1 / 16

Attachment, Caregiving, and Persistence in Long Distance and Geographically Close Relationships

Jonathan E. Mosko, M. Carole Pistole Purdue University Amber Roberts Grand Valley State University Karen Ray Purdue University. Attachment, Caregiving, and Persistence in Long Distance and Geographically Close Relationships.

sherman
Download Presentation

Attachment, Caregiving, and Persistence in Long Distance and Geographically Close Relationships

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Jonathan E. Mosko, M. Carole Pistole Purdue University Amber Roberts Grand Valley State University Karen Ray Purdue University Attachment, Caregiving, and Persistence in Long Distance and Geographically Close Relationships Mosko, J. E., Pistole, M. C., Roberts, A., & Ray, K. E. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and persistence in long distance and geographically close relationships. Poster presented at the International Association for Relationship Research mini-conference, July 21-24, Indianapolis, IN. J. E. Mosko can be contacted via email at jmosko@purdue.edu; M. C. Pistole at pistole@purdue.edu

  2. Rationale • Committed love relationships are important for adults’ health, well-being, and development (Behavioral Science, 1996a, 1996b; Cohen, 2004). • Romantic relationships are characterized by • Attachment (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) • Caregiving (Bowlby, 1988) • Long Distance relationships (LDRs) are increasingly visible (Kaslow, 2001) • LDRs require investments of time, money, and effort

  3. Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1988) • Attachment system • Biologically based • Functions across the life span • Attachment • An enduring bond • Propensity to seek proximity, may be symbolic, to a romantic partner • Function is protection • Feelings of security • Separation Anxiety • Noticeable during distress or when separation is prolonged • Exploratory system (e.g., work, learning) is inhibited • Individual differences becomes represented in personality

  4. Internal Working Models – Individual Differences • Internal schemas organizing attachment and caregiving experience • Formed for attachment and caregiving through interactions • Influenced by and reflection of attachment histories • Working Model Characteristics • Two Dimensions based on affect regulation strategies for managing attachment / caregiving • Hypersensitivity to attachment, chronic attachment system activation • Deactivation, suppression of attachment information • Attachment Prototypes • Secure: Self is loveable, partner will be accessible, seeks proximity when distressed • Preoccupied: Unworthy self, idealized partner, seeks near constant partner accessibility Dismissing: Positive, defensive self, partner will not be accessible, self-reliant rather than seeking support • Fearful: Negative self and partner. Deactivating and Anxious, avoids closeness to protect from rejection.

  5. Caregiving (Bowlby, 1988) • Caregiving • Provision of emotional care and protection • Linked to attachment • Caregiving Mechanisms: • Sensitivity, awareness of and interpreting attachment cues • Responsiveness, responds contingently and quickly • Flexibility, response based on partner’s IWM • Caregiver Functions: • A safe haven (i.e., relief of distress) • A secure base (i.e., an anchor for exploration, guidance as needed) • Protection

  6. Internal Working Models • Caregiving & Prototypes (Kunce & Shaver, 1994) • Secure: Notices attachment cues, provides support. • Preoccupied: Inconsistent in providing support; low sensitivity, high proximity, and compulsive caregiving. • Dismissing: Fails to notice cues for proximity; low compulsive caregiving. • Fearful: Low support and proximity; high compulsive caregiving.

  7. Long Distance Relationships (LDRs) • Characteristics • Partners are geographically separated for days or weeks • Solution to career-relationship conflicts • Few significant LDR/GCR relationship quality differences (e.g., closeness, satisfaction, intimacy) • LDRs significantly more stable than GCRs up to 6 months (Stafford & Reske, 1990) or 2 years (Stephen, 1996) • Strengths • Increased autonomy and work productivity during separation • More emphasis on intimacy when together • Challenges • Chronic separation-reunion cycle • Costs of travel, communication, dual residences • Authenticity of the relationship may be doubted by others

  8. Investment Model • Characteristics • Describes the relationship’s structural interdependence • Accounts for why some relationships persist or grow, despite difficulties, while others deteriorate (Rusbult, 1983). • Felt psychologically as commitment, an individual's long-term direction in a relationship • Influenced by: • Satisfaction, or happiness with the relationship, • Perceived alternatives to the relationship • Investments that the individual would lose if the relationship ended

  9. Hypotheses • Hypothesis 1: • Expect significant mean attachment style differences on caregiving and investment model variables, regardless of relationship structure (i.e, LDR vs. GCR), with secure attachment scores significantly higher. • Hypothesis 2: • Expect a different pattern of attachment, caregiving, and investment model variables will predict satisfaction in LDRs and GCRs

  10. Methods – Participants • Participants recruited through electronic listservs • Sample • N = 171; Primarily female (n = 148) • Age range 17 – 57 (M = 23.97, SD = 7.41) • 80 in LDR, 91 in GCR • Primarily White (80.1%) • Some college education (72.5%) • Most never married (80.7%) • Participants completed all measures electronically on a web site.

  11. Methods – Measures • Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) • 4 category model of attachment prototypes • Secure, Dismissing, Preoccupied, Fearful. • Experience in Close Relationships (ECR) (Brennan et al., 1998) • 2 dimensions of attachment • Avoidance and Anxiety subscales, 18 items each; α = .89 and .91 • Investment Model (Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994) • Satisfaction (5 items, α = .94) • Quality of Alternatives (5 items, α = .85) • Investment Size (5 items, α = .83) • Commitment (6 items, α = .86) • Caregiving Scale, 32 items (Kunce & Shaver, 1994) • Proximity vs. Distance (Cronbach α = .83) • Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity (Cronbach α = .83) • Cooperation vs. Control (Cronbach α = .87) • Compulsive caregiving (Cronbach α = .80)

  12. Results – Hypothesis 1 • MANOVA (attachment x LDR/GCR) • Main effect for attachment prototype, Hotelling’s T= .50, F(24, 386) = 2.65, p < .001, η2 = .14 • Investment model variables: • Secure – greater satisfaction than preoccupied, fearful • Dismissing – greater satisfaction than preoccupied • Caregiving variables: • Secure & Dismissing higher sensitivity than preoccupied, fearful • Secure & Dismissing higher cooperation than preoccupied • Dismissing less compulsive caregiving than preoccupied

  13. Tables

  14. Results – Hypothesis 2 • Multiple regressions predicting commitment • LDRs: • Step 1: low attachment avoidance, cooperation, & low compulsive caregiving predict commitment, F(6, 73) = 5.14, p < .001, explains 30% of variance. • Step 2: satisfaction and investments predict commitment, F(9, 70) = 7.38, p < .001, explains 49% of variance • GCRs: • Step 1: secure attachment (i.e., low attachment avoidance & anxiety) predicts commitment, F(6, 71) = 5.39, p < .001, explains 32% of variance • Step 2: low attachment avoidance, low alternatives, and satisfaction predict commitment F(9, 68) = 12.86, p < .001, explains 63% of variance

  15. Discussion • Results partially supported hypotheses • Significant attachment differences for relationship satisfaction and for caregiving, regardless of LDR/PR • Secure attachment related to higher satisfaction and effective caregiving • Contrary to previous research, dismissing persons who minimize the importance of attachment may believe they provide effective caregiving • A different pattern of variables predicted commitment in LDRs and GCRs • For both, satisfaction and low avoidance predict commitment • For LDRs, cooperation, non-compulsive caregiving, and investments predict commitment • For GCRs, low alternatives and secure attachment predict commitment

  16. Implications for Practice and Research • Practice with LDR clients • Support client confidence in viability of LDRs • Cannot support the null, but these results did not find investment model or caregiving differences for LDRs/GCRs • Facilitate secure attachment • Focus on attachment security associated with health outcomes • Help client maintain personal mental/physical health during times of relationship stress • Research on LDR/GCR • Examine LDR/GCR and mental health (e.g., well being, health management) • Investigate how LDR partners maintain proximity and provide adequate caregiving

More Related