Lately, there are
multiple studies’ results, suggesting that adult romantic relationship is
functioning similarly to the child-caregiver relationship, definitely with some
exceptions. One of the naturalistic researches on adults separating from their
partners at an airport demonstrated that behaviors indicative of
attachment-related protest and caregiving were evident, and that the regulation
of these behaviors was associated with attachment style. For example, while
separating couples generally showed more attachment behavior than non-separating
couples, highly avoidant adults showed much less attachment behavior than less
avoidant adults.
Partner selection
Cross-cultural studies suggest that the secure pattern of attachment in infancy is universally considered the most desirable pattern by mothers. For obvious reasons there is no similar study asking infants if they would prefer a security-inducing attachment figure. Adults seeking long-term relationships identify responsive caregiving qualities, such as attentiveness, warmth, and sensitivity, as most "attractive" in potential dating partners. Despite the attractiveness of secure qualities, however, not all adults are paired with secure partners. Some evidence suggests that people end up in relationships with partners who confirm their existing beliefs about attachment relationships.
So, satisfaction and
success in a given relationship is partially determined by the attachment patterns
of the individuals involved. Past research indicates that secure individuals
behave in ways that promote relationship wellbeing for both partners, whereas
insecure people are more likely to encounter relationship dissatisfaction.
Secure people tend to experience positive emotions, be committed, and be well
adjusted in their romantic relationships. For example, in a study demonstrating
how security level affects the dynamics of support giving and seeking between
partners, Simpson, Rholes, and Nelligan found that secure people were more likely
than insecure people to soothe their partner and to be soothed when faced with a
stressful situation. Secure partners are avail-able to meet their mates’ needs,
provide comfort, and allow themselves to be relied upon. As in the parent–child
relationships that Bowlby studied, romantic partners who are mutually available
and responsive to one another facilitate a more satisfying and secure relationship
dynamic.
Indeed, attachment research demonstrates that the desirability of a
potential partner increases accordingly with his or her ability to meet one’s needs.
When it comes to negotiation within relationships, secure individuals make use
of constructive tactics such as discussing problems, whereas insecure people
tend to use more destructive approaches such as making threats. Factors such as
these—mutual support, emotional expression, and communication—are all key components
in determining the satisfaction and quality of a romantic relationship. Thus,
partner choice can result in alienation and conflict, or fulfillment and happiness,
depending on the attachment dynamics of the relationship and the
characteristics and actions of one’s partner.
Extensive research has been conducted on the ways in which attachment
security influences outcomes in established relationships. However, to date,
the impact of attachment at the relationship formation stage has received very
little attention. The few studies that have used attachment theory to understand
how people initially approach potential partners demonstrate that attachment
history can affect people’s new relationships from the onset. Initial
encounters are important, and first impressions have the ability to make or
break potential long-term relationships, as people often decide whether an
individual is a suitable partner within minutes of meeting him or her. Thus, even
when formal bonds are not yet established, using individual differences in attachment
to examine the earliest phases of romantic interactions can provide new
insights into how people ultimately arrive where they do in their important relationships.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, research has consistently shown that when asked
to decide among prototypically secure or insecure targets in an experimental
setting, people tend to select secure individuals as their first choice for a
romantic partner. Attraction research outside attachment theory provides converging
evidence that secure qualities are highly appealing in potential partners. For instance,
research by Buss and his colleagues demonstrates that reliability, warmth, a trusting
attitude, security, and low anxiety are the features that are reported
cross-culturally as most attractive in mates for both genders. In open-ended
responses regarding what first attracted people to their partners, Felmlee also
found that people cited a caring nature, attentiveness, confidence, openness,
and dependability as top-listed features. All these highly desirable attributes
are representative of what it means to be a “secure” person.
Adult attachment and attraction
Whilst an
individual’s own adult attachment style may determine how felt security is
sought, the extent to which they are successful in achieving this goal is
likely dependent upon their partner’s attachment style and associated behavior.
From this it is plausible that individuals might demonstrate preference for
partners on the basis of their attachment style. With their congruent
relationship sub-goals and expectations, it could be expected that secure
individuals would demonstrate preference for other securely attached partners,
as such a pairing would better allow for the experience of the high levels of
intimacy and independence both partners desire than would a secure–insecure
pairing. For insecure individuals however, whose relationship sub-goals may
conflict with their expectations of others, predicting partner preference
becomes more problematic. Nonetheless, three hypotheses predicting partner
preference have emerged within the adult attachment literature: those of similarity,
complementarity, and attachment–security.
While all three
hypotheses predict secure individuals to demonstrate preference for one
another, variations exist in the predicted preferences of insecure individuals.
Similarity Hypothesis
The similarity
hypothesis predicts that individuals will show preference towards partners with
an attachment style similar to their own. According to this hypothesis,
avoidant individuals should demonstrate preference towards similar avoidant partners
while anxious individuals should demonstrate preference towards similar anxious
partners. Insight into this hypothesis might be gained through the application
of self-enhancement theory, which suggests that individuals have a strong
desire for positive feedback from others, enhancing their self-image.
Accordingly, pairing with a partner with a similar attachment style and
relationship goals, that is, similar desired levels of intimacy and
independence, would provide both individuals with positive feedback as both
would respond favorably to each other’s attachment.
Complementary Hypothesis
The complementarity
hypothesis predicts preference on the basis of how well partners confirm
attachment-related expectations. According to this hypothesis, anxious
individuals should demonstrate preference towards avoidant partners; as such a
pairing would confirm their negative expectation of others as distant in
relationships, whereas avoidant individuals should demonstrate preference for
anxious partners, confirming their negative expectations of others as clingy
and dependent. Although the notion of individuals being drawn to and remaining
in relationships with partners who confirm negative expectations may seem
counterintuitive, insight into this may be provided when drawing upon
self-consistency theory. According to this theory, individuals have a strong
desire to maintain a predictable social reality and by interacting with others
who fit in with long-held expectations this allows for the maintenance of a
consistent self-image. For example, for the anxious individual, an avoidant
partner would confirm their negative self-view by responding negatively to
their intimacy-seeking and would confirm their negative expectations through
appearing distant and rejecting. Similarly, whilst an anxious partner’s high
intimacy and low independence would confirm the avoidant individual’s positive
view of self, these would confirm their negative expectations of others as
clingy and dependent.
Attachment–security Hypothesis
Lastly, the
attachment–security hypothesis predicts that all individuals, regardless of
attachment style and associated relationship expectations, should demonstrate
preference for secure partners over all others as such partners offer the best
opportunity for felt security and therefore the best potential for forming an
emotional bond. According to this hypothesis, individuals prioritize the goal
of felt security over their relationship expectations. After primary preference
for secure partners, anxious partners are preferred as a second choice, while
avoidant partners are preferred the least. This order of preference among the
insecure attachment styles is said to be due to anxious partners demonstrating
more caregiving and relationship positive characteristics, such as their desire
for closeness in their relationships, than avoidant partners, whose high avoidance
and more negative views of others make forming an emotional bond more difficult.
Within the adult attachment literature, a number of studies have explored whether
individuals select partners on grounds supporting the aforementioned hypotheses.
Sources and Additional Information:
