《社会心理学》课程教学资源（文献资料）Close relationship——Attachment Anxiety and Reactions to Relationship Threat - The Benefits and Costs of Inducing Guilt in Romantic Partners.pdf

Attachment Anxiety and Reactions to Relationship Threat: The Benefits and Costs of Inducing Guilt in Romantic Partners Nickola C. Overall and Yuthika U. Girme University of Auckland Edward P. Lemay Jr. University of New Hampshire Matthew D. Hammond University of Auckland The current research tested whether individuals high in attachment anxiety react to relationship threats in ways that can help them feel secure and satisfied in their relationship. Individuals higher in attachment anxiety experienced greater hurt feelings on days they faced partner criticism or conflict (Study 1) and during observed conflict discussions (Study 2). These pronounced hurt feelings triggered exaggerated expressions of hurt to induce guilt in the partner. Partners perceived the hurt feelings of more anxious individuals to be more intense than low anxious individuals’ hurt and, in turn, experienced greater levels of guilt (Study 1). More anxious individuals were also rated by objective coders as exhibiting more guilt-induction strategies during conflict, which led to increases in partner guilt (Study 2). Moreover, partner guilt helped anxious individuals maintain more positive relationship evaluations. Although greater partner guilt had detrimental effects for individuals low in anxiety, more anxious individuals experienced more stable perceptions of their partner’s commitment and more positive relationship evaluations when their partner felt more guilt. Unfortunately, these benefits were accompanied by significant declines in the partner’s relationship satisfaction. These results illustrate that anxious reactions to threat are not uniformly destructive; instead, the reassuring emotions their reactions induce in relationship partners help anxious individuals feel satisfied and secure in their partner’s commitment. Keywords: attachment anxiety, relationship conflict, hurt feelings, guilt, anger A mass of research indicates that attachment anxiety undermines the quality of adult romantic relationships. Individuals high in attachment anxiety yearn for closeness and acceptance but harbor deep-seated fears that they will be rejected or abandoned (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980). Such fears create hypersensitivity to rejection and undermine coping when faced with relationship challenges (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). For example, highly anxious individuals experience more intense and prolonged distress and behave in less constructive ways during conflict (e.g., Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005; Overall & Sibley, 2009; Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996; Tran & Simpson, 2009). Unfortunately, such destructive reactions tend to incite aggressive and rejecting responses in the partner (Downey, Frietas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998), which prevents desired closeness and is likely to foster dissatisfaction in both partners. Yet, anxious individuals are also likely to respond to relationship threats in ways that are more conducive to their overarching goal to gain and maintain closeness. Relationship insecurities can simultaneously activate opposing motivations, including the motivation to protect against expected rejection, which tends to trigger anger and hostility, as well as the motivation to restore connection (Murray & Holmes, 2009). The combined rejection fears and need for closeness at the core of attachment anxiety exemplifies this motivational ambivalence. Accordingly, in situations which typically activate self-protection goals, such as separating from a romantic partner, anxious individuals also exhibit strong approach tendencies to maintain closeness (Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On, & Ein-Dor, 2010). Indeed, the emotionally-charged responses shown by anxious individuals during conflict likely represent protest at the potential loss of the relationship bond and attempts to ensure partners attend to the self and modify hurtful behavior—that is, sustain relationship connections (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1973; Cassidy & Berlin, This article was published Online First September 30, 2013. Nickola C. Overall and Yuthika U. Girme, School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; Edward P. Lemay Jr., Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire; Matthew D. Hammond, School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. This research was supported by Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund Grant UOA0811 and University of Auckland Science Faculty Research Development Fund Grant 3626244 awarded to Nickola C. Overall. Edward P. Lemay Jr.’s participation in this research was supported by a research grant awarded by the National Science Foundation (BCS 1145349). We thank Helena Struthers, Rosabel Tan, Kelsey Deane, Desmond Packwood, Briar Douglas, Phoebe Molloy, Shuai Han, David Pirie, Jan Trayes, and Lucy Travaglia for their contribution to data collection and observational coding. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nickola C. Overall, School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail: n.overall@auckland.ac.nz This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 106, No. 2, 235–256 0022-3514/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0034371 235

1994; Mikulincer, 1998; Rholes, Simpson, & Oriña, 1999; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). The current research was designed to isolate the specific emotional and behavioral responses to relationship threat that should (a) arise from anxious individuals’ doubts about their partner’s commitment and intense motivation to secure closeness and (b) be relatively successful in obtaining the reassurance and care anxious individuals crave. When faced with relationship threatening events, we predicted that anxious individuals would feel more hurt by their partner and try to repair closeness by strategically expressing their hurt feelings to induce guilt in their partner. Moreover, we expected that such guilt-induction strategies would provide anxious intimates the reassurance they need to feel secure and satisfied in their relationship, and thus help anxious individuals maintain more positive relationship evaluations across time. However, we also expected that these strategies might be accompanied by declining satisfaction in the partner. We outline the foundation for these predictions below. Attachment Anxiety and Reactions to Relationship Threat Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) theorized that an innate attachment system motivates humans to seek proximity to caregivers in times of need, but the outcome of those proximity-seeking efforts shapes the functioning of the attachment system. Optimal functioning is assumed to occur when proximity-seeking efforts have typically been successful in gaining responsive care. In adulthood, secure individuals trust their partners to be responsive and supportive, and confidently approach relationship challenges with positive expectations and pro-relationship motivations (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). When facing relationship conflict or hurtful partner behavior, secure individuals maintain faith that they are valued (e.g., Collins, Ford, Guichard, & Allard, 2006) and consequently adopt more constructive, problem-focused strategies to repair intimacy and connection (e.g., Simpson et al., 1996). Attachment anxiety is believed to arise when attachment figures have responded inconsistently to bids for love and support (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Fraley, Roisman, Booth-LaForce, Owen, & Holland, 2013). Individuals high in attachment anxiety deeply desire closeness and intimacy but fear that, regardless of their attempts to secure love, their partners may reject or abandon them (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). As a result, the attachment systems of anxious individuals become hyperactivated, which is characterized by chronic proximity-seeking to secure the acceptance they crave. For example, anxious individuals talk more about their relationships during routine conversations with their partners (Tan, Overall, & Taylor, 2012), continually seek reassurance of their partner’s regard (Shaver, Schachner, & Mikulincer, 2005), and feel better about their relationship when their partner is being supportive or explicitly communicating affection (Campbell et al., 2005; Lemay & Dudley, 2011). Hyperactivation also involves vigilant monitoring of the partner’s availability and an acute sensitivity to rejection, which produces more extreme reactions to relationship threat. Anxious individuals experience more pronounced feelings of rejection, stress, and hurt during conflict (Campbell et al., 2005; Overall & Sibley, 2009; Tran & Simpson, 2009), and their heightened distress is evident to objective observers (Campbell et al., 2005; Simpson et al., 1996) and apparent using physiological measures (Mikulincer, 1998; Powers, Pietromonaco, Gunlicks, & Sayer, 2006). This affective reactivity also leads to less constructive behavioral responses. Anxious individuals report engaging in more hostile behavior during conflict (e.g., Feeney, Noller, & Callan, 1994; Gaines et al., 1997; Overall & Sibley, 2009; Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1995; Simpson et al., 1996), and their conflict behavior has been rated by independent observers as less constructive and lower in quality (Creasey, 2002; Simpson et al., 1996; Tran & Simpson, 2009). These destructive reactions are understood to be a central reason why attachment anxiety can undermine relationship satisfaction and stability. Despite a reputation that the links between attachment anxiety and hostile reactions to conflict are well-established, several studies have found no associations between adult attachment anxiety and observed destructive behaviors during conflict (e.g., Bouthillier, Julien, Dube, Belanger, & Hamelin, 2002; Campbell et al., 2005; Roisman et al., 2007; Simpson et al., 1996) and no (e.g., Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 1997; Roisman et al., 2007) or weak indiscriminant (Creasey, 2002; Paley, Cox, Burchinal, & Payne, 1999) links with negative emotions. These null or weak effects are probably the result of gathering global measures that combine a range of negative and positive emotions or behaviors. While sensitivity to rejection produces heightened distress and hostility (Downey et al., 1998; Murray & Holmes, 2009), anxious individuals’ strong motivation to forge and sustain closeness should also generate emotions and behaviors that are directed toward restoring relationship bonds (Mikulincer et al., 2010). Broad indices combining responses will fail to detect the resulting mix of both negative reactivity and relationship preservation efforts (Guerrero, 1998; Overall & Sibley, 2009; Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 1997; Pistole, 1989). The goal of the current research was to identify the specific emotional and behavioral responses that should arise from anxious individuals’ obsessive proximity-seeking, and test whether these responses provide the reassurance anxious individuals’ need to maintain satisfying relationships. Attachment Anxiety, Hurt Feelings, and Guilt Induction Strategies Recent research has demonstrated the importance of differentiating between specific types of interpersonal emotions and behavior by showing that related emotions, such as hurt and anger, can have distinct antecedents and consequences. Across four studies, Lemay, Overall, and Clark (2012) illustrated that strong commitment and relationship dependence was associated with feeling greater hurt when partners behaved in rejecting ways, such as being critical or cold. In contrast, greater anger was associated with lower dependence and concern about the relationship. Moreover, hurt and anger were linked with different goals and interpersonal consequences. Individuals who felt more hurt were motivated to restore their partner’s acceptance and exhibited less hostile responses, such as partner derogation. Greater hurt also triggered guilt in the partner and associated reductions in the partner’s hurtful behavior. In contrast, anger predicted motivations to control the partner and more reciprocal hostility and destructive responses by the partner, including lower commitment and reduced motivation to repair the relationship. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 236 OVERALL, GIRME, LEMAY, AND HAMMOND

These distinct motivations and consequences have implications for understanding the reactions of anxious individuals when they encounter threats to their relationship. Anxious individuals yearn for closeness and security, are overly dependent on their partner’s support and acceptance, are strongly committed to sustaining their relationships, but tend to perceive devaluation by their partners. This combination should render anxious people particularly prone to experiencing pronounced hurt feelings when facing partner rejection, criticism or conflict. Supporting this prediction, the studies reporting significant associations between attachment anxiety and affective responses to threat have assessed self-reported or observer ratings of stress, upset, and hurt (e.g., Campbell et al., 2005; Feeney, 2005; Simpson, Ickes, & Grich, 1999; Simpson et al., 1996) or feelings of rejection (Campbell et al., 2005; Overall & Sibley, 2009; Tran & Simpson, 2009). Perhaps more important is the interpersonal outcomes associated with hurt feelings. Hurt feelings signal dependence, vulnerability, and commitment and in turn elicit pro-relationship motivations by the partner, evident by greater guilt and more positive and caring behavior (Lemay et al., 2012). This process is consistent with the relationship maintenance orientation of anxious individuals, and thus their hurt-based emotional reactions might actually help to restore the connection they crave. Moreover, given that relationship threats and associated hurt feelings will intensify anxious individuals’ need to secure proximity and reassurance, and hurt feelings tend to produce exactly what anxious individuals desire (i.e., responsive repair efforts from their partners), anxious individuals may purposively and overtly express their hurt to elicit reassurance and repair efforts from the partner. This possibility is consistent with the hyperactivation strategies that define attachment anxiety. Hyperactivation of the attachment system involves vigilant and compulsive proximityseeking in order to secure partner responsiveness. Relationship threatening contexts, therefore, should trigger forms of “protest” by anxious individuals, including overt emotional displays and insistent attempts to regain (or even coerce) care and attention from the partner (Bowlby, 1969, 1973; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). A central proximitymaintaining strategy theorized to operate in infancy (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994), adolescence (Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming, & Gamble, 1993), and adulthood (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2007) involves exaggerated emotional displays that emphasize dependence and vulnerability—precisely the qualities that hurt signals to relationship partners (Lemay et al., 2012). However, no prior research has provided evidence that anxious individuals intentionally communicate or exaggerate their hurt feelings in order to induce guilt and, in turn, to obtain reassurance and reparative responses from their partner. Guilt-induction strategies, including exaggerated expressions of hurt, are commonly employed in close relationships to influence others (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatheron, 1994, 1995; Vangelisti, Daly, & Rudnick, 1991). Sometimes referred to as manipulation and supplication (e.g., Bui, Raven, & Schwarzwald, 1994; Howard, Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1986; Overall, Fletcher, Simpson, & Sibley, 2009), guilt-induction strategies involve conveying or amplifying emotional expressions of hurt (e.g., tears, sulking, making sad face, pouting); stressing the negative impact the partner’s behavior or the situation is having on the self (“how much it hurts me”); and appealing to the partner’s love, concern, and relationship obligations. All of these tactics involve highlighting hurt, dependence, and vulnerability to guilt the partner into taking responsibility, attending to the self, and soothing hurt feelings. Moreover, because guilt powerfully motivates people to make amends, guilt-induction strategies tend to be successful in getting close others to apologize, cease hurtful behavior, and comply with goals and desires (Baumeister et al., 1994, 1995; Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, & Gramzow, 1992; Vangelisti et al., 1991). Not only do guilt-induction strategies lead to interpersonal benefits, such outcomes might be even more beneficial for individuals high in attachment anxiety. The immediate outcome of expressions of hurt and other guilt-induction strategies should be greater guilt in the partner. Partner guilt is likely an important and desirable endpoint for anxious individuals because successfully inducing guilt provides evidence of the partner’s caring. Guilt-inducing tactics only work to the extent that the targeted partner cares about and is committed to the relationship (Baumeister et al., 1994, 1995). Accordingly, the feeling and expression of guilt, even in the absence of reparative actions, can improve the hurt person’s emotional state because guilt communicates concern and commitment (Baumeister et al., 1994). This is likely to be the primary impetus for anxious individuals’ guilt-induction strategies; guilt ensures the partner is motivated to maintain the relationship and provides essential reassurance of the partner’s regard. For these reasons, the partner’s guilt might have positive effects on anxious individuals’ felt-security and relationship satisfaction. We consider this possibility next. Attachment Anxiety and the Long-Term Consequences of Guilt In examining the causes and consequences of guilt and guiltinduction strategies, prior research has relied on retrospective accounts of guilt-related experiences (Baumeister et al., 1995; Leith & Baumeister, 1998; Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & HillBarlow, 1996; Vangelisti et al., 1991), reactions to hypothetical scenarios (e.g., Covert, Tangney, Maddux, & Heleno, 2003; Lopez et al., 1997), self-reported use of guilt-based strategies (e.g., Bui et al., 1994; Howard et al., 1986), and associations with individual differences in guilt proneness (e.g., Covert et al., 2003; Tangney et al., 1992; Tangney, Wagner, Hill-Barlow, Marschall, & Gramzow, 1996). The results across studies indicate that guilt is associated with greater closeness and commitment to relationship partners, more empathy and concern, lower aggression, and more constructive problem solving and making amends. For these reasons, guilt is typically seen as a prosocial emotion that functions to maintain and enhance relationships. However, no prior research has examined how guilt experienced within important relationship interactions might shape relationship outcomes across time, or whether the outcomes of guilt depend on who is eliciting or feeling guilt. Benefits and Costs of the Partner Feeling Guilty The relationship-enhancing processes described above suggest that the partner’s guilt will have a variety of benefits for the hurt individual. As outlined above, in addition to repairing specific transgressions, partner guilt can signal care and commitment (Baumeister et al., 1994). This commitment-signaling function might be particularly important in building feelings of relationship This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ATTACHMENT ANXIETY AND PARTNER GUILT 237

security and satisfaction. Prior research has shown that partner responsiveness during relationship conflict builds trust, commitment, and satisfaction over time (Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999). On the other hand, there is also reason to suspect that the partner’s guilt should undermine satisfaction. Guilt might repair specific transgressions, but high levels of guilt also signify the partner’s responsibility and fault for hurtful transgressions, and may direct attention to the existence of high levels of conflict, hurtful partner behavior, and negative emotions in both partners (Baumeister et al., 1994). Greater negativity and partner transgressions have a deleterious impact on relationship quality (e.g., Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Kluwer & Johnson, 2007)— damage that may not be easily overcome regardless of how guilty the partner feels or what the partner does to make amends. Thus, greater partner guilt may also forecast more negative perceptions of the partner’s commitment and the relationship. Responses to a partner’s guilt may depend on individuals’ level of attachment anxiety and associated source of that partner’s guilt. We predicted that a key way anxious individuals manage relationship threats is to purposively elicit guilt to coerce the partner’s care and test their partner’s commitment. Successfully inducing guilt in the partner should, therefore, provide highly anxious individuals desired evidence of their partner’s commitment, and these benefits may overshadow any costs of the partner’s guilt. Accordingly, greater partner guilt might help sustain feelings of security and relationship satisfaction for anxious individuals. In contrast, individuals low in attachment anxiety are not preoccupied with their partner’s acceptance, are unlikely to seek reassurance via guiltinduction strategies, and, when guilt occurs, are less likely to focus on their partner’s guilt as evidence of their partner’s care. Hence, for low anxious individuals, the partner’s guilt may not have benefits. Instead, when not induced by low anxious individuals, the existence of high levels of partner guilt represents the partner’s culpability for hurtful transgressions, and thus is likely to foster relatively negative evaluations of the partner and relationship. In sum, we expected that greater partner guilt would predict more negative partner and relationship evaluations for individuals low in anxiety, but that the negative impact of guilt would be attenuated for individuals high in anxiety because, for them, the partner’s guilt also has the benefit of providing needed reassurance of their partner’s concern and commitment. Benefits and Costs of Feeling Guilt Guilt is also likely to be associated with a mix of positive and negative outcomes for the partner who feels guilty. On the positive side, prior research has shown that feeling guilt is associated with empathic concern, commitment, and closeness, and triggers reparative actions that should enhance relationships. People who are more committed and responsive to their partners, and who engage in more constructive relationship maintenance behavior, tend to foster healthier and happier relationships (e.g., Karney, & Bradbury, 1995; Rusbult, Bissonnette, et al., 1998; Wieselquist et al., 1999). Thus, the pro-relationship orientation underpinning guilt might mean that greater guilt will be associated with maintaining satisfying relationships. In contrast, to the degree that low guilt reflects lack of care and motivation to make amends, it should predict declines in relationship quality. On the other hand, there is also evidence that feeling guilty can have negative consequences. Frequently feeling guilt implies frequent negative experiences, which should undermine relationship satisfaction. Indeed, self-report data indicate that guilt-related cognition and behavior, such as perspective-taking and relationship maintenance efforts, are linked with positive relationship outcomes, but the (aversive) affective experience of guilt is not (Leith & Baumeister, 1998). Guilt is also often accompanied by other negative affective states, such as resentment, disappointment, low self-worth, and depressed mood (Jones & Kugler, 1993), particularly when guilt has been induced by others (Baumeister et al., 1994, 1995). Guilty partners might also feel that they cannot expect love and care from their partner, which combined with a focus on making amends, could result in receiving comparatively less relationship rewards (e.g., support and affection; Jones & Kugler, 1993). As before, whether guilt has these potential benefits and costs is likely to depend on the context of guilt experiences. When guilt is created by one’s own care and concerns for the relationship and reflects authentic or internally-generated pro-relationship motivation, it is likely associated with maintaining relationships. This should be the case for partners of individuals low in anxiety because it is unlikely their guilt will be intentionally induced. In contrast, when guilt is induced or amplified by anxious reactions, the negative consequences of guilt should be more likely. People feel guilty even when they do not intentionally hurt others or when they think the hurt reaction is unreasonable, and this situation tends to highlight discrepancies between couple members’ expectations (Baumeister et al., 1994, 1995). When the hurt individuals’ expectations are perceived to be unreasonable, the hurt is disproportionate to the offense, and guilt is induced to gain reassurance, feeling guilty will be an overall negative experience. These conditions all reflect the induced guilt we hypothesized would be associated with attachment anxiety, and so we expected that feeling guilty would lead to declines in satisfaction for the partners of highly anxious individuals. Summary and Research Overview The central goal of individuals high in attachment anxiety is to obtain closeness and acceptance—a goal that is served by intense proximity-seeking designed to secure the partner’s care and attention. Our primary aim was to isolate the emotional and behavioral reactions to relationship threat that capture this primary motivation for connection. Their dependence and intense desire to obtain closeness should lead anxious individuals to experience greater hurt feelings when faced with relationship threats and, in turn, enact exaggerated expressions of hurt to induce guilt and reassurance from their partner. Moreover, although partner guilt should tend to have relatively negative effects on relationships across time, successfully inducing partner guilt should provide anxious individual’s evidence of their partner’s care and commitment. Thus, we predicted that the partner’s guilt should help anxious individuals maintain feelings of security and satisfaction in their relationship. To test these predictions, we assessed both individuals and their partner’s emotional and behavioral reactions to relationship threats, including when encountering hurtful partner behavior and conflict during daily life (Study 1) and when discussing aspects of the self the partner desired to change (Study 2). We expected that anxious individuals would experience more hurt feelings in these This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 238 OVERALL, GIRME, LEMAY, AND HAMMOND

threatening contexts and, when hurt, purposively communicate or exaggerate their hurt to induce guilt in their partner. We also predicted that such guilt-induction attempts would be successful in producing feelings of guilt in the partner. We also tested whether guilt experienced across couple’s daily lives (Study 1) and during conflict-related discussions (Study 2) predicted longitudinal changes in relationship security and satisfaction. To the extent that the partner’s guilt reflects the partner’s culpability for hurtful partner transgressions, the more partners tend to feel high levels of guilt across couples’ interactions, the more individuals should experience declines in partner and relationship evaluations. However, because successfully inducing guilt provides desired evidence of the partner’s care and concern, we predicted that the partner’s guilt would reassure anxious individuals of their partner’s commitment and help them maintain more positive relationship evaluations. Unfortunately, we did not expect that these benefits would extend to anxious intimates’ partners. Instead, because their induced guilt should be disproportionate to their intentions and behaviors, we expected that when partners of anxious individuals feel greater guilt they would experience sharper declines in satisfaction. In both studies, we contrasted hurt feelings and guilt-induction strategies to two other common responses to relationship threat: anger and hostile behavior. We isolated hurt and guilt-induction as specific responses arising from the dependence and motivation to sustain relationships central to attachment anxiety. In contrast, anger is associated with lower dependence, is motivated by a desire to attain personal control, and triggers hostile behavior that generates distance and reciprocal animosity in the partner (Gottman, 1998; Lemay et al., 2012). Nonetheless, despite these opposing antecedents and consequences, hurt and anger are often strongly associated (see Lemay et al., 2012), and anxious intimates report greater anger and hostility during conflict (Feeney et al., 1994; Mikulincer, 1998; Overall & Sibley, 2009; Simpson et al., 1996). Indeed, anxious individuals’ intense need to obtain closeness and reactivity to rejection might simultaneously generate hurt-based guilt-induction attempts and anger-based hostility (Mikulincer et al., 2010; Murray & Holmes, 2009). Thus, we controlled for the links across hurt and anger to illustrate the specificity of the predicted effects. Finally, we also examined whether the predicted results could be due to other forms of insecurity. Another form of attachment insecurity, called avoidance, is characterized by a deep distrust of others, rigid self-reliance, and withdrawal from intimacy (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), and it has been shown to predict greater anger and defensive behavior during threatening interactions (Overall, Simpson, & Struthers, 2013; Simpson et al., 1996). Low self-esteem also shares similarities to attachment anxiety including sensitivity to rejection and reactivity to relationship threats (e.g., Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, & Kusche, 2002). Despite positive associations with avoidance and self-esteem, we expected that the specific hyperactivating strategies and resulting consequences of inducing guilt we targeted would be specific to attachment anxiety. Study 1 In Study 1, we asked both members of committed couples to report their emotions and threatening relationship events at the end of each day for three weeks. This method allows an examination of anxious reactions to relationship threat as they naturally occur across couples’ lives and provides a window to how these responses typically result in the partner feeling guilty. We predicted that individuals higher in attachment anxiety would respond to threatening relationship events with heightened hurt feelings. We also hypothesized that anxious individuals’ pronounced hurt feelings would trigger hyperactivating strategies in the form of exaggerated expressions of hurt to induce guilt in the partner. In Study 1, we tested this prediction by assessing whether, on days when people experienced and therefore might express or exaggerate hurt, individuals higher in anxiety were perceived by their partner to be feeling more hurt compared to individuals lower in anxiety who reported equivalent levels of hurt. If partners perceive more anxious individuals to feel greater hurt than low anxious individuals facing comparable levels of hurt, this suggests that anxious individuals express and exaggerate their hurt more to their partner. We also expected these guilt-inducing expressions would lead to anxious individuals’ partners feeling greater guilt. Our final aim was to investigate whether partner’s guilt has more positive effects for individuals high versus low in anxiety. To do this, we tested whether the partner’s guilt assessed during the 3-week diary was associated with relationship satisfaction gathered 9 months following the completion of the daily reports. By averaging across the diary period, we gathered an index of the degree to which couples’ interactions across the course of their normal life resulted in the partner feeling guilty, which should be associated with later satisfaction if guilt has important implications for how people come to feel and think about their relationship. Because greater guilt by the partner across daily life reflects more frequent and severe transgressions, and signals the partner’s fault for those transgressions, we expected that greater partner guilt would be typically associated with lower relationship satisfaction. However, because successfully inducing guilt communicates commitment and care, we expected that anxious intimates would fare better (i.e., experience lower declines or maintain levels of satisfaction) when their partner reported feeling greater guilt. However, we also expected that attempts to make partners feel guilty would have detrimental effects on the partner and, thus, partners of anxious intimates would feel less satisfied when they felt greater levels of guilt across the diary period. Method Participants. Seventy-eight heterosexual couples who replied to campus-wide advertisements were offered $90NZD for completing all phases of the study (an initial session, a 3-week daily diary, and a follow-up questionnaire 9 months later).1 Participants were on average 22.44 years of age (SD 4.81) and were involved in serious romantic relationships (11% married, 33% cohabiting, 1 This sample has been used previously to investigate the links between depressive symptoms and perceptions of daily behavior (Overall & Hammond, 2013), but there is no overlap in the questions, measures, or aims of this research, and the results presented are entirely unique. The longitudinal data have not been reported before. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ATTACHMENT ANXIETY AND PARTNER GUILT 239