The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Don’t Get Your Hopes Up: Avoidantly Attached Individuals Perceive Lower Social Reward When There Is Potential for Intimacy
Abstract
We examine whether lower expectations for social reward selectively applied to high intimacy contexts may help avoidantly attached individuals minimize distress from reward loss. Studies 1, 2, and 4 demonstrated that avoidant attachment was negatively associated with perceived intimacy potential in relationships involving approach of closeness (current/future partners), but not for relationships less associated with approach of closeness (ex-partners). Studies 3 and 5 manipulated the potential for intimacy among dating prospects. Avoidant attachment was negatively associated with romantic interest in high intimacy targets but not low intimacy targets. This effect was mediated by perceived responsiveness. Studies 4 and 5 rule out perceived dissimilarity to responsive targets as a mechanism. Study 6 demonstrated that avoidants’ lower expectations for connection are associated with less anticipated distress from reward loss. These results suggest that avoidant individuals may circumvent attachment system activation by perceiving lower opportunity for connection when there is potential for intimacy.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“secure individuals are comfortable with intimacy, avoidant individuals strive to minimise it and maintain distance, anxious individuals seek it excessively, and ambivalent individuals oscillate between desire and withdrawal (Bartholomew & Horowitz 1991;Feeney & Noller 1990;Spielmann et al. 2013).”
From Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions (2026) · cites this paper as Spielmann et al. 2013
In the citing paper
“secure individuals are comfortable with intimacy, avoidant individuals strive to minimise it and maintain distance, anxious individuals seek it excessively, and ambivalent individuals oscillate between desire and withdrawal (Bartholomew & Horowitz 1991;Feeney & Noller 1990;Spielmann et al. 2013).”
From Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions (2026) · cites this paper as Spielmann et al. 2013
In the citing paper
“Avoidant users, who typically down-regulate intimacy (Spielmann et al. 2013), seem to deepen artificial intimacy when relationships appear controllable and safe.”
From Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions (2026) · cites this paper as Spielmann et al. 2013
In the citing paper
“Avoidantly attached individuals typically down-regulate intimacy in human relationships (Spielmann et al. 2013), yet the reduced risk structure of human-AI interaction may render artificial partners more acceptable.”
From Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions (2026) · cites this paper as Spielmann et al. 2013
In the citing paper
“secure individuals are comfortable with intimacy, avoidant individuals strive to minimise it and maintain distance, anxious individuals seek it excessively, and ambivalent individuals oscillate between desire and withdrawal (Bartholomew & Horowitz 1991;Feeney & Noller 1990;Spielmann et al. 2013).”
From Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions (2026) · cites this paper as Spielmann et al. 2013
In the citing paper
“secure individuals are comfortable with intimacy, avoidant individuals strive to minimise it and maintain distance, anxious individuals seek it excessively, and ambivalent individuals oscillate between desire and withdrawal (Bartholomew & Horowitz 1991;Feeney & Noller 1990;Spielmann et al. 2013).”
From Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions (2026) · cites this paper as Spielmann et al. 2013
Citations
Cites
Gray, J. A. (1982) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00013066 · Cited by 4,477 · cited 1×
“Such unrealized expectations of reward are experienced as aversive and punishing (Gray & McNaughton, 2000).”
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. (1970) · Child Development · doi:10.2307/1127388 · Cited by 1,764
Why Does Social Exclusion Hurt? The Relationship Between Social and Physical Pain.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202 · Cited by 1,712
Self-citationJudd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0028347 · Cited by 1,236
Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238 · Cited by 1,064
Sex Differences in Romantic Attachment: A Meta-Analysis
Del Giudice, M. (2011) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167210392789 · Cited by 441
Avoiding Interference: Adult Attachment and Emotional Processing Biases
Edelstein, R. S., & Gillath, O. (2008) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167207310024 · Cited by 169
Optimism about Love Relationships: General vs Specific Lessons from One's Personal Experiences
Carnelley, K. B., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992) · Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · doi:10.1177/0265407592091001 · Cited by 139
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- 10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.377 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01211.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0272-7358(00)00062-3 · DOI
- Bowlby J., 1969, Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment
- 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00064-7 · DOI
- 10.1177/0146167205285451 · DOI
- Feeney J. A., 1994, Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives, 128
- 10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.1080 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350 · DOI · Paper page
- Irwin M., 2007, The life of Thomas Hardy
- 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00680.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.019 · DOI
- 10.1037/12351-006 · DOI
- MacDonald G., 2012, Curb your enthusiasm: Attachment avoidance predicts low expectations of social reward
- 10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.509 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.940 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.881 · DOI
- Mikulincer M., 2007, Attachment in adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change
- 10.1037/a0017366 · DOI
- 10.1177/0265407508096700 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852 · DOI
- Papini M. R., 2006, International Journal of Psychology and Physiological Therapy, 6, 182
- 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/01461672982412004 · DOI
- Reis H. T., 2004, Handbook of closeness and intimacy, 201
- 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01377.x · DOI
- 10.1177/0146167209341580 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.729 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.10.001 · DOI
- 10.1177/1094428108327450 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions
Ciriello, R., Gal, U., & Turel, O. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12476 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Spielmann, S. S., Maxwell, J. A., MacDonald, G., & Baratta, P. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Venue
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-02
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 219-236
- ISSN
- 0146-1672
- 1552-7433
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 8
- Language
- en
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
