Transcript Purpose

Attachment, Caregiving, and Persistence
in Long Distance and Geographically
Close Relationships
Jonathan E. Mosko, M. Carole Pistole
Purdue University
Amber Roberts
Grand Valley State University
Karen Ray
Purdue University
Mosko, J. E., Pistole, M. C., Roberts, A., & Ray, K. E. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and
persistence in long distance and geographically close relationships. Poster presented at
the International Association for Relationship Research mini-conference, July 21-24,
Indianapolis, IN.
J. E. Mosko can be contacted via email at [email protected]; M. C. Pistole at [email protected]
Rationale


Committed love relationships are important for
adults’ health, well-being, and development
(Behavioral Science, 1996a, 1996b; Cohen, 2004).
Romantic relationships are characterized by




Attachment (Hazan & Shaver, 1987)
Caregiving (Bowlby, 1988)
Long Distance relationships (LDRs) are
increasingly visible (Kaslow, 2001)
LDRs require investments of time, money, and
effort
Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1988)

Attachment system



Attachment





An enduring bond
Propensity to seek proximity, may be symbolic, to a romantic partner
Function is protection
Feelings of security
Separation Anxiety



Biologically based
Functions across the life span
Noticeable during distress or when separation is prolonged
Exploratory system (e.g., work, learning) is inhibited
Individual differences becomes represented in personality
Internal Working Models – Individual
Differences


Internal schemas organizing attachment and caregiving experience
 Formed for attachment and caregiving through interactions
 Influenced by and reflection of attachment histories
Working Model Characteristics
 Two Dimensions based on affect regulation strategies for managing
attachment / caregiving



Hypersensitivity to attachment, chronic attachment system activation
Deactivation, suppression of attachment information
Attachment Prototypes



Secure: Self is loveable, partner will be accessible, seeks proximity when
distressed
Preoccupied: Unworthy self, idealized partner, seeks near constant partner
accessibility Dismissing: Positive, defensive self, partner will not be
accessible, self-reliant rather than seeking support
Fearful: Negative self and partner. Deactivating and Anxious, avoids
closeness to protect from rejection.
Caregiving (Bowlby, 1988)

Caregiving



Caregiving Mechanisms:




Provision of emotional care and protection
Linked to attachment
Sensitivity, awareness of and interpreting attachment cues
Responsiveness, responds contingently and quickly
Flexibility, response based on partner’s IWM
Caregiver Functions:



A safe haven (i.e., relief of distress)
A secure base (i.e., an anchor for exploration, guidance as
needed)
Protection
Internal Working Models

Caregiving & Prototypes (Kunce & Shaver, 1994)




Secure: Notices attachment cues, provides support.
Preoccupied: Inconsistent in providing support; low
sensitivity, high proximity, and compulsive caregiving.
Dismissing: Fails to notice cues for proximity; low
compulsive caregiving.
Fearful: Low support and proximity; high compulsive
caregiving.
Long Distance Relationships (LDRs)

Characteristics
Partners are geographically separated for days or weeks
 Solution to career-relationship conflicts
 Few significant LDR/GCR relationship quality differences (e.g.,
closeness, satisfaction, intimacy)
 LDRs significantly more stable than GCRs up to 6 months
(Stafford & Reske, 1990) or 2 years (Stephen, 1996)
Strengths
 Increased autonomy and work productivity during separation
 More emphasis on intimacy when together



Challenges



Chronic separation-reunion cycle
Costs of travel, communication, dual residences
Authenticity of the relationship may be doubted by others
Investment Model

Characteristics




Describes the relationship’s structural interdependence
Accounts for why some relationships persist or grow, despite
difficulties, while others deteriorate (Rusbult, 1983).
Felt psychologically as commitment, an individual's long-term
direction in a relationship
Influenced by:
 Satisfaction, or happiness with the relationship,
 Perceived alternatives to the relationship
 Investments that the individual would lose if the
relationship ended
Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1:


Expect significant mean attachment style differences
on caregiving and investment model variables,
regardless of relationship structure (i.e, LDR vs.
GCR), with secure attachment scores significantly
higher.
Hypothesis 2:

Expect a different pattern of attachment, caregiving,
and investment model variables will predict
satisfaction in LDRs and GCRs
Methods – Participants

Participants recruited through electronic listservs

Sample







N = 171; Primarily female (n = 148)
Age range 17 – 57 (M = 23.97, SD = 7.41)
80 in LDR, 91 in GCR
Primarily White (80.1%)
Some college education (72.5%)
Most never married (80.7%)
Participants completed all measures electronically
on a web site.
Methods – Measures

Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991)



Experience in Close Relationships (ECR) (Brennan et al., 1998)



2 dimensions of attachment
Avoidance and Anxiety subscales, 18 items each; α = .89 and .91
Investment Model (Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994)





4 category model of attachment prototypes
Secure, Dismissing, Preoccupied, Fearful.
Satisfaction (5 items, α = .94)
Quality of Alternatives (5 items, α = .85)
Investment Size (5 items, α = .83)
Commitment (6 items, α = .86)
Caregiving Scale, 32 items (Kunce & Shaver, 1994)




Proximity vs. Distance (Cronbach α = .83)
Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity (Cronbach α = .83)
Cooperation vs. Control (Cronbach α = .87)
Compulsive caregiving (Cronbach α = .80)
Results – Hypothesis 1

MANOVA (attachment x LDR/GCR)
 Main effect for attachment prototype, Hotelling’s T= .50,
F(24, 386) = 2.65, p < .001, η2 = .14

Investment model variables:



Secure – greater satisfaction than preoccupied, fearful
Dismissing – greater satisfaction than preoccupied
Caregiving variables:



Secure & Dismissing higher sensitivity than preoccupied, fearful
Secure & Dismissing higher cooperation than preoccupied
Dismissing less compulsive caregiving than preoccupied
Tables
Results – Hypothesis 2

Multiple regressions predicting commitment

LDRs:



Step 1: low attachment avoidance, cooperation, & low compulsive
caregiving predict commitment, F(6, 73) = 5.14, p < .001, explains
30% of variance.
Step 2: satisfaction and investments predict commitment, F(9, 70) =
7.38, p < .001, explains 49% of variance
GCRs:


Step 1: secure attachment (i.e., low attachment avoidance & anxiety)
predicts commitment, F(6, 71) = 5.39, p < .001, explains 32% of
variance
Step 2: low attachment avoidance, low alternatives, and satisfaction
predict commitment F(9, 68) = 12.86, p < .001, explains 63% of
variance
Discussion

Results partially supported hypotheses

Significant attachment differences for relationship
satisfaction and for caregiving, regardless of LDR/PR



Secure attachment related to higher satisfaction and effective
caregiving
Contrary to previous research, dismissing persons who
minimize the importance of attachment may believe they
provide effective caregiving
A different pattern of variables predicted commitment in
LDRs and GCRs



For both, satisfaction and low avoidance predict commitment
For LDRs, cooperation, non-compulsive caregiving, and
investments predict commitment
For GCRs, low alternatives and secure attachment predict
commitment
Implications for Practice and Research

Practice with LDR clients

Support client confidence in viability of LDRs


Facilitate secure attachment



Cannot support the null, but these results did not find investment model or
caregiving differences for LDRs/GCRs
Focus on attachment security associated with health outcomes
Help client maintain personal mental/physical health during times of
relationship stress
Research on LDR/GCR


Examine LDR/GCR and mental health (e.g., well being, health
management)
Investigate how LDR partners maintain proximity and provide adequate
caregiving