Personal Relationships,1 (1994), 333-348. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright Q 1994 Cambridge University Press. 1350-4126/94 $5.00 + .OO

Attachment style, communication

patterns, and satisfaction across the
life cycle of marriage

JUDITH A. FEENEY
Department of Psychology, University of Queensland, Australia

Abstract
Qucstionnaire mcasures of attachment, communication patterns, and rclationship satisfaction were
administered to 361 married couples, sampled across the life cycle of marriagc. Individuals who were securc in
attachment (defined in terms of comfort with closeness and low anxiety over relationships) tended to be paired
with secure spouses. Security of attachment was associated with one’s own relationship satisfaction, although
husbands’ satisfaction was related primarily to the anxiety dimension. The most consistent effect of partners’
attachment was an inverse relationship between wives’ anxiety and husbands’ satisfaction. Thc negative effect
of wives’ anxiety on perccivcd relationship satisfaction (for both partners) was evident primarily for couples in
which husbands were uncomfortable with closeness. The association between attachment dimensions and
relationship satisfaction was largely mediated by communication patterns for wives, but only partially
mediated by communication patterns for husbands; for both husbands and wives, a measure of mutually
constructive communication emerged as the strongest correlate of satisfaction. These findings were generally
consistent across thc life cycle of marriage, and they arc important in clarifying the nature of the link between
attachment and satisfaction in a broad samplc.

Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) ground-break- item. In particular, a number of researchers

ing studies applied the principles of attach-
ment theory to adult romantic relationships
using a simple forced-choice measure of at-
tachment style designed to classify individu-
als into the three major attachment groups
(secure, avoidant, and anxious-ambivalent).
These studies provided preliminary evi-
dence that adult attachment groups can be
differentiated in terms of remembered rela-
tionships with parents, internal working
models (expectations of relationships), and
relationship quality.
Subsequent research has employed a
range of measures of adult attachment
(both categorical and continuous) based on
Hazan and Shaver’s original forced-choice
Rcqucsts for reprints should be addressed to Judith A. found that relationship satisfaction was
Feeney, Department of Psychology, University of
Queensland, Queensland, Australia 4072.
Electronic mail may be sent to: judy@psych.psy. ment and negatively associated with
uq.oz.au.
have reported that measures of attachment
style reflect two key dimensions: comfort
with closeness (a bipolar dimension that
contrasts secure and avoidant attachment)
and anxiety over relationships (a dimension
corresponding closely to anxious-ambiva-
lent attachment) (see Feeney, Noller, &
Callan, 1994; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan,
1992; Strahan, 1991).
Despite the variety of measures em-
ployed, research has consistently supported
the attachment perspective on dating rela-
tionships (Feeney & Noller, 1990,1991;Levy
& Davis, 1988; Simpson, 1990; Strahan,
1991). The implications of attachment di-
mensions,for relationship quality may, how-
ever, depend on gender. Simpson (1990)
positively associated with secure attach-
avoidant attachment for both men and

333
334
women in dating relationships, but anxious-
ambivalent attachment was linked with low
satisfaction for women only. Using empiri-
cally derived attachment scales of anxiety,
close, and depend (together, the latter two
scales correspond to the bipolar comfort
scale described above), Collins and Read
(1990) similarly found that women’s anxiety
was inversely related to own and partner’s
evaluations of their dating relationships,
whereas men’s closeness predicted positive
relationship evaluations by self and partner.
Researchers have also investigated at-
tachment pairing in dating relationships.
Collins and Read (1990) found that men
who scored high on the close scale tended to
be paired with women who rated high on the
close and depend scales and low on the anxi-
ety scale. A longitudinal study of dating cou-
ples (Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994) found that
avoidant individuals tended to be paired
with anxious-ambivalent partners, and that
the relationships of anxious-ambivalent
women paired with either secure or avoid-
ant men were relatively enduring.
The present study examines attachment
style and communication patterns as pre-
dictors of relationship satisfaction across
the life cycle of marriage, consistent with
the focus of recent studies extending the
attachment perspective to marital bonds.
Kobak and Hazan (1991) examined the link
between attachment security (defined by
scales measuring the reliance on partner
and psychological availability) and marital
quality (i.e., marital satisfaction, and ob-
servers’ ratings of spouses’ communication
during conflict). Marital satisfaction was as-
sociated with reports of both one’s own re-
liance on her or his partner and the part-
ner’s reliance on one’s self; in addition,
husbands’ reports of wives’ psychological
availability were associated with both part-
ners’ marital satisfaction, whereas wives’
reports of husbands’ psychological avail-
ability were associated only with wives’ sat-
isfaction. As expected, husbands’ and
wives’ security was negatively related to
their use of rejection during conflict; hus-
J.A. Feeney
bands’ security was also positively related
to their use of support and validation.
In a questionnaire-based study of newly
married couples, Senchak and Leonard
(1992) investigated the implications of at-
tachment pairing for intimacy, perceptions
of partner functioning, and conflict resolu-
tion. Spouses who described themselves as
secure in attachment (using the forced-
choice measure) tended to be paired with
secure partners. Couples consisting of two
secure partners showed better marital ad-
justment than did other couples, reporting
greater intimacy, more favorable evalu-
ations of the spouse, and less aggression and
withdrawal in response to conflict.
Feeney, Noller, and Callan (1994) con-
ducted a longitudinal study examining the
relations among attachment, communica-
tion, and relationship satisfaction during the
first 2 years of marriage. Communication
was assessed in terms of self-reported inter-
action patterns during conflict and accuracy
at decoding nonverbal messages from the
spouse. These researchers also found that
the implications of attachment dimensions
were dependent on gender. Comfort with
closeness was related to reports of relation-
ship satisfaction and constructive communi-
cation processes for husbands and to accu-
racy at decoding nonverbal messages for
wives. By contrast, anxiety was inversely re-
lated to accuracy at decoding nonverbal
messages for husbands and was associated
with low satisfaction and destructive forms
of communication for both husbands and
wives. Wives’ anxiety also predicted hus-
bands’ reports of negative couple communi-
cation.
In presenting their research, Feeney et
al. (1994) proposed a mediational model
whereby the influence of attachment style
on relationship satisfaction may be partially
accounted for by communication variables.
Contrary to the mediational model, how-
ever, their results suggested that attach-
ment style exerts a direct influence on
relationship satisfaction, which is largely in-
dependent of couple communication. Spe-
cifically, while husbands’ satisfaction was
Satisfaction in marriage across the life cycle
related to earlier (as well as to concurrent)
attachment measures, this relationship was
not influenced by communication variables;
wives’ satisfaction was related only to con-
current measures of attachment and com-
munication.
Within the attachment perspective on in-
timate relationships, at least two issues of
theoretical and practical importance re-
main to be addressed. First, further consid-
eration needs to be given to the contribu-
tion of partner attachment to marital
quality. Partners’ attachment style influ-
ences couple interaction and individuals’
perceptions of relationships, although this
influence again appears to depend on gen-
der. Women’s anxious-ambivalence (or
anxiety over relationships) is positively re-
lated to partners’ perceptions of conflict
and negatively related to partners’ satisfac-
tion and commitment; the influence of
men’s attachment style on partners’ rela-
tionship evaluation is less clear, although
there is evidence that men’s comfort with
closeness predicts partners’ ratings of trust
and communication quality (Collins &
Read, 1990; Feeney et al., 1994).
Whereas the research outlined above in-
dicates that attachment dimensions of both
one’s self and one’s partner are important in
understanding dyadic communication and
satisfaction, the possibility that attachment
styles of subjects and partners may inferact
to predict relationship outcomes has not
been fully tested. As noted earlier, the link
between pairings on attachment style and
the stability of dating relationships has been
investigated (Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994),
with longitudinal data suggesting that the
relationships of anxious-ambivalent fe-
males who are paired with either secure or
avoidant males tend to be relatively endur-
ing. In addition, empirical evidence shows
that attachment styles of subjects and hypo-
thetical dating partners interact in their
effects on some measures of relationship
evaluation: For example, secure subjects
report feeling equally positive about hypo-
thetical relationships with avoidant and
anxious-ambivalent partners (but less posi-
335
tive than about secure partners), whereas
avoidant subjects report feeling more
positive about relationships with anxious-
ambivalent partners than with avoidant
partners (Pietromonaco & Carnelley, in
press).
The implications of attachment pairings
for marital quality have been assessed only
for newlyweds and only in terms of the rela-
tively crude division of couples into “se-
cure,” “insecure,” and “mixed” (i.e., one
secure and one insecure partner) (see Sen-
chak & Leonard, 1992). Additional infor-
mation relevant to this issue may be pro-
vided by studying the key dimensions
underlying adult attachment. It is possible,
for example, that the influence on marital
quality of one spouse’s anxiety depends on
the partner’s degree of comfort with close-
ness: A partner who is uncomfortable with
intimacy is less likely to be available and
responsive to the anxious spouse’s particu-
lar needs and thus less able to provide the
comfort and reassurance that fulfill the
“safe haven” function of attachment (cf.
Bowlby, 1969, 1973,1980). This issue takes
the attachment perspective beyond a sim-
ple consideration of individual differences
to a focus on the dynamics occurring within
couples; as such, it is clearly relevant to pro-
grams of counselling and therapy aimed at
ameliorating relationship difficulties.
Second, it is important to understand
more fully the nature of the relations
among measures of attachment, communi-
cation, and relationship satisfaction and to
recognize that the pattern of relations may
alter over the course of marriage. The rela-
tionship satisfaction of newly married cou-
ples (as studied by Senchak & Leonard,
1992, and Feeney et al., 1994) may be di-
rectly influenced by security of attachment,
as partners confront the tasks of living to-
gether in marriage and establishing the
course of their relationship. Later in mar-
riage, the influence of attachment variables
may weaken or may be mediated by com-
munication processes, as suggested by
Feeney et al. (1994). Again, this issue has
important implications for approaches to
336 J.A. Feeney

relationship counselling, and it can be ad- H4: It was expected that, in marriages estab-
dressed only by studying broader samples lished beyond the “honeymoon”stage, the
of married couples. influence of attachment dimensions on re-
The present study focused on the asso- lationship satisfaction would be mediated,
ciation between attachment style and rela- at least in part, by reported communication
tionship satisfaction across the life cycle of patterns.
marriage. In line with the above review, two
key issues were addressed: (1) the influence
Method
of partner attachment (both alone and in
interaction with subjects’ attachment) in
Subjects and procedure
predicting satisfaction, and (2) the role of
communication variables as possible me- Subjects were 361 married couples re-
diators of the association between attach- cruited by third-year psychology students
ment and relationship satisfaction. Several as part of a class project. Students worked
hypotheses were proposed. in pairs, with each pair required to recruit
six couples: one working-class and one
H1: Given evidence of partner matching on middle-class couple from each of three
attachment security (Collins & Read, stages of marriage (married between 1 and
1990; Senchak & Leonard, 1992), it was 10 years, n = 122; married between 11 and
expected that subjects’ and partners’ 20 years, n = 120; and married more than 20
scores on each attachment dimension years, n = 119). The students were encour-
(comfort with closeness; anxiety over re- aged to recruit couples from a range of
lationships) would be positively corre- sources (family, relatives, friends, col-
lated, and that subjects’ scores on comfort leagues, etc.), and because the student
with closeness would be negatively cor- group was predominantly middle class,
related with partners’ scores on anxiety many couples in the working-class catego-
over relationships. ries were recruited from outside students’
H2: It was hypothesized that secure attach- immediate social networks. Students were
ment (defined by high comfort with close- not required to report their methods of re-
ness and low anxiety over relationships) cruitment or to state whether couples who
would be associated with marital satisfac- were approached had declined to partici-
tion. I n particular, it was predicted that pate. Sampling across length of marriage
wives’ anxiety over relationships would be and social class was adopted to provide a
negatively related to both their own and broadly based subject sample-the social
their husbands’ satisfaction. Given the class variable was not focal, however, and
conflicting findings reported to date, no was not incorporated in data analyses.
specific predictions were made concerning (Newlyweds were excluded from the sam-
the relative importance of husbands’ com- ple because the focus was on established
fort and anxiety f o r one’s own orpartners’ marriages; note also that the size of subsam-
satisfaction. ples varies for specific analyses because of
H3: In line with the argument presented missing data.)
earlier, it was expected that subjects’ and Of the total sample, 56% of husbands
partners’ attachnzent dimensions would and 55% of wives had received some terti-
interact in their effect on relationship satis- ary education;23% of husbands and 26% of
faction, with the combination of a spouse wives had completed only high school; 17%
high in anxiety over relationships and a of husbands and 15% of wives had some
spouse low in comfort with closeness being high school education; and 4% of both hus-
associated with low satisfaction. No pre- bands and wives had attended primary
dictions were made concerning other pos- school only. In terms of current occupation,
sible interaction effects. 46% of husbands and 35% of wives were
Satisfaction in marriage across the life cycle 337

employed in managerial, professional, or partner won’t want to stay with me”; “I find
semiprofessional positions; 45% of hus- that others are reluctant to get as close as I
bands and 31% of wives were working in would like”; “I often worry that my partner
clerical or manual positions; the remainder doesn’t really love me”; “Sometimes people
were either unemployed or engaged in are scared away by my wanting to be too
home duties. close to them”; and “I don’t often worry
Students were given copies of the ques- about being abandoned” (reverse scored).
tionnaire package to distribute to the mar- Coefficient alphas were .81 (comfort)
ried couples. The order of the various instru- and .SO (anxiety); as in the study by Feeney
ments in the package was counterbalanced. et al. (1994), these scales were based on 8
A cover sheet explained the purpose of the and 5 items, respectively, because internal
project and emphasized the confidential na- consistency was increased by dropping the
ture of the material and the importance of item ‘‘I feel comfortable having other peo-
both spouses completing the measures in- ple depend on me” from the comfort scale
dependently. Subjects could either return and the item “I want to merge completely
the completed questionnaires to the student with another person” from the anxiety
who recruited them or mail them directly scale. Scores on comfort (possible range 8
back to the researcher. A telephone contact to 40) varied from 9 to 40, with a mean of
was also provided to enable the researcher 28.2 and a median of 29.0. Scores on anxiety
to deal with any queries concerning the ma- (possible range 5 to 25) varied from 5 to 23,
terials. with a mean of 9.9 and a median of 9.0.

Measures
Attachment. Attachment was measured us-
ing the 15 separate statements from the
original forced-choice measure (Hazan &
Shaver, 1987), with items rated on a Likert
scale ranging from (1)not at all like me to (5)
very much like me. As reported by Feeney et
al. (1994), subjects were given scores on the
two factors of comfort with closeness (re-
ferred to as comfort) and anxiety over rela-
tionships (referred to as anxiety) obtained
empirically with a separate sample of 352
undergraduates (Feeney, 1990).
Items forming the comfort scale were: “I
feel comfortable depending on other peo-
ple”; “I find it relatively easy to get close to
others”; “I find it difficult to depend on
others” (reverse scored); “Love partners
often want me to be more intimate than I
feel comfortable being” (reverse scored); “I
am nervous when anyone gets too close”
(reverse scored); “I am somewhat uncom-
fortable being close to others” (reverse
scored); “I find it easy to trust others”; and
“I don’t often worry about someone getting
too close to me.” The anxiety scale con-
sisted of the items: “I often worry that my
Communication patterns. Communication
was assessed using the Communication Pat-
terns Questionnaire (Christensen & Sul-
laway, 1984), which measures the extent to
which couples (both one’s self and partner)
use various interaction strategies during
conflict. The inventory taps four factors
(Noller & White, 1990): mutuality (9 items
measuring mutual expression and under-
standing); coercion (9 items assessing
threat, blame, and aggression); destructive
process (7 items assessing patterns of de-
mand-withdraw, pressure-resist, etc.); and
postconflict distress (4 items measuring
guilt, hurt, and withdrawal). The four fac-
tors discriminate groups differing in marital
adjustment (Noller & White, 1990). Coeffi-
cient alphas for the present sample were .88
(mutuality), .86 (coercion), .84 (destructive
process), and .75 (postconflict distress). To
facilitate comparison of scores across the
four scales, scale scores were divided by the
number of items forming the scale. Scores
for each scale spanned the full possible
range from 1 to 9, with the following mean
and median scores respectively: 6.4 and 6.7
(mutuality); 2.3 and 2.0 (coercion); 3.7 and
338
3.7 (destructive process); and 4.3 and 4.5
(postconflict distress).
Relationship satisfaction. Relationship sat-
isfaction was assessed using the Quality
Marriage Index (QMI) (Norton, 1983). The
QMI is a highly reliable, unidimensional
scale, consisting of 6 items that evaluate the
marriage relationship as a whole (e.g., “Our
marriage is strong”; coefficient alpha for
the scale = .96). Scores on the QMI
spanned the full possible range from 6 to 42,
with a mean of 34.48 and a median of 36.
Results
Overview of analyses
Four sets of analyses were conducted. First,
a series of MANOVAs assessed the effects
of gender and length of marriage on the
measures of attachment, communication
patterns, and relationship satisfaction.
These MANOVAs were conducted so as to
assist interpretation of possible differences,
in subsequent focal analyses, between the
results of groups defined by gender and
length of marriage. Second, partner match-
ing on attachment dimensions was assessed
using correlational and cross-tabulation
techniques. Third, a series of hierarchical
multiple regression analyses (conducted
separately by gender and length of mar-
riage) examined subjects’ and partners’ at-
tachment dimensions as predictors of rela-
tionship satisfaction. Finally, another series
of hierarchical multiple regressions as-
sessed communication variables as possible
mediators of the relation between attach-
ment and relationship satisfaction.
Effects of gender and length of marriage
‘onattachment, communication, and
satisfaction
As outlined above, the effects of gender
and length of marriage on attachment,com-
munication patterns, and relationship satis-
faction were investigated using MANOVA.
Length of marriage was varied between-
J.A. Feeney
couple, and gender was varied within-cou-
ple (this procedure takes account of the fact
that data from husbands and wives are not
statistically independent).
The first MANOVA employed the two
attachment scales as dependent variables.
There was a main effect of length of mar-
riage, multivariate F(4,656) = 4 . 5 4 , ~< .002,
which applied only to the anxiety scale. Post
hoc tests using the Scheffe technique indi-
cated that couples married for more than 20
years reported less anxiety ( M = 9.13) than
those married for 1 to 10 years ( M = 10.29).
There was also a main effect of gender, mul-
tivariate F(2, 327) = 8.82, p < .001, which
applied only to the comfort scale. Husbands
reported less comfort with closeness ( M =
27.53) than did wives ( M = 28.96).
A main effect of gender was also ob-
tained for relationship satisfaction, F(1,
357) = 6 . 5 0 , ~< .02, with husbands report-
ing greater relationship satisfaction ( M =
34.83) than did wives ( M = 34.03). By
contrast, a MANOVA performed on the
four scales of the Communication Patterns
Questionnaire revealed no significant ef-
fects.
Partner matching on attachment dimensions
Partner matching on attachment dimen-
sions was assessed using correlations and
contingency tables. Spouses’ scores on the
two attachment dimensions were first corre-
lated separately for each group defined by
length of marriage. Wives’ anxiety was posi-
tively correlated with husbands’ anxiety and
negatively correlated with husbands’ com-
fort at all stages of marriage. (Correlations
with husbands’ anxiety for marriages of 1 to
10 years, 11to 20 years, and over 20 years, re-
spectively, were r(120) = .26,p < .01; r(118)
= .19,p < .05; and r(117) = .32,p < .01. Cor-
relations with husbands’ comfort were
r(120) = -.19,p <.05;r(118) = -.30,p < .01;
and r(117) = -.24, p < .01, respectively.)
Wives’ comfort was inversely related to hus-
bands’ anxiety for couples married more
than 10 years, r(118) = -.37,p < .001, and
Satisfaction in marriage across the life cycle 339

r(117) = -.24,p < .Ol,for 11 to 20 years and
over 20 years, respectively; it was not reli-
ably related to husbands’ comfort at any
stage of marriage. These findings generally
support the hypothesised link between hus-
bands’ and wives’ attachment security, al-
though the nonsignificant association be-
tween spouses’ scores on comfort was
unexpected.
Additional information concerning part-
ner matching is provided by the frequencies
of couples in each combination of attach-
ment scores (e.g., husbands high or low in
comfort by wives high or low in comfort;
see Table 1). High and low attachment
scores were defined as those falling at least
one standard deviation above and below
the mean, respectively. (Each quadrant of
Table 1 represents the full subject sample,
omitting those scoring within one standard
deviation of the mean on the relevant at-
tachment dimensions.)
Two main points can be noted with re-
gard to these frequencies. First, some com-
binations of attachment scores occurred
more frequently than others, regardless of
length of marriage. Specifically, there were
relatively high numbers of husbands low in
anxiety who were paired with wives high in
comfort (see c in Table 1 ) or with wives low
in anxiety (see d in Table 1);note that these
patterns reflect high levels of self-reported
attachment security in both partners. By
contrast, there were relatively few couples
consisting of wives low in comfort who
were paired with secure husbands (i.e., hus-
bands high in comfort [a in Table 11 or hus-
bands low in anxiety [c in Table 11).
Second, some combinations of attach-
ment scores occurred more frequently at
certain stages of marriage. For example,
couples in which husbands reported low
comfort with closeness were generally
more frequent in marriages of 1to 10 years’
duration than in longer term marriages. In
particular, couples consisting of a husband
low in comfort and a wife high in anxiety
were over-represented in this group of early

Table 1. Frequencies of couples in each combination of attachment scores

Years Years
(a) H Comfort by (b) H Comfort by
W Comfort 1-10 11-20 Over20 W Anxiety 1-10 11-20 Over20

H low comfort/ H low comfort/

W low comfort 11 5 8 W low anxiety 14 6 9
H low comfort/ H low comfort/
W high comfort 13 6 9 W high anxiety 21 9 12
H high comfort/ H high comfort/
W low comfort 5 3 6 W low anxiety 12 14 14
H high comfort/ H high comfort/
W high comfort 12 18 13 W high anxiety 7 8 5

(c) H Anxiety by (d) H Anxiety by

W Comfort 1-10 11-20 Over20 W Anxiety 1-10 11-20 Over20

H low anxiety/ H low anxiety/

W low comfort 7 1 5 W low anxiety 19 16 27
H low anxiety/ H low anxiety/
W high comfort 15 21 21 W high anxiety 9 11 5
H high anxiety/ H high anxiety/
W low comfort 8 7 5 W low anxiety 4 5 9
H high anxiety/ H high anxiety/
W high comfort 8 5 6 W high anxiety 19 14 12

Note: H = husband: W = wife.

340
marriages: In the 1-to-10 years group, 21
couples consisted of this combination, com-
pared with the 9 couples in the 11-to-20
years group and the 12 couples in the over-
20 years group; x* (2) = 5 . 9 7 , ~< .05.
Subjects ’ and partners’ attachment
dimensions as predictors of satisfaction
Six hierarchical multiple regression analyses
were conducted, one for each group defined
by gender and length of marriage. The de-
pendent variable was relationship satisfac-
tion, and subjects’ and partners’ scores on
the two attachment scales were entered at
Step 1. At Step 2, the four multiplicative
terms between subjects’ and partners’ at-
tachment scores were entered: Husband’s
Comfort X Wife’s Comfort; Husband’s
Comfort X Wife’s Anxiety;Husband’s Anxi-
ety X Wife’s Comf0rt;Husband’s Anxiety X
Wife’s Anxiety. These product terms as-
sessed the interactions between attachment
dimensions of subjects and their spouses.
The interaction terms were based on stand-
ardized scores to prevent any one variable
from contributing an undue amount of vari-
ance to the product term. These analyses are
summarized in Table 2.
At Step 1,subjects’ and partners’ scores
on the two attachment scales provided reli-
able prediction of relationship satisfaction
for all six groups (p < .001 in each case). The
regression coefficients indicate that anxiety
was associated with own reports of low re-
lationship satisfaction for both husbands
and wives across the life cycle of marriage.
Comfort was associated with own reports of
satisfaction for wives only; it should be
noted, however, that the bivariate correla-
tion between husbands’ comfort and their
own satisfaction (i.e., not controlling for
anxiety) was highly reliable at all stages of
marriage. These results support the hy-
pothesized link between security of attach-
ment and relationship satisfaction. The
most consistent finding for partner attach-
ment was an inverse relationship between
J.A. Feeney
wives’ anxiety and husbands’ relationship
satisfaction, as hypothesized.
The strongest evidence of an interaction
between subjects’ and partners’ attachment
dimensions (Step 2) was found for mar-
riages of 10 years’ duration or less, F(inc) =
3.51 for husbands and 3.37 for wives,p < .02
in each case. In the remaining four analyses,
the product terms provided a nonsignificant
or marginally significant increment in ex-
plained variance. For couples in these more
recent marriages, there was a highly signifi-
cant interaction between husbands’ comfort
and wives’ anxiety in predicting the relation-
ship satisfaction of both husbands and wives.
To explore this interaction further, addi-
tional analyses were conducted. First, cou-
ples married for 10 years or less were di-
vided into two groups, according to whether
the husband reported high versus low com-
fort with closeness (defined as one standard
deviation above and below the mean, re-
spectively). Bivariate correlations between
wives’ anxiety and both husbands’ and
wives’ relationship satisfaction were calcu-
lated separately for these two groups of cou-
ples. For couples in which the husband re-
ported high comfort with closeness, there
was a nonsignificant relationship between
wives’ anxiety and both husbands’ and
wives’ satisfaction. For couples in which the
husband reported low comfort, however,
wives’ anxiety was negatively correlated
with both husbands’ and wives’ satisfaction,
r (35) = - .57 and r = - .63, respectively,p <
.01 in each case. This pattern of results, al-
though gender specific, was consistent with
the third hypothesis, namely, that the combi-
nation of a spouse high in anxiety and a
spouse low in comfort would be associated
with low satisfaction.
As noted earlier, 21 couples in the 1-to-
10 years group consisted of this combina-
tion of a husband low in comfort with close-
ness and a wife high in anxiety over
relationships, and this combination was less
common in longer term marriages (see b in
Table 1). Furthermore, the reverse pattern
of a wife low in comfort and a husband high
Satkfaction in marriage across the life cycle 341

Table 2. Hierarchical regression analyses of relationship satisfaction on own and partners’

attachment
Husbands, 1-10 years Husbands, 11-20 years Husbands, over 20 years

(a) Variable r Beta r Beta r Beta

Step 1
H comfort .27** .ll .31** .10 .26** .03
H anxiety -.39*** -.25** -.36*** -.25* -.39*** - .26*
W comfort .24* .09 .29** .09 .37*** .20*
W anxiety -.42*** -.30*** - .30** -.19t -.42*** - .23*
Full model
H comfort .27** .05 .31** .13 .26** .04
H anxiety -.39*** - .24* -.36*** -.25* -.39*** - .27*
W comfort .24* .09 .29** .08 .37*** .23*
W anxiety - 42*** -.27** -.30** -.18 -.42*** -.25*
H C X WC .12 .16 .12 - .O1 - .05 - .05
H C X WA .27** .31** - .08 - .06 .lo - .14
H A X WC .10 .13 .02 .10 .10 .03
H A X WA - .04 .16 .08 .09 -.19* - .26*

Wives, 1-10 years Wives, 11-20 years Wives, over 20 years

(b) Variable r Beta r Beta r Beta

Step 1
H comfort ,177 .06 .38*** .21* .12 -.13
H anxiety -.26** -.14 - .33*** - .17 -.35*** -.32**
W comfort .30** .19* .29** .07 .38*** .21*
W anxiety -.36*** -.25** -.32*** -.19$ -.39*** - .22*
Full model
H comfort .17t .O1 .38*** .23t .12 -.14
H anxiety - .26** -.14 -.33*** -.18 -.35*** -.35**
W comfort .30** .19* .29** .09 .38*** .21*
W anxiety -.36*** - .24* -.32*** -.17 -.39*** - .22*
H C X WC .04 .ll .08 - .08 - .06 - .12
H C X WA .24* .31** .04 .06 .ll - .08
H A X WC .ll .11 .01 .06 .02 -.11
H A X WA - .06 .13 .10 .16 -.13 - .23*

Note: HC X WC = husbands’ comfort by wives’ comfort; HC X WA = husbands’ comfort by wives’ anxiety;

HA X WC = husbands’ anxiety by wives’ comfort; HA X WA = husbands’ anxiety by wives’ anxiety.
t p < .06, * p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < ,001.

in anxiety occurred infrequently at all
stages of marriage (with a total of 20 cou-
ples in all). The low frequencies of these
combinations may explain both the gender-
specific nature of the interaction between
comfort and anxiety and its restriction to
the 1-to-10 years group.
An examination of mean levels of satis-
faction reported by these particular couples
(husbands low in comfort paired with anx-
ious wives) is also pertinent to the interpre-
tation of this interaction. Mean QMI scores
were relatively low for both husband and
wife (28.93 and 29.53, respectively), in com-
parison with those for couples consisting of
husbands high in comfort and anxious
wives (37.00 and 35.50 for husbands and
wives, respectively). However, although
comparisons must be made with caution
because of the small cell sizes, the satisfac-
342 J.A. Feeney

tion ratings of husband low in comfort/anx-
ious wife couples were comparable to those
of anxious husbandlwife low in comfort
couples (29.89 and 27.67 for husband and
wife, respectively) and those of anxious
husband/wife high in comfort couples
(30.50 and 30.25, respectively). Thus, it ap-
pears that husbands’ anxiety is associated
with own and partners’ dissatisfaction, irre-
spective of wives’ comfort with closeness,
whereas wives’ anxiety is associated with
dissatisfaction only for couples in which the
husband is uncomfortable with intimacy.
Attachment and communication as
predictors of relationship satisfaction
Six additional hierarchical multiple regres-
sion analyses were conducted, one for each
combination of gender and length of mar-
riage. The dependent variable was relation-
ship satisfaction, and subjects’ scores on the
two attachment scales were entered at Step
1.A t Step 2 , the four scores derived from the
Communication Patterns Questionnaire
were added. These analyses tested the pro-
posed mediational model: If the relationship
between attachment and satisfaction is me-
diated by communication patterns, the im-
portance of the attachment scales should de-
crease from Step 1to Step 2, as reflected in a
reduction in their standardized regression
weights (cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986). Intercor-
relations among the predictor variables are
shown in Table 3, and the regression analy-
ses are summarized in Table 4.
For all six groups, subjects’ scores on the
two attachment scales provided reliable
prediction of relationship satisfaction at
Step 1 (p < .001 in each case). Husbands’
anxiety was negatively associated with rela-
tionship satisfaction, irrespective of length
of marriage. For wives, both attachment
scales provided reliable prediction of rela-
tionship satisfaction, with satisfaction being
positively related to comfort and negatively
related to anxiety.
A t Step 2, addition of the communica-
tion variables provided a significant in-
crease in explained variance for all six
groups (again,p < .001 in each case). In the
full regression model, mutuality was the
most important predictor of husbands’ sat-
isfaction, with anxiety maintaining a signifi-
cant or near-significant relationship with
the dependent variable. These results sug-
gest that, for husbands, the negative asso-
ciation between anxiety and satisfaction is

Table 3. Correlations among measures of relationship satisfaction, attachment, and

communication

Satisfaction Comfort Anxiety Mutuality Coercion Destructive Distress

Satisfaction 1.00 .27** -.41** .65** -.43** - .48** - .09

1.00 .32** -.36** .64** -.so** -.57** -.19**
Comfort 1.00 -.41** .34** -.28** -.29** - .20**
1.00 - .39** .31** -.32** -.29** -.23**
Anxiety 1.oo -.40** .32** .39** .30**
1.00 -.38** .41** .35** .28**
Mutuality 1.oo -.51** -.62** -.16**
1.00 -.54** -.56** -.23**
Coercion 1.00 .66** .38**
1.00 .64** .42**
Destructive 1.oo .38**
1.oo .39**
Distress 1.00
1.00

Note: Correlations are shown for husbands (top rows) and wives (bottom rows).
**p < .01.
Satisfaction in marriage across the life cycle 343

Table 4. Hierarchical regression analyses of relationship satisfaction on own attachment

and communication
Husbands, 1-10 years Husbands, 11-20 years Husbands, over 20 years

(a) Variable r Beta r Beta r Beta

Step 1
Comfort .27** .15 .33*** .17 .27** .03
Anxiety -.38*** -.33*** -.41*** -.33*** -.43*** -.41***
Full model
Comfort .27** .03 .33*** .O1 .27** - .07
Anxiety -.38*** -.15* -.41*** -.17t -.43*** -.19t
Mutuality .69*** .54*** .66*** .60*** .68*** .59***
Coercion -.48*** - .04 -.39*** - .04 -.42*** -.15
Destructive -.59*** -.19 -.45*** .04 -.41*** .07
Distress - .12 .13 -.15 .02 .02 .12

Wives, 1-10 years Wives, 11-20 years Wives, over 20 years

(b) Variable r Beta r Beta r Beta

Step 1
Comfort .27** .18* .33*** .21* .38*** .24*
Anxiety -.35*** -.29** -.34*** - .24* -.39*** -. .27**
Full model
Comfort .27** .09 .33*** .02 .38*** .08
Anxiety -.35*** - .04 -.34*** - .O1 -.39*** - .06
Mutuality .69*** .58*** .69*** .67*** .69*** .52***
Coercion -.51*** - .07 - .56*** - .08 -.47*** - .05
Destructive -.53*** -.15 -.61*** -.13 -.56*** -.25**
Distress -.26** .12 -.23* .08 - .09 .07

jp< .06, * p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < ,001

only partially mediated by communication
patterns adopted during conflict. Mutuality
was also the most important predictor of
wives’ satisfaction in the full model, with
both attachment scales becoming nonsigni-
ficant predictors. These results, which were
consistent across the three stages of mar-
riage, suggest that, for wives, the relation-
ship between security of attachment and
satisfaction is largely mediated by commu-
nication patterns. This finding supports the
fourth hypothesis.
To test further whether the variance in
relationship satisfaction explained by at-
tachment dimensions was attributable
largely to communication patterns, a final
series of regression analyses were con-
ducted (separately by gender and length of
marriage) in which the order of entry of the
predictor variables was reversed (i.e., com-
munication measures were entered at Step
1, and attachment scales added a t Step 2).
In each of these analyses, the communica-
tion measures accounted for a significant
proportion of the variance in relationship
satisfaction, R2 at Step 1 ranged from .44to
.59, p < .001 in each case. A t Step 2, the
attachment scales did not provide a signifi-
cant increase in explained variance for any
group; for husbands, however, a trend
emerged for anxiety to be negatively re-
lated to satisfaction, and this trend was con-
sistent over length of marriage, p ranged
from -.15 to -.17, p < .06 in each case.
These results provide further evidence that
for wives, the variance in relationship satis-
faction explained by attachment dimen-
sions is attributable largely to communica-
344
tion patterns, and that for husbands, anxiety
over relationships may have deleterious ef-
fects over and above those attributable to
communication patterns.
Discussion
The present findings regarding the effects
of gender and length of marriage were gen-
erally consistent with previous research.
The groups defined by length of marriage
did not differ in terms of reported commu-
nication patterns. Because the research re-
ported here was based on a cross-sectional
design, it cannot directly assess develop-
mental changes in communication patterns.
Nevertheless, this result is consistent with
longitudinal studies demonstrating the sta-
bility of marital communication patterns
(Markman, 1984; Noller, Feeney, Bonnell,
& Callan, 1994). It should also be noted that
no gender difference appeared in reported
communication patterns. Because the Com-
munication Patterns Questionnaire asks
each respondent to report on the communi-
cation of both husband and wife, gender
effects would simply indicate a sex differ-
ence in reporting, rather than a difference
in interaction patterns.
Consistent with the findings of several
previous researchers (e.g., Campbell, Con-
verse, & Rodgers, 1976; Rhyne, 1981), hus-
bands in the present study reported greater
relationship satisfaction than did wives, al-
though the size of the mean difference was
small. Length of marriage was unrelated to
satisfaction, despite previous reports of a
U-shaped curve for satisfaction over the life
cycle of marriage (e.g., Anderson, Russell,
& Schumm, 1983; Argyle, 1986). Failure to
find such an effect may be due to methodo-
logical factors: The present study defined
length of marriage using a very simple cate-
gorization that did not take account of fam-
ily stages (preparental, childbearing, etc.).
The group married for up to 10 years, for
example, contained a mix of preparental
and childbearing couples. In the present re-
search, however, differences in satisfaction
related to length of marriage were not of
J.A. Feeney
direct interest, but rather were assessed for
their possible relevance to analyses of the
correlates of satisfaction in each group. For
this reason, further exploration of the links
among length of marriage, family stage, and
satisfaction was not undertaken.
Husbands reported less comfort with
closeness than did wives, although the mean
difference was again small. This finding is
consistent with that of Feeney et al. (1994),
who reported a small gender difference in
comfort in their sample of respondents after
21 months of marriage, and may reflect so-
cialization patterns that emphasize women’s
expressive and nurturant roles.
In the present sample, couples married
for more than 20 years reported lower anxi-
ety than did those married for up to 10
years. Again, given the cross-sectional na-
ture of the study, various interpretations of
this result can be offered. A developmental
process may be involved, whereby the secu-
rity afforded by marriage allows spouses
who are initially anxious about their rela-
tionships to revise their negative internal
working models (Hazan & Shaver, 1987;
Ricks, 1985) and, hence, to become less anx-
ious. Alternatively, the marriages of couples
with at least one highly anxious partner
may be less likely to endure, given that
anxiety is associated with reports of marital
conflict and with destructive responses to
this conflict (Feeney et al., 1994). A third
possibility is that a cohort effect is involved,
with younger couples, having grown up in
an era of increasing marital disruption, ex-
periencing greater anxiety about the future
of their own marital relationships.
Correlations between spouses’ attach-
ment dimensions suggested matching in
terms of attachment security. For both hus-
bands and wives, one’s own anxiety was
positively related to the spouses’ anxiety
and negatively related to the spouses’ com-
fort (although the link between husbands’
anxiety and wives’ comfort was not evident
in short-term marriages). Given the general
tendency for secure individuals to be paired
with secure spouses, the lack of association
between husbands’ and wives’ levels of
Satisfaction in marriage across the life cycle
comfort is surprising. Because this study fo-
cused on established relationships, the role
of partner choice in the observed patterns
of attachment matching is unclear. That is,
the link between husbands’ and wives’
anxiety and spouses’ insecurity may reflect
a process of partner selection; alternatively,
it may stem from dynamics occurring later
within the relationship, whereby one part-
ner’s basic fears about loss and abandon-
ment come to undermine the other part-
ner’s attachment security. Low comfort
with closeness appears to be less salient
than high anxiety in terms of partner selec-
tion and/or less likely subsequently to un-
dermine the partner’s security; this differ-
ence may arise because low comfort is less
strongly linked with overt signs of jealousy,
coercion, and conflict (Feeney et al., 1994).
The partner matching data also pointed
to relatively large numbers of husbands low
in anxiety who were paired with secure
spouses (that is, wivcs high in comfort and
wives low in anxiety) and to relatively small
numbers of wives low in comfort who were
paired with secure spouses. In addition, hus-
bands reporting low levels of comfort were
less likely to be found in mature marriages,
and the specific pairing of husbands low in
comfort and wives high in anxiety was very
infrequent in mature marriages.
Again, given the cross-sectional design of
this study, interpretations of these latter
findings must be made with caution. It is
possible that some husbands who are un-
comfortable with closeness work through
their relationship difficulties (perhaps with
the assistance of counselling) and, hence, re-
vise their negative working models of rela-
tionships. Alternatively (or in addition),hus-
bands who are uncomfortable with
closeness may be likely to experience mari-
tal disruption within the first decade. (Both
these explanations may apply especially to
those paired with anxious wives.) Although
the latter alternative may appear more plau-
sible, it is important, in considering the im-
plications of attachment dimensions, to dis-
tinguish between relationship quality and
stability. As noted previously, longitudinal
345
research has shown high relationship stabil-
ity for dating couples consisting of an anx-
ious woman and an avoidant man, despite
the low satisfaction associated with this pair-
ing (Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994). Consistent
with the argument made earlier, these re-
searchers suggest that anxious women may
strive hard to elicit attention and affection
from their partners without this behavior
being seen as violating sex-role stereotypes;
furthermore, anxious women paired with
avoidant men (those uncomfortable with
closeness) may compensate to some extent
for their partners’ emotional distance by
persistently attending to relationship prob-
lems and attempting to solve them.
The present results generally replicate
previous work in pointing to the link be-
tween secure attachment and relationship
satisfaction. For husbands and wives, direct
associations existed between satisfaction
and both attachment dimensions; satisfac-
tion was associated with high comfort and
low anxiety. When the independent contri-
butions of attachment dimensions to rela-
tionship satisfaction were assessed, most of
these associations remained significant: sat-
isfaction was negatively correlated with
anxiety for both husbands and wives and
positively correlated with comfort for wives.
In addition, wives’ anxiety was negatively
associated with husbands’ satisfaction.
One unexpected feature of these results
is the strong negative relationship between
husbands’ anxiety and their satisfaction, a
relationship not apparent in previous work.
Previous research, however, has focused
primarily on dating and newly married cou-
ples, and, as noted by Kirkpatrick and Davis
(1994), establishing an intimate relation-
ship may be quite a different issue from
successfully maintaining one. Specifically,
males’ comfort with closeness may be an
important factor in establishing and devel-
oping an intimate relationship, but a rela-
tively unimportant factor in terms of rela-
tionship maintenance. Moreover, in marital
relationships, anxiety is associated with in-
creasingly negative patterns of communica-
tion for both males and females (Feeney et
346
al., 1994) and, hence, may engender dissat-
isfaction.
The possibility that subjects’ and part-
ners’ attachment dimensions interact to
predict marital quality received some sup-
port. In particular, the results point to the
problematic combination of husbands low
in comfort and wives high in anxiety. The
fact that this pattern was gender specific-
with the interaction between husbands’
anxiety and wives’ comfort failing to pre-
dict either partner’s satisfaction-appears
to be an artifact of the small number of
couples showing this reverse pattern of at-
tachment pairings. Mean satisfaction scores
suggest that anxiety in husbands is associ-
ated with low satisfaction for both partners,
regardless of wives’ level of comfort; wives’
anxiety, on the other hand, is associated
with husbands’ and wives’ dissatisfaction
only for couples in which the husband is
uncomfortable with intimacy.
Hence, as other researchers have sug-
gested (Collins & Read, 1990;Kirkpatrick &
Davis, 1994), there seems to be an interplay
between gender roles and attachment di-
mensions in predicting relationship quality.
The clinging, demanding style associated
with anxiety (and anxious-ambivalence) is
similar to the gender-role stereotype of fe-
male relationship behavior-thus, anxiety
may be less detrimental to relationship qual-
ity when evidenced by females because it is
seen as stereotype-confirming. Conversely,
husbands’ anxiety may be linked with poor
relationship quality (regardless of wives’
comfort with closeness) because it violates
traditional gender-role stereotypes. In the
case of anxious wives, the presence of a hus-
band who is uncomfortable with intimacy
appears to negate the protection otherwise
afforded by the stereotype-confirming na-
ture of the wife’s behavior, presumably be-
cause the husband who seeks to maintain
distance is unlikely to provide the reassur-
ance and support craved by the anxious
spouse.
The finding that females’ anxiety is detri-
mental to relationship quality only in the
presence of an emotionally distant partner
J.A. Feeney
may appear contrary to the results of Collins
and Read (1990). These researchers found
that evaluations of dating relationships were
positively related to men’s comfort with
closeness and negatively related to women’s
anxiety; they argued that females’ anxiety
may be especially detrimental because it is
manifested in jealousy and is seen by men as
a threat to their independence and freedom.
Collins and Read (1990), however, did not
test for interactions between subjects’ and
partners’ attachment styles; in this respect,
the main effect of wives’ anxiety found in the
present study is consistent with their results,
although it is qualified by the interaction
with husbands’ comfort.
The proposed mediational model re-
ceived considerable support. For wives, the
relationship between attachhent dimen-
sions and satisfaction was largely accounted
for by reported communication patterns
during conflict. In particular, attachment di-
mensions were eclipsed as correlates of rela-
I
tionship satisfaction by mutuality, a scale
that measures open and constructive com-
munication and lack of avoidance and with-
drawal. This support for the mediational
model contrasts with the results of Feeney et
al. (1994). As suggested earlier, direct effects
of attachment on satisfaction may be pre-
sent mainly in the earliest stages of marital
relationships, when couples are most ac-
tively involved in defining the nature of
their relational life and struggling with
issues concerning interdependence and au-
tonomy (Fitzpatrick, 1988). The mediated
relationship found in the present study sug-
gests that, in the case of established mar-
riages, insecure wives who report dissatis-
faction may be helped by receiving training
in more adaptive forms of communication.
For husbands, the relationship between
anxiety and marital satisfaction appeared
to be only partially mediated by communi-
cation patterns, although mutuality again
emerged as the strongest correlate of satis-
faction. It is unclear at this stage why this
gender difference in relations with satisfac-
tion was obtained. As noted earlier, how-
ever, the demanding relationship style asso-
Satiifaction in marriage across the life cycle
ciated with anxiety violates the traditional
gender-role stereotype for men; for this rea-
son, it may be less acceptable for men to
show their anxiety openly in terms of jeal-
ous and coercive behavior. Thus husbands’
anxiety may manifest itself in more subtle
ways, such as in negative attributions for
partner behavior and/or negative expecta-
tions concerning the relationship. An im-
portant direction for further research is to
clarify the ways in which husbands’ anxiety
affects relationship satisfaction.
In summary, the present study provides
important clarification of the link between
attachment and relationship satisfaction in
established marriages. Wives’ satisfaction
was associated with both attachment di-
mensions, whereas husbands’ satisfaction
was associated primarily with low anxiety.
Wives’ anxiety was also inversely related to
their husbands’ satisfaction. In marriages of
relatively short duration, the combination
References
Anderson, S. A,, Russell, C. S., & Schumm, W. R.
(1983). Pcrccivcd marital quality and family life-
cycle categories: A further analysis. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 46, 127-139.
Argylc, M. (1986). Social behavior problems in adoles-
cence. In R. K. Silbcrciscn (Ed.), Development as ac-
tion in context (pp. 55-86). Berlin: Springcr-Vcrlag.
Baron, R. M., & Kcnny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-
mediator variable distinction in social psychologi-
cal rcsearch: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51,1173-1182.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attach-
ment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separa-
tion: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss.
New York: Basic Books.
Campbcll, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L.
(1976). The quality of American life: Evaluations
and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage.
Christensen, A,, & Sullaway, M. (1984). Commnnica-
tion Patterns Qucstionnaire. Unpublishcd manu-
script, University of California, Los Angclcs.
Collins, N. L., & Rcad, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment,
working modcls, and relationship quality in dating
couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 58,644-663.
Fecney, J. A. (1990). The attachment perspective on
adult romantic relationships. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, University of Quecnsland, Bris-
banc.
347
of an anxious wife and a husband low in
comfort with closeness was associated with
dissatisfaction. The effects of attachment on
relationship satisfaction were largely medi-
ated by communication patterns for wives,
but only partially mediated by communica-
tion patterns for husbands.
These issues could usefully be further
examined with long-term longitudinal de-
signs. In the present study, we were clearly
able to assess only concurrent relations
among variables, and available data suggest
that the correlates of concurrent and later
satisfaction may differ (Feeney et al., 1994;
Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). Longitudinal
research is also needed to clarify the nature
of the relationshirj between length of mar-
riage and the attachment ratings of both
individuals and couples. Nevertheless, this
research has been useful in clarifying the
link between attachment and satisfaction in
a broadly based sample.
Feeney, J. A., & Nollcr, P. (1990). Attachmcnt style as
a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,281-291.
Feeney, J. A., & Nollcr, P. (1991). Attachmcnt style
and verbal descriptions of romantic partners. Jour-
nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8,187-215.
Fccney, J. A., Nollcr, P., & Callan, V. J. (1994). Attach-
ment style, communication and satisfaction in the
early ycars of marriage. In K. Bartholomcw & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships:
Vol. 5. Adult attachment relationships (pp. 269-
308). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives.
Ncwbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital inter-
action and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57,
47-52.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love concep-
tualizcd as an attachment proccss. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 52,511-524.
Kirkpatrick, L. A,, & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment
stylc, gcndcr, and relationship stability: A longitu-
dinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66,502-512.
Kobak, R. R., & Hazan, C. (1991). Attachment in
marriage: Effects of security and accuracy of work-
ing models. Joitrnal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 60,861-869.
Levy, M. B., & Davis, K. E. (1988). Lovestyles and
attachment styles compared: Their relations to each
other and to various relationship characteristics.
Copyright of Personal Relationships is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.