Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Attachment insecurity is characterized by chronic concerns about whether partners can fulfil core relatedness needs, including feeling loved and cared about. In two longitudinal studies, our aim was to extend current evidence that certain relationship conditions buffer attachment insecurity by (1) focusing on the central ingredient—fulfilment of relatedness needs—that likely account for buffering effects, and (2) illustrate the importance of general experiences of relatedness need fulfilment across couples’ lives. Couple members completed initial assessments of attachment insecurity, reported on the fulfilment of relatedness needs every month for 6 months (Study 1) or daily for 3 weeks (Study 2), and then completed re-assessments of attachment insecurity 6-months (Study 1) or 9-months (Study 2) later. Across both studies, greater fulfilment of relatedness needs across monthly and daily relationship life predicted decreases in attachment anxiety and avoidance. General experiences of relatedness across couples’ lives appear to reflect a relationship environment that fulfils core needs for love, care, and regard that cultivate attachment security.

Keywords

Attachment anxiety attachment avoidance buffering insecurity enhancing security relatedness needs

The fulfilment of core relatedness needs, including feeling close, loved, and cared about (Ryan & Deci, 2000), are fundamental to the development and maintenance of attachment security. People who have experienced rejection and neglect, and thus experienced thwarted relatedness needs, tend to develop attachment insecurities (Bowlby, 1973). Furthermore, attachment insecurities are perpetuated within relationships because more insecure individuals find it difficult to feel cared for and valued even when their partners do truly care and love them (Rodriguez et al., 2019). These difficulties in experiencing relatedness need fulfilment result in more insecure individuals protecting against expected rejection or neglect in ways that damage their relationships and undermine their partners’ care and regard (Overall et al., 2022). Fortunately, growing evidence indicates that partners who demonstrate their trustworthiness, commitment, and positive regard can “buffer” the damage attachment insecurity can have on relationships, including fostering attachment security across time (Arriaga et al., 2018; Overall et al., 2022).

The recent expansion of work identifying buffering factors has shifted the field from a deficit perspective positioning attachment insecurity as a perpetual relationship vulnerability to a strengths-based perspective recognizing that relationship dynamics can potentially enhance attachment security (Arriaga et al., 2018; Overall et al., 2022). Yet, despite identifying numerous partner behaviors that buffer the detrimental effects of attachment insecurity within threatening interactions, most research has not specified why all of these buffering behaviors reduce insecure reactions and potentially foster attachment security across time. The theoretical rationale presented across studies, however, converge with our proposition that effective buffering behaviors should overcome deficits in relatedness need fulfilment—that is, buffering insecurity occurs by fostering feelings of being loved, cared about, valued, and accepted by partners. Moreover, regardless of the buffering factors that facilitate relatedness needs within specific interactions, general experiences of relatedness need fulfilment across the months and days of couples’ lives is likely to provide the ongoing evidence of love, care and regard needed to reduce attachment insecurity. We draw on two longitudinal dyadic studies to test whether relatedness need fulfillment across daily and monthly life helps to reduce attachment anxiety and avoidance across time.

Buffering insecure reactions and fostering attachment security

Concerns that partners will fail to fulfil relatedness needs now or in the future underlie the destructive reactions of insecure individuals. Individuals high in attachment anxiety are theorized to have experienced inconsistent past caregiving making it difficult for them to feel truly loved and accepted because they fear close others will eventually abandon them (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Accordingly, highly anxious individuals tend to feel that partners do not fulfil their relatedness needs (Hadden et al., 2016), including feeling less accepted, valued, and cared for (Lemay & Clark, 2008; Overall & Sibley, 2009), even when their partners are as accepting, valuing, and caring as partners of secure individuals (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Rodriguez et al., 2019). These negative perceptions occur even though highly anxious individuals crave for their partners to fulfil relatedness needs, which creates hyperemotional responses designed to pull evidence of their partners’ love (Girme et al., 2021; Overall et al., 2014). Unfortunately, chronic concerns about whether and how long partners will meet relatedness needs, and the accompanying destructive reactions, are central to why highly anxious individuals report poorer relationship satisfaction (Hadden et al., 2014).

Unfulfilled relatedness needs also underpin attachment avoidance. Individuals high in attachment avoidance are theorized to have experienced cold and rejecting past caregiving and so develop beliefs that others will not be available, caring, and loving when needed, and thus partners cannot be trusted to fulfil relatedness needs (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Compared to the prioritization of relatedness needs that characterizes attachment anxiety, the defenses arising from avoidant expectations of neglect involve devaluing relatedness needs, including eschewing closeness and intimacy and instead prioritizing self-reliance (Ren et al., 2017). Accordingly, highly avoidant individuals experience low levels of closeness in relationships (Hadden et al., 2016; Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 1997) and disengage from their partners when experiencing relationship problems (Overall et al., 2013; 2015; Simpson et al., 1996). The defenses that arise from distrusting partners are central to why avoidant individuals experience lower satisfaction and commitment (Hadden et al., 2014).

Fortunately, partners can behave in ways that address the relatedness concerns central to attachment-related insecurities (see Overall et al., 2022 for review). Partners who demonstrate high levels of care and commitment can restore highly anxious individuals’ felt-security. When partners express greater care and affection, highly anxious individuals tend to experience less jealousy during relationship-threatening situations (Kim et al., 2018), feel more valued (Lemay & Dudley, 2011), and report greater relationship satisfaction and security across time (Vedelago et al., 2022). Similarly, highly anxious people experience greater satisfaction when they perceive their partner as responsive to their sexual needs, likely because sex provides explicit evidence of partners’ love and care (Raposo & Muise, 2021; also Little et al., 2010). Furthermore, anxious individuals feel more accepted and respond more constructively during conflictual interactions when their partners are highly committed (Tran & Simpson, 2009; also see Cross et al., 2016).

Partners who provide clear evidence of their care and acceptance also can reduce the defensive responses of highly avoidant individuals. Highly avoidant individuals are less likely to withdrawal when their partners provide high levels of support that provide explicit evidence of partners’ availability (Girme et al., 2015; Simpson et al., 2007; also see Vedelago et al., 2022). Similarly, highly avoidant individuals feel more secure and willing to commit when their partners illustrate validation of their personal needs, such as their autonomous personal goal strivings (Arriaga et al., 2014; Girme et al., 2019). Avoidant individuals are also more responsive during relationship-threatening interactions when partners recognize their efforts and communicate acceptance and validation (Farrell et al., 2016; Overall et al., 2013). Finally, avoidant individuals report greater relationship satisfaction and commitment when partners express appreciation for their relationship sacrifices (Park et al., 2019a; Schrage et al., 2022), or partners show they are available through frequent physical intimacy (Little et al., 2010).

Fewer studies have provided evidence that partner behaviors that promote felt relatedness may reduce attachment anxiety or avoidance across time. Repeatedly priming individuals with attachment security (e.g., writing or thinking about an attachment figure that meet their needs for comfort and love) has been linked to reductions in attachment anxiety across several weeks or months (Carnelley & Rowe, 2007; Hudson & Fraley, 2018). Perceptions that partners validate personal goals (Arriaga et al., 2014) or express more gratitude (Park et al., 2019b) also have been associated with lower attachment anxiety over time. Additionally, perceptions that partners can be trusted to be responsive and supportive are associated with reductions in attachment avoidance (Arriaga et al., 2014; Gunaydin et al., 2020; Rholes et al., 2020). Finally, when highly avoidant individuals engage in intimacy-promoting activities with their partner, and thus are able to experience loving and caring relationship interactions, they experience declines in attachment avoidance across 3–4 weeks (Bayraktaroglu et al., 2022; Stanton et al., 2017).

A central ingredient: Fulfilment of core relatedness needs

Research showing that partner behaviors that clearly signal care and regard help reduce insecure reactions and foster greater security aligns with principal theories emphasizing that perceptions of partners’ positive regard (Murray et al., 2006), availability (Feeney & Collins, 2015) and responsiveness (Reis et al., 2004) are central for facilitating secure and satisfying relationships. However, as the array of effective partner buffering behaviors highlight, different strategies may be required to foster such relatedness need fulfilment depending on the specific context (e.g., support, conflict, sacrifice) or the specific concerns that need to be assuaged (i.e., concerns arising from attachment anxiety vs. avoidance). Although the specificity in prior attachment buffering research is important in illustrating that different situations and people require tailored strategies to promote better relationship outcomes, the growing list of different buffering factors highlight that a more global account of the active ingredient that should reduce insecurity across contexts will be beneficial. The current research examined one core component that should underpin many buffering effects—fulfillment of relatedness needs—thereby isolating a key ingredient that should generate greater security across different relationship contexts.

We also aimed to advance prior attachment buffering work by considering the importance of the ongoing fulfillment of relatedness needs across couples’ lives. Extant work has predominately focused on what partners can do to counteract felt insecurity and defensiveness within specific relationship interactions that heighten attachment concerns, such as couples’ support-relevant or conflict discussions (Farrell et al., 2016; Girme et al., 2015; 2019; Overall et al., 2013; Simpson et al., 2007; Tran & Simpson, 2009), intimacy-inducing interactions (Kim et al., 2018; Stanton et al., 2017), or daily interactions (Girme et al., 2015; Park et al., 2019a; Raposo & Muise, 2021). Prior research examining factors that may foster attachment security over time has also typically focused on how relationship conditions assessed at one timepoint are associated with attachment insecurity at a later timepoint (Arriaga et al., 2014; Rholes et al., 2020; Stanton et al., 2017). Yet, such longitudinal effects are unlikely to arise because the specific behavior was present at that single earlier time point, but rather because that earlier assessment reflected how partners likely responded and individuals subsequently felt in similar situations across their ensuing lives. It is most likely the degree to which couples’ ongoing, repeated interactions lead people to generally experience relatedness need fulfilment across daily and monthly life that should promote reductions in attachment insecurity across time.

The proposition that general relatedness need fulfilment across couples’ lives should be key to reducing attachment insecurity aligns with a central tenet of attachment theory: consistent, ongoing evidence of close others’ love and care should foster greater security (Bowlby, 1973). We operationalize this key ingredient as average levels of repeated assessments of relatedness need fulfilment across couples’ lives. Consistent with our operationalization, two recent studies provide evidence that average levels of perceived partner responsiveness and expressed gratitude across couples’ daily life are associated with lower attachment avoidance (but not anxiety) across 3–6 months (Gunaydin et al., 2020; Park et al., 2019a). These initial results support our proposition that assessing the fulfillment of relatedness needs across couples’ daily and monthly lives offers a reflection of the typical relationship environment that is likely required to foster greater attachment security, including lower anxiety as well as avoidance.

Finally, we also assessed an alternative variable that could, independent of average levels of relatedness need fulfillment, hinder attachment security. Attachment scholars have noted that inconsistent caregiving may foster attachment insecurity (Bowlby, 1973; Cassidy & Berlin, 1994). Applying this idea to our aims, inconsistency in relatedness need fulfillment across couples’ lives may make it difficult to trust that these core needs will continue to be fulfilled, even when people feel cared above or loved across many days or months. We operationalized inconsistency of relatedness need fulfillment as the within-person standard deviation of repeated assessments of relatedness need fulfilment (see Eller et al., 2022; Girme et al., 2018; Overall, 2020). Consistent with this operationalization, greater variation in maternal sensitive care in early-to-middle childhood predicted lower secure base script knowledge at age 19 (Eller et al., 2022). Furthermore, greater variability in perceived partner responsiveness across daily life has been linked to greater attachment anxiety (but not avoidance) across 4.5 months (Gunaydin et al., 2020). Accordingly, we also tested whether greater variability in relatedness need fulfilment predicted attachment anxiety or avoidance across time.

Current research

Attachment insecurity thwarts relatedness needs because insecure individuals believe that partners cannot or will not truly value, love, and care about them. We test whether relatedness need fulfillment is a key ingredient required to foster attachment security. In particular, general experiences of relatedness need fulfilment across the days and months of couples’ lives should provide the ongoing evidence of safety and security needed to reduce attachment insecurity. In two longitudinal studies, both members of heterosexual couples completed initial assessments of attachment insecurity, reported on the fulfilment of relatedness needs (feeling close, loved, cared for, accepted) every month for 6 months (Study 1) or daily for 3 weeks (Study 2), and then completed re-assessments of attachment insecurity 6-months (Study 1) or 9-months (Study 2) later. We hypothesized that greater relatedness need fulfilment across monthly and daily relationship life (i.e., greater mean levels) would predict lower attachment anxiety and avoidance across time. We also examined whether greater variation in relatedness needs (i.e., greater within-person standard deviations) predicted greater anxiety and avoidance across time.

Study 1

Methods

Participants

We drew on an existing dataset (see OSM); thus, a priori power analyses for the current study were not conducted. The original target sample size of 100 couples was determined to ensure adequate power to detect the typical size of dyadic effects shown in prior research at the time the study was designed (Kenny et al., 2006). Of the 100 couples who completed the initial research session, 35 did not complete the final longitudinal assessment of attachment insecurity; six couples dissolved, and 29 opted out of participation.¹ A sample of 65 dyads (N = 130 individuals) for the current analyses provides .857 power to detect an actor effect of r = .25 when variables are correlated at typical levels across partners (r = .30) and partner effects are specified as zero (Ackerman et al., 2021). The significant effects were at or above r = .23.

Participants were recruited via paper and electronic announcements posted across a city-based New Zealand university campus. Participants were, on average, 23.64 years old (SD = 7.33) and involved in serious relationships (50.8% married or cohabitating) that averaged 3.67 years in length (SD = 5.06). The study advertising recruited heterosexual couples for other aims related to gender-role beliefs, and 50% of participants identified as women and 50% as men.

Participants identified their primary ethnic identity as NZ European (N = 79), Maori (N = 6), Pacific Islander (N = 2), Asian (N = 11), Indian (N = 4), non-NZ European(N = 12), Other (N = 15) or Did Not Report (N = 1). Seventeen participants reported additional bi- or multi-ethnic identities. Participants reported their employment status as full-time student (N = 83), part-time student (N = 9), employed part-time (N = 10), employed full-time (N = 20), or unemployed (N = 8). Participants reported their highest education level attained as NCEA level 2/school certificate (N = 18), NCEA level 3/bursary (N = 49), tertiary qualification (N = 36), postgraduate qualification (N = 22), other (N = 4), or missing (N = 1). The study received approval from the University of Auckland ethics committee. Couples were reimbursed NZD$210 for the full study.

Materials and procedure

At an initial lab-based session, participants completed measures of attachment insecurity and relatedness need fulfilment, and then completed repeated assessments of relatedness need fulfilment each month for the following 6 months (average completion of 6.72 of the requested seven monthly assessments). At the final 6-month follow-up, participants completed a reassessment of their attachment insecurity.

Attachment Insecurity. The 17-item Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ; Simpson, et al., 1996) assessed attachment anxiety and avoidance. To reduce participant burden for the final 6-month follow-up, participants completed a shorter 6-item version that included three items for attachment anxiety and avoidance (see Table 1). These shorter scales have been successfully used previously to assess anxiety and avoidance and show similar reliability and associations as the full scale (e.g., Overall et al., 2003). To ensure the baseline and follow-up measures were comparable, we constructed equivalent 3-item scales at both timepoints.
Table 1.
Summary of definitions and assessment of attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance and relatedness need fulfillment.

Attachment anxiety Attachment avoidance Relatedness need fulfillment

Definition Individuals high in attachment anxiety have chronic beliefs that they will not be truly loved and accepted, and romantic partners eventually abandon them, and so crave closeness and intimacy Individuals high in attachment avoidance have chronic beliefs that close others cannot be trusted to be available, caring, and loving when needed, and so avoid closeness and dependence Feeling loved, cared about, valued, and accepted by partners within the current relational context

Study 1 items “I’m confident that my romantic partners love me just as much as I love them.” (R) “I find it relatively easy to get close to romantic partners” (R) “I feel a lot of distance from my partner” (R)

“I usually want more closeness and intimacy than my romantic partners do.” “I don’t like my romantic partners getting too close to me.” “I feel loved and cared for by my partner”

“I often worry that my romantic partners don’t really love me.” “My romantic partners often want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.” “I feel a lot of closeness and intimacy with my partner”

Study 2 items Study 1 items plus “I RARELY worry about being abandoned by my romantic partners.” (R) “My romantic partners are often reluctant to get as close as I would like.” “I RARELY worry about my romantic partners leaving me.” (R)“I often want to merge completely with my romantic partners, and this desire sometimes scares them away.” “I’m confident my romantic partners would never hurt me by suddenly ending our relationship.” (R)“The thought of being left by my romantic partners RARELY enters my mind.” (R) Study 1 items plus “I am NOT comfortable having to depend on romantic partners.” “I’m comfortable having my romantic partners depend on me.” (R) “I’m somewhat uncomfortable being too close to my romantic partners.” “I find it difficult to trust my romantic partners completely.” “I’m nervous whenever any of my romantic partners gets too close to me.” “How close was your relationship today? ”How much did you feel “Accepted and loved” “Valued and respected” “Rejected or ignored”

Note. All items were rated from 1 (strongly disagree/none) to 7 (strongly agree/very much).

Relatedness Need Fulfillment. Participants completed a scale used to examine the fulfilment of relatedness needs in close relationships (La Guardia et al., 2000; see Table 1). The items were averaged across the seven time-points.²

Some readers may wonder whether attachment security and relatedness need fulfillment capture the same underlying construct. These well-validated measures of attachment security (Simpson, et al., 1996) and relatedness need fulfillment (La Guardia et al., 2000) have been used extensively in the close relationships and self-determination literatures. This body of work has conceptualized, analyzed, and provided evidence that these constructs are distinct (e.g., Hadden et al., 2016; Girme et al., 2019; La Guardia et al., 2000; Reis et al., 2000; also see Gunaydin et al., 2020). As outlined in Table 1, attachment insecurities reflect chronic concerns, expectations, and motivations about romantic relationships in general. In contrast, relatedness need fulfillment reflect whether people feel loved, cared for, and positively regarded within the current relational context. Furthermore, current feelings of being loved and cared for (relatedness needs) may appear to overlap with chronic concerns about feeling truly loved and craving closeness (attachment anxiety), but the inverse is true for chronic distrust of others and avoiding closeness and dependence (attachment avoidance). Yet, as we have discussed, relatedness needs should be central to reducing both attachment anxiety and avoidance. Finally, factor analyses using the dySEM package in R (Sakaluk et al., 2021) supported that these constructs are distinct. A two-factor structure yielded a better fitting model than a one-factor structure when distinguishing between relatedness need fulfillment and (1) attachment anxiety (χ²_diff = 44.87, p < .001) and (2) attachment avoidance (χ²_diff = 158.38, p < .001).

Results

We tested whether (1) greater mean levels of relatedness need fulfilment across the 6-month period predicted reductions in attachment anxiety and avoidance, and whether (2) greater variability (within-person standard deviations) in relatedness need fulfilment across the 6-month period predicted increases in anxiety and avoidance. Table 2 presents descriptive and reliability statistics. Mean levels of and variation in relatedness need fulfilment are confounded by the fact that individuals with very high (or very low) average scores cannot vary as much (r = −.63), and so we modelled these measures simultaneously (see Girme et al., 2018; Overall, 2020).
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics across measures (Studies 1 and 2).

Study 1 Study 2

M (SD) Range α M (SD) Range α

Baseline (time 1) attachment anxiety 3.00 (1.27) 1.00–7.00 .58 3.02 (1.09) 1.00–5.89 .84

Baseline (time 1) attachment avoidance 2.73 (1.23) 1.00–6.33 .55 2.84 (.90) 1.00–5.63 .71

Follow-up (time 2) attachment anxiety 2.70 (1.31) 1.00–7.00 .70 2.78 (1.11) 1.00–5.22 .83

Follow-up (time 2) attachment avoidance 2.59 (1.16) 1.00–6.00 .53 2.84 (1.08) 1.00–5.63 .80

Mean relatedness need fulfillment 6.12 (.76) 3.62–7.00 .75 6.26 (.60) 4.88–7.00 .74

Variation in relatedness need fulfillment .63 (.48) 0.00–2.24 - .61 (.38) 0.00–1.74 -

Note. All scales ranged from 1 (strongly disagree/none) to 7 (strongly agree/very much). α = Cronbachs’ Alpha. α for relatedness need fulfilment reflect average α across months (Study 1) and days (Study 2).

Following Kenny et al., 2006’s methods for modelling dyadic and repeated measures data, we used the MIXED procedure in SPSS 25 to model attachment anxiety (or avoidance) at the 6-month follow-up (Time 2) as a function of (1) baseline attachment anxiety (or avoidance) (Time 1), (2) mean relatedness need fulfilment, and (3) variation in relatedness need fulfilment. Applying models that assess discrepancies in perceptions (West & Kenny, 2011) to calculate the change in anxiety and avoidance scores across time, we centered the Time 2 attachment anxiety (and avoidance) score on the average of the Time 1 anxiety (or avoidance) score. This centering strategy means that the model intercepts specify size and direction of change in attachment anxiety (or avoidance) across the 6-month period, and whether any change is significantly different from zero (see Overall, 2020 for a similar application). Finally, we also modeled the main and interaction effects of gender (coded −1 women, 1 men); the effects did not significantly differ across women and men (ts = .036 to −1.72, ps > .09), with one exception, which pertained to focal analyses and is discussed below. The results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3.
The effect of relatedness need fulfillment on attachment anxiety and avoidance across 6-months (Study 1).

Predictors B SE t p 95% CI r

Low High

Changes in attachment anxiety

Intercept −.32 .09 −3.57 <.001 −.51 −.14 .41

Baseline attachment anxiety .55 .07 7.30 <.001 .40 .69 .55

Mean levels of relatedness need fulfillment −.37 .16 −2.38 .020 −.68 −.06 .23

Variation in relatedness need fulfillment −.03 .25 −.14 .887 −.52 .45 .01

Changes in attachment avoidance

Intercept −.15 .10 −1.48 .145 −.35 .05 .19

Baseline attachment avoidance .46 .06 7.15 <.001 .33 .59 .59

Mean levels of relatedness need fulfillment −.43 .15 −2.80 .006 −.73 −.12 .25

Variation in relatedness need fulfillment −.21 .22 −.96 .341 −.65 .22 .09

Note. CI = confidence interval. Effect sizes (r) were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnow’s (2007) formula: r = √(t² / t²+ df).

First, focusing on attachment anxiety, the negative and significant intercept illustrated that, on average, attachment anxiety significantly reduced across the 6-month period (see Fraley et al., 2021 for consistent average declines). Nonetheless, mean relatedness need fulfilment was significantly associated with the level of reductions in attachment anxiety. To illustrate the effect of relatedness need fulfilment, we calculated the predicted value, significance, and r effect size, of change in attachment anxiety at low (−1 SD), average, and high (+1SD) levels of relatedness need fulfillment. As shown in Panel A of Figure 1, attachment anxiety significantly declined over time at average levels of relatedness need, but these declines were greater when participants experienced high levels of relatedness needs. By contrast, levels of attachment anxiety were sustained (no significant change) when participants experienced low levels of relatedness fulfilment.
Figure 1.
The effect of low (−1 SD), mean, and high (+1 SD) relatedness need fulfillment on change in attachment anxiety (Panel A) and attachment avoidance (Panel B) across 6 months (Study 1). r = r effect size which were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnow’s (2007) formula: r = √(t² / t²+ df). p < .05.

Next, the non-significant intercept for the attachment avoidance model revealed that, on average, avoidance was stable across time. Again, however, mean relatedness need fulfilment was a significant predictor, although significant gender differences in this effect (B = −31, t = −2.42, p = .018) revealed that relatedness need fulfilment was only a significant predictor for men (B = −.74, t = −3.69, p < .001) and not women (B = −.12, t = −.59, p = .555). The significant effect for men is illustrated in Panel B of Figure 1. At mean relatedness need fulfilment, there was no change in men’s attachment avoidance, but high mean levels of need fulfilment predicted significant declines in men’s attachment avoidance whereas low levels predicted significant increases in men’s attachment avoidance. Finally, variability in relatedness need fulfillment did not have any significant effects on changes in anxiety or avoidance.

Additional Analyses.* Adding the interaction between mean levels of and variation in relatedness need fulfilment into the models revealed no significant mean x variation interaction for attachment avoidance (t = −.06, p = .950), but a significant interaction for attachment anxiety (t = 2.20, p = .03). Greater mean relatedness need fulfillment reduced attachment anxiety when people experienced low variability in relatedness need fulfillment (slope = −.59, t = −2.92, p = .005) but greater variation mitigated these benefits (slope = −.08, t = −.43, p = .67). Furthermore, re-running the models including the interactions between baseline attachment anxiety/avoidance and (1) mean and (2) variation in relatedness need fulfilment revealed no significant interactions (ts < 1.55, ps > .125).

Finally, providing some evidence of the centrality of relatedness needs compared to other fundamental needs (autonomy, competence), additional analyses illustrated that autonomy and competence need fulfilment regarding personal goal pursuit did not have the same effect (see OSM). Mean levels of or variation in goal-related autonomy and competence need fulfillment did not predict changes in attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance (ts < −1.64, ps > .10), with one exception: greater variability in goal-related competence need fulfillment was associated with increases in attachment avoidance over time (B = .61, t = 2.93, p = .004).

Study 2

Methods

Participants

We drew on an existing dataset (see OSM). A priori power analyses were not conducted. Based on prior research, the target sample size was at least 80 couples. Of 86 recruited couples, only 73 fully completed the daily sampling procedure. Additionally, 1 couple did not complete baseline attachment insecurity, and 16 couples did not complete the 9-month follow-up due to dissolution (N = 8) or opting out of participation (N = 8). This left a sample of 56 couples (112 individuals) for the current analyses, which provides .800 power to detect an actor effect of r = .25 (Ackerman et al., 2021). The significant effects were above r = .21.

Couples responded to advertisement posted across university-based organizations (e.g., health centers, newsletters, childcare services). Participants were 23.79 years on average (SD = 6.70) and involved in serious relationships (42% married or cohabitating) that averaged 3.40 years in length (SD = 3.97). All participants were involved in mixed-sex relationships; 50% of participants identified as women and 50% as men. Participants identified their primary ethnic identity as NZ European (N = 91), non-NZ European (N = 11), Other (N = 6), Asian (N = 2), Pacific (N = 1), and missing (N = 1). Participants reported their employment status as full-time student (N = 83), part-time student (N = 6), employed part-time (N = 6), employed full-time (N = 16), or unemployed (N = 1). Participants reported their highest education level attained as school certificate (N = 20), higher school certificate/bursary (N = 37), tertiary qualification (N = 38), postgraduate qualification (N = 7), or other (N = 10). The study received approval from the Victoria University of Wellington ethics committee. Couples were reimbursed $100NZD.

Materials and procedure

During an initial session, couples completed scales assessing attachment insecurity and received instructions for completing an end-of-day survey for the subsequent 21 days. Participants completed an average of 19.6 daily surveys (2191 daily observations). Nine months later, participants completed scales assessing attachment insecurity online.

Attachment Insecurity. At baseline and follow-up, participants completed the full 17-item AAQ (Simpson et al., 1996; see Table 1).

Relatedness Need Fulfillment. Each day, participants rated four items assessing the central ingredients of relatedness captured in Study 1 (closeness, love, valued, accepted; La Guardia et al., 2000; see Table 1).

Factor analyses using the dySEM analyses (Sakaluk et al., 2021) again supported that attachment security and relatedness need fulfillment are distinct constructs. A two-factor structure yielded a better fitting model than a one-factor structure when distinguishing between relatedness need fulfillment and (1) attachment anxiety (χ²_diff = 194.97, p < .001) and (2) attachment avoidance (χ²_diff = 158.38, p < .001).

Results

We applied the same analytic procedures outlined in Study 1 (r of mean and variation in relatedness need fulfillment = −.72). Table 4 presents the results.
Table 4.
The effect of relatedness need fulfillment on attachment anxiety and avoidance across 9-months (Study 2).

Predictors B SE t p 95% CI r

Low High

Changes in attachment anxiety

Intercept −.21 .10 −2.20 .032 −.40 −.02 .28

Baseline attachment anxiety .49 .08 5.86 <.001 .32 .65 .51

Mean levels of relatedness need fulfillment −.44 .21 −2.15 .034 −.85 −.03 .21

Variation in relatedness need fulfillment .22 .32 .67 .502 −.42 .85 .07

Changes in attachment avoidance

Intercept −.02 .08 −.22 .830 −.18 .14 .03

Baseline attachment avoidance .58 .10 6.01 <.001 .39 .78 .51

Mean levels of relatedness need fulfillment −.52 .21 −2.47 .015 −.93 −.10 .25

Variation in relatedness need fulfillment −.11 .33 −.33 .744 −.76 .55 .03

Note. CI = confidence interval. Effect sizes (r) were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnow’s (2007) formula: r = √(t² / t²+ df).

On average, attachment anxiety significantly reduced across the 9-month period, but greater relatedness need fulfilment predicted the level of reductions in anxiety. Replicating the results in Study 1, declines in attachment anxiety were greater when participants experienced high levels of relatedness needs, whereas levels of attachment anxiety were sustained when participants experienced low levels of relatedness fulfilment (Figure 2, Panel A).
Figure 2.
The effect of low (−1 SD), mean, and high (+1 SD) relatedness need fulfillment on change in attachment anxiety (Panel A) and attachment avoidance (Panel B) across 9 months (Study 2). r = r effect size³. p < .05. ^†p = .055.

Also replicating Study 1, at mean relatedness need fulfilment, there was no change in attachment avoidance, but high mean levels of need fulfilment predicted significant declines in attachment avoidance whereas low levels predicted increases in attachment avoidance (p = .055; Figure 2, Panel B). None of the effects differed across gender (ts = .12 to 1.78, ps > .08). Variation in relatedness need fulfillment did not predict changes in anxiety or avoidance.

Additional Analyses.* There were no significant interactions between mean levels of and variation in relatedness need fulfilment (ts < .60, ps > .55). Furthermore, baseline attachment anxiety/avoidance did not moderate the effects of mean and variation in relatedness need fulfillment (ts < 1.88, ps > .063), with one exception: less variation in relatedness need fulfillment was associated with lower attachment avoidance over time for individuals lower compared to higher in baseline avoidance (baseline attachment avoidance x variation in relatedness need fulfillment: B = −.98, t = −2.21, p = .029; diff = .92, t = 5.04, p < .001). Unlike Study 1, we did not have measures of autonomy and competence in Study 2.

General discussion

Attachment insecurity is not inevitably perpetuating. Rather, growing evidence indicates that partners can buffer the damage of attachment insecurity. Yet, this buffering work has (1) primarily focused on different types of partner buffering behavior rather than the core need fulfilment that likely underpins buffering effects, and (2) overlooked the possible importance of general experiences across life in fostering attachment security. The current research extends the attachment literature by showing that the fulfillment of core relatedness needs across days and months in couples’ lives helped reduce attachment insecurity. Greater mean relatedness need fulfillment experienced across monthly and daily life predicted decreases in attachment anxiety and avoidance across 6-months (Study 1) and 9-months (Study 2). Within-person variation in relatedness need fulfillment did not predict changes in attachment anxiety or avoidance.

General experiences of relatedness needs fulfillment foster attachment security

The current results offer a more global perspective to the primary approach within the attachment buffering literature. Fulfillment of core relatedness needs should be a key ingredient in fostering security across time. Our results provide support for this proposition: low fulfillment of relatedness needs across daily and monthly life predicted sustained attachment anxiety and increased avoidance, whereas high fulfilment of these core needs predicted reductions in both anxiety and avoidance. Capturing these processes across daily and monthly life advance the predominant prior focus on examining buffering insecure reactions during specific situations. Any partner behavior or relationship process that helps anxious and avoidant individuals feel loved and cared about will likely help to address the need deficits that generate and sustain attachment insecurity.

The effect sizes of relatedness need fulfillment (rs = .21 to .25) exceed those reported in prior studies examining the effects of perceptions of partners’ trustworthiness, responsiveness, and social support on attachment change (rs = .06 to .20; Arriaga et al., 2014; Rholes et al., 2020). In studies that provide insufficient information to calculate effect sizes, the unstandardized beta-coefficients of relatedness need fulfillment (Bs = −.37 to −.52) doubled those reported in other papers examining change in attachment security (Bs = −.17 to −.24; Bayraktaroglu et al., 2022; Gunaydin et al., 2020; Stanton et al., 2017). Furthermore, extending previous studies, our analytic technique revealed the actual (predicted) level of change in attachment insecurity scores across levels of relatedness fulfilment. Higher levels of relatedness need fulfillment (+1 SD) predicted on average .53 unit (.46 SDs) declines in attachment anxiety and avoidance (rs = .29 to .45; Figures 1 and 2) compared to stability in attachment anxiety or .34 unit (.32 SDs) increases in attachment avoidance at low levels of need fulfilment (−1 SD). Given that higher versus lower attachment avoidance and anxiety is one of the most robust predictors damaging relationship behaviors and poorer long-term relationship outcomes (Joel et al., 2020; Overall et al., 2022), we believe this level of reduction is of practical significance.

Our theoretical and methodological approach suggests that generally experiencing relatedness need fulfilment across ongoing life may be an important way to understand the relationship conditions that improve attachment insecurity. Assessing general (average) experiences across couples’ lives may best tap the kind of consistent, ongoing experience of feeling loved and cared for that should foster greater security. This perspective adds to the bulk of work examining how partner buffering behavior assessed at one time-point can mitigate defensive reactions and insecurity during couples’ discussions (Farrell et al., 2016; Girme et al., 2015; 2019; Overall et al., 2013; Simpson et al., 2007), daily life (Park et al., 2019a; Raposo & Muise, 2021), or across time (Arriaga et al., 2014; Rholes et al., 2020; Stanton et al., 2017). The current study also extends two prior studies showing that average perception of partners’ behavior across daily life predict lower attachment avoidance (Gunaydin et al., 2020; Park et al., 2019a) by demonstrating that relatedness need fulfilment (rather than specific partner behaviors or expressions) across monthly and daily life plays an important role in reducing insecurity broadly—that is, reducing both attachment avoidance and anxiety.

By focusing on relatedness needs generally during relationship life our findings balance the emphasis on partners enacting distinct types of buffering behaviors within specific contexts (conflict vs. support discussions) for specific types of people (attachment anxiety vs. avoidance). To be clear, we are not suggesting that identifying distinct buffering behaviors is not important given that targeted buffering can address attachment concerns in ways that meet the specific demands of the context. Yet, in detailing the specifics, these benefits may occlude the general ingredient that is likely critical to successfully cultivate attachment security. For example, it is likely taxing for partners to be constantly strategic in identifying and enacting the ‘right’ buffering behaviors within any given interaction (Finkel et al., 2006; Gosnell & Gable, 2017). By contrast, it may be easier for partners to focus on the central ingredient of facilitating relatedness needs, which could prompt partners to enact what is needed in a way that emerges naturally in the idiosyncratic ecology of their relationships. Moreover, focusing on relatedness need fulfilment, rather than buffering specific threats, may prompt a global approach across relationship interactions that continually promotes the fulfillment of relatedness needs and most powerfully foster attachment security. Our approach thus has important practical implications for helping enhance security in relationships.

Variation in relatedness needs unassociated with attachment security

Variation in relatedness need fulfillment was not associated with change in attachment anxiety or avoidance. These null effects run counter to a key proposition that inconsistent caregiving contributes to the development of attachment insecurities (Bowlby, 1973; Cassidy & Berlin, 1994), and with prior studies showing that within-person variation in maternal sensitive care and perceived partner responsiveness were associated with later insecurity (Eller et al., 2022; Gunaydin et al., 2020). However, it is possible that variation in relatedness need fulfilment are more problematic early in relationships (as examined by Gunaydin et al., 2020) rather than among established committed couples (as in the current samples). Prior research has illustrated that couples who experienced greater variation or fluctuations in relationship satisfaction and commitment early in their relationships were at greater risk for relationship dissolution (Arriaga, 2001; Joel et al., 2021). Perhaps, then, variation and instability in the early stages fuel feelings of doubt and uncertainty (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004), but are less problematic for couples with longer histories.

Additionally, it may be that specific combinations of mean levels of and variation in relatedness need fulfillment index relational environments that undermine versus strengthen attachment security (Girme et al., 2018; Overall, 2020). In particular, greater mean levels of relatedness needs may generate attachment security particularly when variability is low (high and stable need fulfillment), whereas other combinations—average and highly variable need fulfilment, or very stable and low levels of need fulfilment—may be more predictive of insecurity. In additional analyses, we only found one significant interaction between mean levels of and variation in relatedness need fulfillment that supported our argument that greater variation stifled the benefits of greater mean levels of relatedness need fulfillment on changes in attachment anxiety, but our samples were surely under-powered for moderation tests. Although recruiting and retaining dyads in longitudinal studies is difficult, future studies will benefit from larger samples in order to test and compare various theoretically-relevant combinations. The reliable effects of average relatedness needs in the current studies, however, suggest that variability may strengthen or weaken the effects of mean levels rather than play an independent or determining role in the way relatedness need fulfilment contributes to attachment insecurity across time.

Caveats and future directions

One potential concern is that attachment insecurity and relatedness need fulfillment may both capture (chronic vs. current) feelings of being loved and cared for. Prior research and additional analyses presented here provide reliable evidence that relatedness need fulfillment and attachment security are theoretically and methodologically distinct constructs (see Table 1 and Study 1 methods section). Furthermore, across both our studies, relatedness need fulfillment was associated with declines in attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance highlighting the centrality of relatedness need fulfillment to both forms of insecurity that are distinct in their expectation, concerns, and motivations (i.e., highly anxious people who crave love and closeness vs. highly avoidant people who avoid closeness and dependence). Moreover, if the findings were driven by construct overlap, then variability in relatedness need fulfillment should also have been more strongly related to change in attachment security as was shown for mean levels of relatedness fulfilment. Nonetheless, future research that incorporates larger samples and a greater number of repeated assessments could test whether within-person changes in relatedness need fulfillment are associated with changes in attachment insecurity. Additionally, whether relatedness need fulfillment mediates the benefits of specific partner buffering behaviors is an important next step to test our proposition that fulfilling relatedness needs is likely a central ingredient in the various behaviors shown to mitigate the effects of attachment insecurity.

Our samples included established couples that were relatively secure, which may raise questions about why we would see relatedness need fulfillment predict changes in attachment security. The levels of attachment insecurity are fairly typical and comparable to the prior studies referenced across this paper, which provide robust evidence that variation at these levels are reliably associated with differential outcomes. The security-enhancing effects of relatedness need fulfilment was not moderated by baseline levels of attachment insecurity, suggesting that relatedness need fulfillment is a basic psychological need and important foundation for security for all people. Of course, the restricted range of insecurity and sample size may have limited power to detect any differences, and so it remains unclear whether shifts in need fulfilment are possible for people particularly high in insecurity or distress. Nonetheless, our findings highlight that rather than needing to intervene via therapeutic programs, regularly interacting in ways that bolster relatedness need fulfillment (e.g., spending time together, meaningful discussions; Reis et al., 2000) may be critical to fostering attachment security for most couples.

Conclusions

The current research offers two key advances. First, relatedness need fulfillment is an important ingredient in reducing attachment insecurity over time. Second, general experiences of relatedness across couples’ lives appear to reflect a relationship environment that fulfils core needs for love, care, and regard that cultivate attachment security. By illustrating the security-enhancing effects of core experiences across couples’ daily and monthly life, we hope to highlight that building a close and caring relationship environment—rather than only enacting targeted buffering processes within specific situations—is important in fostering more secure and satisfying relationships.

	Attachment anxiety	Attachment avoidance	Relatedness need fulfillment
Definition	Individuals high in attachment anxiety have chronic beliefs that they will not be truly loved and accepted, and romantic partners eventually abandon them, and so crave closeness and intimacy	Individuals high in attachment avoidance have chronic beliefs that close others cannot be trusted to be available, caring, and loving when needed, and so avoid closeness and dependence	Feeling loved, cared about, valued, and accepted by partners within the current relational context
Study 1 items	“I’m confident that my romantic partners love me just as much as I love them.” (R)	“I find it relatively easy to get close to romantic partners” (R)	“I feel a lot of distance from my partner” (R)
“I usually want more closeness and intimacy than my romantic partners do.”	“I don’t like my romantic partners getting too close to me.”	“I feel loved and cared for by my partner”
“I often worry that my romantic partners don’t really love me.”	“My romantic partners often want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.”	“I feel a lot of closeness and intimacy with my partner”
Study 2 items	Study 1 items plus “I RARELY worry about being abandoned by my romantic partners.” (R) “My romantic partners are often reluctant to get as close as I would like.” “I RARELY worry about my romantic partners leaving me.” (R)“I often want to merge completely with my romantic partners, and this desire sometimes scares them away.” “I’m confident my romantic partners would never hurt me by suddenly ending our relationship.” (R)“The thought of being left by my romantic partners RARELY enters my mind.” (R)	Study 1 items plus “I am NOT comfortable having to depend on romantic partners.” “I’m comfortable having my romantic partners depend on me.” (R) “I’m somewhat uncomfortable being too close to my romantic partners.” “I find it difficult to trust my romantic partners completely.” “I’m nervous whenever any of my romantic partners gets too close to me.”	“How close was your relationship today? ”How much did you feel “Accepted and loved” “Valued and respected” “Rejected or ignored”

	Study 1	Study 2
Baseline (time 1) attachment anxiety	3.00 (1.27)	1.00–7.00	.58	3.02 (1.09)	1.00–5.89	.84
Baseline (time 1) attachment avoidance	2.73 (1.23)	1.00–6.33	.55	2.84 (.90)	1.00–5.63	.71
Follow-up (time 2) attachment anxiety	2.70 (1.31)	1.00–7.00	.70	2.78 (1.11)	1.00–5.22	.83
Follow-up (time 2) attachment avoidance	2.59 (1.16)	1.00–6.00	.53	2.84 (1.08)	1.00–5.63	.80
Mean relatedness need fulfillment	6.12 (.76)	3.62–7.00	.75	6.26 (.60)	4.88–7.00	.74
Variation in relatedness need fulfillment	.63 (.48)	0.00–2.24	-	.61 (.38)	0.00–1.74	-

Predictors	B	SE	t	p	95% CI	r
Changes in attachment anxiety
Intercept	−.32	.09	−3.57	<.001	−.51	−.14	.41
Baseline attachment anxiety	.55	.07	7.30	<.001	.40	.69	.55
Mean levels of relatedness need fulfillment	−.37	.16	−2.38	.020	−.68	−.06	.23
Variation in relatedness need fulfillment	−.03	.25	−.14	.887	−.52	.45	.01
Changes in attachment avoidance
Intercept	−.15	.10	−1.48	.145	−.35	.05	.19
Baseline attachment avoidance	.46	.06	7.15	<.001	.33	.59	.59
Mean levels of relatedness need fulfillment	−.43	.15	−2.80	.006	−.73	−.12	.25
Variation in relatedness need fulfillment	−.21	.22	−.96	.341	−.65	.22	.09

Predictors	B	SE	t	p	95% CI	r
Changes in attachment anxiety
Intercept	−.21	.10	−2.20	.032	−.40	−.02	.28
Baseline attachment anxiety	.49	.08	5.86	<.001	.32	.65	.51
Mean levels of relatedness need fulfillment	−.44	.21	−2.15	.034	−.85	−.03	.21
Variation in relatedness need fulfillment	.22	.32	.67	.502	−.42	.85	.07
Changes in attachment avoidance
Intercept	−.02	.08	−.22	.830	−.18	.14	.03
Baseline attachment avoidance	.58	.10	6.01	<.001	.39	.78	.51
Mean levels of relatedness need fulfillment	−.52	.21	−2.47	.015	−.93	−.10	.25
Variation in relatedness need fulfillment	−.11	.33	−.33	.744	−.76	.55	.03

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by University of Auckland doctoral research funds awarded to Yuthika U. Girme (Study 1) and a Victoria University of Wellington research Grant (200759) awarded to Garth J. O. Fletcher (Study 2). We thank Matthew Hammond and Phoebe Molloy for their contribution to data collection.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by University of Auckland doctoral research funds awarded to Yuthika U. Girme (Study 1) and a Victoria University of Wellington research Grant (200759) awarded to Garth J. O. Fletcher (Study 2).

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data and materials used in the research cannot be publicly shared but are available upon request by emailing Dr Yuthika Girme at ygirme@sfu.ca or Dr Nickola Overall at n.overall@auckland.ac.nz.

ORCID iDs

Yuthika U. Girme

Nickola C. Overall

Notes

References

Ackerman

R. A.

Ledermann

Kenny

D. A.

(2021). Power analysis for the actor-partner interdependence model.

Arriaga

X. B.

(2001). The ups and downs of dating: Fluctuations in satisfaction in newly formed romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 754–765. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.5.754

Arriaga

X. B.

Kumashiro

Finkel

E. J.

VanderDrift

L. E.

Luchies

L. B.

(2014). Filling the void: Bolstering attachment security in committed relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613509287

Arriaga

X. B.

Kumashiro

Simpson

J. A.

Overall

N. C.

(2018). Revising working models across time: Relationship situations that enhance attachment security. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 22(1), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317705257

Bayraktaroglu

Gunaydin

Selcuk

Besken

Karakitapoglu-Aygun

(2022). The role of positive relationship events in romantic attachment avoidance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000406

Bowlby

(1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. Basic Books.

Carnelley

K. B.

Rowe

A. C.

(2007). Repeated priming of attachment security influences later views of self and relationships. Personal Relationships, 14(2), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00156.x

Cassidy

Berlin

L. J.

(1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory and research. Child Development, 65(4), 971–991. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131298

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1053–1073, https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.6.1053

10.

Cross

E. J.

Overall

N. C.

Hammond

M. D.

(2016). Perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism attenuates highly anxious women’s negative reactions to conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(7), 923–940. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216647933

11.

Eller

Magro

S. W.

Roisman

G. I.

Simpson

J. A.

(2022). The predictive significance of fluctuations in early maternal sensitivity for secure base script knowledge and relationship effectiveness in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(10), 3044–3058. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221077640

12.

Farrell

A. K.

Simpson

J. A.

Overall

N. C.

Shallcross

S. L.

(2016). Buffering the responses of avoidantly attached romantic partners in strain test situations. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 30(5), 580–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000186

13.

Feeney

B. C.

Collins

N. L.

(2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–147, https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314544222

14.

Finkel

E. J.

Campbell

W. K.

Brunell

A. B.

Dalton

A. N.

Scarbeck

S. J.

Chartrand

T. L.

(2006). High-maintenance interaction: Inefficient social coordination impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 456–475.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.456

15.

Fraley

R. C.

Gillath

Deboeck

P. R.

(2021). Do life events lead to enduring changes in adult attachment styles? A naturalistic longitudinal investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1567–1606, https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000326

16.

Girme

Y. U.

Agnew

C. R.

VanderDrift

L. E.

Harvey

S. M.

Rholes

W. S.

Simpson

J. A.

(2018). The ebbs and flows of attachment: Within-person variation in attachment undermine secure individuals’ relationship wellbeing across time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(3), 397–421, https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000115

17.

Girme

Y. U.

Jones

R. E.

Fleck

Simpson

J. A.

Overall

N. C.

(2021). Infants’ attachment insecurity predicts attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies in adulthood. Emotion, 21(2), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000721

18.

Girme

Y. U.

Overall

N. C.

Hammond

M. D.

(2019). Facilitating autonomy in interdependent relationships: Invisible support facilitates highly avoidant individuals’ autonomy. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 33(2), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000488

19.

Girme

Y. U.

Overall

N. C.

Simpson

J. A.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

(2015). “All or nothing”: Attachment avoidance and the curvilinear effects of partner support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 450–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038866

20.

Gosnell

C. L.

Gable

S. L.

(2017). You deplete me: Impacts of providing positive and negative event support on self-control. Personal Relationships, 24(3), 598–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12200

21.

Gunaydin

Selcuk

Urganci

Yalcintas

(2020). Today you care, tomorrow you don’t: Differential roles of responsiveness variability and average responsiveness in romantic attachment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(5), 839–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620944111

22.

Hadden

B. W.

Rodriguez

L. M.

Knee

C. R.

DiBello

A. M.

Baker

Z. G.

(2016). An actor–partner interdependence model of attachment and need fulfillment in romantic dyads. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(4), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615623844

23.

Hadden

B. W.

Smith

C. V.

Webster

G. D.

(2014). Relationship duration moderates associations between attachment and relationship quality: Meta-analytic support for the temporal adult romantic attachment model. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 18(1), 42–58, https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313501885

24.

Hudson

N. W.

Fraley

R. C.

(2018). Moving toward greater security: The effects of repeatedly priming attachment security and anxiety. Journal of Research in Personality, 74, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.04.002

25.

Joel

Eastwick

P. W.

Allison

C. J.

Arriaga

X. B.

Baker

Z. G.

Bar-Kalifa

Bergeron

Birnbaum

G. E.

Brock

R. L.

Brumbaugh

C. C.

Carmichael

C. L.

Chen

Clarke

Cobb

R. J.

Coolsen

M. K.

Davis

de Jong

D. C.

Debrot

DeHaas

E. C.

Wolf

(2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(32), 19061–19071. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917036117

26.

Joel

Stanton

S. C. E.

Page-Gould

MacDonald

(2021). One foot out the door: Stay/leave ambivalence predicts day-to-day fluctuations in commitment and intentions to end the relationship. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(2), 294–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2739

27.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.

28.

Kim

K. J.

Feeney

B. C.

Jakubiak

B. K.

(2018). Touch reduces romantic jealousy in the anxiously attached. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(7), 1019–1041, https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517702012

29.

La Guardia

J. G.

Ryan

R. M.

Couchman

C. E.

Deci

E. L.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.3.367

30.

Lemay

E. P.

Dudley

K. L.

(2011). Caution: Fragile! Regulating the interpersonal security of chronically insecure partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 681–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021655

31.

Lemay

E. P.

Jr Clark

M. S.

(2008). “You’re just saying that.” Contingencies of self-worth, suspicion, and authenticity in the interpersonal affirmation process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1376–1382, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.001

32.

Little

K. C.

McNulty

J. K.

Russell

V. M.

(2010). Sex buffers intimates against the negative implications of attachment insecurity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(4), 484–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209352494

33.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford.

34.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Collins

N. L.

(2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641

35.

Overall

N. C.

(2020). Behavioral variability reduces the harmful longitudinal effects of partners’ negative-direct behavior on relationship problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(5), 1057–1085. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000231

36.

Overall

N. C.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Friesen

M. D.

(2003). Mapping the intimate relationship mind: Comparisons between three models of attachment representations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(12), 1479–1493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203251519

37.

Overall

N. C.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Simpson

J. A.

Fillo

(2015). Attachment insecurity, biased perceptions of romantic partners’ negative emotions, and hostile relationship behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(5), 730–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038987

38.

Overall

N. C.

Girme

Y. U.

Lemay

E. P.

Jr Hammond

M. D.

(2014). Attachment anxiety and reactions to relationship threat: The benefits and costs of inducing guilt in romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034371

39.

Overall

N. C.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Simpson

J. A.

(2022). Buffering and spillover of adult attachment insecurity in couple and family relationships. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00011-1

40.

Overall

N. C.

Sibley

C. G.

(2009). Attachment and dependence regulation within daily interactions with romantic partners. Personal Relationships, 16(2), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01221.x

41.

Overall

N. C.

Simpson

J. A.

Struthers

(2013). Buffering attachment-related avoidance: Softening emotional and behavioral defenses during conflict discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 854–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031798

42.

Park

Impett

E. A.

MacDonald

Lemay

E. P.

Jr (2019a). Saying “thank you”: Partners’ expressions of gratitude protect relationship satisfaction and commitment from the harmful effects of attachment insecurity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(4), 773–806, https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000178

43.

Park

Johnson

M. D.

MacDonald

Impett

E. A.

(2019b). Perceiving gratitude from a romantic partner predicts decreases in attachment anxiety. Developmental Psychology, 55(12), 2692–2700. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000830

44.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Barrett

L. F.

(1997). Working models of attachment and daily social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1409–1423. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.73.6.1409

45.

Raposo

Muise

(2021). Perceived partner sexual responsiveness buffers anxiously attached individuals’ relationship and sexual quality in daily life. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 35(4), 500–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000823

46.

Reis

H. T.

Clark

M. S.

Holmes

J. G.

(2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In Mashek

D. J.

Aron

A. P.

(Eds), Handbook of closeness and intimacy. (pp. 201–225). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

47.

Reis

H. T.

Sheldon

K. M.

Gable

S. L.

Roscoe

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266002

48.

Ren

Arriaga

X. B.

Mahan

E. R.

(2017). Attachment insecurity and perceived importance of relational features. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(4), 446–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516640604

49.

Rholes

W. S.

Eller

Simpson

J. A.

Arriaga

X. B.

(2021). Support processes predict declines in attachment avoidance across the transition to parenthood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(7), 1119–1134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220960365

50.

Rodriguez

L. M.

Fillo

Hadden

B. W.

Øverup

C. S.

Baker

Z. G.

DiBello

A. M.

(2019). Do you see what I see? Actor and partner attachment shape biased perceptions of partners. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(4), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218791782

51.

Rosenthal

Rosnow

R. L.

(2007). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

52.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68

53.

Sakaluk

J. K.

Fisher

A. N.

Kilshaw

R. E.

(2021). Dyadic measurement invariance and its importance for replicability in romantic relationship science. Personal Relationships, 28(1), 190–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12341

54.

Schrage

K. M.

B. M.

Stellar

J. E.

Impett

E. A.

(2022). Feeling appreciated predicts prosocial motivation in avoidantly attached individuals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14616722211225, Advanced Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221122515

55.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Phillips

(1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 899–914. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.71.5.899

56.

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(3), 466–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.466

57.

Solomon

D. H.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2004). A model of relational turbulence: The role of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of irritations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(6), 795–816.

58.

Stanton

S. C. E.

Campbell

Pink

J. C.

(2017). Benefits of positive relationship experiences for avoidantly attached individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4), 568–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000098

59.

Tran

Simpson

J. A.

(2009). Pro-relationship maintenance behaviors: The joint roles of attachment and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 685–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016418

60.

Vedelago

Balzarini

R. N.

Fitzpatrick

Muise

(2022). Tailoring dyadic coping strategies to attachment style: Emotion-focused and problem-focused dyadic coping differentially buffer anxiously and avoidantly attached partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26540752211335. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221133575

61.

West

T. V.

Kenny

D. A.

(2011). The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychological Review, 118(2), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022936

	Study 1			Study 2
	M (SD)	Range	α	M (SD)	Range	α
Baseline (time 1) attachment anxiety	3.00 (1.27)	1.00–7.00	.58	3.02 (1.09)	1.00–5.89	.84
Baseline (time 1) attachment avoidance	2.73 (1.23)	1.00–6.33	.55	2.84 (.90)	1.00–5.63	.71
Follow-up (time 2) attachment anxiety	2.70 (1.31)	1.00–7.00	.70	2.78 (1.11)	1.00–5.22	.83
Follow-up (time 2) attachment avoidance	2.59 (1.16)	1.00–6.00	.53	2.84 (1.08)	1.00–5.63	.80
Mean relatedness need fulfillment	6.12 (.76)	3.62–7.00	.75	6.26 (.60)	4.88–7.00	.74
Variation in relatedness need fulfillment	.63 (.48)	0.00–2.24	-	.61 (.38)	0.00–1.74	-

Predictors	B	SE	t	p	95% CI		r
Predictors	B	SE	t	p	Low	High	r
Changes in attachment anxiety
Intercept	−.32	.09	−3.57	<.001	−.51	−.14	.41
Baseline attachment anxiety	.55	.07	7.30	<.001	.40	.69	.55
Mean levels of relatedness need fulfillment	−.37	.16	−2.38	.020	−.68	−.06	.23
Variation in relatedness need fulfillment	−.03	.25	−.14	.887	−.52	.45	.01
Changes in attachment avoidance
Intercept	−.15	.10	−1.48	.145	−.35	.05	.19
Baseline attachment avoidance	.46	.06	7.15	<.001	.33	.59	.59
Mean levels of relatedness need fulfillment	−.43	.15	−2.80	.006	−.73	−.12	.25
Variation in relatedness need fulfillment	−.21	.22	−.96	.341	−.65	.22	.09

Greater average levels of relatedness need fulfilment across daily and monthly life predict lower attachment insecurities across time

Abstract

Keywords

Buffering insecure reactions and fostering attachment security

A central ingredient: Fulfilment of core relatedness needs

Current research

Study 1

Methods

Participants

Materials and procedure

Results

Study 2

Methods

Participants

Materials and procedure

Results

General discussion

General experiences of relatedness needs fulfillment foster attachment security

Variation in relatedness needs unassociated with attachment security

Caveats and future directions

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Open research statement

ORCID iDs

Notes

References