95% confidence, indicating a
nonsignificant direct effect.
The indirect effect of pragmatic language on relationship satisfac-
tion through the mediating variable of avoidance was estimated to lie
between −3.20 and − 0.41 with 95% confidence, indicating a sig-
nificant indirect effect. Higher levels of pragmatic language were as-
sociated with higher avoidance, which, was associated with less re-
lationship satisfaction. The indirect effect of pragmatic language on
relationship satisfaction through the mediating variable of anxiety was
2
A standard linear regression revealed that the interaction between anxiety
and avoidance was non-significant, b = 0.64, s.e. = 0.59, p = .28, and thus was
not included in the model.
3
Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110409
estimated to lie between −3.26 and 0.04 with 95% confidence, which,
contrary to our hypothesis, does not indicate a significant indirect ef-
fect. The direct effect of pragmatic language on relationship satisfaction
was estimated to lie between 1.00 and 7.50 with 95% confidence, in-
dicating a significant direct effect. Higher levels of pragmatic language
difficulties were associated with more relationship satisfaction.
The indirect effect of rigidity on relationship satisfaction through
the mediating variable of anxiety was estimated to lie between −0.01
and − 0.18 with 95% confidence, indicating a significant indirect ef-
fect. Higher levels of rigidity were associated with more anxiety, which
was associated with less relationship satisfaction. Surprisingly, the in-
direct effect of rigidity on relationship satisfaction via avoidance was
estimated to lie between 0.16 and 2.45 with 95% confidence, demon-
strating a significant indirect effect indicating that higher levels of ri-
gidity were associated with more relationship satisfaction. The direct
effect of rigidity on relationship satisfaction was estimated to lie be-
tween −4.18 and 1.30 with 95% confidence, which does not indicate a
significant direct effect.
4. Discussion
The present study found that aloofness was associated with lower
relationship satisfaction via higher anxiety and avoidance, pragmatic
language was associated with lower relationship satisfaction via higher
avoidance, and rigidity was associated with lower relationship sa-
tisfaction via lower anxiety. Furthermore, pragmatic language was not
associated with relationship satisfaction via anxiety, and rigidity was
associated with higher relationship satisfaction via avoidance. These
findings support previous literature reporting that BAP traits are asso-
ciated with higher levels of insecure attachment (Lamport and Turner,
2014), and that insecure attachment predicts lower levels of relation-
ship satisfaction (Jones and Cunningham, 1996).
Findings regarding aloof personality are consistent with prior re-
search demonstrating that aloofness is associated with lower relation-
ship satisfaction (Pruitt et al., 2018). An antecedent of this effect may
be that aloofness is associated with a dislike of emotionally and phy-
sically intimate situations, a or lack of awareness of when to provide
support, and a dislike of socializing generally—all correlates of at-
tachment avoidance (e.g., Edelstein and Shaver, 2004; Mikulincer and
Shaver, 2005). Somewhat surprisingly, attachment anxiety also medi-
ated the association between aloofness and relationship satisfaction.
Attachment anxiety may be more closely linked with aloofness through
the ways in which social anxiety and perseverative thoughts (Saffrey
and Ehrenberg, 2007) or extreme negative attributions (Collins, 1996)
interfere with ability to identify social cues. Future research should
distinguish the components of attachment anxiety and avoidance that
mediate aloofness-relational outcome associations.
Pragmatic language deficits were associated with lower relationship
satisfaction via higher levels of avoidance. This is consistent with pre-
vious research reporting a similar association (Faso et al., 2016). Due to
challenges understanding others' communications, people with such
difficulties may struggle to create and maintain relationships (Wainer
et al., 2011). Therefore, these individuals may experience a sense of
inadequacy in relationships that leads them to avoid relationships
(Lamport and Turner, 2014). Additionally, attachment avoidance cre-
ates a sense of feeling out-of-sync and disconnectedness with relational
partners (Weimer et al., 2004). Given our findings, pragmatic language
flow appears to be an important antecedent to this process of feeling in-
sync and connected. Along with difficulties in conversations, avoidant
individuals may also have systematic biases that lead them to re-
member conversations as more adversarial and out-of-sync than they
typically were (Feeney and Cassidy, 2003; Simpson et al., 2010).
Furthermore, mediation through attachment anxiety was not sup-
ported. A search of the literature revealed that anxious individuals
readily embrace the reciprocity and synchrony of close relationships
and conversational partners (Guerrero and Burgood, 1996), possibly
J.H. Beffel, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110409

Fig. 1. Hypothesized parallel mediation path model.

Table 1
Correlations, means, and standard deviations among survey measures.
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. BAPQ aloof personality –

2. BAPQ pragmatic language 0.58⁎⁎ –
3. BAPQ rigid personality 0.45⁎⁎ 0.39⁎⁎ –
4. ECR-R anxiety 0.41⁎⁎ 0.44⁎⁎ 0.35⁎⁎ –
5. ECR-R avoidance 0.26⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎ 0.02 0.50⁎⁎ –
6. CSI relationship satisfaction −0.17⁎⁎ −0.07 −0.11 −0.41⁎⁎ −0.50⁎⁎ –
M 2.94 2.80 3.25 3.13 2.53 65.92
SD 0.87 0.65 0.68 1.17 1.12 14.58

Note: ⁎⁎
p < .001; BAPQ = Broad Autism Phenotype Questionnaire.

Table 2 these increased levels of anxiety are associated with attachment anxiety
Unstandardized path coefficients for effects of BAP subscales on attachment and (Nielsen et al., 2017). Therefore, it is not surprising that rigidity was
relationship satisfaction. associated with lower relationship satisfaction via higher levels of at-
Unstandardized parameters Estimate SE p tachment anxiety.
Contrary to other dimensions of BAP, rigidity was not associated
Aloofness ➔ anxiety 0.24 0.11 0.03 with lower relationship satisfaction via higher avoidance. In fact, ri-
Pragmatic language ➔ anxiety 0.49 0.13 < 0.001
gidity was associated with more relationship satisfaction via lower
Rigidity ➔ anxiety 0.28 0.10 0.01
Aloofness ➔ avoidance 0.30 0.11 0.01 avoidance. This finding is surprising given that higher rigidity is asso-
Pragmatic language ➔ avoidance 0.28 0.15 0.06 ciated with lower relationship satisfaction (Pruitt et al., 2018). Given
Rigidity ➔ avoidance −0.24 0.10 0.02 the paucity of research examining the relationship between rigidity and
Anxiety ➔ relationship satisfaction −3.15 1.06 < 0.01 romantic relationship outcomes, further research is needed to better
Avoidance ➔ relationship satisfaction −5.32 1.11 < 0.001
Aloofness ➔ relationship satisfaction −0.54 1.32 0.68
understand and confirm this novel finding.
Pragmatic language ➔ relationship satisfaction 4.01 1.62 0.01 Importantly, future research should implement longitudinal
Rigidity ➔ relationship satisfaction −1.43 1.43 0.32 methods in order to examine the impact of BAP on the development of
Covariance parameters adult attachment over an extended time period. In addition, partici-
Anxiety with avoidance 0.50 0.07 < 0.001
pants did not report the length of their current romantic relationship,
Aloofness with pragmatic language 0.33 0.04 < 0.001
Aloofness with rigidity 0.27 0.04 < 0.001 thus we were unable to examine the possible impact of relationship
Pragmatic language with rigidity 0.17 0.03 < 0.001 length on outcome variables. Additionally, we included reports of re-
lationship satisfaction from only one individual within the couple pair
(and could not pair any potential partners in our anonymous survey).
because of their desire for relational affiliation (Brennan et al., 1998). Future research should examine BAP, attachment, and relationship sa-
Alternatively, avoidant individuals struggle establishing conversational tisfaction in couples to explore dyadic associations between these
rapport with relational partners (Schoenherr et al., 2019), withhold variables (e.g., Faso et al., 2016).
their thoughts and opinions because of this (Read et al., 2018) and
ultimately avoid face-to-face interactions altogether (Wardecker et al., 5. Conclusion
2016). This could be one explanation for why attachment avoidance
was found to explain the consequences of pragmatic language deficits, The present study underscores the implications of BAP on romantic
but attachment anxiety was not. relationship satisfaction through the mechanism of attachment in-
Our findings also revealed that rigidity was associated with lower security. This study adds to the literature on BAP by identifying asso-
relationship satisfaction via higher anxiety. This finding is consistent ciations between individual BAP traits (aloof personality, pragmatic
with research demonstrating that rigidity is associated with lower re- language deficits, and rigid personality), attachment anxiety and
lationship satisfaction (Pruitt et al., 2018). Moreover, rigid individuals avoidance, and relationship satisfaction. These associations are espe-
show increased levels of general anxiety (Ciarrochi et al., 2005), and cially important to understand emerging adults who may be seeking to

4
J.H. Beffel, et al.
build meaningful and lasting romantic relationships. Couple-based in-
terventions and healthy relationship education programs may be in-
formed by these findings which support the important role of individual
differences in relationship satisfaction and well-being.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jenna H. Beffel: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Kyla M. Cary:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original
draft, Writing - review & editing. Amy K. Nuttall: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Writing - review & editing, Investigation, Resources,
Project administration, Supervision. William J. Chopik: Writing - re-
view & editing, Investigation, Resources, Project administration,
Supervision. Megan K. Maas: Writing - review & editing, Supervision.
References
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental dis-
orders (5th ed.). Arlintonhttps://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.
Barbaro, N., Boutwell, B. B., Barnes, J. C., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Rethinking the
transmission gap: What behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology mean for
attachment theory: A comment on Verhage et al. (2016). Psychological Bulletin,
143(1), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000066.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The
autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from asperger syndrome/high-functioning
autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005653411471.
Barry, C. M. N., Madsen, S. D., Nelson, L. J., Carroll, J. S., & Badger, S. (2009). Friendship
and romantic relationship qualities in emerging adulthood: Differential associations
with identity development and achieved adulthood criteria. Journal of Adult
Development, 16(4), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-009-9067-x.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: An integrative review. In J. A. Simpson, & W. S. Rholes (Eds.).
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guliford Press.
Briley, D. A., Livengood, J., Derringer, J., Tucker-Drob, E. M., Fraley, R. C., & Roberts, B.
W. (2019). Interpreting behavior genetic models: Seven developmental processes to
understand. Behavior Genetics, 49(2), 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.
2017.03.040.
Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship
satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 141–154.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00189.x.
Chen, F. S., & Johnson, S. C. (2012). An oxytocin receptor gene variant predicts attach-
ment anxiety in females and autism-spectrum traits in males. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 3(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611410325.
Ciarrochi, J., Said, T., & Deane, F. P. (2005). When simplifying life is not so bad: The link
between rigidity, stressful life events, and mental health in an undergraduate popu-
lation. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 33(2), 185–197. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03069880500132540.
Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation,
emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 810–832.
Collins, A., & van Dulmen, M. (2007). Friendships and romance in emerging adulthood:
Assessing distinctiveness in close relationships. Emerging adults in America: Coming of
age in the 21st century (pp. 219–234). American Psychological Association. https://
doi.org/10.1037/11381-009.
Constantino, J. N., & Todd, R. D. (2003). Autistic traits in the general population: A twin
study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(5), 524–530. https://doi.org/10.1001/
archpsyc.60.5.524.
Demir, M. (2008). Sweetheart, you really make me happy: Romantic relationship quality
and personality as predictors of happiness among emerging adults. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 9(2), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9051-8.
Edelstein, R. S., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Avoidant attachment: Exploration of an oxy-
moron. In D. Mashek, & A. Aron (Eds.). Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 397–
412). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Falk, C. F. (2018). Are robust standard errors the best approach for interval estimation
with nonnormal data in structural equation modeling? Structural Equation Modeling,
25(2), 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1367254.
Faso, D. J., Corretti, C. A., Ackerman, R. A., & Sasson, N. J. (2016). The broad autism
phenotype predicts relationship outcomes in newly formed college roommates.
Autism, 20(4), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361315585733.
Feeney, B. C., & Cassidy, J. (2003). Reconstructive memory related to adolescent-parent
conflict interactions: The influence of attachment-related representations on im-
mediate perceptions and changes in perceptions over time. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85(5), 945–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.945.
Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and
dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 6(2), 123–151.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of
self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
78(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350.
5
Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110409
Fraley, R. C., Vicary, A. M., Brumbaugh, C. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2011). Patterns of sta-
bility in adult attachment: An empirical test of two models of continuity and change.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 974–992. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0024150.
Fraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I., Booth-LaForce, C., Owen, M. T., & Holland, A. S. (2013).
Interpersonal and genetic origins of adult attachment styles: a longitudinal study
from infancy to early adulthood. Journal of personality and social psychology, 104,
817–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031435.
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(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-
3200.21.4.572.
Galinha, I. C., Oishi, S., Pereira, C. R., Wirtz, D., & Esteves, F. (2014). Adult attachement,
love styles, relationship experiences and subjective well-being: Cross-cultural and
gender comparisons between Americans, Porguguese, and Mozambicans. Social
Indicators Research, 119(2), 823–852.
Gallitto, E., & Leth-Steensen, C. (2015). Autistic traits and adult attachment styles.
Personality and Individual Differences, 79, 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2015.01.032.
Gómez-López, M., Viejo, C., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2019, July 7). Well-being and romantic
relationships: A systematic review in adolescence and emerging adulthood.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https://doi.org/10.
3390/ijerph16132415 MDPI AG.
Guarnieri, S., Smorti, M., & Tani, F. (2015). Attachment relationships and life satisfaction
during emerging adulthood. Social Indicators Research, 121(3), 833–847. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11205-014-0655-1.
Guerrero, L. K., & Burgood, J. K. (1996). Attachment styles and reactions to nonverbal
involvement change in romantic dyads: Patters on reciprocity and compensation.
Human Communication Research, 22(3), 335–370.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation:
Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1),
4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100.
Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of
the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter?
Psychological Science, 24(10), 1918–1927. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0956797613480187.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.
Hurley, R. S. E., Losh, M., Parlier, M., Reznick, J. S., & Piven, J. (2007). The broad autism
phenotype questionnaire. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(9),
1679–1690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0299-3.
Jobe, L. E., & Williams White, S. (2007). Loneliness, social relationships, and a broader
autism phenotype in college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(8),
1479–1489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.021.
Jones, J. T., & Cunningham, J. D. (1996). Attachment styles and other predictors of re-
lationship satisfaction in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 3(4), 387–399.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00123.x.
Lamport, D., & Turner, L. A. (2014). Romantic attachment, empathy, and the broader
autism phenotype among college students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 175(3),
202–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2013.856838.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close re-
lationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to
relational events. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1350-4126.2005.00108.x.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2018). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Nielsen, S. K. K., Lønfeldt, N., Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Hageman, I., Vangkilde, S., &
Daniel, S. I. F. (2017). Adult attachment style and anxiety – The mediating role of
emotion regulation. Journal of Affective Disorders, 21, 253–259. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jad.2017.04.047.
Parr, J. R., De Jonge, M. V., Wallace, S., Pickles, A., Rutter, M. L., Le Couteur, A. S., &
Bailey, A. J. (2015). New interview and observation measures of the broader autism
phenotype: Description of strategy and reliability findings for the interview measures.
Autism Research, 8(5), 522–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1466.
Pollmann, M. M. H., Finkenauer, C., & Begeer, S. (2010). Mediators of the link between
autistic traits and relationship satisfaction in a non-clinical sample. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 40(4), 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-
0888-z.
Pruitt, M. M., Rhoden, M., & Ekas, N. V. (2018). Relationship between the broad autism
phenotype, social relationships and mental health for mothers of children with
autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 22(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1362361316669621.
Read, D. L., Clark, G. I., Rock, A. J., & Coventry, W. L. (2018). Adult attachment and
social anxiety: The mediating role of emotion regulation strategies. PLoS One, 13(12),
1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207514.
Ruzich, E., Allison, C., Smith, P., Watson, P., Auyeung, B., Ring, H., & Baron-Cohen, S.
(2016). Subgrouping siblings of people with autism: Identifying the broader autism
phenotype. Autism Research, 9(6), 658–665. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1544.
Saffrey, C., & Ehrenberg, M. (2007). When thinking hurts: Attachment, rumination, and
post-relationship adjustment. Personal Relationships, 14, 351–368. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00160.x.
Sasson, N. J., Lam, K. S. L., Parlier, M., Daniels, J. L., & Piven, J. (2013). Autism and the
broad autism phenotype: Familial patterns and intergenerational transmission.
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 5(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1866-
1955-5-11.
Schoenherr, D., Paulick, J., Worrack, S., Strauss, B. M., Rubel, J. A., Schwartz, B., &
Altmann, U. (2019). Quantification of nonverbal synchrony using linear time series
J.H. Beffel, et al.
analysis methods: Lack of convergent validity and evidence for facets of synchrony.
Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 361–383. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-
1139-z.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Winterheld, H. A. (2010). Attachment working models
twist memories of relationship events. Psychological Science, 21(2), 252–259. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0956797609357175.
Wainer, A. L., Ingersoll, B. R., & Hopwood, C. J. (2011). The structure and nature of the
broader autism phenotype in a non-clinical sample. Journal of Psychopathology and
Personality and Individual Differences 168 (2021) 110409
Behavioral Assessment, 33(4), 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-011-9259-0.
Wardecker, B. M., Chopik, W. J., Boyer, M. P., & Edelstein, R. S. (2016). Individual dif-
ferences in attachment are associated with usage and perceived intimacy of different
communication media. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chb.2016.01.029.
Weimer, B. L., Kerns, K. A., & Oldenburg, C. M. (2004). Adolescents’ interactions with a
best friend: Associations with attachment style. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 88(1), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2004.01.003.