Attachment and Development in Adolescent Romantic Couples’

Relationship Quality

Sharon C. Risch

University of Tennessee

AbstractWe examine the link between attachment and couples’ perceptions of their digitally captured interactions and relationship satisfaction. We examine developmental differences in these models. Our sample includes 169 adolescent dating couples who have been dating at least 4 weeks. Couples participated in two conflictual issues conversations and then completed a video-recall procedure in which they rated themselves and their partners on 7 affective/behavioral dimensions. SEM analyses suggest that adolescents who report higher levels of attachment to their peers perceive interactions with their partners as more positive and less negative/power-related, which is related to higher relationship satisfaction. Contrary to our hypothesis, peer attachment rather than parent attachment is more salient in understanding adolescent romantic couples’ interactions and relationship satisfaction for both middle and late adolescents. Perhaps we would have found a relation between parent attachment and relationship quality if our late adolescent couples were slightly older.

Background Research for the past few decades has explored and

documented the relation between attachment in parent-child relationships and adults’ romantic relationship quality.

This literature suggests that relationships in which partners are more securely attached report and display more positive relationship qualities (such as positive conflict resolution, happiness, and trust) and fewer negative relationship qualities (such as negative conflict resolution, fear of closeness, and jealousy). They also report longer lasting relationships and healthier individual functioning.

More recently, researchers have turned to adolescence to explore how attachment to parents and peers is linked with the development and quality of adolescents’ romantic relationships. They have also proposed models delineating developmental changes in these processes over the course of adolescence.

Hypotheses

Adolescents’ perceptions of their interactional processes will mediate the association between attachment to parents and peers and satisfaction in their romantic relationships.

Attachment to peers will be more salient in understanding the processes in middle adolescents’ romantic relationships; whereas, attachment to parents will be more salient in understanding the processes in late adolescents’ romantic relationships.

Sample

The data for this project comes from The Study of Tennessee Adolescent Romantic Relationships (STARR), funded by NICHD

169 adolescent dating couples1

102 couples between 14-17 yrs old 67 couples between 18-21 yrs old

Couples dating a minimum of 4 weeks (range: 4 weeks – 260 weeks; mean: 44 weeks)

1Couples recruited from a previous study of 2201 high school students from 17 different high schools representing geographic (rural, urban, suburban) and economic diversity

Measures

Relationship Satisfaction – (Levesque, 1993); 5-item scale to assess adolescents’ romantic relationships (alpha = .85)

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment – (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987); 28-item and 25-item scale to assess adolescents’ attachment (alpha = .97 parent; alpha = .86 peer)

Interaction Procedure Digitally recorded couple having 2 interaction

tasks First Task: Conflictual Issue (as selected by one

couple member) (8 min 40 sec) Second Task: Conflictual Issue (as selected by

the other couple member) (8 min 40 sec)

Video-Recall Procedure (Welsh & Dickson, under review) Conversations viewed twice

Rate own behavior in first viewing Rate partner’s behavior in second viewing

40 twenty-second segments rated 7 codes rated for each segment: connection,

conflict, sarcasm, trying to persuade, conceding, discomfort, and frustration

Analyses Couples’ perceptions of their communications were

categorized into positive (connectedness) and negative/power-related (conflict, sarcasm, trying to persuade, conceding, frustration, and discomfort) interactional processes.

SEM analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between attachment, interactional processes, and relationship satisfaction for middle and late adolescents.

ResultsWe found partial support for the proposed mediation model.Middle adolescents (see Model 1 and Model 3)

Boys who reported higher levels of attachment to peers perceived interactions with their romantic partners as more positive and less negative/power-related. Boys who reported higher levels of attachment to parents perceived more positive interactions with their romantic partners.

Girls who reported higher levels of attachment to peers perceived their interactions with their romantic partners as less negative/power-related.

Boys’ perceptions of positive interactions were associated with both his and his partners’ relationship satisfaction. Girls’ perceptions of negative interactions were associated with her relationship satisfaction.

Results (continued) Late adolescents (see Model 2 and Model 4)

Boys and girls who reported higher levels of attachment to peers perceived more connectedness in interactions with their romantic partners.

Attachment was not related to perceptions of negative/power-related interactions for either girls or boys.

Boys’ perceptions of positive and negative interactions were related to his partners’ relationship satisfaction.

Boys’ perceptions of negative/power-related interactions and girls’ perceptions of positive interactions were related to boys’ and girls’ relationship satisfaction, respectively.

Conclusions Adolescents’ attachment to peers plays a significant role in

their understanding of their interactions with romantic partners, which influences how satisfied they feel in their romantic relationships.

Contrary to our hypothesis, peer attachment rather than parent attachment is more important in understanding adolescent romantic couples’ interactions and relationship satisfaction for both middle and late adolescents. Our late adolescent couples may not be old enough for their

romantic relationships to serve an attachment function. Perhaps we would have found a relation between parent attachment and relationship quality if our late adolescent couples were slightly older. Follow-up research will address such a possibility.

Correlations among Attachment, Interaction Processes, and

Relationship Satisfaction

Table 1

.11 .42 ** .08 .13 .17 .04 .09 -.20 -.21 -.11 -.09 -.01 -.09.12 -.07 .42 ** .10 .12 .07 .09 -.09 -.22 -.01 -.04 -.06 .19

.24 * .16 -.09 .33 ** .38 ** .01 -.02 -.24 -.24 -.05 -.01 .01 -.06-.07 .30 ** .14 .10 .05 .35 ** .35 ** -.19 -.22 -.03 -.02 .08 .29 *.23 * -.01 .35 ** -.02 .94 ** .12 .14 -.44 ** -.36 ** -.22 -.18 .19 .35 **.30 ** .04 .25 * .02 .83 ** .11 .12 -.39 ** -.34 ** -.21 -.19 .16 .33 **.09 .00 .12 .02 .39 ** .37 ** .95 ** -.04 -.01 -.40 ** -.44 ** .10 .25 *.13 .02 .13 -.01 .35 ** .38 ** .89 ** .01 .02 -.42 ** -.48 ** .14 .28 *-.14 .10 -.25 * .00 -.45 ** -.30 ** -.26 ** -.22 * .91 ** .43 ** .33 ** -.35 ** -.27 *-.07 .13 -.26 ** .00 -.45 ** -.22 * -.30 ** -.22 * .92 ** .37 ** .29 * -.32 ** -.31 *-.06 .06 -.33 ** -.24 * -.31 ** -.23 * -.37 ** -.32 ** .38 ** .44 ** .91 ** -.30 * -.13-.07 -.01 -.31 ** -.28 ** -.28 ** -.20 * -.34 ** -.29 ** .41 ** .47 ** .91 ** -.29 * -.17.23 * .18 .31 ** -.07 .45 ** .41 ** .21 * .32 ** -.22 * -.22 * -.20 * -.17 .45 **.18 .00 .31 ** -.04 .19 .19 .23 * .21 * -.28 ** -.26 ** -.45 ** .45 ** .42 **

Male

Par

ent A

ttach

men

t (1)

Female

Par

ent A

ttach

men

t (2)

Male

Pee

r Atta

chm

ent (

3)Fem

ale P

eer A

ttach

men

t (4)

Male

’s Per

cept

ions o

f His

Positiv

e In

tera

ction

(5)

Male

’s Per

cept

ions

of H

er

Positiv

e In

tera

ction

(6)

Female

’s Per

cept

ions o

f Her

Positiv

e In

tera

ction

(7)

Female

’s Per

cept

ions o

f His

Positiv

e In

tera

ction

(8)

Male

’s Per

cept

ions o

f His

Negat

ive In

tera

ction

(9)

Female

’s Per

cept

ions o

f Her

Negat

ive In

tera

ction

(11)

Male

’s Per

cept

ions o

f Her

Negat

ive In

tera

ction

(10)

Female

’s Per

cept

ions o

f His

Positiv

e In

tera

ction

(12)

Male

Rela

tions

hip

Satisf

actio

n (1

3)

Female

Rela

tions

hip

Satisf

actio

n (1

4)

Middle Adolescents Late Adolescents

(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)

(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)

Middle Adolescent CouplesNegative Interactions

                                        

Model 1

Female Peer

Male PeerMale

ParentFemale Parent

Male Satisfaction

Male Perception

s

His/His Female Perception

sHis/Her

Her/Her

Her/His

Female Satisfaction

-.18 -.11 -.12 -.43***

-.07 -.25* -.30** .12

SEM of attachment, interaction, and relationship satisfaction of adolescent couples age 14-17. (Standardized Solution; N=102) CMIN/DF = 2.716 , CFI = .845

Late Adolescent CouplesNegative Interactions

                                        

Model 2

Female Peer

Male PeerMale

ParentFemale Parent

Male Satisfaction

Male Perception

s

His/His Female Perception

sHis/Her

Her/Her

Her/His

Female Satisfaction

-.32** -.16 -.30* -.09

-.13 -.20 .02 -.06

SEM of attachment, interaction, and relationship satisfaction of adolescent couples age 18-21. (Standardized Solution; N=67) CMIN/DF = 2.716 , CFI = .845

Middle Adolescent CouplesPositive Interactions

                                        

Model 3

Female Peer

Male PeerMale

ParentFemale Parent

Male Satisfaction

Male Perception

s

His/His Female Perception

sHis/Her

Her/Her

Her/His

Female Satisfaction

.47*** .07 .23* -.03

.20* .31** -.00 .00

SEM of attachment, interaction, and relationship satisfaction of adolescent couples age 14-17. (Standardized Solution; N=102) CMIN/DF = 2.248 , CFI = .88

Late Adolescent CouplesPositive Interactions

                                        

Model 4

Female Peer

Male PeerMale

ParentFemale Parent

Male Satisfaction

Male Perception

s

His/His Female Perception

sHis/Her

Her/Her

Her/His

Female Satisfaction

.17 .13 .32** .25*

-.00 .38** .38** -.09

SEM of attachment, interaction, and relationship satisfaction of adolescent couples age 18-21. (Standardized Solution; N=67) CMIN/DF = 2.248 , CFI = .88