RELATIONSHIP TRANSITIONS 
  Proceedings of the APS Psychology of Relationships Interest Group 4
The Annual Conference pp. 102-108
Attachment Security and Intimate Relationship Satisfaction: TheMediational
Role of Maladaptive Attributions
Zoë J. Pearce (z.pearce@griffith.edu.au)
School of Applied PsychologyGriffith University – Mt Gravatt Campus, Brisbane,
QLD 4111 Australia
W.K. Halford (k.halford@griffith.edu.au)
School of Applied PsychologyGriffith University – Mt Gravatt Campus, Brisbane,
QLD 4111 Australia
Abstract
Attachment insecurity is a well-established predictor oflow couple relationship
satisfaction. In this study wetested the hypothesis that negative attributions
mediatethis association. Both partners in 59 heterosexualcouples completed self-
report measures of attachment,attributions in their current relationship
andrelationship satisfaction, and watched video vignettesof a potential partner and
rated their attributions forthat potential partner’s behaviour. As predicted,negative
attributions mediated between insecureattachment and relationship satisfaction in
the currentrelationship, but not with the potential partner.Attributions seem to be a
relationship- specific processrather than a general interpersonal attribute.
Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) influential studies showedthat the formation and
maintenance of adult romanticrelationships can be conceptualised as an
attachment process analogous to the development of infant– caregiver relationships
(Bowlby, 1977). Laterresearch demonstrated a robust association
betweenattachment and relationship satisfaction (Collins &Read, 1990; Feeney &
Noller, 1990; Simpson, 1990).However, there is a dearth of research
investigatingthe processes through which attachment andsatisfaction are related to
one another.Adult attachment is argued to reflect therepresentation that individuals
have of themselves andothers as either positive or negative. Recentapproaches (e.g.
Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998)classify attachment insecurity across two
dimensions – avoidance, and anxiety. While securely attachedindividuals are
comfortable depending on others andhaving others depend upon them, anxious
styles arecharacterised by the desire to be closer than otherswould like and worry
that their partners do not lovethem or will leave them; and avoidant styles desire
toavoid close involvement and have a negativeexpectation of others. Attachment
style can change inresponse to new relationship experiences, but isgenerally
assumed to be formed by early experiencesand be relatively stable across time
(Collins & Read,1994).While psychodynamic in origin, attachment can
beexplained in terms similar to the cognitivecomponents of attribution theory
(Fletcher &Fincham, 1991). Attribution theorists hypothesise thatcouples have
biases in the explanations they make for partner behaviour (Holtzworth-
Munroe &Hutchinson, 1993). Current relationship functioninghas been strongly
related to attributions (aboutnegative behaviour) towards the partner causing
andconsidered blameworthy for the behaviour (Fincham& Bradbury, 1987), with
attributions of negativeintent more likely to occur when relationships areunstable,
distressed, or close to separation (Bradbury& Fincham, 1990; Fletcher, Fincham,
Cramer, &Heron, 1987). Gallo and Smith (2001) found anxiousattachment was a
strong predictor of perceptions ofmarital support and conflict, and in some cases
thisrelationship was mediated by attribution style. Thisraises the possibility that
attributions might mediatethe association between attachment and
relationshipsatisfaction.Of further interest is the question of whetherattributions for
negative partner behaviour canmediate attachment and relationship
satisfactionacross different relationships, representing aconsistent pattern of
cognitive processing. Theearliest studies in social perception support
the presence of consistency using real and imaginedtargets (Burron, Carlson,
Getty, & Jackson, 1971).Further support comes from Baldwin’s (1992) theoryof
relational schemas, cognitive structures for patternsof interpersonal interactions
that are cognitions aboutrelationships, and not merely self and other inisolation.
The presence of globality—the extent towhich the cause for behaviour is perceived
to betypical across a number of situations or particular to just that instigating event
—in conjunction with stableattachment insecurity would predict the presence of
aconsistent cognitive bias. In this case, a globalattribution style would consistently
mediateattachment regardless of the relationship in question,thus the behaviour of
current and potential intimate partners would be interpreted in the same
manner.The present study investigated whether attributionsmediate the relationship
between attachment andrelationship satisfaction. Consistent with earlyattachment
research it was hypothesised that avoidantand anxious attachment would be
associated withrelationship dissatisfaction, and that this relationshipwould be
mediated by maladaptive attributions fornegative partner behaviour. Based on the
widely madeassumption that attachment is a stable personalcharacteristic (Collins,
1996; Collins & Read, 1990;Feeney & Noller, 1990; Gallo & Smith,
2001;Simpson, 1990) it was also predicted that attributionsabout the behaviour of a
hypothetical future partner’s
 
Attachment & attributions
103negative behaviour would mediate betweenattachment and current relationship
satisfac
Method
Participants
Fifty-nine couples were recruited via anadvertisement placed in a metropolitan
newspaper fora study of relationship communication. To beincluded in the study
participants had to be in aheterosexual relationship for a minimum of sixmonths,
and had to spend a minimum of four nights per week together. The mean duration
of relationshipwas 11.7 years (
SD
= 10.3). The mean age for maleswas 41.4 years (
SD
= 10.9), and for females was 38.1years (
SD
= 10.8). Approximately half of the couples(
n
= 33) were married, and the remaining coupleswere defacto (
n
= 26). The majority of males (
n
 = 47)were in full-time employment with 24 females in full-time employment.
Measures
Attachment
 The Experiences in Close Relationships(ECR) is a 36-item self-report measure of
adultattachment (Brennan et al., 1998) consisting of two18-item scales, Avoidance
and Anxiety. Participantsrate the extent to which they agree with each item ona 7-
point likert scale with higher scores reflectingmore avoidant or anxious attachment.
There is highinternal consistency for both Avoidance (
α
 = .94) andAnxiety (
α
 = .91), and the scales of the ECR correlatesignificantly with both Collins and Read
(1990) andGriffin and Bartholomew’s (1994) measures.
Attributions
 The Relationship Attribution Measure(RAM) is a 60-item measure of attributions
for tenhypothetical spousal behaviours (Fincham &Bradbury, 1992). Respondents
rate on a 6-point likertscale the extent to which they agree with sixstatements for
each of the eight negative behavioursand two positive behaviours (included as
filler items).Derived scores are the extent to which the partner isseen as causing the
negative behaviour, and isresponsible or blameworthy for the behaviour.
Higherscores represent a greater tendency to make negativeattributions of this
nature. The RAM displays goodinternal consistency for both scales.
Relationship Satisfaction
 The Dyadic AdjustmentScale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) is a 32-item assessmentof
couple relationship satisfaction. The DAS is awidely used measure in relationship
research, withhigh scores indicating greater levels of relationshipsatisfaction. The
scoring results in the calculation of atotal adjustment score that is highly reliable (
α
 = .96).Furthermore, the DAS distinguishes between marriedand divorced couples,
and correlates highly (
r 
 = .86)with other measures of dyadic adjustment (Spanier,1976).
Potential Partner
 Partner attributions were assessedin response to behaviours of a hypothetical
potential partner. A Potential Partner video was created usingactors and consisting
of headshots of the actor making12 different statements, chosen to prompt
attribution processes. The statements spanned three emotionalvalences (four
positive, four negative, and fourambiguous) and were designed to be
potentiallyrelevant to a cross-section of relationships.Preliminary testing of the
video showed it to be avalid and reliable measure. Attributions made inresponse to
video statements were assessed using amodified version of the RAM that
specificallytargeted each video statement.
Procedure
This study formed part of a larger research projectconducted as partial requirement
for the first author’sDoctor of Philosophy degree. Couples responding tothe
advertisement were sent an ethical consent formand information sheet outlining the
broad goals of thestudy and explaining what to expect in the interviews.All
interviews took place at the Psychology Clinic,Griffith University, Brisbane,
Australia. Couples participated in two 2-hour interviews during whichtime they
completed the questionnaires and PotentialPartner protocol. An information sheet
listing localcounselling providers was made available shouldcouples wish to seek
further assistance. Each couplereceived $50.00 payment for participation.
Results
The within-gender correlations between the keyvariables are shown in Table 1.
While significant,many of these correlations were moderate at best.Table 1 shows
that, for males, there was a small butsignificant association between attachment
style andrelationship satisfaction, where greater levels ofinsecurity were related to
reports of lowersatisfaction. A similar small but significantassociation was found
between attachment insecurityand causal attributions but this result was
notreplicated with responsibility-blame attributions.Finally, attributions of both
dimensions weremoderately associated with relationship satisfactionwhere making
more negative attributions wasassociated with reports of lower
relationshipsatisfaction. For females, attachment insecurity wasassociated with
relationship dissatisfaction, but thecorrelations were low to moderate at best. A
lowstrength of association was also evident betweenattachment and attributions but
on the whole greaterattachment insecurity was significantly associatedwith making
more negative attributions. Finally, therewas a moderate association between
attributions andrelationship satisfaction, where making more negativeattributions
was associated with reports of lowerrelationship satisfaction. Additional between-
gendercorrelations were conducted separately and significantassociations were
found between female avoidantattachment and male causal attributions (
r
= .29,
 p
 <.05), and female anxious attachment and maleresponsibility-blame attributions (
r 
 = .27,
 p
 < .05).
 
 
Attachment & attributions
105association of male anxious attachment on femalerelationship satisfaction was
mediated by femaleresponsibility-blame attributions. In all but a singlecase full
mediation was supported, and between 28and 75 percent of the effect of
attachment onrelationship satisfaction was mediated by attributionstyle. Overall,
the results show that attributions domediate between attachment and
relationshipsatisfaction.Within-gender correlations for the PotentialPartner
attachment style, attributions and relationshipsatisfaction appear in Table 4. As the
significantcorrelations between attachment and relationshipsatisfaction were
already illustrated in Table 1, thekey relationship of interest in Table 4 is
howattachment relates to Potential Partner attributions andhow they, in turn, relate
to relationship satisfaction.Male attachment style was not significantly
correlatedwith any of the male attribution scales, nor wasfemale attachment
security significantly correlatedwith any of the female attribution scales.
Similarlynone of the between-gender correlations of interestwere significant.
Further analyses were notconducted, as the key variables were not related toone
another.Table 3
Tests of Mediation on Significant Standardised Regression Paths
 
 Mediation Results IV MV DV
α
 
 β 
 
τ 
 
τ 
'
Type Test %
 Males
Avoidance(P)Cause DAS .29* -.49***-.51***-.37** Partial -4.14***
27.89Anxiety (P) Resp/Blame DAS .27* -.46***-.35** -.23 Full -3.64*** 35.32
 Females
 Anxiety Cause DAS .32* -.50***-.31* -.15 Full -3.99*** 51.83Anxiety Resp/
Blame DAS .37**-.61***-.31* -.08 Full -4.80*** 74.55Anxiety (P) Resp/Blame D
AS .28* -.59***-.35** -.18 Full -4.36*** 47.54
 Note.
α
 =
 beta weight of IV to MV (MV regressed on to IV);
β
 = beta weight of MV to DV controlling for IV,
τ
 = IV to DV without MV,
τ
‘= IV to DV with MV. Avoidance = Experiences in Close Relationships
Avoidance scale; Anxiety = Experiences in Close RelationshipsAnxiety scale; (P)
= partner’s measure of this scale; Cause = Relationship Attribution Measure Cause
scale; Resp/Blame = RelationshipAttribution Measure Responsibility-Blame scale;
DAS = Dyadic Adjustment Scale.*
 p
 < .05. **
 p
 < 0.01. ***
 p
 < .001
Discussion
The first hypothesis was supported, where negativeattributions about partner
behaviour mediatedattachment insecurity and relationship dissatisfaction.Contrary
to the prediction of hypothesis two, negativeattributions about a potential partner’s
behaviour didnot mediate attachment insecurity and relationshipdissatisfaction.The
finding in the present study that attachmentsecurity significantly predicts
relationship satisfactionlargely replicates the well-documented
association between adult romantic attachment style andrelationship outcome
(Collins, 1996; Collins &Feeney, 2000; Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney,
1994;Simpson, 1990). The fact that higher attachmentanxiety in women was
inversely associated withrelationship satisfaction in male partners is supportiveof
earlier research (Collins & Read, 1990; Kirkpatrick& Davis, 1994; Kirkpatrick &
Hazan, 1994; Simpson,1990) and may represent the stereotypical possessiveness
(Davis & Oathout, 1987) and jealousy(Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997) often
identified inwomen. The finding that female avoidant attachmentwas predictive of
lower male relationship satisfactionis somewhat contradictory to previous research,
butmay be due again to gender stereotypes. Females arestereotyped as being more
nurturing of intimaterelationships and more comfortable with intimacy(Eagly &
Crowley, 1986) compared to males.Avoidance in females, and anxiety in males,
wouldtend to go against social stereotypes, producing agreater degree of concern in
their partners, with bothgender effects potentially relevant to the current data.As a
whole, however, avoidant attachment was onlyweakly associated with relationship
satisfaction,suggesting avoidant attachment may be a lessimportant predictor than
anxious attachment (Gallo &Smith, 2001).The unique contribution of the current
study is thatit provides fairly convincing evidence thatmaladaptive attributions for
negative partner behaviour do mediate between attachment andrelationship
satisfaction. Working models ofattachment have been found by Collins (1996) to
biasthe attribution process, with insecure
participants providing more negative attributions for hypotheticalrelationship
events compared to secure participants.Data from the present study suggest
Collins’ findingshave been supported, albeit with modest correlations.

 
PEARCE & HALFORD
106
Table 4
Correlations for Potential Partner Protocol
Measure
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.7.
1. Avoidance
.24
.43** .03 -.09 .05 .01 -.31*2. Anxiety .20
-.05
.20 -.04 .15 .03 -.38**3. Cause_PP neg .05 -.09
.18
.47** .62** .46** -.034. Resp/Blame_PP neg .12 .04 .77**
-.05
.39** .56** .115. Cause_PP ambig -.04 .01 .67** .64**
.26
.60** -.036. Resp/Blame_PPambig.06 .22 .57** .80** .73**
.09
.157. DAS-.48**-.31** -.08 -.28* -.07 -.28
.57**
 Note.
 
 N 
 = 58. Correlations for male participants are presented above the diagonal;
correlations for female participants are presented belowthe diagonal. Between-
gender correlations are presented on the diagonal in bold text. Avoidance =
Experiences in Close RelationshipsAvoidance scale; Anxiety = Experiences in
Close Relationships Anxiety scale; Cause_PP = Potential Partner using RAM
Cause scale;Resp/Blame_PP = Potential Partner using RAM Responsibility-Blame
scale; DAS = Dyadic Adjustment Scale.*
 p
 < .05, **
 p
 < .01
In perhaps the only empirical study that hasinvestigated both attachment style and
attributions inmarried couples, Gallo and Smith’s (2001) researchfound attachment
to be predictive of maritalfunctioning in a sample of 57 married
psychologyundergraduate students. Furthermore, attributions ofnegative intent, as
assessed by the RelationshipAttribution Measure, were found to partially
mediatethis association. Yet a number of distinct
differences between Gallo and Smith’s research and the currentstudy should be
pointed out. By their own admission,Gallo and Smith suspect their use of the
AdultAttachment Scale (Collins & Read, 1990) to measureattachment was
somewhat problematic and theauthors instead suggest utilising the ECR in
futureresearch. Secondly, the use of a college sample,despite the marital status,
may also limit comparingtheir results to those presented here, as
differingrecruitment techniques and sample characteristics canreduce
generalisability (Amato & Keith, 1991;Karney et al., 1995). Of course, the sample
used in the present study is also limited in terms of howgeneralisable the results
are. Our sample was largelyan older, long-term committed, middle-class
sample,and caution should be applied before generalisingthese results too far.
Nevertheless, it appears thatwhile earlier research has provided tentative supportfor
a link between attachment and attributions, themediational nature of attributions
specific toattachment (as measured by the ECR) and relationshipsatisfaction, in a
community sample of couples, is aunique result.The lack of results for the potential
partner scenariocontradicts the global cognitive bias hypothesis. Themediation of
insecure attachment and relationshipsatisfaction by attributions appears to be
dependent onthe relationship, not on the individual making theattributions. Is this
result due to methodologicalconcerns or a genuine effect? The idea of
asking people to consider a complete stranger as a potentialintimate partner does
require a fair degree ofimagination, even though early social perceptionresearch
supports this methodological technique(Burron et al., 1971). It would be easy to
assume thatthe potential partner video was unable to elicitattributions to the same
successful degree as theRelationship Attribution Measure, or asked participants
to engage in unimaginable situations. Yetalpha coefficients for each measure were
comparableand both measures were modestly correlated with oneanother
suggesting convergent validity was not areason for the discrepant results.
Additionally, participants’ vocalisations during the potential partnerscenario
suggested they had little difficulty performing the required imagination
task.Previous attachment research that has used both realand imagined partners has
found an attachment styledifference (Collins, 1996) where avoidant
attachmentdiffered across conditions, with interpretations for
real partner behaviour reported as less negative andanxious attachment returning
similarly negativeinterpretations across both conditions. Converse toCollins’
results, anxious attachment here was notstrongly related to the outcome variable in
thehypothetical partner condition. Thus while
it’s possible that the use of different stimuli can producedifferent results, this may
not be the only reason forthis result.While contrary to predictions, this finding
isinteresting in that it suggests attachment security andattributions combine to
produce a different pattern ofresponding for different people. While attachment
hastraditionally be considered a global individual-difference variable, there is
growing support for re-considering attachment as a within-person
differencevariable (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci,2000). The lack of
support for the potential partnerscenario in the present research provides support
forsome of the more recent attachment literature thatsuggests people possess
models of self and other thatare relationship-specific in addition to a
global,generalised attachment model (Pierce & Lydon,2001). So rather than having
a single globalattachment style that is generalisable to impactsimilarly on all
relationships, the lack of support forthe potential partner scenario lends support to
thenotion that people possess different attachment stylesfor different relationships,
or different types ofrelationships. A more recent interpretation ofBaldwin’s (1992)
relational schema theory suggests

 
Attachment & attributions
107multiple schemas exist for multiple relationships, afact that certainly appears to
be supported in the present study (Pierce & Lydon, 2001).Finally, it is suggested
here that future researchwould benefit from adding an affective component tothe
mediational model to account for thesedifferences. The potential partner scenario
provided participants with little opportunity to emotionallyengage in the task and
evidence in favour of the rolethat affect plays in both attachment (Feeney,
Noller,& Roberts, 1998; Mikulincer, 1998; Rowe &Carnelley, 2003), and
cognitive processing (Forgas,1998; Teasdale, Lloyd, & Hutton, 1998) tends
tosupport including this variable in research of thisnature, the absence of which is
arguably a limitationof the present study. Thus while cognitive biases
may be an important mediator in current intimaterelationships, generalising this
result to all potential partnerships might prove difficult.
References
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorceand adult well-being: A meta-
analysis.
 Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53
, 43-58.Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and
the processing of social information.
 Psychological Bulletin, 112
, 461-484.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychologicalresearch: Conceptual, strategic, and
statisticalconsiderations.
 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51
, 1173-1182.Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking ofaffectional bonds: I.
Aetiology and psychopathology in the light of attachment theory.
 British Journal of Psychiatry, 130
, 201-210.Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990).Attributions in marriage:
Review and critique.
 Psychological Bulletin, 107 
, 3-33.Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998).Self-report
measurement of adult attachment: Anintegrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W.
S.Rholes (Eds.),
 Attachment theory and closerelationships
 (pp. 44-76). New York: Guilford.Burron, B. F., Carlson, K. A., Getty, G. R.,
&Jackson, D. N. (1971). The effects of informationalcharacteristics on the
perception of real andhypothetical target persons.
 Psychonomic Science,23
, 145-147.Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment:Implications for
explanation, emotion, and behavior.
 Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 71
, 810-832.Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven:An attachment
theory perspective on supportseeking and caregiving in intimate relationships.
 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78
,1053-1073.Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adultattachment, working models,
and relationshipquality in dating couples.
 Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 58
, 644-663.Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitiverepresentations of
attachment: The structure andfunction of working models. In K. Bartholomew &D.
Perlman (Eds.),
 Attachment processes inadulthood 
 (Vol. 5, pp. 53-90). London: JessicaKingsley.Davis, M. H., & Oathout, A. (1987).
Maintenance ofsatisfaction in romantic relationships: Empathy andrelational
competence.
 Journal of Personality &Social Psychology, 53
, 397-410.Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender andhelping behavior: A
meta-analytic review of thesocial psychological literature.
 Psychological Bulletin, 100
, 283-308.Feeney, J. A. (1994). Attachment style,communication patterns and
satisfaction across thelife cycle of marriage.
 Personal Relationships, 1
,333-348.Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment styleas a predictor of adult
romantic relationships.
 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58
,281-291.Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Roberts, N. (1998).Emotion, attachment, and
satisfaction in closerelationships. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero(Eds.),
 Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and 
contexts
 (pp.473-505). San Diego: Academic Press.Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N.
(1987). Theimpact of attributions in marriage: A longitudinalanalysis.
 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53
, 510-517.Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessingattributions in
marriage: The RelationshipAttribution Measure.
 Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 62
, 457-468.Fletcher, G. J., Fincham, F. D., Cramer, L., &
Heron, N. (1987). The role of attributions in thedevelopment of dating
relationships.
 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53
, 481-489.Fletcher, G. J. O., & Fincham, F. D. (1991).Attribution processes in
close relationships. In G. J.O. Fletcher & F. D. Fincham (Eds.),
Cognition inclose relationships
 (pp. 7-35). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Forgas, J., P. (1998). On
being happy and mistaken:Mood effects on the fundamental attribution error.
 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75
,318-331.Gallo, L. C., & Smith, T. W. (2001). Attachment stylein marriage:
Adjustment and responses tointeraction.
 Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 18
, 263-289.Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Themetaphysics of
measurement: The case of adultattachment. In K. Bartholomew & D.
Perlman(Eds.),
 Attachment processes in adulthood 
 (Vol. 5, pp. 17-52). London: Jessica Kingsley.Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987).
Romantic loveconceptualized as an attachment process.
 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52
, 511-524.Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing ofsignificant moderational
and mediational effects instudies of pediatric populations.
 Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27 
, 87-96.
 
PEARCE & HALFORD
108Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Hutchinson, G. (1993).Attributing negative intent
to wife behavior: theattributions of maritally violent versus nonviolentmen.
 Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102
, 206-211.Karney, B. R., Davila, J., Cohan, C. L., Sullivan, K.T., Johnson, M. D.,
& Bradbury, T. N. (1995). Anempirical investigation of sampling strategies
inmarital research.
 Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57 
, 909-920.Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachmentstyle, gender, and
relationship stability: Alongitudinal analysis.
 Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 66 
, 502-512.Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachmentstyles and close
relationships: A four-year prospective study.
 Personal Relationships, 1
, 123-142.La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., &Deci, E. L. (2000).
Within-person variation insecurity of attachment: A self-determination
theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, andwell-being.
 Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 79
, 367-384.MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M.,West, S. G., &
Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison ofmethods to test mediation and other
interveningvariable effects.
 Psychological Methods, 7 
, 83-104.Mikulincer, M. (1998). Adult attachment style andindividual differences
in functional versusdysfunctional experiences of anger.
 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74
, 513-524.Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. E. (2001). Global and specificrelational models
in the experience of socialinteractions.
 Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 80
, 613-631.Rowe, A., & Carnelley, K. B. (2003). Attachmentstyle differences in the
processing of attachment-relevant information: Primed-style effects on
recall,interpersonal expectations, and affect.
 Personal Relationships, 10
, 59-75.Sharpsteen, D. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997).Romantic jealousy and adult
romantic attachment.
 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72
,627-640.Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation inexperimental and
nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.
 Psychological Methods, 7 
, 422-445.Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styleson romantic
relationships.
 Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 59
, 971-980.Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic
adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriageand similar dyads.
 Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38
, 15-28.Teasdale, J. D., Lloyd, C.-A., & Hutton, J. M. (1998).Depressive thinking
and dysfunctional schematicmental models.
The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37 
, 247-257.
Correspondence to:
Zoë PearceSchool of Applied PsychologyGriffith UniversityBrisbane QLD
4111z.pearce@griffith.edu.au