8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
1/24
1
Danny Sanchez
CUNY Pipeline
Senior Thesis
Title Pending
If you ask people, what they want in a romantic partner you will hear similar
responses. In general people want someone who is attractive, generous, treats them well,
takes them out, buys them things, and has a good job, and education. All of these factors
play a role in attraction, but which characteristic is most important? Most people also
prefer a partner who can provide security and support in a relationship (Simpson,
1990).However, some people end up dating an insecure person. Evolutionary
psychologists suggest that beauty and resources are more verypreferable than other
characteristic. Generally, men prefer physical attractiveness in a partner and women a
manare attracted to men who is are high in status. (Buss,1988) Lets be honest who would
not want to date a rich supermodel. However, attraction is obviously not solely based on
superficial things like beauty and money. When people commit to a relationship they
expect to be loved, trusted and appreciated by their significant other. An ideal partner is
someone one can talk to when things are bad and when things are good. Someone to
make you feel like youre the only person in their world . The present study investigated
whether people would prefer a partner who has things features like high status and beauty
over security and support. The goal of this study was to understand why people
sometimes end up dating a person who provides them with less security and support in
relationships.
History of Attachment Theory
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
2/24
2
In order to understand relationships, a starting point isto examine lets look at the
first relationship people have, which is the infant-caregiver bond. For most of us, the first
bond we form is with our mother at birth. One of the first psychologists to examine that
bond was John Bowlby who developed a theory of attachment grounded in evolutionary
principles (Bowlby, 1973; as cited in Simpson,1990). By staying in close contact with the
caregiver the infant has a better chance of surviving. Children learn that when they cry
for pain, hunger, or just for attention the parent will respond in a certain way. The parents
response towards the child is also important for the development ofhis or herthe childs
understanding of how relationships work, and thus his or her attachment style. The
bond that is formed between infants and caregivers plays a major role in the childs
personality development. From infancy to adulthood, the parental bond shapes our
behavior and feelings in other social domains like our romantic relationships.
Building on Bowlbys work Ainsworth, Belhar, Waters & Wall (1978) determined
that different infant attachment styles existed as a result of individual differences in the
infant-caregiver relationship. The three attachment styles Ainsworth et al.and colleagues
(1978) described were secure, anxious/ambivalent, and avoidant. In brief, if the infant has
a responsive and attentive caregiver, the infant develops a sense of security, love and
confidence: a secure attachment style. If the caregiver is not responsive and/or attentive
the child can develop an insecure style; anxious/ambivalent or avoidant attachment. What
Ainsworth et al. (1978) observed in anxious infants was an anxious, fearful, clinging
response to the parent. The behavior Ainsworth et al. (1978) observed in avoidant infants
was a defensive, hostile response towards the caregiver. The bond that forms between
infants and their caregivers is an important part of the infants personality development.
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
3/24
3
The attachment people form with their caregiver endures into adulthood and shapes their
behaviors in adult romantic relationships.
Adult Attachment
Social psychologists believe that the attachment bond developed towards the
caregiver endures into adulthood and later romantic relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987;
Fraley & Shaver, 2000), with some obvious differences. In adulthood that the bond is no
longer with the caregiver but with a romantic partner. Also,as an infant the caregivers
justprovides without expecting anything back, in contrastbut in adult relationships each
partner is both a provider and a recipient (Hazan & Shaver, 1994). Despite the
differences, the functions and dynamics of the attachment behavioral system are
hypothesized to be virtually the same across the life span (Hazan et al. 1994). Research
has found that adult attachment involves similar attachment for protection, survival and
nurturing seen in childhood. Prototypical adult attachment relationships thus involve the
integration of three behavioral systems: attachment, care giving, and sexual mating
(Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw, 1988). When an individual [an adult] is feeling distressed,
sick, or threatened, the partner is used as a source of safety, comfort, and protection
(Fraley et al., 2000). That security and support is what most people want in a romantic
partner (Chappell & Davis, 1998). Security adds to our well-being both physically and
psychologically (Simpson & Rholes, 2010).
Most adult attachment research conceptualizes attachment in adulthood as being
dimensional. Some researchers believe that attachment should not be categorical but
rather be dimensional. Fraley and Wallers (1998) analyses indicated that categorical
models are inappropriate for studying variation in romantic attachment. With a
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
4/24
4
dimensional approach, there is a spectrum between secure or insecure and there are two
attachment dimensions -- anxiety and avoidance. Anxiety reflects the degree to which
individuals worry and ruminate about being rejected or abandoned by their partners
(Simpson, Kim, Fillo, Ickes, Rholes, Oria, & Winterheld, 2011). Avoidance reflects the
degree to which people are uncomfortable with closeness and emotional intimacy
(Simpson et al., 2011). A secure individual is low in anxiety, and low in avoidance.
An insecure person is high on either anxiety or avoidance, or on both. Anxiety reflects
the degree to which individuals worry and ruminate about being rejected or abandoned by
their partners (Simpson, Kim, Fillo, Ickes, Rholes, Oria, Winterheld, 2011). Avoidance
reflects the degree to which people are uncomfortable with closeness and emotional
intimacy (Simpson et al., 2011).
Behavior in Relationships as afunction Function ofsecurityAttachment Security
Most people say they prefer a secure partner (Latty-mann & Davis, 1996).
Research suggests that a secure partner provides a better opportunity for forming a
secure, satisfying romantic relationship than does an insecure partner (Chappell et al.,
1998). Past research also indicates that secure individuals behave in ways that promote
relationship well being for both partners, whereas insecure people are more likely to
encounter relationship dissatisfaction (Felmlee, 1995). People want to be with someone
who does not make them doubt their partners love and commitment to them and the
relationship. Past research has shown that secure individuals are better able to recover
from relationship conflicts (Salvatore, Kuo, Steele, Simpson, & Collins, 2011), and they
think autonomy is important, and they are comfortable with closeness (Collins & Read,
1990). Since a secure partner is able to communicate and express their thoughts and
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
5/24
5
feelings about issues in the relationship, this could be one explanation why most
individuals want to have a secure partner.
Insecure individuals behave differently than secure people. For example, anxious
individuals are more likely to experiences separation distress after temporary separations
(Fraley & Shaver, 1998) and have less trust in their relationships (Simpson, 1990).
Anxious people always often worry that their partner is cheating on them or that their
partner does not love them. These insecurities could lead to troublesome behaviors like
extreme jealousies that affect relationship satisfaction. Avoidant individuals do not
disclose much personal information; instead, they tend to talk either about the other
person or about impersonal stuff like school and work (Simpson 1990). The way insecure
people behave may be detrimental to the relationship because they provide less security
and support in relationship than secure people do. As mentioned before, people do end up
dating insecure people, and staying with the person for a very long time even if they are
not satisfied in the relationship. Why is this?
Security, Beauty, or Money?
Are people attracted to superficial things like resources and status or does
personality and attachment security matter more? Many studies have examined attraction
preferences from different perspectives (e.g. social and evolutionary psychology)
(Klohnen & Luo, 2003; Buss, 1988). There is still a debate going on in the area of
attachment about whether attraction is based on similar or complementary personalities.
Most Much research shows that most people want a secure partner regardless of their
own attachment style (Latty-mann et al., 1996, Simpson,1990). Other studies have found
a matching effect with insecure people date dating other insecure people rather than
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
6/24
6
secure people (Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994, Frazier et al.,1996 ). It is not clear why people
would end up dating someone who is insecure, and who provides them with less security
and support.
In the real world, security sometimes is not the concern, but instead money, status,
and beauty are. Some people want to date a rich person who could be their providera
sugar-momma or sugar-daddy.. In our society, women are stigmatized for this image
of gold-digger more then men are. However, women are not the only ones who choose
a partner based on superficial things; men are guilty as well.Most men want a physically
attractive girlfriend or wife (Buss 1986, 1988; Stewart, Stinnett, & Rosenfeld, 2000). As
shallow as this may sound for both sexes, according to evolutionary psychology these
preferences have been inherited through evolution and serve as a guide to choose the best
suitable partner.
Evolutionary considerations of mate choice date back to Darwin (1871).
According to Darwins theory of natural selection and sexual selection, certain genes and
reproductive strategies are passed down through evolution. Men and women typically
differ on which reproductively relevant resources they need from a potential mate (Buss,
1988). Robert L. Trivers (1972), a socio-biologist, developed the parental investment
hypothesis to explain sex differences in mate preferences.
The parental investment hypothesis states that males should adopt a reproductive strategy
that maximizes copulatory opportunities, where as females should adopt a strategy that
imposes maximum choice, holding back until the best male is identified. Males look for
beauty because a females reproductive value is indicated strongly by characteristics of
youth and health, and these are most accurately evaluated from physical appearance and
attractiveness
Buss, 1988
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
7/24
7
There have been many studies showing that men prefer attractive women above
any other characteristics (Stewart et al., 2000). Research suggests that for men, physical
attractiveness is apriority in mate selection. For women on the other hand, because their
parental investment requires more effort, they need to be selective in mate choice.
Women must base their preferences on what the man has to offer in terms of providing.
Women must also ensure the man stays around (e.g., provides a secure base) and has
resources to provide for the infant so that it survives. Past studies show that women prefer
men who have status and resources (Buss, 1986) and have good earning capacity and
ambitions (Stewart et al. 2000). According to evolutionary psychology, this is what drives
womens mate selection. Wealth is used as a guide for women to choose a suitable
partner. A woman does not want to date a man who has no job or education because this
type of male will not be able to provide for her and eventually fortheir children.
Study Overview
Evolutionary Psychologists psychologists have established that physical
appearance and resources are highly value in a mate, but there is no emotion with
superficial things like money and beauty. Money cannot buy love, and attraction is more
complex than that. Social psychologists have found that attachment security is highly
preferable in a romantic partner (Latty-mann et al., 1996). In the current study we ran two
experiments to examine whether individuals would sacrifice attachment security for
evolutionary desirable features like beauty, status, and resource. We hypothesized that
women would prefer a high status man regardless of his insecurities (Study 1). Also men
would prefer beauty over attachment security (Study 2). In each study, we paired
insecure dating profiles with evolutionary desirable feature. In study one, we presented
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
8/24
8
participants with a high status, insecure dating profile. In study two, we paired insecure
dating profiles with idiosyncratic attractive photos of potential romantic partners.
Method
Study 1
Evolutionarypsychology theorypredicts people who posses status and wealth
should be preferable to most regardless of other characteristics involved. We believe
people will choose someone who is wealthy regardless of the persons inability to provide
security and support. The current study assessed partner preference, namely by assessing
correlations between insecurity and wealth.
Participants
Three hundred five students (121 men, 184 women) from Queens College were
recruited from their introductory psychology classes in exchange for course credit.
Participants varied in age, sex, and cultural background (see Table 1). The mean age of
the sample was 00.00 years (SD = 0.00). The experiment was run with 1 - 4 participants
per experimental session.
Materials
Participants were given the Experiences in Close Relationship-Revised Scale
(ECR-R; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000). The Experiences in Close relationship was
used to assess the participants; attachment in romantic relationships. The ECR had a
Cronbachs alpha of .90 for the anxiety dimension and .92 for the avoidance dimension
(Brumbaugh & Fraley, 2010). Some examples of the statements on the ECR are, Im
afraid that I will lose my partners love and I worry a lot about my relationships.
which measures the anxiety dimension of attachment, and I prefer not to show a partner
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
9/24
9
how I feel deep down , and I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners., which
describes asseses the avoidance dimension. The participants rated statements on the ECR-
Ron a 7-pointLikert scale; 1 (strongly disagree)to 7 (strongly agree).
Participants saw four dating profiles. Two of the profiles portrayed insecure
people who were high in status, and two described secure people who were low in status.
The profile used four relationship scenarios similar to those developed by Pietromonaco
and Carnelly (1994). Each profile was designed to capture the pattern of romantic
relationship behaviors most prototypical of one of the four attachment dimensions. We
combined those profiles with differing degrees of status and resources such that the
individuals high in status attended Ivy League Schools and had moneyappeared wealthy
whereas low status individuals attend Community Colleges and had low paying jobs.
Examples of the four profiles are as follows:
One of the high status insecure profiles described was a 23-year-old Columbia student,
whose source of income was a trust fund from his or herparents. This highly anxious
person described himself or herself as follows:
Sometimes, when I am involved in a relationship, I get scared because I feel like
I do not
know what I would do without the person. I worry about getting hurt in my
relationshi-
ps and often feel vulnerable. I feel like my past partners didnt do enough in the
relati-
onship to make it succeed.
The other high status insecure profile described a Harvard student, who was a 22-
year-old Junior Analysis at a Fortune 500 company. The highly avoidant
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
10/24
10
individuals in the profile depicted him or herself as follows:
When getting acquainted, I like to keep it simple and just get to know one another on a
general level. I am a shy and do not always have a lot to say about myself at first. I like to
talk about things like school and my outside activities, but I do not really say much about
personal stuff.
One of the low status-secure profiles described a 23-year-old student from Community
College, who worked as an usher in a movie theater. The person in the secure profile
described him or herself as follows:
On a first date, I typically try to share who I am. I also am interested in getting to know
my date, to find out what they are all about and what their personality is like. I feel I can
trust most people when I first meet them. I think people are generally well intentioned
and good hearted. Being close to others does not scare me and I do not back
away from it.
The other low-status secure profile portrayed a 22-year-old student from DeVry
University, a TV school, who worked as a waiter. In this profile, the individual describes
described himself or herself as follows:
When I am in a relationship, I feel confident that my partner is there for me and that
they love me. When I am not involved in a relationship, I am sure of myself. Im not
overly concerned that. People will reject me. I dont usually feel lonely because I know
that my loved ones care for me. In a romantic relationships, I enjoy doing things as a
couple, but I also think that its important for each person to keep separate friends and
interests.
The participants were also given an attraction questionnaire after they read each
profile. Examples of statements on the questionnaire are were I could see myself in a
long term relationship with this person and I am attracted to this person.. The
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
11/24
11
questionnaire was rated on a 7 point Likert scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree) regarding the participants feelings toward each of the four targets.
Procedure
Participants arrived at the lab and were randomly assigned tosat in four separate
rooms with computers. Each participant was assigned an arbitrary subject id number. A
research assistant introduced himself or herself and gave the participants an overview of
the general purpose of the study and the procedures involved. The research assistant then
handed out a consent form and a sexual orientation questionnaire. After the questionnaire
and consent form were completed and collected, participants were then told to complete
the screen to begin the Experiences in Close Relationship-Revised Scale (ECR-R). on
the computer. Then, the participants read four dating profiles. The participants were told
that they were real people and potential partners they could meet. The Participants read
the dating profiles were randomly assignedin a randomized order. Participants were given
approximately one minute to read the each dating profile. The profiles were shown
according to the participants sexual orientation. For example heterosexuals were shown
dating profiles of the opposite sex. Participants rated their attraction to each profile after
reading it. After the participants read and rated all four dating profiles, participants were
verbally debriefed and thanked for participating in the study.
Results
In order to X we Y. The data was collected and analyzed. The Multivariate
Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) yielded significant results but not as we hypothesizes
hypothesized We expected women to choose the high status insecure target. Instead
women rated the low status secure targets significantly higher than the high status
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
12/24
12
insecure targets,F(3, 549) = 35.97,p < .01 (see Figure ?). Follow-up tests here. We also
found males preferred the low status-secure targets significantly greater more than the
insecure high status targets,F(3,360) = 35.79,p < .01 (Figure 2BARGRAPH). The Tt-
Test test also yielded significant results contrary to our hypothesizes. Females preferred
low status secure targets significantly greater when paired with high status insecure
targets, t(28) = 2.44,p < .01 (Figure 2). However, we did find some unpredicted results.
The Analysis of Variance showed that highly anxious women significantly preferred
highly anxious rich men F(1, 182) = 8.67,p < .05 (Figure 3BARGRAPH with M SD).
Discussion
Contrary to popular belief that women want a manmen who has have money and
status we found the opposite pattern. Women in our studypreferredto be with a manmen
who is were low on in status but can who had the potential toprovide them with security
and support in a relationships. It seems women want a guy who can communicate and
express his feelings rather than someone who just spends money on them and does not
show them any love or emotional support. Previous studies have found women tend to
most satisfied with a secure partner(Frazier, Byer, Fishcer, Wright, & DeBord1996). Our
data show women would rather be with a guy that provides them with emotional security
rather theoversuperficial things like money. Women Past research has shown that women
feel more satisfied if they feel close to their partners and spend their free time together
(Collins & Read,1990). Money isnt everything, . for Forexample spending time with
your apartner does not cost a dollar, but makes women feel appreciated and loved. Also
if the women in our sample were financially stable they might feel have felt like they do
did not need a man to provide for them. Previous research has found that women who
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
13/24
13
reported greater control over their own monetary resources considered other
characteristics in men more important than his theirability to provide (Eagly, Eastwick,
& Johannesen-Schmidt, 2009). Intelligence could have also influenced there choice.
Women who score high in an intelligence tests have less of a desire for less desired traits
associated with ability to financiallyprovide financially in their future spouse (Stanik &
Ellsworth, 2010).
The unpredicted similarity results were unpredicted but were alsoare not
surprising. Previous studies have found an anxious-anxious matching effect (Frazier et
al..1996). Although anxious behaviors might be seen as annoying (e.g., extremely jealous
and endlessly doubting), some research findings suggest that attachment anxiety is not
always unattractive (Brumbaugh & Farley, 2010). An In other words, anxiousperson
people mightbehave in a way that makespeople others feel like they really care about
them and are really interest in them. (Brumbaugh & Farley., 2010). Another reason for X
could bebecause thatpeople may seek partners for whom their attachment system is
already prepared to respond (Collins et al., 1990). Anxious people may accept the
behaviors demonstrated by their anxious partner and be comfortable with those
responses, . for Forexample, they both like worrying about each other.
Study Two
In the next second study we tried to assess partner preferences based on the
evolutionary desirable feature of beauty. A major difference between Study 1and 2 was
that in Study 1, the profiles are were accompanied by an unattractive or attractive photo.
Another difference iswas that school and source of income are were not included in the
dating profiles. We predicted that beauty would govern partner choice above other
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
14/24
14
characteristics like security, especially for men. We are were interested to find how out if
beauty is was more important then attachment security in partner choice.
Participants
One hundred eighty four students (91 males, 93 females) from Queens College
were recruited from their introductory psychology classes in exchange for course credit.
Participants varied in age, sex, and cultural background(Table 1). The mean age of the
sample was 00.00 years (SD = 0.00). The experiment was run with 1 - 4 participants per
experimental session. , None none of whom had participated in Study 1.
Procedure and Materials
Participants arrived at the lab and were randomly assigned tosat in four separate
rooms with computers. Each participant was assigned an arbitrary number. A research
assistant introduced himself or herself and gave the participants an overview of the
general purpose of the study and the procedures involved. The research assistant then
handed out a consent form and a sexual orientation questionnaire. After the questionnaire
and consent form were completed and collected. Participants then completed the ECR-R..
Participants Next, participants were then given 12 photos of the opposite sex to rate on a
7-point Likert scale forphysical attractiveness; 1 (extremely unattractive) to 7 (extremely
attractive). The photos were obtained from www.hotornot.com a website where people
publicallypost and rate photos of other people as attractive and unattractive. The research
assistant told the participants to rate each photo according to their own preferences. This
was done to so that we could obtain an idiosyncratic measure of physical attraction
preferences. After participants were done rating the photos, they were given a filler
reaction time task.
http://www.hotornot.com/http://www.hotornot.com/8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
15/24
15
The filler task was used so that the research assistant had time to pair the two
photos rated as most attractive with two insecure dating profiles and the two photos rated
as most unattractive with secure dating profiles. Participants were then randomly given
shown the four dating profiles (with photos) describing insecure and secure people in a
random order. As in Study 1, participants were told to read each profile and report their
feelings about the eachperson by completing the attraction questionnaires to assess their
attraction towards the people in the dating profile. After the participants read and rated all
four dating profiles, the experimenter verbally debriefed them and thanked them for
participating in the study.
Results
The data was collected and analyzed using SPSS software. The results found partially
support our hypothesis. Men preferred insecure, physically appealing women over secure
but physically unattractive women,F(3, 270) = 15.71,p < .01. Conversely, women
preferred secure, physically unattractive men over anxious, good looking men, F(3, 276)
= 2.73,p < .05. There were also unpredicted results. There was a similarity effect in this
study as like in Study 1. Highly anxious women preferred good looking highly anxious
men,F(1, 91) = 5.37,p < .05, d= .48. Women who were low in anxiety were also
marginally more attracted to the low anxiety target,F(1, 91) = 2.67,p = .10, d= .34.
Discussion
. In a literature review on mate preferences Feingold (1990) found 54 articles that
chronicled the significance of physical attractiveness as anattractive highly desirable trait
in all dating situations. Evolutionary psychologists have already established the
importance of physical appearance in mate choice for men (Buss,1986). Other studies
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
16/24
16
have found that physical appearance is important for both sexes (McDaniel,2005, Stewart
et al.2000). What we found is slightly different from previous Scholarly scholarly
literature. In this study we found that men preferred attractive insecure women, and but
on the other hand women preferred an unattractive partner who could provide attachment
security in a relationship. For men beauty mattered more than security, . this This could
be have been due to because ofour sample, which were was composed mostly ofyoung
adults. The men in our sample could have been thinking about the short -term, and maybe
if we asked what they look for in a long long-term partner their response could would
have changedbeen different. It could also be due to societal norms. Beauty was highly
valued throughout evolutionary history as is today. Men choose the more attractive one
because they were just more appealing.
Quite the oppositepattern of results was seen in women in our study. Women
preferred an unattractive partner who can had potential toprovide a secure base in a
relationship. This finding is concurrent with attachment literature that most people want a
secure partner (Latty-mann et al.,1996, Chappell et al.,1998). The security the guya man
provides can also be attractive to a women womanbecause he could make her feel loved
and appreciated. It seems emotional support is very important for women, and more
importantratherthan superficial things like beauty. One reason could be because money
and beauty does not last but security and emotional support is long term. Research
suggests that there are differences in desired characteristics of short and long term
relationships (Stewart el at.2000). The thought of short vs. long term relationships may
have influence womens preferences for a partner.
General Discussion
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
17/24
17
The current study is one of the first to examine the relative importance ofan
attachment-security effect in comparison to othereffects features that are already known
to be important in partnerpairing and choice (e.g. evolutionary desirable features). We
were interested to see if superficial things like beauty and money are werepreferred more
than attachment security. Our studies showed a differences between men and women.
Women, in both studies, preferred attachment security rather than evolutionary desirable
features like beauty and money. These Ourresults add areveal sex differences as they
pertain to the attachment literature, showing that. In other words, women prefer
attachment security rather then other things and not men.
It could also be because women feel more independent and empowered compared
to women a couple of decades ago. More women are getting high position jobs and are
continuing their education which could give them are a greater sense of domestic
authority. Research has shown that women who score high in intelligence and have a
greater sense of domestic authority do not prefer the typical features that evolutionary
psychologists argue, drive a womens womanspartner selection (Eagly, 2009; Stanik et
al.2010; & Moore, F.R., Cassidy, Smith, Perrett, 2006).
For men on the other hand, attachment security was not more important than
evolutionary desirable features. In study one there were no differences in preference, men
seemed indifferent if the woman was secure, insecure, had money, or no money. In study
two was where we observed mens preferences. Mmen preferred insecure attractive
women rather than secure unattractive women. The results could be explained by the
parental investment hypothesis, men want an attractive woman because she looks healthy
and fertile. We cannot say for certain that men choose attractive women because of her
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
18/24
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
19/24
19
References
Ainsworth, M., Belhar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978).Patterns of attachment.
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
20/24
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
21/24
21
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic
attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms.Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 59, 981-993.
Felmlee, D.H. (1995). Fatal Attractions: Affection and Disaffection in Intimate
Relationships.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 295-311.
Fraley, R.C., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Airport separations : A naturalistic study of adult
attachment dynamics in separating couples.Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 1198-1212.
Fraley, R.C., & Shaver, P.R. (2000). Adult Romantic Attachment : Theoretical
Developments, Emerging Controversies, and Unanswered Questions.Review of
General Psychology, 4, 132-154.
Fraley, R.C., & Waller, N.G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological
model. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.),Attachment theory and close
relationships (pp 77-114), New York : Guilford Press.
Kirkpatrick, L.A., & Davis, K.E. (1994). Attachment Style, gender, and relationship
stability: A longitudinal analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
66, 502-512.
Klohnen, E.C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal Attraction and Personality: What is
Attractive--Self Similarity, Ideal Similarity , Complementary, or Attachment
Security?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709-722.
Latty-mann, H., & Davis, K.E. (1996). Attachment theory and partner choice :
Preferences and actuality.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,13, 5-23.
Moore, F.R., Cassidy, C., Smith, M. J. L., Perrett, D.I. (2006)The effects of female
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
22/24
22
control of resources on sex-differentiated mate preferences.Evolution and
Human Behavior, 27, 193-205.
Salvatore, J.E., Kuo, S. I., Steele, R.D., Simpson, J.A., & Collins, W.A. (2011).
Recovering From Conflict in Romantic Relationships: A Developmental
Perspective.Psychological Science, 22, 376-383.
Shaver, P.R., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment: The integration of
three behavioral systems. In R.J. Sternberg, & M.L. Barnes (Eds.), The
Psychology of Love (pp.68-99). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Simpson, J.A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships.Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,59, 971-980.
Simpson, J.A., Kim, J.S., Fillo, J., Ickes, W., Rholes, W.S., Oria, M.M. Winterheld,
H.A.( 2011). Attachment and the Management of Empathic Accuracy in
Relationship-Threatening Situations.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
37, 242-254.
Simpson, J.A., & Rholes, W.S. (2010). Attachment and relationships : Milestones and
future directions.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27,173-180.
Stanik, C. E., Ellsworth, P.C.(2010). Who cares about marrying a rich man?
Intelligence and variation in womens mate preferences.Human Nature,
21,203-217.
Stewart, S., Stinnett, H., & Rosenfeld L.B. (2000). Sex differences in desired
characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 843-853.
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
23/24
23
Table 1
Demographic of Participants.
Ethnicity Study 1(%) Study 2 (%)
8/2/2019 Attachment 5 12 Edits
24/24
24
Figure Caption
Top Related