《社会心理学》课程教学资源（文献资料）Close relationship——Partner Buffering of Attachment Insecurity

as SYCH Partner Buffering of Attachment Insecurity ts and Jeffry A.Simpson'and Nickola C.Overall2 niversity of Minnesota,and "University of Auckland SAGE Abstract t are less happy and mor me quali which uctively and impm ves the relationship.Understanding this important interpersonal proce s works requires a dyad-centered approach.The present research describes core ng,wncn exp l strate ways in which n can successfully buffer the insecure reactions of anxious and ay nt individualsar reviewed.and other traits and social contexts to which our model can be applied are also discussed. partner regulation,conflict,attachment theory,attachment insecurity Matthew and Helen have a long-standing romantic rela- studies of couples engaged in conflict discussions that tionship.Because of ba ers. The wo tionships act out ially when hea agreements and Matthew believes the relationship could Attachment Insecurity and be threater ned.Helen,however,has learned to give Relationship Functioning Matt e he ne According to attachment theory (Bowlby,1969,1973). more se out the tim humans evolved to form strong emotional bonds with Helen's actions have helped Matthew feel better about nent nigure because doing sc himself and the relationship,and the two are now hap bonds operate in children and adults,especially wher pie ntal interpe individuals feel threatened,distressed,or challenged (Bowlby,1969:Simpson Rholes,2012).Depending on w they have be als develop different ways of viewing and relating to thei Instead. most rchers current attachment figures,known as attachment orienta- cts his tions.Securely attached people have received good car e p (Heler and allay Matthew ecurity and help etter.In reseade of in ment of Psychole rity buffering and then describe behavioral observation u201

Current Directions in Psychological Science 2014, Vol. 23(1) 54–59 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0963721413510933 cdps.sagepub.com Matthew and Helen have a long-standing romantic rela￾tionship. Because of bad experiences with prior partners, Matthew worries that Helen does not completely love him. These chronic worries make Matthew occasionally “act out,” especially when he and Helen have major dis￾agreements and Matthew believes the relationship could be threatened. Helen, however, has learned to give Matthew the reassurance he needs to control his emo￾tions, feel more secure about the relationship, and behave more constructively when conflicts arise. Over time, Helen’s actions have helped Matthew feel better about himself and the relationship, and the two are now hap￾pier than ever. This fundamental interpersonal process, called part￾ner buffering, occurs every day in relationships. One might assume that partner buffering has been widely studied and is well understood, but neither is the case. Instead, most researchers have adopted an individual￾centered viewpoint to examine how Matthew’s insecurity affects his relationship functioning. A complete under￾standing of partner buffering, however, requires a dyad￾centered approach to determine what Matthew’s partner (Helen) does to allay Matthew’s insecurity and help him to feel and behave better. In the research presented here, we introduce a dyadic regulation model of insecu￾rity buffering and then describe behavioral observation studies of couples engaged in conflict discussions that illustrate ways in which partners can buffer two types of insecurity in relationships. Attachment Insecurity and Relationship Functioning According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973), humans evolved to form strong emotional bonds with their caregivers (attachment figures) because doing so increased the probability of survival. These attachment bonds operate in children and adults, especially when individuals feel threatened, distressed, or challenged (Bowlby, 1969; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). Depending on how they have been treated by prior attachment figures (e.g., parents, close friends, romantic partners), individu￾als develop different ways of viewing and relating to their current attachment figures, known as attachment orienta￾tions. Securely attached people have received good care and support from prior attachment figures, which leads them to have positive views of themselves and others 510933 CDPXXX10.1177/0963721413510933Simpson, OverallPartner Buffering of Attachment Insecurity research-article2014 Corresponding Author: Jeffry A. Simpson, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, S354 Elliott Hall, 75 E. River Rd., Minneapolis, MN 55455 E-mail: simps108@umn.edu Partner Buffering of Attachment Insecurity Jeffry A. Simpson1 and Nickola C. Overall2 1 University of Minnesota, and 2 University of Auckland Abstract Compared with securely attached people, insecurely attached people have romantic relationships that are less happy and more unstable, but the quality of their relationships should depend on how their partners regulate them. Some partners find ways to buffer (emotionally and behaviorally regulate) insecurely attached individuals, which helps such individuals feel better and behave more constructively and improves the relationship. Understanding when and how this important interpersonal process works requires a dyad-centered approach. The present research describes core tenets of attachment theory and the two forms of attachment insecurity (anxiety and avoidance) and presents our dyadic regulation model of insecurity buffering, which explains how and why certain types of buffering behaviors soothe the worries and improve the relationship perceptions and behaviors of anxious or avoidant people. Studies that illustrate ways in which partners can successfully buffer the insecure reactions of anxious and avoidant individuals are reviewed, and other traits and social contexts to which our model can be applied are also discussed. Keywords partner regulation, conflict, attachment theory, attachment insecurity Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com by Cai Xing on February 9, 2014

Partner Buffering of Attacbment Insecurity 55 and motivates them to turn to their attachment figures for Simpson,2013).As the top left of Figure 1 shows stressful/threatening events activate the prototypic con remove the sou distress cems of insecurely attached people(targets).The nondis pec partners (Mikulincer Shaver,2007). and console him or her.Buffering behaviors can be There are two primary types of insecurity.Anxiously enacted deliberately (consciously and intentionally)or attached people,who have r automatically (non offering e the them (Mikulincer Shaver.2003).Conse quently anxious wishes/needs.using "softerinfluence tactics when trying to persuade the target during conflicts,and providing the right type of support the target needs to regulate his or an vior in rel- ssful when the conflicts (Simpson.Rholes.Phillips.1996)or when partners do not provide sufficient support (Collins associated with the target's attachment orientation This"hypervigilant"form of coping allow hich or and ga attention c em they are love port attempting to fulfill their wishes and nceds or and dissatisfaction in their partners (Downey,Freitas, assuaging their relationship-relevant concerns.Avoidantly Michaelis,&Khouri.19) should benefit more rlic people.who permi them to maint ain th when trying to change their traits or opinions and provid- learn to suppress their needs for closeness and intimacy ing instrumental forms of support designed to "fix"the andeonmcteidrnndeendentndsciria When problem and meet their needs while allowing them to eir pan e园 and become t'sbrol and re anstrean inclined to seek or nin (Simpson,Rholes,Nelligan,1992).This strategy allows omy an dence so can enave more const dle the e20023 and beha Both types of insecurity destabilize relationships by iors occurs repeatedly.targets should come to view them selves mor positively and report greater overal positive experienc satisfaction,and agent heir better 007)Ho 11 Lemay and Dudley (2011)suggested that the partners of Returning to Matthew and Helen,if Matthew (who is insecure individuals can regulate those individuals'inse- hip.The folle des e nent tha and Helen are having. may directl th nd why recounting avoidant individuals in relationship-threatening contexts. fastly committed to their relationship This buffering attempt should make Matthew feel more secure in the The Dvadic Regulation Model of on,which sh uld help him feel better,cont h Insecurity Buffering latile more p Our research has been guided by the dyadic regulation model of insecurity buffering(see Fig.1 for a schematic negative thoughts and feelings whenever he feels threat- .201

Partner Buffering of Attachment Insecurity 55 and motivates them to turn to their attachment figures for comfort and support to reduce negative affect and remove the source of distress. This collaborative, “prob￾lem-focused” style of coping helps securely attached people build further closeness and intimacy with their partners (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). There are two primary types of insecurity. Anxiously attached people, who have received mixed or inconsis￾tent care/support earlier in life, crave acceptance and closeness yet worry that their partners might hurt or leave them (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Consequently, anxious individuals are vigilant to signs of both their partner’s love and their partner’s possible rejection, which gener￾ates strong distress and dysfunctional behavior in rela￾tionship-threatening situations, such as major relationship conflicts (Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996) or when partners do not provide sufficient support (Collins & Feeney, 2000). This “hypervigilant” form of coping allows anxious individuals to monitor and gain the attention of their partners, which makes them feel less insecure. Unfortunately, these responses typically produce anger and dissatisfaction in their partners (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998). Avoidantly attached people, who have been rejected or dismissed by earlier attachment figures, believe they cannot trust and depend on others. Accordingly, they learn to suppress their needs for closeness and intimacy and become rigidly independent and self-reliant. When stressed, avoidant individuals withdraw from their part￾ners emotionally (Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 1997) and become less inclined to seek or give support (Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992). This “distancing” strategy allows avoidant people to maintain sufficient autonomy and independence so they can regulate their emotions and handle the source of distress on their own (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Both types of insecurity destabilize relationships by lowering satisfaction, aggravating relationship problems, and curtailing the positive experiences that could be gained from having happier partners and better function￾ing relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). However, Lemay and Dudley (2011) suggested that the partners of insecure individuals can regulate those individuals’ inse￾curity to protect the relationship. The following describes how we have conceptualized and studied, with a focus on conflict, the ways partners can buffer anxious and avoidant individuals in relationship-threatening contexts. The Dyadic Regulation Model of Insecurity Buffering Our research has been guided by the dyadic regulation model of insecurity buffering (see Fig. 1 for a schematic illustration), which considers how couples behave during attachment-relevant dyadic interactions (see also Overall & Simpson, 2013). As the top left of Figure 1 shows, stressful/threatening events activate the prototypic con￾cerns of insecurely attached people (targets). The nondis￾tressed partner (agent), however, may enact buffering behaviors to reduce (downregulate) the target’s distress and console him or her. Buffering behaviors can be enacted deliberately (consciously and intentionally) or automatically (nonconsciously or unintentionally) by agents and may include offering reassurance of contin￾ued love and support, accommodating the target’s wishes/needs, using “softer” influence tactics when trying to persuade the target during conflicts, and providing the right type of support the target needs to regulate his or her emotions more constructively. Buffering ought to be successful when the agent’s behavior is responsive to the particular concerns/needs associated with the target’s attachment orientation. Anxiously attached targets should benefit most from buff￾ering behaviors that reassure them they are loved and supported, such as providing sufficient emotional sup￾port, attempting to fulfill their wishes and needs, or assuaging their relationship-relevant concerns. Avoidantly attached targets should benefit more from buffering behaviors that permit them to maintain their autonomy and independence, such as using softer influence tactics when trying to change their traits or opinions and provid￾ing instrumental forms of support designed to “fix” the problem and meet their needs while allowing them to retain personal control and remain self-reliant. If the agent’s buffering works, insecure targets should report greater felt security during stressful/threatening interactions. This increase in felt security, in turn, should lead them to feel less distressed, manage their emotions better, and behave more constructively (see the middle of Fig. 1). If this pattern of stress/threat→responsive partner buffering→positive relationship perceptions and behav￾iors occurs repeatedly, targets should come to view them￾selves more positively and report greater overall relationship satisfaction, and agents should experience better relationship outcomes with their better adjusted insecure partners (see the right of Fig. 1). Returning to Matthew and Helen, if Matthew (who is anxiously attached) feels threatened by a major disagree￾ment that he and Helen are having, Helen may directly reassure Matthew of her unwavering love, recounting all of his wonderful traits and why she remains so stead￾fastly committed to their relationship. This buffering attempt should make Matthew feel more secure in the discussion, which should help him feel better, control his volatile emotions, and act more positively toward Helen. If this cycle continually reoccurs, Matthew should begin to automatically associate Helen with the dissipation of negative thoughts and feelings whenever he feels threat￾ened, thereby strengthening the emotional bond between them (especially for Matthew; see Simpson, 2007). Over Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com by Cai Xing on February 9, 2014

56 Simpson,Overall Triggering Event IMMEDIATE OUTCOMES LONGER-TERM OUTCOMES Target's Immediate Target's Self-Perception himself or herself more postively reactions of Partner A(target) greater felt securiy Target's Relationship Target's Immediate Pariner A (target)evaluates PartnerA(ar the relationship more positively Agent's Relationship erceptions atic illustration of the dvadic re ation model of in n this s can beh n al d to other f of in sitivity,lo working to solve the problem).Anxious indi prove more neganve emonons and the partners of anxious individuals displayed more Behavioral Dyadic Studies accommodative behaviors if they themselves were more committed to the relationship.and these actions led servation stud report more acceptance and pos the immediate benefits of partner buffering were ening context should activate the insecurities of both observed:Stronger partner commitment and more behav anxiously attached and avoidantly attached people ioral accor lation by the partner allayed the fears and the thre t-Dased rea ons of anxious individu Buffering anxiety during conflict structive emotions and behaviors (see the middle of In some of our research,we have investigated how part Fig.1). displayed by ansiously attache als.For exam Buffering avoidance during conflict ortant habits they wanted to change in each We have also investigated the behaviors that buffer avoid other,which elicits fears of rejection in anxious people antly attached individuals.In another study,we video (Tran Simpson,2009).We measured each partner's taped romantic couples discussing relationship problems emotional reactions and then ntined by one partner (the agent)whe etaliate inst the a to maintain the relationship by calming the partner and targeted for change should be particularly threatening for 9.2014

56 Simpson, Overall time, Matthew should begin to view himself as a valued partner, he should trust Helen more, and their relation￾ship should improve. Behavioral Dyadic Studies We have conducted several behavioral observation stud￾ies with romantic couples to test components of our model. We have focused on conflict because this threat￾ening context should activate the insecurities of both anxiously attached and avoidantly attached people. Buffering anxiety during conflict In some of our research, we have investigated how part￾ners buffer the destructive reactions to conflict commonly displayed by anxiously attached individuals. For exam￾ple, in one study, we videotaped married couples dis￾cussing important habits they wanted to change in each other, which elicits fears of rejection in anxious people (Tran & Simpson, 2009). We measured each partner’s emotional reactions and then had trained raters code each partner’s accommodation behaviors (e.g., inhibiting the urge to hurt or retaliate against the partner, trying to maintain the relationship by calming the partner and working to solve the problem). Anxious individuals felt more negative emotions and displayed less behaviorally rated accommodation during the discussions. However, the partners of anxious individuals displayed more accommodative behaviors if they themselves were more committed to the relationship, and these actions led anxious individuals to report more acceptance and posi￾tive emotions during their discussions. In other words, the immediate benefits of partner buffering were observed: Stronger partner commitment and more behav￾ioral accommodation by the partner allayed the fears and improved the threat-based reactions of anxious individu￾als, thereby producing greater felt security and more con￾structive emotions and behaviors (see the middle of Fig. 1). Buffering avoidance during conflict We have also investigated the behaviors that buffer avoid￾antly attached individuals. In another study, we video￾taped romantic couples discussing relationship problems identified by one partner (the agent) who wanted changes in the other partner (the target; Overall, Simpson, & Struthers, 2013). Given their need for autonomy, being targeted for change should be particularly threatening for Partner Buffering Partner B (agent) tries to downregulate insecure reactions of Partner A (target) Examples of Partner Buffering Behaviors Accommodation Softening Influence Responsive Support Conflict Recovery Target’s Relationship Perceptions Partner A (target) evaluates the relationship more positively Target’s Self-Perceptions Partner A (target) evaluates himself or herself more positively Agent’s Relationship Perceptions Partner B (agent) evaluates the relationship more positively IMMEDIATE OUTCOMES LONGER-TERM OUTCOMES Target’s Immediate Perceptions Partner A (target) feels greater felt security Target’s Immediate Behavior Partner A (target) regulates his or her own emotions and behaviors more constructively Triggering Event Stress or threat activates Partner A’s (target) insecurities Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the dyadic regulation model of insecurity buffering. The examples in this model focus on the ways in which partners can downregulate insecure reactions associated with attachment anxiety and avoidance during attachment-relevant behavioral interactions. The model can also be applied to other forms of insecurity (e.g., neuroticism, rejection sensitivity, low self￾esteem), but the specific type of partner-buffering behavior must be responsive to the needs and motives of the target’s form of insecurity (see Lemay & Dudley, 2011, for a different example of how partners can regulate chronic relationship insecurities on a daily basis). Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com by Cai Xing on February 9, 2014

Partner Buffering of Attacbment Insecurity 57 avoidant people.As predicted.avoidant targets felt cool-down task.However,when their partners displaved greater anger and displayed more coder-rated withdrawal better conflict recovery,insecure individuals felt much more positive about th e relationship,and these couple year which involved being sensitive to the target's autono duced more beneficial longer-ter outcomes including needs,validating his or her viewpoint,and acknowledg- stronger relationship stability across time. ing his or her constructive efforts and good qualities Conclusions,Caveats,and Applications cussions were more successful. Simpson,Winterheld,Rholes,and Orina (2007)had ched par to resolve their most important relationship problem.At reasons.However.partner buffering should also occur in peak distress points during each discussion(the triggering other situations,such as when insecure targets need sup i).the ohc()the port.When partners (agents)provide more dpartner (the agent) nd (b)the port,anxi nsh her partner's caregiving attempts.Securely attached indi- ple prefer to manage stress by themselves,more indirect viduals were rated as more calmed when their partners ess emotio ally foc ge them e(e.g.,er of threatening interactions.Lemay and Dudley (2011 because they manage stress by suppressing their emotions found that partners exaggerate their affection when ther ure,which makes anxiou in avo pted ar secure.More frequen calmed when their partners delive （agns which buffers insecu imbued and more instrumental caregiving (e.g,giving individuals (targets)from relationship dissatisfaction cittle concrete advice/suggestions for how to solve the problem McNulty,Russell,2010). discussing the pro em in an intel tual/rational manner he other s udies des ing hehavio smust be tailored to th inse nle hir who cemns.and defenses of insecure targets curity. Certain components of our model need to be Buffering insecurity after conflict more fully,and ehaviors no Finally we have examined what individuals do to buffer nt i ry.our mode their insecure partners in the aftermath of conflict discus can also be applied to other forms of insecurity (e.g. sions.In a longitudinal study by Salvatore,Kuo,Steele, neuroticism,rejection sensitivity,low self-esteem)known to produ -regulation ditficul (rated in th.sowe s ad ch Situati )fo in these individuals.Immediately aftera videotaped discus well and directly they address the underlving motives sion of a major relationship problem,each couple did a and reasons for a target's regulation difficulties.However. "cool-down"discussion task during which they talked of buffering behaviors uickhe aspect of p.W b:eco buffering "recovered"from the prior conflict discussion.In e thereby failing to quell their distress (Lemay Clark attached individuals (rated as insecure as children 20 2008).When buffering attempts repeatedly fail,agents years earlier)had more trouble recovering and were more likely to reengage" the conflict during the

Partner Buffering of Attachment Insecurity 57 avoidant people. As predicted, avoidant targets felt greater anger and displayed more coder-rated withdrawal during these discussions, which resulted in less success￾ful problem resolution. Some partners, however, buffered avoidant defenses by softening their influence attempts, which involved being sensitive to the target’s autonomy needs, validating his or her viewpoint, and acknowledg￾ing his or her constructive efforts and good qualities. Avoidant targets whose partners displayed more soften￾ing exhibited less anger and withdrawal, and their dis￾cussions were more successful. Simpson, Winterheld, Rholes, and Oriña (2007) had romantic partners complete the Adult Attachment Inter￾view, which assesses attachment orientations to one’s par￾ents. One week later, each couple was videotaped trying to resolve their most important relationship problem. At peak distress points during each discussion (the triggering event in Fig. 1), coders rated the extent to which (a) the less distressed partner (the agent) displayed emotional, instrumental, or physical caregiving behaviors; and (b) the more distressed partner (the target) was calmed by his or her partner’s caregiving attempts. Securely attached indi￾viduals were rated as more calmed when their partners gave them more emotional care (e.g., encouraging them to talk about their emotions/experiences with the problem, conveying unequivocal emotional support). However, because they manage stress by suppressing their emotions and limiting emotional closeness with partners, emotional caregiving should exacerbate distress in avoidant individu￾als. Accordingly, avoidant individuals were rated as more calmed when their partners delivered less emotionally imbued and more instrumental caregiving (e.g., giving concrete advice/suggestions for how to solve the problem, discussing the problem in an intellectual/rational manner). These findings confirm that, to be effective, partner-buffer￾ing behaviors must be tailored to the specific needs, con￾cerns, and defenses of insecure targets. Buffering insecurity after conflict Finally, we have examined what individuals do to buffer their insecure partners in the aftermath of conflict discus￾sions. In a longitudinal study by Salvatore, Kuo, Steele, Simpson, and Collins (2011), one partner in each couple had been studied since birth, so we had childhood attach￾ment scores (rated in Ainsworth’s Strange Situation) for these individuals. Immediately after a videotaped discus￾sion of a major relationship problem, each couple did a “cool-down” discussion task during which they talked about the most positive aspect of their relationship. We assessed how quickly and completely each partner “recovered” from the prior conflict discussion. Insecurely attached individuals (rated as insecure as children 20 years earlier) had more trouble recovering and were more likely to “reengage” the conflict during the cool-down task. However, when their partners displayed better conflict recovery, insecure individuals felt much more positive about the relationship, and these couples were more likely to still be dating 2 years later. Thus, as depicted on the right of Figure 1, partner buffering pro￾duced more beneficial longer-term outcomes, including stronger relationship stability across time. Conclusions, Caveats, and Applications These studies of romantic couples engaged in conflict highlight the critical role that partner buffering plays in protecting relationships that have insecurely attached part￾ners. We have focused on conflict because it is threatening to both anxious and avoidant people, albeit for different reasons. However, partner buffering should also occur in other situations, such as when insecure targets need sup￾port. When partners (agents) provide more visible/direct support, anxious people tend to be happier and more optimistic about their relationships (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005). Conversely, because avoidant peo￾ple prefer to manage stress by themselves, more indirect, less emotionally focused forms of support are required to circumvent their avoidant defenses (Simpson et al., 2007). Buffering behaviors are also important outside the context of threatening interactions. Lemay and Dudley (2011) found that partners exaggerate their affection when they perceive that targets feel insecure, which makes anxious individuals feel more accepted and secure. More frequent or satisfying sex can also improve the perceived emotional availability of partners (agents), which buffers insecure individuals (targets) from relationship dissatisfaction (Little, McNulty, & Russell, 2010). Our research and the other studies described herein show that attachment insecurity does not spell doom for insecure people or their relationships; partners who enact appropriate behaviors can—and do—buffer inse￾curity. Certain components of our model need to be tested more fully, and additional partner behaviors not depicted in our model might also buffer insecurity. Although we focused on attachment insecurity, our model can also be applied to other forms of insecurity (e.g., neuroticism, rejection sensitivity, low self-esteem) known to produce emotion- and behavior-regulation difficulties in stressful or threatening situations. Partner-buffering behaviors will differ in effectiveness depending on how well and directly they address the underlying motives and reasons for a target’s regulation difficulties. However, even the “right kind” of buffering behaviors must be delivered skillfully; exaggerated or prolonged buffering attempts could be perceived as insincere by insecure tar￾gets, thereby failing to quell their distress (Lemay & Clark, 2008). When buffering attempts repeatedly fail, agents may burn out and stop trying to console insecure targets, which amplifies agents’ dissatisfaction (Lemay & Dudley, Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com by Cai Xing on February 9, 2014

58 Simpson,Overall 2011).But when partner buffering successfully counter. References acts the es and defense paner buffering may yield greater secunpriman Bowlby.I.(1969).Attacbment and loss.Vol.1:Attacbment York,NY "agent of change"in making people more secure. York.NY:Basic Books. In conclusion,partner buffering is an important and Campbell.L Simpson.J.A.Boldry.J&Kashy,D.A.(2005) understudied dyad process tha deserves more atten ships:The role of attachment anxicty. with attachment insecurity in relationship-threatening 0a6es510-531.dot101057/o02351 contexts and lead to better long-term outcomes for both Collins,N.L Feeney,B.C.(2000).A safe haven:An attach that this to id nd heln therapists to stabilize and improve relationships that have I Michaelis.B.. Khouri H insecure partners. Recommended Reading do:10.1 37/002 romantic relationships (2013).(se on0l8g702ealPchakg95420-4n Referen Lemay,E.P.Jr.Dudley.K.L(2011).Caution:Fragilet Salvatore.E Kuo S.1.Steele,R.D..Simp A.& 100.681-702.d0t10.1037/a0021653 ,w.A.(2011 nce Based o Little.K.C..MeNulty.J.K..Russe M.(2010).Sex buffers Simpson,J.A..Winterheld,H.A..Rholes,W.5.&Orina Mikul ioral system in adulthood:Activation, tional and ences).An empi cal example c 5.In M be used to reduce distress in anxiously and avoidantly Tran. York.NY:Academic Press.doi:0101/s0065 C2000)(see References).An e Overall.N.C..Si I.A.(2013).Regulation Author Contributions close re ips..Simpson Jeffry A.Simpson and Nickola C.Overall both ontributed to evelopment of the ideas and ofll pats Overall.N.C..Simpson.J.A..Strutl s.H.(2013).Buffering Declaration of Conflicting Interests Social Psycbology.104.854-871 The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article. Pietromonaco,P.R.Feldman Barrett,L F.(1997).Working Funding 1010.10370022.3514736.140 This research was supported by grants from the National 36oti0176961090 logical Science,22, (UOA0811)to N.C.Overall. u2014

58 Simpson, Overall 2011). But when partner buffering successfully counter￾acts the worries and defenses of insecure people, persis￾tent partner buffering may yield greater security across time. Partner buffering, therefore, may be a primary “agent of change” in making people more secure. In conclusion, partner buffering is an important and understudied dyadic process that deserves more atten￾tion. Current studies have revealed how appropriate part￾ner buffering can assuage negative reactions associated with attachment insecurity in relationship-threatening contexts and lead to better long-term outcomes for both insecure people and their partners. We hope that this framework will motivate researchers to identify dyadic processes that buffer other forms of insecurity and help therapists to stabilize and improve relationships that have insecure partners. Recommended Reading Overall, N. C., & Simpson, J. A. (2013). (See References). A gen￾eral, comprehensive overview of the operation of partner￾regulation processes in romantic relationships. Overall, N. C., Simpson, J. A., & Struthers, H. (2013). (See References). An empirical example of how the use of “soft” influence tactics can buffer and regulate avoidantly attached partners. Salvatore, J. E., Kuo, S. I., Steele, R. D., Simpson, J. A., & Collins, W. A. (2011). (See References). Based on data from the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation, an empirical example of how individuals can facilitate faster emotional recovery from conflict in their insecurely attached partners. Simpson, J. A., Winterheld, H. A., Rholes, W. S., & Oriña, M. M. (2007). (See References). An empirical example of how emotional and instrumental forms of caregiving can be used to reduce distress in anxiously and avoidantly attached partners. Tran, S., & Simpson, J. A. (2009). (See References). An empirical example of how an individual’s commitment and accom￾modating behavior makes anxiously attached partners feel and behave more constructively during conflict discussions. Author Contributions Jeffry A. Simpson and Nickola C. Overall both contributed to the development of the ideas and the writing of all parts of this article. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article. Funding This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health to J. A. Simpson (R01-MH49599) and from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund (UOA0811) to N. C. Overall. References Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relation￾ships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510–531. doi:10.1037/0022-3514 .88.3.510 Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attach￾ment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiv￾ing in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1053–1073. doi:10.1037//0022-3514 .78.6.1053 Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545–560. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.75.2.545 Lemay, E. P. Jr., & Clark, M. S. (2008). “Walking on eggshells”: How expressing relationship insecurities perpetuates them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 420–441. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.420 Lemay, E. P. Jr., & Dudley, K. L. (2011). Caution: Fragile! Regulating the interpersonal security of chronically inse￾cure partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 681–702. doi:10.1037/a0021655 Little, K. C., McNulty, J. K., & Russell, M. (2010). Sex buffers intimates against the negative implications of attachment insecurity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 484–498. doi:10.1177/0146167209352494 Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behav￾ioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53–152). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065- 2601(03)01002-5 Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adult￾hood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Overall, N. C., & Simpson, J. A. (2013). Regulation processes in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 427–451). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Overall, N. C., Simpson, J. A., & Struthers, H. (2013). Buffering attachment-related avoidance: Softening emotional and behavioral defenses during conflict discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 854–871. doi:10.1037/a0031798 Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman Barrett, L. F. (1997). Working models of attachment and daily social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1409–1423. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1409 Salvatore, J. E., Kuo, S. I., Steele, R. D., Simpson, J. A., & Collins, W. A. (2011). Recovering from conflict in romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. Psychological Science, 22, 376–383. doi:10.1177/0956797610397055 Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com by Cai Xing on February 9, 2014

Partner Buffering of Attacbment Insecurity 59 Simpson,J.A.(2007).Foundations of interpersonal trust.In A. Simpson,J.A..Rholes,W.S..Phillips.D.(16).Conflict York.NY: 8t10070235147159 m ()ng e A Plant (Eds). nces in experimental social psycbology Sim o seeking and suppor-giving within couples in an anxi Tran,.&Simpson,J.A.(2009).Pr relationship maintenanc d01:10.1037/0022-3514.62.3434 doi:10.1037/a0016A18

Partner Buffering of Attachment Insecurity 59 Simpson, J. A. (2007). Foundations of interpersonal trust. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 587–607). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2012). Adult attachment orien￾tations, stress, and romantic relationships. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 45, pp. 279–328). Burlington, MA: Academic Press. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support￾seeking and support-giving within couples in an anxi￾ety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434–446. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.434 Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 899–914. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.899 Simpson, J. A., Winterheld, H. A., Rholes, W. S., & Oriña, M. M. (2007). Working models of attachment and reactions to different forms of caregiving from romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 466–477. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.466 Tran, S., & Simpson, J. A. (2009). Pro-relationship maintenance behaviors: The joint roles of attachment and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 685–698. doi:10.1037/a0016418 Downloaded from cdp.sagepub.com by Cai Xing on February 9, 2014