1. Effects on Couples’ Post-Conflict Intimacy
Attachment Security, Gender, and Conflict That Expands Beyond The Problem:
Effects on Couples’ Post-Conflict Intimacy
Karen Prager, Ashley Thompson, Becca Mayers, & Bahareh Shahlaee
Authors.
Background
Couples whose conflicts escalate, becoming more negative and less focused on the problem at hand, risk creating unsatisfying relationships.
The first purpose of this research was to examine the association between dysfunctional conflict escalation and couples’ reconciliation efforts following conflict.
A further purpose of this research was to determine whether partners’ attachment insecurity worsens the effects of an expanded conflict on intimacy. Previous research shows that partners’ attachment security is associated with relationship satisfaction and conflict behavior (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), and more recently, with couples’ ability to recover from their conflicts (Salvatore et al., 2011; Prager et al., in press).
Predictions
Because they actively worry about their partner’s commitment to the relationship, anxiously attached individuals will experience even less intimacy following an escalated conflict than less anxious individuals experience.
Because they maintain emotional detachment in their romantic relationships, avoidant individuals will maintain their normal (low) level of intimacy following a conflict that expands beyond the original argument.
Method
Participants
100 couples (43% married), between the ages of 20-62, who had been cohabiting for at least 6 months.
Procedure
Participants completed the Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ). Afterwards, they kept a 21-day diary about their conflicts and intimate interactions with their partners.
On the first conflict-free day following a conflict, we assessed the partners’ level of intimate relating, to determine their recovery from the conflict.
Using actor-partner multi-level dyadic models, we analyzed the data in steps:
1) Main effects of attachment style
2) Presence or absence of an expanded conflict
3) Interaction effects: a) Attachment dimensions x type of conflict, b) gender x type of conflict.
Measures
Attachment. The Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ; Simpson et al., 1996) yielded scores for Avoidant and for Anxious attachment.
Intimacy. We measured intimacy with the Interaction Record Form – Intimacy (IRF-I; Prager & Buhrmester, 1998). EFA yielded two dimensions: 1) Understanding & Appreciation and 2) Self-Disclosure.
Conflict. We assessed conflict with a yes-no dummy variable derived from the item “My partner and I had a disagreement (or conflict) today.” Data analyses are based on 314 conflicts.
Conflict Expansion. When couples indicated they had a conflict that day, they answered a follow-up question: “How much did the conflict expand beyond the original topic?” 1=conflict did expand; 0=no expansion
Recovery from conflict. We scored each diary day as a day following a conflict (1) or no conflict the previous day (0).
Tables 1 & 2. Intimacy as a function of conflict expansion, moderated by attachment
Day of a Conflict
Understand & Appreciate
Self-Disclosure
Predictors
Parameter Estimate
Standard Error
Actor Anxious Attachment
-.077
.472
-.364
.259
Actor Avoidant Attachment
-1.302*
.600
-.955**
.333
Partner Anxious Attachment
-.831
.453
-1.035***
.280
Partner Avoidant Attachment
-.641
.599
-.309
.345
Main Effects of Conflict Expansion on Intimacy, Day of Conflict
Conflict Expanded Beyond the Problem
-2.067***
.380
-.316
.294
Conflict Expanded x Gender
.274
.218
.207
Conflict Expansion x Attachment Anxiety, Day of Conflict
Actor's Attachment Anxiety x Conflict Expanded
-.048
.291
-.095
.186
Partner's Attachment Anxiety x Conflict Expanded
-.185
.284
-.540**
.202
Conflict Expansion x Attachment Avoidance, Day of Conflict
Actor avoidant attachment x conflicted expanded
-.289
.391
-.113
.306
Partner avoidant attachment x conflict expanded
.755*
391
-.032
.305
Day After a Conflict
Understand & Appreciate
Self-Disclosure
Predictors
Parameter Estimate
Standard Error
Actor Anxious Attachment
-.537
.432
.478
.421
Actor Avoidant Attachment
-.934
.606
.145
.586
Partner Anxious Attachment
-.336
.444
-.964
.417
Partner Avoidant Attachment
.113
.607
-.627
.601
Main Effects of Conflict Expansion on Intimacy, Day After Conflict
Conflict Expanded Beyond the Problem *
.416
.001
.404
Conflict Expanded x Gender
.645*
.327
.918*
.377
Conflict Expansion x Attachment Anxiety, Day After Conflict
Actor's Attachment Anxiety x Conflict Expanded
.427
.339
.698*
.336
Partner's Attachment Anxiety x Conflict Expanded
.013
.318
.352
.300
Conflict Expansion x Attachment Avoidance, Day After Conflict
Actor avoidant attachment x conflicted expanded
-.029
.451
.106
.500
Partner avoidant attachment x conflict expanded
.261
.485
.024
.535
Results
Actors’ avoidant and partners’ anxious attachment predicted less intimacy on days with conflict only.
Conflict that expands beyond the problem results in less post-conflict intimacy - understanding and appreciation. The effect on intimacy was moderated by gender.
As long as conflict doesn’t escalate, men perceive less precipitous reductions in self-disclosure than women do.
People with an avoidant partner experienced less understanding on days with conflict, unless conflict escalates, in which case, they perceive more understanding than those with less avoidant partners.
As long as conflict does not expand beyond the problem, less anxious individuals recover normal self-disclosure by the next day. If conflict escalates, less anxious individuals perceive more extreme reductions in self-disclosure than do anxiously attached individuals.
Discussion
Our prediction that anxious attachment intensifies the effect of dysfunctional conflict was not supported.
Our prediction that avoidant individuals are less affected by dysfunctional conflict was supported.
When conflict escalates, avoidant partners may detach themselves to avoid the negative emotion, thus preventing the conflict from escalating further.
Perhaps anxious individuals perceive more intimacy after escalated conflict because they suppress their post-conflict anger in order to regain an intimate connection with the partner.
References
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure,
Dynamics, and Change. New York: Guilford.
Prager, K. J., & Buhrmester, D. (1998). Intimacy and need fulfillment in couple relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(4),
Prager, K.J., Shirvani, F., Poucher, J., Cavallin, G., Truong, M., & Garcia, J.J. (in
press). Recovery from Conflict and Revival of Intimacy in Cohabiting
Couples. Personal Relationships.
Salvatore, J. E., Kuo, S., Steele, R. D., Simpson, J. A., & Collins, W. (2011).
Recovering from conflict in romantic relationships: A development perspective. Psychological Science, 22(3),
Simpson J., Rholes W., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An
attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5),
df varied from 97 – 156; Not shown in the tables but included in computing the models are fixed estimates of variance accounted for by daily variations in intimacy. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001