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 Attachment

Regulation 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)

Protest

Despair

Reorganization/Reintegration

Individual 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 Strategies

H3: 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.