Attachment and emotion regulation: A person‐centred examination and relations with coping with rejection, friendship closeness, and emotional adjustment
Abstract
Guided by attachment theory of emotion regulation (ER), the current study utilized a person‐centred approach to identify clusters of individuals that differed in their attachment representations and ER, and further examined individual differences in socio‐emotional functioning based on these profiles. Participants included 658 emerging adults ( M = 19.9 , SD = 2.7, 65.5% female) who completed surveys measuring responses to rejection, friendship closeness, and emotional maladjustment. Five clusters were identified: secure regulated (19%), disorganized unregulated (21%), anxious unregulated (16%), emotive (21%), and avoidant suppressor (22%). Each group displayed unique patterns, with the secure regulated group reporting significantly less withdrawal, retribution, rumination, and emotional maladjustment, and the disorganized unregulated group reporting the poorest functioning across all indicators. Significant cluster × sex effects were also found for friendship closeness. These findings suggest the importance of considering attachment and ER, and implications for attachment theory and development are discussed. Statement of contribution: What is already known on this subject? Insecure attachment representations are a significant risk factor for poorer outcomes across development. Hyperactivating and deactivating strategies are maladaptive responses to coping with emotional threat. These strategies are an extension of the internal working model and positive correlates of poorer functioning. What does this study add? Previous studies have over‐relied on variable‐centred approaches to replicate findings of attachment theory. A person‐centred approach allowing for the joint consideration of patterns of both attachment and ER strategies. The identification of five novel profiles revealing unique differences in three important domains of functioning.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
When disorganized attachment persists into adulthood, emotion dysregulation consistent with cPTSD (e.g., withdrawal, rumination, inability to self-calm) and with BPD (e.g., desire for retribution, instability, hostility) is more severe than for adults with secure, anxious, or avoidant attachment working models.
“When disorganized attachment persists into adulthood, emotion dysregulation consistent with cPTSD (e.g., withdrawal, rumination, inability to self-calm) and with BPD (e.g., desire for retribution, instability, hostility) has been shown to be more severe than for adults with secure, anxious, or avoidant attachment working models [53].”
From Complex PTSD and borderline personality disorder (2021) · cites this paper as [53]
Cites
Bonanno, G. A., Papa, A., Lalande, K., Westphal, M., & Coifman, K. (2004) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00705.x · Cited by 969 · see citing works
Attachment orientations and emotion regulation
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2019) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.006 · Cited by 759 · see citing works
Wilkinson, R. B. (2011) · Journal of Relationships Research · doi:10.1375/jrr.2.1.53 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Complex PTSD and borderline personality disorder
Ford, J. D., & Courtois, C. A. (2021) · Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation · doi:10.1186/s40479-021-00155-9 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
“, desire for retribution, instability, hostility) has been shown to be more severe than for adults with secure, anxious, or avoidant attachment working models [53].”
BackgroundSousa-Gomes, V., Lemos, L., Moreira, D., Ribeiro, F. N., & Fávero, M. (2023) · Sexuality Research and Social Policy · doi:10.1007/s13178-022-00708-9 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gardner, A. A., Zimmer‐Gembeck, M. J., & Campbell, S. M.
- Affiliations
- Griffith University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Gardner, Alex A.
- Venue
- British Journal of Developmental Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-11-19
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 125-143
- ISSN
- 0261-510X (ISSN-L)
- 2044-835X
- OpenAlex
- W2990641092
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 2.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- attachment representations, emotion regulation, coping with rejection, friendship closeness, emotional maladjustment, emerging adults, disorganized attachment, rumination, internal working models, sex differences, person-centred analysis
- MeSH terms
- Emotional Adjustment, Emotional Regulation, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Object Attachment, Rejection, Psychology, Friends, 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