attachment 5 12 edits

8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits

1/24

1

Danny Sanchez

CUNY Pipeline

Senior Thesis

Title Pending

If you ask people, what they want in a romantic partner you will hear similar

responses. In general people want someone who is attractive, generous, treats them well,

takes them out, buys them things, and has a good job, and education. All of these factors

play a role in attraction, but which characteristic is most important? Most people also

prefer a partner who can provide security and support in a relationship (Simpson,

1990).However, some people end up dating an insecure person. Evolutionary

psychologists suggest that beauty and resources are more verypreferable than other

characteristic. Generally, men prefer physical attractiveness in a partner and women a

manare attracted to men who is are high in status. (Buss,1988) Lets be honest who would

not want to date a rich supermodel. However, attraction is obviously not solely based on

superficial things like beauty and money. When people commit to a relationship they

expect to be loved, trusted and appreciated by their significant other. An ideal partner is

someone one can talk to when things are bad and when things are good. Someone to

make you feel like youre the only person in their world . The present study investigated

whether people would prefer a partner who has things features like high status and beauty

over security and support. The goal of this study was to understand why people

sometimes end up dating a person who provides them with less security and support in

relationships.

History of Attachment Theory


2/24

2

In order to understand relationships, a starting point isto examine lets look at the

first relationship people have, which is the infant-caregiver bond. For most of us, the first

bond we form is with our mother at birth. One of the first psychologists to examine that

bond was John Bowlby who developed a theory of attachment grounded in evolutionary

principles (Bowlby, 1973; as cited in Simpson,1990). By staying in close contact with the

caregiver the infant has a better chance of surviving. Children learn that when they cry

for pain, hunger, or just for attention the parent will respond in a certain way. The parents

response towards the child is also important for the development ofhis or herthe childs

understanding of how relationships work, and thus his or her attachment style. The

bond that is formed between infants and caregivers plays a major role in the childs

personality development. From infancy to adulthood, the parental bond shapes our

behavior and feelings in other social domains like our romantic relationships.

Building on Bowlbys work Ainsworth, Belhar, Waters & Wall (1978) determined

that different infant attachment styles existed as a result of individual differences in the

infant-caregiver relationship. The three attachment styles Ainsworth et al.and colleagues

(1978) described were secure, anxious/ambivalent, and avoidant. In brief, if the infant has

a responsive and attentive caregiver, the infant develops a sense of security, love and

confidence: a secure attachment style. If the caregiver is not responsive and/or attentive

the child can develop an insecure style; anxious/ambivalent or avoidant attachment. What

Ainsworth et al. (1978) observed in anxious infants was an anxious, fearful, clinging

response to the parent. The behavior Ainsworth et al. (1978) observed in avoidant infants

was a defensive, hostile response towards the caregiver. The bond that forms between

infants and their caregivers is an important part of the infants personality development.


3/24

3

The attachment people form with their caregiver endures into adulthood and shapes their

behaviors in adult romantic relationships.

Adult Attachment

Social psychologists believe that the attachment bond developed towards the

caregiver endures into adulthood and later romantic relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987;

Fraley & Shaver, 2000), with some obvious differences. In adulthood that the bond is no

longer with the caregiver but with a romantic partner. Also,as an infant the caregivers

justprovides without expecting anything back, in contrastbut in adult relationships each

partner is both a provider and a recipient (Hazan & Shaver, 1994). Despite the

differences, the functions and dynamics of the attachment behavioral system are

hypothesized to be virtually the same across the life span (Hazan et al. 1994). Research

has found that adult attachment involves similar attachment for protection, survival and

nurturing seen in childhood. Prototypical adult attachment relationships thus involve the

integration of three behavioral systems: attachment, care giving, and sexual mating

(Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw, 1988). When an individual [an adult] is feeling distressed,

sick, or threatened, the partner is used as a source of safety, comfort, and protection

(Fraley et al., 2000). That security and support is what most people want in a romantic

partner (Chappell & Davis, 1998). Security adds to our well-being both physically and

psychologically (Simpson & Rholes, 2010).

Most adult attachment research conceptualizes attachment in adulthood as being

dimensional. Some researchers believe that attachment should not be categorical but

rather be dimensional. Fraley and Wallers (1998) analyses indicated that categorical

models are inappropriate for studying variation in romantic attachment. With a


4/24

4

dimensional approach, there is a spectrum between secure or insecure and there are two

attachment dimensions -- anxiety and avoidance. Anxiety reflects the degree to which

individuals worry and ruminate about being rejected or abandoned by their partners

(Simpson, Kim, Fillo, Ickes, Rholes, Oria, & Winterheld, 2011). Avoidance reflects the

degree to which people are uncomfortable with closeness and emotional intimacy

(Simpson et al., 2011). A secure individual is low in anxiety, and low in avoidance.

An insecure person is high on either anxiety or avoidance, or on both. Anxiety reflects

the degree to which individuals worry and ruminate about being rejected or abandoned by

their partners (Simpson, Kim, Fillo, Ickes, Rholes, Oria, Winterheld, 2011). Avoidance

reflects the degree to which people are uncomfortable with closeness and emotional

intimacy (Simpson et al., 2011).

Behavior in Relationships as afunction Function ofsecurityAttachment Security

Most people say they prefer a secure partner (Latty-mann & Davis, 1996).

Research suggests that a secure partner provides a better opportunity for forming a

secure, satisfying romantic relationship than does an insecure partner (Chappell et al.,

1998). Past research also indicates that secure individuals behave in ways that promote

relationship well being for both partners, whereas insecure people are more likely to

encounter relationship dissatisfaction (Felmlee, 1995). People want to be with someone

who does not make them doubt their partners love and commitment to them and the

relationship. Past research has shown that secure individuals are better able to recover

from relationship conflicts (Salvatore, Kuo, Steele, Simpson, & Collins, 2011), and they

think autonomy is important, and they are comfortable with closeness (Collins & Read,

1990). Since a secure partner is able to communicate and express their thoughts and


5/24

5

feelings about issues in the relationship, this could be one explanation why most

individuals want to have a secure partner.

Insecure individuals behave differently than secure people. For example, anxious

individuals are more likely to experiences separation distress after temporary separations

(Fraley & Shaver, 1998) and have less trust in their relationships (Simpson, 1990).

Anxious people always often worry that their partner is cheating on them or that their

partner does not love them. These insecurities could lead to troublesome behaviors like

extreme jealousies that affect relationship satisfaction. Avoidant individuals do not

disclose much personal information; instead, they tend to talk either about the other

person or about impersonal stuff like school and work (Simpson 1990). The way insecure

people behave may be detrimental to the relationship because they provide less security

and support in relationship than secure people do. As mentioned before, people do end up

dating insecure people, and staying with the person for a very long time even if they are

not satisfied in the relationship. Why is this?

Security, Beauty, or Money?

Are people attracted to superficial things like resources and status or does

personality and attachment security matter more? Many studies have examined attraction

preferences from different perspectives (e.g. social and evolutionary psychology)

(Klohnen & Luo, 2003; Buss, 1988). There is still a debate going on in the area of

attachment about whether attraction is based on similar or complementary personalities.

Most Much research shows that most people want a secure partner regardless of their

own attachment style (Latty-mann et al., 1996, Simpson,1990). Other studies have found

a matching effect with insecure people date dating other insecure people rather than


6/24

6

secure people (Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994, Frazier et al.,1996 ). It is not clear why people

would end up dating someone who is insecure, and who provides them with less security

and support.

In the real world, security sometimes is not the concern, but instead money, status,

and beauty are. Some people want to date a rich person who could be their providera

sugar-momma or sugar-daddy.. In our society, women are stigmatized for this image

of gold-digger more then men are. However, women are not the only ones who choose

a partner based on superficial things; men are guilty as well.Most men want a physically

attractive girlfriend or wife (Buss 1986, 1988; Stewart, Stinnett, & Rosenfeld, 2000). As

shallow as this may sound for both sexes, according to evolutionary psychology these

preferences have been inherited through evolution and serve as a guide to choose the best

suitable partner.

Evolutionary considerations of mate choice date back to Darwin (1871).

According to Darwins theory of natural selection and sexual selection, certain genes and

reproductive strategies are passed down through evolution. Men and women typically

differ on which reproductively relevant resources they need from a potential mate (Buss,

1988). Robert L. Trivers (1972), a socio-biologist, developed the parental investment

hypothesis to explain sex differences in mate preferences.

The parental investment hypothesis states that males should adopt a reproductive strategy

that maximizes copulatory opportunities, where as females should adopt a strategy that

imposes maximum choice, holding back until the best male is identified. Males look for

beauty because a females reproductive value is indicated strongly by characteristics of

youth and health, and these are most accurately evaluated from physical appearance and

attractiveness

Buss, 1988


7/24

7

There have been many studies showing that men prefer attractive women above

any other characteristics (Stewart et al., 2000). Research suggests that for men, physical

attractiveness is apriority in mate selection. For women on the other hand, because their

parental investment requires more effort, they need to be selective in mate choice.

Women must base their preferences on what the man has to offer in terms of providing.

Women must also ensure the man stays around (e.g., provides a secure base) and has

resources to provide for the infant so that it survives. Past studies show that women prefer

men who have status and resources (Buss, 1986) and have good earning capacity and

ambitions (Stewart et al. 2000). According to evolutionary psychology, this is what drives

womens mate selection. Wealth is used as a guide for women to choose a suitable

partner. A woman does not want to date a man who has no job or education because this

type of male will not be able to provide for her and eventually fortheir children.

Study Overview

Evolutionary Psychologists psychologists have established that physical

appearance and resources are highly value in a mate, but there is no emotion with

superficial things like money and beauty. Money cannot buy love, and attraction is more

complex than that. Social psychologists have found that attachment security is highly

preferable in a romantic partner (Latty-mann et al., 1996). In the current study we ran two

experiments to examine whether individuals would sacrifice attachment security for

evolutionary desirable features like beauty, status, and resource. We hypothesized that

women would prefer a high status man regardless of his insecurities (Study 1). Also men

would prefer beauty over attachment security (Study 2). In each study, we paired

insecure dating profiles with evolutionary desirable feature. In study one, we presented


8/24

8

participants with a high status, insecure dating profile. In study two, we paired insecure

dating profiles with idiosyncratic attractive photos of potential romantic partners.

Method

Study 1

Evolutionarypsychology theorypredicts people who posses status and wealth

should be preferable to most regardless of other characteristics involved. We believe

people will choose someone who is wealthy regardless of the persons inability to provide

security and support. The current study assessed partner preference, namely by assessing

correlations between insecurity and wealth.

Participants

Three hundred five students (121 men, 184 women) from Queens College were

recruited from their introductory psychology classes in exchange for course credit.

Participants varied in age, sex, and cultural background (see Table 1). The mean age of

the sample was 00.00 years (SD = 0.00). The experiment was run with 1 - 4 participants

per experimental session.

Materials

Participants were given the Experiences in Close Relationship-Revised Scale

(ECR-R; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000). The Experiences in Close relationship was

used to assess the participants; attachment in romantic relationships. The ECR had a

Cronbachs alpha of .90 for the anxiety dimension and .92 for the avoidance dimension

(Brumbaugh & Fraley, 2010). Some examples of the statements on the ECR are, Im

afraid that I will lose my partners love and I worry a lot about my relationships.

which measures the anxiety dimension of attachment, and I prefer not to show a partner


9/24

9

how I feel deep down , and I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners., which

describes asseses the avoidance dimension. The participants rated statements on the ECR-

Ron a 7-pointLikert scale; 1 (strongly disagree)to 7 (strongly agree).

Participants saw four dating profiles. Two of the profiles portrayed insecure

people who were high in status, and two described secure people who were low in status.

The profile used four relationship scenarios similar to those developed by Pietromonaco

and Carnelly (1994). Each profile was designed to capture the pattern of romantic

relationship behaviors most prototypical of one of the four attachment dimensions. We

combined those profiles with differing degrees of status and resources such that the

individuals high in status attended Ivy League Schools and had moneyappeared wealthy

whereas low status individuals attend Community Colleges and had low paying jobs.

Examples of the four profiles are as follows:

One of the high status insecure profiles described was a 23-year-old Columbia student,

whose source of income was a trust fund from his or herparents. This highly anxious

person described himself or herself as follows:

Sometimes, when I am involved in a relationship, I get scared because I feel like

I do not

know what I would do without the person. I worry about getting hurt in my

relationshi-

ps and often feel vulnerable. I feel like my past partners didnt do enough in the

relati-

onship to make it succeed.

The other high status insecure profile described a Harvard student, who was a 22-

year-old Junior Analysis at a Fortune 500 company. The highly avoidant


10/24

10

individuals in the profile depicted him or herself as follows:

When getting acquainted, I like to keep it simple and just get to know one another on a

general level. I am a shy and do not always have a lot to say about myself at first. I like to

talk about things like school and my outside activities, but I do not really say much about

personal stuff.

One of the low status-secure profiles described a 23-year-old student from Community

College, who worked as an usher in a movie theater. The person in the secure profile

described him or herself as follows:

On a first date, I typically try to share who I am. I also am interested in getting to know

my date, to find out what they are all about and what their personality is like. I feel I can

trust most people when I first meet them. I think people are generally well intentioned

and good hearted. Being close to others does not scare me and I do not back

away from it.

The other low-status secure profile portrayed a 22-year-old student from DeVry

University, a TV school, who worked as a waiter. In this profile, the individual describes

described himself or herself as follows:

When I am in a relationship, I feel confident that my partner is there for me and that

they love me. When I am not involved in a relationship, I am sure of myself. Im not

overly concerned that. People will reject me. I dont usually feel lonely because I know

that my loved ones care for me. In a romantic relationships, I enjoy doing things as a

couple, but I also think that its important for each person to keep separate friends and

interests.

The participants were also given an attraction questionnaire after they read each

profile. Examples of statements on the questionnaire are were I could see myself in a

long term relationship with this person and I am attracted to this person.. The


11/24

11

questionnaire was rated on a 7 point Likert scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly

agree) regarding the participants feelings toward each of the four targets.

Procedure

Participants arrived at the lab and were randomly assigned tosat in four separate

rooms with computers. Each participant was assigned an arbitrary subject id number. A

research assistant introduced himself or herself and gave the participants an overview of

the general purpose of the study and the procedures involved. The research assistant then

handed out a consent form and a sexual orientation questionnaire. After the questionnaire

and consent form were completed and collected, participants were then told to complete

the screen to begin the Experiences in Close Relationship-Revised Scale (ECR-R). on

the computer. Then, the participants read four dating profiles. The participants were told

that they were real people and potential partners they could meet. The Participants read

the dating profiles were randomly assignedin a randomized order. Participants were given

approximately one minute to read the each dating profile. The profiles were shown

according to the participants sexual orientation. For example heterosexuals were shown

dating profiles of the opposite sex. Participants rated their attraction to each profile after

reading it. After the participants read and rated all four dating profiles, participants were

verbally debriefed and thanked for participating in the study.

Results

In order to X we Y. The data was collected and analyzed. The Multivariate

Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) yielded significant results but not as we hypothesizes

hypothesized We expected women to choose the high status insecure target. Instead

women rated the low status secure targets significantly higher than the high status


12/24

12

insecure targets,F(3, 549) = 35.97,p < .01 (see Figure ?). Follow-up tests here. We also

found males preferred the low status-secure targets significantly greater more than the

insecure high status targets,F(3,360) = 35.79,p < .01 (Figure 2BARGRAPH). The Tt-

Test test also yielded significant results contrary to our hypothesizes. Females preferred

low status secure targets significantly greater when paired with high status insecure

targets, t(28) = 2.44,p < .01 (Figure 2). However, we did find some unpredicted results.

The Analysis of Variance showed that highly anxious women significantly preferred

highly anxious rich men F(1, 182) = 8.67,p < .05 (Figure 3BARGRAPH with M SD).

Discussion

Contrary to popular belief that women want a manmen who has have money and

status we found the opposite pattern. Women in our studypreferredto be with a manmen

who is were low on in status but can who had the potential toprovide them with security

and support in a relationships. It seems women want a guy who can communicate and

express his feelings rather than someone who just spends money on them and does not

show them any love or emotional support. Previous studies have found women tend to

most satisfied with a secure partner(Frazier, Byer, Fishcer, Wright, & DeBord1996). Our

data show women would rather be with a guy that provides them with emotional security

rather theoversuperficial things like money. Women Past research has shown that women

feel more satisfied if they feel close to their partners and spend their free time together

(Collins & Read,1990). Money isnt everything, . for Forexample spending time with

your apartner does not cost a dollar, but makes women feel appreciated and loved. Also

if the women in our sample were financially stable they might feel have felt like they do

did not need a man to provide for them. Previous research has found that women who


13/24

13

reported greater control over their own monetary resources considered other

characteristics in men more important than his theirability to provide (Eagly, Eastwick,

& Johannesen-Schmidt, 2009). Intelligence could have also influenced there choice.

Women who score high in an intelligence tests have less of a desire for less desired traits

associated with ability to financiallyprovide financially in their future spouse (Stanik &

Ellsworth, 2010).

The unpredicted similarity results were unpredicted but were alsoare not

surprising. Previous studies have found an anxious-anxious matching effect (Frazier et

al..1996). Although anxious behaviors might be seen as annoying (e.g., extremely jealous

and endlessly doubting), some research findings suggest that attachment anxiety is not

always unattractive (Brumbaugh & Farley, 2010). An In other words, anxiousperson

people mightbehave in a way that makespeople others feel like they really care about

them and are really interest in them. (Brumbaugh & Farley., 2010). Another reason for X

could bebecause thatpeople may seek partners for whom their attachment system is

already prepared to respond (Collins et al., 1990). Anxious people may accept the

behaviors demonstrated by their anxious partner and be comfortable with those

responses, . for Forexample, they both like worrying about each other.

Study Two

In the next second study we tried to assess partner preferences based on the

evolutionary desirable feature of beauty. A major difference between Study 1and 2 was

that in Study 1, the profiles are were accompanied by an unattractive or attractive photo.

Another difference iswas that school and source of income are were not included in the

dating profiles. We predicted that beauty would govern partner choice above other


14/24

14

characteristics like security, especially for men. We are were interested to find how out if

beauty is was more important then attachment security in partner choice.

Participants

One hundred eighty four students (91 males, 93 females) from Queens College

were recruited from their introductory psychology classes in exchange for course credit.

Participants varied in age, sex, and cultural background(Table 1). The mean age of the

sample was 00.00 years (SD = 0.00). The experiment was run with 1 - 4 participants per

experimental session. , None none of whom had participated in Study 1.

Procedure and Materials

Participants arrived at the lab and were randomly assigned tosat in four separate

rooms with computers. Each participant was assigned an arbitrary number. A research

assistant introduced himself or herself and gave the participants an overview of the

general purpose of the study and the procedures involved. The research assistant then

handed out a consent form and a sexual orientation questionnaire. After the questionnaire

and consent form were completed and collected. Participants then completed the ECR-R..

Participants Next, participants were then given 12 photos of the opposite sex to rate on a

7-point Likert scale forphysical attractiveness; 1 (extremely unattractive) to 7 (extremely

attractive). The photos were obtained from www.hotornot.com a website where people

publicallypost and rate photos of other people as attractive and unattractive. The research

assistant told the participants to rate each photo according to their own preferences. This

was done to so that we could obtain an idiosyncratic measure of physical attraction

preferences. After participants were done rating the photos, they were given a filler

reaction time task.
http://www.hotornot.com/http://www.hotornot.com/


15/24

15

The filler task was used so that the research assistant had time to pair the two

photos rated as most attractive with two insecure dating profiles and the two photos rated

as most unattractive with secure dating profiles. Participants were then randomly given

shown the four dating profiles (with photos) describing insecure and secure people in a

random order. As in Study 1, participants were told to read each profile and report their

feelings about the eachperson by completing the attraction questionnaires to assess their

attraction towards the people in the dating profile. After the participants read and rated all

four dating profiles, the experimenter verbally debriefed them and thanked them for

participating in the study.

Results

The data was collected and analyzed using SPSS software. The results found partially

support our hypothesis. Men preferred insecure, physically appealing women over secure

but physically unattractive women,F(3, 270) = 15.71,p < .01. Conversely, women

preferred secure, physically unattractive men over anxious, good looking men, F(3, 276)

= 2.73,p < .05. There were also unpredicted results. There was a similarity effect in this

study as like in Study 1. Highly anxious women preferred good looking highly anxious

men,F(1, 91) = 5.37,p < .05, d= .48. Women who were low in anxiety were also

marginally more attracted to the low anxiety target,F(1, 91) = 2.67,p = .10, d= .34.

Discussion

. In a literature review on mate preferences Feingold (1990) found 54 articles that

chronicled the significance of physical attractiveness as anattractive highly desirable trait

in all dating situations. Evolutionary psychologists have already established the

importance of physical appearance in mate choice for men (Buss,1986). Other studies


16/24

16

have found that physical appearance is important for both sexes (McDaniel,2005, Stewart

et al.2000). What we found is slightly different from previous Scholarly scholarly

literature. In this study we found that men preferred attractive insecure women, and but

on the other hand women preferred an unattractive partner who could provide attachment

security in a relationship. For men beauty mattered more than security, . this This could

be have been due to because ofour sample, which were was composed mostly ofyoung

adults. The men in our sample could have been thinking about the short -term, and maybe

if we asked what they look for in a long long-term partner their response could would

have changedbeen different. It could also be due to societal norms. Beauty was highly

valued throughout evolutionary history as is today. Men choose the more attractive one

because they were just more appealing.

Quite the oppositepattern of results was seen in women in our study. Women

preferred an unattractive partner who can had potential toprovide a secure base in a

relationship. This finding is concurrent with attachment literature that most people want a

secure partner (Latty-mann et al.,1996, Chappell et al.,1998). The security the guya man

provides can also be attractive to a women womanbecause he could make her feel loved

and appreciated. It seems emotional support is very important for women, and more

importantratherthan superficial things like beauty. One reason could be because money

and beauty does not last but security and emotional support is long term. Research

suggests that there are differences in desired characteristics of short and long term

relationships (Stewart el at.2000). The thought of short vs. long term relationships may

have influence womens preferences for a partner.

General Discussion


17/24

17

The current study is one of the first to examine the relative importance ofan

attachment-security effect in comparison to othereffects features that are already known

to be important in partnerpairing and choice (e.g. evolutionary desirable features). We

were interested to see if superficial things like beauty and money are werepreferred more

than attachment security. Our studies showed a differences between men and women.

Women, in both studies, preferred attachment security rather than evolutionary desirable

features like beauty and money. These Ourresults add areveal sex differences as they

pertain to the attachment literature, showing that. In other words, women prefer

attachment security rather then other things and not men.

It could also be because women feel more independent and empowered compared

to women a couple of decades ago. More women are getting high position jobs and are

continuing their education which could give them are a greater sense of domestic

authority. Research has shown that women who score high in intelligence and have a

greater sense of domestic authority do not prefer the typical features that evolutionary

psychologists argue, drive a womens womanspartner selection (Eagly, 2009; Stanik et

al.2010; & Moore, F.R., Cassidy, Smith, Perrett, 2006).

For men on the other hand, attachment security was not more important than

evolutionary desirable features. In study one there were no differences in preference, men

seemed indifferent if the woman was secure, insecure, had money, or no money. In study

two was where we observed mens preferences. Mmen preferred insecure attractive

women rather than secure unattractive women. The results could be explained by the

parental investment hypothesis, men want an attractive woman because she looks healthy

and fertile. We cannot say for certain that men choose attractive women because of her


18/24


19/24

19

References

Ainsworth, M., Belhar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978).Patterns of attachment.


20/24


21/24

21

Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic

attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms.Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 59, 981-993.

Felmlee, D.H. (1995). Fatal Attractions: Affection and Disaffection in Intimate

Relationships.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 295-311.

Fraley, R.C., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Airport separations : A naturalistic study of adult

attachment dynamics in separating couples.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 75, 1198-1212.

Fraley, R.C., & Shaver, P.R. (2000). Adult Romantic Attachment : Theoretical

Developments, Emerging Controversies, and Unanswered Questions.Review of

General Psychology, 4, 132-154.

Fraley, R.C., & Waller, N.G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological

model. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.),Attachment theory and close

relationships (pp 77-114), New York : Guilford Press.

Kirkpatrick, L.A., & Davis, K.E. (1994). Attachment Style, gender, and relationship

stability: A longitudinal analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

66, 502-512.

Klohnen, E.C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal Attraction and Personality: What is

Attractive--Self Similarity, Ideal Similarity , Complementary, or Attachment

Security?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709-722.

Latty-mann, H., & Davis, K.E. (1996). Attachment theory and partner choice :

Preferences and actuality.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,13, 5-23.

Moore, F.R., Cassidy, C., Smith, M. J. L., Perrett, D.I. (2006)The effects of female


22/24

22

control of resources on sex-differentiated mate preferences.Evolution and

Human Behavior, 27, 193-205.

Salvatore, J.E., Kuo, S. I., Steele, R.D., Simpson, J.A., & Collins, W.A. (2011).

Recovering From Conflict in Romantic Relationships: A Developmental

Perspective.Psychological Science, 22, 376-383.

Shaver, P.R., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment: The integration of

three behavioral systems. In R.J. Sternberg, & M.L. Barnes (Eds.), The

Psychology of Love (pp.68-99). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Simpson, J.A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships.Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology,59, 971-980.

Simpson, J.A., Kim, J.S., Fillo, J., Ickes, W., Rholes, W.S., Oria, M.M. Winterheld,

H.A.( 2011). Attachment and the Management of Empathic Accuracy in

Relationship-Threatening Situations.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

37, 242-254.

Simpson, J.A., & Rholes, W.S. (2010). Attachment and relationships : Milestones and

future directions.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27,173-180.

Stanik, C. E., Ellsworth, P.C.(2010). Who cares about marrying a rich man?

Intelligence and variation in womens mate preferences.Human Nature,

21,203-217.

Stewart, S., Stinnett, H., & Rosenfeld L.B. (2000). Sex differences in desired

characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 843-853.


23/24

23

Table 1

Demographic of Participants.

Ethnicity Study 1(%) Study 2 (%)


24/24

24

Figure Caption

attachment 5 12 edits

Documents