Physical, emotional, and behavioral reactions to breaking up:
The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and attachment
style
Davis, Shaver, & Vernon (2003)
Introduction Anxious attachment associated with
negative physical & emotional responses upon relationship dissolution
Few studies have examined behavioural responses & individual differences
PURPOSE: examine dysfunctional reactions to breakups among attachment styles Distress/preoccupation Ambivalent acting out Coping & resolution
Adult AttachmentRegulation of Distress Secure
Adaptive coping Understanding
perspective
Avoidant Fewer emotional
expressions Greater emotional
avoidance
Anxious ‘Coercive’ strategy
Aggression & Seduction
Attachment Perspective on Loss(Bowlby, 1980)
ProtestDespairReorganization/ReintegrationIndividual difference in ‘disordered
mourning’
Examined Reactions1. Protest & Distress
3. Coping Strategies
2. Preoccupation/Explorat
ion
4. Resolution
Method Participants
n = 5,248 (64.4% female); age 15 – 50 (85.4% age 15 – 29)
Procedure Internet based survey
Measures Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR; Brennan et
al., 1998) Reactions to Breaking Up (author constructed; 72-
item) Demographics
(e.g., who terminated relationship, emotional involvement)
Analysis Series of correlations & regressions
1. Protest & Distress
Protest Characteristic when threat to availability Ambivalent acting out – ‘bipolar’ between
desire ↔ hostility
Distress Emotional & Physical Lost interest in sex Blame of loss Guilt
1. Protest & Distress H1a: Distress & protest rxns = +ve attachment
anxiety (ps < .001) ✔ Anxious attachment = aggression
H1b: Distress & protest rxns = -ve attachment avoidance (ps < .001) ✔
Emotional involvement associated with distress (.05< ps < .001) Strongest = emotional distress; weakest = self-blame
Avoidant = more self-blame (vs. partner blame)?
2. Preoccupation/ Exploration
H2a: breakups = preoccupation in anxiously attached (p < .001) ✔
H2b: preoccupation = interference of exploratory behaviour (p < .001) ✔
Emotional involvement = associated with preoccupation & interference of exploratory behaviour (ps < .001)
3. Coping StrategiesH3: insecure attachment = maladaptive
coping strategies Anxious attachment = social coping (p < .001) Avoidant attachment = self-reliance (p < .001)
Insecure attachment = alcohol & drug use (ps < .001)
Avoidance of partner: Anxious = self-initiated termination (p < .001) Avoidant = other-initiated termination (p < .001) emotional involvement
4. Resolution H4a: anxious attachment = perseverance to
reestablish relationship (p < .001) ✔
H4b: anxious attachment = lost sense of identity (p < .001) ✔
H4c: replacement of lost partner = anxiously attached (p < .001); if self-initiated = +ve; partner initiated = -ve
H4d: replacement of lost partner = avoidantly attached (p < .001) regardless of initiation
Descriptive Results
Gender ≠ differences in attachment style F = more emotionally involved Person to initiate breakup:
anxiety emotional involvement avoidance
Putting Humpty Back Together
Those who are more emotionally involved experience greater distress
Anxious attachment: Preoccupation & perseverance interfere with
functioning – exploratory behaviour, coping, disordered self-identity
motivation to reestablish relationship = aggression
Avoidant attachment – not as boring as once thought? Unique finding of more self-blame – important?
Limitations Memory Recall
Correlational – not causation
Presenting this study: 1. in 15(ish)
minutes 2. Organization
Future Direction Examine
longitudinally
Different measures of attachment (e.g., AAI)
aggression in anxiously attached – examine gender perceptions & behaviours Verbal? Physical?
Gender?
Talk to me.