Working models of attachment and reactions to different forms of caregiving from romantic partners.

Inspired by attachment theory, the authors tested a series of theoretically derived predictions about connections between attachment working models (attachment to one's parents assessed by the Adult Attachment Interview; M. Main & R. Goldwyn, 1994) and the effectiveness of specific types of caregiving spontaneously displayed by dating partners during a stressful conflict-resolution discussion. Each partner first completed the Adult Attachment Interview. One week later, each couple was videotaped while they tried to resolve a current problem in their relationship. Trained observers then rated each interaction for the degree to which (a) emotional, instrumental, and physical caregiving behaviors were displayed; (b) care recipients appeared calmed by their partners' caregiving attempts; and (c) each partner appeared distressed during the discussion. Individuals who had more secure representations of their parents were rated as being more calmed if/when their partners provided greater emotional care, especially if they were rated as more distressed. Conversely, individuals who had more insecure (dismissive) representations of their parents reacted more favorably to instrumental caregiving behaviors from their partners, especially if they were more distressed. The broader theoretical implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Seeking security or growth: A regulatory focus perspective on motivations in romantic relationships.

Using a multimethod approach, we examined how regulatory focus shapes people's perceptual, behavioral, and emotional responses in different situations in romantic relationships. We first examined how chronic regulatory focus affects romantic partners' support perceptions and problem-solving behaviors while they were engaged in a conflict resolution discussion (Study 1). Next, we experimentally manipulated regulatory focus and tested its effects on partner perceptions when individuals recalled a prior conflict resolution discussion (Study 2). We then examined how chronic regulatory focus influences individuals' emotional responses to hypothetical relationship events (Study 3) and identified specific partner behaviors to which people should respond with regulatory goal-congruent emotions (Study 4). Strongly prevention-focused people perceived their partners as more distancing and less supportive during conflict (Studies 1 and 2), approached conflict resolution by discussing the details related to the conflict (Study 1), and experienced a negative relationship outcome with more agitation (Study 3). Strongly promotion-focused people perceived their partners as more supportive and less distancing (Studies 1 and 2), displayed more creative conflict resolution behavior (Study 1), and experienced a negative relationship outcome with more sadness and a favorable outcome with more positive emotions (Study 3). In Study 4, recalling irresponsible and responsible partner behaviors was associated with experiencing more prevention-focused emotions, whereas recalling affectionate and neglectful partner behaviors was associated with more promotion-focused emotions. The findings show that regulatory focus and approach–avoidance motivations influence certain interpersonal processes in similar ways, but regulatory focus theory also generates novel predictions on which approach–avoidance models are silent. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)