Attachment Styles in Adult Relationships
Attachment Theory Overview
Discusses how attachment styles developed from childhood affect adult romantic relationships.
A common concern: fear of not being securely bonded.
Reality: about half of people are not securely bonded.
Importance of not conflating childhood attachment with adult capability for relationships.
Adult Relationship Reactions to Conflict
Research by Hazen and Shaver highlighted adult attachment styles in relationships.
Differences in reactions emerge primarily during troubled times in relationships rather than during stable periods.
Secure Attachment Style
Default Response: Trust.
Example Scenario: A securely bonded individual hears a rumor about their partner's infidelity.
Likely response includes disbelief and laughter, indicating confidence in their partner's fidelity.
Communication is non-confrontational, demonstrating stability in trust.
Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment Style
Default Response: Distrust.
Tends to be clingy or overly dependent on their partner.
Example Scenario: Might hire a private investigator if feeling insecure due to a rumor.
Communication may be avoided due to fear of conflict but can also manifest in inappropriate confrontations.
Avoidant Attachment Style
Default Response: Emotional and/or physical distance.
Example Response: When insecure, they may think, "I loved you too much; I should withdraw to avoid pain."
Display of emotional unavailability, often leading to an inability to share feelings effectively.
Understand and Adapt to Attachment Styles
Reflection on individual attachment styles is encouraged for self-awareness.
Recognizing triggers and behaviors can lead to changes in emotional responses.
Importance of communication rather than confrontation when dealing with issues related to trust.
Androgyny: Communal and Agentic Traits
Definition and Distinction
Communal Traits
Associated with feminine stereotypes: nurturing, empathetic, tactful, good negotiation skills.
Agentic Traits
Associated with masculine stereotypes: self-assured, confident, leadership skills.
Cultural Context
Stereotypes embedded in U.S. culture led to measurements dependent on these traits.
Measurement Scale: Ranges from 1 (high communal, low agentic) to 7 (low communal, high agentic).
Inadequate representation of individuals with complex trait combinations.
BEM Sex Role Inventory
Researcher: Sandra Bem highlighted the necessity of independent measures for communal and agentic traits.
Four Categories Based on Trait Scores:
Masculine: High agentic, low communal.
Feminine: Low agentic, high communal.
Androgynous: High on both communal and agentic traits.
Undifferentiated: Low on both traits.
Emphasis on avoiding gender stereotypes in characterizations of individuals.
Research Findings on Androgyny
First Impression Studies: Individuals described as androgynous were favored over others; perceived as more interesting and intelligent.
Dyadic Interactions: Pairings of a feminine sex-typed female with a masculine sex-typed male had the lowest compatibility.
Relationship Satisfaction: Highest satisfaction reported by individuals paired with androgynous partners rather than within the same style category.
Self-Assessment for Androgyny
Description of a self-assessment to evaluate agentic and communal skills:
Agentic Skills Score:
Low: 10-30
Medium: 31-49
High: 50-70
Communal Skills Score:
Low: 10-30
Medium: 31-49
High: 50-70
High scores in both areas indicate androgyny.
Upcoming Homework Assignments
Read two assigned chapters on the cognitive approach.
Prepare for an upcoming test on material covered.
Complete additional self-assessments (Questionnaires 11 and 12) before the cognitive approach lectures.