Annabelle Adelizzi, Ethan Freedman*, and Joseph LaMuraglia

Colgate University

Author's Note:

I would like to thank Professor Krystina Sorwell at Colgate University for conducting our Research Methods in Psychological Science course in such a way that has enabled me to write this piece to the best of my ability. Furthermore I would like to acknowledge the help of my peers in PSYCH 200B for creating an environment in which to work and have fun. You all have emphatically helped to produce the following work. Lastly, to Annabelle Adelizzi and Joseph LaMuraglia, thanks for all your hard work and patience in contributing to this research proposal.

Lastly, with deep respect, I acknowledge the land we learn and live holds the breath, bones, and brilliance of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, specifically the Onyotaaka or people of the Upright Stone of the Oneida Nation. As world citizens and members of the Colgate community, we make space for this truth, reflect on its connection to legacies of violence, and recognize it as but a beginning to decolonial living, activism, and unlearning.

Who Loves Who: The Effect of Individual and Partner Attachment Style on Initial Sense of Intimacy

Abstract

This study proposes an examination on the extent that certain attachment styles are drawn to other attachment styles as a construction zone and product of experiences pertaining to intimacy, attachment, and others through time. Through a scale to assess attachment stemming from prior research conducted, a manipulation of videos created with actors / confederates to portray attachment styles, and another scale pertaining to intimacy, the extent attachment styles desire intimacy, whether platonic or romantic, is assessed. It was hypothesized that secure styles will have the highest intimacy levels while avoidant styles will have lower levels. That being said, each attachment style will be most drawn to the secure attachment styles and will feel the strongest sense of intimacy with them. No results were generated as this was just a proposal, but limitations, strengths, and the future of research is discussed. From students at Colgate University, the following proposal was brought to fruition.

Key Words: Intimacy, Attachment, Parenting Styles, Secure, Anxious, Avoidant

Who Loves Who: The Effect of Individual and Partner Attachment Style on Initial Sense of Intimacy

As humans, it is innate for us to seek out relationships with the people around us and from the second we are born, we desire companionship in different ways – whether it be parental, friendships, romantic, or some other alternative form. While it may seem like the best relationships are built from love, compassion, empathy, among many other feelings, the reality is that the attachment styles humans exemplify help bring to fruition the kinds of relationships we have. While empathy and love can exist in one relationship, certain attachment styles can bring anxiety and avoidance in another. While there could be genetic predispositions for certain people developing certain attachment styles, previous research shows that different parenting styles have drastically different outcomes on the development of a child (Einav, 2015; Dinero et al., 2022; Dinero et al, 2008; Kerpelman et al. 2012). So yes – the environment plays a major role in facilitating how humans develop attachment. Further research has shown that there are four pervasive attachment styles relevant to human social development and interaction: secure, anxious or ambivalent, disorganized, and avoidant ( Nascimento et al., 2021; Guerrero, 1996). Together, the differing parental styles of authoritative, authoritarian, neglectful, and passive parenting help to foster the development of these attachment styles in an adolescent. Previous work has simultaneously shown that attachment styles facilitated by parents or caregivers have major effects on the extent to which an individual develops healthy levels and forms of intimacy in differing kinds of relationships throughout life (Constant et al, 2021; Doyle et al. 2009; Gray, 2001; Weisskirch, 2018; Vaillancourt-Morel et al., 2019). While there is plenty of research on how attachment styles generated through parental and caregiving relationships transcend into posterior connection as well as the extent that these bonds develop intimacy, there is still room for research in the field of attachment and its role in promoting intimacy styles. This study seeks to advance the understanding of known research on attachment and intimacy, as well as the extent to which individuals with different attachment styles can develop different kinds of intimate relationships with other attachment styles.

Parenting Styles

Familial origins play an integral role in social interactions as well as the expectations that one has for relationships – whether platonic or romantic (Einav, 2015; Dinero et al., 2022; Dinero et al, 2008; Kerpelman et al. 2012). Einav (2015) examined the associations between young adults' perceptions of their parents' relationship and the quality of their parenting as predictors for children's expectations surrounding intimacy in relationships. People often enter relationships with a wide array of expectations ranging from communication needs to compensation for qualities and characteristics. These expectations can lead to problems sometimes. When agents cannot fulfill or perform their role as a partner, they are likely to be anxious, deceived, or unsatisfied in their relationships (Einav, 2015). In parents being the first romantic as well as platonic connection that a child likely is to observe, children can be seen imitating behaviors. However, there is more to it as children also make interpretations of the beliefs, desires, and meanings attributed to the overt behaviors, construct schemas for their own intimate relationships, and utilize parents as a basis for their own future relationship expectations (Einav, 2015). Einav notes that when parenting fits the child's needs, a secure attachment is established as there is trust, consistency, comfort, and coping mechanisms for disappointments that spontaneously arise. On the other hand, inaccessible, punitive, or not available parents foster insecure attachment where there is avoidance, mistrust, fear in intimacy, and the feeling of emotionally demanding relationships. From Einav, one can understand the moderate correlation between an individual's assessment of the quality of their parents' relationship and their perception of their parenting quality, highlighting that parents have an effect on the perceptions and expectations of their children's desired intimacy.

Furthermore, Dinero et al. (2022) looked at longitudinal trajectories of adult romantic attachment during adulthood and was curious about how observed family interactions were related to the trajectories of attachment related anxiety and avoidance. This stemmed from the idea that people tend to become less anxious as they mature into adulthood and that each individual has their own experiences during this transitioning time (Dinero et al., 2022) Using John Bowlby's attachment theory from 1958, Dinero et al. assists in understanding the idea that attachment literally promotes survival by generating levels of closeness with caregivers – and sometimes caregivers fail to meet the needs of their children. This is what leads to anxiety and uncertainty of security regarding needs being met by partners and can be found in romantic and platonic attachment as this reflects an extension of the parent child attachment relationships (Dinero et al., 2022). Dinero et al. found that changes in attachment anxiety and avoidance were positively associated with one another and family interaction did not predict attachment anxiety and avoidance. In other words, new relationships overtime are utilized as foundations for the future development of alternative relationships – parental relationships are only relevant in early stages of life.

Attachment Styles

Attachment styles were originally brought to light by John Bowlby's Attachment Theory (1958); however, since then there has been a fair amount of research added. Nascimento et al. (2021) sought to understand the extent that satisfaction mediates the association between attachment styles and mate retention strategies. From a study with 420 participants in heterosexual relationships, Nascimento et al. hypothesized that anxious attachment would be positively associated with cost inflicting and benefit provisioning strategies. It was also presumed that relationship satisfaction mediates the association between attachment insecurity and mate retention. With couples satisfaction being recorded on an index of sixteen items and a five point likert scale per item, partners indicated how they felt about their relationship while also scaling certain behaviors related to the performance of their relationships in the past year. After the adult attachment scale was tested to reveal secure, anxious, or avoidant attachment styles in participants, results showed that anxiously attached people tend to engage in both cost-inflicting and benefit provisioning strategies (Nascimento et al., 2021). Moreover, relationship satisfaction mediates the relationship between attachment styles and mate retention strategies. In other words, someone's attachment style plays a very large role in determining how they try to maintain secure relationships.

Nascimento et al. (2021) also found that people associated with anxious and avoidant attachment styles have a significantly lower level of relationship satisfaction, which serves as an underlying mechanism for mate retention strategies. Lastly, the authors suggest that the association between attachment styles and mate retention methods is not directly related to relationship satisfaction – but mediated by it (Nascimento et al., 2021). To elaborate, insecurely attached agents perceive more conflict in their relationship as there is lower trust and lower perceptions of support which is equated to satisfaction.

Attachment styles were also studied in research performed by Guerrero (1996) on intimacy and involvement differences pertaining to differentiating attachment style. Specifically looking at partner communication as a means of reflecting intimacy and affiliation or involvement, intimacy was operationalized based on self disclosure, affection, and trust (Guerrero, 1996). Involvement was based on psychological and physical closeness, levels of dynamism in the relationship, response latencies and body coordinations, altercentrism or the ability for a partner to focus on their significant other, social anxiety, and positive affect. These operations stemmed from the idea that attachment style is something that is visible through one's own communication and their ways of processing, interpreting, and reacting to their partners (Guerrero, 1996). Results suggested that attachment styles and dimensions that are elemental to them contribute to differences in communication and behavior that are subtle, whether verbal or non-verbal. Furthermore, several intimacy related behaviors were relevant to attachment style dimensions of approach or avoidance and high or low need for external validation (Guerrero, 1996). In summary, attachment styles predicted the levels of avoidance and validation associated with an agent. Furthermore, communication styles of dismissive and fearful or avoidant attachment styles have less trust and affection. Guerrero (1996) marks that when partners reciprocate less trust and affection, their negative models of others are reinforced. The same is true for the opposite style of secure attachment. In summary, attachment styles are correlated with relationship satisfaction levels and are also tied to the perceptions one has about their partnerships.

Intimacy Styles

The intimacy styles of an individual can depend on many factors, whether it be parents, environment, or some alternative. Doyle et al. (2009) set out with the prospect of a longitudinal study ranging between ages of thirteen, sixteen, and nineteen years old. It was hypothesized that attachment styles of parents and friends are associated with increases in attachment security with romantic partners over time when attachment is secure. Results showed that attachment insecurity with best friends were significantly correlated with present or later insecurity with a romantic partner; however, as someone ages, attachment insecurity decreases. Furthermore, gender differences were found as girls showed stronger desires for romantic closeness, but found it more difficult to establish trust with their partner. Doyle et al. uncovers the importance of outside relationships and their effects on attachment facilitation in romantic partnerships.

Moreover, in a study that investigated the mediating effect of intrapersonal and interpersonal emotional competences on the relationships between attachment styles and intimacy, it was found that people's attachments styles have been shown to be related to their development of intimate relationships and quality of function in partnerships (Constant et al., 2021). Constant et al. discussed how avoidant attachment agents are less likely to engage in self-disclosure and be responsive to their partners due to difficulties in expressing emotions. For anxious attachment, their focus tends to be primarily on their own negative emotions rather than positive ones. The study revealed that intrapersonal emotional competence appears to mediate relationships between insecure attachment styles and intimacy dimensions of engagement and communication (Constant et al., 2021). Research also supported the idea that people's abilities to regulate their own emotions were beyond necessary for relational intimacy, especially in the context that avoidant styles have less intrapersonal and interpersonal emotional competence and intimacy across all intimate dimensions. In other words, secure attachment styles were associated with the best levels of managing and regulating emotions which were associated with higher levels of intimacy.

In addition to Constant et al. (2021), Gray (2001) looked at the individual patterns of adolescent romance and intimacy as a result of parent-child relationships. Gray notes that the development of romantic relationships has long been associated with the relationships between parents and the manner in which their children were raised, as well as the idea that romance is suggested to begin in early childhood with parents as influences. As a result, parents can do a lot to influence the wellbeing of their children. Gray (2009) points out that the environment and morals set forth by parents create the emotional atmosphere for parent child interactions, and each parenting style fosters this differently. Authoritative parents tend to have the highest quality relationships with their children, while authoritarian parents have low warmth with high demanding characteristics. On the other hand are permissive parents who have high amounts of warmth and low demand. Gray's study looked at which parenting styles are predictive of an absence of attachment anxiety and hypothesized that a healthy parenting style and secure parent-child attachment would be predictive of absent attachment anxiety. Results found that the absence of anxiety was associated with having both parents positing authoritative styles of parenting (Gray, 2001). Moreover, when children have a healthy relationship with their parents, they are much more likely to have healthy romantic relationship patterns in the future – signifying once again that parental relationships with their children play a significant role in the development of attachment and intimacy later on in life.

Further research on intimacy is seen in the contributions by Vaillancourt-Morel et al. (2019), where the potential association between childhood maltreatment and intimacy as well as how intimacy at a certain time can mediate negative associations between maltreatment and sexual relationship satisfaction. Here, intimacy is operationalized through Reis & Shaver’s (1988) “Interpersonal Process Model. Intimacy was described by self disclosure of feelings and thoughts to partners, responses of empathic behaviors, and if a response is received, validated, affirmed and cared for, then intimacy increases. Results showed that higher levels of child maltreatment were negatively associated with people’s personal perceptions of partners disclosures and partner responsiveness, but did not seem to affect self-disclosure. Moreover, higher levels of childhood maltreatment are negatively associated with people’s own personal and sexual relationshp satisfaction (Vaillancourt-Morel et al. 2019). This means that a partner’s feelings on if they will be negatively received by their significant other renders them less satisfied in their relationship. However, people who experience maltreatment at a young age can have biased perceptions about their partners behaviors. Regardless, partner responsivenes plays an important role in mediation of relationships between childhood maltreatment and sexual and relationship satisfaction (Vaillancourt-Morel et al. 2019). Furthermore, it is essential for intimacy because when self-disclosures are not rewarded with empathic responses from partners, intimacy has trouble increasing.

Lastly, Weisskirch (2018) addressed psychological intimacy, relationships with parents, and the well-being among emerging adults. Investigating whether identify development, attachment style, parenting, and self-efficacy in romantic relationships are linked to psychological intimacy development and whether psychosocial intimacy is associated with well-being, Weisskirch (2018) found that identity achievement, self-efficacy in romantic relationships, and lack of avoidant attachment to parents significantly predicted psychosocial intimacy. In general, intimacy achievement is represented to be an important developmental milestone and is contingent on an individual achieving identity. This is because there is a significant effect of psychosocial intimacy on overall well-being, as well as a negative relationship between psychosocial intimacy and attachment anxiety, avoidance, parental overprotection, depression, and loneliness (Weisskirch, 2018). In conclusion, Weiskirch (2018) points out that one’s identity development, and all the factors that contribute to it, is incredibly important to the development of intimacy, whether platonic or romantic.

The Present Study

From prior research, the overwhelming existence of a relationship between parenting styles and attachment is greatly supported (Einav, 2015; Dinero et al., 2022; Kerpelman et al. 2012). In conjunction, attachment style research supports the idea that individuals' attachment styles foster differences in approaches and outcomes in relationships (Nascimento et al., 2021; Guerrero, 1996). Furthermore, parental attachment as well as the development of attachment in general plays a pivotal role in the development of intimacy styles as well as relationship satisfaction (Constant et al, 2021; Doyle et al. 2009; Gray, 2001; Weisskirch, 2018; Vaillancourt-Morel et al., 2019). While many studies have been done to uncover the relationship between parental attachment, attachment styles, and intimacy styles, there is still research to be done surrounding the relationship between these three life variables. This study aims to expand on the research done prior by proposing an experiment on the degree people with different attachment styles (secure, anxious, and avoidant) feel like they can develop intimate relationships with other types of attachment styles. Three different hypotheses were generated. The first predicts that secure styles will report the highest intimacy levels in relation to other secure styles and the lowest in relation to the avoidant styles. Second, the anxious styles will also report high levels of intimacy in relation to secure styles and will be particularly unreceptive to avoidant styles. Finally, avoidant styles will also report high intimacy in relation to secure styles but will be unreceptive to the anxious styles (See figure 1 and figure 2). The experiment produced will offer background on one's attachment style derived from the Revised Adult Attachment Scale (Cillins, 1996) and will offer videos associated with each attachment style to help determine which style participants are drawn to the most. Lastly, intimacy will be recorded on a scale modified from Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships Inventory (Schefer & Olson, 1981). Through an experiment administered by college students at Colgate University in Hamilton, New York, the following discussion was generated.

Methods

Participants

A convenience sample of participants will be recruited by posting flyers advertising the study around the campuses of colleges belonging to the New York Six (Colgate University, Hamilton College, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Skidmore College, St. Lawrence University, and Union College).  After accessing and completing the study via a QR code included on the flier, participants will receive $10 as compensation through PayPal.

Materials and Measures

Participant Attachment Style

Participants will be presented with the 18-item Revised Adult Attachment Scale, which addresses habits of and beliefs about relating to others using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all characteristic of me” to “very characteristic of me.”  Sample statements include “When I show my feelings for others, I'm afraid they will not feel the same about me” and “I know that people will be there when I need them.”  Each of the items on this scale pertains to one of three subscales: “depend” (feeling of being able to depend on others), “anxiety” (worry over being rejected or unloved), and “close” (comfort with closeness and intimacy).  Participants’ responses to the items on each subscale are averaged to produce their scores for the three different constructs.  For the purposes of this study, high depend scores would indicate secure attachment styles, high anxiety scores would indicate anxious attachment styles, and low close scores would indicate avoidant attachment styles.  This scale has previously demonstrated high internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s s ranging from 0.78 to 0.80 for the dependent subscale, 0.83 to 0.85 for the anxiety subscale, and 0.80 to 0.82 for the close subscale (Collins, 1996).

Partner Attachment Style Videos

All participants will view a total of three videos, each approximately two minutes long, in which three different people (hereafter referred to as actors or confederates) representing three different attachment styles will each respond to three questions.  In the experimental condition, participants will watch videos containing questions that encourage actors to reveal their own attachment styles; however, participants in the control condition will watch the same actors respond to a separate set of questions that do not invite them to divulge this information.  Questions used in the experimental condition videos were drawn from Sets II and III of the 36 Closeness-Generating Questions – often referred to as “the 36 Questions That Lead to Love” – and the questions used in control condition videos were drawn from Set I (Aron et al., 1997).  Experimental condition questions include “What roles do love and affection play in your life?”, “What do you value most in a friendship?”, and “When did you last cry in front of another person? By yourself?”, while control condition questions include “Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?”, “If you were able to live to the age of 90 and retain either the mind or body of a 30-year-old for the last 60 years of your life, which would you want?”, and “If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any one quality or ability, what would it be?”.  Actors’ attachment styles will also be measured using the aforementioned Revised Adult Attachment Scale and each will be assigned to represent their own attachment style in order to increase external validity; however, responses of actors in both conditions will be scripted to ensure adequate communication or suppression of their attachment styles (example answers representing each attachment style as well as the control condition are available in the appendix).  Control and experimental condition videos will be filmed on the same day in the same setting to make them as similar as possible with regard to all aspects other than informational content, and each video will have a duration of two minutes plus or minus ten seconds long.

Sense of Intimacy

After viewing each video, participants will respond to 12 items (along with an additional four distractor questions) assessing their affinity towards the given actor.  Scale items were selected from the 36-item Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships inventory and reworded to make them more appropriate for the study at hand; for example, the statement “My partner listens to me when I need someone to talk to” became “I think this person would listen to me when I need someone to talk to,” and “Every new thing that I have learned about my partner has pleased me” became “I enjoyed learning more about this person” (Schaefer & Olson, 1981).  In previous research, intimacy has been operationalized in terms of a variety of dimensions: Vaillancourt-Morel et al. (2019) focused on self-disclosure of feelings and personal thoughts as well as perceived responsiveness and self-disclosure of partner, while Guerrero (1996) examined the depth, immediacy/affection, and receptivity/trust of relational messages and Constant et al. (2021) measured engagement, communication, and shared friendship.  In designing our intimacy scale, we combined some of the most common constructs to form two major dimensions – “self-disclosure/trust” and “engagement/interest” – and chose six items to represent each.  The first of the two example statements above, to illustrate, was categorized as targeting self-disclosure/trust, while the second was categorized as targeting engagement/interest.  Participants will rate their agreement with each statement on a continuous graphic rating scale ranging from zero to 100, and each participant’s various ratings will be averaged (after reverse-scoring the four opposite-keyed items) to produce overall intimacy scores for each of the videos.  Internal consistency reliability of the entire scale, as well as of the subscales of self-disclosure/trust and engagement/interest, will be measured by calculating Cronbach’s s.

Design

This study will use a 2 x 3 x 3 mixed hybrid factorial design with two levels of the between-subjects variable of attachment style information in the videos (present and not present), three levels of the within-subjects variable of actors’ attachment style (secure, anxious, and avoidant), and three levels of the within-subjects variable of participants’ attachment style (secure, anxious, and avoidant).

Procedure

Participants will access the study website through a QR code included on the posted flyers and will first be prompted to read a brief summary of the experiment and give consent.  Participants will be informed that the study is investigating the development of interpersonal relationships and that they will be asked to fill out a series of questionnaires and watch three two-minute videos, but the specific purpose of the research will not be revealed until the debrief at the end.  Having consented, participants will be directed to complete the Revised Adult Attachment Survey.  Depending on the condition to which they are randomly assigned by the survey software, participants will then view three videos (presented in counterbalanced order within conditions) in which actors either do or do not provide information regarding their own attachment styles.  After watching each video, participants will rate their sense of intimacy in relation to the given actor using our 12-item questionnaire (the word “intimacy” itself will not appear on the questionnaire due to the possibility of it triggering them to focus solely on romantic feelings).  Following this, participants will be given a brief demographic survey including age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, hometown, marital status of parents, college of attendance, and two additional questions addressing current relationship status (“Do you consider yourself to have many friends in which you can confide?” and “Are you currently involved in a committed romantic relationship?”).  Socioeconomic status will be assessed using the MacArthur Subjective Social Status Scale, which asks participants to think of socioeconomic status as a ladder with ten rungs and choose the rung that best represents the position of the household in which they grew up, with ten being most wealthy, educated, and respected and one being the opposite (Adler et al., 2000).  Lastly, participants will be provided with a debrief of the study and compensated.  We estimate that the entire study will take a maximum of 45 minutes to complete.

Data Analysis

To analyze our data for group differences, we will perform two repeated-measures 2 x 3 x 3 factorial analyses of variance (ANOVAs) examining the intimacy dimensions of self-disclosure/trust and engagement/interest.  These will be followed by post hoc Tukey’s and/or Holm’s HSD tests, depending on the significance of the results.  All analyses will be conducted in JASP (v. 0.16) with significance set at p = 0.05.

Discussion and Predictions

The purpose of this study is to examine the degree to which people with different attachment styles (secure, anxious, and avoidant) feel like they can develop intimate relationships with other types of attachment styles. It was hypothesized that 1) secure styles would report the highest levels of intimacy in relation to one another and the lowest in relation to avoidant styles, 2) anxious styles would report highest levels of intimacy with relation to secure styles and would be particularly unreceptive to avoidant attachment styles, and 3) avoidant styles would report highest intimacy in relation with secure styles but be particularly unreceptive to anxious styles. In other words, secure styles would be particularly sought after by other attachment styles, but anxious and avoidant attachment would deviate regarding where they are unreceptive to. Through the proposal of an experiment that helped to assess individuals' attachment styles, place them in position relative to other attachment styles, and a tertiary scale to assess intimacy levels pertaining to each attachment style participants met with, the following discussion was brought to fruition.

Attachment Styles Based on Parental Attachment

With the Revised Adult Attachment Scale (Collins, 1996), participants' attachment styles were assessed. From here, each participant would experience the condition presented by videos. This means that participants would experience both the control and the manipulation, however, because there are no results, we must look to prior research for answers. It can be predicted that attachment styles or participants will be relatively correlated to the perceptions individuals have pertaining to their caretaker’s relationship and quality of caretaking (Einav, 20140. This is because children are not simply imitating their parents behaviors but making interpretations of the beliefs, desires, and meanings attributed to their caretakers behaviors. Furthermore, parents serve as a basis for the intimate relationships of adolescents. In the end, there is a moderately positive correlation between the individual's understanding of the quality of their caretaker's relationship and their perception of their parenting quality (Einav, 2014). From this, it is expected that results can be tied to the extent that one’s upbringing was healthy and retrospectively attributed to be generated by caretakers. Moreover, expectations about intimacy in adult children is a product of their reflection on their caretakers' relationships, and is a response in some way to attempt to compensate for perceptions of imbalance. Pertaining to the present study, this is why it is predicted that all styles of attachment that individuals portray will desire or be attracted to the secure styles of attachment in the videos. Furthermore, because it is known that early attachment is a foundational piece of determining future attachment, it is believed that individuals' attachment styles will be consistent with prior representations; however, there is also a possibility of individual pattern arising (Dinero et al. 2022). However, for the purpose of this study, the role of parental attachment or early attachment could be a diminishing one as individuals find meaning in other relationships through time. As a result, it is expected that participants' attachment styles could be disassociated from parental attachment because individuals' attachment anxiety and avoidance overtime can become associated with new relationships (Dinero, et al. (2022).

Attachment Styles Seeking Attachment

Nascimento et al. (2021) looked at the extent that relationship satisfaction mediates the attachment styles and mate retention strategies of an individual. With their study in mind, the addition of information suggesting that people associated with anxious and avoidant attachment styles have lower levels of relationship satisfaction, a couple predictions can be made regarding the present study. Pertaining to the secure attachment participants, it can be expected that their satisfaction regarding their interactions with the videos will be higher in conjunction to the anxious and avoidant attachment styles. In other words, secure attachment will have the strongest satisfaction levels regarding their feelings towards the videos. Anxious and avoidant attachment styles will be less satisfied with the videos because of the fact that the association between attachment styles and partner retention strategies is mediated by the style of attachment one has. Moreover, based on Guerrero (1996) it can be assumed that one will be able to gauge the attachment style offered in each of the videos because attachment styles contribute to differences in communication and behaviors – even if they are subtle. If communication styles of dismissive and fearful or avoidant attachment have less trust and satisfaction, it stands that our hypothesis would be correct. This means that secure would be the most desired attachment style no matter what style each participant is identified to have from the determining scale. Both anxious and avoidant attachment styles, as well as secure, will be attracted to building a relationship with the person representing secure attachment in the videos.

Attachment Styles Seeking Intimacy

From Doyle et al. (2009) it is known that the attachment styles of an individual can be a result of many factors in life, however further predictions pertaining to the present study can be made with their work in mind. Considering attachment styles of outside relationships have major effects on attachment facilitation in new relationships, it can be predicted the participants in the present study would be making decisions regarding whether or not they are interested in building a relationship with individuals in the videos based on outside attachment and intimacy styles. Furthermore, Constant et al. (2021), helps to infer that securely attached and intimate people will have higher emotional competence with permeating focuses on positive emotions. For anxious and avoidant attachment participants, they will likely focus on negative aspects – or why they did not like participants in the videos (Constant et al. 2021).

Alternative Predictions

While research supports many predictions and hypotheses regarding the present study, predictions outside of this can be made. It can be predicted that there will be a significant main effect of attachment style on sense of intimacy in relation to the videos. This is because attachment style has a large effect on mediating intimacy development as shown by much of the prior research presented. Based on this, avoidant styles will overall report lower sense of intimacy, anxious styles will be higher in intimacy pertaining to engagement and interest, but lower in dimension of self disclosure and trust. Lastly, a secure attachment style will report the highest sense of intimacy. Moreover, it is expected to see a significant ordinal interaction between participant attachment style and confederate attachment style (video attachment style). This stems from the idea that the effect of participant’s own attachment styles on their sense of intimacy in relation to people in videos will only be visible when videos include attachment style information. In other words, intimacy will not be achieved in the confederate videos where attachment style is not displayed. It can also  be predicted that anxious styles will significantly dislike avoidant styles in the videos as they are seeking secure attachment to counteract the anxieties associated with their desires for intimacy. Avoidant styles will, in opposition, dislike anxious styles in the videos as they too will be seeking secure attachment as a means of being as satisfied as possible with all their relationships. It is also possible that secure styles may not show any significant preferences for any attachment styles despite our hypotheses predicting otherwise. In addition, anxious and avoidant styles’ preferences for secureness may not be as significant as assumed.

While not considered in the beginning literature review, Simpson (1990) assists in a lot of predictions pertaining to the present study. Based on their work, it can be assumed that people who exhibit secure attachment will tend to be involved in relationships characterized by higher levels of interdependence, trust, commitment, and satisfaction – supporting the idea that securely attached individuals will seek out relationships with the secure aspects of the manipulation. This also supports the idea that they will have the highest levels of intimacy out of the other participants in the study. Moreover, insecure attachment folks would find themselves on the opposite end of the spectrum in comparison to secure. Simpson (1990) also supports the idea that the three attachment styles will have different patterns of emotional experience. This means that their interpretations of the confederates in the videos will be largely different due to their attachment styles. People with secure attachment styles will have a more positive emotional outlook and less frequent negative emotions regarding the videos (Simpson, 1990). Lastly, while all of the predictions made could be plausible, the reality is that individual attachment styles could also have less of an impact on the partners perceptions of the relationship than it has on their own perceptions. This means that participant’s attachment styles, when explicitly understood in videos, might not have any effect on the perceptions that participants have pertaining to the relationships being built through the videos.

Potential Limitations, Strengths, and Confounds

With every study comes the possibility of limiting factors and confounds, and this one is no exception. For the present study, a limiting factor of concern would be the “College Sophomore Problem” as the population and sample we are picking from are college students. What this basically means is that, while our study may be internally valid, its representation of the external world could be low as college students are not representative of society at large, especially students in the New York Six as these are all private institutions. This means that socioeconomic status, racial factors, and other identity factors are not representative of the general population, therefore the study could be lacking in external validity. Another limitation that is possible based on the design of the study would be the “volunteer bias”. This refers to the individuals who choose to participate in the study, whether college students or not, might have some sort of bias that leads them to volunteering. Thus, they are another potential confound as whatever leads them to volunteering might also be a factor that differentiates them from the general population. Moreover, the “mere-exposure bias” is something that is possibly a strength of the study, as well as a limitation. This bias is a strength because it suggests that people prefer things and people that are similar to what they have already been exposed to in life. This could help to bring reason as to why people with certain attachment styles seek out specific attachment styles; however, it is also a limitation. The mere-exposure bias could be a limitation for the present study because it suggests that repeated exposure creates familiarity, meaning that participants could choose to build relationships with certain attachment styles, not for the information on attachment they are exposing, but for alternative reasons that are familiar to them. This could be anything from personality traits to physical characteristics. The confound of social desirability also speaks to the same limitation presented by the mere-exposure bias as it suggests that participants could find themselves attracted to building a relationship with individuals they find most attractive or desirable.

While there are many possible limitations, just like there are in other studies, the present study also presents strengths. Specifically, the Revised Adult Attachment Scale (Collins, 1996), is an established scale used in prior attachment studies. This means that its validity is very high and would be better than designing our own scale. Also, in being a 2 x 3 x 3 mixed hybrid factorial design with two levels of between-subjects variables pertaining to attachment style information in the videos, three levels of within-subjects variables for actor’s attachment styles, and three levels of within-subjects variables of participants’ attachment styles, the design of the study presents many factors that can be supported by alternative tests such as a Post-Hoc Test. This means that significant findings can be further assessed for validity and main effects.

Conclusion

While there is a lot of research related to parental involvement and attachment, attachment styles in general, and attachment styles effect on intimacy, the present study attempts to fill a void relating to what kinds of attachment is seeked out by specific attachment styles. After considering the different parenting styles and how they inform levels of attachment in adults, the question was raised on which styles of attachment have the healthiest levels of intimacy. From here, it was a question which attachment styles seek out ulterior attachment styles or the same ones. After wondering to what degree do people with different attachment styles (secure, anxious, and avoidant feel like they can develop intimate relationships with other types of attachment styles, hypotheses were raised. It was predicted that secure styles will have highest intimacy levels in base relation to other secure styles, but lowest in relation to avoidant staples. Moreover, anxious styles will have the highest intimate relations with secure styles and will be unreceptive to avoidant. The opposite was predicted for avoidant styles. While conclusions could not be easily drawn because the experiment presented on has not been conducted, predictions showing that securely attached individuals will be most desired can be made. This is because secure attachment fosters the best levels of intimacy as well as the environment for the highest potential of intimacy – as supported by prior research.

From this point forward, there is always more room for research pertaining to the field of attachment. While this study is important because it helps to understand more factors that draw individuals to one another in such a way that relationships are fostered, understanding of other factors is very important. Alternative studies that address these alternative factors in conjunction with attachment theory would be incredibly helpful for the field because of the understanding that humans are a product of environment and genetics. With this in mind, attachment theory and the effect of genetics on generating attachment with caretakers, family, friends, and life related relationships would be incredibly valuable for understanding the field more. With the present study sparking a conversation on attachment and intimacy that advances research in the field in a general way, the effects of building attachment through technology could be really important to look at as well. In an ever increasing technological world, new ways of generating attachment are being created all the time, and understanding what draws us, attracts us, and distracts us from fostering relationships with other individuals is a really valuable tool.

References

Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and

objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in

healthy white women. Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 19(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-6133.19.6.586

Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The Experimental Generation of

Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297234003

Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 810–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810

Constant, E., Christophe, V., Bodenmann, G., & Nandrino, J.-L. (2021). Attachment orientation and

relational intimacy: The mediating role of emotional competences. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 40(3), 1374–1385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0062-x

Einav, M. (2014). Perceptions about parents’ relationship and parenting quality, attachment styles, and young adults’

intimate expectations: A cluster analytic approach. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 148(4), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.805116

Dinero, R. E., Conger, R. D., Shaver, P. R., Widaman, K. F, & Larson-Riffe, D. (2008).

Influence of family of origin and romantic partners on romantic attachment. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 622-632.

Dinero, R. E., Donnellan, M. B., & Hart, J. (2022). Developmental Trajectories of Adult Romantic

Attachment: Assessing the Influence of Observed Interactions With Family of Origin. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 39(3), 652–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211044123

Doyle, A. B., Lawford, H., & Markiewicz, D. (2009). Attachment style with mother, father, best friend,

and romantic partner during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19(4), 690–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00617.x

Gray, M. R. (2001). Individual differences in patterns of adolescent romance: Associations with the

parent-child

relationship [ProQuest Information & Learning]. In Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering (Vol. 62, Issue 5–B, p. 2483).

Guerrero, Laura K. (1996). “Attachment-Style Differences in Intimacy and Involvement: A Test of the

Four-Category Model.” Communication Monographs, 63(4), 269-292.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759609376395

Nascimento, B. S., Little, A. C., Monteiro, R. P., Hanel, P. H. P., & Vione, K. C. (2021). Attachment styles

and mate-retention: Exploring the mediating role of relationship satisfaction. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000272

Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The PAIR Inventory. Journal of Marital and

Family Therapy, 7(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1981.tb01351.x

Simpson, Jeffry. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology. 59. 971-980. 10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.971.

Vaillancourt-Morel, M., Rellini, A. H., Godbout, N., Sabourin, S., & Bergeron, S. (2019). Intimacy

mediates the relation between maltreatment in childhood and sexual and relationship satisfaction in adulthood: A dyadic longitudinal analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(3), 803-814. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1309-1

Weisskirch, R. S. (2018). Psychosocial intimacy, relationships with parents, and well-being among

emerging adults. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(11), 3497–3505.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1171-8

Figure 1: Hypotheses

Figure 2: Prediction of Intimacy Hypotheses

Appendix

1. Actor’s / Confederate’s Video Response Examples Per Attachment Style in the Manipulation

Question: It is difficult for me to say no or set boundaries

1. Secure: “I am very comfortable setting boundaries and will not get uncomfortable doing so”
2. Anxious: “I am often able to set boundaries with the people that I love, but it takes a lot of effort and energy for me to do so”
3. Avoidant: “While I can set boundaries for myself, I have trouble setting them with others and stay away from situations where I have to do so”
4. Actor's / Confederate’s Video Response Examples Per Attachment Style in the Control

Question: If you could wake up having gained any one ability, what would it be?

1. Secure: “I hope to be able to fly”
2. Anxious: “I hope to be able to fly”
3. Avoidant: “I hope to be able to fly”
4. Styles will not be shown in the control and answers will be arbitrary to the relevance of attachment style