Attachment orientations, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction in a community sample of women

Gurit E. Birnbaum
Bar-Ilan University

ABSTRACT

The current research focuses on the detrimental effects of attachment insecurities on sexuality and relationship quality. A community sample of 96 women completed self-report scales tapping attachment orientations; relationship satisfaction; sex-related affect and cognitions; and sexual functioning. Findings indicate that although both attachment anxiety and avoidance were associated with aversive sexual affect and cognitions, attachment anxiety was more detrimental to sexual functioning. In addition, only attachment anxiety was signicantly associated with relational and sexual dissatisfaction, however, sexual satisfaction mediates the association between attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction. The possibility that attachment orientations are associated with different strategies and interaction goals in the operation of the sexual system within romantic relationships is discussed.
KEY WORDS:

attachment relationship satisfaction romantic relationships sex sexual functioning

Attachment and sexual mating are distinct behavioral systems that evolved to serve different goals. The biological function of the attachment system is to protect a person from danger by assuring that he or she maintains proximity to a caregiver (Bowlby, 1969/1982), whereas the major function of the sexual system is to pass genes from one generation to the next (e.g., Buss & Kenrick, 1998). Although their behavioral manifestations may occur in
All correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gurit E. Birnbaum, PhD, Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, 52900, Israel [e-mail: birnbag@ gmail.com]. Stephen Marks was the Action Editor on this article. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright 2007 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com), Vol. 24(1): 2135. DOI: 10.1177/0265407507072576

22

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 24(1)

isolation (e.g., sexual relations may occur without affectional bonding), in adulthood romantic partners typically function simultaneously as sexual partners and attachment gures (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994) and the smooth operation of the attachment system and the sexual system is crucial for maintaining satisfying relationships (Shaver & Mikulincer, in press). Indeed, growing empirical evidence points to a reciprocal relationship between these two systems: The quality of couples sex life contributes to relationship satisfaction and stability (see Sprecher & Cate, 2004, for an extensive review) and attachment processes shape the way in which individuals construe their sexual interactions (see reviews by Feeney & Noller, 2004; Shaver & Mikulincer, in press). The current research expands the existing literature on the linkage between attachment and sexuality by examining the contribution of attachment orientations to sexual functioning and related affect and cognitions within womens ongoing romantic relationships. In addition, this research aimed to explore a potential mediating mechanism to explain the negative effects of attachment insecurities on relationship satisfaction. Attachment orientations, romantic relationships, and sexual interactions According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973), the quality of interactions with signicant others in times of need shapes ones interaction goals as well as relational cognitions and behaviors: When the attachment gure is available and responsive, a sense of attachment security is attained, intimacy and nurturance become primary interaction goals, and positive relational cognitions are formed. When the attachment gure is physically or emotionally unavailable, the individual may adopt one of two major secondary attachment strategies, hyperactivation (ght responses that characterize anxious attachment) or deactivation (ight reactions that characterize avoidant attachment) of the attachment system (Main, 1990; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). The main goal of hyperactivation strategies, manifested in heightened desire for closeness and security, is to get an attachment gure to provide desired support and protection. Deactivation strategies serve the goal of distance and control in close relationships. These differences in interpersonal goals may explain variations in the experience of romantic relationships (see Feeney, 1999, for a review) and sexual interactions (see review by Feeney & Noller, 2004). Consistent with their goals of maintaining intimate, faithful, and satisfying long-term relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), securely attached people report preferring sexual activity in committed romantic relationships (e.g., Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Stephan & Bachman, 1999). As adolescents, securely attached individuals reported engaging in sexual intercourse mainly to express love for their partner (Tracy, Shaver, Albino, & Cooper, 2003). Tracy and colleagues also found that secure adolescents were more erotophilic. Correspondingly, they experienced fewer negative emotions as

Birnbaum: Attachment, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction

23

well as more positive and passionate emotions during sexual activity than their insecure counterparts. Similarly, in adulthood, secure individuals have more positive sexual self-schemas (Cyranowski & Andersen, 1998) and report greater enjoyment of exploratory sexual activities with long-term partners (Hazan, Zeifman, & Middleton, 1994). Overall, these ndings support the benecial effects of attachment security in establishing longterm romantic relationships. Securely attached individuals sense of sexual condence, comfort with sexual intimacy, and enjoyment of sexual interactions may also contribute to their satisfying and long-lasting romantic relationships. Previous empirical work also offers evidence for the involvement of secondary attachment strategies in the construal of romantic relationships and sexual interactions of insecurely attached people. Highly avoidant individuals attempts to deactivate their attachment system are manifested in their relatively less stable relationships, which are characterized by fear of intimacy and low levels of emotional involvement, trust, cohesion, and satisfaction (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994; Mikulincer & Florian, 1999; Shaver & Brennan, 1992). In line with their habitual seeking of physical and emotional distance from partners, highly avoidant individuals may limit intimacy in sexual activity by either abstaining from sexual activity (Kalichman et al., 1993; Tracy et al., 2003) or engaging in relatively emotionless sex (e.g., Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Gentzler & Kerns, 2004; Schachner & Shaver, 2002). Tracy et al. (2003) found that avoidant adolescents are relatively erotophobic, low in perceived sex drive, and less likely to enjoy sexual interactions. In adulthood, relatively avoidant participants tend to dismiss motives related to the promotion of emotional closeness while emphasizing motives related to partner manipulation and control; protection of the self from partners negative affect; stress reduction; and prestige among peers (Cooper et al., 2006; Davis, Shaver, & Vernon, 2004; Schachner & Shaver, 2004). Hence, avoidant persons are less likely to enjoy affectionate activities (e.g., cuddling, kissing, hugging) and intimate copulatory positions (Brennan, Wu, & Loev, 1998; Hazan et al., 1994). In addition, highly avoidant persons report experiencing more negative emotions (Birnbaum & Gillath, in press) and greater detachment from the sexual event (Birnbaum & Reis, in press; Birnbaum, Reis, Mikulincer, Gillath, & Orpaz, in press). In summary, people high in avoidance seem to paradoxically use sex to avoid closeness and to maximize control even in the most intimate interactions. Chronic activation of the attachment system, in contrast, leads highly anxious persons to become obsessed with their romantic partner and exhibit clinging, intrusive, and controlling patterns of relational behaviors (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987) that may exacerbate relationship conict (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003; Shaver & Mikulincer, in press). Hyperactivation strategies have also detrimental implications for the sexual realm. Highly anxious peoples construal of sexual activities reects their attempts to fulll unmet attachment-related needs for security and love. As adolescents, highly

24

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 24(1)

anxious persons are more likely to engage in sex to avoid abandonment (Tracy et al., 2003), which, in turn, leads to more unwanted sexual behaviors (e.g., Feeney, Peterson, Gallois, & Terry, 2000) and interferes with the experience of passionate emotions during sex (Tracy et al., 2003). Highly anxious adults score relatively high in erotophilia (Bogaert & Sadava, 2002). Accordingly, they report using sex as a means to achieve emotional intimacy, approval, and reassurance, to elicit a partners caregiving behaviors, and to defuse a partners anger (Cooper et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2004; Schachner & Shaver, 2004). Ironically, however, unfullled relational expectations or their inappropriate channeling into the sexual realm, when combined with worries about the partners reactions, make anxiously attached persons more prone to disappointing and dissatisfying sexual interactions (Birnbaum & Gillath, in press; Birnbaum & Reis, in press; Brennan, Wu, & Loev, 1998). In turn, sexual frustration and dissatisfaction may lead to relationship conict (e.g., Birnbaum et al., in press; Hartman, 1983; Hassebrauck & Fehr, 2002), thereby generating a self-amplifying cycle of relationship and sexual dissatisfaction, which may eventually destroy the romantic relationship. The current research Although past studies focused on the detrimental implications of attachment insecurities for emotional and motivational aspects of sexuality, they attended minimally to the resultant sexual functioning. Furthermore, most of these studies ndings are limited to shorter duration college-student relationships. The current research adds to our understanding of the attachmentsexuality link within close relationships by examining the association between attachment orientations and sexual functioning, along with its cognitive and emotional components, in a community sample of women. Specically, the present studys rst goal is to examine how attachment orientations are associated with several areas of sexual functioning (e.g., orgasmic responsivity, sexual arousal, intimacy during sexual intercourse), as well as related emotional and cognitive components of the sexual behavioral system. These components embody sexual experiences, feelings, expectations, and beliefs about the self, the sexual partner, and sexual activity with the partner (e.g., perceiving sexual partners as caring and responsive to ones needs, as well as experiencing detachment from the sexual event and partner). Based on attachment theory and research, this study hypothesized that although both anxiety and avoidance would be associated with aversive sexual affect and cognitions, attachment anxiety would be more detrimental to sexual functioning than attachment avoidance. This prediction is in line with the contention that attachment-related worries habitually experienced by anxiously attached persons during sexual intercourse may interfere with sexual functioning (Davis et al., 2004). In contrast, because highly avoidant persons tend to engage in sexual intercourse for relatively self-enhancing, relationship-irrelevant reasons (i.e.,

Birnbaum: Attachment, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction

25

reasons other than intimacy and attachment; Cooper et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2004; Schachner & Shaver, 2004), avoidant persons sexual functioning might be less impaired by negative relationship-based sexual cognitions. The current studys second goal is to explore a potential mediating mechanism to explain the negative effects of attachment insecurities on relationship satisfaction. Previous studies have shown that both attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety are positively associated with negative sex-related feelings (e.g., Birnbaum & Gillath, in press; Birnbaum & Reis, in press). Furthermore, attachment insecurities are inversely associated with relationship quality (see review by Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). However, little has been done to determine whether the negative effects of attachment insecurities on relationship satisfaction may be mediated (i.e., accounted for) by sexuality. As described earlier, previous ndings (Birnbaum et al., in press; Davis et al., 2004; Schachner & Shaver, 2004) imply that attachment anxiety makes sex more relevant to relationship interactions than attachment avoidance. In other words, by subordinating sexual activity to the attachment system, anxious persons hyperactivity approach may cause them to use sex as an indicator of their partners feeling toward them (Davis et al., 2004) or even to confuse sex with love. Accordingly, this study hypothesized that sexual satisfaction would mediate the association between attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction.

Method Participants Ninety-six Israeli women ranging from 24 to 67 years of age (M = 44.95, SD = 11.88) volunteered for the study without compensation. Participants were recruited from community centers in central Israel. All participants were currently involved in a romantic relationship with a male partner. Length of current relationship ranged from 3 to 540 months (M = 234, SD = 162.74). Of the participants, 16.7% were single, 69.8% were married, and 13.5% were separated, divorced, or widowed. Education level ranged from 9 to 22 years of schooling (M = 14.77, SD = 2.57). Measures and procedure Participants were approached individually by a female recruiter and asked whether they would like to take part in a research study on sexuality within romantic relationships. All participants who agreed completed a randomly ordered battery of the following scales on an individual basis. Most participants completed the questionnaires in about 20 minutes. Attachment. A Hebrew version of the Experience in Close Relationships Scale (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) measured attachment orientations. This self-report scale consists of 36 items tapping the dimensions of attachment anxiety and avoidance. Participants indicated the extent to which each item was descriptive of their feelings in close relationships on a 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Eighteen items tapped attachment anxiety (e.g., I worry about being abandoned), and 18 items

26

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 24(1)

tapped attachment avoidance (e.g., I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close). The ECR was translated into Hebrew by Mikulincer and Florian (2000), who also validated its two-factor structure on an Israeli sample. In the current sample, reliability was strong for the anxiety ( = .87) and avoidance items ( = .84). Global attachment scores were computed by averaging the relevant items. Higher scores indicated greater attachment-related avoidance or anxiety. The correlation between the two dimensions was very small and statistically insignicant (r = .04). Sexual functioning. The Israeli Sexual Behavior Inventory (ISBI; Kravetz, Drory, & Shaked, 1999) assessed sexual functioning. This 13-item scale tapped four areas of sexual functioning: Sexual satisfaction (3 items, e.g., I feel satised with my sexual life), sexual arousal (2 items, e.g., I feel aroused during sexual intercourse), orgasmic responsivity (3 items, e.g., How frequently your sexual activities with your partner resulted in orgasm), and intimacy during sexual intercourse (5 items, e.g., My partner and I display signs of affection during sexual intercourse). Participants rated the extent to which these items were self-descriptive on a 5-point scale, ranging from Not at all (1) to Very much (5). All four dimensions exhibited strong reliability ( = .80 for sexual satisfaction, = .83 for orgasmic responsivity, = .76 for intimacy, and = .82 for sexual arousal). Four scores were computed by averaging items in each dimension. Components of the sexual behavioral system. A Hebrew version of the Womens Sexual Working Models Scale (WSWMS; Birnbaum & Reis, in press) assessed individual differences in the emotional, cognitive, and motivational components of the sexual behavioral system as it functions in long-term adult romantic relationships. This 24-item self-report scale taps ve dimensions of womens mental representations of the sexual aspect of romantic relationships: (i) Guilt and Shame includes sinful, shame, and guilty feelings related to sexual activity (6 items, e.g., Sexual activity makes me feel guilty); (ii) Maintain the Bond reects the belief that sexual activity promotes closeness between partners and enhances their emotional bond (6 items, e.g., To me, sexual activity can strengthen a committed relationship); (iii) Distancing/Distraction reects indifference and detachment from the sexual event and partner caused by intruding thoughts (4 items, e.g., While having sex, I sometimes feel like I am not involved but instead I am watching myself from outside); (iv) Caring Partner taps the perception of the sexual partner as caring and responsive to ones needs (4 items, e.g., I feel that my partner is concerned and caring during sex); and (v) Excitement incorporates positive and arousing aspects of sexual activity (4 items, e.g., During sexual activity, I feel pleasantly excited). Participants rated the extent to which each item characterized their feelings, expectations, and beliefs about sexual activity with a partner, on a 9-point scale, ranging from (1) Not at all characteristic to (9) Very characteristic. Birnbaum and Reis (in press) translated the WSWMS into Hebrew and also validated its ve-factor structure on an Israeli sample. Reliabilities were adequate for the ve dimensions of sexual working models ( = .84 for Guilt and Shame, = .80 for Maintain the Bond, = .79 for Distancing/Distraction, = .66 for Caring Partner, and = .69 for Excitement). Scores were computed by averaging the items corresponding to each dimension.

Birnbaum: Attachment, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction

27

Relationship satisfaction. A Hebrew version of the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988) was used to measure relationship satisfaction. This scale consists of 7 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., In general, how satised are you with your relationship?). The RAS was translated into Hebrew by Birnbaum and Reis (in press), using the forward-backward translation technique. The RAS is unidimensional, and highly reliable ( = .91) in the current sample. Higher scores represented greater relationship satisfaction. Background. These items asked about demographic and relationship information, including age, current relationship status, and length of current relationship.

Results Initially, zero-order correlations were computed among all major variables (i.e., attachment scores, sexual functioning, sexual working models, and relationship satisfaction; see Table 1). As expected, attachment anxiety was positively associated with Distancing/Distraction and with Guilt and Shame. In addition, attachment anxiety was negatively associated with Caring Partner, Sexual Intimacy, Sexual Arousal, and Orgasmic Responsivity, as well as sexual and relationship satisfaction. Attachment avoidance was negatively associated with Caring Partner, Maintaining the Bond, Excitement, Sexual Intimacy, and Sexual Arousal. The associations between age, relationship length, and all the major variables were also examined (see Table 1). Participants age correlated signicantly with sexual arousal and attachment avoidance. Relationship length correlated signicantly with sexual arousal, sexual intimacy, excitement, and with attachment avoidance. Accordingly, age and relationship length were statistically controlled in tests of the hypotheses. To determine the degree to which variance in cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of sexuality can be explained by anxiety and avoidance over and above age and relationship length, a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses was conducted. In each analysis, age and relationship length were entered in the rst step. Attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety were entered in the second step. The interaction between attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety (as standard scores) was entered in the third step. Regression analyses revealed no meaningful interactions between attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety, hence, they are not reported (see Table 2). Attachment avoidance was negatively related to relational aspects of sexuality, specically, sexual intimacy, excitement, perception of the partner as caring, and the belief that sexual activity enhances the emotional bond. In addition, attachment avoidance was not signicantly associated with sexual arousal, orgasmic responsivity, and sexual satisfaction, after controlling for attachment anxiety. Unexpectedly, attachment avoidance was not signicantly associated with relationship satisfaction. As predicted, attachment anxiety was more detrimental to sexual functioning and related affect and cognitions when compared with attachment avoidance. Attachment anxiety was positively associated with all the aversive cognitive and affective aspects of sexuality. Also as expected, the higher the anxiety, the lower the relationship and sexual satisfaction, as well as sexual intimacy, arousal, and orgasmic responsivity.

28

TABLE 1 Correlations among attachment, relationship satisfaction, sexual functioning, and sexual working models
ISBI RAS .42*** .03 .07 .10 .63*** .23* .55*** .46*** .06 .29** .16 .43*** .34*** .55*** .39*** .47*** .43*** .09 .00 .28** .08 .43*** .07 .24* .19 .42*** .00 .38*** .15 .06 .36*** .27** .07 .34*** .36*** .15 .21* .07 .23* .47*** .13 .08 .35*** .01 .15 Sexual Sat. Intimacy Orgasm Arousal Guilt Maint. Sexual working models Distraction Caring .44*** .06 .09 .07 .45*** .58*** .34*** .59*** .48*** .51*** .00 .24* .24* .11 Excit. .14 .25* .14 .06 .25* .41*** .23* .31** .25* .61*** .39*** .40*** .57*** .41*** .50*** .28** .27** .29** .37*** .33*** .45*** .48***

Avoid. Age

Rel. Length

.09 .30**

.12 .24* .79*** .02

Anxiety .04 Avoidance Age Relationship Length RAS Sexual Sat. Intimacy Orgasm Arousal Guilt Maintaining Distraction Caring

.35*** .16 .02

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 24(1)

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Birnbaum: Attachment, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction

29

TABLE 2 Regressions of sexual functioning, sexual working models, and relationship satisfaction on attachment scores, age, and relationship length
Step 1 Age Relationship Length R2 Relationship Satisfaction Sexual Functioning (ISBI) Sexual Satisfaction Sexual Intimacy Orgasmic Responsivity Sexual Arousal Sexual Working Models Guilt and Shame Maintain the Bond Distraction/Distancing Caring Partner Excitement .01 .02 .29 .10 .03 .16 .37* .12 .11 .14 .01 .11 .46** .04 .26 .21 .29 .04 .02 .36* .00 .01 .08* .01 .08* .02 .05 .01 .01 .07* .35*** .42*** .39*** .35*** .40*** .39*** .15 .43*** .27** .17 .16 .09 .24* .12 .13 .04 .44*** .00 .29** .22* Anxiety Step 2 Avoidance R2 change .15*** .18*** .21*** .14** .18*** .16*** .19*** .18*** .15*** .08*

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

In the current sample, relationship status was not signicantly associated with attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety, possibly because all the respondents were currently involved in committed long-term relationships. Accordingly, performing the same analyses on a sample of married women only did not produce any meaningful changes in the pattern of these ndings. Test of mediation To determine whether sexual satisfaction mediated the association between attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction, Baron and Kennys (1986) regression procedure for testing mediation was employed. First, relationship satisfaction was regressed on attachment anxiety to establish that there was an association to be mediated. Attachment anxiety was a signicant predictor of relationship satisfaction, = .35, p < .001. Second, the hypothesized mediator, sexual satisfaction, also signicantly predicted relationship satisfaction, = .68, p < .001. Third, attachment anxiety signicantly predicted sexual satisfaction, = .42, p < .001. Finally, the dependent variable (relationship satisfaction) was regressed simultaneously on both the independent variable (attachment anxiety) and the proposed mediator (sexual satisfaction). This analysis determines whether the association between attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction could be accounted for by sexual satisfaction. The association between attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction was reduced to nonsignicance ( = .07), after controlling for sexual satisfaction. A Sobel test found that this reduction was signicant, Z = 3.82, p < .001. These data meet all of Baron and Kennys criteria for mediation and therefore support the hypothesis that sexual satisfaction mediates the association between attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction.

30

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 24(1)

Discussion The current study provides an extension of earlier work on the detrimental effects of attachment insecurities on sexuality in college students by exploring the contribution of attachment orientations to sex-related affect and cognitions, as well as the resultant sexual functioning, in a community sample of relatively older, partnered women. Furthermore, the present study explores a potential mediating mechanism to explain the negative effects of attachment anxiety on relationship satisfaction. The ndings indicated that although both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were associated with aversive sexual affect and cognitions, attachment anxiety was more detrimental to sexual functioning than attachment avoidance. In addition, only attachment anxiety was signicantly associated with relational and sexual dissatisfaction, with sexual satisfaction mediating the association between attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction. More specically, attachment avoidance was mostly associated with relational aspects of sexuality: The higher the avoidance, the lower the sexual intimacy, arousal, and the excitement, as well as the perception of the partner as caring and the belief that sexual activity promotes closeness between partners. These ndings t well with the proposition that highly avoidant persons sexuality reects the interaction goal of limiting intimacy (e.g., Gentzler & Kerns, 2004). Indeed, prior studies have shown that highly avoidant persons are motivated by nonrelational goals in the sexual realm (Cooper et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2004; Schachner & Shaver, 2004). Accordingly, they are less likely to enjoy the affectional aspects of sex (Brennan, Wu, & Loev, 1998; Hazan et al., 1994) and more likely to engage in relatively emotion-free sex in the context of casual, short-term relationships (e.g., Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Gentzler & Kerns, 2004; Schachner & Shaver, 2002). The current study extends these studies by portraying the compatible cognitive and affective sexual manifestations of attachment avoidance in the context of ongoing adult romantic relationships. The ndings also indicated that attachment avoidance was not signicantly associated with sexual and relational satisfaction. These ndings ostensibly contradict past studies showing that attachment avoidance is inversely associated with both relationship satisfaction (see review by Mikulincer, Florian, Cowan, & Cowan, 2002) and sexual satisfaction (e.g., Tracy et al., 2003). Why is attachment avoidance, with its potential for aversive sex-related affect and cognitions, not associated with sexual dissatisfaction? Possibly, some of the tendencies associated with attachment avoidance may be less marked in older samples with respondents who are involved in long-term relationships. Given that highly avoidant women in the current study were currently involved in a highly committed relationship of greater duration, compared with women in many other attachment studies, it is quite likely that they perceived their relationship and sex life as more functional and satisfactory than the typical highly avoidant participant. Most probably, because those who are dissatised break up with their relational partners before they get to the phase of extreme

Birnbaum: Attachment, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction

31

relational and sexual dissatisfaction (Sprecher, 2002). Thus, in the current research, highly avoidant womens negative perception of the relational aspects of sexuality may be a mere reection of their preference for relatively instrumental sexual encounters over affectionate ones (e.g., Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Gentzler & Kerns, 2004; Schachner & Shaver, 2002) rather than an expression of distress or preoccupation with relational worries. This explanation is consistent with the nding that attachment avoidance was not associated with being distracted by relational concerns during sexual activity. Indeed, earlier work found that attachment avoidance was associated with more aversive prole of sex-related affect and cognitions (e.g., guilty feelings, intruding thoughts) in a sample of younger women, involved in shorter-duration relationships (Birnbaum & Reis, in press). Importantly, the current ndings expanded our knowledge of the detrimental effects of attachment anxiety on the quality of the relationship and sexual thoughts and beliefs. Specically, attachment anxiety was associated with all the aversive cognitive and affective aspects of sexuality: The higher the anxiety, the lower the perception of the partner as caring and responsive to ones needs. In addition, the higher the anxiety, the greater the tendency to experience negative feelings (e.g., shame, guilt), as well as indifference, detachment, and distraction by relational concerns. The current ndings imply that highly anxious persons chronic relational worries may be diverted into the sexual realm in the form of negative affect and cognitive obstacles to erotic pleasure (e.g., preoccupation with pleasing the partner, interfering judgmental thoughts). This pattern may also reect the inappropriate use of sex, a predominant route for seeking proximity, to serve highly anxious womens otherwise unmet needs for intimacy, closeness, reassurance, and caregiving (Cooper et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2004; Schachner & Shaver, 2004). When these endless needs are not satiated, highly anxious women may experience frustration and alienation from the sexual event and partner. It is highly likely that this negative affective and cognitive prole of attachment anxiety may hamper sexual functioning (e.g., Barlow, 1986; Birnbaum, Glaubman, & Mikulincer, 2001; Kaplan, 1974; Walen, 1980). Indeed, the ndings indicated that attachment anxiety was negatively associated with all the areas of sexual functioning: The higher the anxiety, the lower the sexual satisfaction, sexual intimacy, arousal, and orgasmic responsivity. These ndings suggest that due to chronic activation of the attachment system, highly anxious women may enter sexual activity with relational worries and sex-irrelevant intruding thoughts. Furthermore, they may experience sexual activity in terms of romantic rejection and lack of affection, which, in turn, may exacerbate their sex- and attachment-related worries. This self-exacerbating cycle of negative feelings and cognitions may, in turn, impair sexual functioning and lead to further relational difculties. The mediation test offers some support to the above sequence of psychological events and adds to our understanding of the functional signicance of highly anxious womens sexuality within romantic relationships. Specically, mediation results show that the effects of attachment anxiety on

32

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 24(1)

relationship satisfaction may be accounted for by sexual satisfaction. These ndings are in line with Davis et al.s (2004) contention that highly anxious women may consider sexual satisfaction as a barometer for the quality of their relationship. Alternatively, they may confuse sex with other relational aspects, such as love and caregiving. Attachment anxiety may therefore amplify the possible effects of both positive and negative sexual interactions on relationship satisfaction (Birnbaum et al., in press). Positive sexual interactions may temporarily satiate highly anxious womens unmet needs for greater security and reduce their chronic worries and dysfunctional behaviors, whereas frustrating sexual encounters may be perceived as an indicator of a partners rejection, thereby exacerbating attachment insecurities and relational worries. Taken together, the current ndings challenge Feeney and Nollers (2004) assertion that some of the detrimental effects of attachment anxiety may be less conspicuous in an older population. The overall aversive nature of the sexual correlates of attachment anxiety implies that deep-seated relational concerns and their sexual manifestations may not wane over time, unless levels of anxiety decrease by compensatory sexual and/or relational interactions. Some limitations of the present study should be highlighted. For one, this studys sample consisted only of women. In light of documented gender differences in sexual construal (e.g., Birnbaum & Laser-Brandt, 2002), the generalizability of the current ndings to men is uncertain. More specically, because women develop a more emotional-interpersonal orientation toward sex than do men (e.g., Birnbaum & Laser-Brandt, 2002; DeLamater, 1987; Gagnon & Simon, 1973), their sexual functioning may be more inuenced by internal working models of interpersonal relationships (Bogaert & Sadava, 2002). Consequently, anxious persons heightened relational reactions to sexual interactions may be more pronounced among women than men (Birnbaum et al., 2006). In addition, all participants were involved in romantic relationships. One may question whether diverse relational contexts and phases will affect the interplay between the attachment and sexual behavioral systems. For example, how will the pattern of association between attachment orientations, sex, and relationship quality be changed with the transition into the different subjective stages of a romantic relationship? Will the detrimental effects of attachment anxiety on sexual functioning be less pronounced in the context of dating relationships than in the context of more established relationships, where sex may be more a reection of relationship quality than a maintenance strategy? Finally, the correlational and retrospective nature of this study has precluded drawing conclusions about the possible causal link between attachment orientations and sexual functioning and related cognitions. For example, it is quite likely that being high in attachment anxiety may make people more prone to disappointing and dissatisfying sexual interactions. It is nevertheless still possible that a history of painful or dysfunctional sexual experiences may generalize to global relationship anxiety. Despite limitations, however, the present study provides new insight into the contribution of attachment orientations to the operation of the sexual

Birnbaum: Attachment, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction

33

behavioral system within the context of adult ongoing romantic relationships. In particular, for highly avoidant women, sexual satisfaction and relational aspects are relatively disconnected, while for highly anxious women, they seem to be inseparable. These ndings raise additional questions about the joint operation of attachment and sexual systems within romantic relationships. Clearly, further research is needed to address these questions and extend the robustness of the current ndings by employing longitudinal and experimental designs in more diverse samples.

REFERENCES Barlow, D. H. (1986). Causes of sexual dysfunction: The role of anxiety and cognitive interference. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 140148. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182. Birnbaum, G. E., & Gillath, O. (2006). Measuring subgoals of the sexual behavioral system: What is sex good for? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 675701. Birnbaum, G. E., Glaubman, H., & Mikulincer, M. (2001). Womens experiences of heterosexual intercourse: Scale construction, factor structure, and relations to orgasmic disorder. The Journal of Sex Research, 38, 191204. Birnbaum, G. E., & Laser-Brandt, D. (2002). Gender differences in the experience of heterosexual intercourse. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 11, 143158. Birnbaum, G. E., & Reis, H. T. (in press). Womens sexual working models: An evolutionaryattachment perspective. The Journal of Sex Research. Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A. (2006). When sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientations, sexual experience, and relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 929943. Bogaert, A. F., & Sadava, S. (2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Personal Relationships, 9, 191204. Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: 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. 4676). New York: Guilford Press. Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267283. Brennan, K. A., Wu, S., & Loev, J. (1998). Adult romantic attachment and individual differences in attitudes toward physical contact in the context of adult romantic relationships. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 248256). New York: Guilford Press. Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 9821026). New York: McGraw-Hill. Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644663. Cooper, M. L., Pioli, M., Levitt, A., Talley, A., Micheas, L., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Attachment styles, sex motives, and sexual behavior: Evidence for gender specic expressions of attachment dynamics. In M. Mikulincer & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), Dynamics of love: Attachment, caregiving, and sex (pp. 243274). New York: Guilford Press.

34

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 24(1)

Cyranowski, J. M., & Andersen, B. L. (1998). Schemas, sexuality, and romantic attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 13641379. Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2004). Attachment style and subjective motivations for sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 10761090. DeLamater, A. (1987). Gender differences in sexual scenarios. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Females, males, and sexuality (pp. 127140). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fullling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545560. Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult romantic attachment and couple relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 355377). New York: Guilford Press. Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (2004). Attachment and sexuality in close relationships. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 183201). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Feeney, J. A., Peterson, C., Gallois, C., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Attachment style as a predictor of sexual attitudes and behavior in late adolescence. Psychology and Health, 14, 11051122. Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine. Gentzler, A. L., & Kerns, K. A. (2004). Associations between insecure attachment and sexual experiences. Personal Relationships, 11, 249265. Hartman, L. M. (1983). Effects of sex and marital therapy on sexual interaction and marital happiness. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 9, 137151. Hassebrauck, M., & Fehr, B. (2002). Dimensions of relationship quality. Personal Relationships, 9, 253270. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511524. Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 151177). London: Jessica Kingsley. Hazan, C., Zeifman, D., & Middleton, K. (1994, July). Adult romantic attachment, affection, and sex. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Personal Relationships, Groningen, The Netherlands. Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 9398. Kalichman, S. C., Sarwer, D. B., Johnson, J. R., Ali, S. A., Early, J., & Tuten, J. T. (1993). Sexually coercive behavior and love styles: A replication and extension. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 6, 93106. Kaplan, H. S. (1974). The new sex therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 502512. Kravetz, S., Drory, Y., & Shaked, A. (1999). The Israeli Sexual Behavior Inventory (ISBI): Scale construction and preliminary validation. Sexuality and Disability, 17, 115128. Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies, changing methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies. Human Development, 33, 4861. Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1999). The association between spouses self-reports of attachment styles and representations of family dynamics. Family Process, 38, 6983. Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2000). Exploring individual differences in reactions to mortality salience: Does attachment style regulate terror management mechanisms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 260273. Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2002). Attachment security in couple relationships: A systemic model and its implications for family dynamics. Family Process, 41, 405434.

Birnbaum: Attachment, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction

35

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53152). New York: Academic Press. Schachner, D. A., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Attachment style and human mate poaching. New Review of Social Psychology, 1, 122129. Schachner, D. A., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment dimensions and motives for sex. Personal Relationships, 11, 179195. Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment styles and the Big Five personality traits: Their connections with each other and with romantic relationship outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 536545. Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (in press). A behavioral systems approach to romantic love relationships: Attachment, caregiving, and sex. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The Psychology of Love (2nd ed.). New Heaven, CT: Yale University Press. Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. The Journal of Sex Research, 3, 17. Sprecher, S., & Cate, R. M. (2004). Sexual satisfaction and sexual expression as predictors of relationship satisfaction and stability. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 235256). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Stephan, C. W., & Bachman, G. F. (1999). Whats sex got to do with it? Attachment, love schemas, and sexuality. Personal Relationships, 6, 111123. Tracy, J. L., Shaver, P. R., Albino, A. W., & Cooper, M. L. (2003). Attachment styles and adolescent sexuality. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romance and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 137159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Walen, S. R. (1980). Cognitive factors in sexual behavior. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 6, 87101.