Personal Relationships, 9 (2002), 3955. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright # 2002 ISSPR. 1350-4126/02

Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship

satisfaction: A diary study

JUDITH A. FEENEY
University of Queensland

Abstract
The relations among measures of attachment, spouse behavior, and marital satisfaction were assessed in a broad sample
of 193 married couples, using both questionnaire and diary methods. Insecure attachment was associated with less
favorable reports of spouse behavior, as assessed by diary checklists. Marital satisfaction was predicted by attachment
measures and reports of spouse behavior. The relation between attachment security and marital satisfaction was
moderated, but not mediated, by reported spouse behavior. Specifically, insecure individuals evaluations of their
relationships were more reactive to recent spouse behavior, an effect that was especially marked for fearful participants
and for those in longer-term marriages. Some gender differences in patterns of prediction were obtained. The results are
discussed in terms of the working models associated with attachment styles, and the processes by which relationship
satisfaction may be eroded over time.

A large body of research supports the pro-
position that stable and satisfying couple
relationships promote health and well-being
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Hence, it is not
surprising that theoretical and empirical stu-
dies have investigated the factors leading to
satisfying relationships. Although the predic-
tors of relationship satisfaction are complex,
dyadic interaction patterns play a central role.
In their comprehensive model of marriage, for
example, Lewis and Spanier (1979; Spanier &
Lewis, 1980) conceptualized rewards from
spousal interaction as one of three major sets
of variables predictive of marital quality. The
importance of spousal interaction patterns is
also highlighted by practical considerations:
These variables tend to be more amenable to
intervention than the other sets of predictors
discussed by these researchers (e.g., the
personal and social resources that partners
bring to the relationship).
Correspondence should be addressed to the author at
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Queens-
land 4072 Australia; e-mail: J. Feeney@psy.uq.edu.au.
More specifically, research into the pre-
dictors of marital quality has assessed the
importance of both positive and negative
spouse behaviors. This research has produced
some conflicting findings. For example, there
is evidence that confrontation of marital
problems, including the expression of anger,
is beneficial to long-term satisfaction, despite
the fact that such confrontation may be quite
negative in tone (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989;
Karney & Bradbury, 1997). In contrast, other
studies have associated negative communica-
tion behaviors, such as coercion, with declines
in satisfaction (Julien, Markman, & Lindahl,
1989; Noller, Feeney, Bonnell, & Callan,
1994). These conflicting results may be
largely attributable to differences in the way
that constructs are measured (Gill, Christen-
sen, & Fincham, 1999); in particular, opera-
tional definitions of negativity vary widely.
Nevertheless, there is substantial support for
the broad assertion that marital satisfaction is
related directly to positive behaviors such as
acceptance, recognition, and compromise, and
inversely to negative behaviors such as blame,
criticism, and coercion (Gill et al., 1999;
Smith, Vivian, & OLeary, 1990).

39
40
Romantic Attachment
In recent years, the understanding of couple
relationships has been advanced by research
based on attachment principles (e.g., Hazan &
Shaver, 1987). According to this perspective,
individual differences in attachment security
are associated with perceptions of, and
responses to, relationship events. Some re-
searchers have assessed individual differences
in attachment security in terms of styles, or
types. For example, Hazan and Shaver (1987)
developed a forced-choice measure of three
attachment styles (secure, avoidant, and am-
bivalent or preoccupied), and Bartholomew
extended this typology by distinguishing
between dismissing-avoidance and fearful-
avoidance (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew
& Horowitz, 1991). However, many research-
ers now suggest that attachment security is
more reliably assessed in terms of dimensions,
such as comfort with closeness (which sepa-
rates secure and preoccupied groups from the
avoidant groups), and anxiety over relation-
ships (which separates preoccupied and fearful
groups from the remaining groups; Brennan,
Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Feeney, 1999). The
attachment perspective provides a theory-
based explanation of individual differences in
global perceptions of relationship quality, and
in specific relationship behaviors (both posi-
tive and negative).
Romantic attachment and global
relationship quality
Beginning with the earliest studies conducted
in this area, secure attachment, whether
defined in terms of discrete styles or contin-
uous dimensions, has been linked to higher
relationship quality (see Feeney, 1999, for a
review). This association is robust: It has been
reported when relationship quality is inferred
from open-ended accounts (Feeney & Noller,
1991), and when it is assessed using structured
questionnaire measures of relationship satis-
faction, administered either concurrently (Fee-
ney, 1994; Hazan & Shaver, 1987) or at later
points in time (Feeney, Noller, & Callan,
1994; Shaver & Brennan, 1992).
Despite the robustness of this finding, two
potential points of qualification should be
J. A. Feeney
noted, concerning the specific role of the major
dimensions of romantic attachment: comfort
with closeness and anxiety over relationships.
First, although many studies find that relation-
ship quality is linked with both these dimen-
sions, some suggest that quality is predicted
most strongly by mens comfort with close-
ness, but (inversely) by womens anxiety over
relationships (Collins & Read, 1990; Kirkpa-
trick & Davis, 1994). This finding has been
explained in terms of the distant male and the
clingy female representing destructive ex-
aggerations of gender-role stereotypes (Kirkpa-
trick & Davis, 1994). Second, there is some
evidence that comfort with closeness is a strong
predictor of satisfaction in dating relationships
(in which the development of intimacy is a
highly salient task), but that anxiety over
relationships may show stronger and more
consistent links with marital satisfaction (Fee-
ney, 1994; Feeney et al., 1994; Feeney, Noller,
& Roberts, 1998).
Romantic attachment and specific
relationship behaviors
Secure attachment (again, regardless of the
method of measurement) has also been linked
with reports of more constructive relationship
behaviors. For example, individuals endorsing
the secure attachment style report greater
acceptance of partners (Hazan & Shaver,
1987), more problem-solving and compromis-
ing during conflict interactions (Levy &
Davis, 1988; Pistole, 1989), and more flexible
patterns of disclosure (Mikulincer & Nach-
shon, 1991). Similarly, in terms of the
dimensions underlying attachment style, com-
fort with closeness has been linked with more
disclosure, recognition, involvement, and mu-
tual negotiation in couple interactions,
whereas anxiety over relationships has been
linked with more conflict, domination, and
coercion (Feeney et al., 1994).
Despite the consistency of these results, it
is important to note that attachment style
differences in specific relationship behaviors
are not always strong. In fact, attachment
theory proposes that attachment behavior is
elicited by conditions that threaten the in-
dividual or the relationship. Hence, attachment
Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction
style differences should be most pronounced
under such conditions. Recent research sup-
ports this proposition. In a study of long-term
dating couples, Feeney (1998) found that links
between attachment dimensions and observer-
rated affect and behavior were confined
to interactions in which one partners behavior
threatened the development of intimacy. Simi-
larly, Rholes, Simpson, and Stevens (1998)
reported that attachment style differences
in conflict resolution behaviors were more
pronounced when couples were asked to
discuss issues of major importance to their
relationships. Finally, in a diary study in
which undergraduate students reported their
social interactions (across all relationship
types) for one week, attachment differences
in intimacy and disclosure were accentuated in
high-conflict interactions (Pietromonaco &
Barrett, 1997).
Importantly, theory and research suggest
that secure individuals not only behave more
constructively in their romantic relationships,
but also describe their partners behaviors
more positively. These attachment style differ-
ences in reports of partner behaviors are likely
to reflect three interrelated effects.
First, most studies of intact couples reveal
partner matching in attachment characteris-
tics, whereby secure individuals tend to be
paired with secure partners (e.g., Senchak &
Leonard, 1992). Hence, secure individuals
reports of their partners are likely to be reports
of securely attached persons who, as just
noted, seem to behave more constructively
toward their partners, especially under condi-
tions of stress or conflict.
Second, it is possible that the constructive
attitudes and behaviors of secure individuals
tend to bring out the best in partners (even
when those partners are not, themselves,
secure). Some evidence of this effect is
provided by the work of Cohn, Silver, Cowan,
Cowan, and Pearson (1992), who found that
couples consisting of one secure and one
insecure partner were rated by observers as
behaving similarly to those with two secure
partners, in terms of levels of conflict and
positive behaviors. In other words, a secure
individual may buffer the negative effects of
insecure attachment.
41
Third, secure individuals may perceive
specific partner behaviors more positively, even
if partners do not behave in particularly positive
ways. According to attachment theory, indivi-
duals gradually internalize working models of
relationships, based on repeated interactions
with close partners. These working models
embody expectations of self and others, and are
thought to have direct effects on cognitive
processing and emotional appraisal of relation-
ship events (Collins & Read, 1994). These
propositions are supported by the finding that,
when asked to explain hypothetical relationship
events, secure individuals are more likely than
insecure individuals to provide explanations
that reflect expectations of partners availability
and responsiveness (Collins, 1996).
Romantic attachment, spouse behavior, and
satisfaction: Exploring the links
An important research need in this area is to
integrate the diverse findings linking romantic
attachment style with both global relationship
quality and specific relationship behaviors.
Two possible integrative models are suggested
by the existing findings, but require further
investigation.
First, it is possible that the association
between secure attachment and relationship
quality is mediated by perceptions of partner
behavior. That is, secure individuals may
report greater satisfaction with their relation-
ships because they perceive their partners as
behaving in constructive and well-intentioned
ways. As noted earlier, these favorable
perceptions may reflect actual partner beha-
vior, together with a tendency to interpret
relationship events more positively. Several
previous studies have tried to identify vari-
ables that mediate the link between attachment
security and relationship satisfaction. To date,
there is evidence that this link may be
mediated in part by mutual negotiation of
conflict (Feeney, 1994), emotional expressive-
ness (Feeney et al., 1998), and appropriate
patterns of disclosure (Keelan, Dion, & Dion,
1998). However, no previous research has
assessed overall perceptions of positive and
negative spouse behavior as potential media-
tors of the attachment-satisfaction relation.
42
Second, it is possible that attachment
security and spousal behavior have interactive
effects on global satisfaction. The literature
reviewed above shows that attachment groups
differ in their responses to hypothetical rela-
tionship events and to events in their own
relationships, particularly when there is an
element of conflict. These group differences
are thought to reflect underlying working
models of attachment. Specifically, the work-
ing models associated with insecure attachment
may guide patterns of inference that attribute
negative partner behavior to internal, stable,
and global factors. In this way, negative partner
behavior is likely to confirm existing doubts
about the partners love and commitment and
about the viability of the relationship. Hence,
insecure individuals may be more reactive to
such relational events, in terms of their overall
evaluation of the relationship. The link be-
tween insecurity and reactions to positive
behaviors may be more complex. Individuals
who are uncomfortable with closeness may
tend to discount positive partner behavior, as
due to external, unstable, and specific factors.
In contrast, those who are anxious about their
relationships strive for reciprocation and un-
ion, and hence may be highly reactive to
positive partner behaviors. No previous studies
have explored these possibilities.
The present study
The present study explored the links among
measures of attachment, spouse behavior, and
marital satisfaction. The study had four
important features. First, the sample of couples
varied widely in terms of education, occupa-
tion, and age (in contrast to many studies of
romantic attachment that have relied on
samples of college students). Second, the
sample included roughly equal numbers of
shorter-term and longer-term marriages. This
feature enabled an assessment of the generality
of findings across length of marriage; previous
research has indicated that some effects of
attachment (e.g., interactive effects of own and
partners attachment dimensions) may be
restricted to particular stages of marriage
(Feeney, 1994). Third, participants completed
both self-report questionnaires and diary
J. A. Feeney
records. The use of the diary method to assess
spouse behavior was considered particularly
important, for although diary reports may be
influenced to some extent by the perceptions
of the reporter, the requirement to record
specific behaviors soon after their occurrence
minimizes the effects of global response biases
(Reis, 1994). Finally, the study was designed
to test the possible mediating and moderating
roles of spouse behavior in the relation
between attachment and marital satisfaction.
Identification of the variables that mediate and
moderate the effects of attachment is of prime
importance, because such work clarifies the
mechanisms by which secure individuals
maintain strong and satisfying bonds.
Hypotheses. The study was designed to test
three hypotheses derived from the literature
reviewed above. A general research question
was also addressed, for which existing
data were insufficient to generate specific
predictions.
Hypothesis 1 stated that attachment mea-
sures would be related to reports of spouse
behavior. Specifically, secure attachment (high
comfort with closeness, low anxiety over
relationships) was expected to relate directly
to reports of positive spouse behavior, and
inversely to reports of negative spouse beha-
vior. However, it is important to note that these
relations should not be particularly strong,
given that spouse behavior was assessed in a
relatively objective way and in an everyday
(rather than high-conflict) situation.
Hypothesis 2 concerned the correlates of
marital satisfaction. Satisfaction was expected
to be related to attachment dimensions (posi-
tively to comfort with closeness and inversely
to anxiety over relationships; Hypothesis 2a).
Further, satisfaction was expected to be related
to diary reports of spouse behavior (positively
to positive behavior and inversely to negative
behavior; Hypothesis 2b).
Hypothesis 3 concerned the links among
attachment, spouse behavior, and marital
satisfaction, and tested two contrasting predic-
tions. Hypothesis 3a stated that the association
between attachment and marital satisfaction
would be mediated by perceptions of spouse
behavior. That is, secure spouses would report
Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction
higher marital satisfaction because they per-
ceive their partners behavior more favorably.
In contrast, Hypothesis 3b stated that attach-
ment and spouse behavior would have inter-
active effects on marital satisfaction. That is,
insecure spouses would be more reactive to
recent partner behavior, as evidenced by a
stronger association between marital satisfac-
tion and reports of spouse behavior (especially
negative behavior).
The general research question concerned
whether the observed associations (attachment
with spouse behavior; attachment and spouse
behavior with marital satisfaction) would vary
across stage of marriage.
Method
Participants
Participants were 193 married couples re-
cruited by third-year psychology students as
part of a class project. The students worked in
pairs, with each pair required to recruit one
couple from each of two stages of marriage
(married between 1 and 10 years, n = 92; and
married more than 10 years, n = 101). Length
of marriage ranged from 1 to 35 years (M =
10.85; SD = 7.58), and age of participants
ranged from 20 to 61 years (M = 39.26, SD =
9.03). Students were encouraged to recruit
couples from varying socioeconomic back-
grounds (rather than relying on close friends
and family members), but were not asked to
report their recruitment sources. Fifty-six of
the couples were childless. For the remaining
couples, the number of children ranged from 1
to 9, with a modal value of 2.
Of the total sample, 13% of husbands and
10% of wives had not completed secondary
school; 17% of husbands and 24% of wives
had completed secondary school but received
no further training; 24% of husbands and 22%
of wives had some postsecondary training; and
46% of husbands and 44% of wives held
university degrees. Similarly, the sample was
reasonably diverse in terms of occupational
categories. For current occupation, 18% of
husbands and 6% of wives reported holding
manual positions; 17% of husbands and 24% of
wives held clerical positions; 56% of husbands
43
and 44% of wives held managerial or profes-
sional positions. The remainder were not
engaged in paid work (being full-time students,
unemployed, or involved in home duties).
Measures
Diary. Each diary booklet contained two
sets of records, to be filled out on two
consecutive days, one during the week and
one on the weekend (this approach was taken
to ensure an adequate sampling of the various
spouse behaviors). Each record required the
participant to note the number of hours spent in
the presence of the spouse that day, to read
through a checklist of 95 spouse behaviors and
check all those that had occurred during the
day, and finally, to rate the day on a Likert scale
(1 to 9) reflecting overall subjective satisfac-
tion with the relationship. The behaviors listed
were designed to be widely applicable to
married couples, and to include both positive
(pleasant) and negative (unpleasant) behaviors.
The behaviors were drawn from a larger
checklist of marital behaviors (Weiss & Perry,
1983), and were selected so as to retain an
adequate sampling of the domains of behavior.
The current measure contained 49 positive
behaviors (e.g., greeted me affectionately;
expressed understanding or support of my
feelings or mood), and 46 negative behaviors
(e.g., called me derogatory names; got angry
and wouldnt tell me why). The numbers of
behaviors checked were summed across the
two days records, so that the highest possible
number of positive behaviors was 98, and the
highest possible number of negative behaviors
was 92.1
1. On the diary checklists, participants were asked to
indicate whether any of the spouse behaviors were not
applicable on the particular day. For example, the item
spouse apologized to me might be considered
inapplicable if no cause for apology had arisen during
the day. All analyses reported in this paper were also
conducted on conditionalized scores, obtained by
expressing the number of positive and negative spouse
behaviors as proportions of the applicable positive and
negative behaviors, respectively. The results of these
analyses were similar to those based on the absolute
frequencies of behaviors.
44 J. A. Feeney

Questionnaire. The questionnaire requested Procedure

basic demographic information (gender, age,
Students were given copies of the questionnaire
length of marriage, number of children, level of
and diary records to distribute to the couples
education, current occupation), and contained
they recruited. Within the questionnaire, the
measures of attachment security and global
measures of attachment and marital satisfaction
marital satisfaction.
were presented in counterbalanced order.
To provide a comprehensive assessment of
Couples were instructed to fill out the diary
current attachment, two measures were used.
records 1 to 2 days before completing the
First, participants were given descriptions of
questionnaire. This time interval ensured that
four attachment prototypes: secure, preoccu-
the recorded spouse behaviors occurred not
pied, dismissing, and fearful (using the
long before the questionnaire ratings, but
Relationship Questionnaire; Bartholomew &
avoided the direct contamination of question-
Horowitz, 1991). This measure contains short
naire responses that could have occurred if both
paragraphs describing each of the four styles,
measures were completed in the same session.
and participants are asked to choose the one
A cover sheet explained the purpose of the
that best describes their thoughts and feelings
study and its confidential nature, and re-
in close relationships.
quested that spouses complete all the measures
Second, participants completed a 13-item
independently. It also provided a telephone
measure (Feeney et al., 1994) that yields scores
contact so that the researcher could deal with
on the two major attachment dimensions:
any queries concerning the materials or
comfort with closeness (referred to as comfort)
procedure. Participants returned the completed
and anxiety over relationships (referred to as
materials either directly by mail, or via the
anxiety). These dimensions have emerged
student who recruited them. Code numbers
consistently from studies of the structure of
assigned to each set of materials enabled the
adult attachment measures (Brennan et al.,
responses of husbands and wives to be paired.
1998). Sample items for the comfort scale (8
No compensation was given to couples for
items) include I find it relatively easy to get
participating in the study.
close to others and I find it difficult to depend
on others (reverse scored). Items for the
anxiety scale (5 items) include I often worry
Results
that my partner doesnt really love me and I
dont often worry about being abandoned
Overview of analyses
(reverse scored). The items use a 5-point
response format, from 1 = not at all like me to First, descriptive data concerning the attach-
5 = very much like me. In the present sample, ment characteristics of the sample are presented.
both scales had alpha reliability coefficients of Second, analyses addressing Hypothesis 1
.80. Scores on comfort (possible range 8 to 40) (concerning the relation between attachment
varied from 12 to 40 (M = 28.09, SD = 5.20), and reporting of positive and negative spouse
and scores on anxiety (possible range 5 to 25) behaviors) are presented. This hypothesis was
varied from 5 to 23 (M = 9.68, SD = 3.63). addressed using multivariate analyses of var-
Marital satisfaction was assessed using iance (MANOVAs) and analyses based on the
the Quality Marriage Index (QMI, Norton, Actor-Partner Interdependence model (APIM).
1983). The QMI is a unidimensional scale, Third, APIM analyses were also used to test
consisting of six items that evaluate the Hypothesis 2a (concerning the relation between
global quality of the relationship (e.g., Our attachment and marital satisfaction). The re-
marriage is strong; coefficient alpha for maining hypotheses were addressed through
the scale =.95). Scores on the QMI correlational and regression analyses. Hypoth-
(possible range 6 to 42) varied from 10 to esis 2b (concerning the relations between
42 (M = 35.70, SD = 6.42); there was a spouse behavior and marital satisfaction) was
moderate degree of negative skew, which is assessed using standard multiple regression
typical in studies of married couples. analyses, whereas Hypothesis 3 (concerning
Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction
the links among attachment, spouse behavior,
and satisfaction) was addressed using correla-
tional and hierarchical regression analyses.
Attachment characteristics of the sample
The numbers of husbands and wives endorsing
each description of the forced-choice measure
of attachment style were as follows: secure
(101 and 109, respectively), preoccupied (27
and 26), dismissing (37 and 30), and fearful
(28 and 28). The scales assessing the two
attachment dimensions (comfort with close-
ness and anxiety over relationships) were
approximately normally distributed (see the
Method section for mean scores and standard
deviations). These two scales were negatively
correlated, r = .38 for husbands, r = .30
for wives; p <.001 in each case.
As would be expected from the partial
overlap in item content, responses to the
forced-choice measure were strongly related
to scores on the attachment dimensions,
multivariate F (6, 372) = 14.08 for husbands
and 17.43 for wives, MSE = 15.29 and 14.67
respectively, p <.001 in each case. Consistent
with previous research, post hoc tests showed
that secure and preoccupied participants re-
ported higher levels of comfort with closeness
than did dismissing and fearful participants;
further, preoccupied and fearful participants
reported higher levels of anxiety over relation-
ships than did secure and dismissing partici-
pants. (Because similar results have been
reported in previous studies, these results are
not detailed further.)
There was no reliable association between
gender and responses to the forced-choice
measure, 2 (3) = 1.03. Further, a MANOVA
in which gender was varied within-dyad
revealed no gender differences on the two
attachment dimensions, multivariate F (2,181)
= 2.29, MSE = 15.80, ns. In short, husbands
and wives responded in similar ways to the
various attachment measures.
Both the forced-choice measure and the
attachment dimensions provided evidence of
partner matching. Cross-tabulation of hus-
bands and wives responses to the forced-
choice measure showed a reliable association,
2 (9) = 24.63, p < .005. Standardized re-
45
siduals showed that this association reflected
two specific effects: an overrepresentation of
the secure-secure pairing (69 couples) and an
under-representation of dismissing wives
paired with secure husbands (9 couples). In
other words, of the 101 secure husbands in
the sample, 68% were paired with secure
wives, and only 8.9% were paired with
dismissing wives. Further, three of the four
correlations between partners attachment
dimensions were significant: husbands anxi-
ety with wives anxiety (r = .17, p < .01),
husbands comfort with wives comfort
(r = .24, p < .001), and husbands anxiety
with wives comfort (r = .22, p < .001). All
these matching effects were apparent in both
shorter-term and longer-term marriages.
Because most of the focal analyses
reported in the following sections involve
comparing the two groups defined by length
of marriage, it was considered important to
assess whether attachment characteristics
differed for these groups. Chi square ana-
lyses showed that the groups did not differ
in terms of either husbands responses (2 (3)
= 2.68) or wives responses (2 (3) = 0.34)
to the forced-choice measure. Further, a
MANOVA comparing group scores on the
two attachment dimensions was also non-
significant, multivariate F (2, 180) = 1.77;
MSE = 24.69, ns.
Association between attachment and reports of
spouse behavior
As noted earlier, the hypothesized link between
attachment and diary-based reports of spouse
behavior was assessed using MANOVAs and
APIM analyses, depending on the measure of
attachment being analyzed.
Forced-choice attachment and reports of
spouse behavior. The association between
responses to the forced-choice measure and
reports of spouse behaviors was assessed by
conducting separate MANOVAs for each
gender. In these analyses, forced-choice
attachment style and length of marriage were
varied between subjects, and the dependent
variables were the number of positive and
negative spouse behaviors.
46
The analysis for husbands revealed no
significant effects. For wives, the only
significant effect was an interaction between
attachment style and length of marriage
for negative behaviors, F(3,184) = 3.10,
MSE = 23.12, p < .05. Simple effects tests
indicated no effect of attachment style for
wives in the shorter-term marriages. In the
longer-term marriages, the effect of attach-
ment style was quite marked, reflecting the
uniquely high scores of fearful wives (see
Figure 1).
Attachment dimensions and reports of spouse
behavior. The association between attach-
ment dimensions and the diary reports was
assessed using the Actor-Partner Inter-
dependence model as described by Kashy and
Kenny (2000). As the name implies, this
method of data analysis is designed to deal
with nonindependent data. It enables assess-
ment of both actor effects (e.g., the effect
of individuals comfort with closeness on
their own scores on an outcome variable),
and partner effects (e.g., the effect of indi-
viduals comfort with closeness on partners
Figure 1. Interaction of attachment style and length of marriage for wives reports of negative
spouse behaviors.
J. A. Feeney
scores on the outcome variable). The method
involves conducting two regression equations:
a between-dyads regression, in which the
mean of the two partners scores on each
predictor variable is used to predict the mean
outcome score for the dyad, and a within-
dyads regression, in which the difference
between the two partners scores on each
predictor variable is used to predict the
difference between partners scores on the
outcome measure. The unstandardized regres-
sion coefficients and standard errors from
these analyses are then used to calculate the
actor and partner effects (for details, see
Kashy & Kenny, 2000).
In the present study, this method was used
to assess the association between partners
attachment dimensions and reports of positive
and negative spouse behaviors, separately for
shorter-term and longer-term marriages. (A
preliminary MANOVA revealed that the
groups defined by length of marriage did not
differ in their perceptions of spouse behavior.)
The results of these APIM analyses are
summarized in the top sections of Table 1.
As the table shows, significant relations
Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction 47

between the attachment dimensions and the
diary reports were confined to the reports of
negative spouse behavior in longer-term
marriages. Specifically, in these marriages,
own comfort with closeness was associated
with reports of fewer negative spouse beha-
viors, and own and partners anxiety over
relationships were associated with reports of
more negative spouse behaviors.
It should be noted that these analyses also
included tests for main effects of gender, and
interactive effects of gender and attachment
dimensions. The only main effect occurred in
longer-term marriages, with wives reporting
more negative spouse behaviors than did
husbands, t (89) = 2.57, p < .05. Impor-
tantly, no interactive effects of gender attained
significance, indicating that the actor and
partner effects tested in the analyses were
not dependent on gender. To simplify pre-
sentation, the tests for main and interactive
effects of gender have not been included in
Table 1.
Attachment and reports of spouse behavior:
Summary. Overall, the analyses reported in
this section provide evidence of an association
between attachment measures and reports of
negative spouse behaviors, though only for
longer-term marriages. In these longer-term
marriages, reports of negative spouse behav-
iors were associated inversely with own
comfort, and positively with own and part-
ners anxiety. Moreover, fearful wives in longer-
term marriages (i.e., wives low in comfort and
high in anxiety) reported particularly high
levels of negative spouse behaviors. The
latter finding, although gender-specific, is
consistent with those from the APIM.
Together, these results support the first
hypothesis.
Association between attachment and
marital satisfaction
A similar method to that reported in the
previous section was used to test for the effects
of attachment dimensions (actor and partner)
on marital satisfaction. Before running these
analyses separately for shorter- and longer-
term marriages, it was considered important to
ensure that evaluations of marital quality
showed reasonable variability, even in the
shorter-term marriages. Inspection of the QMI
data for the two groups revealed a small

Table 1. Actor-partner effects for the prediction of spouse behavior and marital satisfaction
from attachment dimensions

Effects being tested (predictor; criterion) Standard error t test (actor) t test (partner)
Comfort; positive spouse behavior .111 .225 1.234
.156 .545 .282
Anxiety; positive spouse behavior .167 .425 .796
.197 .579 .995
Comfort; negative spouse behavior .072 1.139 .181
.101 2.089* .168
Anxiety; negative spouse behavior .109 .615 .725
.128 3.406*** 2.008*
Comfort; marital satisfaction .098 1.408 1.724
.170 .959 1.265
Anxiety; marital satisfaction .122 2.189* .648
.178 2.640** 2.129*

Note. In each cell, the top entry refers to shorter-term marriages, and the bottom entry to longer-term marriages. Degrees
of freedom for actor and partner effects vary slightly across analyses, but are approximately 120 for shorter-term
marriages and 160 for longer-term marriages.
* p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001.
48
difference in satisfaction levels (M = 36.71
and 34.89 for shorter and longer-term
marriages, respectively), but reasonable varia-
bility for both groups (SD = 5.08 and 6.99,
respectively).
In support of Hypothesis 2a, the APIM
analyses (see the bottom section of Table 1)
clearly linked anxiety over relationships with
lower levels of marital satisfaction. Specifi-
cally, own anxiety was associated with lower
levels of satisfaction in both shorter-term and
longer-term marriages, and partners anxiety
was associated with lower levels of satisfaction
in longer-term marriages. Again, no main or
interactive effects of gender were obtained.
Associations between spouse behavior and
marital satisfaction
Hypothesis 2b was assessed using standard
multiple regression analyses, which were
conducted separately for the prediction of
husbands and wives satisfaction. Spouse
behavior was the focal independent construct,
but time spent with spouse was included in the
model as a control variable. Hence, the three
predictor variables were own diary reports of
time spent together and of positive and
negative spouse behaviors.
Marital satisfaction was reliably related to
the set of predictor variables, for all combina-
tions of gender and length of marriage
(R2 ranged from .23 to .44; p < .001 in each
case). The specific findings were generally
similar for both genders and both groups
defined by length of marriage (see Table 2):
Table 2. Prediction of marital satisfaction from own diary reports
Husbands
Predictor r Beta
Positive spouse behavior .27*
.31**
Negative spouse behavior .36***
.58***
Time together .25*
.34**
Note. In each cell, the top entry refers to shorter-term marriages, and the bottom entry to longer-term marriages.
+
p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
J. A. Feeney
Satisfaction was related positively to time
together and to the number of positive spouse
behaviors, and inversely to the number of
negative spouse behaviors. These results
support Hypothesis 2b.
Integrative analyses: Linking attachment,
spouse behavior, and marital satisfaction
As noted earlier, two contrasting predictions
were tested concerning the pattern of associa-
tions among the focal variables. Specifically,
analyses assessed the role of spouse behavior
as a mediator (Hypothesis 3a) and as a
moderator (Hypothesis 3b) of the link between
attachment and marital satisfaction.
Spouse behavior as a mediator. To test
Hypothesis 3a, hierarchical regression anal-
yses were conducted. In these analyses,
marital satisfaction was predicted by own
and partners attachment dimensions (Step 1),
and by own diary reports of time spent
together and positive and negative spouse
behaviors (Step 2).
For all combinations of gender and length
of marriage, these analyses failed to support
the proposition that perceptions of spouse
behavior mediate the link between attachment
and satisfaction. Specifically, anxiety over
relationships (especially own anxiety) was
related to satisfaction at Step 1, and the diary
reports were related to satisfaction at Step 2;
however, the relations between anxiety and
satisfaction were not reduced in importance by
the addition of the diary measures. Given this
Wives
r Beta
.20* .21* .20*
.18* .54*** .44***
.35*** .38*** .37***
.51*** .39*** .30***
.17+ .27* .18+
.19* .36*** .24**
Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction
pattern of findings, the results of the hierarch-
ical analyses simply replicate the APIM and
standard regression analyses already reported,
and hence have not been tabulated.
Spouse behavior as a moderator: Attachment
and reactivity to spouse behavior. Hypo-
thesis 3b, concerning the link between
attachment and reactivity to spouse behavior,
was tested in two ways to enable the conver-
gent validity of the results to be assessed. First,
reactivity coefficients for positive and negative
spouse behavior were calculated using the
diary reports alone, and following the method
described by Jacobson, Follette, and McDonald
(1982). Specifically, a reactivity coefficient for
positive behavior was obtained by correlating
reports of positive spouse behavior with daily
satisfaction ratings, across the two days
records (i.e., the correlation between positive
behavior and daily satisfaction [r-to-z trans-
formed] was averaged across the two days).
Similarly, a reactivity coefficient for negative
behavior was obtained by correlating reports
of negative spouse behavior with daily satis-
faction ratings.
The reactivity coefficients were calculated
separately for each attachment group, as
defined by the forced-choice measure; to
maintain adequate cell sizes, the coefficients
were based on the full sample (regardless of
length of marriage). The resulting coefficients
are shown in Table 3; the final entry in this
table indicates, for example, that fearful wives
ratings of daily satisfaction were negatively
correlated (r = .65) with their reports of
negative spouse behavior. These reactivity
Table 3. Reactivity coefficients for each attachment group
Positive spouse behavior
Attachment group Husbands
Secure .20
Preoccupied .05
Dismissing .43
Fearful .70a
Note. In each column, coefficients with the subscript a differ significantly from the corresponding coefficient for the
secure group.
49
coefficients provide considerable support for
the proposition that insecure persons are more
reactive to spousal behavior. The most striking
findings were the high reactivity coefficients
for positive behavior for fearful husbands and
wives, and for negative behavior for preoccu-
pied husbands, dismissing husbands and
wives, and fearful wives. All six of these
coefficients were significantly higher than the
corresponding coefficients for secure spouses.
The second method for assessing the link
between attachment and reactivity to spouse
behavior involved defining marital satisfaction
in terms of QMI scores, rather than ratings of
daily satisfaction. Specifically, hierarchical
(moderated) multiple regression analysis was
used to test for interactive effects of attach-
ment dimensions and reports of positive and
negative spouse behavior. To minimize the
complexity of these analyses, only the effects
of own attachment dimensions were investi-
gated. At Step 1, own attachment dimensions
and reports of positive and negative spouse
behaviors were entered. At Step 2, the four
product terms (comfort by positive behaviors,
comfort by negative behaviors, anxiety by
positive behaviors, anxiety by negative beha-
viors) were added to the equation. The product
terms were based on standardized scores; this
procedure avoids multicollinearity, and also
prevents variables with greater variability
contributing unduly to the product term.
At Step 1, both husbands and wives
marital satisfaction were related positively to
reports of positive spouse behavior, and
inversely to anxiety and reports of negative
spouse behavior. (These results are consistent
Negative spouse behavior
Wives Husbands Wives
.21 .25 .30
.38 .61a .30
.47 .63a .63a
.59a .41 .65a
50
with the findings already discussed, and are
not detailed further.) Addition of the product
terms added reliably to the variance explained
for husbands; R2 change = .089, F (inc) =
4.90, p < .001. All four product terms reliably
predicted husbands satisfaction, with beta
weights ranging from .17 to .27. For
wives, the combined set of product terms did
not add reliably to the variance explained,
although the beta weight for the interaction
between comfort and positive behaviors was
significant ( .16, p < .02).
To further examine the significant interac-
tions, husbands were classified as either secure
or insecure, defined as one standard above and
below the mean on the relevant attachment
dimension. That is, in the case of an interaction
involving the comfort dimension, secure hus-
bands were those scoring at least one standard
deviation above the mean, and insecure hus-
bands were those scoring at least one standard
deviation below the mean. Conversely, in the
case of an interaction involving anxiety, secure
husbands scored at least one standard deviation
below the mean and insecure husbands scored
at least one standard deviation above the mean.
Bivariate correlations between marital satisfac-
tion and the relevant measure of spouse
behavior were then calculated, separately for
secure and insecure husbands. These analyses
revealed a very consistent picture of the
interaction effects, which supported Hypoth-
esis 3b. In all four cases, the association
between marital satisfaction and reports of
recent spouse behavior was significant only for
Table 4. Follow-up tests of interactions between attachment security and spouse behavior in
predicting marital satisfaction
Correlation between spouse behavior and marital satisfaction
Group, defined in terms
of attachment security Positive spouse behavior
Secure (high comfort)
Insecure (low comfort)
Secure (low anxiety)
Insecure (high anxiety)
Note. Main cell entries are for husbands; those in parentheses are for wives.
*p < .05, **p < .01.
J. A. Feeney
insecure husbands (see Table 4; first entry in
each cell).
For comparison purposes, similar analyses
were conducted for wives (see Table 4, entries
in parentheses). For insecure wives, marital
satisfaction was consistently associated with
reports of recent spouse behavior (as was the
case for insecure husbands). Unlike the
findings for husbands, however, secure wives
also showed a link between marital satisfac-
tion and reports of spouse behavior, but only
when security was defined in terms of levels of
relationship anxiety. In short, the only reliable
gender differences among these correlations
were for low-anxious spouses: Low-anxious
wives were more reactive to recent spouse
behavior than were low-anxious husbands.
Finally, to assess whether the observed
interactions between attachment and spouse
behavior held across stage of marriage, the
moderated regression analyses (own attach-
ment and spouse behavior at Step 1; product
terms at Step 2) were repeated separately for
the groups defined by length of marriage. For
shorter-term marriages, there were no reliable
product terms for either gender. By contrast, in
longer-term marriages, there were three sig-
nificant effects: for husbands, comfort by
positive behaviors and comfort by negative
behaviors; and for wives, comfort by positive
behaviors. (Tests of the beta weights confirmed
that these effects were significantly stronger in
longer-term than in short-term marriages.) The
follow-up tests of the three significant interac-
tions paralleled those for the full sample. In
each case, the association between marital
Negative spouse behavior
.17 (.14) .14 ( .21)
.67** (.46**) .31* ( .48**)
.18 (.58**) .25 ( .48**)
.38* (.55**) .57** ( .64**)
Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction
satisfaction and reports of spouse behavior was
significant only for insecure spouses (with
correlations ranging from .41 to .72).
Discussion
Responses to the questionnaire measures
supported the representativeness of the sample
recruited for this study. Although scores on the
global measure of marital satisfaction were
negatively skewed, the sample included a
substantial number of couples who were quite
dissatisfied with their relationships. Further,
responses to the attachment measures indicated
a good representation of the various attachment
styles. In terms of the forced-choice measure,
just over 50% of husbands and wives described
themselves as secure, with the remainder
spread fairly evenly over the three remaining
categories. Similarly, although mean scores on
the two attachment dimensions suggested a
relatively secure sample, scores spanned close
to the full possible range.
In summary, unlike many samples of married
couples, the present sample did not contain a
strong overrepresentation of secure individuals
or of highly satisfied couples. Previous studies
have also found that the recruitment method
used in this study yields representative samples
and highly reliable data (e.g., Feeney, 1994;
Noller, Law, & Comrey, 1987).
Attachment and reports of spouse behavior
The results of this study supported the
proposed association between attachment
measures and reports of spouse behavior.
Within longer-term marriages, reports of
negative spouse behaviors were related in-
versely to own comfort with closeness, and
positively to both own and partners anxiety
over relationships; the strongest effect was
for own anxiety. Moreover, within longer-
term marriages, fearful wives reported parti-
cularly high levels of negative spouse
behaviors. It is not clear why these relations
were confined to the longer-term marriages,
given that neither the attachment measures
nor the reports of spouse behavior varied
with length of marriage. It is possible that
insecure spouses become less optimistic
51
about their relationships across the marital
life-cycle, and more attuned to potential signs
of negativity and rejection. However, long-
itudinal research is clearly needed to test this
possibility.
As expected, however, the associations
between attachment and spouse behavior were
generally not very strong. As noted earlier,
diary-based checklists provide a relatively
objective picture of spouse behavior; unlike
global self-report measures, they do not
require participants to make highly subjective
evaluations of behavior or to aggregate ratings
over a large number of past episodes. For these
reasons, diary reports are unlikely to be
influenced strongly by the general patterns of
expectation and inference that probably con-
tribute to the strong attachment style differ-
ences reported in some studies. Further, much
of the previous research into romantic attach-
ment style has focused specifically on conflict
situations, in which attachment differences in
behavior are expected to be more pronounced
(Feeney, 1998; Rholes et al., 1998). It is
important to note, however, that the relations
between attachment and spouse behavior may
have been stronger if participants themselves
had been allowed to rate whether specific
spouse behaviors were positive or negative.
Predicting marital satisfaction: Main effects
The present results support previous findings
linking attachment security with greater rela-
tionship satisfaction (Shaver & Hazan, 1993).
However, anxiety over relationships consis-
tently emerged as the more important dimen-
sion of attachment in this regard. Although
comfort with closeness is undoubtedly a
crucial variable when it comes to establishing
an intimate relationship, it may be somewhat
less important in terms of relationship main-
tenance (Feeney, 1994). Moreover, the im-
portance of the anxiety dimension to marital
relationships can be explained by longitudinal
data, which point to a link between anxiety
and increasingly negative patterns of couple
communication (Feeney et al., 1994).
Not surprisingly, reported spouse behavior
was also an important predictor of marital
satisfaction. For both husbands and wives, and
52
regardless of length of marriage, satisfaction
was higher for respondents who reported more
frequent positive spouse behavior and less
frequent negative behavior. These findings fit
with models of marriage which emphasize the
importance of pleasurable dyadic interactions
(e.g., Smith, Snyder, Trull, & Monsma, 1988;
Spanier & Lewis, 1980).
Spouse behavior as a mediator of the
attachment-satisfaction relation
Interestingly, there was no evidence that
reported spouse behavior mediated the link
between attachment (either own or partners)
and marital satisfaction. Rather, attachment and
spouse behavior exerted independent effects on
marital satisfaction. This finding suggests that
secure individuals greater relationship satisfac-
tion may be explained by their generalized
expectations of partners, as much as by actual
frequencies of behaviors. Of course, the present
measures of spouse behavior were summary
measures, in that they were based on the total
number of positive and negative behaviors. It is
likely that specific partner behaviors do par-
tially mediate the link between attachment and
satisfaction, as reported by previous researchers
studying behaviors as diverse as conflict
resolution and self-disclosure (Feeney et al.,
1994; Keelan et al., 1998).
Spouse behavior as a moderator: Reactivity to
spouse behavior
One of the most important findings to emerge
from this study, in terms of the prediction of
marital satisfaction, concerned insecure indivi-
duals greater reactivity to recent spouse
behavior. This finding was established through
two means: first, by calculating reactivity
coefficients, which link reports of spouse
behavior with ratings of satisfaction made on
the same day and the same diary record; and
second, by regression analyses assessing inter-
active effects of attachment and spouse beha-
viors on the multiple-item measure of
satisfaction completed at a later time. Both
methods clearly suggest that insecure indivi-
duals evaluations of their relationships are
more reactive to the recent behaviors of the
spouse. Further, this effect is not simply an
J. A. Feeney
artifact of differences in the frequency of spouse
behaviors between secure and insecure indivi-
duals, because the regression analyses con-
trolled for the frequency of these behaviors.
Thus, although any tendency for insecure
spouses to report more spousal negativity or
less spousal positivity may be relatively weak
(at least when structured daily checklists of
behaviors are employed), it seems that the
actual frequencies of negative and positive
spouse behaviors may have stronger implica-
tions for insecure individuals than for secure
individuals. That is, negative and positive
spouse behaviors may have different meanings
for secure and insecure individuals.
This finding is easy to understand in relation
to negative spouse behaviors. Previous theory
and research suggest that, for the insecure
person, negative spouse behavior is likely to be
more salient, to be attributed to stable and
internal causes, and to confirm expectations
that close partners tend to be undependable and
untrustworthy (Collins, 1996). In this way, the
internal representations (beliefs and expecta-
tions) associated with attachment style may
sensitize insecure individuals to negativity.
Unfortunately, the long-term effects of this
process are likely to be disenchantment with
the relationship, and strengthening of existing
(negative) working models.
The fact that interactive effects of attach-
ment and spouse behavior should extend to
positive behavior is less obvious. In fact, one
might expect that, for spouses low in comfort
with closeness, positive partner behavior
would tend to be attributed to unstable and
external causes (and hence, effectively, dis-
counted). The present results do not directly
address the question of whether such an
attributional pattern applies. The results do
suggest that both discomfort with closeness
and anxiety over relationships are associated
with greater reactivity to positive (as well as
negative) partner behaviors. Thus, it appears
that insecure spouses have a greater tendency
to monitor exchanges in their intimate rela-
tionships, and to evaluate their worth in terms
of the partners recent behavior (as the song
by Janet Jackson asks, What have you done
for me lately?). In contrast, secure indivi-
duals may hold more stable perceptions and
Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction
expectations of their partners which are tied
less closely to specific daily events.
Insecure individuals greater reactivity to
partner behavior is likely to have deleterious
effects on their relationships in the long term. In
particular, as already noted, the tendency to
notice small transgressions and to ruminate over
them seems bound to result in a gradual erosion
of relationship satisfaction. High reactivity to
positive behaviors may also have negative
effects, however, given that all relationship
partners show at least occasional lapses of
attention, consideration, and support (Miller,
1997). The results of the present study suggest
that the relationships of avoidant individuals,
and particularly those from the fearful group,
may be most prone to the negative effects of
reactivity to partner behavior.
In terms of the regression analyses, the
interactive effects of attachment and spouse
behavior added to the prediction of marital
satisfaction for husbands only. These interac-
tions indicated that links between marital
satisfaction and recent spouse behavior were
restricted to insecure men; in other words,
husbands who were anxious about their
relationships or low in comfort with closeness
were more reactive to their spouses behavior.
For wives, links between marital satisfaction
and recent spouse behavior applied more
generally: The only wives who were not
reactive to spouse behavior were those high in
comfort with closeness. The reason for this
gender difference is not clear. Overall, women
may be somewhat more sensitive to the
nuances of their partners relationship beha-
vior (a difference that may stem from sex-role
socialization). Such sensitivity may, at times,
be a two-edged sword; for example, it may be
associated with greater relationship awareness,
but also with the tendency to monitor and
evaluate daily transactions. Because comfort
with closeness is associated with perceptions
of relationship partners as dependable and
trustworthy (Feeney, 1999), it may play an
important role in reducing reactivity to recent
relationship events.
It is interesting to note that the interactive
effects of attachment and spouse behavior
were also restricted to longer-term marriages.
At this stage, it is not entirely clear why this
53
should be the case. One possibility is that
levels of relationship satisfaction are generally
high in shorter-term marriages, making it
difficult to detect such interactions. However,
the small difference in satisfaction across the
two stages of marriage lends little support to
this explanation. Another possibility is that
insecurity (especially in more extreme in-
stances) is associated with a gradual increase
in perceptions of spousal negativity; these
negative perceptions are likely to reflect
escalating relationship conflict, together with
negative expectations. (These propositions are
supported, in part, by the present results for
wives reports of negative spouse behavior;
see Figure 1). There may be a certain critical
point in this process at which insecure
spouses evaluations of their relationships
become more reactive to daily events.
General discussion and conclusions
The present study has three limitations that
should be noted. First, all the measures
obtained were based on self-reports, although
the diary method is considered to be less prone
to global response sets. Second, the diary
reports of spouse behavior may have con-
taminated the questionnaire measures,
although this possibility was minimized by
the time interval between the two assessments.
Third, use of a cross-sectional design makes it
difficult to establish developmental trends in
marriage. There may be cohort effects that
contribute to differences in findings across the
groups defined by length of marriage. In
particular, there is likely to be selective loss
of the most unhappy relationships, due to
separation and divorce. However, in the
present study, group comparisons were not
confounded by attachment security, and the
group difference in marital satisfaction was
small.
It is interesting to note that the effects of
insecure attachment reported in this study show
parallels with those from studies comparing
happy and unhappy couples. Specifically,
previous studies have shown that couples who
are unhappy with their relationships are more
likely to monitor (or track) the partners
behavior, to expect strict reciprocation of
54
favors, and to be reactive to immediate
relational events, particularly negative ones
(e.g., Jacobson et al., 1982). The present results
suggest that attachment insecurity may often
underlie these destructive behaviors. This
finding is important because it not only
provides a theory-based explanation of these
patterns but also suggests appropriate strategies
for intervention. Sperling and Lyons (1994), for
example, have discussed therapeutic ap-
proaches particularly suited to modifying
internal representations of attachment. These
approaches focus specifically on addressing the
network of expectations, affects, and memories
associated with clients close relationships.
The results of this study suggest some
important directions for future research. One
References
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An
attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Perso-
nal Relationships, 7, 147178.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment
styles among young adults: A test of a four-category
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61, 226244.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to
belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 117, 497529.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-
report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative
overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes, (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 4676).
New York: Guilford.
Cohn, D. A., Silver, D. H., Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., &
Pearson, J. (1992). Working models of childhood
attachment and couple relationships. Journal of Family
Issues, 13, 432449.
Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment:
Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810
832.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment,
working models, and relationship quality in dating
couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
58, 644663.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive rep-
resentations of attachment: The structure and function
of working models. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman
(Eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships (Vol. 5,
pp. 5390). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Feeney, J. A. (1994). Attachment style, communication
patterns, and satisfaction across the life cycle of
marriage. Personal Relationships, 1, 333348.
Feeney, J. A. (1998). Adult attachment and relationship-
centered anxiety: Responses to physical and emotional
distancing. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes, (Eds.),
J. A. Feeney
such direction would involve assessing the
stability of spouses expectations and evalua-
tions of each other over relatively short
periods of time. In this way, the proposition
that secure individuals hold more stable
perceptions and expectations of their partners
could be tested more directly. In addition, the
suggestion that avoidant individuals are parti-
cularly reactive to recent relational events
requires further investigation. Longer-term
longitudinal research is also needed, to
investigate more fully the interactive effects
of attachment security and spouse behavior.
Such research should help to clarify the
mechanisms by which insecurities about
attachment issues are either played out, or
resolved, in marital relationships.
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 189
218). New York: Guilford.
Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult romantic attachment and couple
relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), The
handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
applications (pp. 355377). New York: Guilford.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1991). Attachment style and
verbal descriptions of romantic partners. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 187215.
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Callan, V. J. (1994).
Attachment style, communication and satisfaction in
the early years of marriage. In K. Bartholomew & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships
Vol.5: Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 269
308) London: Jessica Kingsley.
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Roberts, N. (1998). Emotion,
attachment, and satisfaction in close relationships. In P.
A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of
communication and emotion: Research, theory, appli-
cations, and contexts (pp. 473505). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Gill, D. S., Christensen, A., & Fincham, F. D. (1999).
Predicting marital satisfaction from behavior: Do all
roads really lead to Rome? Personal Relationships, 6,
369387.
Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction
and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 4752.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love con-
ceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511524.
Jacobson, N. S., Follette, W. C., & McDonald, D. W.
(1982). Reactivity to positive and negative behavior in
distressed and nondistressed married couples. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 706714.
Julien, D., Markman, H. J., & Lindahl, K. M. (1989). A
comparison of a global and a microanalytic coding
system: Implications for future trends in studying
interactions. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 81100.
Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction
Karney, B., & Bradbury, T. (1997). Neuroticism, marital
interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
10751092.
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data
from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd
(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and
personality psychology (pp. 451477). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Keelan, J. P. R., Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1998).
Attachment style and relationship satisfaction: Test of a
self-disclosure explanation. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 30, 2435.
Kirkpatrick, L. E., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment
style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
66, 502512.
Levy, M. B., & Davis, K. E. (1988). Lovestyles and
attachment styles compared: Their relations to each
other and to various relationship characteristics. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 439471.
Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. B. (1979). Theorizing about
the quality and stability of marriage. In W. R. Burr, R.
Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary
theories about the family (Vol. 1, pp. 268294). New
York: Free Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon (1991). Attachment styles
and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 321331.
Miller, R. S. (1997). We always hurt the ones we love:
Aversive interactions in close relationships. In R. M.
Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp.
1129). New York: Plenum.
Noller, P., Feeney, J. A., Bonnell, D., & Callan, V. J.
(1994). A longitudinal study of conflict in early
marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 11, 233252.
Noller, P., Law, H., & Comrey, A. L. (1987). Cattell,
Comrey, and Eysenck personality factors compared:
More evidence for the five robust factors? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 775782.
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical
look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 45, 141151.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (1997). Working
models of attachment and daily social interactions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
14091423.
55
Pistole, M. C. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic
relationships: Style of conflict resolution and relation-
ship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 6, 505510.
Reis, H. T. (1994). Domains of experience: Investigating
relationship processes from three perspectives. In R.
Erber & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks for
personal relationships (pp. 87110). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Stevens, J. G. (1998).
Attachment orientations, social support, and conflict
resolution in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson &
W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close
relationships (pp. 166188). New York: Guilford.
Senchak, M., & Leonard, K. E. (1992). Attachment styles
and marital adjustment among newlywed couples.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9,
5164.
Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment styles
and the big five personality traits: Their connections
with each other and with romantic relationship
outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
18, 536545.
Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic
attachment: Theory and evidence. In D. Perlman & W.
Jones (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships
(Vol. 4, pp. 2970). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Smith, D. A., Vivian, D., & OLeary, K. D. (1990).
Longitudinal prediction of marital discord from
premarital expressions of affect. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 58, 790798.
Smith, G. T., Snyder, D. K., Trull, T. J., & Monsma, B. R.
(1988). Predicting relationship satisfaction from cou-
ples use of leisure time. American Journal of Family
Therapy, 16, 313.
Spanier, G. B., & Lewis, R. A. (1980). Marital quality: A
review of the seventies. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 42, 825839.
Sperling, M. B., & Lyons, L. S. (1994). Representations of
attachment and psychotherapeutic change. In M. B.
Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults:
Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 331347). New
York: Guilford.
Weiss, R. L., & Perry, B. A. (1983). The Spouse
Observation Checklist: Developments and clinical
applications. In E. E. Filsinger (Ed.), Marriage and
family assessment: A sourcebook for family therapy
(pp. 6584). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
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.