Links between attachment orientations and dispositional and diary-based measures of disclosure in dating couples: A study of actor and partner effects

Transcription

1 Personal Relationships, 9 (2002), Printed in the United States of America. Copyright # 2002 IARR /02 Links between attachment orientations and dispositional and diary-based measures of disclosure in dating couples: A study of actor and partner effects STEVEN A. BRADFORD, a JUDITH A. FEENEY, a AND LORNE CAMPBELL b a University of Queensland; and b Simon Fraser University Abstract Issues concerning the influence of attachment characteristics on own and partner s disclosure were addressed using a sample of 113 couples in medium-term dating relationships. Individual differences in attachment were assessed in terms of relationship anxiety and avoidance. Disposition to disclose was assessed using questionnaire measures of selfdisclosure, relationship-focused disclosure, and the ability to elicit disclosure from the partner; in addition, structured diaries were used to assess aspects of disclosure (amount, intimacy, emotional tone, and satisfaction) in the context of couples everyday interactions. Couple-level analyses showed that avoidance strongly predicted dispositional measures of disclosure, whereas anxiety (particularly partner s anxiety) was related to negative evaluations of everyday interactions. Interactive effects of attachment dimensions and gender were also obtained, highlighting the complexity of communication behavior. The results are discussed in terms of the goals and strategies associated with working models of attachment. In recent years, attachment theory has been a guiding theoretical framework for exploring individual differences in various aspects of adults relationship behavior and general adjustment, such as emotional control (Feeney, 1995), caregiving style (Kunce & Shaver, 1994), communication patterns (Feeney, Noller, & Callan, 1994), relationship quality (Collins & Read, 1990), social support seeking (Florian, Mikulincer, & Bucholtz, 1995), and health behaviors (Feeney & Ryan, 1994; Mikail, Henderson, & Tasca, 1994). This body of research is based on the proposition that working models of attachment influence the ways in which individuals view themselves and relate to others. Working models are mental structures that reflect the individual s The authors would like to thank Deborah Kashy and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the manuscript. Correspondence should be addressed to Steven A. Bradford, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4072, Australia; Steveb@psy.uq. edu.au cumulative attachment experiences. These structures are thought to comprise four interrelated elements: memories of attachmentrelated experiences, beliefs and attitudes about self and others, attachment-related goals and needs, and strategies to attain these goals and needs. The nature of these memories, beliefs, goals, and strategies differs across attachment styles, and influences behavior in personal relationships (Collins & Read, 1994). Although categorical measures of adult attachment are still widely used, variations in adult attachment do not fit into discrete categories and attempts to make them fit create methodological and statistical problems (Fraley & Waller, 1998). Recently, Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) developed the Experiences in Close Relationships questionnaire (hereafter, ECR), a 36-item measure that assesses two orthogonal dimensions: anxiety and avoidance. The ECR is a promising instrument that may, to a greater extent than many other measures, enable a more rigorous assessment of attachment-related issues and 491

2 492 facilitate an integrated body of findings. However, no published research has examined the associations between the ECR dimensions and measures of disclosure between intimate partners. The present study addresses this issue, using questionnaire and diary-based reports of couple communication to provide a comprehensive picture of the ability of attachment measures to predict own and partner s perceptions of disclosure. An important focus of theory and research into personal relationships has been the functional role of self-disclosure in the formation, maintenance, and deterioration of relationships (e.g., Finkenauer & Hazam, 2000; Prager, 1989; Vittengl & Holt, 2000). Research has suggested that self-disclosure is at the very heart of interpersonal communication and, as such, makes a critical contribution to relationship outcomes. For example, Harvey and Omarzu (1997) have argued that self-disclosure plays a fundamental role in facilitating relationships and in influencing attributions about own and partner s motives, intentions, and actions. Moreover, research has shown that self-disclosure and relationships are mutually transformative: Selfdisclosure can alter the definition, intensity, and character of relationships; in turn, the nature of the relationship (e.g., the degree of closeness) can change the meaning and relevance of self-disclosure (Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). Given the complex nature of couple communication, it is important to assess not only the amount of self-disclosure, but also partners evaluations of the disclosure process. Associations between attachment and disclosure Attachment theory suggests the relevance of attachment principles to patterns of disclosure in couple relationships. For example, persons characterized by low anxiety and low avoidance (secure) tend to view intimate relationships as rewarding, and would generally be expected to engage in appropriate levels of disclosure. On the other hand, those high in avoidance (dismissing and fearful) see intimate relationships as unrewarding or threatening; S. A. Bradford, J. A. Feeney, and Lorne Campbell they may attempt to maintain interpersonal distance by limiting disclosure, and may find it difficult to elicit disclosure from others. Those who are high in anxiety may engage in excessive self-disclosure in the very early stages of their relationships in an attempt to forge intimacy. Attachment orientation may also account for individual differences in the ability to acquire skills associated with disclosure. For instance, individuals who are high in both avoidance and anxiety view themselves as unworthy and others as unaccepting. Behaviorally, these views may be reflected in fearful individuals avoiding the interpersonal risks associated with disclosure, and hence having fewer opportunities to develop and practice disclosure skills. Studies exploring the association between attachment and disclosure have produced theoretically meaningful results, but also some inconsistent findings. For example, Mikulincer and Nachshon (1991) used a three-category measure of attachment and a dispositional (global, questionnaire-based) measure of self-disclosure, and reported that secure and anxious-ambivalent ( preoccupied) individuals disclosed more than avoidant individuals. In contrast, Keelan, Dion, and Dion (1998) used Bartholomew s four-category model (Bartholomew, 1990), and found that attachment style was unrelated to patterns of dispositional self-disclosure. There may be two main reasons for such inconsistent findings. First, researchers often have to extrapolate findings from different measures and models of attachment, which can make it difficult to compare results. Also, despite growing consensus that attachment should be assessed in terms of underlying dimensions, few researchers interested in selfdisclosure have adopted this approach. The other possible reason for inconsistent findings lies in the way disclosure has been conceptualized and assessed. Specifically, existing research shows several limitations in this regard. First, researchers have generally assessed self-disclosure in terms of its amount and depth. Consequently, valuable information about other key aspects of disclosure (e.g., emotional tone, satisfaction) is overlooked. For example, the emotional tone of disclosure

3 Attachment and disclosure 493 can indicate how well couples are negotiating their relationship. Reports of positive emotional tone would be expected to follow the successful sharing of personal thoughts and feelings. Conversely, negative emotional tone would be likely to follow perceived threats or damage to the relationship (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Feeney and Hohaus (2001) found that attachment security was related to the emotional tone of married couples disclosure about caregiving episodes, as rated by independent judges. Specifically, husbands who described their partner s needs negatively were higher in anxiety than other husbands, and their wives were higher in anxiety than other wives. Further, wives who described their husband s needs negatively were higher in both anxiety and avoidance. Although these findings point to the link between attachment and emotional tone of disclosure, there is a need for research that assesses partners own perceptions of the tone of their day-to-day interactions. Second, in terms of the content of disclosure, research has generally focused on broadly based measures of self-disclosure, rather than the disclosure of information specifically concerning the relationship. This focus is problematic, because the disclosure of thoughts and feelings about the couple bond is likely to play an especially crucial role in relationship development and maintenance (Baxter & Montgomery, 2000). Attachment characteristics may contribute to individuals differentially regulating the information they disclose, depending on whether the information is about themselves or their relationship. For example, although anxious (preoccupied) individuals tend to score high on measures of disclosure (e.g., Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991; Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997), little is known about the content of their disclosures. Given their tendency to be preoccupied about relationship issues such as reciprocation, love, and commitment, those high in anxiety may be inclined to focus their disclosure on relationship issues, and this effect may underpin the link between anxiety and high disclosure. Third, most research examining the association between attachment and disclosure has used either laboratory-based observations (e.g., Keelan et al., 1998; Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991) or dispositional measures of disclosure (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990). Dispositional measures are of considerable interest, given the evidence of relatively stable and pervasive individual differences in the tendency to disclose (Cline, 1983). Furthermore, dispositional measures provide useful retrospective reports that tap participants global ideas about self and the relationship (Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997). However, disclosure occurs in a dynamic and complex relational environment. For this reason, studies based solely on dispositional measures or laboratory observations of disclosure are limited because they pay insufficient attention to partners immediate reactions to their everyday interactions. Structured diary records complement dispositional measures (Reis, 1994; Wheeler & Reis, 1991). Diaries are event-focused; hence, the effects of recall biases and sentiment override are reduced, resulting in more reliable assessment. This is an important consideration, given attachmentrelated differences in the way individuals process and recall relationship information (Mikulincer, 1997; Mikulincer & Arad, 1999). Other important features of diaries are that they assess spontaneous interactions, both public and private, in couples natural environment, and take account of each partner s perspective of the same event. Pietromonaco and Barrett (1997) used a diary method to investigate links between attachment categories and disclosure. As expected, preoccupied individuals reported higher levels of intimacy and self-disclosure than all other attachment groups. However, contrary to expectations, fearful individuals were the most satisfied with their interactions. This finding is surprising given the extreme insecurity that characterizes fearful individuals, and it suggests that these individuals may have low expectations of the value of their own disclosures and of their partner s responses. Although this diary study yielded significant results, it had several limitations: It relied on a categorical measure of attachment, did not include any dispositional measures of disclosure, and did not distinguish between interactions with romantic partners, family members, and friends. Feeney et al. (1994) addressed

4 494 some of these limitations in their study of attachment, communication, and relationship satisfaction in married couples. Using a twodimensional measure of attachment and diarybased communication records, they found that husbands ratings of self-disclosure and conversational involvement were related positively to their comfort with closeness (cf. low avoidance). Further, ratings of satisfaction with couple interactions were related positively to husbands comfort with closeness and negatively to wives anxiety. These findings point to the utility of diary records that assess multiple indices of couple communication. A final limitation of previous studies of attachment and disclosure concerns the limited focus on the dyad; that is, researchers have either neglected to study real couples, or have not taken full advantage of the features of couple data. Partners scores on a dependent measure such as disclosure may be interrelated; further, one person s disclosure may be related to both own and partner s attachment characteristics. The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kashy & Kenny, 2000) allows researchers to estimate the effect of an individual s characteristics on his or her own score on the dependent variable (actor effect) as well as on the partner s score on the dependent variable (partner effect). For example, in terms of the link between avoidance and self-disclosure, the actor effect assesses whether highly avoidant individuals disclose less information than other individuals, controlling for the partner s avoidance; the partner effect assesses whether persons with highly avoidant partners are less selfdisclosing than other persons, controlling for the actor s own avoidance. Partner effects explicitly model the interdependence that exists between relationship partners; in close relationships, these effects may be of equal or greater theoretical and empirical importance than actor effects (Kenny & Cook, 1999). The present study The present study of attachment and disclosure has a number of unique features. First, it adopted a multimethod approach, using both dispositional and diary-based measures to S. A. Bradford, J. A. Feeney, and Lorne Campbell assess disclosure. Second, the study expanded the conceptualization of disclosure: The dispositional measures distinguished between disclosure about the self and about the relationship, and the diary records included a wide range of disclosure-related dimensions (amount, intimacy, satisfaction, emotional tone). Third, the study focused on the relations between attachment and disclosure among real (dating) couples, and used APIM methods to assess actor and partner effects. Previous research into relationship processes has supported the relevance of partners attachment characteristics (e.g., females anxiety is inversely related to male partners relationship evaluations; Feeney & Noller, 1996), but no previous study has comprehensively explored interactions between own and partner s attachment dimensions on measures of disclosure. Based on the theory and research reviewed above, a number of hypotheses were derived. Hypothesis 1 considers actor effects of avoidance. H1a: H1b: It was expected that on dispositional measures of disclosure, avoidance would predict low amounts of disclosure about the self and the relationship, and low ratings of one s ability to get others to open up. For the diary records, it was expected that individuals who rate high on avoidance would report low amounts of disclosure and less intimate disclosure. The predictions for partner effects of avoidance (Hypothesis 2) were based on the concept of reciprocal disclosure; that is, low levels of disclosure by one partner tend to be met with low levels of disclosure by the other, hence the following two hypotheses. H2a: H2b: High avoidance in partners was expected to be associated with low disclosure about the self and about the relationship. For the diary records, it was expected that high avoidance in partners

5 Attachment and disclosure 495 would predict low amounts of disclosure and less intimate disclosure. The following hypotheses concerning actor effects of anxiety (Hypothesis 3) were formulated for both genders. However, based on the consistent finding that women s anxiety is associated with their negative evaluations of the relationship, it was expected that the actor effects of anxiety would be more pronounced for women. H3a: H3b: In terms of dispositional measures, relationship anxiety was expected to be related to high levels of relationship-focused disclosure. For the diary-based measure, however, high anxiety was expected to be associated with ratings of less intimate disclosure, more negative emotional tone of conversations, and less satisfaction with disclosure. Given the robust link between relationship anxiety and partners relationship evaluations, anxiety was expected to predict partners negative evaluations of disclosure (Hypothesis 4). Again, however, these associations were expected to be more pronounced for women s anxiety. H4a: H4b: For dispositional measures, it was expected that partner s anxiety would be associated with high levels of relationship-focused disclosure. For the diary-based measure, it was expected that partner s anxiety would be associated with less intimate disclosure, more negative ratings of emotional tone, and less satisfaction. No study to date has comprehensively explored the interactive effects of own and partner s avoidance and anxiety on disclosure variables. Hypothesis 5 addresses this issue in terms of own attachment dimensions. Hypothesis 6 is the expectations for partner effects. H5a: H5b: H5c: H6a: H6b: In terms of actor effects, it was expected that the combination of low anxiety and avoidance (cf. secure attachment) would be associated with particularly high levels of relationship-focused disclosure. Individuals high on both avoidance and anxiety (fearful) were expected to score particularly low on the Opener Scale (described below in the Method section). With regard to the diary records, individuals low on both attachment dimensions were expected to report the greatest amount and the most intimate disclosure. The partners of individuals low on both avoidance and anxiety were expected to report the greatest amounts of disclosure and the most intimate disclosure, as assessed by the diary. Conversely, high scores on both attachment dimensions were expected to be associated with partners making particularly negative evaluations of the emotional tone of their interactions. Based on attachment theory, secure individuals would generally be expected to report the greatest satisfaction with their interactions. However, Pietromonaco and Barrett (1997) found that men and women who were fearfully attached reported more satisfaction with their interactions than other attachment styles. Hence, no specific predictions were made concerning the interactive effects (of actors or partners attachment dimensions) on ratings of satisfaction. Method Participants One hundred and thirteen heterosexual dating couples were recruited from introductory

6 496 psychology classes, media releases, and snowball sampling techniques. All of the total of 226 participants returned the attachment and dispositional disclosure questionnaires; 200 (101 women and 99 men) returned usable interaction diaries. Of the 226 participants, 76% were full-time university students, 23% were in full-time employment, and 1% were unemployed. Participants ranged in age from 16 to 34 years, with a mean of years. In terms of relationship involvement, 21.6% of respondents indicated that their involvement with their partner was extremely serious, 54% described it as very serious, 21.6% as quite serious, and 2.8% as casual. Recruitment had specified length of relationship as 6 to 24 months because disclosure is a dynamic process that evolves over time: Couples in long-term relationships generally have established rules for the expression of information, whereas in new relationships, there are few rules to regulate disclosure. Relationships of moderate duration are of particular interest, as they are in transition from rule-free to rulebound disclosure. Procedure Participants completed self-report questionnaires assessing attachment security and global perceptions of the ability to elicit disclosure and the tendency to disclose about the self and the relationship. The order of presentation of the questionnaires was counterbalanced. Following completion of the questionnaires, all participants agreed to record, for a 7-day period, each conversation with their partner that lasted 10 minutes or longer. The diary record was modeled after the Rochester Interaction Record (Wheeler & Nezlek, 1977) and the Iowa Communication Record (Duck & Rutt, 1988). Measures Attachment: Experiences in close relationships questionnaire (Brennan et al., 1998). The ECR, a 36-item measure of attachment, uses a 7-point response format (1 = disagree strongly to 7 = agree strongly) to assess two continuous dimensions that underlie adult attachment style: avoidance and anxiety. The S. A. Bradford, J. A. Feeney, and Lorne Campbell 18 items comprising each scale are averaged, to give possible scale scores between 1 and 7. High coefficient alphas were obtained for both the avoidance (.91) and anxiety (.88) scales. Sample items for avoidance include I try to avoid getting too close to my partner and I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down. Sample items for anxiety include I worry about being abandoned and If I can t get my partner to show interest in me, I get upset or angry. Disclosure: Self-disclosure inventory (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983). The SDI, a 10- item measure with a 5-point response format, assesses the amount of disclosure of selfreferent information that the respondent makes to their current partner. The SDI yields a total score between 10 and 50 (a =.76). Sample topics include My personal habits and What makes me the person I am. Relationship disclosure inventory. The RDI, a 17-item measure developed for this research, uses a 5-point response format to assess the amount of disclosure of relationship-focused information that the respondent gives their current partner. Responses are summed to yield possible scores between 17 and 85 (a =.90). Sample topics include Things that make the relationship unique and Rules about how we behave toward each other. Opener scale (Miller et al., 1983). This scale is a general measure of an individual s ability to elicit disclosure from others (e.g., I easily get people to open up and I ve been told I m a good listener ). The 10 items are summed, giving a possible range of 10 to 50. An alpha coefficient of.86 was obtained. Interaction Diary. The interaction diary, an experience-sampling record developed for this study, elicits specific information concerning couples conversations. Participants are asked to record the purpose, duration, and context of their conversations. They also evaluate each conversation in terms of the emotional tone (positive and negative), the amount, appropriateness, and intimacy of self and partner disclosure (using 5-point scales), together with own and partner s acceptance of disclosure, and satisfaction

7 Attachment and disclosure 497 with the process and outcome of disclosure (using 7-point scales). 1 To enhance the reliability and validity of the sampling, respondents received a clear definition of what constituted a conversation; this was defined as any verbal exchange between partners that lasted 10 minutes or longer. The term disclosure was not defined for participants because we were interested in the broad spectrum of revelations that dating couples may engage in. Couples were instructed to record conversations as soon as possible after the event. To minimize potential problems with the diary methodology, such as individual differences in the motivation to record conversations, the experimenter guided participants through the procedure required for completing each diary entry. On return of the diaries, entries were checked and couples were debriefed. Diaries were returned by 101 couples, but two of the diaries completed by men were excluded because they were incorrectly filled out. The diary measure was used to investigate two a priori themes: (a) dimensions of disclosure (appropriateness, amount, intimacy, and emotional tone), and (b) satisfaction with the disclosure process. Before assessing the association between attachment and diary measures, it is important to confirm that the diary ratings tapped these two themes. Principal components analysis with varimax rotation was conducted on the dimensions of disclosure (using mean scores for each participant): appropriateness, amount, intimacy, and emotional tone. The Bartlett test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy provided evidence of factorability of the variables. Three factors with high internal consistency provided the most interpretable solution. Ratings of the amount and appropriateness of own and partner s disclosure loaded highly on Factor 1 (a =.77). Ratings of the intimacy of 1. The diary data presented here are part of a larger data set. The five- and seven-point response formats were used in the diary in order to make comparisons with prior research. These comparisons are not relevant to the current paper and therefore are not discussed. own and partner s disclosure loaded on Factor 2 (a =.90), and ratings of negative and positive emotional tone loaded (in reverse directions) on Factor 3 (a =.84). A second principal components analysis with varimax rotation was performed on the five items assessing satisfaction: satisfaction with the amount of self and partner disclosure, acceptance of self and partner, and satisfaction with the outcome. Evidence of the factorability of the variables again came from the Bartlett test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy. A single factor that was well defined by all five items was extracted (a =.94), and was called satisfaction with communication. Correlational and reliability analyses confirmed the four diary factors to be distinct, with only two correlations exceeding.40: Satisfaction with communication was moderately correlated with amount of disclosure (r =.54, p <.01), and emotional tone (r =.69, p <.01). Results Overview of analyses The analyses are laid out in two sections. First, descriptive statistics for the attachment and disclosure measures are reported. Second, the APIM analyses, examining actors and partners attachment dimensions as predictors of various aspects of disclosure, are presented. Descriptive data Means and standard deviations for the ECR avoidance and anxiety dimensions are shown in Table 1. These statistics indicate adequate variability on both attachment dimensions. Overall, respondents reported 2019 conversations on the diary measure. Of these, 1908 (94.41%) were matched within couple, whereas 113 (5.59%) were unmatched (i.e., only one partner reported having the conversation). For both sexes, the number of conversations reported by participants who completed the diary records ranged from 1 to 24, and the average number of conversations per couple was Men reported an average of 8.78 conversations (SD = 5.64), and women

8 498 Table 1. Means and standard deviations for attachment dimensions measured by the Experiences in Close Relationships questionnaire Avoidance ECR dimensions Anxiety Men 2.39 (.80) 3.50 (.92) Women 2.28 (.87) 3.78 (.96) Overall 2.34 (.84) 3.64 (.95) Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses (n = 113 for each gender). reported an average of 9.11 (SD = 5.63). Conversations had a mean duration of minutes. Most conversations (74%) were conducted face-to-face, with the remainder being by telephone. Couples reported a wide range of types of conversations, including sharing nonintimate information and plans (65%), expressing love and intimacy (17%), reconciling or resolving differences (11%), discussing family and friends (4%), and engaging in arguments (3%). Table 2 shows the correlations between the focal variables (for men, women, and withindyad). The within-dyad correlations point to the nonindependence of partners reports of disclosure. Associations between attachment and disclosure: Dyadic-level analyses For dyadic-level analyses, actor and partner effects of avoidance and anxiety were estimated for each dependent measure. These effects were estimated using PROC MIXED in SAS (Campbell & Kashy, 2002), which can be used for multilevel modeling, and which, in the dyadic case, treats the data from two dyad members as nested scores within a group that has n = 2. The predictor variables in each model included the actor and partner effects of avoidance and anxiety. These variables were centered prior to the analyses, based on mean scores calculated for the entire sample. Interaction effects between actors avoidance and anxiety, and between partners avoidance and anxiety, were also included in the model. S. A. Bradford, J. A. Feeney, and Lorne Campbell Gender was also included, as was the interaction between gender and all actor and partner effects; these interactions test directly whether any of the effects differ for men and women. The actor and partner effects estimated in this model are unstandardized regression coefficients. Therefore, each coefficient represents the amount of change in the dependent variable given a one-point change in the predictor variable. (Interactions between actor and partner effects were also entered to determine, for example, whether the effect of an actor s anxiety depended on the partner s level of avoidance; none of these interactions were significant, so they are not discussed further.) The results of the APIM analyses are summarized in Table 3. Overall, avoidance was most strongly associated with dispositional measures of disclosure, whereas anxiety was linked to reports of diary disclosure, particularly for the partners of highly anxious individuals. Support for the hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Actor effects of avoidance. Hypothesis 1a was supported. Actors avoidance was negatively related to dispositional reports of the amount of disclosure about the self and about the relationship, and of the ability to get others to disclose information. These associations were quite strong. For example, for every 1-point increase in avoidance, scores decreased by 3.37 on the SDI (self-disclosure), 5.77 points on the RDI (relationship-oriented disclosure), and 2.17 points on the Opener Scale. A two-way interaction between gender and actor s avoidance on Opener Scale scores showed that the actor effect was more pronounced for men than for women. Hypothesis 1b was also supported. There was a strong actor effect of avoidance for amount of diary-based disclosure, indicating that higher levels of avoidance were associated with people disclosing less information to their partners during everyday interactions. A marginally significant actor effect of avoidance was also obtained for intimacy, indicating that individuals high in avoidance were less intimate with their everyday disclosures. When relationship length was included as a

9 Attachment and disclosure 499 Table 2. Correlations between attachment and disclosure variables for men, women, and within-dyad Attachment dimensions Dispositional disclosure Diary-based disclosure ECR a dimensions 1. Avoidance **.39**.43**.30**.24* Anxiety Dispositional disclosure 3. Self.39**.13.23**.65**.33**.36**.20*.15.23* 4. Relationship.35**.14.71**.35**.36**.28**.21* Opener ** Diary-based disclosure 6. Amount.10.22*.25**.29**.11.59**.50**.34**.62** 7. Intimacy **.62**.35**.40** 8. Emotional tone.10.35** **.13.55**.64** 9. Satisfaction.22*.36**.27**.24*.14.51**.14.77**.58** Note. Bold-faced entries on the main diagonal show the within-dyad correlations (i.e., the correlation between men s and women s scores for each variable); the upper and lower sections show correlations between the variables for men and women, respectively. **p <.01, *p <.05. a Experiences in Close Relationships questionnaire. covariate in the analyses, however, this latter effect became nonsignificant. Hypothesis 2: Partner effects of avoidance. Hypothesis 2a received partial support. There was a marginally significant partner effect of avoidance for the dispositional measure of relationship-focused disclosure, suggesting that individuals tended not to disclose this type of information to more avoidant partners. However, there was no partner effect of avoidance on the measure of dispositional disclosure about the self. Hypothesis 2b was not supported: There was no evidence that an individual s avoidance influenced the partner s ratings on amount or intimacy of diary-assessed disclosure. Hypothesis 3: Actor effect of anxiety. Hypothesis 3a was not supported. Actors anxiety was not associated with dispositional reports of relationship-focused disclosure (or with any other dispositional measure of disclosure). Hypothesis 3b received mixed support. The proposed actor effect of anxiety on intimacy of diary disclosure was not supported. Significant actor effects of anxiety emerged, however, for diary-assessed satisfaction and emotional tone. Individuals high in anxiety reported being more dissatisfied with their interactions, and saw the interactions as more negative in emotional tone. A two-way interaction between gender and actor s anxiety, b =.12, t(126) = 2.31, p < 05, further indicated that highly anxious women rated their interactions more negatively than did less anxious women. By contrast, for men, the link between anxiety and emotional tone was negligible. Hypothesis 4: Partner effect of anxiety. Hypothesis 4a was not supported; that is, partners anxiety was not associated with the dispositional measure of relationship-focused disclosure. As Table 3 shows, the predictions concerning partner effects of anxiety were

10 500 Table 3. Summary of actor and partner effects of ECR a attachment dimensions (avoidance and anxiety) for dispositional and diary-based measures of disclosure Avoidance Anxiety Actor df t Partner df t Actor df t Partner df t Dispositional disclosure Self ** Relationship ** Opener ** Diary-based disclosure Amount ** * Intimacy ** Emotional tone ** ** Satisfaction ** ** Note. Values in table are unstandardized regression coefficients. **p <.01, *p <.05, +p <.10. a Experiences in Close Relationships questionnaire. S. A. Bradford, J. A. Feeney, and Lorne Campbell

11 Attachment and disclosure 501 supported for the diary-based measures (Hypothesis 4b). Participants disclosures were less intimate with more highly anxious partners. Disclosures to highly anxious partners were also more negative in emotional tone, and rated as less satisfying. There was also an unpredicted partner effect, whereby individuals reported disclosing less information to highly anxious partners. Interactive effects of attachment dimensions. Our prediction (Hypothesis 5a) that actors low in both anxiety and avoidance (secure) would report particularly high levels of relationship-focused disclosure was supported for men. A three-way interaction between gender, actor s avoidance, and actor s anxiety emerged, b = 2.35, t(185) = 2.25, p =.02. Follow-up analyses showed that women s scores on the RDI showed no interactive effect of actors attachment dimensions; regardless of their anxiety levels, women s avoidance was negatively related to relationship-focused disclosure (see Figure. 1a). For men, however, actor s avoidance and anxiety showed interactive effects, b = 4.20, t(106) = 2.81, p <.01 (Figure 1b). Simple slope analyses revealed that when men s avoidance was low, relationship-focused disclosure was unrelated to men s anxiety (although men low in both avoidance and anxiety reported the highest disclosure). When men s avoidance was high, disclosure of relationship information increased with increasing anxiety. In short, secure men reported significantly more relationship-focused disclosure than did dismissing men. Hypothesis 5b proposed that individuals who were high on both attachment dimensions would obtain particularly low scores on the Opener Scale. This prediction received support for women. A three-way interaction emerged between gender, actor s avoidance, and actor s anxiety, b =.109, t(204) = 2.38, p =.01. Follow-up analyses showed that the interaction between actors attachment dimensions was nonsignificant for men (regardless of anxiety levels, avoidant men obtained low scores; Figure 2a), but significant for women, b = 1.40, t(106) = 2.62, p =.01. As expected, simple slope analyses indicated that women high on both avoidance and anxiety (fearful) obtained the lowest scores, suggesting that they are the least proficient in eliciting disclosure from their partners (Figure 2b). Hypothesis 5c proposed that the combination of low avoidance and low anxiety in actors would be associated with particularly high amounts of diary-assessed disclosure. This prediction was not supported. However, a main effect of gender emerged, b =.07, t(95) = 2.17, p <.05, indicating that men reported disclosing more information than women. Our prediction that individuals low on avoidance and anxiety would disclose more intimate information received some support. A marginally significant three-way interaction emerged between gender, actor s avoidance, Figure 1. Interaction of attachment dimensions for women and men on the Relationship Disclosure Inventory.

12 502 S. A. Bradford, J. A. Feeney, and Lorne Campbell Figure 2. Interaction of attachment dimensions for men and women on the Opener Scale. and actor s anxiety on intimacy, b =.12, t(130) = 1.81, p =.07. Although follow-up analyses indicated that actor s avoidance and anxiety did not interact for either gender, there was a trend for men who scored low on both anxiety and avoidance (secure) to be particularly intimate in their disclosures with their partners. The expectation that partners of individuals low on both anxiety and avoidance would report particularly intimate disclosure (H6a) received limited support. A three-way interaction emerged between gender, partner avoidance, and partner anxiety, b =.15, t(130) = 2.15, p <.05. This was decomposed by examining the interaction of partners avoidance and anxiety, separately for male and female respondents. This interaction was not significant for female respondents (although women tended to report more intimate disclosures when their partners were low in both avoidance and anxiety). The interaction was marginally significant for male respondents, b =.16, t(92) = 1.88, p =.06: The effect of anxiety was significant only when avoidance was high, b =.28, t(93) = 2.75, p <.01. In short, men were least intimate with partners high on both anxiety and avoidance (cf. fearful). (Because these results were relatively weak, they have not been plotted.) Hypothesis 6b, concerning interactive effects of partner s attachment dimensions on emotional tone, received some support. A three-way interaction emerged between gender, partner avoidance, and partner anxiety, b =.15, t(133) = 2.49, p =.01. The interaction of partner s attachment dimensions was not significant for male respondents, although the effect of women s anxiety did differ from zero when women s avoidance was high, b =.24, t(93) = 2.95, p <.01. Although we need to be cautious in interpreting this result, it suggested that men reported less positive emotional tone with partners who scored high on both anxious and avoidant attachment (fearful). The interaction of men s attachment dimensions on women s emotional tone scores was marginally significant, b =.15, t(94) = 1.80, p =.07. Simple slope analyses indicated that women reported more positive emotional tone when their partners were low on both anxiety and avoidance. (Again, these results have not been plotted.) In line with theory, we found evidence that individuals low in both avoidance and anxiety reported high satisfaction with their disclosures. However, we also found that men high on both avoidance and anxiety reported high levels of satisfaction. Specifically, a three-way interaction between gender, actor avoidance, and actor anxiety emerged, b =.20, t(138) = 2.61, p =.01. Follow-up tests showed that the interaction of actor s attachment dimensions was significant for men: High levels of satisfaction were reported by men who were either low on both dimensions (secure) or high on both dimensions (fearful); see Figure 3a. Although the interaction of actor s attachment dimensions was nonsignificant for women, simple slope analyses confirmed that women

13 Attachment and disclosure 503 Figure 3. Interaction of attachment dimensions for men and women on the Satisfaction Scale. high on both dimensions reported particularly low satisfaction (Figure 3b). Satisfaction ratings also revealed a significant three-way interaction between gender, partner avoidance, and partner anxiety, b =.18, t(138) = 2.34, p =.02. The findings complement the interactive effects of actor s anxiety and avoidance on satisfaction (see Figures 4a and 4b). Female partners reported high satisfaction when men were either low on both dimensions or high on both dimensions (see Figure 4a). In contrast, partners of women high on both dimensions reported particularly low satisfaction (Figure 4b). Discussion The purpose of the present study was to examine associations between partners attachment dimensions, and dispositional and diary-based measures of disclosure. Before considering the results in more detail, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the study. First, the study was essentially cross-sectional in nature, although the diary records were completed shortly after the questionnaires. For this reason, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about causal relations. Second, although the diary method provided event-sampling of couples interactions, the ratings did not distinguish between disclosure of information about the self and about the relationship. Further, there were insufficient examples of some types of conversations (e.g., arguments, discussions concerning family and friends) to warrant separate analyses according to conversational type. However, both theory and research suggest that attachment-related differences emerge more strongly under stressful conditions, such as conflictual interactions (Feeney, 1998; Rholes, Simpson, & Orina, 1999). Figure 4. Interaction of partner attachment dimensions on the Satisfaction Scale: (a) female outcomes, male attachment dimensions; (b) male outcomes, female attachment dimensions.

14 504 Avoidance, anxiety, and measures of disclosure An important feature of this study was that it used a multimethod approach to comprehensively examine how partners disclose information and evaluate their interactions. We used dispositional (questionnaire-based) measures to tap global perceptions of disclosure, and structured diary records to tap immediate reactions to specific couple conversations; these records may be more sensitive to the actual dynamics of the relationship. Avoidance. Actor effects indicated that avoidance was strongly associated with dispositional reports of low disclosure about the self and about the relationship. These findings are consistent with the proposition that different attachment orientations are associated with different interpersonal goals and strategies (Collins & Read, 1994). Specifically, avoidance is associated with the goal of maintaining distance and independence, and low levels of disclosure are clearly consistent with this goal. Highly avoidant individuals also reported less ability to get others to open up. In considering this finding, it is important to acknowledge that the Opener Scale assesses respondents perceptions of this aspect of their communication, and is not an objective measure of communicative skill. Nevertheless, individuals perceptions of poor ability to draw others into conversation are likely to impact on actual behavior, and hence on the course of couple interaction. It is important to note that the link between avoidance and low scores on the Opener Scale was more pronounced for men than for women. This finding may reflect gender-role socialization. That is, women are generally more strongly socialized to act as caretakers of relationships (Surra & Longstreth, 1990); hence, regardless of their own degree of avoidance, they may tend to seek information about their partners thoughts and feelings. Although the links between avoidance and diary-based measures of disclosure were somewhat weaker, individuals own avoidance was reliably related to low ratings of disclosure in everyday interactions, and marginally related to S. A. Bradford, J. A. Feeney, and Lorne Campbell less intimate disclosure and less satisfaction with disclosure. The tendency for stronger links between avoidance and dispositional measures of disclosure may reflect the fact that these measures tap generalized attitudes, such as perceptions of the availability and dependability of others, as well as actual relationship behavior. Together, however, the results of this study point to a relatively robust link between individuals avoidance and their limited disclosure. These results support previous work that has linked avoidance to lower amounts and less intimate disclosure on both dispositional (e.g., Mikulincer& Nachshon, 1991), and diary-based measures (e.g., Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997). Anxiety. Actor effects of anxiety were restricted to the diary-based measures of emotional tone and satisfaction. In other words, an individual s own anxiety was unrelated to both dispositional and event-sampling measures of the actual amount of disclosure. As suggested earlier, it is possible that those who are high in relationship anxiety engage in excessive and indiscriminant self-disclosure in an attempt to establish intimacy, but that this tendency is restricted to the very early stages of their relationships. There is considerable evidence that, over time, the relationships of anxious individuals often become marked by conflict and dissatisfaction (e.g., Feeney et al., 1994), and these negative relationship experiences may reduce the desire to reveal personal thoughts and feelings. This suggestion is consistent with the finding that anxious individuals rated their everyday interactions as dissatisfying and negative in emotional tone. The latter finding was paralleled by partner effects of anxiety, which indicated that the partners of highly anxious individuals saw their interactions as dissatisfying and negative in tone. In addition, the partners of highly anxious individuals rated their interactions as low in amount and intimacy of disclosure. Given the cross-sectional nature of the data, this result is open to at least two interpretations. First, the partners of highly anxious individuals may react negatively to the critical and often coercive style of those partners, and reduce their disclosure in order to minimize relationship conflict. Alternatively, given that

15 Attachment and disclosure 505 working models of attachment may be revised in the light of ongoing relationship experiences (Rothbard & Shaver, 1994), low levels of disclosure in everyday interactions may cause partners to become more anxious about their relationships. Of course, longitudinal data are needed to clarify the mechanisms involved in these associations. Interactive effects. No previous studies have examined the interactive effects of actors or partners anxiety and avoidance on multiple measures of disclosure. Overall, the patterns that emerged from these interactions were theoretically meaningful. In several cases, interactive effects demonstrated the particularly constructive communication patterns associated with a secure attachment orientation (low avoidance and anxiety), or the particularly destructive communication patterns associated with a fearful orientation (high avoidance and anxiety). For example, in terms of destructive communication patterns, the combination of high avoidance and high anxiety in women was associated with women s reports of poor ability to elicit disclosure from others, and with both men s and women s diary-based reports of dissatisfaction with their couple interactions. However, some other patterns also emerged. For instance, the combination of high avoidance and low anxiety in men (dismissing attachment) was associated with men s reports of particularly low levels of relationshipfocused disclosure. This result fits with the notion that dismissing individuals emphasize self-reliance and impersonal achievements, and downplay the importance of close relationships (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). The finding that different measures of disclosure yielded different effects of attachment combinations cautions against generalized statements concerning the effects of avoidance and anxiety. Summary and conclusions The observed links between attachment dimensions and patterns of disclosure highlight the fact that relationship partners strategically regulate the degree to which they disclose, in order to manage their tolerance for vulnerability (Petronio, 1991). Individuals (and their relationships) are potentially vulnerable when they disclose personal information, because this information can be used by the recipient to either accept, support, reject, or exploit the discloser (Rawlins, 1983). The present analyses revealed several higher order interactions between gender, avoidance, and anxiety. Further, the links between attachment measures and the extent of disclosure depended, in part, on the method used to assess disclosure: Actor effects of avoidance were strong for dispositional measures but marginal for diary reports of the intimacy of disclosure, whereas partner effects of anxiety were obtained for diary reports of amount and intimacy of disclosure, but not for dispositional measures. There was also clear evidence that anxiety was associated with negative perceptions of partners disclosure behavior and negative evaluations of conversations. Overall, the results point to the complexity of relationship behavior and its links with romantic attachment. They also highlight the advantage of using multiple measures and methods to assess couple communication, and of evaluating both actor and partner effects of attachment characteristics. References Bartholomew, H. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (2000). Rethinking communication in personal relationships from a dialectical perspective. In K. Dindia & S. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships (pp ). Chichester: Wiley. Brennan, K., Clark, C., & Shaver, P. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp ). New York: Guilford Press. Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor,