Attachment insecurity as a filter in the decoding and encoding of nonverbal behavior in close relationships

In this article, I have focused my comments on the possible associations between the cognitions related to different attachment styles, and the impact that those cognitions are likely to have on nonverbal encoding and decoding. I see attachment insecurity as acting as a filter, distorting both encoding and decoding processes. In terms of decoding, an insecure individual may appraise the situation as more threatening than it actually is, may see the attachment figure as more or less available than he or she actually is, and may make an inappropriate decision about the viability or desirability of seeking proximity to the attachment figure. Attachment insecurity is also likely to inhibit the distressed individual from expressing their distress in a way that is understood by the attachment figure and that increases the likelihood that the attachment figure will engage in supportive behavior.

Attachment insecurity, depression, and the transition to parenthood

In a longitudinal study of adult attachment and depression during the transition to parenthood, 76 couples completed questionnaires on three occasions: during the second trimester of pregnancy, and six weeks and six months postbirth. On the first and second occasions, the couples were also interviewed about their experiences of pregnancy and parenthood, respectively. Measures were also completed at similar time intervals by a comparison group of 74 childless couples. Attachment security was assessed in terms of the dimensions of discomfort with closeness and relationship anxiety. Relationship anxiety was less stable for transition wives than for other participants. Relationship anxiety also predicted increases in new mothers' depressive symptoms, after controlling for a broad range of other risk factors. However, the association between relationship anxiety and maternal depression was moderated by husbands' caregiving style. Maternal depression was linked to increases in husbands' and wives' attachment insecurity and marital dissatisfaction. Results are discussed in terms of the impact of depression and negative working models of attachment on couple interaction.

Expanding the scope of the social response context model

Descriptive models of social response are concerned with identifying and discriminating between different types of response to social influence. In a previous article (Nail, MacDonald, & Levy, 2000), the authors demonstrated that 4 conceptual dimensions are necessary to adequately distinguish between such phenomena as conformity, compliance, contagion, independence, and anticonformity in a single model. This article expands the scope of the authors' 4-dimensional approach by reviewing selected experimental and cultural evidence, further demonstrating the integrative power of the model. This review incorporates political psychology, culture and aggression, self-persuasion, group norms, prejudice, impression management, psychotherapy, pluralistic ignorance, bystander intervention/nonintervention, public policy, close relationships, and implicit attitudes.

Modeling the relationships between adult attachment patterns and borderline personality disorder: The role of impulsivity and aggressiveness

To obtain a better understanding of the associations among Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), adult attachment patterns, impulsivity, and aggressiveness, we tested four competing models of these relationships: a) BPD is associated with the personality traits of impulsivity and aggressiveness, but adult attachment patterns predict neither BPD nor impulsive/aggressive features; b) adult attachment patterns are significant predictors of BPD but not of impulsive/aggressive traits, although these traits correlate with BPD; c) adult attachment patterns are significant predictors of impulsive and aggressive traits, which in turn predict BPD; and d) adult attachment patterns significantly predict both BPD and impulsive/aggressive traits. We assessed 466 consecutively admitted outpatients using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (V. 2.0), the Attachment Style Questionnaire, the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11, and the Aggression Questionnaire. Maximum likelihood structural equation modeling of the covariance matrix showed that model (c) was the best fitting model (chi(2) (21) = 31.67, p >.05, RMSEA = .023, test of close fit p >.85). This result indicates that adult attachment patterns act indirectly as risk factors for BPD because of their relationships with aggressive/impulsive personality traits.