Attachment style and perceived quality of romantic partner's opposite-sex best friendship

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Attachment style and perceived quality of romantic partner's opposite-sex best friendship the impact on romantic relationship satisfaction
Physical Description:
vi, 55 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Burton, Kelly A
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Psychology thesis, Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2004.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kelly A. Burton.
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 003100387
oclc - 726715281
System ID:
AA00002035:00001

Full Text










ATTACHMENT STYLE AND PERCEIVED QUALITY OF ROMANTIC PARTNER'S
OPPOSITE-SEX BEST FRIENDSHIP: THE IMPACT ON ROMANTIC
RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION











By

KELLY A. BURTON


DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my family and friends for their


unwavering support.


I especially would like to recognize my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Elliot


and Judy Burton, for their never-ending love and words of encouragement. Heartfelt

gratitude is also extended to my dissertation chairperson, Dr. Greg Neimeyer, and

committee members for their guidance, wisdom, and especially for the time they devoted

toward my scholarly and professional development. Finally, I would like to express

special appreciation to Ms. Jocelyn Saferstein for being such a supportive colleague and,

more importantly, a true friend. I could not have reached my goals without her.















TABLE OF CONTENTS
page

ACKN OW LEDGEM EN TS ....... ..........................................................................................ii

AB STRACT.........................................................................................................................v

CHAPTER

1 INTRODU CTION .......... ..... .... .......................................... .................... ... ....... 1

Goals of the Present Study.......................................................................................2
H hypotheses ..............................................................................................................
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE........ ........................................... .................. ...... ... ....8


Attachment Theory and Research........... .........
Influence of Attachment on Romantic Relationship
Influence of Attachment on Friendships...................
Jealousy .......................................... ... .... ........ ... .........


Satisfaction.


CC PP CC** Ct at*t*C~e CC.....
Ste P.C..... *5S-59D5 t* *P*e


M ETHODOLOGY t...................... .... ........... ............................... ...... ....... .. ... 17

Participants............................. ........................ .......... ..................................... ...... 17
Instruments....................................................................................................... ......17
Procedure............................................................................................ ....................20
Analyses .................................................................................................................21

RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 3

Prelim inary Analyses ............................................................................................23
Primary Analyses...................................................................................................25
Follow-up Analyses... .............. .............. ... ................ ...... .... ........ .... ............C. .... 25

DISCU SSION ............................................. Pe... ................ ............................ 28








R E FE R EN C E SS............................. ......... .......... ......*..C..... .......... ....... .C.........................C. ......- 3

APPENDIX

A EDEMOGRAPHI INFORMATION .. ..... .............. ....... ............. .. ........... .. .......... 3 9

B FRIENDSHIP QUALITIES SCALE (MODIFIED)............................. ... .... ... ....... 40

C RELATIONSHIP ASSESSMENT SCALE.. ................................ ..... .................... 43
D DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE ................ .......................... .. ............... ........... .44


THE INTERPERSONAL JEALOUSY SCALE. ................... ................... ..........,46


ADDITIONAL, QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS ................... ................... .................. 50


BIOGRA~AZ, SKETCH. ................... .........,,,,, .........,,,,, ..........












Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ATTACHMENT STYLE AND PERCEIVED QUALITY OF ROMANTIC PARTNER'S
OPPOSITE-SEX BEST FRIENDSHIP: THE IMPACT ON ROMANTIC
RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

By

Kelly A. Burton


August 2004


Chair: Greg Neimeyer
Major Department: Psychology


The purpose of this study was to


assess


whether romantic relationship satisfaction


influenced by not only a person's


attachment style,


but also by the quality of a


person


romantic partner


's best friendship with someone of the opposite


Three attachment


styles


are identified in this study: (a) secure, (b) avoidant, and (c) anxious-ambivalent.


Prior research has suggested that securely attached


individuals tended to experience


higher levels of romantic relationship satisfaction than either avoidantly attached


individuals or anxious-ambivalently attached individuals.


The existing attachment


literature has largely ignored the potential influence of friendship quality on the romantic

relationship satisfaction a person experiences.


Data on participants'


romantic relationship satisfaction were analyzed using








anxious-ambivalent attachment styles, regardless of the quality of the partner'


friendship


Secondly, an interaction between attachment style and friendship quality was


predicted, with avoidantly attached participants reporting higher satisfaction when the

quality of their partners' friendships is high, and anxious-ambivalent participants

reporting lower satisfaction when the quality of their partners' friendships is high.

Satisfaction scores for securely attached participants were not expected to be affected by

friendship quality. Analysis of the data supported Hypothesis 1 but did not support


Hypothesis













CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Romantic relationship satisfaction is a factor that can be found extensively


throughout the attachment literature (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991


Feeney & Noller,


1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Simpson, 1990). However, the influence of attachment


style and an individual's


perception of the quality of his/her romantic partner's


opposite-


sex best friendship on romantic relationship satisfaction is an area that has yet to be


explored


As such, the current study will focus on the factors of attachment style and


perceived friendship quality to explore whether they affect romantic relationship

satisfaction.


The current study wi


attempt to replicate the connections previously established


in the literature between attachment style and romantic relationship satisfaction


(Bartholomew & Horowitz,


Simpson,


Feeney & Noller, 1990;


990) and between attachment style and level


Radecki-Bush et al.


1993


Hazan & Shaver, 1987


of jealousy (Guerrero, 1998;


Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1995). This study also will explore


whether differing levels of jealousy account for differing levels of romantic relationship


satisfaction among the various attachment styles.


In short, the present study seeks to


identify whether perceived friendship quality and attachment style of the perceiver affect

romantic relationship satisfaction, and will therefore explore the role of jealousy, not only






2

Goals of the Present Study

A substantial research literature has addressed the relationship between the quality

of early attachment to primary care givers and adult interpersonal relationships (Baranas,


Pollina, & Cummings, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991


Feeney & Noller, 1990;


Simpson, 1990). As noted above, the correlation between early attachment styles and

adult romantic relationships has been a particularly prominent area of research (e.g.,

Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Mayseless, 1995; Simpson,


1990).


In contrast to this long-standing line of research on attachment as it relates to


romantic relationships, relatively little research attention has been dedicated to adult

friendship and how the presence of such a relationship might affect the satisfaction one

has with his or her romantic relationship.

Therefore, the current study seeks to extend the existing literature by introducing

the element of friendship, in addition to the well-researched factor of attachment style, in

an effort to evaluate their separate and combined influence on romantic relationship


satisfaction


In other words, the goal of the current study is to examine whether the


perception one has about the quality of his or her romantic partner's


non-romantic


friendship with a person of the opposite


crossed with the perceiver's


attachment


style, has an effect on romantic relationship satisfaction.

This proposed differential effect of perceived high or low quality friendship on

romantic relationship satisfaction according to each of the three attachment styles has yet

to be investigated. The present study explores this area of adult friendships and romantic





3

The participants' self-identified attachment style, friendship quality, and romantic


relationship satisfaction were the variables of interest in the present study.


Participants


were asked to evaluate not only their romantic relationship satisfaction, but also their


perceptions of their current romantic partner's


opposite-sex best friendship. Each


participant identified his or her attachment style by selecting the most self-descriptive


paragraph out of a choice of three using Hazan and Shaver'


(1987) Adult Attachment


Measure.

Specifically, each participant was asked to rate the friendship qualities outlined by


Bukowski et al. (1994) with the participant'


romantic partner


's opposite-sex best


friendship in mind. Higher levels of emotionally-charged qualities such as closeness and


conflict, as measured by the Friendship Qualities Scale (FQS; Bukowski et al.,


1994)


would be expected to be differentially related to romantic relationship satisfaction among

the three attachment styles.

For example, the level of romantic relationship satisfaction reported by secure


participants is not predicted to vary according to the quality of a romantic partner'


friendship


Not only do secure individual


tend to feel more satisfied in their romantic


relationships, but they also experience less jealousy than the other two attachment styles.

Romantic relationship satisfaction as reported by avoidant participants is expected

to be directly correlated with perceived friendship quality. In other words, an avoidant

individual would be likely to experience higher romantic relationship satisfaction when


he or she perceives his or her romantic partner's


friendship quality as high. The presence






4

emotional needs are being met in the friendship, thus easing the emotional demand on the

avoidant person.

On the other hand, it is predicted that romantic relationship satisfaction for an

anxious ambivalent participant would be inversely related to perceived friendship quality.

As an anxious ambivalent person perceives higher friendship quality, it is expected that

his or her romantic relationship satisfaction would be lower. The rationale for this

prediction stems from research indicating that these individuals experience the greatest

jealousy of all three attachment styles, tend to fear abandonment the most, and often


doubt their partners'


love for them (Feeney & Noller, 1990; Hazan & Shaver,


1 98 7;


Mayseless, 1995).


Hypotheses


The current study will be conducted to determine the ways


style and the perception of a romantic partner's


in which attachment


opposite-sex best friendship are related to


romantic relationship satisfaction. Therefore, two hypotheses are proposed.


First, it is


believed that securely attached participants will report higher levels of relationship

satisfaction than will those who possess avoidant or anxious-ambivalent attachment


styles, regardless of the quality of the partner's


friendship.


Second, an interaction between attachment style and friendship quality is


predicted


I will investigate whether the level of perceived friendship quality (high or


low) between a romantic partner and the partner's


best friend of the opposite sex has a


differential effect on romantic relationship satisfaction for each of the three attachment








romantic relationship satisfaction for secure, avoidant, and anxious ambivalent

attachment styles. Whereas secure individuals would not be expected to be affected by


varying levels of perceived friendship quality,


I am predicting that the perception of


friendship quality would have significant and opposing effects for avoidant individuals as

compared to those who are anxious ambivalent.

Specifically, I propose that, for a securely-attached participant, romantic


relationship satisfaction will not be affected by the quality of the participant'


partner


friendship. The literature suggests that securely-attached individuals experience closer,

more intimate relationships and tend not to be worried about the dissolution of the


relationship (Guerrero, 1998


Hazan & Shaver, 1987).


Secure attachment also tended to


be correlated with satisfying and lasting relationships (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991


Feeney & Noller, 1990; Guerrero, 1998; Hazan & Shaver, 1987


Simpson, 1990).


because of this sense of stability and comfort within the romantic relationship that this


assertion is proposed.


It is expected that neither a high quality friendship nor a low


quality friendship between the participant's


partner and the partner's


opposite-sex friend


will affect romantic relationship satisfaction.

Research has indicated that avoidant adults prefer to keep some emotional

distance from significant others and may feel mistrustful of them (Hazan & Shaver,


987). The literature has also suggested that those who are avoidantly attached may have


very few encounters with feelings of love (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991


Feeney &


Noller, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987


Simpson, 1990).


If it is true that avoidantly-






6

then it stands to reason that these individuals may be more satisfied with a romantic

relationship if the partner's needs for intimacy are met by a high quality close friendship.

Those who are anxious-ambivalent may experience feelings of insecurity

regarding the stability and likelihood of longevity in their romantic relationships, leading

them to expend a lot of energy toward obtaining reassurance from their partners


(Guerrero, 1998; Hazan & Shaver, 1987).


These individuals are also characterized by


jealousy and dependency within their romantic relationships and have been shown to

have the lowest relationship satisfaction (Feeney & Noller, 1990; Mayseless, 1995).


When an anxiously attached person is faced with the potential threat of a partner'


quality opposite-sex friendship, it is expected that this


high


individual will become jealous and


exasperating to his/her partner. The individual may be apt to experience lower

relationship satisfaction as a result.


In summary, I predict that securely attached participants


' romantic relationship


satisfaction will not be affected by the perceived quality of their partners'


opposite-sex


best friendships. However, an interaction of attachment style and friendship quality


expected


In short, I predict a difference in romantic relationship satisfaction between


avoidant individuals and anxious ambivalent individuals depending on the high or low


perceived quality of their partners'


friendships.


In other words, I predict that those who


are avoidantly attached will report greater romantic relationship satisfaction when they


perceive


their romantic partners' friendships to be of high quality


In contrast, I expect


that anxious ambivalent participants wil


endorse lower romantic relationship satisfaction








To offer some examples, all heterosexual scenarios for the purpose of the current

study, consider a woman who identifies as securely attached. Her romantic relationship

satisfaction, while more likely to be high than the other two attachment styles, is not


affected by her perception of the quality of her boyfriend's


friendship with his female


friend. He may have a very close, high quality friendship with his friend, or he may have

a strained, low quality friendship with her. Neither the former nor the latter

characterization of the nature of the friendship would be expected to influence the


securely attached woman'


romantic relationship satisfaction.


The second example is that of an anxious ambivalent man. Due to his

embodiment of anxious ambivalent characteristics, his level of romantic relationship


satisfaction is low as his perception of the quality of his girlfriend's


male friend is high. By the very nature of hi


man is more likely to feel threatened by his girlfriend'


regarding his girlfriend's


friendship with her


attachment style, the anxious ambivalent


male friend, jealousy, and doubt


feelings for him than the other two attachment styles.


The final example depicts an avoidantly attached woman. She has a hard time

getting close to her boyfriend and feels uncomfortable with intimacy. Therefore, she

experiences increased romantic relationship satisfaction when her perception of the


quality of her boyfriend's


friendship with his female friend is high. A potential


explanation for this might be that her boyfriend is able to get most of his emotional

needs/need for intimacy met by his close female friend, which relieves the pressure for


the avoidantly attached woman to fulfill her boyfriend's


emotional desires.













CHAPTER


LITERATURE REVIEW

Attachment Theory and Research

Bowlby (1982), often thought of as the father of attachment theory, defines

attachment behavior as any type of behavior that causes an individual to search out or

keep in close physical contact with another significant individual who is considered more


capable of dealing with events in the world.


Bowlby (1969, 1973,


1980) established


empirical research on attachment theory as it relates to infant behavior. He suggested that


infants'


emotional attachment to their caregivers causes them to suffer emotional distress


upon separation. He considers the biological role of attachment to be that of protection,

staying close in proximity to a caregiver because of feelings of familiarity and the

expectation that he/she will be there to help in the case of an emergency.

Later research on infant attachment focused on the development of three

prototypical attachment styles to primary caregivers: secure, avoidant, and anxious-


ambivalent (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall,


978).


Ainsworth et al.


described the


secure style infant as more constructive and functional than the insecure styles


They also


found that these infants do not struggle when in close physical contact with their primary


caregivers, but rather are soothed by them.


These


nfants use their primary caregivers as a


safe foundation from which they can investigate the world and believe that their primary





9

There are two branches of the insecure style, avoidant and anxious-ambivalent.

The avoidant style infant is found to detach from or avoid primary caregivers in times of

need, opting for emotional detachment, and also doubting the intent of others. The

anxious-ambivalent style describes infants who cling to their caregivers and thus more

frequently seek them out in distressing situations. However, once in contact with their

caregivers these infants show anger and bitterness towards them.

Expanding on these studies was the idea that throughout social growth people

build affective/cognitive models of the self and of the interactional characteristics within


interpersonal relationships (Ainsworth et al.,


1978; Bowlby, 1973).


These


affective/cognitive models are thought to systematize the growth of personality and to

direct later social behaviors and close relationships (Kerns, 1996; Simpson, 1990).

Repeated findings on these mental models (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Feeney &


Noller, 1990; Hazan and Shaver, 1987


Simpson, 1990) reveal that securely attached


people are relatively self-confident, trusting of others, and usually quite positive in their

general relations with others.

Mikulincer (1995) studied the relationship between attachment style and several


facets of the mental representation of the self


n high school students. He found that


secure and avoidant styles are more likely than anxious-ambivalent styles to have a more

positive view of self. Securely attached participants were also more likely to have a more

complex and coherent self-structure than the two insecure types. Shulman (1995) found


securely attached individuals to have more flexibility as well.


People with avoidant styles





10

Mikulincer (1995) found anxious-ambivalent styles to have a lower positivity score, a

more negative self-schema, and more negative affective experiences than that of the other

attachment styles.

Influence of Attachment on Romantic Relationship Satisfaction

The literature has shown that the effects of attachment style extend beyond

interpersonal relationships in general to adult romantic relationships specifically. Hazan

and Shaver (1987) have facilitated this work by developing a self-report instrument for

assessing adult attachment styles that consists of three short paragraphs, based on the

attachment typology of Ainsworth et al. (1978).


Hazan and Shaver's


(1987) study investigated the idea that romantic love is an


attachment process, similar to the process that occurs early in life between an infant and

his/her primary caregiver. The study focused on the three attachment styles identified by


Ainsworth et al.


(1978) and the belief that these styles persist into adulthood due to


affective/cognitive models


of self and others that direct social behavior. Hazan and


Shaver (1987) propose that these models of self and others, and consequently a person's


attachment style, are partially determined by childhood relationships with parents.


findings of the study included the incidence of the three attachment styles is

approximately the same in infancy as it is in adulthood, the different attachment styles

differ accordingly in the ways they perceive romantic love, and attachment style is


associated with mental models


of self and relationships, as wel


as relationship with


parents.





11

perceptions about family of origin relationships, while avoidant participants were more

likely to report maternal separation during childhood and to convey a mistrusting attitude.

Interestingly, participants identifying as anxious ambivalent were less likely to perceive

their fathers as supportive than avoidant participants. The authors found that anxious

ambivalent participants also lacked independence and yearned for a strong commitment

in relationships.


Hazan and Shaver (1987) found that secure adults expressed greater comfort in

relation to dependency and intimacy, and were not as concerned with the possibility of


being deserted by a romantic partner. Additionally, secure adults'


love relationships


tended to be the most enduring and satisfying (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991


& Noller, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987


Feeney


Simpson, 1990).


Avoidant adults, by contrast, are relatively uncomfortable getting too close

emotionally to others and have trouble depending on and trusting others (Hazan &


Shaver,


987). Many other researchers (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991


Feeney &


Noller, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Simpson, 1990) conclude that avoidant adults also

are more apt never to have been in love and have the fewest love experiences.

Hazan and Shaver (1987) found anxious-ambivalent adults to become overly

close to their romantic partners, frequently questioning their romantic partners' love for

them, and having constant concerns that their partners are going to abandon them. Others


(Feeney & Noller, 1990; Mayseless,


995) found that anxious-ambivalent styles were the


most iealous and dependent in their relationships. have the least amount of satisfaction in





12

Influence of Attachment on Friendships

Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) asserted that the effect of attachment style on

romantic relationships extends to other intimate relationships, such as friendships. Close

friendships possess qualities that are quite unique. For example, friendships are the least

institutionalized and most freely chosen of all interpersonal relationships (Blieszner &

Adams, 1992).

Grabill and Kerns (2000) conducted a large study with over 800 college student


participants in an effort to study attachment style and intimacy in adult friendship.


authors identified three intimacy characteristics: self-disclosure; responsiveness to a


partner


's disclosure; and feeling understood, validated, and cared for by a partner during


conversations. They found that those with a secure attachment style were higher on all

three intimacy characteristics and are therefore more likely than those who are insecurely


attached to possess the qualities necessary for close relationship (e.

formation. Gender differences in intimacy were also found. Womei


of disclosing, responding, and feeling responded to than did men (Grabil


friendship)


n showed higher rates


& Kerns,


2000).

There are many qualities that contribute to the composition of friendships. This

study utilizes the friendship characteristics outlined by Bukowski, Hoza, and Boivan

(1994). Bukowski et al. (1994) conceptualize close friendships as consisting of five

defining qualities. These include companionship, conflict, help, security, and closeness.

First, companionship refers to the quantity of time that two friends freely choose to spend





13

that they do not always agree in their relationship. Third, help is evaluated by looking at

reciprocated help and support in times of need and also by wanting to come to a friend's

relief if another person were bothering him/her. Fourth, they measure security by faith

that a friend can be depended on in times of need and also the notion that ifa fight should

occur between two friends, the friendship would endure this fight. Lastly, the fifth aspect


of friendship in their measure is closeness. Bukowski et al.


(1994) measure closeness as


the feeling of affection in the friendship, and also by strength of the bond between two

friends.


Jealousy


When an individual'


someone of the opposite


romantic partner is engaged in a close friendship with


the individual may have a positive or a negative reaction.


This variability in reaction from person to person may be the result of a person'


attachment style, or mental model for approaching relationships with others (Ainsworth


et al.


, 1978; Bowlby, 1973). Based on earlier research on attachment (Bartholomew &


Horowitz, 1991; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987


Simpson, 1990), it


seems reasonable to expect that people with an avoidant attachment style would be likely

to react positively to the presence of a high quality friendship between a romantic partner


and the partner's


opposite-sex friend.


The avoidant attachment style individual has been


shown repeatedly to dodge inner experiences or outward displays of emotion when

possible, and might therefore feel a sense of relief from having someone else (the


romantic partner


's friend) to help fulfill the emotional needs of the romantic partner.








presumably due to feeling as if the security of the romantic relationship were threatened


or, put simply


, jealousy. Although the presence of an opposite-sex friendship outside the


romantic relationship could have a negative effect on romantic relationship satisfaction


for any number of reasons (e.g.,


concern over how outsiders might interpret such an


arrangement, decrease in the amount of time romantic partners have to spend with each


other, feeling left out), it is suspected that jealousy,


or the threat of losing a romantic


partner to the partner'


opposite-sex friend (i.e.,


rival), is the most salient (Guerrero,


1998).

Bowlby (1973) asserted that attachment systems are activated in response to the

potential of abandonment or any threat to a significant relationship. Mathes and Severa


(1981,


p. 23) define jealousy as "the negative emotion resulting from actual or threatened


loss of love due to a rival.


According to Guerrero (1998), one cannot ignore the


contribution of jealousy when examining romantic relationship satisfaction, and it has

been found to be a contributing factor to romantic relationship satisfaction in many


studies on the topic (Bringle, Evenbeck, & Schmedel, 1977


Mathes, Roter, & Joerger, 19


Mathes & Severa, 1981


and Mathes, 1986). Previous studies on jealousy by


Guerrero (1998) and others (Radecki-Bush et al.,


1993


Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1995)


suggest a connection between jealousy and attachment and have shown that securely

attached individuals have lower amounts of jealousy in their romantic relationships than


people who have an insecure attachment style. Bringle,


Evenbeck, and Schmedel (1977)


studied married couples and found a negative correlation between jealousy and romantic





15

Guerrero (1998) studied 144 college students who were involved in enduring

romantic relationships at the time of the study. All participants completed questionnaires

assessing their jealousy experience, jealousy expression, and attachment styles. She

found that those who possessed negative self-models (characterized by lack of confidence

and need for ongoing external validation) reported experiencing more jealousy than those

with positive self-models (characterized by self-sufficiency and confidence). The author

also found that jealous participants with negative other-models (characterized by seeing

relationships as relatively unrewarding or nonessential) felt fear to a lesser extent, used

less relationship-maintaining behavior, and participated in more avoidance/denial than


participants with positive other-model


(characterized by a belief that relationships are


rewarding and future or potential partners will be supportive, receptive, and accepting).

In contrast, studies by Mathes and Severa (1981) and Mathes (1986) reported a

positive relationship between jealousy and romantic satisfaction. Mathes and Severa

(1981) studied 79 dating or married couples, with at least one of the partners enrolled in a


university introductory psychology class.


months.


The average length of relationship was 9.9


The authors found a positive correlation between jealousy and romantic love,


suggesting that jealousy may be beneficial.


relationship was, the more


Results showed that the more romantic a


ikely it was to contain jealousy. Mathes (1986) conducted a


longitudinal study whereby he compared the jealousy scores of 65 undergraduate couples

to their relationship status seven years later. He found a positive long-range effect of

jealousy on romantic relationships and concluded that jealousy led to lasting love and





16

Neither study accounted for level of commitment or seriousness of the

relationship; therefore it is impossible to know how invested the participants were in their

current romantic relationships. Given the young age of the participants, it is possible that

at least some of the relationships were emotionally casual in nature. This could explain

lower levels of jealousy, as well as a higher likelihood of eventual relationship

dissolution. Participants who were more jealous may have been so because they were

more committed to their romantic relationship and, therefore, more invested in seeing it

remain intact. This higher level of commitment could explain why these couples were

more likely to have remained together seven years later. Commitment may be a major

confounding variable in these studies. Rather than jealousy contributing to commitment,

perhaps commitment contributes to jealousy for some individuals.

It is possible that, for some people, jealousy may arise in reaction to a romantic


partner


's high quality friendship with someone of the opposite


According to the


studies detailed above, jealousy appears to have an effect on romantic relationship


satisfaction


Therefore, when attempting to study the potential influence of attachment


style and various friendship qualities on romantic relationship satisfaction, it appears

necessary to assess and control for the potential contributing effect of jealousy on any

findings that emerge.













CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Participants


The participants for this study were


1 undergraduate psychology students. All


participants were enrolled in introductory psychology courses and were recruited from

the general psychology research pool and from foundation-level psychology courses at

the University of Florida. Only the data gathered from participants who reported being in

a committed, heterosexual romantic relationship at the time of the study were used.

Instruments


The first two items of the questionnaire addressed


sex of the participant and


ethnicity of the participant (see Appendix A).

The Friendship Qualities Scale (FQS). The FQS (Bukowski, Boivin, & Hoza,

1994) is a 23-item, self-administered, paper-and-pencil measure showing high reliability


and validity (Bukowski et al.,


1994) designed to


assess


the quality of nonromantic


friendships (see Appendix B). For the purpose of the current study, the language of this


measure was modified so that the questions inquired about the quality of the participant'


partner


's opposite-sex best friendship.


This scale wil


be used to assess the friendship


quality of the best opposite-sex friendship of the participant's


partner, as perceived by the


participant.








their free time together"), conflict (e.g.,


"My partner can get into fights with his/her


friend"), help/aid (e.g.,


"My partner'


friend would help him/her if he/she needed it"),


security ( e.g.,


"If my partner has a problem at school or at home, he/she can talk to


his/her friend about it"), and closeness (e.g.,


"If my partner'


friend had to move away,


he/she would miss him/her"). Each par

whom he/she deemed to be the partner'


this friend while completing the measure.


ticipant was asked to identify a specific person


best friend of the opposite sex and think only of

They were required to rate the friendship on a


standard five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 (never or almost never true) to 5 (always

or almost always true) to respond to the questions, with higher scores reflecting higher


friendship quality


scale has been shown to have high internal consistency with


alpha levels ranging from .69 to .83 (Bukowski et al


., 1994). In the current study, the


reliability of the instrument was found to be adequate with an alpha level of .89.

Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS). This self-administered, paper-and-pencil,

seven-item scale was designed by Hendrick (1988) to be a generic measure of romantic


relationship satisfaction (see Appendix C).


such as "How wel


Respondents are asked to answer questions,


does your partner meet your needs?" using a five-point Likert scale,


ranging from 1 (very poorly) to


(very well), with higher scores reflecting higher


relationship satisfaction. Hendrick, Dicke, and Hendrick (1998) deemed thi


to be a


practical and effective measure for assessing love relationship satisfaction. Hendrick


(1988) reported the scale'


mean inter-item correlation to be .49 with an alpha level of


.86. Reliability of the RAS in the current study was found to be .83.








topics which could potentially create agreement or conflict (see Appendix D). The DAS


taps such areas as "Handling family finances"


and "Matters of recreation"


. Participants


respond to a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (always disagree) to 6 (always agree),

with higher scores reflecting higher relationship satisfaction. Data from the current study


show good overall internal consistency reliability (alpha


.81). The validity for the DAS


previously has been checked with logical content validity procedures. Additionally, each

item of the DAS has been found to differentiate between married and divorced couples,

demonstrating concurrent criterion-related validity.

Interpersonal Jealousy Scale (US). The US (Mathes & Severa, 1981) is a 28-

item paper-and-pencil measure of relationship-specific romantic jealousy (see Appendix


E). The US has high reliability (alpha


.89) and validity as reported by Mathes, Roter,


and Joerger (1982) and Mathes and Severa (1981), with the same value found when

analyzed in the current study. Items are responded to using a nine-point Likert-type scale

ranging from 1 (absolutely false, disagree completely) to 9 (absolutely true, agree


completely). Sample items are "If (participant'


partner) went out with same sex friends,


I would feel compelled to know what he/she did"


"If (participant'


partner) admired


someone of the opposite sex I would feel irritated" (Mathes & Severa, 1981).

Adult Attachment Measure. The Hazan and Shaver (1987) measure (see

Appendix F) is a self-report measure consisting of three short paragraphs designed to


categorize persons into attachment styles:


ambivalent


secure, insecure avoidant, or insecure anxious-


Respondents choose the one paragraph that best describes their feelings.








contingency coefficient of.60.


An analysis that measures the strength of association


between categorical variables (Kerlinger, 1986) indicated acceptable consistency of the


categorical data.


In a study of construct validity, a factor analysis of the 13 individual


statements comprising the three-paragraph measure yielded three factors: Comfort With

Closeness, Concern About Insufficient Closeness, and Discomfort With Closeness factors


(Hazan & Shaver, 1987).


These factors were used in an analysis of variance that


differentiated among styles of attachment in the predicted way.


Additionally,


discriminant functions analysis (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) revealed that combinations of

responses to the individual statements successfully predicted categorical responses to the

original measure. Additional questions of interest were included at the end of the

questionnaire (see Appendix G).


Procedure


The researcher or the researcher'


assistant met with participants in small groups


and explained that the study was about interpersonal relationships. Prior to receiving the


packet of materials, participants' anonymil

time without penalty was reviewed, as wel


ty and right to terminate participation at any


as the availability of the results from this


study. All participants were given an informed consent sheet and asked to read it


carefully before signing.


Copies of the informed consent were made available to


interested participants.


Brief instructions were given, including the definition of "romantic partner'


friend of the opposite sex"


as being someone who was the opposite sex of the partner








approximately 30-45 minutes to complete the questionnaire. All participants were

compensated for taking part in the study by receiving credit in their introductory

psychology courses.


Analyses


The data from the current study will be analyzed using a 3 x 2 x


2 Multivariate


Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), with independent variables of attachment style with

three levels (secure, avoidant, anxious-ambivalent) and two levels of friendship quality

(high, low) and dependent variables of romantic relationship satisfaction as measured by

the DAS and RAS.

Secondary analyses. If the primary data analysis supports the second hypothesis

by showing that an interaction exists between attachment style and friendship quality in

the predicted direction, then secondary analyses will be performed using data from the


US and the subscales of the FQS.


If a correlation is found between FQS scores and


romantic relationship satisfaction scores, further investigation will be done to determine

the effect of jealousy as a contributing factor. It is presumed that anxious-ambivalent


individuals w


I have lower romantic relationship satisfaction scores when their partners


have high quality friendships because of a feeling of jealousy or perceived threat to the


stability of the relationship.


If this is found to be true, then it would be expected that


scores on the US would differ between attachment styles.


If both secure and avoidant participants'


satisfaction scores are associated with


higher FQS scores, it is presumed that different mechanisms contribute to that correlation








participants. Research has shown that avoidant individuals separate themselves, or

dissociate from strong affect (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). This characteristic would be


expected to be reflected in an avoidant individual'


responses to items on the FQS that


assess qualities such as closeness and conflict.













CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Of the 220 participants identifying as being in a heterosexual committed romantic


relationship who took part in this study, 21.82% (N


= 48) were male and 78.18% (N


172) were female. Additionally, 66.1% (N


= 145 total; N


= 30 males, N


= 115 females)


identified themselves as securely attached, 19.9% (N


= 44 total; N


= 9 males, N


females) as avoidant, and 14.0% (N


= 31 total; N


= 9 males, N


=22


females) as anxious-


ambivalent, using the Adult Attachment Measure (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). This

distribution across attachment styles is consistent with that which has been reported


previously (Hazan & Shaver,


987).


Preliminary Analyses

Prior to conducting the main analysis of the data, a series of preliminary analyses

were designed to determine the successfulness of the designations of the attachment style

assignments. A series of one-way analyses were conducted on the ratings of the three

attachment descriptions. Results of the ANOVAs demonstrated that those participants

identifying themselves as securely attached rated the secure attachment profile as being


significantly more self-descriptive (M


= 3.45


= 0.70) than the avoidant (M


= 1.18, SD


= 0.95) or anxious-ambivalent (M


= 0.97) profiles, F(2, 146)


160.54,p


.0001


Similarly, the participants identifying as avoidantly attached rated the avoidant








= 84.97


.0001


Participants who chose the anxious-ambivalent attachment style


also rated that version as significantly more self-descriptive (M


= 3.13, SD


= 0.81) than


the secure (M


= 1.00, SD


1.04) or avoidant (M


1.43, SD


1.11) profiles, F(2, 31)


40,p


.0001


These findings provide confidence in the accuracy of assigning


participants to the various attachment groups, as well as characterizing the robustness of

that assignment.

As a second preliminary analysis, a high friendship quality group and a low

friendship quality group were formed by using overall scores from the FQS in a median

split. An ANOVA was conducted to determine the robustness of the assignment of people


to each of the two groups. This assignment was shown to be robust, F(1


215)


= 104.74, p


.0001


, suggesting that, when examining friendship ratings across attachment styles,


there was a significant difference between perceived friendship in the high friendship


quality group (N


= 105: M


=86.


= 8.90) and the low friendship quality group (N


= 67.90, SD


11.81) as measured by overall


FQS scores.


Additionally, the distribution of gender across attachment groups was analyzed. In


particular, a 3 (secure, avoidant, and anxious ambivalent) x

was conducted and found to be insignificant, Chi Square =


significant


2 (female, male) Chi-Square


(2, 220), p


This is consistent with previous literature (Hazan & Shaver, 1987),


suggesting that gender does not covary with attachment style.

In addition to examining the distribution of gender across attachment groups, the

duration of the romantic relationship was also assessed. Overall, relationships tended to








6 months, and 11.4% (N


= 25) lasting 3 months or less. To ensure that relationship


duration was not confounded with attachment style, an attachment style by relationship


duration Chi-Square (2,


218)


= 2.413,p


.076 was conducted. Results were not


significant, indicating that relationship length did not differ according to attachment style.

Primary Analyses

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted using attachment

style and friendship quality as the independent variables, with the DAS (Spanier, 1976)

and RAS (Hendrick, 1988) serving as dependent variables reflecting romantic

relationship satisfaction. This 3 (secure, avoidant, or anxious-ambivalent attachment


style) X


2 (high or low friendship quality) factorial analysis was conducted along the


romantic relationship satisfaction scores of the DAS and RAS.


The two between subjects


factors include the three attachment styles (secure, avoidant, or anxious-ambivalent) and

friendship quality (high or low) as measured by the overall scores on the FQS (Bukowski


., 1994). The high and low designations for friendship quality were achieved using a


median split, resulting in a high friendship quality group (M


= 86.


= 8.91) and a


low friendship quality group (M


= 67.90, SD


11.81).


This MANOVA revealed a significant main effect for attachment style, F(2, 193)


= 8.32, p


<.0001


No significant main effect was found for either friendship quality F(2,


, p < .092 or an interaction of attachment style and friendship quality F(2,


.16,p


.853.


Follow-up Analyses








insignificant effect for attachment on the DAS F(2, 193)


= 2.82,p


< .062, (M


= 126.45,


11.73), however there was a significant effect for attachment on the RAS F(2, 193)


= 8.31, p


< .0001


,(M


= 28.33, SD


= 4.46). The direction of the differences showed that


the secure attachment style (M


= 29.18, SD


= 4.15) differed significantly from the


avoidant attachment style (M


= 26.21


= 4.71), Tukey's, p


as well as the


anxious ambivalent attachment style (M


= 26.96, SD


= 4.49), Tukey 's, p


.035.


avoidant attachment style and the anxious ambivalent attachment style did not differ


significantly from each other, Tukey 's, p


.766.


The current study sought to investigate whether romantic relationship satisfaction

was influenced by attachment style and friendship quality. The relationship found in the

current study between attachment style and romantic relationship satisfaction is

consistent with related research in the area (Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller,


1990; Simpson, 1990).


Similar research has also noted differences in levels of jealousy


according to attachment style (Guerrero, 1998; Hazan & Shaver, 1987


Radecki-Bush et


., 1993). Due to the findings of previous research that jealousy is correlated with both


attachment style and romantic relationship satisfaction (Guerrero, 1998; Radecki-Bush et


,1993), the relationship-specific jealousy of participants' in the current study was


measured and analyzed in an effort to determine whether jealousy was influencing the

findings of the current study.

Thus, the current study attempted to replicate the finding in the attachment

literature that there are, in fact, differences in levels of jealousy according to attachment








6.58, p


< .002. The direction of the differences revealed that the secure attachment style


134.97


= 27.52) significantly differed from the anxious-ambivalent attachment


style (M


= 154.70, SD


= 29.83), Tukey 's, p


.002. However the avoidant attachment


style (M


= 145.44, SD


= 28.77) did not significantly differ from either the secure (p


.113) or the anxious-ambivalent (p


.397) styles.


In an effort to determine whether these differences in jealousy accounted for the

differences in relationship satisfaction associated with different attachment styles, an

ANCOVA was conducted, using the IJS scores as a covariate in a two way ANOVA,

with the factors being attachment style and friendship quality. Results indicated that the

effect for attachment style on relationship satisfaction (using the RAS) was again


significant, F(2, 177)


7.44, p


= 28.53


= 4.29), indicating that


differential levels of jealousy did not account for the differences among attachment styles

in relation to their levels of relationship satisfaction.


(n/r













CHAPTER


DISCUSSION

Findings of the Present Study

The current study sought to investigate whether attachment style and perceived


quality of a romantic partner'


opposite-sex best friendship have an effect on romantic


relationship satisfaction. Two hypotheses were proposed. The first hypothesis predicted

that those individuals identifying as securely attached would report higher levels of

romantic relationship satisfaction than those endorsing either the avoidant or anxious-

ambivalent attachment styles, regardless of friendship quality. The second hypothesis

suggested that an interaction would occur between attachment style and friendship

quality. This hypothesis proposed that avoidantly attached participants would report

higher romantic relationship satisfaction when the quality of the friendship between their


partners and their partners'


best friends of the opposite


sex was high. The second


hypothesis also proposed that participants who identified as anxious-ambivalent would

possess lower romantic relationship satisfaction when their partners' friendship quality

was high. Romantic relationship satisfaction for securely attached individuals was not

expected to be affected by friendship quality.

The results of the current study support the first hypothesis. A main effect for

attachment style was found, showing that, when measured with the RAS, securely





29

that demonstrated a relationship between attachment style and romantic relationship

satisfaction (Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Simpson, 1990).

Many studies have shown a connection between attachment style and jealousy

(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Collins & Read, 1990; Guerrero, 1996a, 1996b, 1998;


Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Radecki-Bush et al.,


1993; Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1995;


White & Mullen, 1989). Therefore, jealousy was assessed and analyzed to determine its

effect on the results of the current study. Consistent with the literature (Hazan & Shaver,


1987; Radecki et al.,


1993; Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1995), jealousy varied according to


attachment style. Securely attached participants endorsed lower levels of jealousy than


did anxious-ambivalent participants. Avoidantly attached participants'


level of jealousy


did not differ significantly from either secure or anxious-ambivalent attachment styles, a


conclusion that supports Sharpsteen and Kirkpatrick'


(1995) finding that avoidantly


attached individuals were less likely to have lingering feelings of jealousy because they

tended to feel anger toward the rival instead.

After differing levels of jealousy were taken into account, support for the first


hypothesis remained


Therefore, it can be concluded that varying levels of romantic


relationship satisfaction across attachment styles were not due to jealousy alone. Further

research will need to ascertain what does, in fact, account for those with a secure

attachment style having higher romantic relationship satisfaction than those with insecure

attachment.

The second hypothesis of the current study proposed that the variance in romantic





30

several potential reasons why the second hypothesis was not supported. The

questionnaire required judgements about the quality of a friendship as perceived by the

participant, who was not a part of the friendship. This may have led to guesses rather than

accurate assessments of the nature and characteristics of the friendship. Secondly, due to

the college student population used, it is likely that many of the participants' partners'

opposite-sex friends lived somewhere other than the location in which the participants

and their partners lived. This could have caused the participant to know even less about

the friendship, and to perceive it as less of a threat. In this situation, it is possible that

many of the participants may not have ever met their partners' friends, let alone seen their

partners interact in the friendship. Thirdly, attachment style may be such a strong

predictor of romantic relationship satisfaction that other factors, such as outside

friendships, are not salient enough to affect satisfaction in either direction.

Future research in this area could address some of these limitations by sampling


either a younger (e.g.,


high school students) or older population where the friend is likely


ive in the same location as the romantic couple. Researchers may also want to include


the participant'


quality of the partner'


romantic partner in the study for purposes of accurately assessing the


friendship.


Contribution to the Existing Literature


This


study has contributed to the area of attachment research by producing results


that replicate the findings of earlier studies by Hazan and Shaver (1987) and others that


demonstrated differing level


of romantic relationship satisfaction across attachment





31

Based on the results of the current study, it appears that securely attached people

are more satisfied with the nature of their romantic relationships than those who are

insecurely attached. This finding is in agreement with the existing literature (Hazan &

Shaver, 1987; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Simpson, 1990; and Bartholomew & Horowitz,

1991) which found securely attached adults to have the most enduring and satisfying love

relationships.

Results did not produce evidence that the two insecure types, avoidant and

anxious-ambivalent, differed from each other in romantic relationship satisfaction.

Previous studies (Feeney & Noller, 1990; Mayseless, 1995) found anxious-ambivalent


individuals


to have the least satisfaction in romantic relationships of the three attachment


styles. Other research (Hazan & Shaver, 1987


Simpson, 1990; Bartholomew &


Horowitz, 1991) has concluded that avoidantly attached adults are more likely to have

never been in love than the other two styles and have the fewest love experiences. It


would appear that the two insecure types are both less


ikely to have fulfilling romantic


relationships than securely attached individuals. Though the two insecure styles may have

different processes to account for less romantic satisfaction, they both had significantly

lower levels of romantic satisfaction than the secure style as measured in the current

study.

The present study did not find support for the idea that the interaction of

perceived friendship quality and attachment style affects romantic relationship

satisfaction. No significant difference was found in friendship quality as a function of





32

relationships has been found to extend to other relationships like friendship

(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), the current study did not find evidence of differences

in romantic relationship satisfaction based on perceived friendship quality across

attachment styles. This may be due to the indirect method used to explore friendship

quality. Participants were asked to evaluate the friendship quality of their romantic


partners


' friendship with the partners' best friend of the opposite sex.


Thus, the friendship quality scores that were obtained reflected an outside


observer'


(the participant) opinion of the quality of a friendship in which s/he is not a


participator. The friendship quality scores are therefore a perception of a biased

individual and may have been affected by interfering factors (lack of knowledge, lack of

direct observation). For the purposes of the current study, the perception of friendship


quality by the study participant was the desired


information, and whether this perception


was in agreement with the perceptions of the actual members of the friendship was of no


interest


Future research could explore how attachment style affects the degree of


agreement between an individual'


perception of a romantic partner'


friendship quality


when compared to the romantic partner'


perception.


Similar to previous studies on jealousy (Radecki-Bush et al.


,1993; Sharpsteen &


Kirkpatrick, 1995; Guerrero, 1998), the current study found a significant relationship

between jealousy and attachment style. Jealousy was explored to assess its contribution to


the current study's


level


findings. Anxious-ambivalent participants had significantly higher


of jealousy than securely attached participants. This was expected based on





33

The avoidant attachment style did not differ significantly from the other two

styles on the jealousy measure in the current study. Again, this finding is consistent with

previous research (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) that has shown avoidant individuals to be the

most uncomfortable with emotional intimacy and the most likely to avoid inner

experiences of emotion of the three attachment styles.

Guerrero (1998) asserted that jealousy must be taken into account when studying

romantic relationship satisfaction. Jealousy was found to be a contributor to romantic

relationship satisfaction in several studies on the topic (Bringle, Evenbeck, & Schmedel,

1977; Mathes & Severa, 1981; Mathes, Roter, & Joerger, 1982; Mathes, 1986). However,

results from the current study show that differential levels of jealousy alone did not

account for the differences across attachment style in relation to romantic relationship

satisfaction. In other words, differing levels of romantic relationship satisfaction among


the three attachment styles remained, even after controlling for differing level


jealousy. Therefore, it appears that one or more factors are contributing to differences in


romantic relationship satisfaction other than jealousy.


In sum, the current study found


differences in romantic relationship satisfaction based on attachment style and differences

in jealousy based on attachment style, but differences in jealousy did not account for

differences in romantic relationship satisfaction.

Implications for Future Research


The existing attachment literature has focused on dyadic relationships.


current study attempted to expand the focus from just the dyad to a larger, systemic





34

this area could build upon this idea by assessing friendship quality first-hand through the


romantic partner and the partner's


original participant's


friend. A comparison or contrast could be made of the


perception of the quality of the friendship with both the romantic


partner


's perception and the friend'


perception. Differences in agreement according to


the original participant'


attachment style could then be investigated.


The area of attachment and friendship has produced little research to date. The

current study attempted to form a link between the well-researched area of romantic

satisfaction and attachment with the relatively new area of friendship and attachment.

Although attachment has been described as a dyadic process and therefore studied in that

manner, it could be argued from a systemic perspective that any dyadic relationship is

influenced by the broader social context and various external relationships that extend


from the dyad.


This concept produces fertile ground for attachment researchers.


Limitations of the Present Study

Several limitations to the current study can be identified. The study is


correlational, thus preventing the ability to determine cause and effect.


Attachment style


may affect romantic relationship satisfaction, romantic relationship satisfaction may


affect attachment style, or a third variable could be responsible for the relationship.


college student population, where individuals are often living away from home and close

friends, may have limited the ability for participants to observe directly their romantic


partners


Friendships, and some participants may have never even met their partners'


friends. These factors could seriously hinder a participant'


ability to assess friendship





35

satisfaction, jealousy, and friendship quality. The order of instruments within the

questionnaire was the same for all participants, which meant that the attachment measure

always came after measures of friendship quality, romantic relationship satisfaction, and

jealousy. It is possible that responding to the earlier measures activated certain feelings or


beliefs that affected participants'


selection of an attachment style. Future research should


vary the order of the measures in an effort to control for contamination. Additionally, no

assessment was made to determine whether the best friend of the participant's romantic

partner was a best friend of the participant as well.

Future research could explore the option of turning this study, which is

correlational in nature, into one that can be experimentally controlled. This might involve

provoking jealousy in the participant by creating a scenario (real or imagined) where the

romantic partner spends time with his/her friend rather than the participant, then

assessing factors like romantic relationship satisfaction, friendship quality, and

attachment style immediately following the event.

Within the context of these considerations and limitations, the findings of the

current study nonetheless provide qualified support for the association between

attachment style and romantic relationship satisfaction. Despite interpersonal jealousy

and romantic relationship satisfaction relating in theoretically predictable ways to

attachment style, jealousy alone failed to account for differences in romantic relationship

satisfaction. Future work that more effectively measures or manipulates levels of jealousy

in the context of specific relationships may be able to more effectively test an













REFERENCES


Ainsworth, M. S.,


Blehar, M. C


Waters, E.,


& Wall, S.


(1978). Patterns of attachment: A


psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, N.
Associates, Publishers.


Anders, S. L., & Tucker, J.


.: Lawrence Erlbaum


S. (2000). Adult attachment style, interpersonal


communication competence, and social support. Personal Relationships, 7, 379-
389.


Baranas, M.V


., E.M. Cummings, & L. Pollina (1990).


Life-span attachment: Relations


between attachment and socioemotional functioning in adult women.
Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 117 (2), 175-202.


Genetic.


Bartholomew, K.,


& Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A


test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 61
(2), 226-244.


Blieszner, R.,


& R. G. Adams (1992).


Adult friendship.


Newbury Park, CA:


Sage


Publications.


Bowlby,


J (1969).


Attachment and loss: Vol.


Attachment.


New York: Basic Books


Publishers.


Bowlby, J.


(1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. Anxiety and anger. New


York: Basic Books.


Bowlby, J.


(1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of


Orthoosvchiatry.


(4), 664-678.


Brennan, K.


. & Shaver, P


. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect


regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin. 21 (3), 267-283.


Bringle, R. G., Evenbeck, S.,


& Schmedel, K. (1977). The role ofjealousy in


marriage. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological
Association, San Francisco, CA.








Collins, N. L.,


& Read, S. J.


(1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship


quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-
663.


Davis, M. H.,


& Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic


relationships: Empathy and relational competence. Journal of Personality and


Social Psychology. 53,


397-410.


Feeny, J.


A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic


relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 58 (2), 281-291.


Grabill, C.


, & Kerns, K. A. (2000). Attachment style and intimacy in friendship.


Personal Relationships, 7, 363-378.

Guerrero, L. K. (1996a). Attachment-style differences in communication skills and the
expression of anger and sadness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Speech Communication Association, San Diego, CA.

Guerrero, L. K. (1996b). Attachment-style differences in intimacy and involvement: A


test of the four-category model.


Communication Monographs, 63,


269-292.


Guerrero, L.K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in the experience and expression of


romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5,


273-291.


Hazan, C


& Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.


Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52


Hazan, C.,


11-524.


& Shaver, P. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective.


Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59, 270-280.


Hendrick, S.
Marri


S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of
age and the Family, 50, 93-98.


Hendrick,


., Dicke, A.,


& Hendrick, C.


(1998).


The relationship assessment scale.


Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.


(1), 137-142.


Kerns, K. A. (1996).


Parent-child attachment in late adolescence: Links to social


relations and personality.


Journal of youth and Adolescence.


(3), 323-343.


Mathes, E.


., & Severa, N


(1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and liking: Theoretical


considerations and preliminary scale development. Psychological Reports. 49. 23-
31.








Mayseless, 0. (1995).


Attachment and marital relationships.


In S. Shulman (Ed.), Close


relationships and socioemotional development (pp.
Ablex Publishing Corporation.


185-202). Norwood, NJ:


Mikulincer, M. (1995). Close relationships and socioemotional development:


style and the mental representation of the self.
Psychology. 69 (6), 1203-1215.


Attachment


Journal of Personality and Social


Radecki-Bush, C.,


Farrell, A.D., & Bush, J.P. (1993). Predicting jealous responses: The


influence of adult attachment and depression on threat appraisal. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships. 10, 569-588.


Rempel, J. K.,


& Holmes, J.


G. (1986). How do I trust thee? Psychology Today. 28-34.


Rempel, J. K.,


Holmes, J.


G., & Zanna, M. P


. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal


of Personality and Social Psychology. 49, 95-112.


Sharpsteen, D. J.,


& Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1995, June). Romantic jealousy as an attachment


process: Individual differences in jealousy experiences. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the International Network on Personal Relationships,
Williamsburg, VA.

Shulman, S. (1995). Typology of close friendships, relationship models, and friendship


reasoning in early adolescence.


InS.


Shulman (Ed.), Close relationships and


socioemotional development (pp.
Corporation.


Simpson, J.


109-127). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing


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


of Personality and Social Psvcholosnv.


Spanier, G. B.


9 (5), 971-980.


(1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality


of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 1


White, G. L.,


& Mullen, P


. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory. research, and clinical strategies.


New York: Guilford Press.













APPENDIX A
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Directions: Please bubble in the answers on the bubble sheet in the order in which they
are numbered.


Sex: M (bubble 1)


F (bubble


Ethnicity:


African American


(bubble 1)


Asian


(bubble 2)


Caucasian
(bubble 3)


Hispanic
(bubble 4)


Other
(bubble 5)














APPENDIX B
FRIENDSHIP QUALITIES SCALE (MODIFIED)


Directions:


Choose the person whom you regard as your romantic Dartner's opposite


sex best friend and write their name at the top of the page.


Answer the following


questions in the scale in reference to your romantic partner's relationship with this


person.


* 2


* 4


Rate each item on the following scale:


- the item is Almost Never or Never true about their relationship
- the item is Seldom true about their relationship
- the item is Sometimes true about their relationship
- the item is Often true about their relationship
- the item is Almost Always or Always true about their relationship


Think about each item carefully and be sure to rate their friendship according to its
current state ('the way it is now') and not according to how you want it to be.


My partner and my partner'


(Almost Never or Never)


friend spend all their fee time together.


2 (Seldom)


3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


(Almost Always or Always)


4. My partner'


friend thinks of fun things for them to do together.


(Almost Never or Never)


(Seldom)


3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


5 (Almost Always or Always)


5. My partner and my partner'
weekends.


(Almost Never or Never)


friend go to each other's


(Seldom)


3 (Sometimes)


houses after school and on


4 (Often)


(Almost Always or Always)


6. Sometimes my partner and my partner'
school, sports, and things they like.


(Almost Never or Never)


(Seldom)


3 (Son


friend just sit around and talk about things like

ictimes) 4 (Often) 5 (Almost Always or Always)


7. My partner can get into fights with her/his friend.
1 (Almost Never or Never) 2 (Seldom) 3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


(Almost Always or Always)


My partner'


friend can bug or annoy my partner even though my partner asks her/him


not to.


(Almost Never or Never)


(Seldom)


3(Somctimes)


4 (Often)


(Almost Always or Always)








11. If my partner forgot her/his lunch or needed a little money,
loan it to her/him.


my partner's friend would


(Almost Never or Never)


2 (Seldom)


3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


(Almost Always or Always)


My partner's friend helps my partner when s/he is having trouble with something.


(Almost Never or Never)


(Seldom)


3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


(Almost Always or Always)


My partner'


friend would help my partner if s/he needed it.


(Almost Never or Never)


(Seldom)


3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


(Almost Always or Always)


14. If other kids were bothering my partner, my partner's friend would help her/him.


(Almost Never or Never)


(Seldom)


3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


(Almost Always or Always)


15. My partner's friend would stick up for my partner if another kid was causing her/him
trouble.


(Almost Never or Never)


(Seldom)


3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


5 (Almost Always or Always)


16. If my partner has a problem at school or at home, my partner can talk to her/his friend
about it.


(Almost Never or Never)


(Seldom)


3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


(Almost Always or Always)


17. If there is something bothering my partner, s/he can tell her/his friend about it even if
it is something s/he cannot tell to other people.


Almost Never or Never)


(Seldom)


3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


(Almost Always or Always)


18. If my partner said s/he was sorry after s/he had a fight with her/his friend, the friend
would still stay mad at my partner.


(Almost Never or Never)


(Seldom)


3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


(Almost Always


or Always)


19. If my partner or my partner'
them, they can make up easily.


(Almost Never or Never)


(Seldom)


friend does something that bothers the other one of


3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


(Almost Always or Always)


If my partner and my partner'


sorry


friend have a fight or argument, they can say 'I'm


' and everything will be all right.


(Almost Never or Never)


(Seldom)


3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


(Almost Always or Always)


If my partner'


friend had to move away, my partner would miss her/him.


(Almost Never or Never)


(Seldom)


3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


(Almost Always or Always)


My partner feels happy when s/he is with her/his friend.


(Almost Never or Never)


(Seldom)


3 (Sometimes)


4 (Often)


(Almost Always or Always)


Mv partner thinks about her/his friend even when the friend is not around.


.





42

25. Sometimes my partner's friend does things for her/him, or makes her/him feel special.
1 (Almost Never or Never) 2 (Seldom) 3 (Sometimes) 4 (Often) 5 (Almost Always or Always)














APPENDIX C
RELATIONSHIP ASSESSMENT SCALE

Please answer the following questions about your relationship with your romantic

26. How well does your partner meet your needs?
26. How well does your partner meet your needs?


1 (Very Poorly)


2 (Poorly)


3 (Neither Poorly nor Well)


4 (Well)


(Very Well)


In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?


1 (Very Dissatisfied)
Satisfied)


2 (Dissatisfied)


3 (Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied)


4 (Satisfied)


(Very


28. How good is your relationship compared to most?


I (Much Worse)


(Worse)


3 (About the Same)


4 (Better)


(Much Better)


29. How often do you wish you hadn't gotten into this relationship?


1 (Never)


(Rarely)


3 (Neutral)


4 (Sometimes)


5 (Frequently)


30. To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations?


1 (Did Not Meet Any of My Expectations)
4 (Met Most of My Expectations)


(Met Very Few of My Expectations)
(Definitely Met My Expectations)


3 (Neutral)


How much do you love your partner?


1 (Not At All)


(Not Very Much)


3 (Neutral)


4 (Very Much)


(Completely)


32.
1 (None)


How many problems are there in your relationship?


2 (Hardly Any)


3 (A Few)


4 (A Lot)


5 (Too Many to Count)













APPENDIX D
DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE

Most persons have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the
approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner for each
item on the following list.

1 = Always disagree
2 = Almost always disagree
3 = Frequently disagree
4 = Occasionally disagree
5 = Almost always agree
6 = Always agree

33. Handling family finances
34. Matters of recreation
35. Religious matters
36. Demonstrations of affection
37. Friends
38. Sex relations
39. Conventionality (correct or proper behavior)
40. Philosophy of life
41. Ways of dealing with parents or in-laws
42. Aims, goal, and things believed important
43. Amount of time spent together
44. Making major decisions
45. Household tasks
46. Leisure time interest and activities
47. Career decisions


1 =Never
2=Rarely
3=Occasionally
4=More often than not
5=Most of the time
6=All the time








50. In general, how often do you think that things between you and your partner are
going well?
51. Do you confide in your mate?


Do you ever regret that you married?


(or lived together)


How often do you and your partner quarrel?
How often do you and your mate "get on each other's nerves?"


55.
l=Never


Do you kiss your mate?


2=Rarely


3=Occasionally


4=Almost Every Day


5=Every Day


Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together?


l=None of them


2=Very few of them


3= Some of them


4=Most of them


5=All of them


How often would you say the following events ocacur between you and your mate?


l=Never


2=Less than once a month


3=Once or twice a month


4-Once a day


5=More often


57. Have a stimulating exchange of ideas
58. Laugh together
59. Calmly discuss something
60. Work together on a project

These are some things about which couples sometimes agree and sometimes disagree.
Indicate if either item below caused differences of opinions or problems in your
relationship during the past few weeks.

61. Being too tired for sex
1 = No 2 = Yes


Not showing love


= Yes


The numbers on the following


ine represent different degrees of happiness in


your relationship. The middle point,


"happy,


" represents the degree of happiness of most


relationships. Please bubble in the number that best describes the degree of happiness, all
things considered, of your relationship.


Extremely
Unhappy


Fairly
Unhappy


A little
Unhappy


Very
Happy


Extremely
Happy


Perfectly
Happy


64. Please bubble in the number of the following statements that best describes how
you feel about the future of your relationship.


I ,rnn .art4salt C"^ nrt lut ^nn h n r. unr-on&4 onAl urnnjms 1nn In -inet nu, fnnntL. taf lj-U^T U


rtr !r


raa


r













APPENDIX E
THE INTERPERSONAL JEALOUSY SCALE

In responding to each item place the name of your romantic partner in the blank
of each item. Then use the scale below to express your feelings concerning the truth of
the item. For example, if you feel that the item is "absolutely true" of you, bubble in a 9


on your bubble sheet for that item.
bubble sheet, etc.


If it is only "definitely true" bubble in an 8 on your


= absolutely true; agree completely
= definitely true
= true
= slightly true
= neither true nor false
= slightly false
= false
= definitely false
= absolutely false; disagree completely


120. If_______ were to see an old friend of the opposite sex and respond with a
great deal of happiness, I would be annoyed.

121. If_______ went out with same sex friends, I would feel compelled to know
what he/she did.


admired someone of the opposite sex I would feel irritated.


were to help someone of the opposite sex with their homework, I


would feel suspicious.


When


likes one of my friends I am pleased.


125. If__ were to go away for the weekend without me, my only concern
would be with whether he/she had a good time.


were helpful to someone of the opposite sex, I would feel jealous.








would be flattered.


were to become displeased about the time I spend with others, I


and I went to a party and I lost sight of him/her, I would become


uncomfortable.


I want


to remain good friends with the people he/she used to date.


were to date others I would feel unhappy.


132. When I notice that_
something in common, I am envious.


and a person of the opposite sex have


133. If were to become very close to someone of the opposite sex, I
would feel very unhappy and/or angry.


I would like


to be faithful to me.


I don't think it would bother me if


flirted with someone of the


opposite sex.


If someone of the opposite sex were to compliment


that the person was trying to take


I feel good when


, I would feel


__ away from me.

makes a new friend.


138. If_________ were to spend the night comforting a friend of the opposite sex
who had just had a tragic experience, _________'s compassion would please me.


139. If someone of the opposite sex were to pay attention to
become possessive of him/her.


I would


140. If were to become exuberant and hug someone of the opposite
it would make me feel good that he/she was expressing his/her feelings openly.


. The thought of


kissing someone else drives me up the wall.


If someone of the opposite sex lit up at the sight of


I would become


uneasy


I like to find fault with


old dates.








IfI saw picture of


and an old date I would feel unhappy.


were to accidentally call me by the wrong name, I would


become furious.













APPENDIX F
ADULT ATTACHMENT MEASURE


148.


0.


Which of the following best describes you? Please choose only one.


I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them
completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when
anyone gets too close, and often love partners want me to be more intimate than I
feel comfortable being (mark 0 on your bubble sheet if you choose this one).


I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that
my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to get
very close to my partner, and this desire sometimes scares people away (mark 1
on your bubble sheet if you choose this one).


2. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on
them. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too
close to me (mark 2 on your bubble sheet if you choose this one).


Please rate each of the following descriptions using the following scale:


Very much unlike me-


I am somewhat uncomfortable being
completely, difficult to allow myself
anyone gets too close, and often love
feel comfortable being.


-Very much like me


close to others; I find it difficult to trust them
to depend on them. I am nervous when
partners want me to be more intimate than I


I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that
my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to get
very close to my partner, and this desire sometimes scares neoole away.













APPENDIX G
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS

152. Are you in a committed romantic relationship at this time?
0-No
1-Yes

153. How long have you been with your partner?
0 0 to 3 months
1 4 to 6 months
2- 7 to 9 months
3 10 to 12 months
4 more than a year
5 Not currently in a committed romantic relationship

154. How would you characterize your romantic relationship with your current partner?
0. Opposite-sex romantic relationship
1. Same-sex romantic relationship


and your romantic partner live:
in the same city most of the time
not in the same city, but in the same county most of the time
not in the same county, but in the same state most of the time
not in the same state, but within 500 miles of each other
more than 500 miles apart


Your romantic partner and your romantic partner's best friend of the opposite sex


in the
not in
not in
not in
more


157.
your
your


same cit2
the same
the same
the same
than 500


y most of the time
city, but in the same county most of the time
county, but in the same state most of the time
state, but within 500 miles of each other
miles apart


When answering questions about the
romantic partner's best friend of the
answers are accurate?


friendship between your romantic partner and
opposite sex, how confident do you feel that







158. Has your romantic partner ever engaged in sexual activity with his or her opposite
sex best friend?


0. No
1. I'm not sure
2. Yes, while we were together
3. Yes, while we were not together


(Note: Items 65. 119. were used for a separate study.)












Table 1


Means, Standard Deviations, and Cell Sizes for each Attachment Style and


Friendship Quality Group along Two Measures of Romantic Relationship Satisfaction
Attach Friendship Mean Standard
Quality Deviation
Low 27.12 4.94 17
Avoidant High 25.29 4.43 17
Total 26.21 4.71 34

Low 27.75 3.73 16
Anxious
Ambivalent High 25.92 5.33 12
Ambivalent
Total 26.96 4.49 28
RAS
Low 29.75 3.44 68
Secure High 28.56 4.74 63
Total 29.18 4.15 131

Low 28.99 3.89 101
Total High 27.61 4.92 92
Total 28.33 4.46 193

Low 123.00 14.75 17
Avoidant High 122.18 15.12 17
Total 122.56 14.71 34

Low 126.38 13.19 16
Anxious
Ambivalent High 123.83 8.83 12
Ambivalent --------------
Total 125.29 11.40 28
DAS
Low 127.69 10.67 68
Secure High 127.73 10.92 63
Total 127.71 10.75 131

Low 126.69 11.84 101
Total High 126.18 11.67 92













Table 2: Correlations between Dependent and Independent Variables
Length FQS US RAS DAS Avoidant Anxious Secure


Length
FQS
US
RAS
DAS
Avoidant
Anxious
Secure


1.000
-.028
.052
.100
.023
-.126
-.058
.052


-.028
1.000
-.207**
.006
.021
-.122
.022
.106


.052
-.207**
1.000
-.079
-.101
.248**
.355**
-.224**


.100
.006
-.079
1.000
.546**
-.237**
-.151*
.238**


.023
.021
-.101
.546**
1.000
-.213**
-.082
.176*


-.126
-.122
.248**
-.237**
-.213**
1.000
.209**
-.552**


-.058
.022
.355**
-.151*
-.082
.209**
1.000
-.403**


.052
.106
-.224**
.238**
.176*
-.552**
-.403**
1.000


**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).














Table 3: Descriptive Data


Sex of
Participant


Ethnicity


Currently in a
committed
romantic
relationship


Male = 48


African American
=18


No=l 1


Female = 173


Asian = 15


Yes = 221


Caucasian =
149


Latino/a = 29


Other= 8


Length of 0 to 3 months = 4 to 6 months = 7 to 9 months = 10 to 12 months = More than ]
relationship 25 18 29 17 -= 130
Sexual Opposite sex
orientation of (heterosexual)= a/ei 1
relationship 221 (gay/Iesian)= 1
Location of
participant and elWithin 500 miles Mon than 5
romantic Same city = 148 Same county = 9 Same state = 41 Within 500 miles More than 5
romantic 10 miles= J
partner
Location of
romantic
Within 500 miles = More than 5
partner and Same city = 115 Same county = 23 Same state =41 With 500 miles Morethan
romantic 12 miles =3(
partner's friend___________ __
Participant's
aerceivd wNot at all Somewhat Very confident Extremely
auraicy when confident= 9 confident = 64 =98 confident= 51
rating
friendship________________
Sexual contact
between Yes, while we w
romantic No = 176 Not sure = 17 were together = Yes, while we were
partner and 3 not together = 24
friend












BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author obtained her undergraduate education in the major of psychology at

the University of Florida. She graduated with honors and received a Bachelor of Science


degree in May 1998.


In August 1998, she began her graduate training in the counseling


psychology doctoral program at the University of Florida. The author received the degree

Master of Science in December 2001 and will graduate with a Doctor of Philosophy

degree in counseling psychology in August 2004.








I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and


quality, as a dissertation for the degree of


of Philosophy.


Greg Neimeyer, Chair
Professor of Psychology

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and
quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


Kenneth'Rice
Associate Professor of Psychology

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and
quality, as a dissertation for the degree of D tor of Philosophy.

Cy/^1 L ,
kW .Keth Berg L7
Professor of Psychology

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to


acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate,
quality, as a dissertation for the degreefWDoctorof Philosophy.


in scope and


Associate Professor of Counselor Education

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of
Psychology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School
and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.

August 2004


-C~,c_


n

















397


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
II I N 11 1 llll I III I1 1 IIII ll llllllll
3 1262 08556 8268