1. 1 University of Houston, 2 University at Buffalo, SUNY Maggie Britton 1 Jaye L. Derrick 1 Sana Haddad 1 Kenneth E. Leonard 2 I get by with a little help from my friends: Avoidantly attached people benefit from using fictional pseudo-relationships to cope with stress

2. Stress buffering hypothesis Cohen & Wills (1985)

3. Stress buffering hypothesis Stress Health Cohen & Wills (1985)

4. Stress buffering hypothesis Social Support Stress Health Cohen & Wills (1985)

5. Avoidant attachment Collins & Feeney (2000); Ognibene & Collins (1998)

6. Uncomfortable with intimacy Avoidant attachment Collins & Feeney (2000); Ognibene & Collins (1998)

7. Uncomfortable with intimacy Do not seek social support Avoidant attachment Collins & Feeney (2000); Ognibene & Collins (1998)

8. Social surrogates Gabriel, Valenti, & Young (2015)

9. Reminders of others Parasocial relationships Social worlds Social surrogates Gabriel, Valenti, & Young (2015)

10. Reminders of others ▫ Pictures ▫ Comfort foods Parasocial relationships Social worlds Social surrogates Gabriel, Valenti, & Young (2015)

11. Reminders of others ▫ Pictures ▫ Comfort foods Parasocial relationships ▫ Fictional character ▫ Celebrity Social worlds Social surrogates Gabriel, Valenti, & Young (2015)

12. Reminders of others ▫ Pictures ▫ Comfort foods Parasocial relationships ▫ Fictional character ▫ Celebrity Social worlds ▫ Favorite books, movies, TV shows Social surrogates Gabriel, Valenti, & Young (2015)

13. Social surrogates fulfill needs

14. The current study

15. Social surrogate use will be associated with relationship functioning for people with high feelings of avoidance

16. The current study Social surrogate use will be associated with relationship functioning for people with high feelings of avoidance Social surrogate use will not be associated with relationship functioning for people with low feelings of avoidance

17. Method

18. Recruited from marriage license office Completed mailed questionnaires at time of marriage and five follow-ups Adult development study 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

19. N = 634 couples at Time 0 Husbands: ▫ 59% White, 33% African American, 8% other ▫ 66% at least some college education ▫ 89% employed at least part time Wives: ▫ 62% White, 31% African American, 7% other ▫ 62% at least some college education ▫ 75% employed at least part time Participants

20. Attachment ▫ Relationship questionnaire  Bartholomew & Horowitz (1991)  Created continuous dimensions of avoidance and anxiety Social surrogate use ▫ Coping with stress scale  Indicate what you generally do when you are under a lot of stress.  “I do things like go to the movies, read, listen to music, or watch TV, to keep myself from thinking about the problem.”  1 = I don’t do this at all; 4 = I do this a lot Measures

21. Relationship conflict ▫ Test of negative social exchange (TENSE)  Ruehlman & Karoly (1991)  Modified for the Adult Development Study  In the past month, my partner…  “Ignored my wishes or needs”  “Made fun of me”  “Disagreed with me”  “Was angry with me”  “Was too demanding of my attention" Measures

22. Results

23. Multivariate multilevel modeling ▫ Time points within couples ▫ Husbands/wives as multivariate outcomes Predictors person mean centered ▫ Positive effects (higher than own mean) ▫ Negative effects (lower than own mean) Concurrent and time-lagged analyses Overview of analyses

24. Attachment avoidance x social surrogate use predicts relationship conflict Concurrent Avoidance x social surrogate use (b = -.057, p =.030) Lagged Avoidance x social surrogate use (b = -.066, p =.017)

25. Attachment avoidance x social surrogate use predicts relationship conflict

31. Notes on analyses Included anxiety (n.s.) Included partner effects (n.s.) ▫ Not harmful for the partner

32. Discussion

33. Conclusions Avoidant people’s relationships may benefit from the use of social surrogates ▫ Receive social support ▫ No partner interaction  No increased intimacy

34. Limitations and future directions Data were pulled from the Adult Development Study Indirect/single-item measure of social surrogate use Conduct study with better measures to address research question

35. This work was supported by: Grant R37 AA09922 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism awarded to Kenneth E. Leonard Acknowledgements

36. Thank you! Social Processes Lab Dr. Jaye Derrick Sana Haddad Zachary Baker Amanda Diaz Hannah Gasper Jeffrey Le Syed Rizvi Research Institute on Addictions Dr. Kenneth Leonard

37. Results table (lagged) Predictorsbp95% CI Constant 2.08 H 1.91 W 0.00 H 0.00 W [2.02, 2.14] H [1.86, 1.97] W Actor Lagged Relationship Conflict-.104.000[-.143, -.066] Actor Lagged Social Surrogate Use-.017.156[-.040,.006] Partner Lagged Social Surrogate Use-.025.032[-.049, -.002] Actor Lagged Anxiety.017.348[-.018,.051] Partner Lagged Anxiety.012.485[-.022,.047] Actor Lagged Avoidance.037.032[.003,.071] Partner Lagged Avoidance-.002.917[-.036,.032] Actor Lagged Anxiety X Lagged Social Surrogate Use-.019.469[-.070,.032] Partner Lagged Anxiety X Lagged Social Surrogate Use-.040.126[-.091,.011] Actor Lagged Avoidance X Lagged Social Surrogate Use-.057.030[-.108, -.005] Partner Lagged Avoidance X Lagged Social Surrogate Use-.039.138[-.091,.013]

38. Results table continued (concurrent) Predictorsbp95% CI Actor PMC Social Surrogate Use-.012.298[-.036,.011] Partner PMC Social Surrogate Use-.024.045[-.047, -.001] Actor PMC Anxiety.033 H.118 W.186 H.000 W [-.016,.082] H [.072,.163] W Partner PMC Anxiety.026.149[-.009,.060] Actor PMC Avoidance.019.287[-.016,.055] Partner PMC Avoidance.011.548[-.025,.046] Actor PMC Anxiety X PMC Social Surrogate Use.008.772[-.044,.059] Partner PMC Anxiety X PMC Social Surrogate Use-.022.407[-.073,.030] Actor PMC Avoidance X PMC Social Surrogate Use-.066.017[-.120, -.012] Partner PMC Avoidance X PMC Social Surrogate Use-.060.030[-.114, -.006]