{"id":243,"date":"2021-08-15T00:34:00","date_gmt":"2021-08-15T00:34:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/observertimes.in\/?p=243"},"modified":"2023-11-14T15:01:29","modified_gmt":"2023-11-14T15:01:29","slug":"couples-attachment-insecurity-in-stressful-covid-19-contexts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/observertimes.in\/index.php\/2021\/08\/15\/couples-attachment-insecurity-in-stressful-covid-19-contexts\/","title":{"rendered":"COUPLES ATTACHMENT INSECURITY IN STRESSFUL COVID-19 CONTEXTS<\/span>"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The COVID-19 pandemic represents an acute, challenging event that puts to the test whether models in relationship science help identify whose relationships are vulnerable to disruption in the wake of this unprecedented global event. The current longitudinal study  leveraged to examine whether  pre-existing vulnerabilities  (attachment insecurity) assessed  prior to the pandemic and stress  during a mandated quarantine  predicted residual changes in  relationship functioning. Partners\u2019 attachment anxiety emerged as a  consistent vulnerability that, along  with stress, increased the risk of  poor relationship functioning,  including greater relationship  problems, a more chaotic and less  cohesive family environment and lower relationship quality. These  results uniquely emphasize that the  potential detrimental effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on relationships will depend on the  partners with whom people are  confined with during quarantines<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Partners\u2019 attachment anxiety indicating that partners\u2019  attachment anxiety is likely an  important preexisting vulnerability  when people are confined with their partner during crisis. Partners  high in attachment anxiety  experience intense negative  emotions, seek reassurance in counterproductive ways, and are  difficult to soothe during stressful  contexts. Moreover, because they  remain distressed even when they receive care and support, partners  high in attachment anxiety often  behave in punishing ways that amplify conflict, undermine  caregiving, and damage love and closeness. Receiving  negative reactivity and excessive reassurance seeking by highly  anxious partners is burdensome  and dissatisfying, especially during  challenging contexts. Accordingly,  partners\u2019 greater attachment  anxiety predicted greater problem  severity, lower satisfaction and  lower commitment during a  mandatory COVID-19 quarantine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consistent with diathesis-stress  attachment models, partners\u2019 attachment anxiety also predicted greater problem severity and a poorer family environment when people were experiencing high, but  not low levels of stress. Compared to the evaluative outcomes that  involved only main effects of partners\u2019 attachment  anxiety (satisfaction, commitment), the  outcomes that involved interaction  effects with stress (problem  severity, home chaos, family cohesion) may more closely capture couples\u2019 ability to work together to manage the challenges  of family confinement. Despite  feeling less satisfied, some people  are able to soothe anxious  partners, ease difficult interactions, and compensate for any detrimental effects on relational  dynamics. However, such buffering  may occur when stress is low, but  will be more difficult when individuals are depleted by high stress. Moreover, not only will  highly anxious partners\u2019 unrealistic  needs  and destructive behaviours  go unabated when individuals are  stressed, individuals\u2019 own need for  support and help to manage the family environment will clash with  anxious partners\u2019 self-focused needs, producing more problematic rather than cohesive  interactions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The research studies also indicate that partners\u2019 attachment  avoidance may hinder functioning during the pandemic and quarantines: greater partners\u2019  avoidance predicted lower  problem solving efficacy and  family cohesion. Highly avoidant partners withdraw when  encountering problems, which may be particularly demanding for individuals during the challenges of quarantine. The need for families  to \u2018get  through\u2019 quarantine may  also mean that avoidant distancing  bypasses a focus on problems that  cannot be solved or controlled  given the situation at hand. These  possible benefits might have counteracted any increases in  problem severity and dissatisfaction resulting in no residual increases from pre-quarantine. Yet, continued disengagement and lower cohesion  may risk growing problem severity,  home chaos and poor relationship quality as the stress of the pandemic and need for couples to  support one another grows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some scholars have warned that  most social psychological models  are untested in the real world of  acute, stressful events and may be  unsuitable to understand or  guide  decisions regarding mitigating the  impact of COVID-19. On the  theoretical integration of two key  models in relationship science identifying attachment insecurity  as an important vulnerability that  should hinder couples\u2019 capacity to adapt to the relational strains of  mandatory quarantines. The results  demonstrate the combined utility  of  the Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation (VSA) and diathesis-stress attachment models in predicting the risk of poor relationship functioning in the  unprecedented, untested context  of a global pandemic. Applying  these models to a unique quarantine context provides valuable theoretical insights. First, the vulnerabilities that matter most  depend on key features of the context. VSA-inspired investigations have examined external stress relevant to  quarantines (economic hardship, work stress, poorer social  networks), but have not considered the role of attachment insecurity. By contrast, attachment research  has examined lab-induced stress or  specific relational stressors (e.g.,  transition to parenthood). The  uncontrollable, acute and shared  nature of quarantines make  attachment insecurity a particularly  relevant vulnerability in this context. With no choice  and little  warning, people ere thrust into a  threatening attachment-relevant  context involving couples forced to  depend on each other to navigate  the daily challenges of family  isolation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, the results  emphasize the  need to  understand  the  relationship risks  of  stressful events  from  a dyadic perspective.  Despite the  interdependence of  human  life,  most  research focuses  on individuals\u2019  characteristics  as  vulnerabilities  to  poorer  relationship  functioning. Indeed, a  recent large-scale project  concluded  partner  characteristics  play  a  minor  role  in shaping  relationship quality.  One  likely  reason  some  prior  studies  have failed  to  identify  partner  effects  is  they  have  not  examined  couples  within interdependent strain-test  contexts  in which  partners\u2019  characteristics  really  matter.  The current  results  indicate  that  partners\u2019  vulnerabilities  may  pose  greater  risk  to relationships when  partners  are  a  central  feature of  emergent  stressful  contexts such as  when people are confined with partners  to  face  the challenges  of  family  life  during  a  global  pandemic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, the  results  emphasize  that  dyadic  longitudinal designs  are critical  for understanding  the  effects  of  the pandemic  (and other stressors).  Amid the  understandable proliferation  of  research  investigating  the  impact of  the  pandemic  on  health  and  well-being, the  strongest  evidence  emerges  from  longitudinal  designs, like  ours,  that  examine residual changes  in functioning.  However, prior  investigations  have  primarily  examined  individuals, which  fails  to  acknowledge  the social  reality  of  people\u2019s  lives, and have  not  examined how both individuals  and partners\u2019 vulnerabilities  assessed  pre-pandemic  shape  relationship functioning.  In  the current  study,  partners\u2019  attachment insecurity and not  individuals\u2019 attachment insecurity had longitudinal effects.  This  pattern  does  not  mean  that  individual characteristics  do  not  matter.  Individuals\u2019  anxiety  and  avoidance were  cross-sectionally associated with poorer  functioning  at  both  assessments,  suggesting  these negative effects  may  simply  persist  into  the  context  of  the  pandemic  and  quarantines.  By contrast, the  effects  of  partners  may  become  more  apparent  during  quarantines  when partners\u2019  reactions  are  particularly  salient  and  impactful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite  the  strengths  of  the  dyadic  longitudinal  design, the  necessarily  correlational nature  of  the  data  limits  causal  conclusions,  leaves  open the  possibility  of  third variables, and does  not  offer  a \u2018control\u2019  condition to compare  changes  in relationship functioning  in the absence of  the COVID-19 pandemic.  Dyadic  longitudinal  designs  also  restrict sample  sizes, which may  limit  power  to  detect  small but meaningful  effects, especially  if  individuals\u2019 vulnerabilities  already  have  damaging effects  prior  to  the  pandemic. The  risk  of  poorer  outcomes  associated  with  attachment  insecurity  is  likely greater  for  couples  facing  more  substantial stress,  economic strain  and  difficult living conditions.  For  example,  individuals\u2019  and partners\u2019  attachment insecurity  may  have  weaker  effects  in contexts  when  people  are able  to  regulate distance (e.g., working,  going  for  a  walk, spending  time  in another  room), but  have  more  detrimental effects  when people  have  little  room  or  resources  to  escape the  pressures  of  quarantine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly,  although  the  mandatory  lockdown placed  all families  in  a  confined quarantine  that could  disrupt  relationship functioning, this  swift  and strong  response  to the pandemic was  accompanied  by  increases  in  trust  in the  government, police  and science. Support  of  the  lockdown  also  may  have  allowed  families  to  capitalize  on the  opportunity  to spend  more  time  as  a  family  and support  one  another,  counteracting  some  of  the  difficulties  couples faced  during the  initial stages  of  the  pandemic. The  risks  to  relationships  are  likely  to  grow  as couples  encounter  ongoing  challenges,  especially  in  contexts  where  prolonged uncertainty, stress,  isolation and economic  disadvantage  place  couples  under  increasing  strain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0\u00a0current\u00a0\u00a0investigation\u00a0\u00a0illustrates\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0utility\u00a0\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0key\u00a0\u00a0models\u00a0\u00a0in\u00a0\u00a0relationship\u00a0\u00a0science\u00a0\u00a0in identifying\u00a0\u00a0which\u00a0\u00a0couples\u00a0\u00a0are\u00a0\u00a0at\u00a0\u00a0most\u00a0\u00a0risk of\u00a0\u00a0relationship problems\u00a0\u00a0when experiencing\u00a0\u00a0the stressful,\u00a0\u00a0unprecedented\u00a0\u00a0context\u00a0\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0a\u00a0\u00a0mandated quarantine.\u00a0\u00a0It is\u00a0\u00a0emphasize\u00a0\u00a0that\u00a0\u00a0the impact of\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0COVID-19\u00a0\u00a0pandemic\u00a0\u00a0will\u00a0\u00a0be shaped\u00a0\u00a0by\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0characteristics\u00a0\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0partners\u00a0\u00a0with whom\u00a0\u00a0people are\u00a0\u00a0confined\u00a0\u00a0with\u00a0\u00a0during\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0pandemic.\u00a0\u00a0Greater\u00a0\u00a0partner\u00a0\u00a0attachment anxiety predicted\u00a0\u00a0greater\u00a0\u00a0relationship problems, lower\u00a0\u00a0relationship quality,\u00a0\u00a0and\u00a0\u00a0a less\u00a0\u00a0stable and cohesive\u00a0\u00a0family\u00a0\u00a0environment\u00a0\u00a0when people\u00a0\u00a0were\u00a0\u00a0experiencing\u00a0\u00a0more\u00a0\u00a0stress. Greater\u00a0\u00a0partner attachment\u00a0\u00a0avoidance\u00a0\u00a0predicted lower\u00a0\u00a0problem\u00a0\u00a0solving\u00a0\u00a0efficacy\u00a0\u00a0and family\u00a0\u00a0cohesion.\u00a0\u00a0Such vulnerability\u00a0\u00a0to poor\u00a0\u00a0relationship functioning\u00a0\u00a0is\u00a0\u00a0critical\u00a0\u00a0given the\u00a0\u00a0downstream\u00a0\u00a0consequences of\u00a0\u00a0these\u00a0\u00a0outcomes, including\u00a0\u00a0poorer\u00a0\u00a0health and well-being\u00a0\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0both adults\u00a0\u00a0and their\u00a0\u00a0children.\u00a0\u00a0The current\u00a0\u00a0findings\u00a0\u00a0illustrate\u00a0\u00a0that understanding\u00a0\u00a0and promoting\u00a0\u00a0how\u00a0\u00a0best\u00a0\u00a0to\u00a0\u00a0navigate\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0risks\u00a0\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0pandemic\u00a0\u00a0and quarantines requires\u00a0\u00a0attending\u00a0\u00a0to\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0dyadic context\u00a0\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0people\u2019s\u00a0\u00a0lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Copyrights \u00a9\ufe0f 
OBSERVERTIMES GLOBAL NEWSNETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED reserves the rights to all content contained within its official website: www.observertimes.in<\/a> \/ Online Magazine\/ Publications<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The COVID-19 pandemic represents an acute, challenging event that puts to the test whether models in relationship science help identify whose relationships are vulnerable to disruption in the wake of this unprecedented global event. The current longitudinal study  leveraged to examine whether  pre-existing vulnerabilities  (attachment insecurity) assessed  prior to the pandemic and stress  during a mandated quarantine  predicted residual changes in  relationship functioning. Partners\u2019 attachment anxiety emerged as a  consistent vulnerability that, along  with stress, increased the risk of  poor relationship functioning,  including greater relationship  problems, a more chaotic and less  cohesive family environment and lower relationship quality. These  results uniquely emphasize that the  potential…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,4,5,20,3],"tags":[],"gutentor_comment":21,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/observertimes.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/observertimes.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/observertimes.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/observertimes.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/observertimes.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=243"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/observertimes.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":244,"href":"https:\/\/observertimes.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243\/revisions\/244"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/observertimes.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/observertimes.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/observertimes.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}