Cited by 152Attachment and Relationship DynamicsMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Buffering attachment-related avoidance: Softening emotional and behavioral defenses during conflict discussions.

Overall, Nickola C., Simpson, Jeffry A., Struthers, Helena·2013·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

This study examined whether partners can soften the defenses associated with attachment-related avoidance. Heterosexual couples (N = 180) were video-recorded having 2 discussions in which 1 partner (the agent of influence) wanted the other partner (the target of influence) to change in some way. After rating how successful the discussion was in producing change, agents and targets reviewed their discussions. At the end of every 30 s of the interaction, they reported how angry they were during that portion of the discussion. For each 30-s interval, objective coders rated the extent to which targets of influence exhibited withdrawal and agents of influence (partners) softened their influence by being sensitive to targets' autonomy needs and by conveying that targets were valued. As predicted, avoidant targets showed greater anger and withdrawal when they were the target of their partner's influence, and these defensive reactions were associated with less successful discussions. However, analyzing within-person changes in emotions and behavior across the discussion revealed that avoidant targets' anger and withdrawal were attenuated at points during the discussion when their partners exhibited higher levels of softening communication. Between-person analyses comparing average levels of anger and partner softening across dyads also revealed that avoidant targets whose partners engaged in more softening experienced less anger and, in turn, couples' discussions were more successful. These results highlight the importance of dyadic processes in understanding the impact of attachment insecurity on relationships, and indicate that partners can buffer avoidant defenses by down-regulating anger and circumventing withdrawal during conflict discussions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0031798

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Overall, N. C., Simpson, J. A., & Struthers, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2013-05
Volume
104
Issue
5
Pages
854-871
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2097228611
Cited by
152
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3
FWCI
15.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Royal Society of New Zealand (UOA0811)
  • University of Auckland (3626244)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Marriage and Sexual Relationships
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Keywords
attachment avoidance, insecure attachment, conflict discussions, anger, withdrawal, defensive behavior, need for autonomy, partner influence, couple relationships, dyadic processes
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anger, Communication, Conflict, Psychological, Defense Mechanisms, Emotions, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Marriage, Middle Aged, Object Attachment, Personal Autonomy, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review