Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

The Predictive Significance of ASA Insecurity Scales for Romantic Relationships

Wed, April 7, 1:10 to 2:40pm EDT (1:10 to 2:40pm EDT), Virtual

Abstract

A key tenet of attachment theory is the prediction that individual differences in attachment contribute to interpersonal functioning, including within adults’ relationships with romantic partners. Indeed, adult attachment representations predict behavioral and affective responses to attachment-relevant stressors, such as conflict, in romantic relationships (Crowell et al., 2002; Haydon, et al., 2012; Simpson et al., 2007). Importantly, a wealth of evidence supports the predictive significance of distinct patterns of insecurity for differential patterns of behavioral and emotional responding to conflict with romantic partners. Specifically, dismissing representations are associated with conflict avoidance and affect suppression (Haydon et al., 2017; Shi, 2003), while preoccupied representations are associated with hyperactivation of distress and poor affect regulation (Allen & Miga, 2010; Simpson et al, 1992). Additionally, insecure attachment, and dismissing attachment, in particular, are associated with lower relationship satisfaction (Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Treboux et al., 2004). This study aimed to validate the ASA insecurity scales by examining their predictive validity regarding these aspects of romantic functioning. Specifically, we tested the hypotheses that: (1) ASA hyperactivation will be associated with higher observer-rated hyperactivation of distress during conflict and greater increases in negative emotion and decreases in positive emotion following conflict; and (2) ASA deactivation will be associated with greater observer-rated conflict avoidance during conflict and lower self-reported relationship satisfaction.

Participants were drawn from a community sample of 208 cohabiting couples (416 individuals; 39% men, 51% women, 14% non-binary). Relevant to the present study, participants completed a measure of relationship satisfaction, the ASA, and a 10-minute conflict discussion with their partner. The conflict discussion yielded observer-rated measures of conflict avoidance and hyperactivation of distress. Participants also self-reported positive and negative emotion before and after conflict. Emotional reactivity scores were computed by subtracting post-conflict scores from pre-conflict scores. Higher scores indicate increased negative or positive affect from baseline to post-conflict. A subsample of 50 ASAs (25 couples) were coded by September 2020 for preliminary analyses; all coding will be complete by March 2021. Although preliminary analyses are underpowered, analyses with the full sample will be sufficiently powered to detect even small effects (power = .98).

Bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics appear in Table 1. To account for nested data, hypotheses were tested in multilevel models. As expected, results indicated that higher ASA hyperactivation was associated with increased negative emotion (b = .21) and decreased positive emotion (b = -.23) from baseline to post-conflict, as well as higher observed hyperactivation of distress during conflict (b = .15). Higher ASA deactivation was significantly associated with higher conflict avoidance (b = .20). However, ASA deactivation was only weakly associated with lower relationship satisfaction (b = -.08). These findings provide important support for the predictive validity of the ASA hyperactivation and deactivation scales. Specifically, findings provide evidence for differential links between ASA deactivation and hyperactivation with distinctive patterns of behavioral and emotional responding to conflict with romantic partners. As expected, hyperactivation was associated with emotional reactivity to an attachment-relevant stressor, while deactivation was associated with suppression (conflict avoidance).

Authors