weakening relationships we try to preserve: motivated sacrifice, attachment, and relationship...

Weakening Relationships We Try to Preserve: MotivatedSacrifice, Attachment, and Relationship Quality

Brent A. Mattingly1

Ashland UniversityEddie M. Clark

Saint Louis University

Individuals’ motivations for sacrificing are associated with relational outcomes,such that approach-motivated sacrifices lead to increased satisfaction, whereasavoidance-motivated sacrifices lead to decreased satisfaction (Impett et al., 2005).Because attachment styles are associated with relational outcomes (Feeney &Collins, 2003), the current study examined whether approach- and avoidance-motivated sacrifices would mediate the association between attachment and satis-faction. Results indicated that avoidance motives did not mediate the relationshipbetween attachment avoidance and satisfaction. However, avoidance motivesmediated the relationship between attachment anxiety and satisfaction, whereasapproach motives suppressed that relationship. Taken together, these findingssuggest that individuals high in attachment anxiety (but not attachment avoidance)seem to unintentionally weaken the relationship for which they are making sacrifices.jasp_893 373..386

Individuals regularly make sacrifices for their romantic partners. Asdefined by Van Lange, Rusbult et al. (1997), willingness to sacrifice is “thepropensity to forgo immediate self-interest to promote the well-being of apartner or relationship” (p. 1374). However, individuals’ motivation formaking sacrifices varies, and these motivations have differing impacts onrelationship satisfaction (Impett, Gable, & Peplau, 2005). Thus, the currentstudy examines whether adult attachment might explain why individualschoose varying motivational strategies when making sacrifices for theirpartner, in turn impacting the quality of the relationship.

Substantial theory and research have indicated that willingness to sacri-fice is positively associated with relationship satisfaction and commitment(Mattingly & Clark, 2010; Van Lange, Agnew, Harinck, & Steemers, 1997;Van Lange, Rusbult et al., 1997; Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew,1999), suggesting that sacrificial behavior is a relationship maintenancemechanism. According to interdependence theory, committed individuals

1Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brent A. Mattingly, Depart-ment of Psychology, Ashland University, 210 Andrews Hall, 401 College Avenue, Ashland,OH 44805. E-mail: [email protected] or to Eddie M. Clark, Department of Psychology,Saint Louis University, Shannon Hall 214, 221 N. Grand Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63103.E-mail: [email protected]

373

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2012, 42, 2, pp. 373–386.© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00893.x

place partner and dyadic interests before their own because they experiencea transformation of motivation (Agnew & Etcheverry, 2006; Agnew, VanLange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998; Rusbult & Van Lange, 1996). That is,noncommitted individuals seek to maximize self-interest, while committedindividuals seek to maximize partner and dyadic interests because doing sopromotes the long-term health and stability of the relationship.

Interestingly, individuals who place substantial importance on their self-interest are less willing to sacrifice their wishes/desires than are those whoplace little importance on their self-interest, even after accounting for theimpact of commitment (Mattingly & Clark, 2010). This suggests thatalthough these individuals are committed—which, by definition, means thatthey have experienced a transformation of motivation in that they are moreconsiderate of partner and dyadic interests—they do not completely forfeitegoistic concerns.

Individuals’ motivation for making sacrifices has also been shown tomoderate the relationship between willingness to sacrifice and relationshipquality. That is, although the sacrificial behavior may be the same, thereasons for enacting it differ. For example, John may sacrifice his desire to seethe new science fiction movie, instead agreeing to accompany his wife, Mary,to the romantic comedy she wants to see. John may forgo his desire to see thescience fiction movie because he wants to make Mary happy (i.e., obtain apositive outcome), or he may do so because he wants to avoid upsetting Mary(i.e., avoid a negative outcome).

Sacrifices enacted in order to obtain positive outcomes (i.e., approach-motivated sacrifices) tend to result in greater personal well-being (Neff &Harter, 2002), positive affect, satisfaction with life, relationship closeness,relationship satisfaction, fun with the relationship, and less relational conflict(Impett et al., 2005). Conversely, sacrifices enacted in order to avoid negativeoutcomes (i.e., avoidance-motivated sacrifices) tend to result in less personalwell-being (Neff & Harter, 2002), satisfaction with life, relationship closeness,relationship satisfaction, fun with the relationship, and greater negativeaffect and relational conflict (Impett et al., 2005). Although sacrificial behav-ior is considered a pro-relationship behavior, an individual who sacrifices asa way to avoid negative outcomes ironically ends up weakening the quality ofthe relationship (i.e., less satisfaction and closeness): a negative outcome inand of itself. Thus, it appears that individuals may only experience thebenefits of sacrificing to the extent that the sacrifices are enacted for relativelyaltruistic reasons.

What is less clear is why individuals have differing motivations for sacri-ficing. One possibility is that individuals’ motivations for sacrificing may bea result, in part, of their previous experiences with close others and thesubsequent development of mental representations of how to interact in

374 MATTINGLY AND CLARK

romantic relationships. Attachment theory posits that early life experienceswith primary caretakers (i.e., attachment figures) lead individuals to developworking models of the self and others (e.g., Bowlby, 1977; Feeney, 2006).

Adult attachment consists of two main dimensions: attachment anxiety(i.e., anxiety over abandonment) and attachment avoidance (i.e., discomfortwith closeness; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). The combination of thesetwo dimensions results in a four-style model similar to that proposed byBartholomew (1990). Individuals low in both attachment anxiety and attach-ment avoidance possess a secure attachment. These individuals have positiveviews of the self and others and are comfortable with intimacy and interde-pendence. Individuals high in attachment anxiety and low in attachmentavoidance possess a preoccupied attachment. These individuals have a nega-tive view of the self and a positive view of others and are vigilant toward anythreat to the relationship. Individuals low in attachment anxiety and high inattachment avoidance possess a dismissing attachment. These individualshave a positive view of the self and a negative view of others and are unin-terested in intimacy. Individuals high in both attachment anxiety and attach-ment avoidance possess a fearful attachment. These individuals have negativeviews of the self and others, are fearful of rejection, and are socially avoidant.Substantial research on adult attachment indicates that securely attachedindividuals (i.e., low attachment anxiety, low attachment avoidance) experi-ence the greatest levels of relationship satisfaction, commitment, and trust,as well as low levels of conflict and jealousy (e.g., Feeney & Collins, 2003;Feeney, Noller, & Roberts, 1998, 2000).

Importantly, individuals high in attachment avoidance (a) tend to lacka prosocial orientation (Feeney & Collins, 2001); (b) are less likely to engagein pro-relationship behaviors than are those low in attachment avoidance(Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1995); and (c) when enacting pro-relationshipbehaviors, are likely to do so out of obligation (Feeney & Collins, 2003).Therefore, individuals high in attachment avoidance should be less willing tomake sacrifices than those low in attachment avoidance and, in cases in whichindividuals high in attachment avoidance are willing to sacrifice, they arelikely motivated by avoidance motivations. This should, in turn, lead todecreased relationship satisfaction, as avoidance motives are negatively asso-ciated with satisfaction (Impett et al., 2005).

Individuals high in anxious attachment enact pro-relationship behaviorsfor both prosocial (i.e., relatively altruistic) and egoistic (i.e., self-benefiting)motives (Feeney & Collins, 2003), suggesting that these individuals maymake sacrifices to both obtain positive outcomes and avoid negative out-comes. Because these individuals fear abandonment and experience substan-tial anxiety when faced with an emotionally distressing situation, such asrelationship conflict (Kobak & Sceery, 1988), individuals high in attachment

ATTACHMENT STYLE AND SACRIFICIAL BEHAVIOR 375

anxiety vigilantly attempt to prevent their relationship from dissolving.Therefore, individuals high in attachment anxiety should be more willing tomake sacrifices than should those low in attachment anxiety.

When sacrifices are enacted, they are likely to be motivated by bothapproach and avoidance motivations. It is unclear how this might affect theseindividuals’ relationship satisfaction, as approach motives lead to increasedsatisfaction, whereas avoidance motives lead to decreased satisfaction(Impett et al., 2005). It may be the case that the sacrifices enacted byindividuals high in attachment anxiety are simultaneously driven by bothapproach and avoidance motives, in turn leading to a simultaneous strength-ening and weakening of relationship satisfaction. However, based on previ-ous research that indicated insecurely attached individuals have lowerrelationship satisfaction (e.g., Feeney et al., 1998), individuals high in attach-ment anxiety likely weaken their relationship satisfaction more than theystrengthen it, in turn suggesting that avoidance motives have a larger impacton these individuals’ relational outcomes.

The goal of the present research is to examine the associations betweenattachment, sacrificial behavior, and relationship satisfaction. The study isguided by the following hypotheses. First, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 1. Attachment avoidance will be associated withlower relationship satisfaction, lower overall sacrificial behav-ior, and greater avoidance motivations for sacrificing; whereasattachment anxiety will be associated with lower relationshipsatisfaction, greater overall sacrificial behavior, and greaterapproach and avoidance motivations for sacrificing.

Qualifying this hypothesis, the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 2. Motivations for sacrificing will mediate the rela-tionship between attachment and relationship satisfaction.

Specifically, individuals’ tendencies to sacrifice for avoidance motives willmediate the relationship between attachment avoidance and relationshipsatisfaction (i.e., individuals high in attachment avoidance will sacrifice morefor avoidance motives, which will, in turn, lead to lower relationship satisfac-tion), and individuals’ tendencies to sacrifice for avoidance motives willmediate the relationship between attachment anxiety and relationship satis-faction (i.e., individuals high in attachment anxiety will sacrifice more foravoidance motives, which will, in turn, lead to lower relationship satisfaction).

Although it is possible that individuals’ tendencies to sacrifice forapproach motives will mediate the relationship between attachment anxietyand relationship satisfaction (i.e., individuals high in attachment anxiety will


sacrifice more for approach motives, which will, in turn, lead to greaterrelationship satisfaction), such a prediction would contradict previousresearch indicating that insecurely attached individuals (i.e., those high ineither attachment anxiety or avoidance) will display lower relationship sat-isfaction (e.g., Feeney et al., 1998). That is, predicting this mediation wouldrequire that attachment anxiety be positively associated with relationshipsatisfaction.

Even though no specific predictions were made regarding approachmotives for sacrifice mediating the relationship between attachment anxietyand relationship satisfaction, exploratory analyses were conducted in thisstudy to examine the nature of these relationships. Finally, because no knownresearch has examined how approach- and avoidance-motivated sacrifice isinfluenced by adult attachment, we posed the following research question:

Research Question. Do attachment avoidance and attachmentanxiety uniquely predict individuals’ sacrificial behavior?

Method

Participants

Study participants were 78 undergraduates (56 female, 22 male) whowere involved in a romantic relationship of at least 1 month in duration.The participants ranged in age from 18 to 29 years (M = 19.5 years,SD = 1.9). The majority of participants were Caucasian (78.2%) and wereexclusively dating (77.9%), in love with (82.1%), and not cohabitating withtheir romantic partner (89.7%). Participants’ romantic involvement withtheir partner ranged from 1 month to nearly 13 years (M = 19.9 months,SD = 23.8). Only 1 participant reported a romantic involvement less than 3months, indicating that nearly all participants were reporting on a relativelyestablished relationship.

Materials

Attachment. The Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) measure(Brennan et al., 1998) is a 36-item scale that consists of two 18-item subscales:attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety. The items are rated ona 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Asample item for the avoidance subscale is “Just when my partner starts to getclose to me, I find myself pulling away.” A sample item for the anxiety


subscale is “I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much asI care about them.” Both subscales demonstrated adequate reliability in thecurrent study (avoidance, a = .94; anxiety, a = .93).

Relationship satisfaction. We used the three-item subscale of thePerceived Relationship Quality Component (PRQC) Inventory (Fletcher,Simpson, & Thomas, 2000) to assess relationship satisfaction. The itemswere rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all ) to 7 (extremely). Asample item for the subscale is “How happy are you with your relationship?”The subscale demonstrated adequate reliability in the current study (a = .94).

Motives for sacrifice. Participants were given a definition of sacrifice andinstructions for completing the Motives for Sacrifice Questionnaire:

In every romantic relationship, partners are faced with conflict-ing desires. One way to resolve this conflict is to sacrifice yourown wishes. Sacrificing can entail either doing something youdo not want to do or giving up something you would like to do.Think about the times you have sacrificed for your partner, andplease answer the following questions about your motivationsfor doing so.

Participants’ motives for sacrifice were assessed using the 15-item scale thatwas developed by Impett et al. (2005). The scale consists of eight approachitems and seven avoidance items.

The participants were first presented with the phrase “On occasions whenI sacrifice for my current partner, I generally do so because . . .” Then,participants responded to 15 items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never)to 5 (all the time). A sample item from the approach subscale is “I love mypartner and am concerned about his or her well-being.” A sample item fromthe avoidance subscale is “I do not want my partner to think negatively aboutme.” Both subscales demonstrated adequate reliability in the current study(approach, a = .81; avoidance, a = .80).

Overall sacrifice. Participants additionally estimated the overall fre-quency with which they make sacrifices in their relationships. Theyresponded to the question “Overall, how often do you make sacrifices foryour partner?” on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (sometimes) to7 (all the time).

Results

To assess Hypothesis 1, we conducted zero-order correlations betweenattachment avoidance, attachment anxiety, relationship satisfaction, overall


sacrifice, and approach and avoidance motives for sacrificing (see Table 1).2

Largely supporting Hypothesis 1, attachment avoidance was associated withlower relationship satisfaction and with a greater tendency to sacrifice foravoidance motives (though attachment avoidance was unrelated to overallsacrifice), whereas attachment anxiety was associated with lower relationshipsatisfaction, greater overall sacrifice, and greater approach and avoidancemotives for sacrificing. Although not predicted, attachment avoidance wasalso negatively associated with approach motives for sacrificing.

Following the procedures outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986), we nextconducted mediation analyses to assess Hypothesis 2. The first mediation wetested was whether individuals’ tendencies to sacrifice for avoidance motiveswould mediate the relationship between attachment avoidance and relation-ship satisfaction. First, attachment avoidance predicted relationship satisfac-tion (b = -.58, p < .001). Second, attachment avoidance predicted avoidancemotives for sacrificing (b = .25, p = .028). Third, avoidance motives for sac-rificing predicted relationship satisfaction after controlling for attachmentavoidance (b = -.21, p = .031). Fourth, the relationship between attachmentavoidance and relationship satisfaction was not significantly reduced when

2An anonymous reviewer suggested that an individual in a newer relationship may not beattached to his or her partner or may not have had the opportunity to sacrifice for the partner.Per the reviewer’s suggestion, we ran all of the analyses again, excluding individuals in relation-ships of less than 3 months (n = 1). Doing so did not change the strength or direction of anyeffects, and in only two small cases did the significance level change (i.e., the marginally signifi-cant correlation between attachment anxiety and satisfaction became nonsignificant ( p = .121);and the marginally significant regression predicting overall sacrifice became nonsignificant( p = .122), although attachment anxiety remained a significant predictor of overall sacrifice( p = .045). Thus, the pattern of the results held, even when adopting a more conservativeanalytic strategy.

Table 1

Zero-Order Correlations

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

1. Attachment avoidance —2. Attachment anxiety .05 —3. Relationship satisfaction -.58*** -.20† —4. Overall sacrifice -.02 .26* -.22† —5. Approach motives for sacrificing -.50*** .24* .29* .22† —6. Avoidance motives for sacrificing .25* .34** -.34** .29** .19†

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


avoidance motives for sacrificing were included in the model (b = -.53,p < .001; Sobel’s [1982] Z = 1.57, p = .116), suggesting that avoidance motivesfor sacrificing do not mediate the relationship between attachment avoidanceand relationship satisfaction.

The second mediation we tested was whether individuals’ tendencies tosacrifice for avoidance motives would mediate the relationship betweenattachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction. First, attachment anxietywas a marginally significant predictor of relationship satisfaction (b = -.20,p = .078). Second, attachment anxiety predicted avoidance motives for sac-rificing (b = .34, p = .002). Third, avoidance motives for sacrificing predictedrelationship satisfaction after controlling for attachment anxiety (b = -.31,p = .010). Fourth, the relationship between attachment anxiety and relation-ship satisfaction was significantly reduced when avoidance motives for sac-rificing were included in the model (b = -.10, p = .398; Sobel’s Z = 2.02,p = .043), suggesting that avoidance motives for sacrificing fully mediate therelationship between attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction.

Although we made no specific predictions regarding approach motivesfor sacrificing mediating the relationship between attachment anxiety andrelationship satisfaction because of such a prediction contradicting previousresearch (e.g., Feeney et al., 1998), we conducted exploratory mediationanalyses to examine these relationships. Again, we followed Baron andKenny’s (1986) procedures. First, and as reported previously, attachmentanxiety was a marginally significant predictor of relationship satisfaction(b = -.20, p = .078). Second, attachment anxiety predicted approach motivesfor sacrificing (b = .24, p = .037). Third, approach motives predicted relation-ship satisfaction after controlling for attachment anxiety (b = .35, p = .002).Fourth, the relationship between attachment anxiety and relationship satis-faction was not significantly reduced—in fact, the relationship marginallyincreased in strength—when approach motives were included in the model(b = -.28, p = .011; Sobel’s Z = 1.76, p = .078). This seems to suggest thatthe negative relationship between attachment anxiety and relationshipsatisfaction was somewhat suppressed by the positive relational benefits ofapproach-motivated sacrifice.

Next, to assess the research question (i.e., Do attachment avoidance andattachment anxiety uniquely predict individuals’ sacrificial behavior?), weconducted a series of regression analyses using attachment avoidance andattachment anxiety as predictors of overall sacrifice, and approach andavoidance motives for sacrificing. In the first model, attachment anxiety(b = .26, p = .023), but not attachment avoidance (b = -.04, p = .742), was asignificant predictor of overall sacrifice, F(2, 75) = 2.72, p = .073 (R2 = .04),although the overall model was marginally significant. In the second model,both attachment anxiety (b = .26, p = .007) and attachment avoidance


(b = -.51, p < .001) were significant, unique predictors of approach motivesfor sacrifice, F(2, 75) = 17.58, p < .001 (R2 = .30). In the third model, bothattachment anxiety (b = .33, p = .003) and attachment avoidance (b = .23,p = .031) were significant, unique predictors of avoidance motives forsacrifice, F(2, 75) = 7.60, p = .001 (R2 = .15). Inclusion of the AttachmentAnxiety ¥ Attachment Avoidance interaction term in a second step failed toimprove any of the three models significantly (Fchange < .170, ps > .681).

Discussion

The extent to which an individual is willing to sacrifice his or her self-interest for the sake of a romantic partner is associated with relationshipquality (e.g., Van Lange, Rusbult et al., 1997). However, individuals’ behav-ior within the context of a romantic relationship is additionally influencedby their adult attachment (e.g., Feeney & Collins, 2001, 2003; Scharfe &Bartholomew, 1995). The current study examined the associations betweenattachment, sacrificial behavior (both overall and driven by approach andavoidance motives), and relationship satisfaction.

Confirming predictions, attachment avoidance was associated with lowerrelationship satisfaction and an increased tendency to make sacrifices drivenby avoidance motives. However, avoidance motives for sacrificing did notmediate the relationship between attachment avoidance and relationshipsatisfaction. Contrary to predictions and past research (Scharfe & Barth-olomew, 1995), attachment avoidance was not associated with individuals’overall level of sacrifice. This suggests that individuals high in attachmentavoidance sacrifice at varying rates (i.e., rates of sacrifice are not influencedby level/amount of attachment avoidance). Interestingly, however, attach-ment avoidance was a unique significant predictor of approach- andavoidance-motivated sacrifice. Ultimately, this suggests that when indi-viduals high in attachment avoidance decide to sacrifice, their behavior isdriven less by approach motives and more by avoidance motives. Somehow,though, these individuals’ avoidance-motivated behaviors do not seem to beweakening their relationships.

Failure to replicate the finding that attachment avoidance is negativelyassociated with frequency of enacting pro-relationship behaviors may be aresult of attachment avoidance being positively associated with avoidancemotivations for sacrificing, and negatively associated with approach motiva-tions for sacrificing. In other words, individuals high in attachment avoid-ance are less likely to engage in pro-relationship behaviors to the extent thatthese behaviors are enacted in order to obtain positive outcomes. Instead,they are more likely to engage in pro-relationship behaviors that are enactedas a way to avoid negative outcomes.


It appears that individuals who are high in attachment avoidance arenot very motivated to obtain positive outcomes in their relationships. Rather,the stronger an individual’s attachment avoidance, the greater the chancethat his or her sacrifices are enacted solely to avoid negative outcomes.Perhaps this should not be surprising: Individuals high in attachment avoid-ance are uncomfortable with closeness. As such, they are unlikely to enactpro-relationship behaviors as a way to make their partner happy or to fostera stronger, closer relationship. Instead, these individuals may wish to avoidall potential negative outcomes, including conflict, and, in turn, are willing tosacrifice as a way to remove these negative stimuli. Even though avoidancemotives for sacrificing are detrimental to the relationship (Impett et al., 2005;Neff & Harter, 2002), these individuals’ sacrificial tendencies do not seem tobe the reason why they experience low relationship satisfaction. Because oftheir discomfort of intimacy, these individuals’ low satisfaction may resultsimply from being in a relationship.

Confirming predictions, individuals high in attachment anxiety experi-enced decreased relationship satisfaction, and they were more likely to makesacrifices. These sacrifices were additionally driven by both approach andavoidance motives. Avoidance motives also fully mediated the relationshipbetween attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction such that thosehigh in attachment anxiety sacrificed more for avoidance motives, which,in turn, weakened their satisfaction. After accounting for these avoidancemotives, anxious attachment was not significantly related to relationshipsatisfaction, suggesting the reason that individuals high in anxious attach-ment are less satisfied is because their relational behaviors are enacted as away to avoid negative outcomes.

Moreover, although individuals high in attachment anxiety experiencedlower relationship satisfaction, the current study suggests that these individu-als’ approach motives for sacrificing may actually be slowing the progressionof relationship dissatisfaction. Because these individuals fear abandonmentand are vigilant toward threats against the relationship, they enact sacrificesto simultaneously make a partner happy (i.e., approach positive outcomes)and prevent relationship dissolution (i.e., avoid negative outcomes). Thus,individuals high in attachment anxiety may find themselves stuck in a slow,destructive cycle. Their approach-motivated sacrifices slightly strengthenrelationship satisfaction; however, because these sacrifices are simultaneouslyavoidance-motivated, they weaken the relationship even more. Thus, eachsacrifice slowly chips away at their satisfaction with the relationship, whichlikely strengthens their fear of abandonment. In essence, these individuals’relational behaviors seem to be counterproductive in that they are slowlyweakening the very relationship they are hoping to preserve, largely becausethe behaviors are motivated by a desire to avoid negative outcomes.


On a similar note, more research is needed to understand why avoidancemotives for sacrificing are related to lower relationship satisfaction only forindividuals high in anxious attachment. That is, the reasons that individualshigh in attachment avoidance seem immune to the negative effects of avoid-ance motives for sacrificing remain unclear. Perhaps these individuals’ dis-comfort with intimacy allows them to compartmentalize their relationshipswith others, such that self-enacted behaviors (e.g., motivated sacrifice) arecognitively classified as being wholly distinct from any relational outcomes(e.g., relationship satisfaction).

What implications do these findings have for securely attached individu-als? First, and perhaps most comforting, because both attachment anxietyand avoidance were negatively associated with relationship satisfaction,securely attached individuals (i.e., low attachment anxiety, low attachmentavoidance) appear to have the most satisfying relationships. Second, becauseboth forms of insecure attachment were positively associated with avoidancemotives for sacrificing, secure individuals’ sacrifices do not seem to be drivenby avoidance motives. Because avoidance motives for sacrificing have nega-tive relational consequences (Impett et al., 2005), secure individuals’ relation-ships are less likely to possess these negative outcomes. However, these datado not necessarily suggest that secure individuals’ relationships possess all ofthe positive relational outcomes associated with approach motives for sacri-ficing. High attachment anxiety is associated with more approach-motivatedsacrifices; however, secure individuals have low attachment anxiety. Doesthis mean that secure individuals do not sacrifice for approach reasons?Not necessarily, because low attachment avoidance is also related to moreapproach-motivated sacrifice, and secure individuals are also characterizedby this low attachment avoidance.

These competing findings raise an interesting question regarding securelyattached individuals: What is their motivation for sacrificing? Perhaps aneven larger question may be whether secure individuals sacrifice with anyregularity, given that individuals high in attachment anxiety are more likelyto sacrifice overall. These are certainly questions that future research shouldexplore.

As with many studies, the current study used a convenience sample ofcollege undergraduates who were mostly in dating relationships that wererelatively short in duration. It is possible that attachment-related motivationsmay operate differently in older and highly committed (e.g., cohabitating,engaged, married) couples who are in relationships of longer duration.Future research should examine the relationship between attachment andsacrificing in other samples.

Also, in the current study, participants reported on their sacrificial behav-iors in general (i.e., “Think about the times you have sacrificed for your


partner . . .”). It is possible that somewhat different results may have beenobtained if participants reported about a specific time when they sacrificed.However, attachment may have clearer effects when participants think abouttheir behavioral patterns in general, instead of specific events. Other futureresearch should examine how additional individual-difference variables (e.g.,narcissism, neuroticism, agreeableness) or situational factors (e.g., severity ofthe sacrifice or importance of the event, type of relationship) may relate tothese varying motivations for sacrificing.

Finally, because the current study was correlational, no causal inferencescan be made. Future research that primes/manipulates attachment processesor specific motivations for sacrificing would provide a better understandingof the causal direction of these findings.

People make sacrifices in their romantic relationships, but they do so fordiffering reasons. This study illustrates that individuals’ attachment styles arerelated to varying motivations for sacrificing and that these motivationsimpact relationship quality. It is certainly likely that there are additionalmediating variables that will explain the relationships between attachment,sacrificing behavior, and relationship quality, such as perceptions of equity,rejection sensitivity, communication patterns, attribution processes, or lackof support seeking, just to name a few. A greater understanding of socialcognitive and developmental variables that relate to these individual differ-ences will help increase understanding of sacrificing in close relationships.This information may be of great benefit to clinical/counseling psychologists,marriage and family therapists, and other professionals who work withromantically involved couples, as well as contribute to our knowledge ofclose relationships.

References

Agnew, C. R., & Etcheverry, P. E. (2006). Cognitive interdependence:Considering self-in-relationship. In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Selfand relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes(pp. 274–293). New York: Guilford.

Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A.(1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mentalrepresentations of close relationships. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 74, 939–954.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variabledistinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, andstatistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 1173–1182.


Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective.Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 7, 147–178.

Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. BritishJournal of Psychiatry, 130, 201–210.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measuresof adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S.Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). NewYork: Guilford.

Feeney, B. C. (2006). An attachment theory perspective on the interplaybetween intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. In K. D. Vohs &E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal andinterpersonal processes (pp. 133–159). New York: Guilford.

Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adultintimate relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 80, 972–994.

Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2003). Motivations for caregiving inadult intimate relationships: Influences on caregiving behavior andrelationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,950–968.

Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Roberts, N. (1998). Emotion, attachment, andsatisfaction in close relationships. In P. A. Anderson & L. K. Guerrero(Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, appli-cations, and contexts (pp. 473–505). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Roberts, N. (2000). Attachment and closerelationships. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships:A sourcebook (pp. 185–201). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurementof perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factoranalytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354.

Impett, E. A., Gable, S. L., & Peplau, L. A. (2005). Giving up and giving in:The costs and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 327–344.

Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Workingmodels, affect regulation, and representations of self and other. ChildDevelopment, 59, 136–149.

Mattingly, B. A., & Clark, E. M. (2010). The role of activity importanceand commitment on willingness to sacrifice. North American Journal ofPsychology, 12, 51–66.

Neff, K. D., & Harter, S. (2002). The authenticity of conflict resolutionsamong adult couples: Does women’s other-oriented behavior reflect theirtrue selves? Sex Roles, 47, 403–412.


Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1996). Interdependence processes. InE. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook ofbasic principles (pp. 564–596). New York: Guilford.

Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1995). Accommodation and attachmentrepresentations in young couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-ships, 12, 389–401.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structuralequation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology(pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Van Lange, P. A. M., Agnew, C. R., Harinck, F., & Steemers, G. E. M.(1997). From game theory to real life: How social value orientation affectswillingness to sacrifice in ongoing close relationships. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 73, 1330–1344.

Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. M.,Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in closerelationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1373–1395.

Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Com-mitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 942–966.


weakening relationships we try to preserve: motivated sacrifice, attachment, and relationship...

Documents