Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 1

Regulating emotion expression and regulating emotion experience: divergent associations with dimensions

of attachment among older women

Consedine, N. S., Fiori, K. L., & Magai, C. (2012). Regulating emotion expression and

regulating emotion experience: Divergent associations with dimensions of attachment

among older women. Attachment & Human Development, 14 (5), 477-500. DOI:

10.1080/14616734.2012.706433.

Corresponding author: Nathan S. Consedine, Ph.D. Department of Psychological Medicine Level 12, Support Building, Room 12.003 Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences The University of Auckland Auckland, New Zealand Ph: 0064-09-923-5976 Fax: 0064-09-373-7013 Email: n.consedine@auckland.ac.nz

Acknowledgements: This research was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health General Medical Science (2SO6 GM54650) and the National Cancer Institute (1P20 CA 91372). The authors are grateful to Dr. Howard Steele and two anonymous reviewers for their comments.

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 2

Abstract Adult attachment research does not systematically distinguish between experiential and expressive

forms of regulation. Drawing insights from developmental-functionalism – a lifespan theory of emotion and

emotion regulation – the current report examined the relations among attachment, trait emotion, and

expressive emotion regulation in a large (N=1204) sample of older women. Although both preoccupation

and fearful-avoidance predicted more anxiety and anger, preoccupation predicted greater fear withdrawal

and less fear expression, while fearful-avoidance predicted greater fear expression and greater anger

withdrawal; attachment security predicted less fear withdrawal and less anger expression. Importantly,

results regarding expressive regulation held even when controlling for trait levels of the underlying emotion.

Results are interpreted within the context of models of attachment and lifespan socioemotional functioning.

It is suggested that attachment research may benefit from considering the distinct functions of experienced

versus expressed emotion in developmentally diverse contexts. Limitations are discussed and directions

for future research are given.

Key Words: attachment, older adult, later life, emotion, emotion regulation, developmental functionalism

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 3

Regulating emotion expression and regulating emotion experience: divergent associations with dimensions

of attachment among older women

Perhaps the most longstanding tenet in attachment theory is the notion that the attachment system

serves regulatory functions. Although the purpose of regulation may vary as a function of the primary

developmental tasks confronting the organism – infants regulating in the interests of proximity and physical

protection and adults in regard to felt security (Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002) – the regulatory function

itself remains across the lifespan (Cassidy, 2000; Consedine & Magai, 2003; R. C Fraley & Shaver, 2000).

While continuity data are mixed (Klohnen & Bera, 1998; Zhang & Labouvie-Vief, 2004),

interpretations of Bowlby’s theory have suggested that the means by which people deal with attachment

insecurities are progressively generalized to the regulation of other forms of distress (Creasey, Kershaw, &

Boston, 1999; Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, & Fleming, 1993; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Mikulincer, 1998a;

Mikulincer, Orbach, & Iavnieli, 1998). As experiences are integrated within internal working models, the

emotional, cognitive and expectational organizations are applied more broadly, acting as a global

regulatory mechanism for emotion (Spangler & Zimmermann, 1999) or distress (Kobak & Sceery, 1988), or

facilitating the attainment of attachment-related goals (Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003). Ultimately,

internal working models are thought to guide individuals’ interpretations of and responses to stressors, as

well as the ways in which they regulate (Creasey et al., 1999; Kobak et al., 1993; Mikulincer, 1998a).

Previous adult attachment research (in the social psychology tradition) has employed three (Hazan

& Shaver, 1987) and four (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Main & Solomon, 1986, 1990) category

systems. The initial system was based in child research and generated three types (Hazan & Shaver, 1987)

while later work (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) differentiated avoidance into fearful and dismissing

subtypes. Recent work favors dimensional over categorical measures (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; N.

L. Collins, 1996; R. C. Fraley & Waller, 1998) because dimensions are statistically more robust (Fraley &

Waller, 1998) and because continuous data enable more differentiated examinations (N. L. Collins, 1996).

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 4

Although labels may not map exactly on to the types described among younger samples (Consedine &

Magai, 2003), we use the labels “secure,” “dismissive,” and “preoccupied” in the way they were originally

used by Hazan and Shaver (1987), and “fearful avoidance” as used by Bartholomew and Horowitz,

Attachment and emotional processing across the lifespan

Although the initial translation of the child attachment framework to adult samples concentrated on

romantic attachment in young adulthood, Bowlby’s original model conceptualized attachment processes as

occurring across the lifespan and a growing literature is emerging. Empirically, the adult literature denotes

links among adult attachment, emotions, and emotion regulation (Creasey et al., 1999; Kokkonen &

Pulkkinnen, 1999; Mikulincer et al., 2003; Pereg & Mikulincer, 2004; Zimmerman, 1999; Zimmerman,

Maier, Winter, & Grossman, 2001). However, while the relevance of attachment to emotion regulation is

accepted (Consedine & Magai, 2003; Harris, 1999; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Mikulincer, Florian, & Tolmacz,

1990), few studies have directly assessed emotion regulation in adults. Researchers often infer regulation

based on patterns of self-reported experience but have infrequently examined expressive regulatory issues

directly. In the space below, we briefly summarize data linking secure, avoidant/dismissive, and

anxious/preoccupied attachment to emotion and emotion regulation before critiquing these data through the

lens offered by developmental functionalism, a lifespan theory of emotion and emotion regulation

(Consedine & Magai, 2003; Consedine, Magai, & King, 2004; Consedine & Mauss, in press).

Attachment security

Persons higher in attachment security generally report greater positive affect (Mikulincer & Florian,

1998) and appear more cheerful than ambivalent or avoidant individuals when assessed with the Adult

Attachment Interview (AAI) or peer ratings (Kobak & Sceery, 1988). Studies among older samples have

likewise found security to predict greater trait joy and interest (Consedine & Fiori, 2009; Consedine &

Magai, 2003; Magai, Distel, & Liker, 1995). In terms of negative emotions, attachment security predicts

less depression, anger, and hostility (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), lower anger proneness (Mikulincer, 1998b),

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 5

and lower anxiety (Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995). These relations may change somewhat in later life. One

study (N = 1118) of older adults (mean age = 74 years), found that self-reported fear and anger were

positively associated with security (Consedine & Magai, 2003), and other work suggests that links between

emotion and attachment may be stronger in older men (Consedine & Fiori, 2009).

This pattern has been interpreted as indexing a more “open” style of emotion regulation that

enables individuals with greater security to acknowledge and express distress without becoming disabled

by it (Buchheim & Mergenthaler, 2000; Cassidy, 1994) and to facilitate social engagement (Consedine &

Magai, 2003). Such an interpretation is consistent with research that has shown high attachment security to

be associated with more instrumental coping and support seeking (Kobak et al., 1993; Mikulincer & Florian,

1998; Mikulincer, Florian, & Weller, 1993), as well as with data describing how emotions impact self and

social judgments (Mikulincer et al., 1998). Cognitively, individuals with greater security appraise stressful

events as more benign, view themselves as more capable (N.L. Collins & Read, 1990), and have a greater

capacity to process threatening information (Mikulincer, 1997); these capacities are seen as being at the

root of the improved emotional life of these persons (Mikulincer, 1998a).

Attachment dismissiveness/avoidance

In contrast, dismissiveness predicts lower shame and fear/anxiety (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;

Consedine & Fiori, 2009; Magai, Hunziker, Mesias, & Culver, 2000; Mikulincer et al., 1990) greater

hostility/defensiveness (Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Mikulincer, 1998b; Mikulincer et al., 1993), and greater

disgust and contempt (Magai et al., 1995). A study of 1118 older adults showed no relation between levels

of dismissive attachment and anger (Consedine & Magai, 2003), but also found lower anxiety and shame in

dismissive individuals. Links with positive emotions are mixed, although several studies have found

dismissiveness to be associated with greater interest (Consedine & Fiori, 2009; Consedine & Magai, 2003).

Researchers have interpreted this pattern as evidence that more dismissive persons deactivate the

attachment system (Kobak et al., 1993; Mikulincer et al., 2003) to minimize or restrict the conscious

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 6

experience of threatening negative emotions (Cassidy, 1994; Consedine & Magai, 2003; Hazan & Shaver,

1987; Magai et al., 2000). Work among student samples shows that avoidant individuals have a greater

unconscious fear of death than secure individuals (Mikulincer et al., 1990) and have a tendency to handle

anxiety and conflicts by refusing to recognize them (Kobak & Sceery, 1988). They rely more on distancing-

based coping, removing anxiety and depression from their emotional responses (Mikulincer et al., 1993).

Conversely, dismissives may up-regulate experiences of interest, at least regarding tasks and objects

rather than people (Consedine & Magai, 2003), perhaps as a way of minimizing the impact of interpersonal

threats (Malatesta, Culver, Tesman, & Shepard, 1989) or controlling anxiety (Consedine & Fiori, 2009).

Anxious or preoccupied attachment

Ambivalent attachment is associated with greater peer-rated anxiety (Kobak & Sceery, 1988),

greater shame and lack of self-confidence (Consedine & Fiori, 2009; Magai et al., 1995), as well as higher

sadness and self-reported anxiety (Consedine & Fiori, 2009; Magai et al., 1995) and guilt (Consedine &

Fiori, 2009). In terms of regulation, anxious attachment types manage distress by minimizing distance from

attachment figures (Bowlby, 1988), perhaps because the attachment system and their own anxiety become

hyper-activated (Mikulincer, 1998a; Mikulincer et al., 2003). They manifest a focus on distress-related cues

(Kobak et al., 1993) and appear unable to detach from the source of perceived security (Mikulincer &

Florian, 1998). Elevated distress signaling (c. f., Brown & Consedine, 2004) among persons with

preoccupied or ambivalent attachment has been conceptualized as a functionally compensatory strategy

(Main & Hesse, 1990; Main & Solomon, 1986) to gain/maintain attention from others (Cassidy, 1994).

However, the tendency to measure ambivalence via self-reported feelings of anxiety makes inferences

about links between attachment and emotion problematic in this case (Consedine & Magai, 2003).

As might be expected, threats are dealt with by overestimating self-other similarity (Mikulincer et

al., 1998) and with passive and ruminative (Shaver, Collins, & Clark, 1996) and/or emotion-focused coping

(Mikulincer et al., 1993). Preoccupied persons exaggerate personal threats and are generally pessimistic

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 7

regarding interpersonal transactions (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Mikulincer, 1995; Mikulincer et al.,

2003). One of the few studies to directly assess experiential regulation demonstrated that anxious—

ambivalent persons may report relatively high levels of anxiety and have low defensiveness because they

are unable or unwilling to repress negative affects and thoughts (Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995). It is difficult

to distinguish between these two possibilities (“unable” vs. “unwilling”), especially since levels of anxiety

and defensiveness are often self-reported (as in the Mikulincer and Orbach (1995) study). On the one

hand, anxious-ambivalent individuals may simply lack the control capacities of more secure people, and

may not be able to limit the flow of negative thoughts and feelings and the spread of distress. On the other

hand, these individuals may actually have a conscious preference for such negativity and distress (e.g., as

a means to garner attention). Future research is needed to distinguish between these possibilities.

Attachment, emotion, and emotion regulation – the view from developmental functionalism

Although this literature represents an important beginning in the understanding of the links among

attachment, emotion, and emotion regulation, several areas would benefit from further development. In

beginning, it is worth noting while the concept of attachment is profoundly rooted in an examination of

developmental context, the adult attachment-emotions literature has tended to be developmentally

agnostic. Other than literatures examining attachment and care giving (Carpenter, 2001; Crawford, Bond

Jr., & Balshaw, 1994; Karantzas, Evans, & Foddy, 2010; Sörensen, Webster, & Roggman, 2002) and

alternative attachment figures in later life (Cicirelli, 2004), developmental context has generally played

second fiddle to basic social psychological processes when studying attachment in adults.

In developmental functionalism, however, middle age and later life are distinct periods in which two

key parameters vary (Consedine & Magai, 2006; Consedine & Mauss, in press). First, adults at different

stages of development confront distinct normative tasks and challenges. Early attachment-related tasks

such as ensuring parental attention (Bowlby, 1969b) are normatively supplanted across the lifespan by

tasks such as mate choice and retention (Tooby & Cosmides, 2008), knowledge transmission (Carstensen

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 8

& Löckenhoff, 2003), managing reductions in systemic resources (Baltes, 1997), network losses

(Consedine, Magai, & Krivoshekova, 2005), and issues surrounding care-giving/receipt and increasing

dependency (Fiori, Consedine, & Magai, 2008). Second, adults at different stages have different skill,

capacity, or resource sets (Consedine, 2011b). Physical, cognitive, social, and emotional capacities vary

across adulthood with some capabilities being available early in life, some continuing to develop across the

lifespan, and some developing and then fading as the individual ages. In this view, emotion and emotion

regulatory processes operate differently among infants, adolescents, younger, and older adults precisely

because humans have different physical, cognitive, experiential, behavioral, and social capacities at

different stages (Consedine & Mauss, in press).

These normative development considerations become more pressing when recalling that current

cohorts of middle aged and older adults are specific groups of individuals who were raised in particular

ways and have confronted very particular challenges across their lives – both attachment and patterns of

emotion and emotion regulation vary. Studies among older groups have returned high rates of dismissive

(Consedine & Magai, 2003; Diehl, Elnick, Bourbeau, & Labouvie-Vief, 1998; Fiori, Consedine, & Magai,

2009; Magai et al., 2001; Webster, 1997) but few preoccupied (Davila, Burge, & Hammen, 1997; Fiori et al.,

2009; Kafetsios & Sideridis, 2006; Magai et al., 2001; Magai et al., 2000; Mickelson, Kessler, & Shaver,

1997; Zhang & Labouvie-Vief, 2004) or fearful-avoidant (Fiori, Consedine, & Merz, 2011) classifications.

The smaller reoccupied/anxious grouping and larger dismissive grouping may reflect a cohort effect

(Consedine, Magai, & Bonanno, 2002), a reaction to interpersonal losses (Diehl et al., 1998), maturation

(Kafetsios & Sideridis, 2006), or a measurement issue (Magai, 2008). Patterns of emotion also vary

normatively across the adult lifespan, with studies showing a U-shaped trend in positive emotion across

adulthood but an inverted U-shaped curve for sadness and negative affect (Grühn, Kotter-Grühn, & Röcke,

2010). Although studies of this kind do not clarify whether differences reflect developmental versus cohort

effects, the general tendencies for older adults to manifest a more dismissive style of attachment, less

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 9

negative affect, and greater positive affect should be kept in mind when interpreting results from the

present study of adults aged 50 to 70.

Compounding the absence of a developmental perspective in attachment-emotions research is an

ongoing failure for attachment researchers to engage with functionalist theories of emotion and emotion

regulation. Indeed, attachment research has tended to view emotions as stemming from attachment

processes without considering the evolved functions the expressive and experiential components of

emotions may serve (Brown & Consedine, 2004; Consedine & Magai, 2003), engaging with theories of

emotion regulation (Gross & John, 2003; Richards, Butler, & Gross, 2003) or differentiating between the

regulation of the experiential versus expressive components of emotion (Consedine, Magai, & Bonanno,

2002). Instead, attachment research has tended to operate from one of two broad perspectives. First,

some writers have interpreted differences as indexing a general activation or deactivation of the attachment

system (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988; Kobak et al., 1993). Others imply a hedonic model in which attachment-

linked regulatory patterns are “aimed” at maximizing felt security (Zimmerman et al., 2001) and minimizing

attachment-related distress (Mikulincer et al., 1998).

Both of these approaches fail to explicitly consider the distinct evolved functions of emotion

experience or expression. In the developmental functionalist view, each discrete emotion is an adaptation

that has evolved to deal with the recurrent adaptive challenges in the evolutionary past (Consedine, Magai,

& King, 2004; Izard, 1991; Keltner & Gross, 1999; Lazarus, 1991; Nesse, 1990; Tooby & Cosmides, 1990).

In this view, emotions are highly differentiated, have multiple components – notably expression and

experience – and may thus have multiple functions (Averill, 1994; Consedine & Moskowitz, 2007;

Levenson, 1999). Developmental-functionalism emphasizes core differences between the functions of

expression and experience (Consedine, 2011a). While expressions signal event meaning (Buck, 1999;

Frijda & Mesquita, 1994), communicate social infringements (Frijda & Mesquita, 1994) and internal states

(Izard, 1991; Jakobs, Manstead, & Fisher, 1999; Scherer, 1982), and influence the behavior of others

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 10

(Brown & Consedine, 2004; Fridlund, 1994), the functions of experience are less aimed at influencing

others and more closely linked to motivating behavior (Buck, 1999; Consedine, Strongman, & Magai, 2003)

and altering cognitive processing in a manner consistent with the challenge (Clore & Parrott, 1991;

Johnson-Laird & Oatley, 1992; Keltner, Ellsworth, & Edwards, 1993). Importantly for attachment research,

because the expressive and experiential components of emotions have different functions, regulating and

not regulating these components may have different intra- and interpersonal consequences.

The current study

Because the functions of discrete emotion experiences and expressions differ both within the

attachment system and more broadly, it seems likely that persons with differing patterns of attachment will

manifest different patterns of felt emotion and expressive regulation. In the present study our aim was to

illuminate the associations of attachment styles with trait emotion and the manner in which the expressive

components of emotions were regulated. Although prior attachment research with this level of regulatory

specificity was scanty, we felt the rationale for some predictions was present.

Consistent with prior studies examining the links between attachment and felt emotion, we

expected greater trait anger and anxiety to be associated with fearful avoidance and preoccupation, and

greater anger and curiosity to characterize more dismissively attached individuals; lower anxiety and

greater curiosity should characterize more securely attached persons. In terms of expressive regulation,

we expected individuals high on fearful avoidance to report greater inhibition/withdrawal when regulating

fear and anger, but the opposite pattern for individuals high on preoccupation and, at least for regulating

fear, those high on secure attachment as well. Conversely, we expected greater dismissiveness to predict

inhibition/withdrawal when fearful but not when angry. In addition, we expected greater dismissiveness to

predict greater anger expression, but greater security and fearful avoidance to predict less; more fearfully

avoidant persons were also expected to express more fear.

Method

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 11

Participants: Participants were 1204 Black and White women residing in Brooklyn, New York, aged

50 to 70 years, who were recruited as part of a larger stratified cluster-sampling plan (Consedine, Magai, &

Neugut, 2004). The Black individuals in the sample consisted of U.S.-born African Americans (n = 295) and

Caribbean immigrant women from the English-speaking territories (n = 299) and the Creole-speaking part

of Hispaniola (Haiti, n = 305). The White individuals consisted of U.S.-born European Americans (n = 154)

and Russian-speaking Eastern Slavic immigrants (n = 151). In the initial stage, data on census blocks were

gathered from the Household Income and Race Summary Tape File 3A of the 1990 Census files. Blocks

were stratified by ethnic group and on the basis of income (high, medium, and low). Random selection

without replacement was used to choose samples of block groups from each stratum. Trained interviewers

were sent to conduct interviews with respondents who lived within the selected blocks. The mean age of

the sample was 59.5 years (SD=6.5), 35% had greater than a high school education, and the mean income

was $31,320 (SD = 24,417).

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the sample broken down by race and the

results of Chi Square or ANOVA. There were significant differences in income, level of education and the

percent married. Based on well-established age differences in emotions, emotion regulation and

attachment (Consedine & Magai, 2003), we included all variables in the subsequent regressions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Insert Table 1 about here

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Procedures: Data were collected during face-to-face interviews that lasted approximately 90

minutes and were conducted in the respondent’s home or another location of her choice, such as a senior

center or church. For the immigrant samples (Haitians and Eastern Europeans), instruments were

translated into Creole and Russian and then, consistent with standard ethnographic practice, back-

translated to ensure comparability. Please see Consedine, Magai, Horton, and Brown (2011) for details on

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 12

the equivalency of the different language versions. Nearly 70% of the women were interviewed by six

primary interviewers. Study measures were administered in a standard order for all participants.

Respondents were recruited for a “women’s health project” and were paid $25 for their participation.

Measures.

1. Demographics: Information was collected regarding age, self-reported race, education,

household income, and marital status. In the present study, age was measured in years. Race was

operationalized as a dichotomous variable (0 = Black, 1 = White). Education was measured on a 6-point

scale as follows: 0 = no school or elementary only; 1 = high school; 2 = community/junior college; 3 =

Bachelor’s degree; 4 = Masters degree; 5 = Doctoral degree. Household income was measured in dollars,

but was rescaled for purposes of the regressions and is measured in thousands of dollars. Finally, marital

status was dichotomized as 0 (unmarried) and 1 (married).

2. Dimensions of attachment: Relationship Scales Questionnaire (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994):

This 30-item scale measures four styles of attachment (secure, fearful avoidant, dismissing, and

preoccupied) based on phrases taken from Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) paragraph-based attachment

measure, Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) Relationship Scales Questionnaire, and Collins and Read’s

(1990) Adult Attachment Scale. Using 5-point scales, respondents rate how well the item describes their

typical style in close relationships. In several studies, including our previous research among older minority

groups (Consedine & Magai, 2003; Fiori et al., 2009; Magai et al., 2001), the internal consistency of these

subscales has been quite low. As such, we conducted a principal components analysis to examine the

underlying factor structure and loadings. This analysis revealed a four-factor solution.

The first factor, made up of RSQ items 3, 4, 8, 14, and 30, appeared to index attachment security,

whereas the second factor, made up of RSQ items 9, 11, 13, 16, 21, 23, 24, and 28, appeared to index

fearful avoidance. The third factor (RSQ items 7, 17, 18, and 25) appeared to access preoccupation, and

the final factor, indicated by RSQ items 1, 2, 10, 19 and 26, dismissiveness. With respect to the secure

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 13

factor, however, some item loadings differed from those typically seen in younger groups. RSQ items 4

(“You want to merge completely with another person”) and 8 (“You want to be completely emotionally

intimate with others”) have been associated with preoccupation in younger adults, but were associated with

security in our sample. Although we considered dropping these items from the secure factor, several

reasons mitigated against this step. First, the alpha for the three-item secure scale dropped to .59.

Second, an increased valuing of intimate social relations in older groups (Carstensen, 1992, 1993, 1995;

Carstensen & Charles, 1998; Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999) suggests that items of this kind

may index a different aspect of relational functioning in persons of different age groups. The final alphas

for the subscales were .71 (secure), .81 (fearful avoidant), .67 (preoccupied), and .68 (dismissive).

Following the procedure outlined by Mickelson et al. (1997), we generated a categorical score or

assignment for each respondent. If one of the respondent’s dimensional scores was higher than the other

three, she was assigned to that category. This system assigned 1156/1204 (96%) of participants. If,

however, two dimensional scores were equal, and one was the secure score, the respondent was assigned

to the non-secure category based on the assumption that reporting biases would favor secure attachment.

This additional step assigned a further 42 participants. Lastly, the remaining six participants (with tied non-

secure dimension scores) were assigned to the least common non-securely attached category. On this

basis, 150 respondents (13%) were classified as secure, 966 as dismissive (80%), 38 as fearful avoidant

(3%), and 50 (4%) as preoccupied.

3. Trait emotional experience: anxiety, anger, and curiosity: Trait anxiety, anger and curiosity were

measured via the State-Trait Personality Inventory (Spielberger, 1986), a 30-item inventory that generates

trait scores for each emotion. The alphas in the current study were .80 for anxiety, .62 for curiosity and .80

for anger.

4. Regulation of emotion expression: Differences in regulating the visible expression of emotion

were measured with the Present Personality Questionnaire (PPQ). The PPQ is a 24-item scale that

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 14

measures the tendency to express fear, anger, sadness, and shame in the respondent’s day-to-day life, or

to withdraw/inhibit them. The scale generates both global withdrawal (α= .84) and expression (α= .74)

scores as well as subscales for the tendency to express or withdraw from each individual emotion. In the

current study, we report on expressive and withdrawal tendencies for the two emotions for which trait

dispositional measures were available (i.e. anger and fear/anxiety). The alphas for the subscale fear

expression (.74) (e.g., “When I get worried, I really show it”) and withdrawal (.67) (e.g., “I’m often anxious

but do a good job of covering it up”) scales were adequate, as were those for the anger expression (.62)

(“I’m not very well in control of my anger”) and withdrawal (.75) (e.g., “When things anger me I smolder

inside for a long time”) scales.

An ongoing study of the convergent validation with another scale measuring emotion inhibition

(Consedine, Magai, Cohen, & Gillespie, 2002) was r = .58, p < .0001. In another independent sample

(n=288, mean age = 27 years, SD = 10.0, 75% female), scores on the PPQ inhibition were compared to

scores on a child analogue – the Emotions as a Child Questionnaire (Klimes-Dougan et al., 2007; O'Neal &

Magai, 2005), a 48-item inventory that measures emotional responding and styles of regulation in childhood

The PPQ inhibition score was correlated with the inhibition subscale from the Emotions as a Child Scale at

r = .58, p < .0001.

Results

We first performed three stepwise regression analyses predicting trait anger, anxiety, and curiosity

with the background variables (age, education, income, marital status, and the racial dummy variable) in

Step 1 and the attachment dimensional scores in Step 2. This approach allowed us to determine whether

the addition of the attachment dimensions added a significant amount of variance over and above the

background variables by examining the change in R2 from Step 1 to Step 2. Finally, we ran four more

stepwise regressions in which trait expressive regulatory tendencies (i.e., towards emotional expression

and/or withdrawal) when angry and afraid were regressed first on background variables and the appropriate

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 15

trait affect (Step 1), and then on the attachment dimensions (Step 2). Specifically, we included trait anxiety

in the models for fear withdrawal and fear expression, and trait anger in the models for anger withdrawal

and anger expression. Again, by running these regressions in steps, we were able to determine (using

change in R2) whether the addition of the attachment dimensions added a significant amount of variance to

the models predicting regulatory tendencies, over and above both background variables and ongoing levels

of trait emotions.1

Intercorrelations Among the Study Variables

Table 2 displays the zero-order relations among trait emotion, trait expressive regulatory

tendencies, and experiential regulation. Trait anger and trait anxiety were positively related (r = .51) as

were the tendencies to withdraw and/or express experiences of anger and fear. Trait anger and fear were

positively related to both expressive and withdrawal tendencies across the emotions. Finally, attachment

security was positively related to trait anger and curiosity as well as an expressive regulatory profile

characterized by less withdrawal when frightened and more withdrawal when angry as well as by greater

fear expression and less anger expression.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Insert Table 2 about here

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Conversely, dismissiveness was associated with less anxiety, more anger, and more curiosity as

well as with greater withdrawal when frightened. Fearful avoidance was positively associated with greater

anxiety and anger, with withdrawal when angry or frightened, and with expressions of anger and fear.

Finally, preoccupation was associated with more frequent anxiety and anger and with reduced curiosity. In

terms of regulation, preoccupation was associated with greater withdrawal when frightened and with

greater anger expression.

Regression analyses: trait emotion

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 16

Trait anger. As indicated in Step 1 of the first regression in Table 3, greater trait anger was

associated with younger age, lower income, and being White. The addition of the attachment dimensions in

Step 2 added a significant amount of variance to the model (∆R2 = .16, p < .001). Specifically, greater trait

anger was positively associated with greater dismissiveness, fearful avoidance and preoccupation.

Trait anxiety. As indicated in the first step of the second regression in Table 3, trait anxiety was

negatively associated with income and positively associated with being White. The addition of the

attachment dimensions in Step 2 added a significant amount of variance to the model (∆R2 = .13, p < .001).

Specifically, there was a positive association between trait anxiety and both fearful avoidance and

preoccupation.

Trait curiosity. As shown in the first step of the final regression in Table 3, trait curiosity was

positively associated with education, being married, and being White. The addition of the attachment

dimensions in Step 2 added a significant amount of variance to the model (∆R2 = .09, p < .001).

Specifically, curiosity was positively associated with attachment security and dismissiveness, and

negatively associated with fearful avoidance and preoccupation.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Insert Tables 3 - 5 about here

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Regression analyses: trait emotion regulation

1. Expressive regulation I: anger withdrawal and expression. To examine the relations between

attachment and the expressive regulation of anger, we conducted two 2-step hierarchical regressions in

which anger withdrawal and anger expression were regressed on demographic variables and trait anger,

first alone (Step 1), and then with the attachment dimensions (Step 2). The overall model (both steps) for

anger withdrawal was significant, F(10, 1194) = 8.81, p <.001, and explained 7% of the variance. As can

be seen in the first step of the regression in the left panel of Table 4, greater anger withdrawal was

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 17

predicted by greater trait anger, less education, being married, and being White. After the addition of the

attachment dimensions in Step 2, which added a significant amount of variance to the model (∆R2 = .04, p

< .001), trait anger was no longer a significant predictor in the model. As expected, fearful avoidance

predicted greater anger withdrawal, whereas preoccupation predicted less anger withdrawal.

The overall model (both steps) for anger expression was also significant, F (10, 1193) = 51.37, p <

.001, and explained 30% of the variance. As shown in the first step of the regression in the right panel of

Table 4, anger expression was predicted by younger age, more education, and being single. In addition,

trait anger was positively associated with anger expression. The addition of the attachment dimensions in

Step 2 added a significant amount of variance to the model (∆R2 = .03, p < .001). Specifically, anger

expressiveness was negatively associated with attachment security and dismissiveness, and positively

associated with preoccupation. Trait anger remained a significant positive predictor of anger expression.

2. Expressive regulation II: fear/anxiety withdrawal and expression. The full model (both steps) for

fear withdrawal was significant, F (10, 1193) = 12.76, p <.001, and explained nearly 10% of the variance.

As shown in the first step of the regression in the left panel of Table 5, no demographic variable predicted

fear withdrawal, but greater withdrawal was predicted by greater anxiety. The addition of the attachment

dimensions in Step 2 added a significant amount of variance to the model (∆R2 = .04, p < .001).

Specifically, greater dismissiveness and preoccupation but less security predicted fear withdrawal.

Finally, the full model (both steps) for fear expression was also significant, F (10, 1193) = 46.88, p

< .001, and explained 28% of the variance in trait anxiety. As shown in the first step of the regression in the

right panel of Table 5, greater fear expression was predicted by younger age and lower income, as well as

by greater trait anxiety. The addition of the attachment dimensions in Step 2 added a significant amount of

variance to the model (∆R2 = .03, p < .001). Specifically, greater dismissiveness and fearful avoidance but

less preoccupation predicted fear expression.

Discussion

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 18

As predicted, differing levels of attachment security, preoccupation, dismissiveness, and fearful

avoidance predicted different patterns of trait emotion in our sample of women. More uniquely, attachment

dimensions also showed the predicted associations with patterns of expressive emotion regulation. Below,

we consider these data more thoroughly, first describing the patterns of trait emotion associated with the

different attachment dimensions, before moving to discuss the expressive regulatory styles related to each.

We conclude by offering an interpretation of the different functions served by emotion experience and

expression in the context of attachment processes and offer some directions for future research.

Attachment dimensions and trait emotion

Consistent with expectation, attachment security was related to reports of greater positive emotion

(Consedine & Fiori, 2009; Consedine & Magai, 2003; Mikulincer & Florian, 1998) – in this case, curiosity.

On the other hand, although lower anger (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer, 1998b) and anxiety

(Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995) have been associated with security in younger groups, there were no

associations in the current report. Recall, however, that the current sample (aged 50-70) is older than that

typically seen in research on adult attachment, and previous studies of older persons have actually

suggested that greater anger and fear may be reported (Consedine & Magai, 2003). In contrast to this

pattern, greater dismissiveness was associated with the predicted reports of greater anger (Kobak &

Sceery, 1988; Mikulincer, 1998b; Mikulincer et al., 1993) and curiosity (Consedine & Fiori, 2009; Consedine

& Magai, 2003), although dismissiveness was not associated with the lower anxiety evident in prior work

(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Consedine & Magai, 2003; Magai et al., 2000; Mikulincer et al., 1990). As

expected, reports of increased anger and anxiety were associated with both fearfully avoidant and (to a

lesser extent) preoccupied dimensions. Increased anger and anxiety have previously been seen among

more preoccupied persons (Magai et al., 1995), and, in other studies of anxiety, among individuals

classified as ambivalent (Kobak & Sceery, 1988). Conversely, both dimensions were negatively associated

with our measure of positive emotion – curiosity.

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 19

Attachment, trait emotion, and emotion regulation – a developmental functionalist interpretation

In addition, the current study showed that attachment dimensions were associated with a complex

array of emotion and emotion regulatory patterns. Attachment work has tended to suggest that the patterns

of emotion and regulation characterizing different dimensions can be described in terms of general

activation/deactivation (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988; Kobak et al., 1993; Mikulincer et al., 2003) and reflect

hedonistic motivations regarding maintaining felt security (Mikulincer et al., 2003; Zimmerman et al., 2001).

In such views, emotion regulation is aimed at managing the distress that accompanies a lack of security

(Kobak et al., 1993). The current approach, however, fundamentally diverges from this view, suggesting

that emotion signals (expressions) are not exclusively “read-outs” of internal states, but rather signals that

have evolved to communicate event meaning and internal states and, more importantly, to influence the

response of signal recipients (Brown & Consedine, 2004; Fridlund, 1994, 2002). Preliminary evidence for

this refinement in thinking at the attachment-regulation interface was evidenced in several ways.

First, based in theory regarding the distinct functions of emotion experiences versus expression

(Consedine, 2011a; Consedine & Moskowitz, 2007) and the internal working models characterizing various

attachment types (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), we expected that greater withdrawal would characterize

the regulatory response to fear and anger among more fearfully avoidant individuals and less withdrawal to

characterize the response of more preoccupied persons. These hypotheses were partially confirmed,

perhaps suggesting that these two groups may be better distinguished by the manner in which they

regulate the expression of emotions than by their emotions per se.

The combination of high underlying anger and fear is consistent with suggestions that the

attachment systems of preoccupied (and perhaps fearfully-avoidant) individuals may be hyperactivated

(Mikulincer, 1998a; Mikulincer et al., 2003) with commensurate increases in the experience of negative

affectivity. It might initially be thought that the greater expression and withdrawal associated with these

characteristics reflects the fact that they experience more threat and frustration than others (see Table 3).

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 20

However, the fact that differences in expressive regulation remained evident even when levels of the

underlying emotion were controlled (see Tables 4 and 5) suggests that such an explanation would be

incomplete. Thus, it is not just that preoccupied and fearfully-avoidant persons express or withdraw

because they feel more negative emotion than others. Rather, the patterns of expression and withdrawal

appear to be indexing something specific to the operation of the underlying relational models.

Indeed, the greater withdrawal among fearfully-avoidant but lower withdrawal among preoccupied

is consonant with theory suggesting that while both fearful avoidant and preoccupied individuals have

negative views of the self, only fearful avoidant individuals also have a negative view of ‘others.’ Because

preoccupied persons may focus on distress or rejection cues (Kobak et al., 1993) and have trouble

detaching from attachment figures (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998), it is unsurprising that they show less

withdrawal and more expression when afraid or angry. In theory, a positive model of the other may lead

persons with preoccupied characteristics to elevate anger signaling in an attempt to “demand” support but

be unwilling to withdraw from interpersonal conflicts, even when withdrawal might be appropriate or more

useful. It may be that they have a lower distress tolerance, a lower ability to self-regulate, that they

perceive others as somehow “necessary” to successful self-regulation, or indeed that their anxieties are

preferentially comprised of interpersonal elicitors (i.e., they are relationally anxious rather than necessarily

more anxious in general).

Conversely, because fearfully avoidant individuals have a negative model of the other, high

rejection fears, and a perception of others as unwilling or unable to provide support (Consedine & Fiori,

2009), it may be that they preemptively withdraw when angry or afraid, precluding the possibility that others

will reject or hurt them (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Merz & Consedine, 2009) but also forestalling the

possibility that others will help. Alternately, it may be that more fearfully avoidant person deliberately fail to

express emotions such as anger to avoid alienating others from their age cohort (Consedine, Magai, &

Bonanno, 2002) who are known to place a premium on emotionally rewarding interchanges (Carstensen,

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 21

1993, 1995). Although such an interpretation must be considered preliminary, it is our suspicion that

interpretations at the interface between the evolved interpersonal functions of anger versus fear signals

together with variation in core components of the internal working models of the two types represents a

fruitful approach.

Equally, our data suggest that a conceptualization of more dismissive individuals as globally

“minimizing” or “restricting” (Cassidy, 1994; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Magai et al., 2000) may not be

completely accurate with regards to the regulation of emotion signals. Given their negative views of the

“other” and a tendency towards deactivating the attachment system when distressed (Kobak et al., 1993;

Mikulincer et al., 2003), we expected that dismissiveness would be associated with greater fear withdrawal

but less anger withdrawal (Cassidy, 1994; Consedine, 2012; Consedine, Magai, Horton, & Brown, 2011;

Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Magai et al., 2000; Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995). Although our data were consistent

with predictions regarding fear withdrawal, anger withdrawal showed no relation with dismissiveness and

there were also some unexpected findings regarding expression; dismissiveness was associated with a

greater tendency to not express anger but to express fear.

Given the absence of prior research with this degree of expressive regulatory specificity examined

here, explaining this counterintuitive result is not easy. However, it should be remembered that our sample

were exclusively women and their mean age was older than that typically employed in attachment research

(Mage = 59.3 years). A totally female sample may express less anger than one including males, since

females are more liable to internalize than are males (who are more likely to externalize) (Eaton et al.,

2011). Furthermore, anger shows a reliable developmental decline (Magai, 2001), in theory because the

negative interpersonal consequences of anger expression (Consedine, Magai, & Bonanno, 2002) imperil

declining social networks (Carstensen, 1993, 1995; Carstensen, Fung, & Charles, 2003). However, greater

age also sees an increased ability to integrate, understand, and experience multiple and conflicting

emotions (Labouvie-Vief, DeVoe, & Bulka, 1989) and may be associated with greater regulatory ability

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 22

(Magai, Consedine, Krivoshekova, McPherson, & Kudadjie-Gyamfi, 2006). In theory then, it may be that the

highly dismissive individuals have differentially (needed to) learn to regulate their anger in ways that do not

require expression and its attendant negative consequences. They may accomplish this by distracting

themselves, perhaps by increasing interest/curiosity (Consedine & Magai, 2003) as a way of detaching

from interpersonal threats (Malatesta et al., 1989) or minimizing the negative impact of anger signals on the

social environment. Clearly, such results need replication, particularly among younger samples and among

men, as well as by employing longitudinal designs that enable concurrent assessment of changes in

attachment and affective phenomena.

In terms of attachment security, we predicted that more secure persons would express less anger

but greater fear and that they would withdraw less when afraid; two of these hypotheses were supported.

Attachment security was associated with lower anger expression and less fear withdrawal, but not with

greater fear expression. Viewed globally, this pattern of emotion-specific non-expression and non-

withdrawal is consistent with a view of secure individuals being competent relationship managers whose

fundamental trust in others enables them to avoid preemptive social withdrawal when distressed (Kobak et

al., 1993; Mikulincer & Florian, 1998; Mikulincer et al., 1993) and to minimize the impact of anger

expression on social relationships. Importantly, because our analyses controlled for levels of trait affect, the

reduced anger expression cannot be viewed as a function of underlying trait affect differences (Hazan &

Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer, 1998b), and can instead be interpreted as a potentially strategic regulatory style.

Conclusions, limitations, and future directions

Although we feel confident that distinguishing between the regulation of experience and expression

is an important next step for attachment research, the interpretations of our data must be taken as

preliminary. There are a number of factors that must constrain our confidence. Most evident among these

factors are the characteristics of our sample, notably their gender composition (all female), their age (50-

70), and their ethnicity (nearly 75% black (24.5% African American, 25% Caribbean, and 25% Haitian),

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 23

12.5% Russian, and about 13% European American). Given the existence of gender (Kring, 2000; Kring &

Gordon, 1998), ethnic (Consedine et al., 2011), and age (Consedine & Mauss, in press) differences in

emotions, as well as gender (Consedine & Fiori, 2009), ethnic (Fiori et al., 2009), and age (Kafetsios &

Sideridis, 2006) differences in attachment, it is unclear whether our results will generalize to men, other

ethnic groups, and/or younger age groups.

Of particular note is the fact that both older (Diehl et al., 1998; Mickelson et al., 1997) and minority

samples (Consedine & Magai, 2003) are more dismissive in general (Consedine, 2012), a pattern also

evident in this report. In the current study, 80 percent of women were categorized as ‘dismissive,’ a fact

that may have obscured our ability to replicate the link between dismissiveness and a pattern of more

restricted expression that is typically seen in the literature. Equally, without longitudinal data, we cannot be

sure whether this pattern, or patterns linking dismissiveness to emotional experience and regulation, reflect

the developmental stage of the participants or a cohort effect (e.g., a shared experience of racism and

discrimination).

Finally, it should also be noted that because we used a slightly different factor structure than that

typically used to measure attachment dimensions (in order to improve the reliability of the measure),

readers should be wary in comparing our results directly with results from studies using alternate factor

structures. However, this revised factor structure has been used in other studies from our research group

(Consedine & Magai, 2003; Fiori et al., 2009; Magai et al., 2001), and the primary difference lies in the

‘secure’ dimension, from which some items that typically load on the preoccupied dimension in younger

adults load on security in older groups. We have previously argued that this difference reflects the

increased valuing of intimate social relations in older groups.

These limitations noted, however, the developmental functionalist account of emotions and

emotion regulation we have offered does provide some means within which to interpret why persons of

differing attachment styles may differentially up- and down-regulate the experience versus the expression

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 24

of different emotions. The current report has begun the process of examining the regulation of fear and

anger expression. Extending this to the study of other emotions, particularly sadness, which has core

expressive functions in eliciting social support (Averill, 1968; Bowlby, 1969a; Lazarus, 1991; Levine, 1996)

and experiential functions in altering goal relationships and forming plans (Consedine, Magai, & Bonanno,

2002; Johnson-Laird & Oatley, 1992; Stein & Levine, 1990) will be an important next step. Future research

could also follow individuals longitudinally to disentangle age changes from period and cohort effects,

perhaps by implementing a structural equation modeling approach.

Non-secure attachment is often viewed as an adaptive response to child/parent resource flux and

competition (Cassidy, 1994; LeCroy, 2000). To this our functionalist interpretation adds a conceptualization

of affect and affect-regulatory differences as potentially divergent and compensatory strategies that reflect

both the influence of the beliefs and expectations within the internal working model, as well as the evolved

functions of emotion experience and expression as they occur in specific age groups. Such an approach

can take us beyond global regulatory or hedonistic views of attachment and regulation and provide

frameworks within which to consider the functions that emotion expression and experience may serve

within the interpersonal and intrapersonal systems of groups of individuals from across the lifespan.

Experiential versus expressive regulation in attachment 25

Notes.

1. Ideally we would have included trait anxiety and trait anger in the regression for repression as well.

However, because of the manner in which the repression variable is derived (i.e., through combining self-

reported anxiety with defensiveness), it was not possible to include trait anxiety in the model for repression.

Although we could have examined how trait anger impacted the model for repression, we felt the typically

high correlations between trait experience of negative affects (e.g., Consedine & Magai, 2002) mitigated

against this step.

26

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of the sample broken down by race and the results of chi-square or ANOVA

Ethnic Group

Variable White (N = 305)

Black (N = 899)

F or X2 Value

Mean Age 60.1 (6.3)

59.3 (6.6)

3.57

Mean Income ($K) 37.8 (30.0)

29.1(21.8)

29.82**

% > High School Education 74.8 (44.1)

21.3 (.40.9)

350.59**

% Married 49.8 (50.1) 29.8 (.45.8) 41.52**

Notes: * p <.05, ** p < .01

27

Table 2

Intercorrelations among study variables

Age Educ Inc MS Race Anx Ang Cur AngW AngE FrW FrE AttS AttD AttA AttP

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Age

2. Education (Educ.)

3. Income (Inc.)

4. Marital Status (MS)

5. Race

6. Anxiety (Anx.)

7. Anger (Ang.)

8. Curiosity (Cur.)

9. Anger Withdrawal

10. Anger Express.

11. Fear Withdrawal

12. Fear Expression

13. Security (AttS.)

14. Dismiss (AttD.)

15. Fear Avoid (AttA.)

16. Preocc (AttP.)

-

-.11**

-

-.22

.37**

-

.-.06*

.15**

.28**

-

.05

.48**

.16**

.18**

-

.01

.20**

-.05

.01

.45**

-

-.03

.14**

-.02

.07*

.26**

.56**

-

.01

.24**

.10**

.14**

.25**

-.07*

.11**

-

.03

.01

.00

.09**

.12**

.25**

.09**

.02

-

-.08**

.17**

.00

-.03

.21**

.38**

.50**

-.04

-.02

-

.02

.06*

-.04

-.01

.08**

.22**

.43**

.00

.42**

.13**

-

-.05

.10**

-.05

.01

.26**

.50**

.40**

-.03

.13**

.39**

.04

-

.07*

-.04

.04

.07*

.06*

.02

.07*

.20**

.07*

-.11**

-.09**

.06*

-

.03

.01

-.14**

-.08**

-.07*

-.04

-.08**

.12**

.03

-.01

.12**

.05

-.13**

-

-.08**

-.10**

-.10**

-.07*

-.00

.36**

.35**

-.13**

.18**

.19**

.12**

.28**

.14**

-.01

-

-.07*

-.03

-.12**

-.11**

.01

.25**

.32**

-.17**

.02

.24**

.21**

.11**

-.04

.05

.52**

-

Notes: * p <.05, ** p < .01; Marital status and race are dummy coded such that 1 = married and White.

28

Table 3

Stepwise regressions of trait anger, trait anxiety, and trait curiosity on demographic variables and attachment dimensions.

Trait Anger Trait Anxiety Trait Curiosity

Predictors B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β

Step 1

Age -.05 .02 -.06* -.03 .02 -.04 .02 .02 .03

Education .08 .14 .02 .08 .12 .02 .77 .12 .22***

Income -.02 .01 -.10** -.02 .01 -.12*** -.01 .01 -.03

Married .38 .29 .04 -.38 .26 -.04 .82 .26 .09**

White 2.88 .37 .26*** 5.00 .33 .47*** 1.06 .33 .11**

R2 for Step 1 .08 .22 .10

Step 2

Age -.01 .02 -.02 .01 .02 .01 -.01 .02 -.01

Education .27 .13 .07* .30 .12 .08** .75 .12 .22***

Income -.01 .01 -.05 -.02 .01 -.10*** -.01 .01 -.04

Married .71 .27 .07** -.13 .24 -.01 .63 .25 .07*

White 2.43 .34 .22*** 4.54 .31 .43*** 1.15 .31 .12***

Security .24 .17 .04 -.27 .15 -.04 1.34 .16 .23***

Dismissiveness .61 .18 .09** -.20 .16 -.03 .99 .16 .16***

Fearful Avoidance 1.70 .20 .25*** 2.16 .18 .33*** -.45 .19 -.08*

Preoccupation 1.18 .18 .19*** .41 .16 .07* -.62 .17 -.11***

∆ R2 from Step 1 to 2 .16*** .13*** .09***

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Income is measured in thousands of dollars; Education ranges from 0 (no school or elementary only) to 5 (doctoral degree).

29

Table 4 Stepwise regressions of trait anger withdrawal and expression on demographic variables, anger, and attachment.

Trait Anger Withdrawal Model Trait Anger Expression Model

Predictors B SE B β B SE B β

Step 1

Age .01 .01 .02 -.02 .01 -.06*

Education -.17 .06 -.11** .21 .05 .13***

Income .00 .00 .01 -.00 .00 -.04

Married .31 .12 .08* -.32 .11 -.08**

White .66 .16 .15*** .21 .14 .05

Anger .02 .01 .06* .20 .01 .47***

R2 for Step 1 .031 .274

Step 2

Age .01 .01 .03 -.01 .01 -.04

Education -.11 .06 -.07 .21 .05 .13***

Income .00 .00 .01 -.00 .00 -.03

Married .33 .12 .08** -.26 .11 -.06*

White .65 .16 .15*** .23 .14 .05

Anger .00 .01 .00 .19 .01 .45***

Security .06 .08 .02 -.38 .07 -.14***

Dismissiveness .15 .08 .05 -.19 .07 -.07**

Fearful Avoidance .62 .09 .23*** .06 .08 .02

Preoccupation -.23 .08 -.09** .19 .08 .07*

∆ R2 from Step 1 to 2 .04*** .03***

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Income is measured in thousands of dollars; Education ranges from 0 (no school or elementary only) to 5 (doctoral degree).

30

Table 5 Stepwise regressions of trait fear withdrawal and expression on demographic variables, fear, and attachment.

Trait Fear Withdrawal Model Trait Fear Expression Model

Predictors B SE B β B SE B β

Step 1

Age .01 .01 .02 -.03 .01 -.07**

Education .11 .06 .07 .07 .08 .03

Income -.00 .00 -.05 -.01 .00 -.07*

Married .03 .13 .01 .02 .16 .00

White -.28 .18 -.06 .32 .22 .05

Anxiety .10 .02 .23*** .29 .02 .47***

R2 for Step 1 .05 .26

Step 2

Age .01 .01 .04 -.03 .01 -.07**

Education .09 .06 .05 .12 .08 .05

Income -.00 .00 -.01 -.01 .00 -.07*

Married .12 .13 .03 .01 .16 .00

White -.16 .18 -.03 .40 .22 .06

Anxiety .09 .02 .19*** .26 .02 .42***

Security -.20 .08 -.07* .17 .10 .04

Dismissiveness .33 .09 .11*** .31 .10 .08**

Fearful Avoidance -.03 .10 -.01 .68 .13 .17***

Preoccupation .46 .09 .17*** -.38 .11 -.10**

∆ R2 from Step 1 to 2 .04*** .03***

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Income is measured in thousands of dollars; Education ranges from 0 (no school or elementary only) to 5 (doctoral degree).

31

References

Averill, J. R. (1968). Grief: Its nature and significance. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 721-748.

Averill, J. R. (1994). Emotions are many splendored things. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of

emotions: Fundamental questions (pp. 99-102). New York: Oxford University Press.

Baltes, P. B. (1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization and

compensation as foundation of developmental theory. In U. M. Staudinger & U. Lindenberger (Eds.),

Understanding human development: Dialogues with lifespan psychology (pp. 17 - 43). Dordrecht,

Netherlands: Kluwer.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category

model. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.

Bowlby, J. (1969a). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1). London: Hogarth Press.

Bowlby, J. (1969b). Attachment and loss: Vol. I. Attachment. NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative

overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76).

New York: Guilford.

Brown, W. M., & Consedine, N. S. (2004). Just how happy is the happy puppet? an emotion signaling and kinship

theory perspective on the behavioral phenotype of children with Angelman Syndrome. Medical

Hypotheses, 63(3), 377-385.

Buchheim, A. M., & Mergenthaler, E. (2000). The relationship among attachment representation, emotion

abstraction patterns and narrative style: A computer-based text analysis of the Adult Attachment

Interview. Psychotherapy Research, 10, 390-407.

Buck, R. (1999). The biological affects: A typology. Psychological Review, 106, 301-336.

32

Carpenter, B. D. (2001). Attachment bonds between adult daughters and their older mothers: Associations with

contemporary caregiving. Journals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social

Sciences, 56(5), P257-P266.

Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectivity

theory. Psychology & Aging, 7(3), 331-338.

Carstensen, L. L. (1993). Motivation for social contact across the lifespan: A theory of socioemotional selectivity.

In J. E. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp.

209-254). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 4, 151-156.

Carstensen, L. L., & Charles, S. T. (1998). Emotion in the second half of life. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 7, 144-149.

Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of

emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 103-123.

Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional

selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165-181.

Carstensen, L. L., & Löckenhoff, C. E. (2003). Aging, emotion, and evolution: The bigger picture. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences, 1000, 152-179.

Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. In N. Fox (Ed.), The development

of emotion regulation: Biological and biobehavioral considerations (Vol. 59, pp. 228-283). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Cassidy, J. (2000). Adult romantic attachments: A developmental perspective on individual differences. Review of

General Psychology, 4, 111-131.

33

Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. (1988). Avoidance and its relation to other defensive processes. In J. Belsky & T.

Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment. Child psychology (pp. 300-323). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Cicirelli, V. G. (2004). God as the ultimate attachment figure for older adults. Attachment and Human

Development, 6(4), 371-388.

Clore, G. L., & Parrott, W. G. (1991). Moods and their vicissitudes: Thoughts and feelings as information. In J. P.

Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social judgments. International series in experimental social psychology (pp.

107-123). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal

of Personality & Social Psychology, 71, 810-832.

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples.

Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 58(4), 664-663.

Consedine, N. S. (2011a). Capacities, targets, and tactics: Lifespan emotion regulation viewed from

developmental functionalism. In I. Nyclicek, A. Vingerhoets & M. Zeelenberg (Eds.), Emotion regulation

and wellbeing (pp. 13-29). New York: Springer.

Consedine, N. S. (2011b). Emotion, regulation, and learning across the adult lifespan: Implications from

developmental functionalism. In C. Hoare (Ed.), Oxford handbook of reciprocal adult development and

learning (2nd ed., pp. 132-154). New York: Oxford University Press.

Consedine, N. S. (2012). Are we worrying about the right men and are the right men feeling worried? Conscious

but not unconscious prostate anxiety predicts screening among men from three ethnic groups. American

Journal of Men's Health, 6(1), 37-50.

Consedine, N. S., & Fiori, K. L. (2009). Gender moderates the associations between attachment and discrete

emotions in middle age and later life. Aging and Mental Health, 13(6), 847-862.

34

Consedine, N. S., & Magai, C. (2003). Attachment and emotion experience in later life: The view from emotions

theory. Attachment & Human Development, 5, 165-187.

Consedine, N. S., & Magai, C. (2006). Emotion development in adulthood: A developmental functionalist review

and critique. In C. Hoare (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of adult development and learning (pp. 209-244).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Consedine, N. S., Magai, C., & Bonanno, G. A. (2002). Moderators of the emotion inhibition-health relationship: A

review and research agenda. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 204-228.

Consedine, N. S., Magai, C., Cohen, C. I., & Gillespie, M. (2002). Ethnic variation in the impact of negative affect

and emotion inhibition on the health of older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological

Sciences, 57B(5), 396-408.

Consedine, N. S., Magai, C., Horton, D., & Brown, W. M. (2011). The affective paradox: an emotion regulatory

account of ethnic differences in self-reported anger. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Retrieved from

http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/04/26/0022022111405659.full.pdf+html

Consedine, N. S., Magai, C., & King, A. R. (2004). Deconstructing positive affect in later life: A differential

functionalist analysis of joy and interest. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 58, 49-68.

Consedine, N. S., Magai, C., & Krivoshekova, Y. S. (2005). Sex and age cohort differences in patterns of

socioemotional functioning in older adults and their links to physical resilience. Ageing International,

30(3), 209-243.

Consedine, N. S., Magai, C., & Neugut, A. I. (2004). The contribution of emotional characteristics to breast cancer

screening. Preventive Medicine, 38, 64-77.

Consedine, N. S., & Mauss, I. B. (in press). Tasks, capacities, and tactics - A skill-based conceptualization of

emotion regulation across the lifespan. In P. Verhaeghen & C. Hertzog (Eds.), Emotion, social cognition,

and everyday problem solving during adulthood: Oxford University Press.

35

Consedine, N. S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2007). The role of discrete emotions in health outcomes: a critical review.

Journal of Applied and Preventive Psychology, 12(2), 59-75.

Consedine, N. S., Strongman, K. T., & Magai, C. (2003). Emotions and behavior: Data from a cross-cultural

recognition study. Cognition and Emotion, 17(6), 881-902.

Crawford, L. M., Bond Jr., J. B., & Balshaw, R. F. (1994). Factors affecting sons' and daughters' caregiving to

older parents. Canadian Journal on Aging, 13(4), 454-469.

Creasey, G., Kershaw, K., & Boston, A. (1999). Conflict management with friends and romantic partners: The role

of attachment and negative mood regulation expectancies. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 28(5), 523-

543.

Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change? Journal of Personality & Social

Psychology, 73(4), 826-838.

Diehl, M., Elnick, A. B., Bourbeau, L. S., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (1998). Adult attachment styles: Their relations to

family context and personality. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74(6), 1656-1669.

Fiori, K. L., Consedine, N. S., & Magai, C. (2008). The adaptive and maladaptive faces of dependency in later life:

links to physical and psychological health outcomes. Journal of Mental Health and Aging, 12(6), 700-712.

Fiori, K. L., Consedine, N. S., & Magai, C. (2009). Patterns of relating among men and women from seven ethnic

groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 24(2), 121-141.

Fiori, K. L., Consedine, N. S., & Merz, E.-M. (2011). Attachment, social network size, and patterns of social

exchange in later life. Research on Aging, 33(4), 465-493.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging

controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132-154.

Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological model. In J. A. Simpson

& W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77-114). New York: Guilford.

Fridlund, A. J. (1994). Human facial expression: An evolutionary view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

36

Fridlund, A. J. (2002). The behavioral ecology view of smiling and other facial expressions. In M. H. Abel (Ed.), An

empirical reflection on the smile. Mellen studies in psychology (Vol. 4). Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen

Press.

Frijda, N. H., & Mesquita, B. (1994). The social roles and functions of emotions. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus

(Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 51-87). Washington DC: APA

Press.

Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and others: Fundamental dimensions underlying

measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 67, 430-445.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for

affect, relationships, and well- being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362.

Grühn, D., Kotter-Grühn, D., & Röcke, C. (2010). Discrete affects across the adult lifespan: Evidence for

multidimensionality and multidirectionality of affective experiences in young, middle-aged and older

adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 492-500.

Harris, P. (1999). Individual differences in understanding emotion: The role of attachment status and

psychological discourse. Attachment & Human Development.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of

Personality & Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.

Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. New York: Plenum Press.

Jakobs, E., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fisher, A. H. (1999). Social motives, emotional feelings, and smiling. Cognition

& Emotion, 13, 321-345.

Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Oatley, K. (1992). Basic emotions, rationality, and folk theory. Cognition & Emotion, 6,

201-223.

Kafetsios, K., & Sideridis, G. D. (2006). Attachment, social support and well-being in young and older adults.

Journal of Health Psychology, 11(6), 863-875.

37

Karantzas, G. C., Evans, L., & Foddy, M. (2010). The role of attachment in current and future parent caregiving.

Journals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 65B(5), 573-580.

Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P. C. E., & Edwards, K. (1993). Beyond simple pessimism: Effects of sadness and anger on

social perception. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 64, 740 - 752.

Keltner, D., & Gross, J. J. (1999). Functional accounts of emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 13, 467-480.

Klimes-Dougan, B., Brand, A. E., Zahn-Waxler, C., Usher, B., Hastings, P. D., Kendziora, K., et al. (2007).

Parental emotion socialization in adolescence: Differences in sex, age and problem status. Social

Development, 16(2), 326-342.

Klohnen, E. C., & Bera, S. (1998). Behavioral and experiential patterns of avoidantly and securely attached

women across adulthood: A 31 - year longitudinal perspective. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74(1), 211-223.

Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., & Fleming, W. S. (1993). Attachment and emotion-regulation during

mother-teen problem solving: A control theory analysis. Child Development, 64, 231-245.

Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and

representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146.

Kokkonen, M., & Pulkkinnen, L. (1999). Emotion regulation strategies in relation to personality characteristics

indicating low and high self-control of emotions. Personality & Individual Differences, 27, 913-932.

Kring, A. M. (2000). Gender and anger. In A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological

perspectives. (pp. 211-231). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998). Sex differences in emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal

of Personality & Social Psychology, 74(3), 686-703.

Labouvie-Vief, G., DeVoe, M., & Bulka, D. (1989). Speaking about feelings: Conceptions of emotion across the

lifespan. Psychology and Aging, 4, 425-437.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.

38

LeCroy, D. (2000). Freud: The first evolutionary psychologist? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 907,

182-190.

Levenson, R. W. (1999). Intrapersonal functions of emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 13, 481-504.

Levine, L. J. (1996). The anatomy of disappointment: A naturalistic test of appraisal models of sadness, anger,

and hope. Cognition & Emotion, 10, 337 - 359.

Magai, C. (2001). Emotions over the lifespan. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology

of aging (5th ed., pp. 310 - 344). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Magai, C. (2008). Attachment in middle and later life. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of

attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 532-551). NY: Guilford Press.

Magai, C., Cohen, C., Milburn, N., Thorpe, B., McPherson, R., & Peralta, D. (2001). Attachment styles in older

European American and African American adults. Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological

Sciences and Social Sciences, 56B, S28-S35.

Magai, C., Consedine, N. S., Krivoshekova, Y. S., McPherson, R., & Kudadjie-Gyamfi, E. (2006). Emotion

experience and expression across the adult lifespan: Insights from a multi-modal assessment study.

Psychology & Aging, 21(1), 303-317.

Magai, C., Distel, N., & Liker, R. (1995). Emotion socialization, attachment, and patterns of adult emotional traits.

Cognition and Emotion, 9(5), 461-481.

Magai, C., Hunziker, Mesias, W., & Culver, L. C. (2000). Adult attachment styles and emotional biases.

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 301-309.

Main, M., & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents' unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized

attachment status: Is frightened and/or frightening parental behavior the linking mechanism? In M. T.

Greenberg, D. Cicchetti & C. E. M. (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years (pp. 161 - 182). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

39

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of a new insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern. In T. B.

Brazelton & M. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy (pp. 95 - 124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the

Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years:

Theory, research, and intervention. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on mental

health and development (pp. 121-160). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Malatesta, C. Z., Culver, C., Tesman, J. R., & Shepard, B. (1989). The development of emotion expression during

the first two years of life. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 54(1-2), 1-104.

Merz, E.-M., & Consedine, N. S. (2009). Attachment security moderates the links between emotional and

instrumental family support and wellbeing in later life. Attachment and Human Development, 11(2), 203 –

221.

Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment in a nationally representative sample.

Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73, 1092-1106.

Mikulincer, M. (1995). Attachment style and the mental representation of the self. Journal of Personality & Social

Psychology, 69(6), 1203-1215.

Mikulincer, M. (1997). Adult attachment style and information processing: Individual differences in curiosity and

cognitive closure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 72, 1217-1230.

Mikulincer, M. (1998a). Adult attachment style and affect regulation: Strategic variations in self-appraisals. Journal

of Personality & Social Psychology, 75(2), 420-435.

Mikulincer, M. (1998b). Adult attachment style and individual differences in functional versus dysfunctional

experiences of anger. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74, 513-524.

Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The relationship between adult attachment styles and emotional and cognitive

reactions to stressful events. In J. A. S. W. S. Rholes (Ed.), Attachment theory and close relationships

(pp. 143-165). New York: Guilford.

40

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Tolmacz, R. (1990). Attachment styles and fear of personal death: A case study of

affect regulation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 58(2), 273-280.

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies, and post-traumatic

psychological distress: The impact of the Gulf War in Israel. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,

64, 817-826.

Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. (2002). Activation of the attachment system in adulthood: Threat-related

primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of attachment figures. Journal of Personality &

Social Psychology, 83(4), 881-895.

Mikulincer, M., & Orbach, I. (1995). Attachment styles and repressive defensiveness: The accessibility and

architecture of affective memories. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 68, 917-925.

Mikulincer, M., Orbach, I., & Iavnieli, D. (1998). Adult attachment style and affect regulation: Strategic variations in

subjective self-other similarity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75(2), 436-448.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics,

development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation & Emotion, 27(2),

77-102.

Nesse, R. M. (1990). Evolutionary explanations of emotions. Human Nature, 1, 261-289.

O'Neal, C., & Magai, C. (2005). Do parents respond in different ways when children feel different emotions? The

emotional context of parenting. Development and Psychopathology, 17(2), 467-487.

Pereg, D., & Mikulincer, M. (2004). Attachment style and the regulation of negative affect: Exploring individual

differences in mood congruency effects on memory and judgment. Personality & Social Psychology

Bulletin, 30(1), 67-80.

Richards, J. M., Butler, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003). Emotion regulation in romantic relationships: The cognitive

consequences of concealing feelings. Journal of Personal & Social Relationships, 20(5), 599-620.

41

Scherer, K. R. (1982). Emotion as a process: Function, origin, and regulation. Social Science Information, 21,

555-570.

Shaver, P. R., Collins, N., & Clark, C. L. (1996). Attachment styles and internal working models of self and

relationship partners. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships:

A social psychological approach (pp. 25-61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sörensen, S., Webster, J. D., & Roggman, L. A. (2002). Adult attachment and preparing to provide care for older

relatives. Attachment & Human Development, 4(1), 84-106.

Spangler, G., & Zimmermann, P. (1999). Attachment representation and emotion regulation in adolescents: A

psychobiological perspective on internal working models. Attachment & Human Development, 1(3), 270-

290.

Spielberger, L. (1986). Preliminary manual for the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI).Unpublished

manuscript, Tampa, FL.

Stein, N. L., & Levine, L. J. (1990). Making sense out of emotion: The representation and use of goal-structured

knowledge. I. In N. L. Stein, B. Leventhal & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Psychological and biological approaches

to emotion (pp. 45-73). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of

ancestral environments. Ethology & Sociobiology, 11, 375-424.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2008). The evolutionary psychology of the emotions and their relationship to internal

regulatory variables. In M. Lewis, J. Haviland-Jones & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd

ed., pp. 114-137). New York: Guilford.

Webster, J. D. (1997). Attachment style and well-being in elderly adults: A preliminary investigation. Canadian

Journal of Aging, 16(1), 101-111.

Zhang, F., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (2004). Stability and fluctuation in adult attachment style over a 6-year period.

Attachment & Human Development, 6(4), 419-437.

42

Zimmerman, P. (1999). Structure and functions of internal working models of attachment and their role for emotion

regulation. Attachment & Human Development, 1(3), 291-306.

Zimmerman, P., Maier, M. A., Winter, M., & Grossman, K. E. (2001). Attachment and adolescents' emotion

regulation during a joint problem-solving task with a friend. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 25, 331-343.