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 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

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

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

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.

Caregiving (Bowlby, 1988) Caregiving Caregiving Mechanisms: 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

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.

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

Investment Model Characteristics Influenced by: 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

Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Hypothesis 2: 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

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.

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)

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

Tables

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

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

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