No abstract

No abstract

Two hundred thirty‐seven young adults from an American university completed a questionnaire designed to test several normative implications of attachment theory. As predicted, the majority of participants (60%) used their parents as primary attachment figures but were in the process of transferring attachment‐related functions from parents to peers (best friends and romantic partners). The transfer of these functions the parents to peers was found to be a function of the duration of the peer relationship. Furthermore, factors that generally promote the development of attachment formation in infancy (such as caregiving, trust, and intimate contact) were found to be positively associated with the development of attachment in adult relationships. Additional variables were identified that may facilitate peer attachment formation: secure working models of attachment and the perceived security of the peer. It is argued that future investigations into the role of attachment formation and transfer are critical for a comprehensive description of attachment dynamics in adult relationships.

Adult attachment styles in 354 heterosexual couples in serious dating relationships were examined. Principal findings included the following: (a) male and female attachment styles were nonrandomly paired, for example, no anxious-anxious or avoidant-avoidant pairs were found; (b) male and female styles related to concurrent relationship ratings of both partners in different but theoretically meaningful ways; (c) male and female styles contributed significantly to longitudinal prediction of relationship stability and status, even when prior duration and commitment to the relationship were statistically controlled; (d) specifically, relationships of avoidant men and of anxious women were surprisingly stable over 3 years, particularly in light of the relatively poor ratings of these relationships by both partners at Time 1. Discussion focuses on the need to integrate gender role considerations and relationship dynamics and processes into theorizing on adult attachment.

Healthcare providers can be instrumental in identifying IPV and helping women develop skills, resources, and support networks to address IPV. Physicians, family, or friends may provide needed social support.

No abstract

Two studies were conducted to investigate the relative ability of Hendrick & Hendrick's (1986) measure of Lee's (1973) lovestyles and the Hazan & Shaver (1987) measure of attachment styles to predict concurrent relationship characteristics among unmarried dating couples. Relationship characteristics were assessed by the Davis & Todd (1985) Relationship Rating Form (RRF). Sternberg's (1987) Triangular Love Scale (STLS), and an adaptation of Rahim's (1983) Organizational Conflict Inventory. The RRF and STLS showed substantial convergence, suggesting that the Passion and Commitment scales are equivalent but that the RRF Intimacy and STLS Intimacy are not. Three of the lovestyles - Eros, Agape and Ludus - were consistently related to the couple's reports of relationship characteristics. Eros and Agape were associated with Intimacy, Passion, Commitment and Satisfaction and the use of constructive approaches to conflict. Ludus was negatively associated with the same variables. Mania was positively correlated with Passion and an Obliging approach to conflict, but not with high levels of Conflict/Ambivalence nor dissatisfaction. Neither Storge nor Pragma showed expected relationships. The three attachment styles correlated largely as expected, with the Secure style predicting positive relationship characteristics and constructive approaches to conflict and both the Avoidant and Anxious/Ambivalent styles predicting negative relationship characteristics. A factor analysis of the lovestyle and attachment style scores yielded four factors - Factor 1 being defined by the contrast between the Secure versus Avoidant style with Eros also loading positively, Factor 2 being defined by the contrast between Agape and Ludus with Storge and Eros loading positively, Factor 3 being defined by positive loadings of Mania and Anxious/Ambivalent with Storge loading negatively, and Factor 4 defined primarily by Pragma. Our preliminary interpretation is that neither theory of personal styles is complete and that by combining both along the lines suggested by the factor analysis we shall have a more adequate account of the personal styles that contribute to relationship development and satisfaction.

No abstract