Emotion © 2020 American Psychological Association ISSN: 1528-3542 2021, Vol. 21, No. 2, 260 –272 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000721 Infants’ Attachment Insecurity Predicts Attachment-Relevant Emotion Regulation Strategies in Adulthood Yuthika U. Girme Rachael E. Jones, Cory Fleck, and Jeffry A. Simpson Simon Fraser University This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. University of Minnesota Nickola C. Overall University of Auckland Infant attachment is theorized to lay the foundation of emotion regulation across the life span. However, testing this proposition requires prospective designs examining whether attachment assessed in infancy predicts emotion regulation strategies observed in adult relationships. Using unique data from the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation, we examined whether infant attachment assessed at 12 and 18 months in the Strange Situation were associated with attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies coded from video-recorded conflict discussions with romantic partners at ages 20, 23, 26, and/or 35. The current research first integrated the developmental and emotion regulation literatures to identify three specific attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies. Balanced-regulation involves being open, approach-orientated, and engaging in collaborative problem-solving. Hypo-regulation involves suppressing emotions, disengaging from close others, and engaging in superficial problemsolving. Hyper-regulation involves exaggerating emotional expressions, ruminating, and being selffocused in processing issues. Compared to stable secure infants (secure at 12 and 18 months), stable insecure infants (insecure at 12 and 18 months) displayed worse balanced-regulation and greater hypo-regulation strategies, and unstable insecure infants (insecure at 12 or 18 months) displayed greater hyper-regulation strategies, in relationship-threatening situations 20 –35 years later. Conceptually replicating these results, greater friendship insecurity at age 16 predicted worse balanced-regulation and greater hypo- and hyper-regulation strategies during relationship-threatening situations in adulthood. These findings highlight that infant attachment insecurity is associated with distinct emotion regulation strategies in adulthood 20 –35 years later. Keywords: attachment insecurity, emotion regulation, infant attachment Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000721.supp prospectively predicts theoretically relevant patterns of emotion regulation in adulthood. This is a significant gap in our knowledge given that better emotion regulation is crucial for wellbeing (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010; Chervonsky & Hunt, 2017). In the current research, we integrate theoretical perspectives in the attachment literature (Cassidy, 1994; Main, 1990; Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003) with evidence from the developmental and emotion regulation literatures (Naragon-Gainey, McMahon, & Chacko, 2017; Pallini et al., 2018) to identify attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies (see Table 1). We then use existing data from a unique longitudinal study to test whether infant attachment insecurity prospectively predicts these attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies in relationship threatening situations in adulthood 20 –35 years later. Does infant attachment provide the foundation for emotion regulation behavior in adulthood? Attachment theory postulates that early life experiences with caregivers shape the way people will regulate their emotions in threatening situations in adulthood (Bowlby, 1973; Bretherton & Munholland, 2008; Cassidy, 1994; Main, 1990; Marvin, Britner, & Russell, 2016). Despite the major influence of attachment theory in understanding adult social behavior, no prior research has established whether infant attachment This article was published Online First January 9, 2020. X Yuthika U. Girme, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University; Rachael E. Jones, Cory Fleck, and X Jeffry A. Simpson, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota; X Nickola C. Overall, School of Psychology, University of Auckland. This research was supported by National Institute of Aging Grant AG039453 (Jeffry A. Simpson, PI). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yuthika U. Girme, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A1S6, Canada. E-mail: ygirme@sfu.ca Theoretical Perspectives Linking Attachment Insecurity and Emotion Regulation Strategies A core tenet of attachment theory is that caregivers act as a safe haven that help calm infants when distressed and act as a secure 260 INFANT ATTACHMENT AND ADULT EMOTION REGULATION 261 Table 1 Attachment-Relevant Emotion Regulation Strategies Identified by Integrating Theoretical Perspectives in the Attachment Literature and Evidence From the Emotion Regulation Literature This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Emotion regulation strategies in adulthood identified by attachment theory Emotion regulation strategies in adulthood based on meta-analysis Attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies in adult conflict interactions Coregulation strategies: seeking proximity to close others in constructive and adaptive ways, and trusting that close others will provide responsive support Adaptive engagement: problemsolving and behaviors that involve reappraising or accepting negative events/outcomes Deactivating strategies: suppressing/ minimizing negative emotions to limit the hurt and disappointment that is expected to occur when depending on close others Disengagement: attempting to avoid or shift focus from an emotionally-relevant situation by using distraction, expressive suppression, or disengagement to minimize the impact of negative feelings Hyperactivating strategies: exacerbating negative emotional expressions and dependence on close others to reestablish and maintain others’ attention and care Aversive cognitive perseveration: over-engagement with, or difficulty disengaging from, negative thoughts/feelings by ruminating, worrying, or avoiding negative experiences Balanced-regulation: Balanced emotion: open, comfortable and self-assured expression and acknowledgment of emotions/feelings Collaborative engagement: accepting joint responsibilities, encouraging the partner’s contribution to problem-solving, and operating as a team Approach-oriented problem-solving: constructive, direct efforts to move forward and solve the problem without dwelling on the causes and consequences Hypo-regulation: Hypo-emotion expression: emotional elements of communication are muted and individual attempts to suppress or conceal his/her emotions Avoidance/disengagement: lack of engagement and dismissing approach to the problem Superficial problem-solving: communication and any problem-solving is superficial, lacks depth, and “skims the surface” Hyper-regulation: Hyper emotion expression: exaggerated emotional expressions and pulling emotions from the partner Ruminative problem engagement: fixating on and amplifying the symptoms, causes and consequences of the problem, and one’s own thoughts/feelings Self-focused orientation: focusing on own desires and needs, such as being heard and cared for by the partner base for infants to return to safe exploration of their environment. Early theoretical perspectives have suggested that infants develop automatic and unconscious behavioral strategies in response to different types of caregiving experiences they receive (Main, 1990), and one such strategy involves how infants regulate their emotions (Cassidy, 1994; also see Cassidy & Berlin, 1994). For example, securely attached infants have generally received responsive care, which leads them to believe that close others will be available and responsive in future interactions (Bowlby, 1973). Secure infants are theorized to demonstrate open and flexible emotion expression that allows them to signal their needs to their caregiver freely and directly, and, upon being calmed, return to play and exploration (Cassidy, 1994). In adulthood, security and trust in others’ availability should result in coregulation strategies during times of need, which involve seeking proximity to close others and engaging in open emotional expression to soothe any distress and allow engagement in adaptive problem solving (see Table 1; Mikulincer et al., 2003; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). Insecurely attached infants, conversely, have typically received poorer caregiving thereby fostering negative expectations of others and the self that lead them to develop different emotion regulation strategies (Bowlby, 1973; Cassidy, 1994; Main, 1990). These attachment representations and accompanying regulation strategies are reinforced across time and serve as a prototype for attachment representations in adulthood (for a meta-analytic review, see Fra- ley, 2002; also see Fraley, Roisman, Booth-LaForce, Owen, & Holland, 2013). Most insecure infants are either (a) avoidantly attached (anxious/avoidant) due to cold, rejecting care or (b) anxiously attached (anxious/resistant) due to inconsistent care (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1973). In response to the caregiving they have received, infants classified as avoidant are theorized to minimize their emotion expressions because they fear that expressing emotions might lead to rejection (Cassidy, 1994). Instead, avoidant infants hide their distress to maintain proximity to caregivers and not trigger the rejection that occurs when they seek attention or care (Main & Solomon, 1986). In adulthood, attachment avoidance promotes deactivating strategies, which involve distancing oneself from one’s attachment figure and suppressing or minimizing negative emotions in order to limit the hurt avoidant individuals anticipate from depending on close others (see Table 1; Mikulincer et al., 2003; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). Infants classified as resistant are theorized to have heightened emotion expression (Cassidy, 1994; Cassidy & Berlin, 1994) because they learn that they need to increase their bids for attention in order to draw attention from their caregivers (Main & Solomon, 1986). Similarly, in adulthood, attachment anxiety should promote hyperactivating strategies that involve amplifying expressions of negative emotions and dependence on close others in order to reestablish and maintain attention and care (see Table 1; Mikulincer et al., 2003; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 262 GIRME, JONES, FLECK, SIMPSON, AND OVERALL Notably, the developmental and emotion regulation literatures have also identified several emotion regulation strategies commonly used in adolescence and adulthood (Pallini et al., 2018). In fact, as summarized in Table 1, a recent meta-analysis indicates that these emotion regulation strategies load onto three factors that align very closely with the three emotion regulation strategies identified in the attachment literature (Naragon-Gainey et al., 2017). Specifically, adaptive engagement (similar to the coregulation strategy) involves problem-solving and behaviors that include reappraising negative events/outcomes. Disengagement (similar to the deactivating strategy) involves attempting to avoid or focus away from an emotionally relevant situation by using distraction, expressive suppression, or disengagement to minimize negative feelings. Aversive cognitive perseveration (similar to the hyperactivating strategy) involves overengagement with or rumination of negative thoughts and feelings. Empirical Support Linking Attachment Insecurity and Emotion Regulation Strategies Both the attachment and emotion regulation literatures highlight three key patterns of emotion regulation that should distinguish secure and insecure individuals. No research to date, however, has examined whether being securely versus insecurely attached early in life is prospectively related to these specific attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies displayed in adult romantic relationships. This is in part because longitudinal attachment studies may not have been designed with these a priori hypotheses in mind (Dozier, Manni, & Lindhiem, 2005), and so prior research has predominately focused on broad (rather than specific) indicators of emotion regulation strategies later in life (Dagan & Sagi-Schwartz, 2018). What is clear from existing work is that attachment insecurity is associated with worse emotion regulation more generally. Recent meta-analytic reviews in the developmental literature have shown that infants rated as more insecure (compared to secure) tend to have worse effortful control (Pallini et al., 2018) and worse emotion regulation/coping strategies (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2017) during early childhood and adolescence. Furthermore, compared to secure infants, insecure infants experience greater negative affect, are less able to regulate their emotions, engage in maladaptive cognitive coping strategies, and avoid turning to others for support during childhood and adolescence (Cooke, Kochendorfer, Stuart-Parrigon, Koehn, & Kerns, 2019). The link between insecure attachment and maladaptive emotion regulation is also corroborated by cross-sectional work examining attachment insecurity in romantic relationships. Adults who are securely attached to romantic partners seek proximity to their partners when distressed, reappraise negative situations more constructively, and exhibit greater resilience in distressing situations (Karreman & Vingerhoets, 2012; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992). In contrast, adults who are insecurely attached to romantic partners enact more maladaptive strategies. For example, highly avoidant individuals suppress their emotional reactions, thoughts, and feelings, whereas highly anxious individuals fixate on their emotional experiences and exaggerate hurt feelings to increase their partners’ care and attention (Low, Overall, Cross, & Henderson, 2019; Overall, Girme, Lemay, & Hammond, 2014; Overall, Simpson, & Struthers, 2013). Furthermore, highly anxious or highly avoidant individuals are less able to be open about their thoughts and feelings or express their emotions in a constructive manner (Low et al., 2019). Unique longitudinal evidence also demonstrates that infant attachment insecurity can lead to over engagement with negative emotions in childhood, which can interfere with effective emotion regulation and relationship functioning in adulthood. For example, the London Parent–Child Project provides evidence that children who are insecurely attached to their mothers are less likely to acknowledge their distress or discuss adaptive coping strategies at age 11, and children who are insecurely attached to their fathers have difficulty resolving conflicts with siblings and friends at age 11 (Steele & Steele, 2005). The Bielefeld and Regensburg studies have also demonstrated that infants’ attachment security to their mothers and fathers predict whether children and adolescence are able to regulate emotions and openly turn to others for help during challenging situations (Grossmann, Grossmann, & Kindler, 2005). Data from the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation has already provided evidence that infants who were rated insecurely attached more often demonstrate worse relationship quality as observed during couples’ conflict and collaboration tasks (Roisman, Collins, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2005), display greater intensity of negative emotions during couples’ conflict discussions (Simpson, Collins, Tran, & Haydon, 2007), and find it more difficult to recover following couples’ conflict discussions (Salvatore, Kuo, Steele, Simpson, & Collins, 2011). Taken together, although research across the adult attachment and developmental literatures provide evidence that attachment insecurity is associated with poorer emotion regulation in general, these studies do not reveal how infant attachment is associated with specific attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies in adulthood (balanced-, hypo-, or hyper-regulation strategies). This distinction is important because although infant attachment insecurity should be related to less constructive emotion regulation in general, these types of associations may also be predicted by nonattachment processes (Dozier et al., 2005). Thus, it is important to illustrate whether individuals adopt specific emotion regulation strategies that are theorized to be adaptive based on their history of caregiving. We aim to fill this gap in the literature by examining whether infants’ attachment security is associated with attachmentrelevant emotion regulation strategies, such as balancedregulation, hypo-regulation, and hyper-regulation strategies during relationship threatening discussions in adulthood (see Table 1). The Current Study Using existing data from the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation (MLSRA; Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005), we examined whether infant attachment prospectively predicts attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies in adulthood (see Table 1). Infants’ attachment status (secure vs. insecure) was assessed at 12 and 18 months in the Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Integrating prior theory and research summarized above, we identified attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies that should map onto secure, avoidant, and anxious attachment patterns in adulthood (see Table 1). These emotion regulation strategies were assessed in a video-recorded situation in adulthood— discussing a major conflict with their romantic partner at ages 20, 23, 26, and/or 35. Relationship conflict requires adaptive emotion regulation for optimal interpersonal functioning (Ko- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. INFANT ATTACHMENT AND ADULT EMOTION REGULATION bak & Duemmler, 1994; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). Thus, we had observational assessments in both infancy and adulthood in specific, age-appropriate, attachment-relevant situations spanning 20 to 35 years. Notably, unlike the adult attachment literature that assesses individuals’ level of attachment anxiety and avoidance, prior practices in the developmental literature have typically classified infant attachment as “secure” versus “insecure” because these samples typically do not have enough participants to distinguish secure, anxious, or avoidant attachment patterns. In instances where infant attachment is assessed at 12 and 18 months (as in the MLSRA), infant attachment assessments have typically reflected the number of times that infants were rated secure (0, 1, or 2 times; Sroufe et al., 2005). This continuous approach, however, assumes a linear progression of insecurity that does not reflect other perspectives in the attachment literature, including the view that attachment can be unstable across time (Fraley & Roisman, 2019; Groh et al., 2014; Scharfe, 2003). Accordingly, we wanted to compare different patterns of infant attachment (similar to the approach taken by Vaughn, Egeland, Sroufe, & Waters, 1979): infants rated as secure at both 12 and 18 months (stable secures), infants rated as insecure at both 12 and 18 months (stable insecures), and infants rated as insecure at only one of the two times during infancy (unstable insecures). Nonetheless, given that previous work has examined continuous measures of infant attachment insecurity, we also present the results based on the continuous measure of attachment insecurity. Consistent with the prior literature, we expected that any form of insecure attachment in childhood should undermine emotion regulation compared to secure attachment. Thus, we predicted that, compared to stable secure infants, stable insecure infants and unstable insecure infants would display fewer balanced-regulation strategies and poorer regulation strategies (i.e., hypo-regulation or hyper-regulation) during major conflict discussions with their romantic partners in adulthood. We did not, however, derive hypotheses about the specific maladaptive regulation strategies (i.e., hypo-regulation or hyper-regulation) that might be associated with individuals who were stable insecure versus unstable insecure infants. Some prior research insinuates that individuals who were stable insecure infants might display the worst emotion regulation strategies in adulthood to the extent that their stable insecurity stems from consistently harsh caregiving environments, such as those fraught with poverty or low socioeconomic status (Szepsenwol & Simpson, 2019). Individuals who were unstably insecure as infants, in contrast, may have been exposed to very different life experiences and caregiving environments, such as those containing frequent familial conflict, inconsistent financial resources, or tumultuous relationships on the part of their caregivers, resulting in different patterns of emotion regulation compared to individuals who were stably insecure as infants (Szepsenwol & Simpson, 2019; Thompson & Calkins, 1996; also see Katz & Gottman, 1991; Zahn-Waxler & Kochanska, 1990). The unique nature of the MLSRA also provided an opportunity for conceptual replication of the predicted associations examining adolescent attachment security with another developmentally relevant attachment figure—their closest friend at age 16 (Simpson et al., 2007; Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 1999).1 Friendship security is particularly relevant given that attachment security develops across the life span through continued interactions with other 263 developmentally relevant attachment figures (Bowlby, 1969; Thompson, 1999; Waters & Cummings, 2000). Given the foundational proposition that security earlier in life should shape later emotion regulation strategies, we hypothesized that—just as in infancy—adolescents rated as more insecure with their best friend would display less balanced and greater hypo-regulation or hyperregulation regulation strategies during their conflict discussions in adulthood. Method Participants The data were collected on participants involved in the MLSRA (Sroufe et al., 2005). All procedures were performed in accordance with the University of Minnesota institutional review board. This 40-year prospective study of initially at-risk children and their mothers began in 1975–1976, when 267 women were recruited from Minneapolis public health clinics where they were receiving free prenatal care. Within the original sample, 58% of the primary participants (i.e., the children) were European American, 14% were African American, 3% were Native American/Latino, 16% were of mixed racial background, and 9% were unclassifiable because of missing data on their father’s ethnicity. Fifty-five percent of the original sample was male. We drew on an existing and unique longitudinal study to test our hypotheses, thus the sample size was determined by focusing on a subset of participants from the original sample (N ⫽ 102) who met two criteria: (a) their attachment status had been assessed in the Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978) when they were 12 and 18 months old and (b) they had been videotaped trying to resolve a major conflict with their romantic partner at one or more of four waves during adulthood (at ages 20, 23, 26, and/or 35). We used each individual’s data across all assessment waves to maximize power, increase reliability of assessment, and maximize the use of data available. To be videotaped at one or more of these waves, targets (i.e., participants in the MLSRA) had to be involved in a romantic relationship that had existed for at least 4 months at that wave to ensure they could identify a major conflict. One hundred and one couples were heterosexual, and one couple was in a same-sex relationship. Forty-two of the 102 participants (41.18%) completed two or more relationship assessments with the same partner. Descriptive statistics for the mean age of participants and relationship length at each wave is available in Table 2. This subsample did not differ from the original sample on socioeconomic status (measured prenatally, at age 16, or in adulthood), gender, ethnicity, or attachment security. 1 We could not examine the association between adult attachment security toward romantic partners and attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies because half of our observations (N ⫽ 93) were collected at ages 20 and 23, years prior to when self-reported adult attachment was collected at ages 26 and 35 years (N ⫽ 95). Furthermore, the measures of adult attachment that were collected at ages 26 and 35 years use different methods (e.g., Adult Attachment Interview vs. Attachment Script Assessment, respectively) and focus (parents vs. attachment across several important relationships), limiting our ability to combine these ratings. GIRME, JONES, FLECK, SIMPSON, AND OVERALL 264 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Table 2 Descriptive Statistics (Means and Standard Deviations) for Demographic Measures, Friendship Security in Adolescence, and Emotion Regulation Strategies in Adulthood Adolescence (16 years old; n ⫽ 94) Wave 1 (20 years old; n ⫽ 66) Wave 2 (23 years old; n ⫽ 27) Wave 3 (26 years old; n ⫽ 60) Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Participant age (years) Relationship length (months) Friendship security Balanced-regulation strategy Hypo-regulation strategy Hyper-regulation strategy Partners’ balanced-regulation strategy Partners’ hypo-regulation strategy Partners’ hyper-regulation strategy 15.73 — 4.58 — — — — — — .47 — 1.36 — — — — — — 20.16 26.16 — 2.80 2.61 1.96 2.96 2.39 2.26 .74 20.62 — 1.26 1.41 1.21 1.33 1.42 1.56 22.59 35.38 — 3.20 1.87 2.30 3.31 2.13 2.07 .64 20.21 — 1.30 .87 1.31 1.62 1.12 1.51 26.62 55.09 — 3.73 2.03 1.61 3.80 1.83 1.73 .86 32.58 — 1.29 1.18 1.08 1.32 1.04 .91 34.98 100.50 — 3.26 2.67 2.26 3.57 1.91 2.84 .86 68.14 — 1.66 1.72 1.27 1.73 1.29 1.57 Wave 4 (35 years old; n ⫽ 35) Note. Friendship security and emotion regulation strategies were assessed on a scale ranging from 1 to 7. Emotion regulation strategies were observed during interactions with romantic partners at each wave, but each wave had a different sample size based on whether participants were involved in romantic relationships or participants in that wave of data collection. Each individual’s emotion regulation scores were used across all assessment waves in the analyses to maximize power, increase reliability of assessment, and maximize the use of data available. Procedure and Measures The MLSRA contains numerous measures collected at various stages of participants’ social development. We focus on the specific measures relevant to testing our predictions. Infant–mother attachment security. The quality of each mother–infant attachment relationship was assessed using Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Procedure (see Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969) when target participants were 12 and 18 months old. The Strange Situation Procedure is a 20-min laboratory procedure during which infants are exposed to a series of stressful separations from and reunions with their primary caregiver (the mother in the MLSRA), some of which also involve the presence of a stranger in the room. The behavioral coding of attachment status (i.e., secure or insecure) focuses on how infants interact with and manage their emotions vis-à-vis their caregiver during reunions. Parent– child dyads in which infants turn to and use their mothers as a source of comfort and support, regulate their negative emotions well (calm down), and then resume play or exploration in the room, are classified as secure. Parent– child dyads in which infants either do not turn to or effectively use their mothers as a source of comfort and support, are not able to regulate their negative emotions (remain distressed), and do not resume play or exploration, are classified as insecure. Infant attachment security classifications were coded based on how each infant responded to the separations and reunions with their mother. Rater agreement for attachment classification at 12 months was 89% and was 93% at 18 months (Egeland & Farber, 1984). Infant attachment ratings at 12- and 18-months are displayed in Table 3. Similar to other samples, the number of anxious (anxious/resistant) and avoidant (anxious/avoidant) individuals in our sample was low, preventing us from having the statistical power needed to analyze our data according to secure, anxious, or avoidant categories. Instead, secure attachment was coded 0 and insecure attachment was coded 1 at each assessment. To compare across the different patterns of attachment insecurity ratings at 12 and 18 months, these ratings were converted to dummy-coded variables as follows: (a) stable insecure infants who were insecure at both 12 and 18 months (0 ⫽ no, 1 ⫽ yes; n ⫽ 21, 20.6%) and (b) unstable insecure infants who were insecure at only 12 or only 18 months (n ⫽ 34, 33.3%; 0 ⫽ no, 1 ⫽ yes). Individuals with ratings of 0 on both variables were stable secure infants who were secure at both 12 and 18 months (n ⫽ 47, 46.1%). We also created a continuous measure of infant attachment (0 ⫽ insecure at both 12 and 18 months, 1 ⫽ insecure at 1 time-point, 2 ⫽ secure at both time-points; Sroufe et al., 2005). Adolescent friendship security with best friend. Each target participant’s degree of friendship security with their closest friend was rated from 1 (low, insecure) to 7 (high, secure) at age 16 from a comprehensive interview. This measure was based on the premise that attachment security versus insecurity in later relationships should be facilitated by security in earlier relationships (Bowlby, 1969; Thompson, 1999; Waters & Cummings, 2000) and has been used previously to indicate friendship security (Simpson et al., 2007). The comprehensive interview was designed to examine identity development and adolescent functioning in different domains, including occupation, religion, politics, friendship, and dating (Grotevant & Cooper, 1981). Interviewers were blind to participants’ infant attachment ratings. Each interview consisted of about 120 main questions (with subcomponents based on how adolescents answered questions), 22 of which asked specifically about the adolescent’s closest friend. Example questions included, “How sure are you that your friend will be there for you?” and Table 3 Frequency of Infant–Mother Attachment Ratings During the Strange Situation at 12 and 18 Months Infant attachment ratings at 12 months Secure Avoidant Anxious Totals Infant attachment ratings at 18 months Secure Avoidant Anxious Totals 47 11 8 66 (64.7%) 12 8 2 22 (21.6%) 3 4 7 14 (13.7%) 62 (60.8%) 23 (22.5%) 17 (16.7%) 102 (100%) This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. INFANT ATTACHMENT AND ADULT EMOTION REGULATION “Has there ever been a time when you thought your friendship would end? Why? How did you feel about that?” Coders, who were also blind to participants’ infant attachment ratings, listened to the audiorecorded responses to these questions to assess friendship security. Coders’ ratings were based on target participants’ descriptions of their closest friendship, including the degree to which the target participant shared or withheld emotional or difficult information from their closest friend, was confident that their friend accepted them, and expected that their friend would be available and supportive when needed. Because coders were experts and trained to specific coding criteria, two trained coders rated 25–35% of the sample on global friendship security on a 7-point scale. Once reasonable interrater reliability was established (intraclass correlation [ICC] ⫽ .59; the Spearman-Brown correction was .74), one coder rated the remainder of the sample. Adulthood attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies. Target participants who were involved in a romantic relationship lasting at least 4 months participated with their partners in a laboratory session at ages 20, 23, 26, and/or 35. Participants and their partners were first interviewed separately and then completed a battery of self-report measures that assessed the functioning of their relationship. Each couple member then completed a relationship problem inventory privately to identify and rate the most salient problems in the relationship. Each couple reviewed these together and chose the one problem that caused the most conflict in their relationship. Couples were then asked to discuss the chosen problem and attempt to reach a solution in a 10-min video-recorded discussion. These interactions were subsequently coded by trained observers for the three emotion regulation strategies described in Table 1. As summarized in Table 1, we used a new behavioral coding schedule (Overall & Girme, 2014) based on attachment-relevant regulation strategies identified using similar observational methods during infancy (see Strange Situation Procedure; Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969), theorized about in the adult attachment literature (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002; see Table 1, first column), and emotion regulation strategies documented in the developmental and emotion regulation literatures (Pallini et al., 2018). Notably, a recent meta-analytic factor analysis provided evidence of the most commonly reported emotion regulation strategies in adulthood that cohere to the three emotion regulation strategies we identified (Naragon-Gainey et al., 2017; see Table 1, middle column). The current approach allows us to (a) reflect on broad patterns of regulation that capture behaviors and emotion expressions that underpin the shared similarities in theorized attachment regulation strategies and empirically supported emotion regulation categories and (b) allows us to use observational assessments at different ages (infancy vs. adulthood) and within developmentally appropriate attachment-relevant situations (Strange Situation Procedure vs. major relationship conflict interactions). Coders who were blind to the identity of the target participant and their infant attachment scores rated the extent to which both partners engaged in the three types of attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies (see Table 1). (See the online supplementary materials for a more detailed presentation of the coding schedule; also see Low et al., 2019 for an example of the use and validity of this coding schedule during similar relationship conflict discussions.) The balanced-regulation strategy involves acknowledging 265 the problem, taking active efforts to make progress toward solving the problem collaboratively, and open, self-assured disclosure of thoughts, opinions and emotions. The hypo-regulation strategy involves a lack of engagement with the partner, and the adoption of a passive and dismissing approach to problem-solving that is conveyed by superficial, nonintimate disclosures and suppressed or constrained emotional expressions. The hyper-regulation strategy involves clear engagement in the discussion but in ways that fixate on and amplify the symptoms, causes, and consequences of the problem rather than solutions to it. This strategy also emphasizes the need to be more heard and cared for by the partner, which are conveyed by the expression of exaggerated emotions or trying to “pull” emotions from their partner (e.g., love, guilt) to obtain reassurance. Two coders independently rated the degree to which each couple member engaged in each of these emotion regulation strategies during their attempt to resolve the major relationship disagreement (1–2 ⫽ low, 3–5 ⫽ moderate, 6 –7 ⫽ high). In determining scores, coders started from a baseline of 1 (no presence of emotion regulation strategy) and moved upward on the scale as indicators of each emotion regulation strategy were displayed, taking into account indicator frequency, duration and intensity. Coders’ ratings for individuals’ balanced-, hypo-, and hyper-regulation strategies were reliable (ICCs ⫽ .947, .945, and .923, respectively) and were averaged.2 Results Descriptive statistics across each wave are displayed in Table 2. We assessed attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies across all available waves of romantic conflict discussion data. Thus, some MLSRA participants (targets) contributed more than one wave of romantic conflict data. Specifically, 48 participants contributed just one wave of data, 31 contributed two waves of data, 14 contributed three waves of data, and nine contributed all four waves of data, giving us a total of 188 observations (average wave per person ⫽ 1.84). Given the nested structure of our data (i.e., waves nested under individuals), we followed Bolger and Laurenceau’s (2013) recommendations for analyzing repeated measures data, using the MIXED procedure in SPSS 24 and applying an autoregressive covariance structure across all statistical models described below. Furthermore, restricted maximum likelihood, the default estimation technique when using the MIXED procedure in SPSS, accounts for missing data without excluding participants who completed only one to three waves of data by weighting the extent to which the effect for each participant contributes to the total effect, given the reliability of their data (i.e., the number of measurements; see Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). 2 Individuals’ balanced-regulation was negatively associated with both hypo-regulation (balanced-regulation ¡ hypo-regulation: B ⫽ ⫺.63, t ⫽ ⫺11.31, p ⬍ .001) and hyper-regulation (balanced-regulation ¡ hyper-regulation: B ⫽ ⫺.34, t ⫽ ⫺5.61, p ⬍ .001) strategies, but hypoand hyper-regulation strategies were not associated with one another (hyper-regulation ¡ hypo-regulation: B ⫽ ⫺.11, t ⫽ ⫺1.32, p ⫽ .19) supporting that they represent distinct emotion regulation strategies. GIRME, JONES, FLECK, SIMPSON, AND OVERALL 266 insecure at 1 time-point, 2 ⫽ secure at both time-points; Sroufe et al., 2005). As shown in Table 5, the results suggest that as the number of times infants were classified as secure increased, hyporegulation decreased. There was no association between continuous infant attachment and hyper-regulation or balanced-regulation strategies. As did our primary analyses in Table 4 (top section), these results support that infant security observed in the strange situation at 12 and 18 provide a foundation for emotion regulation across the life span, and in particular being rated insecure more times during infancy predicts hypo-regulation strategies during adult attachment-relevant interactions. However, this comparison also illustrates that examining different patterns of infant attachment based on the stability of secure versus insecure classification yield unique insights that a continuous measure of infant attachment might not capture, such as predicting balanced-regulation and hyper-regulation strategies in adulthood. We further consider these distinctions in the discussion. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Does Infant–Mother Attachment Predict Emotion Regulation Strategies in Adulthood? Attachment insecurity patterns and emotion regulation in adulthood. We first ran a series of multilevel models that regressed individuals’ emotion regulation strategies in adulthood onto their infant attachment insecurity dummy-coded variables, which indexed (a) stable insecure infants who were insecure at both 12 and 18 months (0 ⫽ no, 1 ⫽ yes) and (b) unstable insecure infants who were insecure at only 12 or only 18 months (0 ⫽ no, 1 ⫽ yes). Individuals with ratings of 0 on both variables, therefore, were stable secure infants who were secure at both 12 and 18 months. The results are presented in Table 4 (top section). Compared to individuals classified as stable secure in infancy, those classified as stable insecure in infancy displayed lower balancedregulation and greater hypo-regulation strategies 20 –35 years later during discussion of a major conflict with their romantic partner. Moreover, relative to individuals classified as stable secure in infancy, individuals classified as unstable insecure in infancy displayed greater hyper-regulation strategies while discussing a conflict with their romantic partner in adulthood. These associations support a key premise of attachment theory that infant security provides a foundation for emotion regulation across the life span. In particular, these data offer the first evidence spanning 20 –35 years that infant attachment observed in the strange situation at 12 and 18 months prospectively predicts emotion regulation strategies observed in adult conflict interactions at 20 –35 years of age in theoretically relevant ways. Continuous attachment security and emotion regulation in adulthood. Our aim was to examine how different patterns of infant attachment across 12 and 18 months (i.e., stable secures, stable insecures, and unstable insecures) were associated with attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies in adulthood. However, readers might be curious to know the results based on a continuous measure of infant attachment, as has been used in prior research. Thus, we reran our analyses using a continuous measure of infant attachment (0 ⫽ insecure at both 12 and 18 months, 1 ⫽ Does Friendship Security in Adolescent Predict Emotion Regulation Strategies in Adulthood? Next, we wanted to conceptually replicate the associations between earlier attachment security and later emotion regulation strategies in adulthood using a measure of attachment security during another developmentally relevant period—participant s’ friendship security with their closest friend at age 16. We ran a series of multilevel models that regressed individuals’ emotion regulation strategies in adulthood onto their friendship security ratings (1 ⫽ more insecure, 7 ⫽ more secure), and controlled for the infant attachment insecurity dummy-coded variables, which indexed (a) stable insecure infants who were insecure at both 12 and 18 months (0 ⫽ no, 1 ⫽ yes), and (b) unstable insecure infants who were insecure at only 12 or only 18 months (0 ⫽ no, 1 ⫽ yes). Thus, any resulting associations between friendship security and emotion regulation strategies in adulthood represent independent associations beyond the effects of infant security. The results are presented in Table 4 (bottom section). Revealing a similar pattern Table 4 Associations Between Infant Attachment Status (12 and 18 Months) and Adolescent Attachment Security (Age 16) and Adult Emotion Regulation Strategies (Between 20 and 35 Years) Adults’ balanced-regulation strategies Adults’ hypo-regulation strategies 95% CI Variable B t p Low High Intercept Stable insecures Unstable insecures 3.28 19.27 ⴚ.65 ⴚ2.02 ⫺.05 ⫺.21 .000 2.94 3.62 .045 ⴚ1.29 ⴚ.01 .834 ⫺.57 .46 Intercept Adolescent security Stable insecures Unstable insecures 3.28 19.12 .27 3.14 ⫺.58 ⫺1.76 ⫺.06 ⫺.24 .000 2.94 .002 .10 .081 ⫺1.24 .809 ⫺.59 Adults’ hyper-regulation strategies 95% CI r B t p 95% CI Low High r B t Infants’ attachment to mother .89 2.29 14.01 .000 1.96 .19 .91 2.95 .004 .30 .02 ⫺.16 ⫺.64 .524 ⫺.66 2.61 1.53 .34 .83 .27 .07 1.75 .18 .59 12.36 .66 2.73 Adolescents’ attachment to closest friend 3.62 .90 2.30 13.99 .000 1.98 2.63 .44 .32 ⴚ.19 ⴚ2.31 .024 ⴚ.03 ⴚ.36 .07 .17 .87 2.73 .008 .24 1.50 .46 .03 ⫺.14 ⫺.57 .571 ⫺.64 .36 .84 1.74 12.97 .25 ⴚ.16 ⴚ2.32 .27 .13 .48 .06 .51 2.47 p Low High r .000 1.47 .511 ⫺.36 .008 .16 2.03 .72 1.02 .82 .07 .30 .000 1.47 2.00 .024 ⴚ.02 ⴚ.29 .635 ⫺.40 .65 .016 .10 .91 .85 .28 .05 .29 Note. CI ⫽ confidence interval. Infant attachment ratings were dummy-coded. Stable insecure infants were rated insecure at both 12 and 18 months. Unstable insecure infants were rated insecure at either 12 or 18 months. The model intercept reflects Stable Secure infants’ emotion regulation scores. Adolescent security was rated by interviewers (1 ⫽ insecure, 7 ⫽ secure). Significant effects are highlighted in bold. Effect sizes (r) were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnow’s (2007) formula: r ⫽ 公(t2 / t2 ⫹ df). INFANT ATTACHMENT AND ADULT EMOTION REGULATION 267 Table 5 Associations Between Continuous Infant Attachment Insecurity (12 and 18 Months) and Adult Emotion Regulation Strategies (Between 20 and 35 Years) Adults’ balanced-regulation strategies Adults’ hypo-regulation strategies This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 95% CI Adults’ hyper-regulation strategies 95% CI Variable B t p Low High r Intercept Infant security 2.78 .28 12.04 1.80 .000 .075 2.32 ⫺.03 3.24 .58 .75 .17 B t p 95% CI Low High r B t p Low High r Infants’ attachment to mother 2.85 12.52 .000 2.40 ⴚ.35 ⴚ2.28 .025 ⴚ.65 3.30 ⴚ.05 .77 .22 2.23 ⫺.18 11.24 ⫺1.38 .000 .170 1.83 ⫺.45 2.62 .08 .75 .14 Note. CI ⫽ confidence interval. Significant effects are highlighted in bold. Effect sizes (r) were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnow’s (2007) formula: r ⫽ 公(t2 / t2 ⫹ df). of results as infant attachment insecurity, adolescents with greater friendship insecurity displayed worse balanced-regulation, and greater hypo-regulation and hyper-regulation strategies, 4 –14 years later during discussion of a major conflict with their romantic partner.3 Our results also demonstrate that the association between infant insecurity and hypo- and hyper-regulation strategies remained significant, but the association between stable infant insecurity and balanced-regulation did not. This is consistent with prior developmental models in which pathways of security progress into later relationships. However, our results also indicate that attachment insecurity in both infancy and adolescence make independent contributions to hypo- and hyper-regulation strategies. Thus, these results demonstrate the strong and persistent impact of infant insecurity that does not necessarily work indirectly through later insecurity processes. Alternative Explanations The association between infant and adolescent attachment security and emotion regulation strategies might be influenced by the immediate relationship environment. Thus, we reran the analyses reported in Table 4 controlling for the partners’ emotion regulation strategy that was identical to the dependent variable in each model (e.g., controlling for partners’ balanced-regulation strategy, when predicting individuals’ balanced-regulation strategy). Controlling for partners’ emotion regulation did not alter the association between infants’ stable insecurity and greater hypo-regulation strategies, t ⫽ 2.87, p ⫽ .005 or infants’ unstable insecurity and greater hyper-regulation strategies, t ⫽ 2.44, p ⫽ .017. However, the association between infants’ stable insecurity and lower balanced-regulation strategies was no longer significant when controlling for the shared association between dyads, t ⫽ ⫺1.44, p ⫽ .154. Furthermore, controlling for partners’ emotion regulation did not alter the significant associations between friendship security and hypo-regulation, t ⫽ ⫺2.15, p ⫽ .035, hyper-regulation, t ⫽ ⫺2.17, p ⫽ .034, or balanced-regulation strategies, t ⫽ 2.90, p ⫽ .005. We also explored whether insecure infants’ tendencies to engage in poorer emotion regulation in adulthood might be buffered by partners’ emotion regulation strategies (Overall & Simpson, 2015; Simpson & Overall, 2014). We reran our analyses and included partners’ emotion regulation strategies as a moderator. Additional analyses provided little evidence that romantic partners’ regulation strategies during the conflict discussions buffered the link between infant attachment security and adult regulation strategies (ts ⬍ ⫺1.68, ps ⬎ .95), with one exception that demonstrated an exacerbating (rather than a buffering) effect of hyperregulation strategies in combination with partners’ hypo-regulation strategies (see the online supplementary materials for details). Taken together, these additional analyses indicate that infant and adolescent attachment security play an important role in the development of adult emotion regulation strategies, over and above peoples’ immediate relationship environment. General Discussion A founding premise of attachment theory is that infant attachment shapes the development of emotion regulation strategies across the life span. We provide novel evidence of this proposition by using data from a unique longitudinal study (MLSRA) that assessed attachment insecurity in infancy, friendship insecurity at age 16, and theoretically relevant emotion regulation strategies in threatening conflict interactions in adulthood 20 –35 years later. The results supported that attachment insecurity was associated in theoretically relevant ways with specific emotion regulation tendencies that should emerge given an individual’s earlier attachment history (see Table 1), including lower balanced-regulation (open, approach-orientated, engaging in collaborative problemsolving), greater hypo-regulation (suppressing emotions, disengaging, engaging in superficial problem-solving), and greater hyper-regulation (exaggerating their emotional expressions, ruminating, being self-focused in processing issues). Below, we discuss the specific findings and their theoretical and practical implications. Infant–Mother Attachment Patterns Predict Regulation Strategies in Adulthood Compared to individuals classified as stable secure infants, those classified as stable insecure infants (insecure at 12 and 18 months) displayed lower balanced-regulation and greater hyporegulation strategies 20 –35 years later while discussing a conflict with their romantic partner. Providing conceptual replication, 3 Some readers might wonder whether the association between infant attachment security and adult regulation strategies occurs through friendship security at age 16. We found weak evidence for indirect effects, which are outlined in the online supplementary materials. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 268 GIRME, JONES, FLECK, SIMPSON, AND OVERALL greater friendship insecurity at age 16 predicted worse balancedregulation and greater hypo-regulation patterns in adulthood. This result was also consistent with secondary analyses using the continuous measure of infant attachment insecurity: infants who were rated as secure more often (at both 12 and 18 months) displayed lower hypo-regulation strategies 20 –35 years later. The results are important given that hypo-regulation strategies undermine psychological wellbeing, health, and interpersonal functioning (for recent meta-analytic reviews, see Aldao et al., 2010; Chervonsky & Hunt, 2017, 2019). Another important finding that emerged was that, compared to stable secure infants, unstable insecure infants (insecure at 12 or 18 months) displayed greater hyper-regulation strategies in adulthood. Providing conceptual replication, greater friendship insecurity at age 16 also predicted greater hyperregulation patterns in adulthood. However, this finding did not emerge when examining the continuous measure of infant attachment security. Why did inconsistencies emerge when predicting hyperregulation strategies in adulthood? It might be possible that changes in attachment classification from 12- to 18-months old reflect error or unreliability in measurement. Specifically, given that the proportion of unstable infant attachment was so large (33.3%), it might be the case that the Strange Situation Procedure may not be sensitive enough to tease apart attachment-related changes versus non-attachment-related factors that may also shape emotion regulation strategies (e.g., child illness, parent– child relationship stress, infants’ temperament; Katz & Gottman, 1991; Khan et al., 2019; Szepsenwol & Simpson, 2019; Thompson & Calkins, 1996). Nonetheless, the 33.3% of individuals who experienced unstable infant attachment aligns very closely to research suggesting that categorical attachment ratings remain stable 60% of the time and that people experience considerable change in attachment security across time (Fraley & Roisman, 2019; Groh et al., 2014; Scharfe, 2003). Having a third of our at-risk sample experience unstable attachment ratings is also consistent with work demonstrating that individuals who experience significant withinperson variation in attachment across time have more turbulent family histories (Davila, Burge, & Hammen, 1997; Vaughn et al., 1979). Fluctuations in attachment also have meaningful consequences (Girme et al., 2018; La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000). For example, individuals who experience greater fluctuations in their relationship-specific attachment security report lower relationship satisfaction over time, especially if they are secure and expect relationship stability (Girme et al., 2018). Similarly, unstable infant attachment patterns are associated with greater hyper-regulation strategies in adulthood, highlighting how instability in infant attachment predicted a theoretically relevant emotion regulation strategy. Thus, it is unlikely that unstable attachment patterns reflect measurement error and may instead reflect meaningful differences in conceptualizing attachment stability. The inconsistencies between analytic strategies might suggest that our analysis on patterns of infant attachment stability yield more insightful associations between patterns of infant attachment and emotion regulation strategies that might be missed when examining continuous measures of infant attachment. Prior research on infant attachment has predominately treated infant attachment as a continuous measure, where infants’ attachment scores reflect how many time-points the infant was rated as secure (zero, one, or two times; Sroufe et al., 2005). However, by treating each pattern of attachment insecurity independently (stable secure, stable insecure, and unstable insecure), this application recognizes that the differences in the stability of infant insecurity may reflect different caregiving histories and early life environments that can interfere with parents’ caregiving and responsiveness, and undermine children’s development of adaptive emotion regulation (Cassidy, 1994; Main, 1990; Szepsenwol & Simpson, 2019). More specifically, compared to those with stable security in infancy, individuals who had stable insecurity in infancy may have had harsher upbringings (e.g., low socioeconomic background, poverty; Szepsenwol & Simpson, 2019) and/or unresponsive or rejecting caregiving, which could mean that individuals have trouble being open and comfortable with their emotions (lower balancedregulation strategies), and suppress their emotions or disengage from uncomfortable situations in order to protect themselves from hurt (greater hypo-regulation strategies). In contrast, individuals who had unstable insecurity in infancy may have experienced a very different environment that was fraught with an unstable home life (e.g., inconsistent financial resources, family conflicts; Szepsenwol & Simpson, 2019) and/or inconsistent caregiving. Indeed, unstable security in infancy (changes from secure to anxious) is associated with greater stressful life events (e.g., mothers’ reports about work, health, finances), compared to stable security in infancy (Vaughn et al., 1979). Furthermore, infants with unstable backgrounds (parental depression, domestic violence, or chronic parent– child relationship stress) become hypervigilant to cues of impending conflict, experience ambivalent responses to parents, and experience heightened distress (Katz & Gottman, 1991; Khan et al., 2019; Thompson & Calkins, 1996), which are similar to the hyper-regulation strategies associated with people who exhibited unstable insecurity in infancy (also see Cassidy, 1994; Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Main, 1990). Thus, the current approach provides a novel way of examining stable versus unstable patterns of infant attachment insecurity that reveal meaningful differences in emotion regulation. Nonetheless, our conceptualization of patterns of infant attachment is rooted in theories on within-person variation in attachment, and future research should aim to replicate these effects. Theoretical and Practical Implications Focusing on attachment theory helped to integrate the massive literature on emotion regulation strategies. The three patterns of emotion regulation identified here (see Table 1) align with the three common emotion regulation factors recently identified (Naragon-Gainey et al., 2017), but go further to suggest that each category has distinct developmental underpinnings. This advances the emotion regulation literature by clarifying our understanding of why people develop certain emotion regulation strategies and, in doing so, has practical implications for how insecure individuals could develop more balanced and constructive strategies for managing their emotions. Although we cannot change people’s caregiving histories, working on fostering security in adulthood to overcome negative expectations may help to override the automatic strategies developed in infancy (see Main, 1990). Perhaps more importantly, these results may help inform individuals’ parenting strategies, given that parents’ emotion regulation shapes how parents cope with the demands of caregiving (Rutherford, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. INFANT ATTACHMENT AND ADULT EMOTION REGULATION Wallace, Laurent, & Mayes, 2015), which should have implications for their children’s attachment security (Bowlby, 1973) and the intergenerational transmission of emotion regulation strategies (Rutherford et al., 2015). The current research also clarifies that hypo- and hyperregulation strategies most likely stem from different early life and caregiving experiences, which may require tailored therapeutic approaches. Individuals who develop a hypo-regulation strategy may benefit from having their emotional experiences accepted and validated, whereas those who develop a hyper-regulation strategy may benefit more from having their feelings downregulated before their heightened emotions are triggered (see Overall & Simpson, 2015; Simpson & Overall, 2014). Existing therapeutic approaches also involve similar strategies for discouraging the suppression of negative feelings and promoting open and constructive communication of negative feelings (Johnson, 2015) or practicing exposure to situations that elicit negative feelings or stress to help deal with situations that trigger trauma or anxiety (Foa & Kozak, 1986). Nonetheless, the current article provides valuable extensions by distinguishing between different patterns of emotion regulation and shedding light on one way in which emotion regulation strategies may develop. Caveats About Longitudinal Attachment Research and Future Directions Like many other longitudinal studies, our dataset was not designed to test the specific processes reported here, which has implications for gaps and inconsistencies in our research (Dozier et al., 2005). For example, we do not have sufficient data on adult romantic attachment orientations, which limited our ability to test whether infant attachment predicts adult romantic attachment (Fraley, 2002; although also see Fraley & Roisman, 2019), which in turn might be a more proximal predictor of emotion regulation in adulthood. Indeed, several pathways may explain developmental processes leading from infancy to adulthood (Hill, Edmonds, & Jackson, 2019), but the underlying mechanisms that explain how infant–mother attachment impacts attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies within adult romantic relationships remain unclear. Beyond infant attachment representations, insecure infants may learn maladaptive regulation strategies from their caregivers (Kim, Pears, Capaldi, & Owen, 2009; Low et al., 2019) or use emotion regulation strategies due to genetic predispositions (Hariri & Holmes, 2006) or unconscious physiological processes (Calkins, Dedmon, Gill, Lomax, & Johnson, 2002). Furthermore, given the relatively low numbers of insecure infants in our sample, we were unable to examine associations between secure, anxious, and avoidant categories and attachmentrelevant emotion regulation strategies in adulthood. As is common in attachment research with children, anxious and avoidant infants were combined into an “insecure” category, which may camouflage the unique strategies anticipated for anxious (hyperregulation) versus avoidant (hypo-regulation) individuals. Furthermore, our attachment patterns did not distinguish between the direction of change (secure ¡ insecure vs. insecure ¡ secure). Although changes from secure to insecure attachment might be more jarring (Girme et al., 2018), attachment instability during infancy, regardless of the direction of change, may be sufficient to generate hyper-regulation strategies. Small sample sizes limit these 269 types of distinctions in many longitudinal attachment studies (Dozier et al., 2005). Well-powered longitudinal studies designed to address these a priori hypotheses would help to address these concerns (Brumariu, 2015). Our assessment of infant–mother attachment patterns in the Strange Situation Procedure may also be an imprecise measure of infant attachment. The pattern of effects we found between infant– mother attachment and individuals’ emotion regulation strategies used many years later in romantic relationships makes a unique and significant contribution to both the attachment and the emotion regulation literatures. Nonetheless, the Strange Situation Procedure provides only a snapshot of parent– child interactions, and it does not assess how parents respond to children across different contexts (Dozier et al., 2005; Grossmann et al., 2005). Supporting the need to focus on more specific types of attachment interactions, Grossmann et al. (2005) found that infant attachment assessed via the Strange Situation did not significantly predict attachment security in adulthood, but more focused assessments of parental sensitivity and support during children’s exploration did predict attachment security in adulthood (although both assessments did significantly predict emotion regulation during childhood and adolescence). Future research should consider multiple conceptualizations of attachment security rather than relying on only one operationalization of attachment security (Dozier et al., 2005; Grossmann et al., 2005). Similarly, infant attachment insecurity may be better represented by assessing attachment security repeatedly across time and across multiple attachment relationships (Dagan & Sagi-Schwartz, 2018; Grossmann et al., 2005). We were restricted to assessing infants’ attachment at just two time-points. Assessing infant attachment multiple times, however, is likely to provide more accurate measurements of infant attachment across daily life (Dozier et al., 2005) and developmental phases (Grossmann et al., 2005). Multiple assessments of infant attachment are especially important to more reliably assess the presence and consequences of stable versus unstable patterns of infant attachment across time. Finally, we only examined infant–mother attachments, but infant–father attachments are also likely to play an important role in shaping emotion regulation patterns (Dagan & Sagi-Schwartz, 2018; Grossmann et al., 2005). Future research should consider examining both infant–mother and infant–father relationships to more comprehensively assess attachment processes that shape emotion regulation patterns across time. Conclusions The current research integrated the developmental and emotion regulation literatures to identify specific attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies: balanced-regulation (being open, approach-orientated, and collaborative problem-solving), hyporegulation (suppressing emotions, disengaging, and superficial problem-solving), and hyper-regulation (exaggerated emotional expressions, rumination, and self-focused processing). The results offer novel evidence that infant attachment insecurity prospectively predicts attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies in adulthood 20 –35 years later. This research opens up new avenues of study to examine factors and mechanisms that explain the connection between early attachment insecurity and different emotion regulation strategies employed in adulthood. GIRME, JONES, FLECK, SIMPSON, AND OVERALL 270 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. References Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ainsworth, M. D., & Wittig, B. A. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 113–136). London, UK: Methuen. Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotionregulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 217–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .cpr.2009.11.004 Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Bouthillier, D., Julien, D., Dube, M., Belanger, I., & Hamelin, M. (2002). Predictive validity of adult attachment measures in relation to emotion regulation behaviors in marital interactions. Journal of Adult Development, 9, 291–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1020291011587 Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 102–127). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Brumariu, L. E. (2015). Parent– child attachment and emotion regulation. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 148, 31– 45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cad.20098 Calkins, S. D., Dedmon, S., Gill, K., Lomax, L., & Johnson, L. (2002). Frustration in infancy: Implications for emotion regulation, physiological processes, and temperament. Infancy, 3, 175–197. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1207/S15327078IN0302_4 Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510 –531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.510 Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 228 –249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.1994.tb01287.x Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory and research. Child Development, 65, 971–991. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131298 Chervonsky, E., & Hunt, C. (2017). Suppression and expression of emotion in social and interpersonal outcomes: A meta-analysis. Emotion, 17, 669 – 683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000270 Chervonsky, E., & Hunt, C. (2019). Emotion regulation, mental health, and social wellbeing in a young adolescent sample: A concurrent and longitudinal investigation. Emotion, 19, 270 –282. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/emo0000432 Cooke, J. E., Kochendorfer, L. B., Stuart-Parrigon, K. L., Koehn, A. J., & Kerns, K. A. (2019). Parent– child attachment and children’s experience and regulation of emotion: A meta-analytic review. Emotion, 19, 1103– 1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000504 Dagan, O., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2018). Early attachment network with mother and father: An unsettled issue. Child Development Perspectives, 12, 115–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12272 Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 826 – 838. Dozier, M., Manni, M., & Lindhiem, Oliver (2005). Lessons from the longitudinal studies of attachment. In K. E. Grossmann, K. Grossmann, & E. Waters (Eds.), Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies (pp. 305–319). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Egeland, B., & Farber, E. A. (1984). Infant–mother attachment: Factors related to its development and changes over time. Child Development, 55, 753–771. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130127 Foa, E. B., & Kozak, M. J. (1986). Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective information. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 20 –35. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.20 Fraley, C. R. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 123–151. http://dx.doi .org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_03 Fraley, R. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2019). The development of adult attachment styles: Four lessons. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 26 –30. Fraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I., Booth-LaForce, C., Owen, M. T., & Holland, A. S. (2013). Interpersonal and genetic origins of adult attachment styles: A longitudinal study from infancy to early adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 817– 838. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/a0031435 Girme, Y. U., Agnew, C. R., VanderDrift, L. E., Harvey, S. M., Rholes, W. S., & Simpson, J. A. (2018). The ebbs and flows of attachment: Within-person variation in attachment undermine relationship wellbeing across time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 397– 421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000115 Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 47–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.57.1.47 Groh, A. M., Roisman, G. I., Booth-LaForce, C., Fraley, R. C., Owen, M. T., Cox, M. J., & Burchinal, M. R. (2014). IV. Stability of attachment security from infancy to late adolescence. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79, 51– 66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ mono.12113 Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271 Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional suppression: Physiology, self-report, and expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 970 –986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514 .64.6.970 Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 95–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.95 Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., & Kindler, H. (2005). Early care and the roots of attachment and partnership representations. In K. E. Grossmann, K. Grossmann, & E. Waters (Eds.), Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies (pp. 98 –136). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1981). Assessing adolescent identity in the areas of occupation, religion, politics, friendships, dating, and sex roles: Manual for administration and coding of the interview. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 11, 52. Hariri, A. R., & Holmes, A. (2006). Genetics of emotional regulation: The role of the serotonin transporter in neural function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 182–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.02.011 Hill, P. L., Edmonds, G. W., & Jackson, J. J. (2019). Pathways linking childhood personality to later life outcomes. Child Development Perspectives, 13, 116 –120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12322 Johnson, S. M. (2015). Emotionally focused couple therapy. In A. S. Gurman, J. L. Lebow, & D. K. Snyder (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (5th ed., pp. 97–128). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Karreman, A., & Vingerhoets, A. J. (2012). Attachment and well-being: The mediating role of emotion regulation and resilience. Personality and This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. INFANT ATTACHMENT AND ADULT EMOTION REGULATION Individual Differences, 53, 821– 826. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid .2012.06.014 Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1991). Marital discord and child outcomes: A social psychophysiological approach. In J. Garber & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), The development of emotional regulation and dysregulation (pp. 129 –156). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi .org/10.1017/CBO9780511663963.008 Kerig, P. K., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Couple observational coding systems. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/978141 0610843 Khan, F., Chong, J. Y., Theisen, J. C., Fraley, R. C., Young, J. F., & Hankin, B. L. (2019). Development and change in attachment: A multiwave assessment of attachment and its correlates across childhood and adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000211 Kim, H. K., Pears, K. C., Capaldi, D. M., & Owen, L. D. (2009). Emotion dysregulation in the intergenerational transmission of romantic relationship conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 585–595. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/a0015935 Kobak, R., & Duemmler, S. (1994). Attachment and conversation: Toward a discourse analysis of adolescent and adult security. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 121–150). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley. La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367 Low, R. S. T., Overall, N. C., Cross, E. J., & Henderson, A. M. E. (2019). Emotion regulation, conflict resolution, and spillover on subsequent family functioning. Emotion, 19, 1162–1182. MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 384 –389. http:// dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193007 Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies, changing methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies. Human Development, 33, 48 – 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/ 000276502 Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of a new, insecuredisorganized/disoriented attachment pattern. In T. B. Brazelton & M. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy (pp. 95–124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Marvin, R. S., Britner, P. A., & Russell, B. S. (2016). Normative development: The ontogeny of attachment in childhood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 273–290). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024515519160 Naragon-Gainey, K., McMahon, T. P., & Chacko, T. P. (2017). The structure of common emotion regulation strategies: A meta-analytic examination. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 384 – 427. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/bul0000093 Overall, N. C., & Girme, Y. U. (2014). Emotional and behavioral regulation strategies guided by attachment theory: Technical manual. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland. Overall, N. C., Girme, Y. U., Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Hammond, M. D. (2014). Attachment anxiety and reactions to relationship threat: The benefits and costs of inducing guilt in romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 235–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034371 271 Overall, N. C., & Simpson, J. A. (2015). Attachment and dyadic regulation processes. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 61– 666. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.11.008 Overall, N. C., Simpson, J. A., & Struthers, H. (2013). Buffering attachment-related avoidance: Softening emotional and behavioral defenses during conflict discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 854 – 871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031798 Pallini, S., Chirumbolo, A., Morelli, M., Baiocco, R., Laghi, F., & Eisenberg, N. (2018). The relation of attachment security status to effortful self-regulation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 501–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000134 Roisman, G. I., Collins, W. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2005). Predictors of young adults’ representations of and behavior in their current romantic relationship: Prospective tests of the prototype hypothesis. Attachment & Human Development, 7, 105–121. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/14616730500134928 Roisman, G. I., Holland, A., Fortuna, K., Fraley, R. C., Clausell, E., & Clarke, A. (2007). The Adult Attachment Interview and self-reports of attachment style: An empirical rapprochement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 678 – 697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.92.4.678 Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (2007). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Rutherford, H. J., Wallace, N. S., Laurent, H. K., & Mayes, L. C. (2015). Emotion regulation in parenthood. Developmental Review, 36, 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.008 Salvatore, J. E., Kuo, S. I. C., Steele, R. D., Simpson, J. A., & Collins, W. A. (2011). Recovering from conflict in romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. Psychological Science, 22, 376 –383. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610397055 Scharfe, E. (2003). Stability and change of attachment representations from cradle to grave. In S. M. Johnson & V. E. Whiffen (Eds.), Attachment processes in couple and family therapy (pp. 64 – 84). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment & Human Development, 4, 133–161. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/14616730210154171 Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Haydon, K. C. (2007). Attachment and the experience and expression of emotions in romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 355–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514 .92.2.355 Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2014). Partner buffering of attachment insecurity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 54 –59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721413510933 Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2012). Adult attachment orientations, stress, and romantic relationships. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 279 –328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-3942869.00006-8 Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434 – 446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.434 Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 899 –914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514 .71.5.899 Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. A. (1999). One social world: The integrated development of parent– child and peer relationships. In W. A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.), Relationships as developmental context: The 30th Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (pp. 241–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 272 GIRME, JONES, FLECK, SIMPSON, AND OVERALL Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, W. A. (2005). The development of the person: The Minnesota Study of Risk and Adaptation from Birth to Adulthood. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Steele, H., & Steele, M. (2005). Understanding and resolving emotional conflict: The London Parent–Child Project. In K. E. Grossmann, K. Grossmann, & E. Waters (Eds.), Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies (pp. 137–164). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Szepsenwol, O., & Simpson, J. A. (2019). Attachment within life history theory: An evolutionary perspective on individual differences in attachment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 65–70. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1016/j.copsyc.2018.03.005 Thompson, R. A. (1999). Early attachment and later development. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 265–286). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Thompson, R. A., & Calkins, S. D. (1996). The double-edged sword: Emotion regulation in high risk children. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 163–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400007021 Thomson, R. A., Overall, N. C., Cameron, L. D., & Low, R. S. T. (2018). Perceived regard, expressive suppression during conflict, and conflict resolution. Journal of Family Psychology, 32, 722–732. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/fam0000429 Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692–700. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0076-x Vaughn, B., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1979). Individual differences in infant–mother attachment at twelve and eighteen months: Stability and change in families under stress. Child Development, 50, 971–975. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1129321 Waters, E., & Cummings, E. M. (2000). A secure base from which to explore close relationships. Child Development, 71, 164 –172. http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00130 Zahn-Waxler, C., Kochanska, G., & Krupnick, J. (1990). Patterns of guilt in children of depressed and well mothers. Developmental Psychology, 26, 51–59. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Webb, H. J., Pepping, C. A., Swan, K., Merlo, O., Skinner, E. A., . . . Dunbar, M. (2017). Is parent– child attachment a correlate of children’s emotion regulation and coping? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41, 74 –93. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/0165025415618276 Received April 13, 2019 Revision received November 25, 2019 Accepted November 30, 2019 䡲 Journal of Counseling Psychology 2016, Vol. 63, No. 6, 736 –744 © 2015 American Psychological Association 0022-0167/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000128 BRIEF REPORT This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Authenticity in Relationships: Predicting Caregiving and Attachment in Adult Romantic Relationships Tânia Gouveia Marc S. Schulz University of Porto Bryn Mawr College Maria Emília Costa University of Porto The primary purpose of this research was to examine associations between authenticity in relationships and romantic attachment and caregiving. Authenticity is approached as a relational phenomenon that is facilitated when individuals assume that truthful and open communication with one’s partner will be reciprocally valued despite prospective risks. Items from the Authenticity in Relationship Scale (AIRS; Lopez & Rice, 2006) were translated to Portuguese, back-translated by a bilingual expert, and then reviewed by other researchers. Four hundred Portuguese participants (23–71 years old) in long-term intimate relationships completed the Portuguese version of the scale (AIRS-P) as well as the Romantic Attachment Questionnaire (Matos, Cabral, & Costa, 2008) and the Caregiving Questionnaire (Torres & Oliveira, 2010). A few items from the original AIRS loaded poorly in the Portuguese sample. However, confirmatory factor analysis of the AIRS-P established the presence of the 2 original underlying factors: unacceptability of deception and intimate risk taking. Structural equation modeling results indicated that authenticity in relationships is linked in expected ways to romantic attachment and caregiving to a partner. The correlates found in this Portuguese sample are similar to those found in previous research with American samples, suggesting cross-cultural consistency in the nature of authenticity. Keywords: authenticity in relationships, romantic attachment, caregiving to partner, adults Researchers have begun to approach authenticity in a more relationally oriented framework and to identify its multiple components. Kernis and Goldman (2006) defined dispositional authenticity as the unconstrained operation of an individual’s true self in everyday interactions. They delineated four dimensions of authenticity: being aware of one’s own intrinsic motives, feelings, and cognitions; being able to evaluate the self in an unbiased way despite others’ opinions; behaving according to one’s inner values and needs rather than external expectations; and engaging with close others in ways that reflect openness and sincerity so that others see one’s real self. In conceptualizing authenticity in relationships, Lopez and Rice (2006) expanded these last two dimensions in the context of adult romantic relationships, defining authenticity in relationships as a “relational schema that favors the benefits of mutual and accurate exchanges of real selfexperiences with one’s intimate partner over the attendant risks of personal discomfort, partner disapproval or relationship instability” (p. 364). The Authenticity in Relationships Scale (AIRS; Lopez & Rice, 2006), which assesses this construct, is the central measure of the present study. On the basis of the literature and emerging ideas, Lopez and Rice’s (2006) research team developed an initial item pool, with the underlying goal of capturing perceived beneficial or adverse consequences of authentic interactions within a romantic relationship. They did an exploratory factor analysis with these Many prominent psychological theorists and clinicians consider authentic self-expression a key feature of healthy individual and relational functioning (e.g., Erickson, 1968; Maslow, 1970). There is, however, a lack of empirical study of authentic self-expression, and important questions remain about the best way to conceptualize it. Harter (2002) defined authenticity as acting and expressing oneself in ways that are consistent with inwardly experienced values, desires, and emotions. Authenticity has often been conceptualized as an individual personality trait, yet the capacity to act authentically also arises in interactional contexts with others. In particular, authenticity appears to depend on the perceived safety to reveal one’s inner thoughts and feelings in specific social or relational contexts (Neff & Suizzo, 2006). This article was published Online First December 14, 2015. Tânia Gouveia, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Porto; Marc S. Schulz, Department of Psychology, Bryn Mawr College; Maria Emília Costa, University of Porto. This project was sponsored by Foundation for Science and Technology Grant SFRH/BD/69949/2010. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tânia Gouveia, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal. E-mail: tgouveia@ fpce.up.pt. 736 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. AUTHENTICITY IN ADULT ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS items on half of their sample (total n ⫽ 487), and two factors emerged. Using the other half of their sample, they conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs), which provided support for the two-factor solution. The factors were unacceptability of deception and intimate risk taking. Unacceptability of deception reflects resistance to maintaining and showing inauthentic self and partner representations; intimate risk taking describes a personal tendency for openness and intimate self-disclosure with a romantic partner (Lopez & Rice, 2006). Whereas dispositional conceptions consider authenticity measurement as an approach to individual differences, possibly linked to relational backgrounds, the AIRS characterizes authenticity as a relational phenomenon that is facilitated when interactions undertake a truthful open communication with one’s partner that will be mutually valued despite potential risks. Authenticity has been linked to a number of beneficial psychological and relational qualities. Studies using the Big Five personality traits have found that individuals with a more-authentic self tend to be more extroverted, agreeable, conscientious, open to new experiences, and nonneurotic (Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008). Research has also supported the links between authenticity and greater life and role satisfaction (Wood et al., 2008), positive affect (Goldman & Kernis, 2002), self-esteem (Kernis, 2003), optimism (Harter, Bresnick, Bouchey, & Whitesell, 1997) and less-depressive symptomatology (Wood et al., 2008). Several studies have found associations between authenticity and more-fulfilling intimate relations, suggesting that authenticity may promote relationship satisfaction (Lopez & Rice, 2006) and adjustment (Brunell et al., 2010). Individuals with higher levels of authenticity also report being more motivated to attain intimacy (Kernis, 2003). Other research has supported these adaptive relational effects by connecting authenticity to less defensiveness when describing experiences that threaten self-esteem (Lakey, Kernis, Heppner, & Lance, 2008) and to less self-concealment and disorganization (Lopez & Rice, 2006). Authenticity in relationships is closely linked to current partner characteristics and relational dynamics such as support and acceptance of the other’s self. Harter et al. (1997) suggested that individuals’ perceptions of partner validation were connected to the individuals’ own perceived authenticity in the relationship. Adult Romantic Attachment System The attachment system, which helps to maintain proximity to a partner, may be an important contributor to authenticity. Whereas infants’ attachment involves emotional bonds with parental figures (Bowlby, 1969), adults’ attachment needs transform, and the main attachment figure tends to become one’s romantic partner (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) argued that romantic attachment could be understood in terms of the positivity or negativity of one’s views about the self and others. These models of self and others can be combined to capture the four adult attachment styles that are widely emphasized in the literature: secure, preoccupied, fearful, and dismissive. The secure attachment style, linked with early experiences of supportive relationships, is characterized by a positive model of the self and others. Secure individuals tend to be capable of developing intimate relations with low levels of avoidance and high levels of trust (Matos, 2002). The preoccupied style is characterized by a positive model of others and negative view of the self. Preoccupied indi- 737 viduals tend to seek others’ attention constantly, leading to high anxiety and dependence in their relationships. The dismissive style is marked by a positive model of the self and negative view of others. This style is thought to arise as a way to cope with rejection from an attachment figure and is associated with the avoidance of intimacy and reports of low levels of anxiety about relationships. Finally, fearfully attached individuals are characterized by a negative model of the self and others. They tend to have high anxiety levels about relationships while they simultaneously avoid intimacy due its inherent risks, leading to ambivalence (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Matos, 2002). From this perspective, secure attachment would contribute to authenticity in self-presentation and be a source of accurate self-perceptions (Leak & Cooney, 2001). Past research has confirmed that greater authenticity is linked to less attachment avoidance and anxiety (Gillath, Sesko, Shaver, & Chun, 2010; Lopez & Rice, 2006). Attachment anxiety might lead to an overconcern about partner’s approval and a questioning about one’s own value, which in turn could contribute to cause the the avoidance of real exchanges. Individuals who are avoidant in their attachment tend to hide their vulnerabilities and emotions, thus reducing their authentic self-disclosure (Neff & Harter, 2002). Adult Romantic Caregiving System Adult romantic relations involve not only the attachment system but also the caregiving system. In fact, attachment and caregiving are linked and reciprocally influence each other. Just as needy children seek their parents, adults look to their romantic partner for protection, support, and care when faced with adversity or personal challenges (Collins & Ford, 2010). A responsive adult caregiver meets a partner’s needs for support when the caregiving system is activated by suffering or distress. A responsive caregiver provides care and love, understands a partner’s feelings and attitudes, and facilitates autonomy and personal growth (Reis & Shaver, 1988). Research findings have suggested that responsive caregiving is vital for fulfilling and stable relationships (Collins & Feeney, 2000) and is related to attachment security (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Despite the fact that the caregiving system has been viewed as a vital component of adult emotional bonds, it has received little empirical attention (Collins & Ford, 2010). This study is intended to address this gap as well as the understudied link between authenticity in relationships and caregiving to partner. Goals of the Study The primary purpose of this research is to examine associations between authenticity in relationships and romantic attachment and caregiving. It is expected that dimensions of authenticity will be positively linked with attachment security and caregiving responsiveness. Past research on authenticity has focused mostly on adolescents or undergraduate samples from North America (e.g., Brunell et al., 2010; Gillath et al., 2010; Impett et al., 2013; Lopez & Rice, 2006; Neff & Suizzo, 2006), such as the sample in the AIRS validation study by Lopez and Rice (2006). Because adult participants may have different experiences in intimate relationships (Waldinger, Cohen, Schulz, & Crowell, 2015), this study explores the applicability of the AIRS to older individuals. By examining authenticity in a Portuguese sample, this study also GOUVEIA, SCHULZ, AND COSTA 738 provides an opportunity to explore the cross-cultural consistency of the construct of authenticity and its linkage to relevant relationship characteristics. Method This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Participants and Procedure Participants were all volunteers (no compensation was given) and were required to be married or to have been living together for at least 1 year. Because a certain amount of time is needed to create an attachment bond (Zeifman & Hazan, 1997), participants were limited to those already in a committed relationship. Past research (e.g., Downing, 2008) has found differences in authenticity due to relationship status (single, dating, married/living together), so the study sought to minimize this possible bias. The majority of the participants were graduate students or employees (academic and nonacademic) from various departments of the University of Porto, the larger public university in Portugal. The study was advertised through the university e-mail service, and participants were informed about the research goals, data confidentiality, and anonymity. Other participants were recruited through the snowball method. Questionnaires were completed online or on paper at the university facilities. The small number of participants with missing data (only some hard copy questionnaires were not completed) were excluded from analyses (n ⫽ 27). The final sample consisted of 400 participants (200 women and 200 men) between 23 and 71 years of age (M ⫽ 43.31, SD ⫽ 13.90). All of the participants were married or living together from 1 to 52 years (M ⫽ 18.46, SD ⫽ 14.68). Regarding education, 41.3% of the participants reported that they had not completed high ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment