behavioral

sciences
Article
Attachment Orientation and Preferences for Partners’ Emotional
Responses in Stressful and Positive Situations
Brian N. Chin 1, * , Lauryn Kim 2 , Shelby M. Parsons 2 and Brooke C. Feeney 2

1 Department of Psychology, Trinity College, Hartford, CT 06106, USA

2 Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA;
[email protected] (B.C.F.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Attachment theory proposes that close relationships help us to regulate our emotions
in stressful and positive situations. However, no previous studies have examined preferences for
a partner’s emotional response to one’s own stressful and positive situations or tested whether
these preferences differ based on attachment orientation. This study examines the association of
attachment orientation and preferences for partners’ emotional responses relative to one’s own
emotional responses in stressful and positive contexts among 425 United States adults who were
currently in a committed relationship of ≥6 months. Data were collected in 2020. Overall, participants
preferred their partners to feel and express less distress, less worry, more calm, and more hope than
themselves during stressful situations and for their partners to feel and express more excitement,
pride, and hope than themselves during positive situations. Higher attachment anxiety predicted
preferences for partners to feel and express more distress/worry in stressful situations, whereas higher
attachment avoidance predicted preferences for partners to feel and express less hope in stressful
situations. Statistical interactions of attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance indicated that
the combination of low attachment anxiety and high attachment avoidance (dismissing avoidance)
was associated with preferences for partners to feel and express less positive emotions in positive
situations, whereas the combination of high attachment anxiety and high attachment avoidance
(fearful avoidance) was associated with preferences for partners to feel and express more negative
emotions in stressful situations and less positive emotions in positive situations. This investigation
Citation: Chin, B.N.; Kim, L.; Parsons,
provides novel evidence for links between attachment orientation and preferences for partners’
S.M.; Feeney, B.C. Attachment
Orientation and Preferences for
emotional responses in two theoretically important contexts, which has implications for the nature
Partners’ Emotional Responses in and function of emotion regulation in close relationships. Future research is needed to determine the
Stressful and Positive Situations. generalizability of these findings to more collectivist cultural contexts.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77. https://
doi.org/10.3390/bs14010077 Keywords: close relationships; relational regulation; emotion regulation; social support; affect

Academic Editors: Bianca P. Acevedo

and Adam Bode

Received: 25 November 2023 1. Introduction

Revised: 13 January 2024
We often turn to our close relationships to cope with stressful events or to celebrate
Accepted: 18 January 2024
good news. Sometimes, relationship partners provide emotional support by expressing
Published: 22 January 2024
the same emotions we are experiencing. Other times, partners provide support by calming
us down from intense negative emotions or by helping us enjoy and amplify positive
emotions. Although there have been numerous studies demonstrating the benefits of
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
receiving support from one’s partner in both stressful and positive contexts [1], there has
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. been no research focused on preferences for partners’ emotional responses to one’s own
This article is an open access article stressful and positive situations. Understanding preferences for a partner’s emotional
distributed under the terms and responses relative to one’s own could provide insight into the ways that individuals
conditions of the Creative Commons regulate (e.g., amplify, maintain, dampen) their emotions with close partners in stressful
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and positive situations [2]. To address this gap in the literature, we examined attachment-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ related individual differences in preferences for partners’ emotional responses to stressful
4.0/). and positive situations relative to one’s own emotional responses.

Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14010077 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci

Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 2 of 17

Attachment Orientation and Emotions

We used attachment theory as a theoretical framework for investigating individual
differences in preferences for partners’ emotional responses to one’s own stressful and
positive situations, relative to one’s own emotional responses to these situations. According
to attachment theory, humans possess an innate propensity to form strong and enduring
emotional bonds with close others (i.e., attachment figures) [3]. Experiences with one’s
attachment figures (i.e., the extent to which needs for security are met), particularly in
contexts involving stressors and positive contexts involving novel exploration, underlie
the development of individual differences in attachment orientation [3,4]. Individual
differences in attachment orientation have been identified across the lifespan and have been
shown to influence the way one experiences and regulates one’s emotions in the presence
of close others [2,5]. In the current investigation, we extended this literature by conducting
a novel test of whether individual differences in attachment orientation are associated
with preferences for partners’ emotional responses in two contexts through which adult
attachment relationships facilitate optimal well-being—stressful situations and positive
situations involving exploration behavior (e.g., goals, opportunities, accomplishments) [1].
Individual differences in adult attachment orientation are measured in two dimensions—
attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. Attachment anxiety is associated with a
preoccupation with close others, hypervigilance to signs of rejection or abandonment by
close others, and a worry that close others will be unavailable or unresponsive during times
of need. Anxiously attached individuals frequently engage in emotional hyperactivation
strategies that are intended to elicit reassurance or affection from close others, such as
by heightening their expression of negative emotions during interactions with their part-
ners [6,7]. Attachment avoidance is associated with compulsive self-reliance, mistrust of
others, and the belief that close others will be unavailable and unresponsive in times of
need. Avoidantly attached individuals prefer to engage in emotional suppression strategies
that allow them to avoid relying on others and keep their attachment needs deactivated,
such as minimizing their expression of negative emotions during interactions with their
partners [2,8].
There is considerable evidence for attachment-related individual differences in one’s
own emotional responses to stressful events. Past research has generally demonstrated that
anxious attachment is associated with hyperactivation of negative emotions in stressful
contexts, whereas avoidant attachment is associated with deactivation of negative emotions
in stressful contexts [2]. For example, studies of emotional responses to recalled negative
memories demonstrate that anxiously attached individuals more readily recall negative
memories and report experiencing more intense negative emotions during recall, whereas
avoidantly attached individuals less readily recall negative memories and report experienc-
ing less intense negative emotions during recall [9]. Moreover, there is evidence that both
trait attachment anxiety and experimentally induced attachment anxiety are associated
with a greater propensity for experiencing false memories of relational stimuli [10,11].
Other studies have found attachment-related differences in how individuals attend to neg-
ative stimuli, with anxious individuals preferentially attending to negative stimuli [12,13]
and avoidant individuals tending to suppress attention to negative stimuli [14]. Earlier
investigations have also found that attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance are both
associated with lower optimism and more catastrophic appraisals of potential threats [15].
Especially relevant to this investigation, Simpson et al. [16] demonstrated that securely
attached individuals were most soothed by their partner’s emotional caregiving behaviors
during relationship conflict, whereas avoidantly attached individuals responded more
favorably to instrumental caregiving behaviors.
There is also evidence for attachment-related individual differences in one’s own emo-
tional responses to positive events. Studies of attachment-related differences in emotional
response to positive events have generally demonstrated that both anxious attachment and
avoidant attachment interfere with the experience and expression of positive emotions [17].
For example, laboratory studies using emotion-induction procedures and facial coding
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 3 of 17

have found that avoidantly attached individuals show less positive facial affect when view-
ing positive stimuli [18,19], whereas anxiously attached individuals show more negative
facial affect when viewing positive stimuli (i.e., happy faces) [20]. Similarly, a daily diary
study indicated that anxious attachment and avoidant attachment are both associated with
blunted positive emotional responses to positive daily events [21].

2. Current Research
We aimed to build on past research examining attachment and emotional responses
by investigating whether attachment orientation predicts individuals’ preferences for
partners’ emotional responses, relative to their own emotional responses, in stressful
situations (Aim 1) and positive situations (Aim 2). We conducted an online survey study
of individuals who were currently in a committed romantic relationship that had been
ongoing for at least six months. Participants reflected on times when they discussed
stressful situations and positive situations with their romantic partners and indicated their
preferences for their partners’ emotional responses (relative to their own responses) in those
situations. We assessed participants’ preferences about two aspects of partners’ emotional
responses to each type of situation—their partner’s emotional experience (felt emotion)
and their partner’s emotional expression (expressed emotion). We assessed preferences
for specific emotions that were theoretically relevant to stressful situations (distress, worry,
calm, hope) and positive situations (excitement, pride, hope, calm). We tested the following
specific hypotheses based on the postulates of attachment theory and past research on adult
attachment orientation and emotions.
First, we predicted that attachment anxiety would be associated with preferences for
partners to respond to one’s stressful situations by feeling and expressing more distress,
more worry, less calm, and less hope than themselves (Hypothesis 1a). We also predicted
that attachment avoidance would be associated with preferences for partners to respond
to one’s stressful situations by feeling and expressing less distress, less worry, less calm,
and less hope than themselves (Hypothesis 1b). We hypothesized that these preferences
would help anxious individuals, who tend to hyperactivate their negative emotions in
stressful situations, and avoidant individuals, who tend to deactivate their positive and
negative emotions in stressful contexts, to accomplish their emotion regulation goals in
stressful situations.
Second, we predicted that attachment anxiety would be associated with preferences for
partners to respond to one’s positive situations by feeling and expressing more excitement,
more pride, more hope, and less calm than themselves (Hypothesis 2a). We also predicted
that attachment avoidance would be associated with preferences for partners to respond to
one’s positive situations by feeling and expressing less excitement, less pride, less hope,
and more calm than themselves (Hypothesis 2b). We hypothesized that these preferences
would help anxious individuals, who desire their partner’s approval and validation, and
avoidant individuals, who prefer to keep their attachment needs deactivated, to accomplish
their emotion regulation goals in positive situations.

3. Method
3.1. Participants and Procedures
Participants were 425 adults recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (n = 253)
and Volunteer Science (n = 172) for a study of romantic relationships. Participants’ ages
ranged from 18 to 88 years (M = 41.3, SD = 12.9). In total, 51.5% identified as female, 47.5%
as male, and 0.9% as genderqueer or nonbinary. In total, 56.7% of participants identified
as White, 32.0% as Asian, 3.5% as Black, 3.5% as multiracial, 2.8% as Hispanic, 0.5% as
Native/Indigenous, and 0.7% as another race; 1 participant preferred not to disclose their
race. In total, 79.8% of participants were cohabiting with their romantic partner. Sample
size was determined based on the desire to maximize power by collecting data from as
many participants as possible; data collection was halted when funding was no longer
available. Data were collected between March and December 2020. Inclusion criteria were
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 4 of 17

being ≥18 years old, fluent in English, and in a committed romantic relationship of at least
six months. All study procedures were approved by a university institutional review board
and complied with APA ethical standards for the treatment of human participants.
After providing informed consent, participants completed questionnaires via Qualtrics
assessing their demographic information, attachment orientation, and preferences for being
supported by romantic partners in stressful and positive situations. Participants were
compensated USD 3 for completing the study via Amazon Mechanical Turk; participants
did not receive compensation for completing the study via Volunteer Science.
We conducted a post hoc power analysis using G*Power version 3.1.9.7 [22] to compute
achieved power for a linear regression with two tested predictors, a significance criterion
of α = 0.05, and sample size = 425. Achieved power was 1.00 to detect a medium effect
(f2 = 0.15) and 0.74 to detect a small effect (f2 = 0.02).

3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Attachment Orientation
We assessed general attachment orientation using a 14-item version of the Experiences
in Close Relationships (ECR) scale [23]. Participants rated the extent to which they agreed
with statements assessing attachment anxiety (seven items, e.g., “I worry about being
abandoned”) and attachment avoidance (seven items, e.g., “I try avoiding getting too close
to people”) in their global attachment relationships (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly
agree). Attachment anxiety (α = 0.92) and attachment avoidance (α = 0.88) composites were
computed by averaging the scores of items for each subscale.

3.2.2. Preferences for Partners’ Emotional Responses to Stressful Situations

Participants were prompted to reflect on times when they discussed their own stressful
situations with their romantic partner and rate how they wanted their partner to respond
in these situations:
“Please take a moment to think about times in your life when you have been distressed by
significant, major stressors. For example, you might have been worried about a serious
health problem that you or a family member was having, you might have performed
poorly at something that was very important to you, you might have been treated badly at
work, you may be having a hard time finding a job or getting accepted into an academic
program, etc. These should be significant personal stressors that were NOT caused by
your partner. When discussing these stressors with your partner, to what extent do you
typically prefer that your partner respond in the following ways? Some questions below
ask about two different aspects of your emotional life. One is your emotional experience,
or what you feel inside. The other is your emotional expression, or how you communicate
your emotions to others in the way you talk, gesture, or behave.”
Participants rated four items assessing the extent to which they preferred their partner
to feel distressed, calm, hopeful, and worried about the stressor relative to their own feelings
(−3 = much less than me, 0 = as much as me, 3 = much more than me). Participants also
rated four items assessing the extent to which they preferred their partner to express distress,
calmness, hopefulness, and worry about the stressor relative to their own expressions of
each emotion (−3 = much less than me, 0 = as much as me, 3 = much more than me).

3.2.3. Preferences for Partners’ Emotional Responses to Positive Situations

Participants were prompted to reflect on times when they discussed their own positive
situations or events with their romantic partner and rate how they wanted their partner to
respond in these situations:
“Please take a moment to think about times in your life when you have felt excited about
something positive. For example, you may have received good news about getting a new
job or receiving an award or a promotion, or you may have an exciting new hobby or goal
or opportunity to pursue. When discussing these positive experiences with your partner,
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 5 of 17

to what extent do you typically prefer that your partner respond in the following ways?
Some questions below ask about two different aspects of your emotional life. One is your
emotional experience, or what you feel inside. The other is your emotional expression, or
how you communicate your emotions to others in the way you talk, gesture, or behave.”
Participants rated four items assessing the extent to which they preferred their partner
to feel excitement, calm, pride, and hope about the positive situation relative to their
own feelings (−3 = much less than me, 0 = as much as me, 3 = much more than me).
Participants also rated four items assessing the extent to which they preferred their partner
to express excitement, calm, pride, and hope about the positive situation relative to their
own expressions of each emotion (−3 = much less than me, 0 = as much as me, 3 = much
more than me).

4. Data Analysis
Our descriptive analyses included bivariate correlations between predictor and out-
come variables and paired samples t-tests evaluating whether participants differed in their
preferences for partners to feel vs. express distress, worry, calm, and hope in stressful
situations or in their preferences for partners to feel vs. express excitement, pride, calm,
and hope in positive situations.
To address our first aim, we used linear regression models to test associations of
attachment orientation (attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, and the interaction
of attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance) and preferences for partners’ emotional
responses to stressful situations (feeling and expressing distress, worry, calm, and hope)
relative to their own feelings and expressions.
To address our second aim, we used linear regression models to test associations
of attachment orientation and preferences for partners’ emotional responses to positive
situations (feeling and expressing excitement, calm, pride, and hope) relative to their own
feelings and expressions.
To interpret statistically significant interactions of attachment anxiety × attachment
avoidance, we conducted planned follow-up analyses of simple slopes of attachment
anxiety at one standard deviation above and below the mean value of attachment avoidance.
We conducted these analyses with and without controlling for participants’ gender.
Because all associations were unaffected by the inclusion of gender as a covariate, we only
report the results of the more parsimonious models that did not control for gender.

Transparency and Openness

We report how our sample size was determined and all data exclusions, manipulations,
and measures in this study. Data were analyzed using SPSS, version 28.0.1.1, and the
PROCESS macro, version 4.2, model 1 [24]. This study was not pre-registered. Data and
analysis code are available at https://osf.io/nkmbw/?view_only=bb9aa20a40fc4e26a898
66ed7b264efc (accessed on 20 November 2023).

5. Results
Descriptive Analyses
Descriptive statistics for preferred partner emotions in stressful situations and positive
situations are shown in Table 1. Bivariate correlations of primary outcome variables are
shown in Table 2.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for study variables.

M (SD)
Attachment anxiety 3.3 (1.5)
Attachment avoidance 3.6 (1.4)
During stressful situations:
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 6 of 17

Table 1. Cont.

M (SD)
I want my partner to feel:
Distress −0.7 (1.6)
Worry −0.7 (1.5)
Calm 1.0 (1.4)
Hope 1.3 (1.2)
I want my partner to express:
Distress −0.6 (1.6)
Worry −0.7 (1.5)
Calm 1.0 (1.5)
Hope 1.2 (1.4)
During positive situations:
I want my partner to feel:
Excitement 0.8 (1.2)
Pride 1.1 (1.2)
Hope 1.0 (1.2)
Calm 0.2 (1.3)
I want my partner to express:
Excitement 0.8 (1.3)
Pride 0.9 (1.3)
Hope 0.9 (1.3)
Calm 0.1 (1.2)

Table 2. Bivariate correlations of study variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1. Attachment anxiety --
2. Attachment avoidance 0.53 --
3. Partner feels distress 0.34 0.18 --
4. Partner feels worry 0.28 0.18 0.55 --
5. Partner feels calm −0.07 −0.08 −0.43 −0.28 --
6. Partner feels hope −0.11 −0.18 −0.11 −0.19 0.32 --
7. Partner expresses
0.23 0.08 0.74 0.52 −0.43 −0.12 --
distress
8. Partner expresses
0.24 0.18 0.54 0.82 −0.29 −0.17 0.56 --
worry
9. Partner expresses calm −0.16 −0.10 −0.47 −0.30 0.76 0.35 −0.44 −0.34 --
10. Partner expresses
−0.06 −0.15 −0.15 −0.16 0.30 0.62 −0.10 −0.13 0.39 --
hope
11. Partner feels
0.15 −0.02 0.43 0.30 −0.27 0.14 0.38 0.32 −0.27 0.00 --
excitement
12. Partner feels pride 0.18 0.01 0.29 0.21 −0.10 0.22 0.29 0.26 −0.10 0.14 0.65 --
13. Partner feels hope 0.10 −0.12 0.28 0.23 −0.13 0.19 0.32 0.23 −0.10 0.14 0.57 0.71 --
14. Partner feels calm 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.15 −0.01 0.05 0.11 0.05 −0.10 0.11 0.11 0.15 --
15. Partner expresses
0.06 −0.09 0.30 0.20 −0.18 0.12 0.34 0.23 −0.17 0.06 0.76 0.56 0.57 0.04 --
excitement
16. Partner expresses
0.00 −0.14 0.12 0.13 −0.04 0.19 0.23 0.14 0.03 0.22 0.45 0.74 0.60 −0.04 0.55 --
pride
17. Partner expresses
−0.05 −0.18 0.16 0.13 −0.12 0.17 0.28 0.17 −0.03 0.21 0.49 0.62 0.79 0.05 0.51 0.63 --
hope
18. Partner expresses
0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.12 −0.04 0.01 0.07 0.10 −0.08 0.07 0.07 0.15 0.79 0.04 −0.06 0.13 --
calm
Note. Bolded coefficients denote statistical significance at p < 0.05.

As shown in Table 1, participants generally preferred their partners to feel and express
less distress, less worry, more calm, and more hope relative to themselves during stressful
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 7 of 17

situations and for their partners to feel and express more excitement, pride, and hope
relative to themselves during positive situations. Participants also generally preferred
their partners to feel more calm, but not express more calm, relative to themselves during
positive situations.
Participants reported a stronger preference for partners to feel (vs. express) more
hope than themselves in stressful situations (Mdiff = 0.11, 95CIdiff = 0.00, 0.22, paired
samples t(424) = 2.01, p = 0.045, d = 0.10). Participants did not differ in their preferences for
partners to feel vs. express distress (Mdiff = −0.08, 95CIdiff = −0.19, 0.03, paired samples
t(423) = −1.39, p = 0.17, d = −0.07), to feel vs. express worry (Mdiff = 0.05, 95CIdiff = −0.04,
0.14, paired samples t(424) = 1.16, p = 0.25, d = 0.06), or to feel vs. express calm (Mdiff = 0.00,
95CIdiff = −0.09, 0.10, paired samples t(423) = 0.05, p = 0.96, d = 0.00).
Participants reported a stronger preference for partners to feel (vs. express) more pride
(Mdiff = 0.11, 95CIdiff = 0.03, 0.20, paired samples t(424) = 2.58, p = 0.010, d = 0.13), more
hope (Mdiff = 0.13, 95CIdiff = 0.05, 0.20, paired samples t(424) = 3.28, p = 0.001, d = 0.16), and
more calm (Mdiff = 0.16, 95CIdiff = 0.08, 0.24, paired samples t(424) = 4.05, p < 0.001, d = 0.16)
than themselves in positive situations. Participants did not differ in their preference for
partners to feel vs. express excitement (Mdiff = 0.06, 95CIdiff = −0.03, 0.14, paired samples
t(424) = 1.36, p = 0.18, d = 0.07).
Aim 1: Preferences for partners’ emotional responses to one’s own stressful situations.
We examined whether participants’ attachment orientation was associated with their
preferences for partners’ emotional responses, relative to their own emotional responses,
during the participants’ stressful situations (Table 3).

Table 3. Main effect and interaction of attachment anxiety and avoidance on preferences for partners’
felt and expressed emotions when providing support in stressful situations.

B SE t p 95CI
Partner Feels Distress
Step 1
Intercept −0.72 0.08 −9.62 <0.001 −0.86, −0.57
Attachment anxiety 0.55 0.09 6.30 <0.001 0.38, 0.73
Attachment avoidance −0.01 0.09 −0.07 0.95 −0.18, 0.17
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.24 0.08 3.07 0.002 0.09, 0.39
Partner Feels Worry
Step 1
Intercept −0.66 0.07 −9.28 <0.001 −0.80, −0.52
Attachment anxiety 0.39 0.08 4.59 <0.001 0.22, 0.55
Attachment avoidance 0.07 0.08 0.83 0.41 −0.10, 0.24
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.14 0.07 1.91 0.06 −0.00, 0.29
Partner Feels Calm
Step 1
Intercept 1.02 0.07 14.92 <0.001 0.88, 1.15
Attachment anxiety −0.06 0.08 −0.80 0.43 −0.22, 0.09
Attachment avoidance −0.08 0.08 −0.93 0.35 −0.23, 0.08
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.07 0.07 1.02 0.31 −0.07, 0.21
Partner Feels Hope
Step 1
Intercept 1.30 0.06 22.56 <0.001 1.19, 1.42
Attachment anxiety −0.02 0.07 −0.36 0.72 −0.16, 0.11
Attachment avoidance −0.20 0.07 −2.90 0.004 −0.33, −0.06
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.11 0.06 1.88 0.06 −0.01, 0.23
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 8 of 17

Table 3. Cont.

B SE t p 95CI
Partner Expresses Distress
Step 1
Intercept −0.64 0.08 −8.53 <0.001 −0.79, −0.49
Attachment anxiety 0.41 0.09 4.69 <0.001 0.24, 0.59
Attachment avoidance −0.09 0.09 −1.06 0.29 −0.27, 0.08
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.02 0.08 0.24 0.81 −0.13, 0.17
Partner Expresses Worry
Step 1
Intercept −0.71 0.07 −9.81 <0.001 −0.85, −0.57
Attachment anxiety 0.32 0.09 3.69 <0.001 0.15, 0.48
Attachment avoidance 0.11 0.09 1.22 0.22 −0.06, 0.27
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.17 0.08 2.27 0.02 0.02, 0.32
Partner Expresses Calm
Step 1
Intercept 1.01 0.07 14.16 <0.001 0.87, 1.15
Attachment anxiety −0.21 0.08 −2.52 0.012 −0.38, −0.05
Attachment avoidance −0.03 0.08 −0.41 0.68 −0.20, 0.13
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.08 0.07 1.04 0.30 −0.07, 0.22
Partner Expresses Hope
Step 1
Intercept 1.19 0.07 17.51 <0.001 1.06, 1.32
Attachment anxiety 0.03 0.08 0.33 0.74 −0.13, 0.19
Attachment avoidance −0.22 0.08 −2.76 0.006 −0.38, −0.06
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.96 −0.13, 0.14

Consistent with Hypothesis 1a, participants with higher attachment anxiety preferred
their partners to feel and express more distress, to feel and express more worry, and
to express less calm relative to themselves during the participants’ stressful situations.
Contrary to Hypothesis 1a, attachment anxiety was not associated with preferences for
partners to feel calm, feel hope, or express hope during stressful situations.
Consistent with Hypothesis 1b, participants with higher attachment avoidance pre-
ferred their partners to feel and express less hope relative to themselves during the par-
ticipants’ stressful situations. Contrary to Hypothesis 1b, attachment avoidance was not
associated with preferences for partners to feel or express distress, worry, or calm during
stressful situations.
Next, we tested the interaction of attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance on pref-
erences for partners’ emotional responses during the participants’ stressful situations. We
observed interactions of attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance predicting preferences
for partners to feel distress and express worry during the participants’ stressful situations.
Examination of marginal slopes for attachment anxiety at low and high levels of attachment
avoidance in Figure 1 indicated that: (A) attachment anxiety was more strongly associated
with the preference for partners to feel more distress (relative to themselves) during stress-
ful situations when participants also had higher levels of attachment avoidance (fearful
avoidance) (b = 0.79, SE = 0.12, t = 6.82, p < 0.001, 95CI = 0.56, 1.01) than when participants
had lower levels of attachment avoidance (preoccupied attachment) (b = 0.32, SE = 0.12,
t = 2.71, p = 0.007, 95CI = 0.09, 0.55); and (B) attachment anxiety was associated with the
preference for partners to express more worry (relative to themselves) during stressful situ-
ations when participants also had higher levels of attachment avoidance (fearful avoidance)
(b = 0.48, SE = 0.11, t = 4.29, p < 0.001, 95CI = 0.26, 0.71) but not when participants had
 avoidance (fearful avoidance) (b = 0.79, SE = 0.12, t = 6.82, p < 0.001, 95CI = 0.56, 1.01) than
when participants had lower levels of attachment avoidance (preoccupied attachment) (b
= 0.32, SE = 0.12, t = 2.71, p = 0.007, 95CI = 0.09, 0.55); and (B) attachment anxiety was
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 associated with the preference for partners to express more worry (relative to themselves) 9 of 17
during stressful situations when participants also had higher levels of attachment avoid-
ance (fearful avoidance) (b = 0.48, SE = 0.11, t = 4.29, p < 0.001, 95CI = 0.26, 0.71) but not
when
lowerparticipants had lower
levels of attachment levels of(preoccupied
avoidance attachment avoidance (preoccupied
attachment) (b = 0.14, SEattachment) (b
= 0.11, t = 1.26,
=p0.14, SE = 0.11, t = 1.26, p
= 0.21, 95CI = −0.08, 0.37).= 0.21, 95CI = −0.08, 0.37).

Interaction plots
Figure1.1.Interaction
Figure plots showing
showing preferences
preferences for
forpartners
partnerstotofeel
feeldistress
distress(A)
(A)and
andexpress worry
express (B)
worry
during stressful situations by attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance.
(B) during stressful situations by attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance.

Therewas
There wasnonointeraction
interactionof
ofparticipants’
participants’ attachment anxiety ××attachment
attachment anxiety attachmentavoidance
avoidance
predicting preferences for partners’ other felt or expressed emotions.
predicting preferences for partners’ other felt or expressed emotions.
Aim2:2:Preferences
Aim Preferencesfor
forpartners’
partners’emotional
emotionalresponses
responsestotoone’s
one’sown
ownpositive
positivesituations.
situations.
Weexamined
We examinedwhether
whetherparticipants’
participants’attachment
attachmentorientation
orientationwas
wasassociated
associatedwith
withtheir
their
preferences for partners’ emotional responses, relative to their own emotional
preferences for partners’ emotional responses, relative to their own emotional responses, responses,
duringthe
during theparticipants’
participants’positive
positivesituations
situations(Table
(Table4).
4).
Consistent with Hypothesis 2a, participants with higher attachment anxiety preferred
their partners to feel and express more excitement, to feel and express more pride, and
to feel more hope than themselves during positive situations. Contrary to Hypothesis 2a,
attachment anxiety was not associated with preferences for partners to feel calm, express
calm, or express hope during positive situations.
Consistent with Hypothesis 2b, participants with higher attachment avoidance pre-
ferred their partners to feel and express less excitement, less pride, and less hope than
themselves during the participants’ positive situations. Contrary to Hypothesis 2b, attach-
ment avoidance was not associated with preferences for partners to feel calm or express
calm during positive situations.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 10 of 17

Table 4. Main effect and interaction of attachment anxiety and avoidance on preferences for partners’
felt and expressed emotions (relative to one’s own emotions) when providing support in positive
situations.

B SE t p 95CI
Partner Feels Excitement
Step 1
Intercept 0.81 0.06 13.99 <0.001 0.70, 0.93
Attachment anxiety 0.27 0.07 3.97 <0.001 0.14, 0.41
Attachment avoidance −0.17 0.07 −2.43 0.016 −0.30, −0.03
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.15 0.06 2.55 0.011 0.04, 0.27
Partner Feels Proud
Step 1
Intercept 1.05 0.06 18.40 <0.001 0.94, 1.16
Attachment anxiety 0.30 0.07 4.41 <0.001 0.17, 0.43
Attachment avoidance −0.15 0.07 −2.25 0.025 −0.28, −0.02
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.17 0.06 2.86 0.004 0.05, 0.28
Partner Feels Hope
Step 1
Intercept 0.98 0.06 17.32 <0.001 0.87, 1.09
Attachment anxiety 0.28 0.07 4.13 <0.001 0.14, 0.41
Attachment avoidance −0.29 0.07 −4.35 <0.001 −0.42, −0.16
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.09 0.06 1.53 0.13 −0.03, 0.20
Partner Feels Calm
Step 1
Intercept 0.21 0.06 3.39 <0.001 0.09, 0.33
Attachment anxiety 0.12 0.07 1.67 0.10 −0.02, 0.27
Attachment avoidance 0.09 0.07 1.26 0.21 −0.05, 0.24
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.21 0.06 3.35 <0.001 0.09, 0.34
Partner Expresses Excitement
Step 1
Intercept 0.76 0.06 12.34 <0.001 0.64, 0.88
Attachment anxiety 0.19 0.07 2.63 0.009 0.05, 0.33
Attachment avoidance −0.21 0.07 −2.94 0.004 −0.36, −0.07
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.14 0.06 2.25 0.025 0.02, 0.27
Partner Expresses Pride
Step 1
Intercept 0.94 0.06 15.28 <0.001 0.82, 1.06
Attachment anxiety 0.15 0.07 2.01 0.046 0.00, 0.29
Attachment avoidance −0.26 0.07 −3.62 <0.001 −0.41, −0.12
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.03 0.06 .41 0.68 −0.10, 0.15
Partner Expresses Hope
Step 1
Intercept 0.85 0.06 14.14 <0.001 0.73, 0.97
Attachment anxiety 0.08 0.07 1.13 0.26 −0.06, 0.22
Attachment avoidance −0.27 0.07 −3.78 <0.001 −0.41, −0.13
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.09 0.06 1.50 0.13 −0.03, 0.22
Partner Expresses Calm
Step 1
Intercept 0.05 0.06 0.85 0.40 −0.07, 0.16
Attachment anxiety 0.05 0.07 0.73 0.47 −0.09, 0.19
Attachment avoidance 0.02 0.07 0.23 0.82 −0.12, 0.15
Step 2
Attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance 0.17 0.06 2.91 0.004 0.06, 0.29

Next, we tested the interaction of attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance on

preferences for partners’ emotional responses during the participants’ positive situations.
We observed interactions of attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance predicting prefer-
 themselves during the participants’ positive situations. Contrary to Hypothesis 2b, attach-
ment avoidance was not associated with preferences for partners to feel calm or express
calm during positive situations.
Next, we tested the interaction of attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance on pref-
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 erences for partners’ emotional responses during the participants’ positive situations. We
11 of 17
observed interactions of attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance predicting prefer-
ences for partners to feel and express excitement, to feel and express calm, and to feel
pride. Examination
ences for partners toof marginal
feel slopes
and express for attachment
excitement, anxiety
to feel and at low
express and
calm, andhigh levels
to feel of
pride.
attachment avoidance in Figure 2 indicated that each of these interactions followed
Examination of marginal slopes for attachment anxiety at low and high levels of attachment a sim-
ilar pattern.in Figure 2 indicated that each of these interactions followed a similar pattern.
avoidance

Figure
Figure 2.2.Interaction plots
Interaction showing
plots preferences
showing for partners
preferences to feeltoexcitement
for partners (A), express
feel excitement excite-
(A), express
ment (B), feel calm (C), express calm (D), and feel pride (E) during positive situations by attachment
excitement (B), feel calm (C), express calm (D), and feel pride (E) during positive situations by
anxiety and attachment avoidance.
attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance.

When participants had

When participants hadhigh
highattachment
attachmentavoidance,
avoidance,higher
higher attachment
attachment anxiety
anxiety waswas
as-
associated with the preference for partners to feel more excitement (b = 0.42, SE
sociated with the preference for partners to feel more excitement (b = 0.42, SE = 0.09,= 0.09, p<
p < 0.001, 95CI = 0.25, 0.60), express more excitement (b = 0.33, SE = 0.10, p = 0.001,
95CI = 0.14, 0.52), feel more calm (b = 0.33, SE = 0.10, p = 0.001, 95CI = 0.14, 0.52), ex-
press more calm (b = 0.22, SE = 0.09, p = 0.014, 95CI = 0.05, 0.40), and feel more pride
than themselves during the participants’ positive situations (b = 0.33, SE = 0.10, p = 0.001,
95CI = 0.14, 0.52).
When participants had low attachment avoidance, higher attachment anxiety was not
associated with the preference for partners to feel excitement (b = 0.12, SE = 0.09, p = 0.20,
95CI = −0.06, 0.30), express excitement (b = 0.05, SE = 0.10, p = 0.63, 95CI = −0.14, 0.24), feel
calm (b = −0.09, SE = 0.10, p = 0.34, 95CI = −0.28, 0.10), express calm (b = −0.13, SE = 0.09,
p = 0.17, 95CI = −30, 0.05), or feel pride (relative to themselves) during the participants’
positive situations (b = 0.13, SE = 0.09, p = 0.15, 95CI = −0.05, 0.30).
There was no interaction of participants’ attachment anxiety × attachment avoidance
predicting preferences for partners to express pride, feel hope, or express hope.

6. Discussion
To our knowledge, this study was the first to investigate preferences for partners’
emotional responses to one’s own stressful and positive situations relative to one’s own
emotional responses in these situations. This design facilitated interpretation of these
preferences in terms of whether they reflected a desire for partners’ emotional responses
to amplify, dampen, or maintain individuals’ own emotions in each context. Overall, we
found that participants preferred for their partners to dampen their negative emotions
in stressful contexts and to amplify their positive emotions in both stressful and positive
contexts. We found evidence for most hypothesized associations of attachment orientation
and preferences for partners’ emotional responses in each context. Compared to securely
attached individuals, anxiously attached individuals preferred their partners to feel and
express more negative emotions in stressful situations and more positive emotions in
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 12 of 17

positive situations, while avoidantly attached individuals preferred their partners to feel
and express less positive emotions in both stressful situations and positive situations. We
also found that individuals with high anxiety and high avoidance (i.e., fearful avoidance)
preferred their partners to feel and express more negative emotions in stressful situations
and fewer positive emotions in positive situations, whereas individuals with high avoidance
and low anxiety (i.e., avoidant dismissing) preferred their partners to feel and express less
positive emotions in positive situations. These findings provide a greater understanding of
the emotion regulation strategies that individuals prefer to use in their close relationships
and how these preferences are shaped by our general attachment working models.

6.1. Preferences about Partners’ Emotional Responses to Stressful Situations

Overall, participants preferred their partners to feel and express less distress, less
worry, more calm, and more hope than themselves during stressful situations. This suggests
that individuals generally wanted their partners to serve as a safe haven that helped them to
dampen their negative emotions and amplify their positive emotions in stressful contexts.
Hypothesis 1a was supported. Anxiously attached individuals preferred their partners
to feel and express more distress, more worry, and less hope during their own stressful
situations. These observations are consistent with attachment theory’s description of
anxiously attached individuals as strongly desiring their partner’s validation and approval.
Because anxiously attached individuals tend to experience hyperactivation of their own
negative emotions in stressful contexts [2], it is possible that these preferences reflect a
desire for partners to respond in a way that validates their hyperactivated negative affect
and confirms their negative mental representations of themselves and others [25].
Hypothesis 1b was partially supported. Avoidantly attached individuals preferred
for their partners to feel and express less hope during their own stressful situations. These
preferences are consistent with earlier studies suggesting that attachment avoidance is
associated with lower optimism and more catastrophic appraisals of potential threats [15].
Contrary to our initial hypothesis, attachment avoidance was not associated with pref-
erences for partners to feel or express distress or worry during stressful situations. This
was surprising given attachment theory’s description of avoidantly attached individuals
as being motivated to deactivate their emotions and attachment needs during stressful
situations [2]. One possible reason that this hypothesis was not supported is because we
observed an interaction of attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety indicating that
it was the combination of high attachment avoidance and high attachment anxiety (i.e.,
fearful avoidance) that was associated with a stronger preference for partners to feel more
distress and express more worry during one’s own stressful situations. This observation is
consistent with theoretical descriptions of individuals with a fearful-avoidant attachment
orientation as engaging in “incoherent” coping strategies that tend to reflect their extreme
dysregulation during stressful situations [26]. It is also consistent with theoretical descrip-
tions of fearful-avoidant individuals as being worried about potential signs of rejection
from close others [27].

6.2. Preferences about Partners’ Emotional Responses to Positive Situations

Overall, participants preferred their partners to feel and express more excitement,
pride, and hope than themselves during positive situations. This suggests that individu-
als generally wanted their partners to serve as a catalyst or secure base for exploration,
encouraging their embracing of opportunities and challenges [28]. These preferences
are also consistent with the broad literature demonstrating the benefits of interpersonal
capitalization in romantic relationships [29].
Hypotheses 2a and 2b were supported. During their own positive situations, anxiously
attached individuals preferred their partners to feel and express more excitement, pride,
and hope, while avoidantly attached individuals preferred their partners to feel and express
less excitement, pride, and hope. These preferences are consistent with earlier theoretical
descriptions of anxiously attached individuals as desiring their partner’s validation and
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 13 of 17

approval and of avoidantly attached individuals as wanting to deactivate their emotions

and attachment needs [3,27]. They are also consistent with earlier research showing that
partners’ capitalization attempts elicit less favorable responses from avoidantly attached
individuals and ambivalent responses (i.e., involving feelings of both appreciation and
indebtedness) from anxiously attached individuals [29]. Findings for avoidantly attached
individuals support earlier work suggesting that attachment avoidance may interfere with
the experience of pride in response to a partner’s positive events. Specifically, Mikulincer
and Shaver [30] posited that avoidantly attached individuals may experience hubris or
hostile envy in response to a partner’s positive events instead of the normative experience
of pride.
We also observed interactions of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. The
combination of high anxiety and high avoidance (i.e., fearful avoidance) was associated
with preferences for partners to feel and express more calm in positive situations, while the
combination of low anxiety and high avoidance (i.e., avoidant dismissing) was associated
with preferences for partners to feel less pride and to feel and express less excitement
in positive situations. These observations are consistent with theoretical descriptions of
fearful-avoidant individuals and avoidant-dismissing individuals as engaging in coping
strategies that are focused on deactivating their emotions and their attachment needs. In
theory, these preferences may serve the respective interpersonal and emotion regulation
goals of avoidant-dismissing individuals, who are primarily motivated to maintain their
autonomy and independence, and fearful-avoidant individuals, who desire closeness with
their partners but also fear their potential rejection [27].

6.3. Broader Theoretical Contributions

This study provides insight into the types of emotional support that are most desired by
different individuals. Our results suggest several novel hypotheses about the effectiveness
of different emotional support strategies in stressful and positive situations and how
this may differ by general attachment orientation. First, they suggest that individuals
will feel most supported in stressful situations when partners dampen their negative
emotions; however, this strategy will be less effective for individuals with higher attachment
anxiety. Second, they suggest that individuals will feel most supported in positive situations
when partners amplify their positive emotions; this strategy will be more effective for
individuals with higher attachment anxiety but less effective for individuals with higher
attachment avoidance.
Our findings are consistent with Collins and Allard’s [25] assertion that a core function
of our attachment working models is to guide our emotional response patterns and how
we think about ourselves and others. These findings also raise additional theoretical
questions about whether individuals will feel more supported when there is a match
between their stated preferences and their partners’ actual emotional responses to stressful
and positive situations. Indeed, it is possible that individuals’ preferences accurately reflect
the emotional responses that would help them to feel most supported in each context.
However, it is equally plausible that these preferences are not necessarily adaptive and
instead a reflection of an individual’s general working models of the self and others that
developed based on their earlier experiences in close relationships—regardless of whether
these models are accurate or adaptive in their current relationship. Consistent with the latter
possibility, we found that the emotional responses that anxiously and avoidantly attached
individuals preferred from their partners tended to mirror the ways that these individuals
respond themselves in stressful and positive situations. For example, anxiously attached
individuals, who tend to experience hyperactivation of their own negative emotions during
their stressful situations, also preferred for partners to feel and express more distress/worry
in these situations. Future observational and experimental studies are needed to disentangle
these possibilities by testing whether the individual or dyad benefits when there is a match
between individuals’ preferred and received partner emotional responses in each context.
Insecure individuals, in particular, may benefit from partners who assist them in regulating
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 14 of 17

their emotions by dampening negative emotions in stressful contexts and by amplifying

positive emotions in positive contexts.
Finally, our questionnaire asked participants to differentiate between their preferences
for their partners to feel and express emotions. Although the experience and expression
of emotions are distinct from a theoretical perspective [31], we did not observe a strong
empirical distinction between preferences for partners to feel and express emotions in our
study. We measured these preferences separately to account for the possibility that some
participants might prefer for their partners to regulate their emotional expressions (i.e.,
to outwardly exaggerate or downplay their inner feelings) or that dimensions of attach-
ment insecurity would have different associations with preferences for felt and expressed
emotions. However, we observed strong correlations between preferences for partners to
feel and express specific emotions in each context and found similar associations between
attachment orientation and preferences for partners to feel and express specific emotions in
each context. One possible reason why we did not observe a stronger distinction between
felt and expressed emotions is because our self-report assessment approach was suboptimal
for distinguishing between these preferences. As suggested by the strong correlations of
felt and expressed emotions and their similar associations with attachment orientation, it
is possible that our participants had trouble distinguishing between preferences for their
partners’ outward emotional expressions and internal emotional experiences. Future obser-
vational studies that assess felt and expressed emotions in both relationship partners could
help to distinguish between the impact of partners’ emotional expressions and emotional
experiences in these support contexts. Studies assessing relationship partners’ physio-
logical reactivity and physiological synchrony during specific support interactions may
also be helpful for addressing these questions [32]. Studies that assess partners’ emotional
expressions using observer ratings could also help to distinguish between the impact of felt
and expressed emotions on perceived supportiveness and relationship outcomes.

6.4. Strengths, Limitations, and Conclusions

Strengths of our study include its investigation of a novel theoretical question based
on the predictions of attachment theory in a relatively large and diverse sample of adults in
the United States. However, there are also several limitations of this work that represent
opportunities for future investigation. First, participants were asked to report how they pre-
ferred their partners to respond emotionally in stressful and positive situations. Although
self-report methods are important for assessing preferences, the extent to which partici-
pants are willing or able to accurately report these preferences is unknown and should be
investigated. For example, a future study could aim to replicate these associations by exper-
imentally manipulating how partners respond to disclosures about stressful and positive
events in a laboratory discussion. Future research in this area could also examine whether
manipulating felt attachment security, such as by using attachment security priming, im-
pacts preferences for partners’ felt or expressed emotions in these contexts. Other future
work could comprehensively assess felt and expressed emotions and preferences regarding
own and partner emotions from both the disclosing and responding partners, as well as
observer ratings of both partners’ emotional expressions, during real-time interactions in
the laboratory. Second, our measures asked participants how they preferred their partners
to feel and express emotions relative to their own feelings and expressions of emotions.
However, it is likely that attachment orientation also influences one’s own emotional re-
sponses to stressful and positive events [21]. For example, people with higher attachment
avoidance may express lower amounts of hope during positive situations and also prefer
that their partners express even less hope than that. Future studies could disentangle this
by measuring preferences for partners’ emotions on an absolute measurement scale that is
not relative to one’s own emotional feelings and expressions (e.g., assessing preferences for
partners’ expressed hope using anchors of not at all and extremely). Third, we prompted
participants to reflect on times when they have discussed stressful and positive events with
their romantic partner. However, it is unknown whether the types or intensity of events
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 15 of 17

recalled by participants was impacted by their attachment orientation. For example, future
studies are needed to test the alternative possibility that anxiously attached individuals
preferred their partners to feel more distress because they recalled more intense stressful
events than securely attached individuals [10,21]. Future studies could also address this
limitation by including measures to assess the type and intensity of events recalled by each
participant and statistically controlling for these characteristics.
Overall, these findings contribute to research on attachment theory and interpersonal
emotion regulation by demonstrating that attachment insecurity shapes how individu-
als prefer to regulate their emotions in close relationships in two theoretically important
contexts. In general, we observed that anxiously attached individuals’ preferences were
consistent with a desire for their partners’ validation and approval, whereas avoidantly
attached individuals’ preferences were consistent with a desire to deactivate their emo-
tions and attachment needs. Future research is needed to establish the types of partner
emotional responses that will most benefit individuals during their stressful and positive
life contexts and over time. Moreover, there is a general need for continued research on
preferences for how partners listen and respond to different types of self-disclosures in
close relationships [33].

6.5. Constraints on Generality

The main boundary condition of this research is its examination of adults from the
United States who mostly identified as White or Asian. It is unknown whether similar asso-
ciations of attachment orientation and preferences for partners’ emotional responses would
be observed among adults of other nationalities, cultures, or racial/ethnic backgrounds.
Because an earlier review found significant evidence for variation in social support pro-
cesses (e.g., perceptions of various behaviors as supportive) between individualist and
collectivist cultures [34], it will be especially important for future research to evaluate
the generalizability of our findings to individuals from more collectivist cultures than the
United States. A second potential boundary condition of this research is that our data
were collected online in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and close relationships, the historical specificity of
our observed effects is also unknown. A final potential boundary condition of this research
is that our outcome was assessed using newly developed prompts and questionnaires.
Certain aspects of these prompts and questionnaires may influence the generalizability
of our findings. For example, it is possible that we might have observed more varied
associations between attachment orientation and preferences for partners to feel vs. express
emotions if this distinction had been made clearer in our prompt. In addition, we assessed
individuals’ preferences for their partners to feel and express theoretically relevant positive
and negative emotions in each context; it is unknown whether the observed associations
would generalize to other types of positive and negative emotions that were not assessed
in this study.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.N.C., L.K., S.M.P. and B.C.F.; formal analysis, B.N.C.;
methodology, B.N.C., L.K., S.M.P. and B.C.F.; writing—original draft, B.N.C.; writing—review
and editing, L.K., S.M.P. and B.C.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was partially supported by a small undergraduate research grant for a senior
honors thesis project conducted at Carnegie Mellon University, and by a faculty completion grant
from the dean of faculty office at Trinity College awarded to the first author.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was conducted according to the guidelines of
the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Carnegie Mellon
University in 2019 with protocol code STUDY2019_00000486.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in
this study.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 16 of 17

Data Availability Statement: The data and analysis code for this study are available at: https:
//osf.io/nkmbw/?view_only=bb9aa20a40fc4e26a89866ed7b264efc.
Conflicts of Interest: All authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Feeney, B.C.; Collins, N.L. A New Look at Social Support. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2015, 19, 113–147. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Mikulincer, M.; Shaver, P.R. Attachment orientations and emotion regulation. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2019, 25, 6–10. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
3. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1 Attachment, 2nd ed.; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1982.
4. Ainsworth, M.S. Infant–mother attachment. Am. Psychol. 1979, 34, 932–937. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Cassidy, J. Emotion Regulation: Influences of Attachment Relationships. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 1994, 59, 228–249. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
6. Cassidy, J.; Berlin, L.J. The Insecure/Ambivalent Pattern of Attachment: Theory and Research. Child Dev. 1994, 65, 971. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
7. Collins, N.L.; Read, S.J. Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1990,
58, 644–663. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Cassidy, J.; Kobak, R.R. Avoidance and its relation to other defensive processes. In Clinical Implications of Attachment; Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1988; pp. 300–323.
9. Mikulincer, M.; Orbach, I. Attachment styles and repressive defensiveness: The accessibility and architecture of affective memories.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 68, 917–925. [CrossRef]
10. Hudson, N.W.; Chopik, W.J. Seeing you reminds me of things that never happened: Attachment anxiety predicts false memories
when people can see the communicator. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2023, 124, 396–412. [CrossRef]
11. Hudson, N.W.; Fraley, R.C. Does attachment anxiety promote the encoding of false memories? An investigation of the processes
linking adult attachment to memory errors. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 115, 688–715. [CrossRef]
12. Reynolds, S.; Searight, R.; Ratwik, S. Adult attachment styles and rumination in the context of intimate relationships. N. Am. J.
Psychol. 2014, 16, 495–506.
13. Silva, C.; Soares, I.; Esteves, F. Attachment insecurity and strategies for regulation: When emotion triggers attention. Scand. J.
Psychol. 2012, 53, 9–16. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Fraley, R.C.; Shaver, P.R. Adult attachment and the suppression of unwanted thoughts. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 73, 1080–1091.
[CrossRef]
15. Mikulincer, M.; Shaver, P.R. Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change, 2nd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2016.
16. Simpson, J.A.; Winterheld, H.A.; Rholes, W.S.; Oriña, M.M. Working models of attachment and reactions to different forms of
caregiving from romantic partners. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 93, 466–477. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Mikulincer, M.; Shaver, P.R. Adult Attachment and Happiness: Individual Differences in the Experience and Consequences of Positive
Emotions; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013. [CrossRef]
18. Magai, C.; Hunziker, J.; Mesias, W.; Culver, L.C. Adult attachment styles and emotional biases. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2000, 24, 301–309.
[CrossRef]
19. Spangler, G.; Zimmermann, P. Attachment representation and emotion regulation in adolescents: A psychobiological perspective
on internal working models. Attach. Hum. Dev. 1999, 1, 270–290. [CrossRef]
20. Sonnby-Borgstrom, M.; Jonsson, P. Models-of-self and models-of-others as related to facial muscle reactions at different levels of
cognitive control. Scand. J. Psychol. 2003, 44, 141–151. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Gentzler, A.; Kerns, K. Adult attachment and memory of emotional reactions to negative and positive events. Cogn. Emot. 2006,
20, 20–42. [CrossRef]
22. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.-G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral,
and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [CrossRef]
23. Brennan, K.A.; Clark, C.L.; Shaver, P.R. Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Attachment
Theory and Close Relationships; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 46–76.
24. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed.; Guilford
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
25. Collins, N.L.; Allard, L.M. Cognitive representations of attachment: The content and function of working models. In Blackwell
Handbook of Social Psychology: Interpersonal Processes; Blackwell Publishers Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2001; Volume 2, pp. 60–85.
26. Simpson, J.A.; Rholes, W.S. Fearful-avoidance, disorganization, and multiple working models: Some directions for future theory
and research. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2002, 4, 223–229. [CrossRef]
27. Collins, N.L. Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 71,
810–832. [CrossRef]
28. Feeney, B.C.; Van Vleet, M.; Jakubiak, B.K.; Tomlinson, J.M. Predicting the Pursuit and Support of Challenging Life Opportunities.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2017, 43, 1171–1187. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 77 17 of 17

29. Peters, B.J.; Reis, H.T.; Gable, S.L. Making the good even better: A review and theoretical model of interpersonal capitalization.
Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 2018, 12, e12407. [CrossRef]
30. Mikulincer, M.; Shaver, P.R. Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics
of emotional reactions to relational events. Pers. Relatsh. 2005, 12, 149–168. [CrossRef]
31. Simpson, J.A.; Collins, W.A.; Tran, S.; Haydon, K.C. Attachment and the experience and expression of emotions in romantic
relationships: A developmental perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 92, 355–367. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Butler, E.A.; Randall, A.K. Emotional Coregulation in Close Relationships. Emot. Rev. 2013, 5, 202–210. [CrossRef]
33. Itzchakov, G.; Reis, H.T. Listening and perceived responsiveness: Unveiling the significance and exploring crucial research
endeavors. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2023, 53, 101662. [CrossRef]
34. Wu, D.C.; Kim, H.S.; Collins, N.L. Perceived responsiveness across cultures: The role of cultural fit in social support use. Soc. Pers.
Psychol. Compass 2021, 15, e12634. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.