1. 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 at M. C. Pistole at

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 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

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 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

9. 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

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