University of Massachusetts Amherst
ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst
Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014
Dissertations and Theses
2006
Adult attachment style, passionate love, and the
frustration of intimacy goals.
Michael L. Vernon
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses
Vernon, Michael L., "Adult attachment style, passionate love, and the frustration of intimacy goals." (2006). Masters Theses 1911 February 2014. 2436.
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses/2436
This thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
ADULT ATTACHMENT STYLE, PASSIONATE LOVE, AND THE FRUSTRATION
INTIMACY GOALS
A Thesis Presented
By
MICHAEL L VERNON
Submitted
to the
Graduate School of the
University of Massachusetts Amherst
in partial fultillment
of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
February 2006
Social Psychology
© Copyright by Michael
L Vernon 2006
All Rights Reserved
ADULT
AH ACHMl-NT SI YLI-, PASSION Al
IN
l
A
lv
LQVi:,
AND Till;
I'lUISTRATION OF
lMACY GOALS
Master Thesis
by
MICHAHLL. VERNON
Approved as of style and content by:
Paula R. Pictromonaco, Chair
George LeVinger, MemMir
Melinda Novak, Department Head
Psychology Department
ABSTRACT
ADULT ATTACHMENT STYLE, PASSIONATE LOVE, AND THE FRUSTRATION
Ol'
INTIMACY GOALS
FEBRUARY 2006
MICHAEL
M.A..
L.
VERNON,
B.A.,
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST
Directed by: Professor Paula R. Pietromonaco
The puipose of this study was
to
examine the associations of attachment
wilh Ihc pursuit, attainment, and frustration of intimacy goals, and
interference
(i.e.,
own
to
style
and passionate love
examine three sources of goal
behavior, partner behavior, and external circumstances). Both
members of 146
dating couples independently completed an Internet survey designed to assess attachment, passion,
and relationship goals. Analyses were performed usmg the Actor-Partner Independence Model
(APIM)
in
HLM.
Actors high
in
passionate love were more likely to be pursuing and attaining
intimacy goals and were less likely to report interference by partners. Actors reported greater success
in
achieving goals
and anxiety were
report that their
when
interference from
were highly passionate. Actors high
less likely to attain intimacy goals,
own
goal attainment.
their partners
frustrated,
attachment avoidance
and were more
likely to
behavior, their partner's behavior, and external circumstances interfered with
When
all
were more
in
passion was reciprocated, participants reported less frustration and
three sources.
These findings highlight
perspectives of both couple members.
iv
the importance of assessing the
CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT
IV
OF TABLES
LIS
1
LIS
rOL FIGURES
CHAPTER
1
.
INTRODUCTION
Attachment Theory
Attachment Theory and Relationship Goals
Passionate Love Defined
Intimacy as a Goal
Passion as a Function of Changes in Intimacy and
2
3
4
4
Its
Attammcnt
Mismatches between Partners' Attachment Styles May Result in Frustration
Ivxisting lividence for the Goal Frustration Hypothesis
Reciprocated Passionate Love is the Exception to the Frustration Hypothesis
2.
HYPOTHESES
1
(III):
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Goal Frustration
Hypothesis 4 (114): Goal Frustration
in
7
Hypothesis
5 (115):
Goal Frustration
H
8
8
in
9
in
Anxious-Avoidanl Pairs
9
M E HOD
l
Overview
Participants
Procedure
Measures
Attachment Style
Passionate Love
Intimacy Goal Pursuit and Frustration
Analysis Strategy
The Centering of Predictors
4.
6
Anxious-Anxious Pairs
Avoidant-Avoidant Pairs
Hypothesis 6 (H6): The Main Effects of Attachment Style
3.
6
8
Passionate Love and Intimacy Goal Frustration
Hypothesis 2 (112): Reciprocated Passionate Love
Fhc Interaction of Attachment Styles (H3, H4, & H5)
Hypothesis
5
RESUL TS
V
8
10
Sample Characteristics
l
ests
17
of hypotheses
Hypothesis
1
17
(HI): Passionate Love and hitimacy Goal Frustration
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Reciprocated Passionate Love
Hypothesis 3 (H3): hitimacy Goal Frustration in Anxious-Anxious Pairs
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Intimacy Goal Frustration in Avoidant-Avoidant Pairs
Hypothesis 5 (H5): Goal Frustration in Anxious-Avoidant Pairs
Hypothesis 6 (H6): The Main Effects of Attachment Style
Attachment Avoidance and Intimacy Goals
Attachment Avoidance and Distance Goals
Attachment Avoidance and Self-Regulation Goals
Attachment Avoidance and Support Goals
Attachment Anxiety and Intimacy Goals
Attachment Anxiety and Distance Goals
Attachment Anxiety and Self-Regulation Goals
Attachment Anxiety and Support Goals
17
17
19
20
20
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
23
5.
DISCUSSION
25
6.
LIMI ATIONS
30
I
APPENDIX: TABLES
AND GRAPHS
32
BIBLIOGRAPHY
53
vi
LIST OF
TABLES
Table
1
.
Pag^^
Correlations of Passionate Love. Attachment Style, and Goal Frustration
2.
Level
1
Main
Effects
3.
Level
1
Main
Effects and Interactions
4.
Level 2 Interactions
5.
Level
1
Main
Effects
-
6.
Level
1
Main
liffects
and Interactions
7.
Level 2 Interactions
8.
Level
1
Main
Effects
9.
Level
1
Main
Effects and Interactions
10.
Level 2 Interactions
11.
Level
1
Main
Effects
12.
Level
1
Main
Effects and Interactions
13.
Level 2 Interactions
14.
Level
1
Main
Effects
15.
Level
1
Main
Effects and Interactions
16.
Level 2 Interactions
Intimacy Goals
-
32
Intimacy Goals
-
Intimacy Goals
-
-
-
-
-
34
-
Distance Goals
Distance Goals
-
36
Self-Regulation Goals
Self-Regulation Goals
37
38
Sex Goals
38
-
Sex Goals
39
40
Sex Goals
-
35
36
Self-Regulation Goals
-
33
34
Distance Goals
-
32
40
Support Goals
-
Support Goals
41
42
Support Goals
vu
OF FIGURES
LIST
Figure
1
Aclor by Partner Passionate Love and Intimacy Goal Frustration
.
43
2.
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and
My
Partner Interferes witb Intimacy Goals
43
3.
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and
My
Behavior Interferes with Intimacy
44
4.
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and External Circumstances Interfere
with Intimacy Goals
44
5.
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and Sex Goal Frustration
45
6.
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and External Circumstances Interfere with Sex
45
7.
Actor Avoidance by Partner Avoidance and Sex Goal
46
8.
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and Distance Goals
46
9.
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and the Achievement of Support Goals
47
10.
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and the Frustration of Self-Regulation Goals
47
1
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and
1
.
My
Partner Interferes with
Self-Regulation Goals
12.
48
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and
My
Behavior Interferes with
48
Self-Regulation Goals
13.
Actor Anxiety by Partner Anxiety and
My Behavior Interferes with
14.
Actor Anxiety by Partner Anxiety and
My
15.
Actor Anxiety by Partner Anxiety and External Circumstances
Interfere with Distance
Support Goals
Partner Interferes with Distance Goals
49
49
50
Goals
Achievement of Intimacy Goals
50
16.
Male Avoidance by Female Anxiety and
the
1
7.
Male Avoidance by Female Anxiety and
the Pursuit of Support Goals
51
8.
Male Avoidance by Female Anxiety and
the Pursuit of Distance Goals
51
1
19.
Male Avoidance by Female Anxiety and Distance Goal
Vlll
Frustration
52
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION
Passionate love (as described by Hatfield
&
Walster, 1978; rcnnov. 1979)
most frequently occurring yet under-studied relationship phenomena
researchers.
As
a search
have been published
in
of the
literature reveals,
may
identified
be one
by relafionship
during the past 20 years, fewer than 30 studies
major psychology journals that have tested hypotheses associated with
passionate love. In addition, only a small handful of these studies have focused
associated with relationship functioning
(e.g., relationship satisfaction)
these studies have focused on theoretically distant correlates of passion
differences, self-esteem, and
the Passionate
Love
trait
anxiety).
(i.e.,
show how well
passion
while the remainder
is
ol"
(e.g., cross-cultural
validated
these scores correlate with even the
emotional involvement, and the desire to achieve
union with another). As Berscheid (1985) noted, the lack of interest
to the lack
how
Even when Hatfield and Sprecher (1986)
Scale, they neglected to
most basic aspects of passionate love
due
ol ihc
of a coherent conceptual framework
which has subsequently turned passionate love
in
passionate love
is
possibly
for understanding specific emotional states
into a neglected stepchild in the study of attraction
and close relationships.
Nevertheless, theories regarding the dynamics of passionate love have been proposed by
psychologists (Hatfield, 1988; Tennov, 1979) and non-academic scholars alike. Hatfield's
review of these theories reveals
to
be necessary to maintain
that passionate love
common theme
a state
198S)
with respect to the conditions that are believed
of passion, once
it
begins. Specifically, these theorists argue
nourishes primarily under conditions where goal attainment regarding the
desired union with another
The puipose of this study
frustration of goals
a
(
aimed
is
is
at
either uncertain or thwarted, but remains to be seen as obtainable.
to
examine the hypothesis
that passionate love
achieving union with relationship partners.
1
is
associated
w ith
the
The present study draws on attachment theory
differences in interpersonal goals that,
in turn,
as a basis for understanding indn idual
can be used
to to predict the
amount of mlimacy
goal frustration that individuals are likely to encounter in
romantic relationships.
Attachment Theory
Attachment theory was introduced by Bowlby
in a series
and Loss (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1969/1982). According
of volumes
to this theory, the
titled
Aitachnicni
attachment system
is
an evolved mechanism designed to maintain proximity between infants and their
caretakers under
conditions of danger or threat in order to maximize the infant's chances for survival.
(1973) proposed that interactions with caretakers during stressful times
in
Bow lby
childhood become
internalized within mental models of the self and others which eventually give rise to stable
patterns of cognition and behavior. Ainsworth (1978) originally applied this theory to explain
individual differences in the infant-caregiver relationship. In early studies, Ainsworth delineated
three patterns of attachment based on the degree to
which an
infant has
come
to rely
on his or her
caregiver (or attachment figure) as a source of security. Ainsworth labeled these three patterns
secure, anxious-resistant, and avoidant. In
Hazan and Shaver's (1987) extension of attachmeni
theory to adult love relationships, they described three adult attachment patterns parallel to those
observed by Ainsworth.
identifying
Brennan
Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991)
further refined this description by
two types of avoidance: disnussing-avoidanf and fearful-civoidan f
et al.
More
recently,
(1998) have shown that attachment styles are better represented by two orthogonal
dimensions rather than categories. The
the extent to
.
which individuals
first
dimension, labeled attachment-avoidaiu e. represents
are uncomfortable with intimacy and closeness.
dimension, labeled artachiiieiU-aiixiety, represents the extent
to
The second
which individuals experience
anxiety related to abandonment and the availability and responsiveness of relationship partners.
2
Attachmcnl Theory and Relationship Goals
A
fundamental assumption of attachment theory (Bowlby,
1973)
that indi\idual
is
differences in attachment-related behavior, affect, and
cognition throughout the lifespan are
guided by the contents of "internal working models of self and other."
These models aic
composed of lour organizing and
interrelated
components (Collins and Read.
memories of significant attachment-related experiences;
about the self and others
in the
1994):
(2) attitudes, expectations,
(
1
and belicls
context of close relationships; (3) attachment-related goals and
needs; and (4) plans and strategies associated with the attainment of attachment-related
goals and
needs.
As Pietromonaco and Feldman-Barrett (2000)
attachment system
is
to achieve a sense
noted, although the overarching goal of the
of security, important individual differences
respect to the lower level goals that individuals pursue in order to achieve this goal.
exist with
Individuals
with a secure attachment style strive for security by establishing a balance between independence
and intimacy with partners. Preoccupied individuals pursue goals directed
levels ol closeness, 'i'hose with an avoidant attachment style pursue goals
emotional distance
Rom
al
mamiaming
conjunction with high levels self-reliance. Lastly, fearful individuals
in
at
the
same
lime.
studies that have linked interpersonal goals to attachment style support ihc
existence of these differences. For example,
interaction,
achieving high
aimed
pursue intimacy while maintaining a safe distance from attachment figures
The few
al
in a retrospective self-report
and Mikulincer (2003) found
that
study of group task
attachment anxiety was positively associated
with the pursuit of intimacy during interactions with group task partners, while attachment
avoidance was negatively associated with such pursuits.
and Nachshon (1991) showed
friends,
their
and romantic partners
attachment
In
another self-report study. Mikulincer
that individuals self-disclose to their mothers, lalhcis,
in
ways which suggest they
style.
3
same-sex
are pursuing goals characlerislic ol
Passionate Love Defined
In this study, passionate love
is
defined
in the
terms of Tennov (1979). and Hal field
(1988). Based on interviews with over 500 individuals,
Tennov
(which she labeled "limerence") as an intensely emotional
overwhelming desire
for pro.ximity
feelings; intrusive thoughts
as
"c/
state
defined passionate love
state characterized
and contact with partners;
by an
a strong desire for reciprocation of
of a partner; intense fears of rejection; and an intense fascmalion wiih
movements and appearance.
a partner's physical
first
Later, Hatfield (1988) redefined passionate love
of intense longing fur union with another eharacterized by profoundly high
physiological and psychological arousal.
"
When
is
of
reciprocated even briefly, passionate love
manifests itself as intense feelings of joy, fulfillment, and often ecstasy.
passionate love
levels
Gone
unreciprocated,
associated with intensely painful feelings of emptiness, anxiety, despair,
desperation, and sometimes even terror (Tennov, 1979; Hatfield, 1988).
hilimacy as a Goal
Intimacy goals are defined as inteipersonal goals that stem from a desire
to maintain or
increase the degree of physical, emotional, or overall interpersonal closeness that one has with a
romantic partner. For example, "to communicate openly with your partner," "to give affection
your partner," "to
feel close to
with your partner" would
'with Baumeister et
characteristics.
al.'s
The
all
your partner," "to give support
to
to
your partner," and "to have sex
be considered intimacy goals. These examples are also consistent
(1999) definition which describes intimacy as having three main
first is
mutual and open communication resulting
in
an increased
understanding between partners. Second, intimacy involves strongly favorable attitudes towards
the other manifested by
warm
feelings and a desire to benefit the other,
fhird.
mtnnacy
characterized by the verbal and non-verbal communication of affection toward the other.
4
is
Passion as a Function of Changes
In a
in
Intimacy and
Attainment
Its
comprehensive review of the Hterature on passion, Baumeister and
Bratsla\ sl<y
(1999) argued that passion
grow increasingly
is a
function of changes
m
intimacy. Early in relationships, as partners
close, feelings of passion track changes in intimacy such that
increases
m
intimacy consistently trigger feelings of passion. However, once partners
reach the upper limits
of intimacy as their relationships
stabilize, feelings
increasingly difficult to re-excite. Baumeister
of passion rapidly dimmish and become
(1999) further argued that brief periods of
et al.
argument, conflict, or separation are able to re-excite feelings of passion due
making-up and or reuniting can again be experienced
Parallel to the scenario presented
(i.e.,
an increase
and experienced as passion
and
a high level
(i.e.,
in
way
in
which
as an increase in intimacy.
by Baumeister
(1999)
et al.
is that,
relationships, individuals are predominantly pursuing intimacy goals which,
bnelly by success
to the
early in
when rewarded even
intimacy), elicit positive emotions that are associated with
Once
joy, euphoria, and ecstasy).
a relationship has stabilized
of intimacy has been firmly established, these goals have largely been achieved.
Hius, further increases
in
intimacy are no longer able to trigger the emotions associated with the
attainment of intimacy goals. Likewise,
when
relationship partners experience conflict,
separation, or other relationship disruptions, the interpersonal distance characteristic of these
interactions
may be
sufficient to re-excite a
can again arouse passion due
to the
way
in
need
Hence, making-up or reuniting
for intimacy.
which intimacy goals
are again being pursued and
obtained.
According
to this argument, the
experience disruptions
the
and
to
that attachment-anxiety,
partners,
is
that individuals
in their relationships or are
more they should be able
shows
more
thwarted
in their
maintain feelings of passion,
which
who
if
are pursuing intimacy
attempts to achieve miimacy.
they exist. Indeed, research
iuels a high desire for closeness and interdependence with
positively associated with the volatile style of fighting outlined by (iottman (l)a\
i-ollette,
2000), and passionate love (Vernon
&
is
Pietromonaco, 2004). Likewise, altachment-
avoidance, which
is
negatively associated with the pursuit of intimacy
(Vernon
2004) and passionate love (Vernon
&
Pietromonaco, 2004)
is
&
I'letromonaco.
positively associated
\n
the
ith
avoidant (non-volatile) fighting style outlined by Gottman
(Davis and Follette, 2000).
hurthermore, attachment-avoidance has been linked to
whereas attachment-anxiety appears unrelated
Davis, Shaver,
&
to
a
drop
in
passion over time
change (Vernon
&
Partners' Attachment Styles
These findings, however, do not address
a
May
Result
fundamentally dilTerent relationship goals.
passionate love Hounshes
ol"
relationships
Pielromonaco. 2004;
in iMiislration
more immediate problem
attempts to achieve union with their partners. Relationship partners
the I'rustration
m
Vernon, 2004).
Mismatches between
in their
such
a
when
If theorists are
indeed correct
that
indn iduals lace
may
often possess
in their
assumption
the desired union with another remains uncertain or
unmet intimacy
goals,
stemming from differences
in
attachment
is
thwarted,
style,
sufficient to maintain higher levels of passionate love if these feelings indeed exist.
I
thai
should be
he research
of Kirkpatrick and Davis (1994) provides insight into the prevalence of relationships made up
ol'
partners with different attachment styles.
In a
sample of 354 dating couples, Kirkpatrick and Davis (1994)
of 240 couples using the 3-category measure of attachment
partners were classified as secure. Next,
pairs followed
by 13.8% who were
22%
style.
In
classified both
members
57.5% of these couples both
of the sample was composed of secure-avoidant
classified as secure-anxious.
Finally,
6.7% of these couples
were classified as anxious-avoidant. Kirkpatrick and Davis (1994) found no couples where
partners either were both anxious or both avoidant.
Existing Evidence for the Goal I-rustration Hypothesis
Evidence can be found
differences in attachment style
in
Kirkpatrick and Davis's (1994) study which suggests that
may
indeed fuel or maintain feelings of passion
in
the
way
outlined. Overall, secure and anxious
(M =
7.51 vs.
passion
I'he
(M =
same
M=
.52).
7.77) than
women
did not differ in their self-reporlcd lc\cls ofpassKni
However, v/onien paired with avoidant men reported
women
(M =
paired with either secure
signillcanlly higher
7.42) or anxious
pattern, although statistically insignificant, also appeared for
men
(M
= 7.09) men.
paired wilh axdidaiil
women.
Reciprocated Passionate Love
is
the Exception to the Frustration Hypothesis
Previous research has shown thai passionate love
is
strongly linked to the pursuit of
intimacy, even for individuals with an avoidant attachment style (Venion
Thus,
it
is
logical to expect that
when
passionate love
is
&
Pietromonaco, 2004).
reciprocated individuals in these
relationships will be less likely to report being frustrated in their pursuit of intimacy.
7
CHAPTER
2
HYPOTHESES
The hypotheses advanced
in
here,
which focus on individual differences
romantic relationships, follow from two ideas:
(1) Hatfield
et al.
in
goal lruslratu)n
(1988) ha\e proposed
that
passionate love maintains itself under conditions where goal attainment
regardmg the desired
union with another remains uncertain or
is
thwarted, but remains to be seen as obtainable, and (2)
individuals with different attachment styles appear to pursue different
relationship goals.
Hypothesis
1
(HI): Passionate Love and Intimacy Goal Frustration
Based on Hatfield
et al.'s
with another person
proposal that passionate love
is
maintained when the desired union
uncertain or thwarted, passionate love will be associated with the
is
frustration of intimacy goals.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Reciprocated Passionate Love
I^ecause passionate love
of a couple are high
The
in
is
strongly associated with the pursuit of intimacy,
passion they will experience less frustration
hiteraction of Attachment Styles (H3, H4,
when both members
when pursing
intimacy.
& ¥15)
Hypotheses H3, H4, and H5 focus on the interaction of partner attachment
styles
(i.e.,
anxiety by
anxiety, avoidance by avoidance, and anxiety by avoidance).
Hypothesis
3 (L13): Cioal Frustration in
Anxious-Anxious Pairs
Although previous findings (Kirkpatrick and Davis, 1994) suggest
relationships rarely include
attachment
may have
attachment used
two anxious
partners, their reliance
limited their ability to detect such pairs.
in the present
study
may
on
that
couples
a categorical
in stable
measure
The continuous measure of
better allow for the detection of these couples.
8
ol
Coupl
in
which both partners
arc high in anxiety arc expected to have a
particuhirly
achicvmg intnnacy because they
are
more hkcly
to utili/.e manipuhitive,
behaviors to win the alTcction oftheir partners. Thus,
high
m
The avoidant-avoidant pairing
is
in
expected
thai wlicn both pai incrs arc
be rare
is
Irustration.
Avoidant-Avoidant Pairs
another combination ofattachment styles that was not observed
Kirkpalrick and Davis's (1994) study.
may
is
tunc
cUngy, and containing
attachment anxiety they will experience higher levels of intimacy
goal
Ilypothcsis4 (H4): Goal Frustration
in
it
ciilTicull
One reason why
that avoidant individuals are
most
this
combination ofaltachmcnl
styles
likely to pursue distance related interpersonal
goals and are generally less motivated to pursue relationships. Considering these tendencies,
expected that when both partners are high
in
it
is
avoidance, they will be less likely to report
experiencing intimacy goal frustration.
Hypothesis
5 (H5):
Goal
The anxious-avoidant
I'lustration in
pairing
Davis (1994) proposed
ol"
Anxious-Avoidant
attachment styles has been previously observed. Kirkpatrick and
that relationships
attachment styles survive because of the
to
I'ulfill
composed ofpartners with
way
in
oi'
others
m
relationships.
Anxious
these relationships should not have an easy time obtaining the level of intimacy
they desire from their avoidant partner
avoidant individuals
to desire.
combination of
this
that the individuals in these relationships are likely
each others expectations about the behavior
individuals
i'airs
may
who
should be less interested
m
mlimacy.
I
ikewisc.
not be able to maintain the lower levels of intimacy that Ihcy arc likely
Based on these differences,
it
is
expected
that individuals in
relationships will experience higher levels of intimacy goal frustration.
9
anxious-avoidanl
Hypothesis 6 (H6): The Main HlTects of Attachment Style
Attachment
style will
be associated with the degree to which individuals
experience
frustration in the pursuit of intimacy goals.
a
chrome
desire for
mtimacy
that
attachment avoidance appear
to
to
is
Individuals high
in
likely to be hard to satisfy,
be disinterested
maintain distance from relationship partners.
in
attachment anxiety appear
whereas individuals high
pursuing intimacy and are more hkch
Thus,
it
is
10
have
m
lo
expected that attachment anxiety
be associated with greater intimacy goal frustration, whereas avoidance
less intimacy goal frustration.
lo
want
will
will be associated \Mth
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
Overview
Both partners of 146 dating couples participated
separiitcly
m
an intcnicl sur\ c\
In
.
addition to completing an attachment measure, participants answered questions
focusing on the
degree to which degree
to
which they pursue
a variety
of relationship goals
(e.g.,
goals regarding
intimacy, maintaining distance, self-regulation), the degree to which they are able to aeliieve
each
goal,
and the
level of Irustration typically feel
asked about factors
sell",
that
when
trying to achieve each goal.
might interfere with goal achievement
and external circumstances). The
latter
(i.e.,
In addition,
we
interference by the partner,
questions addressed factors that might contribute to
goal frustration.
Participants
Participants were University of Massachusetts undergraduate psychology majors
currently involved in a romantic relationship and their relationship partners,
Of
for participation via e-mail.
eliminated because
when answering
women,
hi 7
at least
1
55 the couples that participated
one member indicated
the survey.
that
in the
who were
solicited
survey 9 couples were
he or she was not alone
at
their
computer
The remaining 146 couples were composed of 143 men and 149
couples, at least one
member
self-identified as
homosexual or bisexual. Members
ol'lhe remaining 139 couples identified themselves as heterosexual.
Ages ranged from
16 to 30.
with an average of 20.13 years.
Procedure
Participants completed an Internet survey designed to assess attachment style, passion,
goals, sources of interference, and frustration.
participant in each couple,
we asked each
In
order to contact the partner of the
inilial
student to provide the e-mail address of his or hci
11
parlncr on the consent form of the survey.
survey,
we
As soon
as
we
received the student's responses to
sent an email message to their partner containing a description of the stud>
and
instruction on
how
to participate.
Measures
Attachment Style
Attachment
style
was assessed with
&
Questionnaire (ECR) (Brennan, Clark,
the 36-item Experiences in Close Relationships
Shaver, 1998). The anxiety subscale of the l-X'R
contains 18 items to assess attachment anxiety. Sample items from this scale include
of reassurance that
I
am
loved by
my
partner," "I woiry a lot about
not often worry about being abandoned".
when my
"1 get
"1
prefer not to
uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants
partner starts to get close to
two subscales of avoidance (a =
.91)
me
I
find
to
a lot
relationships," and "1 do
The avoidance subscale contains
attachment avoidance. Sample avoidance items include
deep down,"
my
need
"I
18 items to assess
show
a partner
how
be very close," and
myself pulling away." Alpha
1
feel
".lusl
reliabilities for the
and anxiety (a = .90) were high. The correlation between
these subscales, which arc meant to be orthogonal,
was
significant but
weak
(r
=
.19).
Passionate Love
Passionate love was assessed with the 15-item short version of the Passionate Love Scale
(PES) (Hatfield
&
Sprecher, 1986). Sample items include
emotionally, and mentally."
me,
my partner
is
"1
have an endless appetite
the perfect romantic partner,"
The
'i
want
my
for affection
reliability
of
partner
from
my
this scale
--
physically,
partner." and 'Tor
was high
(a
.90).
Intimacy (ioal Pursuit and 1-rustration
Participants were asked to indicate, on 7-point scales,
how much
interpersonal goals during interactions with their romantic partner.
12
they pursue a number
ol
Following the ralmg of each
goal, participants
were asked
which
the extent to
to indicate (a) the extent to
their partner's behavior, (e) their
circumstances inlerfcre with their efforts
Iruslrated
when pursuing
frustration
provided a response of
the participant to go
and blurred
no
1
the goal
generally achieved, (h)
is
behavior, and (d) external
achieve the goal, and
(e)
how
often they feel
Because questions regarding sources of interference and
the goal.
were not relevant
to
own
which
to those
who were
not
in
pursuit of the target goal,
if
participants
or 2 on any of the 7-poinl goal pursuit scales, a message appeared
Icllmu
to the next goal
while the remaining questions for that goal were disabled
out.
Intimacy goal scores were created by averaging ratings for the following nine goals:
to
communicate openly with your
gam your
your partner;
to
your personal
(5) to disclose
partner's trust; (7) to trust your partner; (8) to receive
alTeetion from your partner; and (9) to increase the intimacy in your relationship,
reliabilities for
((X
=
.89, n
=
intimacy goals (a =
.77, n
196), partner interference (a
circumstance interference (a =
The sex
1
partner; (2) to give affection to your partner; (3) to led close to
your partner; (4) to enjoy being emotionally close
thoughts and feelings; (6) to
(
.89, n
=
= 273), goal achievement (a =
=
.92, n
128),
=
.88. n
196), self interference (u
=
=
fhc alpha
196), fru.stratioii
.90, n
=
198), and
were acceptable.
goal and related goal aspects were measured using a single set of items.
Distance scores were created by averaging ratings
for:
(
1
)
to
maintain your emotional
distance; (2) to escape from the presence of your partner; (3) to hide your thoughts and I'eelings;
and (4)
to
avoid talking about problems,
fhc alpha
reliabilities for distance related goals (u
n = 284), frustration (a = .85, n = 50), partner interference (a = .76, n = 52).
.68, n
=
52).
reliability
and circumstance interference (a =
of the distance goal achievement
.82. n
.scale
.self
= 52) were acceptably
was somewhat low (a =
Self-regulation scores were created by averaging ratings
for:
(
1
)
=
interference
"
((x
high, although the
.47, n
=
44).
to feel better about
yourself; and (2) to see that your partner liked or approved of you. Alpha reliabilities lor self-
regulation goal frustration (a = .73 n
= 200), partner
13
interference (a
=
.81, n
.75,
= 203).
self
interference (a
=
.77, n
= 205). and circumstance
=
interference (a
although the reliabihty of self-regulation goals (a -
.53, n
= 201) were ncccpiablc.
.77, n
= 284), and
goal achieveinenl (a
.59.
n = 209) scales were low.
Support scores were created by averaging ratings
partner;
.74, n
and 2)
=
your partner. Alpha
= 282), goal achievement (a =
interference (a
(a
to give support to
.78, n
=
.78, n
= 275),
= 269) where
all
.68, n
= 271),
self interference (a
for: 1) to
support related goals (u =
reliabilities for
frustration (a
=
receive support from your
.78, n
=
=
.68, n
= 272),
partner
274), and circumstance interference
acceptable.
Analysis Strategy
Hypotheses were tested using the actor-partner independence model (APIM) (Campbell
&
Kashy, 2002)
in
conjunction with hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). The
APIM
analytic strategy designed to address problems of nonindependence that often occur
when
dyads. Nonindependence arises
inllucnccs the outcomes of the other
the effects that each couple
m
member
the behavior or characteristics of one
is
an
studies of
of a couple
member. The APIM handles nonindependence by modeling
member has on
the
outcome
variable.
At
level
1
(the
lower
level), the
effects of the participant's characteristics and the influence of their partner are estimated
simultaneously using a regression equation written to explain the outcome for each participant
(referred to as the actor)
(i.e.,
DV
= intimacy
goal, frustration level, etc.) using the participant's
gender, level of passion, and attachment style, and their partner's level of passion and attachment
style.
At
level 2, interactions
between actor and partner characteristics
attachment style) are estimated
In the full
intercept
in a
version ol'the
and the slope of gender
level
of passion and
second regression equation.
APIM,
in
(i.e.,
the level 2 equation
is
configured to explain the le\el
order to provided a test of the three
actor and partner characteristics and gender (for a
full
review of the
way
APIM
interactions between
see Campbell
&
Kashy, 2002). However, because the inclusion of interaction terms can sometimes change
14
1
the
meaning of other predictors
llrsl
model
was
a full version
tested only the
in
the model. 2
mam
1
Level
1
tested
on each outcome
effects of actor and partner characteristics,
of the APIM. The following are examples of the level
model equation, and the equations used
Model
models were
in lull
1
Lu iable.
\
he
I
fhe second model
mam
effects only
APIM.
Equation:
FRUSTRATION
=
p,,
+
(3,
(ACTOR GENDER) + P:(ACTOR PASSION)
+ (3,(PARTNER
PASSION) + p4(ACTOR AVOID) + p5(PARTNER AVOID) + p<,(ACTOR ANXIETY) +
p7(PAR PNER ANXIETY) +
Model
Po
=
Yoo
Model
1
r
Level 2 Equation:
+
i'o
2 Level
1
Equation:
FRUSTRATION =
p„
+ p|(ACTOR
GENDER)
+ P:(ACTOR PASSION) + p,(PARTNER
PASSION) + p,(ACTOR AVOID) + p5(PARTNER AVOID) +
P(,(
ACTOR ANXIETY)
+
P7(PARTNER ANXIETY) + Px(ACTOR GENDER by PASSION) + pc;(PARTNER GENDER by
PASSION) +
p,
p,o(
ACTOR GENDER by AVOID)
+
Ph(PARTNER GENDER
AVOID) +
.(ACTOR GENDER by ANXIETY) + p,3(PARTNER GENDER by ANXIETY) + p,4(ACTOR
AVOID by PASSION)
+ p,5(PARTNER
AVOID
by PASSION) + Pu,(ACTOR
PASSION) + p,7(PARTNER ANXIETY by PASSION) +
Model
po
by
ANXIETY
by
r
2 Level 2 Equations:
- y;(ACTOR
AVOIDANCE
PARTNER AVOIDANCE)
+
by
PARTNER ANXIETY) + Y2(ACT0R ANXIETY
y^ACTOR AVOIDANCE
by
by
PARTNER AVOIDANCE)
+
Y4(ACTOR ANXIETY by PARTNER ANXIETY) + y5(ACT0R PASSION by PARTNER
PASSION) +
Y(,(AC
rOR AVOIDANCE
PAR PNER PASSION)
P,
= Yi(ACTOR
I
by
Y'.(ACl f)R
by
+ Y7(ACT0R
PARTNER AVOIDANCE)
PARNTER ANXIETY)
+ Y2(ACT0R
+
ANXIETY
by
u,
ANXIETY
by
AVOIDANCE by PARTNER AVOIDANCE) +
PARTNER ANXIETY) + Y5(ACT0R PASSION by PARTNER
PARTNER AVOIDANCE)
PASSION)
PARTNER PASSION)
+ y,(ACTOR PASSION by
avoidance
Y4(ACT0R anxiety
by
+ Y3(ACT0R
AVOIDANCE
by
PARTNER PASSION)
15
+ Y7(ACT0R
ANXIE Y
1
by
FAR NER PASSION)
1
The
+ y,(ACTOR
PASSION
by
PAR
I
NltR
AVOIDANCE)
+
i/,,
C'enlcring of Predictors
Predictors
the level
in
each score so
when
all oi"
interactions
and
1
that the value
predictors
m
level 2 analyses
of
all
were centered by subtracting the grand mean iVom
intercepts represent the average value ol the dcpcndanl \ariabk'
the equation are at zero.
Level 2 attachment style and passionate
were plotted lollowing the method outlined by Aiken and West
16
(
l')91).
lov e
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Sample Characteristics
Men
(Men =
and
Women
5.49,
Experiences
women
in
-
did not differ signifieanlly
5.55), or the anxiety sub.scale of the attachment
Close Relationship
scored significantly higher
.05),
Age was
in
scale;
ECR) (Men =
unrelated to passionate love
was unrelated
to
1
to
p <
Women
(r
=
anxiety
.02),
=
3.61
).
Women =
2.50,
(r
=
measure
-,11),
u\e Scale
I
(i.e..
However, men
2.28, F = 4.005, p
and avoidance
(r
<
,02).
65 months with an average of 17.71. Length of
avoidance
as.sociated with anxiety (r ^ -.16,
3.54,
women (Men =
avoidance than
Relationship lengths ranged from
relationship
scores on (he I'assionale
in their
(r
=
-.11)
and passion
(r
=
-.03) but
was negatively
.01).
Tests oi hypotheses
Because the general theme of each hypothesis can be extended
to all aspects
of goal pursuit,
Hypothesis
(ill): Passionate
1
this
intimacy goal frustration
that passionate love
is
lelevani
summarized.
Love and Intimacy Goal
Although we predicted
intimacy frustration,
significant results are
all
and
to all goals studied
Frustration
would be associated with higher
levels
hypothesis did not receive support. Passionate love was unrelated
(r
=
relationship goals (see Table
.09),
1
).
and was unrelated
Even when
of
to
to frustration associated with other
the attachment style of both partners
was held
constant (see Tables 2-16) no association appeared between passionate love and goal Iruslialion.
Hypothesis 2
It
(112):
Reciprocated Passionate Love
was predicted
that
when both
partners were high
in
passion, participants
likely to experience intimacy frustration. This hypothesis (112)
17
was
would be
clearly supported.
When
less
both partners were high
.01
)
in
passion, they were less hkely to experience frustration
(p - -.16. p
while pursuing intimacy (see Table 4 and Figure
1).
hidividuals in highly passionate
relationships were also less likely to report interference from
their partner
Table 4 and Figure
2), their
own
behavior (P =-.3
external circumstances (p =-.28, p
<
.05) (see
1
,
5),
and were
less likely to report interference
sex (p = -.52, p < .05) (see Table 13 and Figure
=
and
4).
-.32,
both partners,
p < .01) (see Table 13 and
6).
When
partners were less likely to report pursuing distance goals (p
=
passionate love was reciprocated
-.24,
p < .01) (see Table
7
and
8).
Likewise, when passion was high
self-regulatory frustration (P
=
-.24,
=
interference form their partners (P
<
3).
from external circumstances when pursuing
Patterns for several other goals were explored.
Figure
p < .05) (see
-.28,
when passion was high between
individuals reported experiencing less sexual frustration
(P
Figure
=
(\i
p < .05) (see Table 4 and Figure
Table 4 and Figure
Consistent with the findings for intimacy,
<
.05) (see Figure 12),
among both
partners they were less likely to experience
p < .01) (see Table 10 and Figure
-.34.
p < .05) (see Figure
and external circumstances (P =
-.39,
1
1),
and reported
10),
their
own
less
behavior (P =
-.43. p
p < .05) (see Figure 13) when
pursuing self-regulatory goals.
For support goals results were somewhat contradictory.
When
both partners, individuals were less likely achieve support goals (P =
and Figure
9).
However, the main
(see Table 14) passion
<
.000) and
Having
was
among
p < .01) (see Table 16
-.26,
effect of passion, revealed in the level
1
analyses,
showed
that
positively associated with the achievement of support goals (P = .35. p
was negatively associated with
a partner that
passion was high
was high
in
interference from partners (P
=
-.30,
p < .001
).
passion was also associated with an increased ability to achieve
support (P = .23, p < .01) (see Table 14).
Overall, these results provide clear support for the hypothesis (H2) that individuals arc
less likely to
experience frustration while pursuing intimacy goals when both partners arc high
18
m
passion.
Not only did individuals
in
highly passionate relationships report less intnnac\ and
sexual frustration they were also less likely to report interference from their
partner, external
circumstances, and the
Hypothesis
3
The
(H3) Intimacy Goal Frustration
m
As
anxiety.
when pursuing intimacy
partner anxiety,
individuals
m
=
.09,
m pairs where
p = .075) for members of these pairs to be more
that
were influenced by the interaction between actor and
these pairs were
p < .01) interfered with their
would be higher
(see Table 4).
There were several other goals
.30,
Anxious-Anxious Pairs
the interaction of male and female anxiety indicated, there
a small but insignitlcant tendency (p
frustrated
in
third hypothesis (H3) stated that intimacy frustration
both partners are high
was
self.
ability/ to
more
likely to report that their
own
behavior (P =
achieve support (see Table 16 and Figure
13).
Similarly, individuals in anxious pairs were less likely experience interference from each
other (P = -.22, p
.001
)
<
.05) (see
Table 7 and Figure
(see Table 7 and Figure 15)
Although these
14),
when pursuing
and external circumstances (P
-.46,
p <
distance.
results did not provide support for the third hypothesis (H3). they did
reveal several goals that are atTected by the pairing of individuals high
partners were anxious they had
likely to experience resistance
more
m
anxiety.
difficulty in achieving support related goals
When
both
and were
from each other and external circumstances when trying
less
to
maintain distance from each other.
Hypothesis 4 (H4) Intimacy Goal Frustration
Hypothesis four (H4) stated
to
Avoidant-Avoidant Pairs
that individuals in avoidant-avoidant pairs will be less likely
experience intimacy goal frustration. This hypothesis did not receive support, intimacy
iVuslralion
(p
in
was completely unaffected by
= -.03)(see Table
the interaction of avoidance
4).
19
between actors and
partners
'I'hc
only aspect
Dl goal
pursuU
thai
was associated with
rarticipanls in avoidant-avoidant pairs were
.05) (see
Table 13 and
to
seek sex from each other
I'lustration
m
hypothesis (115) staled that members ol'anxious-avoidanl pairs would he nK)re
linked to intimacy frustration
likely to achieve intimacy
Although
this
(.see
.0
1
this pairing
of attachment styles w as not
members of anxious-avoidant couples were
fable 4),
-.15, p-^
((i
Although,
)
(see
1
pursue support goals
hypothesis (115) was not supported,
(fi
-
-.
1
6,
m
Similarly, individuals
T4, p < .05) (see Table
)
(see Table 7 and
7
p
<
.01
)
(see Table
less
able 4 and i'lgure 16).
this pairing
of attachment styles
have an effect on two other goals. Members of anxious-avoidant couples were
.001
p
Anxious-Avoidant Pans
likely to experience intimacy frustration.
-
(|i
I'lgurc 7).
Hypothesis 5 (115) Cloal
I'he liflh
more hkely
the axouhiiit pair tleah willi se\.
1
6 and figure
1
tlid
less likely to
7).
anxious-avoidant pairs desired more distance from each other
and I'igure IN) and were more likely
I-'igure 19)
when pursuing
to
be frustrated
((i -
.19, p
(|1
<
distance.
All significant interactions that appeared with respect to the anxious-avoulani pairing
were unique
to avoidant
with avoidant
men
antl
anxious women,
anti did not
appear
for
anxious men paired
women.
Hypothesis 6 (116)
-
The Main
Hffects of Attachment Style
Attachment Avoidance and Intimacy (ioals
II
was hypothesi/,ed
that
avoidant individuals would be less likely to report intimacy
frustration since avoidant types are typically uninterested
previous findings (see Table
of intimacy goals
i\]
^
-.26, p
2),
<
m
pursuing intimacy. Consistent with
atlachment avoidance was negatively associated with the pursuit
.001).
as.sociated with intimacy Illustration
(|1
Unexpectedly however, avoidance was positively
.16,
p
.001).
20
This finding most likely resulted from
the fact that participants
were not allowed
themselves as pursuing the target goal
to indicate
at a level
of at
how
M\
Iruslialed Ihey
least 3 out
unless ihey rcporlcci
of?, lor example, ifa
participant indicated a low desire to feel close to their partner by providing
a response
for this goal, the
remaining items
for this goal
which included
a rating
of
therefore
in
doing
.27,
p <
.001
)
means
some avoidant
participants were pursuing
their
),
own behavior
when pursuing
([3
=
.50,
p < .001
),
I'rustralion
mtimaey and were more
Avoidant participants also experienced greater interference from
so.
.01
that
or 2
1
were
frusli alion.
disabled and blurred out. I'he positive association between avoidance and intimacy
ol'
ustralcd
li
their partnci
and extemal circumstances
((3
=
.35,
(\]
p <
intimacy.
Last of all, attachment avoidance was negatively associated with the pursuit ol'sex
.27,
p <
.01
)
(see Table
1
1
)
and was positively associated with reports
interfered with the attainment of sex
frustration
((3
=
=
(fi
=
.37, p
=
.056).
that
one's
own
Avoidance was unrelated
((3
=
-
hcha\'io!-
to sexual
-.05).
Attachment Avoidance and Distance Goals
Consistent with attachment theory, avoidance was strongly linked to the pursuit of
distance goals
([3
=
.70,
p < .001
distance goal frustration
their partner
((3
circumstances
=
(|3
.48,
=
([3
=
.22,
p < .001
.30,
).
),
Avoidant individuals (see Table
p <
their
.01),
own
and were more
behavior
((3
=
5) also experienced
more
likely to experience interference from
.44,
p < .001
).
and external
p = .052) when pursuing distance.
Attachment Avoidance and Self-Regulation Goals
Consistent with the tendency for avoidant individuals to minimize their dependence on
partners for support, avoidance
achievement
((3
=
-.27, p
was negatively
< .001) (see Table
associated with self-regulatory frustration
8)
(f3
=
associated with the pursuit (p
=
-.32,
p < .001
of seHVegulatory goals and was positively
.18,
21
p < .01) for avoidant individuals
who
did
)
and
pursue these goals. Avoidant individuals were also more likely to
report
.37.
.001
p < .001
),
their
own
behavior
((3
=
.40,
-
that ihcir partner
p < .001 ), and external circumstances (P =
.5
1
,
p <
interfered with their ability to achieve self-regulatory goals.
)
Attachment Avoidance and Support Goals
Avoidant participants were
p < .001) goals aimed
at
less likely to
more
likely to report that their partner's behavior (p
),
p < .001) and achieve
-.33,
([3
=
-.30.
receiving and providing support (see Table 14). However, avoidant
participants that did pursue these goals were
.001
pursue (p =
and external circumstances (P =
.57,
=
frustrated
.32,
p <
((3
=
.20,
.01), their
p < .001
own
)
and were more
behavior (P =
.44,
p <
p < .001) were sources of interference.
Attachment Anxiety and Intimacy Goals
Anxious individuals
may be
hard to satisfy,
known
are
fhus,
it
to
have
was expected
a high
that
need
for closeness
and
intimacN'.
which
attachment anxiety would be positively
As expected
associated with experiencing intimacy goal frustration.
(see Table 2). attachment
anxiety was positively associated with intimacy goal frustration (P = .24. p < .001) and was
negatively associated with the achievement of intimacy goals (P = -.22, p < .001
individuals were also
their
own
more
behavior (P =
likely to experience interference
.47,
from
their partner (P
p < .001), and external circumstances (P =
.56,
p
<
Anxious
).
=
.001
.64,
)
p < .001
),
while
pursuing intimacy.
A
similar pattern appeared with respect to sex (see Table
positively associated with sexual frustration (P = .25, p
partners (P
.44,
=
p < .001)
.40,
p <
.05),
one's
when pursuing
own
behavior (P =
sex.
22
<
.25,
.001
p <
)
1
1).
Attachment anxiety was
and reports of interference from
.05),
and external circumstances (P =
Attachment Anxiety and Distance Goals
Contrary to the findings of previous studies showing that anxious
individuals are
likely to pursue
distance goals
mlimaey, attaehment anxiety was positively associated with the pursuit
(|i -
p
distance goal frustration
Anxious individuals were also more
.()()!).
((i
.21,
p
partner's behavior (P - .59, p < .001
circumstances (P =
partners high
more
=
in
.67,
p ^ .001
)
<
),
.01) (see Tahle 5)
their
own
and were more
behavior
{\\
-
likely to reports that their
and external
),
interfered with their ability to achieve distance.
([i
=
ol"
likely to experience
.63. p < .001
anxiety were also more likely to pursue distance
e
iiioi
.1 1,
Those with
p - .054) and were
likely to report that their (anxious) partner interfered with their ability to achieve distance
.22,
p <
(|i
.05).
Attachment Anxiety and Self-Regulation Goals
Consistent with attachment theory, attachment anxiety was positively associated w
pursuit
-.
1
p
7,
((1
10,
.
.001
)
p < .05) and was negatively associated achievement of self-regulatory goals
(see Table
regulatory frustration
p < .001
.54,
.00
1
)
),
their
more
S).
=
((3
own
when pursuing
slightly
ith llic
Likewise, anxious individuals were more likely to experience
.21,
p < .001
behavior
i\]
=
)
and
.54,
self-regulatory goals.
frustrated
when pursuing
to
experience interference IVom their partner
p < .001), and external circumstances
((3
self-
{\\
.49,
^
((i
^
p <
Participants with partners high in anxiety were also
self-regulatory goals (P
=
.08,
p <
.05).
Attachment Anxiety and Support Goals
Individuals high
m
and were more frustrated (P
were also more
behavior (P -
anxiety were less likely to achieve support goals
- .18,
p
.001)
when pursuing
likely to experience interference
.48,
from
their partner (P
p < .001), and external circumstances (P
23
support.
.43, p
((1
-.
II
Individuals high
-
.53, p
.001
)
'
.
p
.05)
in
anxiety
.05), their
when pursuing
own
support goals. Having a partner high
related frustration
((3
=
.09,
p <
in
anxiety
was
.05).
24
also associated with higher
lex els
of support
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
These
results provide
no evidence
that passionate love
maintained by the mahilitN'
is
achieve union with relationship partners. Passionate love was not only
related
to
to the irusiratioii
of intimacy goals, the links between passion and sources of interference also
did not indicate
whatsoever
that passion
is
higher
when
attempts to achieve intimacy are blocked or thwarted by
partners, external circumstances, or the self.
On
was
the contrary, passionate love
positively
associated with the achievement of intimacy and was negatively associated with experiencing
interference from partners. Although these results
passion results from increase or surge
intimacy goals play
that passion
is
made
in the
in
fit
Baumeister
et al.'s
( 1
999) theory that
intimacy, this theory does not address the role that
experience of passion.
As previously
described,
up, at least in part, of the positive affect elicited
when
it
is
logical to suspect
individuals achieve
intimacy goals. The fact that when participants were more passionate they were more likely
pursue and to report having achieved their intimacy goals supports
more recent
this possibility as
do other
findings showing that scores on the passionate love scale correlate strongly
with activation
in the
caudate nucleus (Aron, Fisher, Mashek, Strong, Li,
&
to
(r
=
.60)
Brown. 2004; Bartels
& Zeki, 2000), an area of the brain that has been linked to goal-oriented behavior and obtaining
rewards (Berridge
& Robinson, 2003).
passionate love and intimacy goals
between passionate love and brain
caudate activation
may
a goal oriented theory
integi-al
(r
=
It is
worth noting
.61)
was about
activation.
These
that, in this study, the correlation
the
same magnitude
of
as the correlation
links suggests that passionate love driven
indeed be associated with the conscious pursuit of intimacy. 1-urthermore,
of passion
fits
readily with theories and evidence suggesting that goals arc
components of cogitatively based
relationship representations (Miller
&
Read. 1991
Park. 1986: Tr/ebinski. 1989) that include aspects of the self and others (Mikulincer. 1998;
Collins and Read, 1994) which can intlucnce perception
25
(e.g..
Berk
&
Ander.sen, 2000; llinkley
&
Andersen, 1996), molivation, and planning (Baldwin
1999)
&
Holmes, 1987; Morctti
&
lliggins.
in relationships.
The
somewhat
iael that passionate love
was unrelated
surprising eonsidering that passion
was strongly correlated with
and remained the strongest predictor of the desire
both partners was held constant
(in the
APIM
to the frustration ol'inlimaey goals
It is
the pursiiii oriniimaey
even when the allachincnl
for intimacy
analysis).
seems
style
of
easy to imagine that when
individuals are highly passionate and strongly determined to achieve intimacy, these
indi\ iduals
might easily
However,
if
feel frustrated
one's partner
when
is
their partners are unavailable or unwilling to reciprocate.
also highly passionate, these results suggest that he or she
interested in attaining intimacy and should be willing to
intimacy related Irustration was significantly lower
among
passion was reciprocated. I'urthermorc, individuals
report experiencing interference I'rom
all
accommodate. As
is
also
results indicate,
individuals in relationships where high
these relationships were also less likely to
in
sources studied,
ilicse findings highlight the
importance of assessing the perspective of both partners.
The
style
among
idea that intimacy goal frustration
somehow depend on dynamics
partners, or might
where both partners
would be influenced by differences
made sense considering
are insecure
to different interpersonal goals
and strategics
combination of attachment styles
number of results appeared with
that
that
that
only occur
m
in
atlachmenl
relationships
attachment styles have been linked
for goal attainment.
were associated with the
Although there was no
frustration
ol'
intimacy goals, a
respect to the interaction of attachment styles between actors and
partners that are of interest. Consistent with previous findings indicating that anxious indi\ iduals
are
somewhat poor
even more likely
caregivers,
when both
to report that their
own
partners were high in anxiety these participants were
behavior
(i.e.,
interfered with their ability to achieve support goals
Likewise, individuals
in
their thoughts, feelings, or actions)
(i.e.,
giving and receiving).
anxious-anxious relationships were less likely to experience
interlerence from their partners and external circumstances
26
when pursuing
distance goals.
Together, these results support Kirkpatrick and Davis's
(1994) assertion
composed of insecure
individuals ofthe
same attachment
that relalionships
style are unlikely to persist.
these relationships had clearly not yet dissolved, the
increased dilTicully
m
Allhouyh
seeking and proxidmo
support combined with the relative ease that these participants
reported \Mth respect
lo
pursuing
distance goals suggests that these relationships are unlikely to
persist.
The
interaction of actor and partner avoidance
ofthe actor-partner attachment
in
was
the largest and perhaps most nolalMc
When
style interactions that appeared.
avoidance these participants were more
likely to pursue sex with
avoidant individuals are more likely to get together, or to remain
physical reasons, compared to
more secure or anxious
with those of two other studies (Vernon
&
both
members were
high
each other. This suggests
in relationships for
individuals. This finding also
Pietromonaco, 2004: Davis
et al..
that
purely
neatly
fits
2004) showing
avoidant individuals are more likely to describe their current relationship as purely sexual
lhal
m
nature.
The
third
combination of attachment styles examined v/as the avoidant-anxious
Although Kirkpatrick and Davis (1994) did not
(using the
RRV)
that
was influenced by
this
goal pursuit were influenced by this pairing.
women, members of these couples were
motivated
to
any aspect ofthe relationship lunclioning
find
combination of attachment
When
less likely
avoidant
succeed
thai these pairings are likely persist
relationships should
fulfill
styles, several aspects
men were
in
of
paired with anxious
obtaining intimacy and were less
provide and seek support form each other. As noted
(1994) proposed
pair.
earlier.
because ol'thc way
each others relationship related expectations.
Kirkpatrick and Davis
lhal indix iduals in ihesc
On
this note,
it
was
interesting to find that the inability to achieve intimacy and the lack of desire to seek and provide
support to partners, which were tendencies characteristic of both these attachment
even larger when individuals with these attachment
With respect
more
likely to
to
styles
were
in the
attachment theory, these findings make clear
be frustrated and encounter interference from
27
a variety
styles,
grew
.same relationship together.
that insecure individuals are
of
.sources, including iheir
own
behavior,
when pursuing
intimacy and other interpersonal goals. More iniporiantly howe\cr.
these results strongly suggest that individuals of
that Iheir
own
attachment styles arc often aw are of
all
behavior can interfere with their ability to achieve relationship goals.
Another noteworthy finding
that contradicted those
attachment anxiety was unrelated
to the pursuit
with the pursuit of distance. The
I'aet
Pietromonaco, 2004) suggests that
it
that
of previous studies was
we have found
did not occur
by chance. One possible explanation
scale measures attachment security,
to the pursuit
which has also been linked
scatter plot
of anxiety and intimacy goals supports
intimacy
high and evenly dispersed
Mikulincer,20()3; Mikulincer
&
this
that the
)
attachment style should both seek and
By
far the
this link
he
does make sense
link
&
(Rom
in the
for
context of
that individuals with
resist intimacy.
most important finding of this study deals with the connections between
attachment anxiety, passionate love, and intimacy goals.
When Hazan
and Shaver
(
1987)
applied attachment theory to adult love relationships they proposed and found support
a
almost painfully exciting struggle to merge with another person" which
a type
experience similar to what Tcnnov (1979) labeled limerence
studies, this study also found a link
what has not been shown
in
opposite ways to the attainment and blockage
that passion
is
ol"
to an inability to
of
for the
lo\ e
passionate love),
between attachment anxiety and passionate
previous research
attachment anxiety was linked
(a.k.a.
is
first
"preoccupying,
hypothesis that anxious-ambivalent participants would experience love as
partners,
1
explanation by showing that the desire
Ainsworth's original conception of anxious-ambivalence which emphasized
this
of intimacy.
the findings of previous research
Nachshon, 1991
for the
low end of the anxiety
along the distribution anxiety. Although the
between anxiety and distance goals contradicts
&
Vernon
this pattern before (.see
is
all
that
of intimacy goals and was positively associated
lack of association between anxiety and the desire for intimacy
is
a\
llic \\
love.
l
ike
most
However,
and attachment anxiety are linked
intimacy related goals.
More
m
specilically.
achieve intimacy and reports of interference from
whereas passionate love was associated with an increased
28
ability to achieve intimacy
accompanied by
a lack
of interference. These links make clear the fad
that allliough ihci c
is
an
increased tendency for anxious individuals to experience
passion; atlachmenl anxicl> and passion
are indeed different types of love that are associated
with distinctly differcnl types ofoulconics
within relationships.
29
C'llAP
R
ri
()
LIMl A IONS
l
There were several limiUitions
I'
lrsl,
a
lo this
I
study that should be addressed
review of the eommenls made by partieipants showed
that
some
certain goals so completely that they no longer needed to pursue them.
confusion as lo
how
lo
be addressed
I
wasn't
in future
that the target goal
they hail achie\ ed
This led lo si)nie
answer questions regarding the pursuit of some goals.
parlieipant reported that '7 Inist
relationship, so
I'elt
cpiite
my partner
sure
how
to
completely ami I'm already
answer those
future rescareh.
iii
in
I'or
example, one
a mutually exclusive
(piestions correctly.
"
problem can
I'his
research by offering response options that permit participants lo indicate
had been achieved
to the extent that they
no longer pursue
it.
Second, participants were blocked from answering the additional questions
asked about each goal
if
(i.e.,
level
they indicated pursuing a goal
that participants
retrospect, this
some
would have
may
participants
unable to achieve them,
in
at a level
lower than
3.
I'his
was done because
all
participants.
was thought
For example,
it
is
in
possible that
given up on the pursuit of certain goals simply because they were
cases such as
this, participants
having blocked some participants from answering
research, parlicipants should be allowed to answer
difficult lo
it
difficulty providing details about goals they didn't possess,
should not have difficulty answering
these additional questions. Unfortunately, potentially valuable information
how motivated
were
of achievement, sources of inlerference, and level of frusiralion)
not have been the case for
may have
that
all
all
may ha\e been
questions about each goal,
to their situation
questions about each goal regardless of
could be another
that are too
way of handling
this
problem.
Third,
when
participants were asked to indicate the extent to which their
own
behavior
provided with a single
interfered with their ability to achieve each goal, participants were
response scale that encompassed three types of behavior
30
by
in future
they are to pursue the goal, instructing participants lo skip questions
answer or do not apply
lost
(i.e.
things they did, said, and the
way
they
fell).
Grouping these aspects of behavior under
source of mtcrference from the
self.
Had
a single rating scale
obscured the exact
participants been given a rating scale for each
individual aspect of their behavior, the analyses of goal interference tiom the self
produced much more reveahng findings.
In future research, participants
may
should be
gi\
ha\ e
en the
opportunity to rate each individual aspect of their behavior that has the potential of interfering
with ones ability to achieve various relationship goals.
31
APPENDIX
TABLES AND GRAPHS
Table
1
:
Correlations of Passionate Love, Attachment Style, and Goal Frustration
2
1
)
1
Passionate love
2)
Avoidance
3)
Anxiety
0'1
-.Uo
.
1
1
0**
y
.J)
-.Uh
^
-.Uv
14***
o
"1
97***
T
1
***
lA***
.
6) Distance
79***
JZ
TT***
Z.
7<***
7/--***
.38***
.31***
.26***
4"!***
Goal Frustration
.
/
.61***
Goal Frustration
7) Self-Regulation
A* * *
1
Sex Goal Frustration
4)
7
o
1
44***
5) Intimacy
.69***
.59***
Goal Frustration
Support Cioal Frustration
8)
*
A
3
^ ***
_
p <
(N=
.05,
** p < .01, *** p < .001
Ns range from 272-291 except
;
167).
Table
2:
Level
1
Main
Effects
-
Intimacy Goals
AG
GL
6.07
Intercept
Gender
5.87
.08*
.03
Actor Passion
4Q***
^C)***
Partner Passion
.09
.08
Actor Avoidance
7-7***
33***
Partner Avoidance
.02
Actor Anxiety
.07
-.05
97***
GF
3.08
-.01
-.12
interferes,
MI = my
.
-.02
-.08
24***
.00
27**
.16**
.16
.04
74***
;
= partner
PI
1.79
.10**
-.01
-.03
Partner Anxiety
***
**
* p < .05,
p < .001 GL = goal pursuit,
p < .01,
PI
for intimacy goal frustration
AG
MI
3.05
C\
3.33
-.15*
-.04
-.06
-.01
-.09
-.01
«;q***
.06
3^5**
.09
.64***
4-7***
.56***
.06
.17*
.09
= achieve
goal, (iF = goal frustration,
behavior interferes, CI = external circumstances mlerlcrc.
32
I
able
3:
Level
1
Main
IvITects
and Interactions
(iL
Intercept
5.89
.26
.12
Actor Passion
Partner Passion
.06
-.26***
Actor Avoidance
Intnnacy (u)als
A(i
6.08
(iender
-
.13
PI
Cii'
1.82
MI
3.06
3.1
(^I
3.39
.06
.23
.10
.77
-.06
-.26*
-.12
-.07
-.10
-.10
-.22
-.06
.10
.14
22***
_
Partner Avoidance
.02
-.08
Actor Anxiety
.05
_
2S***
.1
1*
.25*
.50***
2C)***
Partner Anxiety
-.02
-.02
.06
.04
.12
.02
Actor (iender by
-.07
.06
-.12*
-.08
-.12
-.20
-.04
.09*
-.13*
-.03
-.10
-.05
.05
-.01
Passion
Partner (iender by
Passion
Actor Gender by
.03
-.01
.05
-.04
Avoidance
Partner Gender by
Avoidance
.05
-.00
.02
.04
Actor (iender by
.02
-.03
.04
.04
-.01
.02
-.08*
.09**
.01
.01
-.01
.09
.12*
.06
Anxiety
Partner (iender by
-.00
Anxiety
Actor Avoidance
.09
-.01
.06
.09
.13
by Passion
Partner Avoidance
.05
.01
-.04
.16
.16*
by Passion
Actor Anxiety by
.04
.06
.03
.09
.01
.05
-.03
.00
.06
.1
.17*
.12
-.02
Passion
Partner Anxiety by
Passion
*
p < .05, ** p <
PI
= partner
.01,
*** p < .001; GL = goal pursuit, AG = achieve goal, GF = goal frustration.
MI = my behavior interferes, CI = external cnxumstances interfere.
interferes,
33
Tabic
4:
Level 2 inlcraetions
-
Intimacy Cioals
GL
Male avoidance by
AG
'5**
.01
-
.05
-.03
1
Pi
(il'^
MI
CI
.06
.15
.10
.01
-.08
-.02
-.04
-.05
-.03
-.12
-.04
.01
.09
.07
.11
.04
I'cmale Anxiety
Male anxiety by
i'cmale avoidance
Male avoidance by
.01
.1
I'cmale avoidance
Male anxiety by
-.05
-.01
-.08
.00
-.16**
-.28*
-.31*
.03
.09
-.08
-.18
-.26
.08
.06
.06
-.04
-.05
-.03
.14
-.03
.02
.06
.01
-.01
.12
I'emale anxiety
Male passion by
-.28*
I'emale passion
Male avoidance by
I'emale Passion
Male anxiety by
I'emale passion
Male passion by
I'emale avoidance
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001;
PI
=
pai lner interrcres,
Table
5:
Level
1
Main
MI
my
Effects
GL
Intercept
(iender
2.44
-.16**
Actor Passion
Partner Passion
.02
Actor Avoidance
Partner Avoidance
Actor Anxiety
-
GL = goal pursuit, AG = achieve goal, GF = goal frustration,
behavior interferes. CI - external circumstances inlcrfcic.
Distance Goals
AG
]()***
PI
MI
CI
3.72
3.64
3.40
-.10
-.02
-.18
.02
-.09
-.11
-.07
-.18
.12
-.05
.06
-.02
.01
.04
-.05
-.15
-.01
Gl'
1.82
5.21
.02
.17
.22**
.30*
-.16
-.03
^y
.21**
.05
.03
***
>]<!)<*
.22*
.07
-.18
.12
.16
Partner Anxiety
.11
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; GL = goal pursuit,
= achieve goal, (if = goal fruslralion.
PI = partner interferes, MI ^ my behavior interferes, CI = external circumstances interfere.
AG
34
l
ablc
Level
6:
Main
1
Effects and Interactions
-
Distance (ioals
Ml
rl
J 41
S
1
Actor Passion
clILlICi
1
I
cilUlCl
.J
1
-.08
cloolUll
-.
1
1
/AVOIUallCC
07/
-.U
Actor Anxiety
o
1
1
1
.65***
Actor Avoidance
I
H. VO
-.47**
1
Z.03
.1
1
CI
.50
-.4j
-.hi
.23
.43
-.08
-.33
.07
-.01
n
-.11
-.1)
1
1
.19*
.45**
-.11
24* * *
.68***
1
O
6
-.14
.48**
AA
.21
-.
1
.04
.05
(^2***
14
A
A/
.06
.14
.10
.03
-.07
-.05
-.01
-.13
-.21
-.24
.05
.11
-.06
-.23
-.23*
-.15
-.09
-.23
.10
.23
-.02
-.07
-.01
.09
.05
.17
.27**
.19
.03
.14
.01
.11
.16
.19
-.03
-.12
-.00
.12
.07
.01
-.07
-.32**
-.04
-.01
.01
-.08
-.29*
-.10
.00
.01
.10
-.05
.03
.20
-.01
.07
-.05
.00
.09
1
.
Actor Gender by
1
-.U4
.27*
Partner Anxiety
C
.J
1
-.
1
A
I'assion
I'artner (iender
by
Passion
Actor Gender by
Avoidance
Gender by
Avoidance
Actor Gender by
Partner
Anxiety
Partner Gender by
Anxiety
Actor Avoidance
uy
1
aSSK)Il
Partner Avoidance
by Passion
Actor Anxiety by
.06
-.09
Passion
Partner Anxiety by
.03
-.13
Passion
*
*** p < .001; GL = goal pursuit, AG = achieve goal, GF = goal frustration,
interferes. Ml = my behavior interferes, CI = external circumstances interfere.
p < .05, ** p <
PI
= partner
.01,
35
Tabic
Level 2 Interactions
7:
-
Distance Goals
GL
Male avoidance by
Female Anxiety
Male anxiety by
l^'emale
AG
.14*
-.08
CiF
1
C)
***
PI
MI
(M
.23
.17
.16
.05
.10
-.14
.15
-.12
.19
-.04
-.09
.04
-.14
-.17
.05
-.01
.10
-.02
-.22*
-.24**
-.15
.02
-.04
-.29
.10
-.15
-.24
.08
.35
.14
.17
.08
-.27
-.03
.24
-.05
.29
-.17
-.14
.15
-.16
-.04
.04
avoidance
Male avoidance by
I'emalc avoidance
Male anxiety by
.00
-.46***
I^emale anxiety
Male passion by
Temale passion
Male avoidance by
I'cmale Passion
Male anxiety by
l-'emale passion
Male passion by
I'cmale avoidance
*
p <
PI
.05.
Table
8:
*** p < .001 GL = goal pursuit, AG = achieve goal, GF = goal fru.stration,
interferes. Ml = my behavior interferes, CI = external circumstances inlerfere.
** p <
= partner
Level
1
.01,
;
Main
Effects
-
Self-Regulation Goals
AG
GL
5.94
Intercept
Gender
.08*
5.60
-.07
Actor Passion
.12*
Partner Passion
Actor Avoidance
.
1.75
2.92
MI
CI
3.43
3.13
.02
-.14
.03
-.00
-.03
-.18
-.10
-.00
.18*
-.09
-.19
.03
-.06
27***
.04
-.02
Actor Anxiety
.10*
-.17**
Partner Anxiety
PI
.17*
Partner Avoidance
-.01
GF
.02
4Q***
.18**
-.02
2]***
.08*
.02
-.01
.51***
-.12
.54***
.54***
49***
.08
.09
.15
*** p < .001; GL = goal pursuit, AG = achieve goal, GF = goal frustration,
PI = partner interferes, MI = my behavior interferes, CI = external circumstances interfere.
*
p <
.05,
** p <
.01,
36
Tabic
Level
9:
1
Main
Effects and Interactions
GL
Intercept
Gender
Actor Passion
Avouiance
.14
-.40
-.21
83
.23*
-.01
-.16
.24**
-
-.23
***
1
***
1
1
27***
04
.06
-
.07
-.18**
0
.U
i
Actor Gender by
PI
1 1
96
90
^5
Aclor Anxiety
P ^irt npr A n v ptv
GF
4.40
.08
Actor Avoidance
l^artner
AG
3.95
3
Partner Passion
Self-Regulation Goals
1
1
44***
.V7H
77***
1
.
1
'K
J)
.48***
Oil
0?
iVl
1
.
1
6
11
Z.
1
.oZ.
7
22
-
.00
-
OS
44**
OQ
^
-.
**
***
<^
:|:
1
1
.49***
no
-.06
.13
-.04
-.16
-.05
.07
-.14**
-.07
-.10
-.08
Actor Gender by
A \/<"\ n n c
.03
.00
.03
-.07
.06
.04
Partner (jender by
.02
-.01
-.01
.06
.10
.08
.02
-.01
.02
.03
.03
.03
.02
-.01
.14**
.08
.06
.03
.11*
-.06
-.07
.03
.04
-.03
.07
-.06
-.04
.21*
.24*
.13
.08
.04
.04
.19*
.05
.15
-.04
.01
.03
.11
.19
.14
Gender by
I'artner
I
ri ^1 ]T
cc
Actor Gender by
AnY
1
pt\/
Partner Gender by
AnY
1
-.03
^1
1
A
-.09
f^* 1
\/
Actor Avoidance
by Passion
Partner Avoidance
by Passion
Actor Anxiety by
Passion
Partner Anxiety by
Passion
*** p < .001; GL = goal pursuit, AG = achieve goal, GF = goal frustration,
PI = partner interferes, MI = my behavior interferes, CI = external circumstances interfere.
*
p <
.05,
** p <
.01,
37
Table
Level 2 Interactions - Self-Regulation Goals
10:
GL
AG
GF
PI
Ml
CI
Male avoidance by
.04
-.05
.06
.07
.11
.06
Female Anxiety
Male anxiety by
.03
-.07
.03
-.09
-.10
.07
Female avoidance
Male avoidance by
.03
.02
.02
.05
-.05
.10
Female avoidance
Male anxiety by
-.01
.04
.05
.09
.07
.01
Female anxiety
Male passion by
-.24**
-.06
-.34*
-.43*
.15
-.39*
Female passion
Male avoidance by
.01
-.09
.00
-.08
-.19
-.17
Female Passion
-.23*
Male anxiety by
-.01
-.03
-.10
.02
.19
Female passion
-.02
Male passion by
-.02
.02
.10
.10
-.02
Female avoidance
* p < .05, ** p < .01. *** p < .001; GL = goal pursuit, AG = achieve goal, GF = goal frustration,
PI = partner interferes. MI = my behavior interferes, CI = external circumstances interfere.
Table
1
1
:
Level
1
Main
Effects
-
GL
Intercept
5.86
Gender
Actor Passion
.30*
Partner Passion
.07
Sex Goals
AG
GF
1.97
5.41
4.25
.14
.04
.12
-.01
.00
-.03
-.11
-.14
.17
.08
-.01
-.20
.05
Actor Avoidance
.02
-.05
.16
Partner Avoidance
-.02
-.12
-.01
.04
Actor Anxiety
-.08
-.09
-.06
-.08
Partner Anxiety
* p < .05. ** p < .01, *** p < .001; GL
MI = my
CI
3.17
.27**
PI = partner interferes,
MI
PI
3.09
7^***
.08
=
goal pursuit,
.40***
.16
AG = achieve
.37***
.02
-.07
.06
.44**=^
.25*
.17
goal,
GF =
.15
goal frustralion.
behavior interferes, CI = external circumstances
38
interfei e.
Table
12:
Level
1
Main
Effects and Interactions
AG
GL
Intercept
3.45
Gender
.45
Actor Passion
.48**
.
1
GF
MI
PI
CI
j
i.4U
Partner Passion
Sex Goal
-
1.45
3.96
2.90
.01
.07
-.02
-.32
.24
-.04
-.20
-.24
.18
.26
-.02
-
-.04
.42*
42*
-.68
1
.23
Actor Avoidance
-.25*
.05
-.10
.17
.31
-.03
Partner Avoidance
-.00
-.09
-.04
.04
-.09
-.02
Actor Anxiety
-.10
-.09
.26***
.36*
Partner Anxiety
-.06
-.08
.09
.18
Actor Gender by
-.11
.09
-.05
-.21
-.00
-.07
-.02
.09
-.07
-.10
-.05
.00
-.29*
.05
.04
.11
.01
-.16*
-.22*
.04
-.09
.11
.10
.06
.11
-.03
.05
.05
-.13
.05
.03
-.00
.05
.01
.03
-.32*
-.10
.00
.22
.02
.04
-.32**
-.1
.45**
.15
-.03
.18
-.00
.03
.28
.08
.27
.07
.06
.00
.00
.09
.24
.38**
.25
.11
.1
Passion
Partner Gender by
Passion
Actor Gender by
.
95**
Avoidance
Partner Gender by
Avoidance
Actor Gender by
Anxiety
Partner Gender by
Anxiety
Actor Avoidance
by Passion
Partner Avoidance
bv Passion
Actor Anxiety by
-.23**
Passion
Partner Anxiety by
Passion
*
p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001;
PI
= partner
interferes,
GL =
MI = my behavior
goal pursuit,
interferes,
39
AG
= achieve
goal,
GF =
goal frustration,
CI = external circumstances
interfere.
Table 13: Level 2 Interactions
GI
v_J
1
Male avoidance by
Female Anxiety
Male anxiety by
Female avoidance
Male avoidance by
-
Sex Goal
PT
I
,
Ml
1
I
-.12
-.15
-.02
.18
-.23
-.27
-.01
-.07
.18
.22
.08
.19
-.02
-.06
.06
.11
-.04
.10
-.10
-.02
.00
-.17
.39*
1
Female avoidance
Male anxiety by
Female anxietv
-.04
-.32**
Male passion by
-.05
-.52*
-.25
-.18
.22
Female passion
-.26
Male avoidance by
-.16
-.33
-.29
.18
.37
Female Passion
.32**
-.25
Male anxiety by
-.07
-.03
.01
.21
Female passion
-.35
-.39
Male passion by
-.32
.28
.41
.08
avoidance
Female
_
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; GL = goal pursuit, AG = achieve goal, GF = goal frustration,
PI = partner interferes, MI = my behavior interferes, CI = external circumstances interfere.
1
Table
14:
Level
1
Main
Effects
GL
6.39
Intercept
Gender
.14**
Actor Passion
44***
Partner Passion
Actor Avoidance
.11
-.33***
Partner Avoidance
Actor Anxiety
1
I
.04
-.04
-
I
= partner
interferes,
I
Support Goals
AG
6.06
.08
22***
.25*
20***
.04
-.11*
GF
MI = my behavior
MI
PI
2.80
1.61
CI
2.79
2.79
-.02
-.23**
-.26**
-.17
-.06
-.27*
-.14
-.02
-.04
.06
-.05
-.06
.20***
.32**
44***
.00
.13
.07
.17
.53**
.48***
.43***
1
g**
=|:
.09*
-.07
-.03
Partner Anxiety
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; GL = goal pursuit,
PI
I
interferes,
40
.14
AG
= achieve
^ -y
.02
.09
goal,
GF =
***
goal frustration,
CI = external circumstances
interfere.
Table
15:
Level
1
Main
I-lTecls
GL
4.59
intercept
(iender
.54
Actor Passion
40***
Partner Passion
.12
-.32***
Actor Avoidance
Partner Avoidance
.01
and Interactions
-
AC,
4.51
-.57
^5***
:^-^***
.01
Support Cioals
PI
Gl.98
.89
.42
1.05
MI
CI
1.41
.13
.65
1.35
-.10
-.30*
-.16
-.02
-.06
.00
-.20
-.12
9
1
**
<;q***
=|:
.08
]()***
.19
^2***
.10
.50***
.68***
.22
^C)***
Actor Anxiety
-.07
-.16**
Partner Anxiety
-.03
-.05
.05
.10
.03
-.04
Actor Gender by
-.05
.12
-.14*
-.13
-.08
-.12
.04
.04
-.08*
.03
.04
.08
.07
.05
.03
-.10
-.10
Passion
Partner
Gender by
Passion
Actor Gender by
-.1
1
Avoidance
Partner Ciender by
.06
-.02
.00
-.03
.05
.03
Avoidance
Actor Gender by
Anxiety
-.03
.01
.01
-.06
-.06
-.09
Partner Gender by
-.06
-.03
.05
.01
-.07
-.06
.11
-.08
-.01
.16
.09
.16
-.01
-.02
-.07
.09
.32**
.18
.04
.02
.02
.15
.18
.15
.00
.04
-.00
.12
.14
.04
Anxiety
Actor Avoidance
by Passion
Partner Avoidance
by Passion
Actor Anxiety by
Passion
Partner Anxiety by
Passion
*** p < .001; GL = goal pursuit, AG = achieve goal, GF = goal frustration.
PI = partner interferes, MI = my behavior interferes, CI = external circumstances interiere.
*
p < .05, ** p <
.01,
41
Table
16:
Level 2 Interactions
Til
VJ 1
-
Support Goals
Male avoidance by
f^m;i u* A n \ pf v
PI
VJ r
y
-.16**
-.09
.03
IVl
V
1
.08
.01
-.02
1
1
Male anxiety by
.06
.07
-.1
-.05
-.23
-.25
Male avoidance by
.16
.13
-.01
-.01
.13
.15
-.01
-.04
.08
.14
.30**
.08
-.00
-.26**
-.11
-.15
-.05
.08
-.05
-.15
.12
.09
.09
-.02
.08
-.15
-.01
.07
.09
.08
.02
-.03
.14
Male anxiety by
1
""c^m ;i
1
f*
11
nV
H^l
\/
Male passion by
-.14
I'cmale passion
Male avoidance by
.1
1
I'cmale Passion
Male anxiety by
I'emalc passion
Male passion by
I'cmale
"""'"""^^
^'""'^ avoidance
* p < .05. ** p < .01, *** p < .001;
'
Pi
I
= partner
interferes,
I
=
MI = my behavior
goal pursuit,
interferes,
42
AG
= achieve
goal,
I
\
I
I
I
GL
GF
= goal
CI = external circumstances
frustration.
interiere.
Figure
Aclor by Parlncr Passionate Love and Intimacy Goal Frustration
1
:
l^ntncr Pa>sion
i\irtiKT
Pussion
l';iHHoi
Pjssion
SI) above ihc inc;in
I
ihc
;u
I
mean
SDIiclnw
i1k'
ohmm
'J-.
73
C
4
c3
3
————
-1
(
X=
Figure
2:
I
2
1
I
I
H
\-
3
—— —
I
I
1
(-
4
5
6
Aclor Passionate l.o\c
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and
43
My Partner
Interferes with Intimacy Cloals
^
l';iniici
Pa-xsion
l';innci
Passion
I';ii1iicr
PaNMon
1
1
1
»
»
»
(
1
)
2
1
X=
3:
abo\e the mean
mean
at tlic
SDhcUiv.
I
the hkmii
1
h--^
Figure
SD
I
—
»
1
——
1
(
»
1
(
»
5
1
1
6
1—
7
Aclcir PassioiuUc Los e
My
Pariiier Passu^n
i
i
4
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and
6
I
1
3
nor
'art
I
PasMon
Behavior hiterferes with hitimacy (ioals
Si) .iI.hhc ihc
;H tl»e
I'artner l\jssion
mean
SI) helm',
I
moan
ilie
mean
J-*
^
————
H
0
II
X
•igure 4: Actor
1
1
(
I
t
I
\
— ——— ——
\
2
Y= Acior
t
\
3
I
t
t
4
5
6
Passionate I.oxc
by Partner Passionate Love and Itxternal C'ucumstances
Goals
44
hiterlere with hitimacy
f\iHncr Passion
m
Parlnci PaNsi(Mi
Pariiicr Passion
%
SI) iibo\c ihc
I
moan
\\\<:
sDhcluu
I
mean
ihc
nuMn
4
"J
«-»
———— ——
H
t
t
t
I
t
1
2
1
t-
5
4
3
6
11
>
\
Figure
5:
AcUm
I'lissionulc 1a>\c
Actor by Partner Passionate Pove and Sex Goal Frustration
Partner Pa-'Mon
I'anner Passion
I
I
)
the
;u
Parmer Pa>sion
r
Si
al>o\ e the
mean
mean
SDbclnv.
the
mean
4
C3
9
3
2
11
H
1
'0
7
1
X=
Figure
6:
1
\
\
1
1
——
3
t
t
k-
4
5
6
Act(ir Passionalo Lt)\c
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and
F.xternal
45
Circumstances Interfere with Sex Goa
X
5
l';iitnci
l\issioii
P;iilncr Pa^^sioii
4
Si) iibo\e ihc incoii
I
moan
the
.a
3t
•r
1>
2
X
Figure
5
4
3
AcU)r I'asMonalc
l.i>\c
Actor Avoidance by Partner Avoidance and Sex Goal
7:
Partner Avoidiiiicc
I'artncr
Avoidance
r'artticr
Axoidaiice
I
.SDalunc
the
at
I
-
t
t
t
I
—
I
I
I
t
——
H
t
X=
I
t
1-
Actor Axoidancc
46
hkmh
SDbelov. the mean
'J
0
the
mean
4
1
G
Figure
8:
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and Distance Goals
l^jiliK'i
Pjssion
I'.iitnci
l\issuin
the nUMii
;i(
M)lieln\s
I
ilic
inejn
r.
'J
0
2
1
Figure
9:
5
4
3
X = Add!"
r*assu)nato
6
7
Lmc
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and the Achievement of Support Goals
"
"
r';iriner I^inmoii
I'
lilnei
Passion
I'jrlncr Passion
I
at
i
the
si)
mean
2
X=
AcU^r
3
4
I^issioiiatc
47
Hk mean
helnv-.
H
1
mcjn
SI) al>i>\e the
1
—
t
Los
1
1
1-
6
5
e
Figure 10: Actor by Partner Passionate Love and the
Frustration of Self-Reguhilion
(
loals
7-
l\irinci PiiNSion
I'iirtncr
I
Passion
I
moan
mean
ac ihc
Partner Passion
Ll
Nl) iiho\c iho
SDholiiv. OkMiiean
5
4-
T2
3-
'J
,
ir.
1
I
0
'
It
'
1
X=
Figure
1
1:
1
—
I
T
—t—+—
-I
I
I
2
3
AcUir
I*assi()iiatc Lt)\ c
Actor by Partner Passionate Love and
My
6
5
4
c
I
(Ik-
moan
SI) hclow the
mean
Si)
Paiinci Passion ai Ihe
6
I
'jitncr Passion
I
;il>o\
e
mean
r.
C
7
0
2
1
.\
3
4
Acloi I'assiniKilc
48
7
Partner Interferes with Self-Regulation
Goals
PcntncT Passion
—h—
1
5
l.(>\
Figure 12: Aclor by Partner Passionate Love and
My
Behavior Interferes with Seir-Regulalu)ii
Goals
1
l';irtiicr
5
I\jsskmi iU ihc
I'arinci I\>ssKin
mean
SDIicUns
I
the iikmh
'J
X
Figure
13:
3
2
1
Actor
5
4
I'lissioncilc
Aetor Anxiety by Partner Anxiety and
My
Piirincr
\n\ict\
I';innei
\n\iei\
l
.(>\c
Behavior Interferes with Support Cioals
I
I
SD
above
(lie
incnn
SI
Ix'Kns
ilu-
mkmii
)
—————
-\
I
3
X
1
t
I
4
Aclor An\ict\
49
5
Figure 14: Actor Anxiely by Partner Anxiety and
My
Partner Interferes with Distance Goals
6-
?
4
3
U
2
0
1
f^;irinct
\n\ic'i>
P;iiliici
\n\ici>
l';irincr
\n\ietv
X
'igure 15: Actor Anxiety
the nic;in
iit
3
2
SI) alxno the mc;in
I
SO
I
below the me;in
5
4
6
7
Actor An\ict\
by Partner Anxiety and External Circumstances
Goals
Interiere with Distance
7
....
£
s:
fi
Pnrtnor \n\ici\
1
SI) iil>o\c (he nic;iti^^
b
r';iHi)Oi
\n\ici\
l';iiliK'i
\n\ictv
5
2
jl llie
I
moai)
SI) below ihc
3
X
-
Actor An\iot\
50
mean
51
Figure 18: Male Avoidance by Female Anxiety and the Pursuit of Distance Goals
6-
f
eiiuiio
\iuicl>
Female Anxiety
Female An\icl\
2
X
Figure
19:
I
at
I
3
SI
)
ihc
abo\ e ihc
moan
mean
SDbelox^
4
mean
ihc
5
Male A\ ojdancc
Male Avoidance by Female Anxiety and Distance
(ioal I'rustration
7-
—
H
Female \n\Kt>
Female Ansielv
Female \n\iei\
I
at
I
SD
abo\ e
the
mean
SDhelou
5
2
X
3
4
Male Asoidancc
52
ilic
nic.m
the
mean
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aiken, L.
& West,
S.,
S.
G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and interoretiim
interactions
.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ainsworth, M. D.
&
S., Blehar. M. C, Waters, E.
Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment:
psychological study of t he straniie situation (Hillsdale, NJ:Eiibaum.)
Baldwin, M. W.,
&
Holmes, J. (1987). Salient private audiences and awareness of the
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52, 1087-1098.
A
self.
.
Baumeister, R. F.
&
Bratslavsky, E. (1999). Passion, intimacy, and time: Passionate love as a
function of change in intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Review
3, 49-68,
.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C.
attachment:
An
L.,
&
Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of aduh
integrative overview.
(In
Attachment theory and close relationships
Bretherton,
I.
J.
A. Simpson
(pp.
46
-
76).
& W.
New
S.
Rholes (Eds.).
York: Guilford Press.)
(1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. dVlonographs of the Society for
Research
in
Child Development 50 (1.
2, Serial
No. 209).)
(1990). Open communication and internal working models: Their role in the
development of attachment relationships.(In R. A. Thompson (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 36, pp. 57- 113). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Bretherton,
I.
Press.)
Bowlby,
J.
(1973). Attachment and loss: Vol.
2.
Separation: Anxiety and anger
.
(New York:
Basic Books)
Bowlby,
J.
(1979).
The making and breaking of affectional bonds (London: Tavistock)
.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and
Books)
Bowlby,
.1.
Vol.
3.
Loss: Sadness and depression
(1982). Attachment and loss: Vol.
1.
Attachment ((2nd
(Original
Bowlby,
.L
loss:
New
ed.).
.
(New York:
Basic
York: Basic Books.
work published 1969)
(1988).
A
secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy
human development New
.
York: Basic Books)
&
Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a
four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61, 226-244.
Bartholomew,
K.,
,
Berk,
M.
S.,
&
Andersen,
S.
M.
(2000).
The impact of past
behavior: Behavioral confirmation
in the social
relationships on inteipersonal
cognitive process of transference.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79, 546-562.
,
Collins, N. L.,
&
Read,
S.
J.
(1994). Cognitive representations of attachment:
&
D. Pcrlman
function of working models. (In K. Bartholomew
in adulthood (pp. 53- 90). London: Kingsley.)
processes
53
The
(lids.).
structure and
Attachment
Campbell, L. & Kashy, D.A. (2002). Estimating Actor, Partner, and Interaction Effects for
Dyadic Data Using PROC MIXED and HLM: A User-Friendly Guide, Personal
Relationships 2002,
327-342.
9,
.
&
J., Pietromonaco, P. R.,
Barrett, L. F. (1999). The contribution of attachment style and
relationship conflict to the complexity of relationship knowledge. Social Cognition 1
Fishtein,
228-244.
Sternberg & M. L. Barnes
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hatfield, E. (1988). Passionate and companionate love. In R.
The psychology of love
Hatfield, E.
&
&
.1.
(Eds.).
Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relations. .Journal
9, 383-410.
Adolescence
Hatfield, E.
New
(pp. 191-217).
ol"
.
& Rapson,
R. L. (1987). Passionate love:
D. Perlman (Eds.
),
Advances
in
New
directions in research. In
personal relationships: Vol.
l
W.
H. Jones
(pp. 109-139).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hazan, C.
&
Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 5 1 1 -524.
Hinkley, K.,
& Andersen,
S.
M.
The working self-concept
(1996).
in transference: Significant-
other activation and self-change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71,
,
1279-1295.
Kirkpatrick, L. A.
& Davis, K.
E. (1994).
Attachment
style,
gender, and relationship stability:
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
& Cassidy,
Main, M., Kaplan, K.
move
to the level
,
C,
&
Read,
relationships:
6(5,
(1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood:
Serial
S. J. (1991).
A loiowledge
On
A
502-512.
of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research
Development 50 (1—2,
Miller, L.
J.
,
in
A
Child
No. 209).)
models of persons and
O Fletcher & F. D. Fincham
69-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
the coherence of mental
structure approach. In G.
(Eds.), Cognition in close relationships (pp.
J.
Mikulincer, M. (1998). Attachment working models and the sense of trust: An exploration of
interacfion goals and affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74,
,
1209-1224.
Mikulincer, M., Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment Styles and Patterns of Self-Disclosure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 61, 321-331.
.
Moretti,
M. M.,
& Higgins,
E. T. (1999).
Own
versus other standpoints in self-regulation:
Developmental antecedents and functional consequences. Review of General
Psychology
Park, B. (1986).
A
,
3,
188-223.
method
development
for studying the
Personality and Social Psychology 5
,
1
,
907 9
54
1
7.
ol~
impressions of real people. Journal
ol
Rom,
E.
& Mikul incer, M. (2003). Attachment Theory and Group Processes: he Associaluin
Between Attachment Style and Group-Related Representations, Goals, Memories, and
I
Functioning. .Tournal of Personality and Social PsycholoRV 84, 1220-1235.
,
Tennov, D. (1979). Love and limerence (New York: Stein and Day)
.
Trzebmski,
.1.
(1989).
The
role of goal categories in the representation of social
A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts
in personality
know
ledge. In L.
and social psycholoRv (pp. 363 411).
Hillsdale, NJ: Eiibaum.
Vemon, M. L., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (2004). Attachment-avoidance and Relationship Goals:
The Role of Passionate Infatuation. A paper presented to the Department of Psychology
at the
University of Massachusetts Amherst.
55