Davis, Shaver, & Vernon (2003)

1. Physical, emotional, and behavioral reactions to breaking up:The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and attachment style Davis, Shaver, & Vernon (2003)

2. Introduction • Anxious attachment associated with negative physical & emotional responses upon relationship dissolution • Few studies have examined behavioural responses & individual differences • PURPOSE: examine dysfunctional reactions to breakups among attachment styles • Distress/preoccupation • Ambivalent acting out • Coping & resolution

3. Adult Attachment Regulation of Distress • Secure • Adaptive coping • Understanding perspective • Avoidant • Fewer emotional expressions • Greater emotional avoidance • Anxious • ‘Coercive’ strategy • Aggression & Seduction

4. Attachment Perspective on Loss(Bowlby, 1980) • Protest • Despair • Reorganization/Reintegration • Individual difference in ‘disordered mourning’

5. Examined Reactions 1. Protest & Distress 2. Preoccupation/Exploration 3. Coping Strategies 4. Resolution

6. Method • Participants • n = 5,248 (64.4% female); age 15 – 50 (85.4% age 15 – 29) • Procedure • Internet based survey • Measures • Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR; Brennan et al., 1998) • Reactions to Breaking Up (author constructed; 72-item) • Demographics • (e.g., who terminated relationship, emotional involvement) • Analysis • Series of correlations & regressions

7. 1. Protest & Distress • Protest • Characteristic when threat to availability • Ambivalent acting out – ‘bipolar’ between desire ↔ hostility • Distress • Emotional & Physical • Lost interest in sex • Blame of loss • Guilt

8. 1. Protest & Distress • H1a: Distress & protest rxns = +ve attachment anxiety • (ps < .001) • ✔ • Anxious attachment =  aggression • H1b: Distress & protest rxns = -ve attachment avoidance • (ps < .001) • ✔ • Emotional involvement associated with distress • (.05< ps < .001) • Strongest = emotional distress; weakest = self-blame • Avoidant = more self-blame (vs. partner blame)?

9. 2. Preoccupation/ Exploration • H2a: breakups =  preoccupation in anxiously attached • (p < .001) • ✔ • H2b:  preoccupation = interference of exploratory behaviour • (p < .001) • ✔ • Emotional involvement = associated with  preoccupation & interference of exploratory behaviour • (ps < .001)

10. 3. Coping Strategies • H3: insecure attachment = maladaptive coping strategies • Anxious attachment = social coping (p < .001) • Avoidant attachment = self-reliance (p < .001) • Insecure attachment = alcohol & drug use (ps < .001) • Avoidance of partner: • Anxious = self-initiated termination (p < .001) • Avoidant = other-initiated termination (p < .001) •  emotional involvement

11. 4. Resolution • H4a: anxious attachment =  perseverance to reestablish relationship • (p < .001) • ✔ • H4b: anxious attachment = lost sense of identity • (p < .001) • ✔ • H4c: replacement of lost partner =  anxiously attached • (p < .001); if self-initiated = +ve; partner initiated = -ve • H4d: replacement of lost partner = avoidantly attached • (p < .001) regardless of initiation

12. Descriptive Results • Gender ≠ differences in attachment style • F = more emotionally involved • Person to initiate breakup: •  anxiety •  emotional involvement •  avoidance

13. Putting Humpty Back Together • Those who are more emotionally involved experience greater distress • Anxious attachment: • Preoccupation & perseverance interfere with functioning – exploratory behaviour, coping, disordered self-identity •  motivation to reestablish relationship =  aggression • Avoidant attachment – not as boring as once thought? • Unique finding of more self-blame – important?

14. Limitations Future Direction Examine longitudinally Different measures of attachment (e.g., AAI)  aggression in anxiously attached – examine gender perceptions & behaviours Verbal? Physical? Gender? • Memory Recall • Correlational – not causation • Presenting this study: • 1. in 15(ish) minutes • 2. Organization

15. Talk to me.