Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1999. Vol. 76. No. 5. 754-769

Copyright !999 by she American Psychological Association. Inc.0022-35 I4/99/S3.W)

When Accuracy Hurts: Reactions of Anxious-Ambivalent Dating Partnersto a Relationship-Threatening Situation

Jeffry A. SimpsonTexas A&M University

William IckesUniversity of Texas at Arlington

Jami GrichTexas A&M University

Why are anxious-ambivalent individuals especially likely to have turbulent and unstable relationships'.'To help answer this question, the authors use 3 theoretical perspectives to examine how heightenedempathic accuracy in a relationship-threatening situation is associated with personal and relationaldistress. Dating couples inferred their partners' thoughts and feelings from a videotaped interaction mwhich they each rated slides of opposite-sex individuals. Highly anxious—ambivalent individuals weremore empathically accurate in this relationship-threatening situation: however, their self-reportedthoughts and feelings indicated greater distress and less confidence in their partners and relationships.The more anxious-ambivalent women reported a slight decrease in the perceived closeness of theirrelationships. Four months later, more anxious-ambivalent men's relationships were more likely to haveended. These findings are discussed in terms of their theoretical and applied implications.

Why are people who are anxious and uncertain about theirpartner's love and commitment especially likely to have turbulentand unstable relationships? Recent studies have shown thatanxious—ambivalent individuals are more likely than their lessanxious counterparts to have relationships characterized by intenseconflict (Pistole. 1989: Simpson. Rholes, & Phillips, 1996), pro-nounced emotional ups and downs (Tidwell, Reis, & Shaver,1996), and greater vulnerability to dissolution (Hazan & Shaver,1987; Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994; Shaver & Brennan, 1992).These and conceptually similar findings have been documented byresearchers working from different theoretical perspectives, in-cluding that of attachment theory (see Hazan & Shaver. 1994, andShaver, Collins, & Clark, 1996, for reviews), the appraisal modelof relational trust (Holmes, 1991; Holmes & Rempel, 1989), anddispositional theories of emotional instability (Bentler & New-comb, 1978; Bolger & Schilling, 1991; Kelly & Conley, 1987).

Relatively little is known about the specific social-psychological processes that produce and sustain these negativeoutcomes. There is a growing consensus, however, that theseoutcomes may be derived from the way that highly anxious-

Jeffry A. Simpson and Jami Grich, Department of Psychology, TexasA&M University; William Ickes, Department of Psychology, University ofTexas at Arlington.

We thank Rebecca Bruecker, Roberto Garcia, Luis Gonzalez. Shanae D.Jennings, Eric Schreiber, James Webb, and Ryan Whitfall for their assis-tance with this research project, and we thank John Finch and RichardGonzalez for their statistical advice.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeffry A.Simpson, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, CollegeStation, Texas 77843-4235, or to William Ickes, Department of Psychol-ogy, University of Texas, Arlington, Texas 76019-0528. Electronic mailmay be sent to jas@psyc.tamu.edu or to ickes@uta.edu.

ambivalent people perceive and respond to relationship-threatening situations (cf. Ickes & Simpson. 1997). The purpose ofthe present study was to explore how one specific psychologicalprocess—greater empathic accuracy about the thoughts and feel-ings harbored by one's romantic partner in a relationship-threatening situation—is associated with both personal and rela-tional distress. As an important exception to the general rule that"To understand all is to forgive all." we propose that by under-standing the private thoughts and feelings of their partners too wellin relationship-threatening situations, highly anxious-ambivalentindividuals illustrate the contrasting case in which "To understandall is to forgive nothing."

Ickes and Simpson's (1997) Empathic AccuracyPerspective

The notion that greater empathic accuracy can, in some circum-stances, actually harm relationships led Ickes and Simpson (1997)to propose a model of how empathic accuracy is "managed" inrelationship-threatening versus nonthreatening contexts. Themodel contends that, contrary to conventional wisdom, greaterunderstanding of a relationship partner's thoughts and feelings isnot always a good thing. Although greater empathic accuracy tendsto be positively correlated with relationship satisfaction and sta-bility in situations that pose little or no threat to relationships (e.g.,Kahn, 1970; Noller, 1980; Noller & Ruzzene, 1991), it tends to benegatively correlated with satisfaction and stability in relationship-threatening situations (e.g., Sillars, Pike, Jones, & Murphy, 1984;Simpson, Ickes, & Blackstone, 1995; for a review, see Ickes &Simpson, 1997, pp. 223-224).

Ickes and Simpson (1997) propose that there are "danger zones"in most close relationships, areas in which painful insights or

754

ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHIC ACCURACY 755

revelations about a partner's private thoughts and feelings mightoccur (e.g., positive feelings about old flames or provocativethoughts about attractive people). Accordingly, partners in closerelationships often learn to identify and steer away from suchdanger-zone topics to avoid damaging their own self-esteem, theiresteem for their partner, or the relationship itself. Occasionally,however, partners find themselves in situations in which their firstline of defense—avoiding or evading danger-zone issues—is notan option.

In these relationship-threatening situations, the empathic accu-racy model predicts that each partner's second line of defenseshould be motivated inaccuracy, a conscious or unconscious fail-ure to accurately infer the specific content of their partner's po-tentially harmful thoughts and feelings. When partners displaymotivated inaccuracy (effectively turning a blind eye to what theother is thinking and feeling), relational satisfaction and stabilityshould be—and apparently are—maintained even in highly threat-ening situations (see Simpson et al., 1995). However, if partnersaccurately infer each other's thoughts and feelings in theserelationship-threatening situations, they may wind up wiser butsadder, learning just how threatening their partner's thoughts andfeelings really are but paying a high price in terms of greaterdistress, relational instability, and dissatisfaction.1

How should highly anxious-ambivalent individuals react inrelationship-threatening situations? Should they display little em-pathic accuracy and experience little personal and relational dis-tress, or should they display increased empathic accuracy followedby greater personal and relational distress? Ickes and Simpson's(1997) empathic accuracy model does not specifically addressthese questions. However, converging predictions can be derivedfrom both attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973; Cassidy &Berlin, 1994) and Holmes and Rempel's (1989) appraisal model oftrust in relationships (see also Holmes, 1991).

The Attachment Theory Perspective

Because they have received inconsistent or unpredictable careand support from past attachment figures (see Cassidy & Berlin,1994, for a review), highly anxious-ambivalent (or preoccupied)individuals "have no confidence that [attachment figures] will everbe truly available and dependable. Through their eyes the world isseen as comfortless and unpredictable" (Bowlby, 1973, p. 208).Consequently, such persons develop negative working modelsabout themselves as relationship partners, viewing themselves asunworthy of love and affection. However, because they have notexperienced consistently strong rejection from attachment figures,highly anxious-ambivalent people harbor positive (hopeful) yetguarded and apprehensive working models about whether signif-icant others are likely to be available and emotionally supportive(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Al-though many factors can activate the attachment system in highlyanxious-ambivalent persons, the strongest activators tend to besituations "that shake a person's confidence that his attachmentfigures will be available to him when desired" (Bowlby, 1973, p.213).

According to Bowlby (1969, 1973) and Cassidy and Berlin(1994, p. 972), highly anxious-ambivalent individuals are likely todo three things in response to chronic uncertainty about the avail-ability of their attachment figures. First, they should display

heightened, easily activated attachment behavior (e.g., showingsigns of greater distress), particularly in situations that raise thepossibility of losing their attachment figure. Second, they shouldclosely monitor their attachment figure in these situations, espe-cially if the knowledge gained could be used to keep the attach-ment figure closer and more psychologically available in thefuture. Third, as a result of their heightened distress and closermonitoring, anxious-ambivalent individuals should find it moredifficult to engage in and pursue other major life tasks.

Empirical research supports these claims. Highly anxious-ambivalent adults display greater relationship-centered distressand anxiety (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Feeney, 1998; Hazan &Shaver, 1987; Kobak & Sceery, 1988), especially in situations thatportend eventual relationship loss or abandonment (the prospect ofdeath: Mikulincer, Florian, & Tolmacz, 1990; the fear of harmbecause of possible missile attacks; Mikulincer, Florian, & Weller,1993; trying to resolve a major relationship-based problem with adating partner; Simpson et al., 1996). In addition, highly anxious-ambivalent adults typically "direct attention toward distress andattachment figures in a hypervigilant manner" (Kobak & Sceery,1988, p. 142), and they are "hypervigilant to sources of distress"(Mikulincer et al.. 1993, p. 824). According to attachment theoryand research, therefore, individuals who are more anxious-ambivalent should display greater empathic accuracy (i.e., greaterattention and sensitivity to their partner's potentially threateningthoughts and feelings) as well as greater personal and relationaldistress, particularly in situations that threaten the stability andpermanence of their relationships (see also Main, 1990).

Coqsider a scenario in which dating partners evaluate the at-tractiveness of opposite-sex persons in each other's presence. Thistype of relationship-threatening situation (or situations similar toit) are likely to be encountered, at least occasionally, during theearly stages of relationship development in most cultures. Whenconfronted with this type of situation, highly anxious-ambivalentindividuals are likely to (a) display heightened empathic accuracy(i.e.. they should infer the content of their dating partners' thoughtsand feelings more accurately than less anxious-ambivalent indi-viduals do), (b) feel more threatened, and (c) report more dis-tressed thoughts and feelings. Because their partners are likely tobe harboring thoughts or feelings that could threaten the relation-ship (e.g., thoughts or feelings about the physical attractiveness orsexual appeal of other people as potential dating partners), indi-viduals who are more anxious-ambivalent should also (d) report at

' Theory and past research indicate that greater attention to one's partnershould be and is associated with greater empathic accuracy. Colvin, Vogt,and Ickes (1997) compared five theoretical perspectives on accuracy ininterpersonal judgment. They found that all five perspectives (see Funder,1995; Karniol, 1990; Kenny. 1994; Smither, 1977; Stinson & Ickes, 1992)are based on the assumption that accuracy depends in part on perceivers'attention to and awareness of the actual behaviors displayed by targetpersons. In line with this assumption, Ickes, Stinson, Bissonnette, andGarcia (1990) found that empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads is signif-icantly correlated with the degree to which perceivers look at their partners(behavioral attentiveness) and the percentage of partner-relevant thoughtsand feelings they report (cognitive attentiveness). Similarly, Gesn (1997)has found that perceivers' ratings of their attention to and interest in anempathic accuracy task are significantly correlated with their level ofperformance on the task.

756 SIMPSON. ICKES, AND GRICH

least temporary declines in the perceived closeness of their rela-tionships following such relationship-threatening interactions (seeSimpson et al., 1996, for indirect support for this prediction).

Finally, if highly anxious-ambivalent individuals respond torelationship-threatening situations by reading their partner's po-tentially threatening thoughts and feelings more accurately, theirrelationships might be more susceptible to dissolution. This pre-diction is predicated on the notion that highly anxious-ambivalentindividuals are particularly attentive to negative information aboutthe status of their relationships (Cassidy & Berlin. 1994), andnegative information has a much stronger impact on relationshipdissolution processes than does positive information (see Gottman,1994). Relationship dissolution, of course, should not be precipi-tated by a single, relationship-threatening interaction. Rather, itshould be a cumulative, dispositionally driven outcome of themany relationship-threatening situations that highly anxious-ambivalent individuals encounter and respond to in the emotion-ally reactive and destabili/.ing manner we have described.

The Appraisal Model of Trust:Parallels With Attachment Theory

Trust is one component of attachment security (Bowiby, 1982.p. 340). Research has shown that the degree to which individualstrust their relationship partners is systematically related to differentadult attachment styles. In general, more securely attached indi-viduals are more likely to trust their partners than are highlyanxious-ambivalent individuals, who in turn are more trusting thanhighly avoidant individuals (Brcnnan & Shaver. 1995; Ha/.an &Shaver, 1987). in other words, securely attached people tend to be"high trusting" individuals, anxious-ambivalent people tend to bemore uncertain in their level of trust, and avoidant people tend tobe "low trusting." Given these parallel associations, it is worthnoting that Holmes and Rempel's (1989) appraisal model of rela-tional trust (see also Holmes, 1991) makes predictions that aregenerally consistent with those of attachment theory. Jones,Couch, and Scott (1997) have summarized the appraisal model'sgeneral predictions as follows:

High trusting individuals do not judge single events as having muchweight in determining the outcome or quality of a relationship. Positiveevents arc viewed as confirming the trust that has been given, and singlenegative events are not seen as a threat to the relationship.... Individualsuncertain about trusting . . . are motivated to reduce uncertainty. Theseindividuals actively assess their partner's motives.... Positive behaviorsare readily viewed as relevant to greater matters of loving or caring.Negative behaviors are also perceived as very important, relating to theoverall appraisal of the relationship. Risk is greatest at this level of trustbecause a single negative event has heightened implications for thecontinuation of the relationship.... Low-trust partners are likely to ap-proach their relationship with a relatively closed mind, which is verysimilar to the strategy of high-trust {partners). .. . They are suspicious ofpositive behaviors and proceed cautiously. On the other hand, negativebehaviors are likely to reinforce the lack of trust that previously exists,(p. 474)

According to the trust appraisal model, individuals who areuncertain about trusting others (i.e., those with an anxious-ambivalent attachment orientation) should react to relationship-threatening situations by (a) actively trying to assess their partner'smotives, and (b) drawing strong conclusions about the overall

status of their relationship from a single negative event. If highlyanxious-ambivalent individuals focus on the negative implicationsof relationship-threatening situations, the consequences of accu-rately inferring their partner's thoughts and feelings should bemore deleterious to their relationships than to those of lessanxious-ambivalent individuals. Hence, attachment theory and theappraisal model of trust converge in predicting that individualswho are more anxious-ambivalent should be more attentive andemotionally reactive to their partner's behavior in relationship-threatening situations. These responses should occur regardless ofwhether the partner's behavior takes the form of overt actions orcovert thoughts and feelings (Ickes & Simpson, 1997).

In summary, our major predictions—derived from both attach-ment theory and the appraisal model of trust—center on howhighly anxious-ambivalent individuals are likely to think, feel, andbehave in a relationship-threatening context. We focus onanxious-ambivalent individuals (rather than on secure or avoidantindividuals) because the hypervigilance and preoccupation that isprototypic of highly anxious-ambivalent people should be moststrongly evoked by relationship-threatening situations that raisethe prospect of relationship loss or abandonment (Cassidy &Berlin, 1994). Because highly anxious-ambivalent individualsshould perceive relationship threat in situations that most peoplewould find nonthreatening (Bowiby. 1973), effects for anxious-ambivalence should emerge across both levels of situational threat(higher vs. lower) manipulated in our experimental paradigm.Thus, no significant interactions between anxious-ambivalent at-tachment and level of situational threat were anticipated.

Predictions

We predicted that highly anxious-ambivalent individuals should1. display greater empathic accuracy than less anxious-

ambivalent individuals in a relationship-threatening situation (HI),2. feel more threatened and report more distressed thoughts and

feelings in such a situation (H2),3. report a temporary decline in the perceived closeness of their

relationship following the relationship-threatening interaction(H3), and

4. have relationships that are more likely to terminate within 4months (H4).

Ickes and Simpson's (1997) model posits that low empathicaccuracy can serve as a buffer against negative relationship out-comes when relationships are threatened. If highly anxious-ambivalent individuals accentuate the negative implications of asingle, isolated relationship-threatening event, whereas lessanxious-ambivalent individuals overlook or downplay theseevents (Holmes & Rempel, 1989), the consequences of accuratelyinferring their partner's thoughts and feelings should be morenegative for highly anxious-ambivalent individuals. This reason-ing suggests a fifth prediction:

5. Individuals who are highly anxious-ambivalent about theirrelationship and who display heightened empathic accuracy in arelationship-threatening situation should be particularly suscepti-ble to decreases in perceived closeness (in the short-term) and torelationship dissolution (in the long-term). In other words, theassociation between empathic accuracy and either changes incloseness or relationship dissolution should be moderated by in-

ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHIC ACCURACY 757

dividuals' level of anxious-ambivalent attachment in relationship-threatening situations (H5).

Overview of the Present Study

The present study is based on extensive new analyses ofself-report and coder-rated measures that either were not avail-able or were not analyzed in a study previously reported bySimpson et al. (1995). In the Simpson et al. study, 82 hetero-sexual dating couples rated the physical and sexual attractive-ness of alternative dating partners who were ostensibly partic-ipants in a local "dating pool." Each couple was randomlyassigned to view and rate a set of either highly attractive or lessattractive alternative partners. The rating task was designed tocreate a relationship-threatening situation for all of the couplesin the study, but the degree of threat was expected to besomewhat greater for couples who rated highly attractive alter-native partners. Slides depicting opposite-sex target personswere rated aloud (on 10-point scales measuring physical attrac-tiveness and sexual appeal) by the appropriate (male or female)dating partner. Following the verbal ratings for each slide, bothpartners discussed what they liked or disliked about each targetperson. Each couple's interaction during this rating-and-discussion task was unobtrusively videotaped.

Both partners then viewed a copy of the videotape in separaterooms, indicating the times during the interaction when they hadspecific thoughts or feelings and writing down the content insentence form. Following this thought and feeling assessment,each partner was then asked to infer (as accurately as possible)what the other partner was thinking or feeling at each point duringthe interaction when the other partner reported having a specific-thought or feeling. The partners' levels of empathic accuracy werethen calculated using procedures developed by Ickes, Stinson.Bissonnette, and Garcia (1990). Four months later, (he coupleswere contacted by telephone to determine whether they were stilldating.

In a previous article, Simpson ct al. (1995) reported thatempathic accuracy was most impaired in couples who (a) hadcloser relationships but (b) questioned the long-term stability oftheir relationships and (c) evaluated highly attractive opposite-sex persons as potential dating partners. The current studydiffers from the 1995 investigation in four significant ways.First, the 1995 study tested an entirely different set of predic-tions about the personal and situational factors that were asso-ciated with reduced empathic accuracy (i.e., motivated inaccu-racy) in a relationship-threatening situation. In contrast, thepresent study sought to determine whether highly anxious-ambivalent individuals counter this general trend and displayincreased empathic accuracy in the same relationship-threatening situation. Second, in the present study, we test fivenew predictions derived from attachment theory, the appraisalmodel of trust, and Ickes and Simpson's (1997) model ofempathic accuracy. None of these predictions was proposed ortested in the 1995 study. Third, guided by these new predic-tions, we coded several new behavioral measures from thevideotapes and incorporated them into the original data set forthe present analyses. We also constructed new content measuresof each participant's thoughts and feelings during the experi-mental task. Fourth, in contrast to the 1995 study, the data

analyses in the current investigation treat the individual ratherthan the couple as the primary unit of analysis. To our knowl-edge, the present study is the first to link attachment theory toempathic accuracy and the attachment-relevant behaviors thatindividuals display when their relationships are threatened byalternative partners.

Method

Participants

Eighty-two heterosexual dating couples (82 women and 82 men) partic-ipated in a study of "attraction and relationships." At least one member ofeach couple was enrolled in an introductory psychology class at TexasA&M University. The mean age of the men and women was 19.4 yearsand 18.8 years, respectively. The mean length of the relationships was 16.5months.

Procedure

Phase /. The male and female members of each couple first com-pleted a large battery of self-report questionnaires in separate rooms.The participants were assured that their partner would not be allowed tosee any of their answers, and they were instructed to answer allquestions as accurately and honestly as possible. Partners first indicatedhow long they had dated each other and whether they were dating eachother exclusively. They then completed the Collins and Read (1990)adult attachment scale, and Aron. Aron. and Smollan's (1992) single-item measure of perceived closeness (the Inclusion of Other in the Self[IOS] Scale). For evidence concerning the reliability and validity of theCollins* and Read scale, see Collins and Read (1990) and Griffin andBartholomew (1994a. 1994b): for evidence about the reliability andvalidity of the IOS Scale, see Aron et al. (1992). The perceivedcloseness measure was administered both immediately prior to andfollowing the laboratory task to assess pre- to posttask changes in eachpartner's perception of the closeness of their relationship.

For purposes described elsewhere (Simpson et al.. 1995), the participantsalso completed five measures that assessed the perceived quality of theirrelationship: the Relationship Closeness Inventory (RCi: Berscheid. Sny-der, & Omoto. 1989). the love scale (Rubin. 1970), the satisfaction index(Simpson. 1987). the commitment scale (Rusbult, 1980). and the invest-ment scale (Rusbult. 1980). Principal-axis factor analyses, conducted sep-arately on men and women, revealed that all five measures loaded highlyon a single factor for both sexes. Thus, we transformed each measure intoa common metric (using ; scores) and aggregated the five measures to forma single composite index of global relationship qualitx. Participants alsocompleted the Trust Scale (Rempel. Holmes. & Zanna. 1985) and an itemthat assessed which partner—the man or the woman—was the moredependent partner in each relationship. Specifically, this item asked "Whois more dependent on the relationship?" Participants answered this item ona 7-point scale ranging from 1 (/ am more . . .) to 7 (My partner ismore . . .).

The Collins and Read (1990) adult attachment scale is composedof 18 items answered on 5-point Likert-typc scales ranging from I (notat all characteristic of me) to 5 (very characteristic of me). Most of theitems come from sentences contained in Ha/.an and Shaver's (1987)three attachment vignettes. The Collins and Read scale was originallydesigned to assess three attachment themes: comfort with closeness,dependency, and anxiety. Recent psychometric work by Griffin andBartholomew (1994a, 1994b), however, has revealed that two stablefactors underlie the three categories. These factors correspond veryclosely with Bartholomew and Horowitz's (1991) view of self versusview of others dimensions. A principal-axis factor analysis followed by

758 SIMPSON, ICKES, AND GRICH

varimax rotation confirmed that these two dimensions underlie theCollins and Read scale."

The first dimension (on which the closeness and dependency subscalesload highly) has been labeled avoidance (see Brennan. Clark, & Shaver,1998). It measures the extent to which individuals have positive versusnegative views of significant others. People with higher scores on thisdimension are comfortable with closeness and arc willing to depend onothers. These individuals tend to classify themselves as securely attachedon the original Hazan and Shaver (1987) measure. In contrast, people withlower scores on this first dimension withdraw from closeness and eschewdependency in relationships. These individuals typically classify them-selves as avoidantly attached on the Ha/an and Shaver measure. Similar toprevious research (e.g.. Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994a, 1994b), the inter-nal consistency of the items that form this dimension was good for both themen (a = .73) and the women (a = .79) in the present sample.

The second dimension (on which the anxiety subscale loads highly) hasbeen labeled anxiety (see Brennan et al.. 1998). It reflects the extent towhich people have positive versus negative views of themselves in closerelationships. People who score higher on this dimension have conflictedand ambivalent thoughts and feelings about their value as relationshippartners, and they arc uncertain about whether others can be counted on intimes of need. People who score lower on this dimension have high andsometimes inflated views of their self-worth (see Griffin & Bartholomew.1994b. for more information on this two-dimensional factor structure).Previous research with large samples indicates that this dimension isinternally consistent (typical alphas range from .70 to .75: see Griffin &Bartholomew, 1994b). In our smaller sample, the internal consistency ofthe second dimension was slightly lower (as = .60 for each sex). Theanxiety and avoidance dimensions served as our measures ot attachmentorientation.

Phase 7. Once both partners had completed the questionnaires, theywere reunited and led to an experimental room containing a table, a slideprojector, two chairs, and a viewing screen. They sat side by side in thechairs, which were situated about 18 in. (45.72 cm) apart and faced afront-projected viewing screen. The experimenter then read the followinginstructions:

The next phase of this study involves rating photographs of individ-uals who have agreed to take part in a dating study. We already haveseveral personality measures from our volunteers, but we need ratingsof their physical attractiveness and sexual appeal. We are askingdating couples to make these ratings because you. in effect, areexperts on dating. Due to the delicate nature of arranging dates, wewant to be as confident of our matches as possible. Later this semes-ter, we may ask you to conduct interviews with our dating studyvolunteers. In the event you are asked, we would arrange for you toprivately interview one of your two most highly rated individuals.

The experimenter emphasized that it was crucial for both partners toprovide honest, accurate ratings of each stimulus person. The couples thenviewed 12 slides depicting 6 male and 6 female undergraduates. Couplesrandomly assigned to the higher threat condition saw 12 individuals whowere highly attractive. In reality, these individuals were college-age pro-fessional models. Couples randomly assigned to the milder threat conditionsaw 12 individuals who were somewhat less attractive. The pictures ofthese individuals were taken from a college yearbook at a different uni-versity.3 Within each condition, the order of viewing (male partners ratingslides of women first vs. female partners rating slides of men first) wascounterbalanced. Because the order in which the ratings were made did notaffect the results, the rating order variable will not be discussed further.

Both partners rated all opposite-sex persons on their physical attractive-ness and sexual appeal. When the slide depicting each stimulus personappeared on the screen, the experimenter asked the opposite-sex datingpartner, "How physically attractive do you find this person to be as apotential dating partner?" and "How sexually appealing do you find this

person to be as a potential dating partner'.'" Both questions were answeredon 10-point scales ranging from 1 (nor at all) to 10 (extremely). After eachpartner stated his or her ratings out loud, both partners were given anopportunity to discuss what they liked or disliked about each person forapproximately 30 s. Their interaction was covertly videotaped by a con-cealed camera mounted in the corner of the room. Following the study, weaggregated the 12 ratings (6 physical attractiveness ratings plus 6 sexualappeal ratings) made by each dating partner to create a global index of thestimulus persons' rated physical attractiveness and sexual appeal. Thisglobal attractiveness index was highly reliable, with Cronbach's alphas of.96 and .95 for the male and female dating partners, respectively.

When the rating task was finished, the participants completed a three-item manipulation check measure that assessed how threatened they feltduring the rating task. Specifically, using 9-point Likert-type scales rang-ing from 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely), participants indicated the degree towhich they felt threatened, jealous, and upset while their partners did therating task. Responses were aggregated into a composite manipulationcheck measure of perceived threat, Cronbach's a = .90. The correlationbetween partners on this measure (i.e.. the within-dyad correlation) was.25, p < .05. Each partner then completed the Aron et al. (1992)perceived closeness measure a second time to assess changes in percep-tions of closeness to his or her dating partner. The correlation between thepartners' Time 2 closeness scores after their Time 1 closeness scores werepartialed out was —.11. us.

All couples then were informed that they had been videotaped during therating task. The experimenter explained that they were not told about thevideotaping before the study because such knowledge might have led themto interact in an unnatural or an atypical manner. Following this explana-tion, both partners were asked to individually sign written consent forms(in each other's presence) for their videotapes to be released for researchpurposes. It was made clear that if either partner did not want the tape usedfor any reason, it would be erased immediately. No couple decided to havetheir tape erased. Participants were then informed that the individuals theyrated were not involved in a local dating pool, and that neither partnerwould meet the person they rated most highly. They also were reassuredthat their partners would not be allowed to sec any of their answers to eitherthe questionnaires or the thought and feeling assessments they would beasked to complete in the next phase of the study (Phase 3). We gaveparticipants this debriefing information so they could focus their attentionon, and provide more accurate data for, the Phase 3 thought-feeling tasks.

Phase 3. In Phase 3. the participants were led to separate rooms thateach contained a VCR and a color monitor. In their respective rooms theyeach viewed a separate copy of the videotape of the rating-and-discussionsession they had just completed. Following procedures used in previousempathic accuracy studies (e.g., Stinson & Ickes, 1992). participants wereinstructed to provide an accurate, honest, and complete account of all thethoughts and feelings they had during the rating-and-discussion task. Inaddition, they were guaranteed that their partners would not see their actual

2 Factor analyses revealed that for men, one item from the anxietysubscale did not load highly on either dimension. Thus, we dropped thisitem prior to constructing the two attachment dimensions for men.

3 The slides of the stimulus persons were taken from open, publicrecords (either magazine ads or yearbooks from a college located morethan 1,000 miles away). Participants were told nothing about the stimuluspersons except that they were involved in a local dating pool. Duringdebriefing, of course, participants were informed that the stimulus personswere not in a dating pool. Although obtaining permission from the stimuluspersons to use their pictures would have been preferable, it was impracti-cal. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to track down the namesand current addresses of individuals who attended a college several yearsago. particularly a college located so far away.

ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHIC ACCURACY 759

thought and feeling entries. These procedures were designed to increase thelikelihood that the thoughts and feelings reported were accurate and candid.

The participants independently viewed the tape of their rating-and-discussion session twice. During the first viewing, both partners wereasked to watch the videotape and to stop it when they remembered havinghad a specific thought or feeling at that moment in the interaction. Fol-lowing a procedure developed by Ickes et al. (1990), participants wereinstructed to (a) write down each thought or feeling on a standardized form,(b) indicate the number of minutes and seconds into the interaction wheneach thought or feeling occurred (using a timer displayed on the VCR), (c)specify whether each entry was a thought or a feeling, and (d) indicatewhether each entry was positive, neutral, or negative in its emotional tone.The participants were reminded once again that their partners would not beshown any of their responses. The experimenter stayed in each room longenough to confirm that each partner followed the procedure correctly, atwhich point she left. The men recorded a mean of 12.7 thought and feelingentries (range = 5-30), and the women recorded a mean of 11.8 entries(range = 2-28).

After finishing the thought and feeling reporting task, both partners weregiven a second set of thought and feeling forms containing only the timesduring which their partner reported having had specific thoughts or feelings(without revealing what those thoughts and feelings were). During thesecond viewing of the videotape, both partners were instructed to (a) writedown what they thought their partner had been thinking or feeling at eachof the times specified, (b) indicate whether each inferred entry was athought or a feeling, and (c) rate or judge its emotional tone.

After they had completed this thought and feeling inference task, bothpartners were thanked for their participation, after which they were fullyand very carefully debriefed. The debriefing sessions lasted about 30 min,on average, and were specially designed to compensate for any personal orrelational distress the dating partners may have experienced. The partici-pants were reminded that the individuals they rated were not part of adating pool, and that the study actually concerned their cognitive andbehavioral reactions when they and their partner evaluated opposite-sexpersons as potential dating partners. The reason for the unobtrusive vid-eotaping was more fully explained, and it was reiterated that the videotapeswould be viewed only by trained research assistants. No couple wasallowed to leave the debriefing session until the experimenter was con-vinced that both partners felt good about participating in the study andunderstood why various procedures had been used.

Phu.se 4. Approximately 4 months later, we attempted to contact allparticipants by telephone. Both members of 79 dyads (96% of the originalsample) were successfully reached. Participants answered a brief telephonesurvey concerning their current dating status. In particular, they were asked"When you participated in the study last fall, you were dating a personnamed (name of dating partner]. Are you still dating this person?" Bothpartners had to agree about the current status of their relationship (stilldating vs. no longer dating) for their data to be used on this follow-upmeasure. The members of only one couple failed to agree about whetherthey were still dating.

Construction of the Dependent Measures

Empathic accuracy measure and covariates. Empathic accuracy wasoperationally defined as the degree to which one dyad member's writteninference about the specific content of each of his or her partner's writtenthought and feeling entries matched the partner's actual content. Specifi-cally, six independent coders (blind to all variables in the study) comparedthe written content of each actual entry with the corresponding inferredentry. The coders then rated the degree of similarity (i.e., the contentaccuracy) between each actual thought or feeling and each inference on a3-point scale that ranged from 0 (essentially different content), through 1(somewhat similar, but not the same, content), to 2 (essentially the samecontent). The internal consistency of this measure (where raters weretreated as items) was .93. We then computed the mean of the six coders'

similarity ratings for each actual-compared-with-inferred thought and feel-ing entry. These means were summed across all of the actual-inferred entrypairs within a given participant's protocol. The summed values were thendivided by the maximum number of accuracy points that could be obtainedfor a given number of actual-inferred entry pairs. This was done tocalculate an overall accuracy score that controlled for individual differ-ences in the number of entries-inferences reported. This resulted in aglobal accuracy score that was scaled to range from .00 (total inaccuracy)to 1.00 (perfect accuracy).

To establish a baseline measure of empathic accuracy (which wasdesigned to control for chance accuracy effects), we had a different set ofsix independent judges (also blind to all variables) make similarity ratingsof randomly paired actual-inferred thought and feeling entries within theprotocols of each dyad. The internal consistency of this baseline measurewas .83. A revised measure of empathic accuracy was then computed bysubtracting the baseline accuracy score for each participant (i.e., perceiver)from his or her original global accuracy score. This adjusted measurerepresents the degree of empathic accuracy of each perceiver that remainsafter removing the baseline component, which estimates the degree ofaccuracy expected by chance. The interpartner correlation for this adjustedmeasure was .20, ns. This adjusted measure of empathic accuracy is thedependent measure in the empathic accuracy analyses reported below.

We also constructed measures of two theoretically relevant covariates:(a) the level of stress associated with each thought or feeling reported byeach participant during the slide rating task (rated by four independentcoders) and (b) the relative ease versus difficulty of inferring each thoughtor feeling from each participant's verbal and nonverbal behavior on thevideotape (also rated by four independent coders who were blind to allvariables). (For more details regarding these measures and their reliabili-ties, see Simpson et al., 1995.)

Behavioral distress measure. Seven different independent coders(blind So all variables) then viewed the videotape of each couple's inter-action. They rated the degree to which (a) each female partner appeared tobe distressed when her male partner was rating slides of women, and (b)each male partner appeared to be distressed when his female partner wasrating slides of men. Using 9-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (notat all) to 9 (extremely), coders rated the behavior of the participants onseven dimensions: the extent to which each participant appeared (a) emo-tionally stressed, (b) uncomfortable, (c) annoyed, (d) threatened, (e) awk-ward, (f) upset, and (g) jealous when his or her partner was rating thestimulus persons. Interrater reliabilities for each item were good (individualitem reliabilities ranged from .74 to .83). Principal-axis factor analysesconducted separately on men and women revealed that all seven itemsloaded on a single factor for both sexes. Thus, they were aggregated intoa behavioral distress index (Cronbach's as = .98 for each sex). Thecorrelation between partners on this measure was .63, p < .001.

Partner checking measure. Another set of three independent coders(blind to all variables) then rated the frequency with which participants"checked on" their partner during the slide rating task. Checking wasoperationally defined as clear attempts by the partner who was rating theslides to see if his or her dating partner was comfortable with the task orneeded reassurance. Examples of checking included actions such as look-ing at the partner and asking whether she or he was okay, glancing at thepartner and then touching her or him in a reassuring manner, and so on.Coders counted the number of times the partner who was rating theopposite-sex stimulus persons checked on his or her partner. The reliabilityof this index was .76. Therefore, the coders' scores were averaged to forma global index of partner checking. The interpartner correlation for thismeasure was .12, ns.

Thought and feeling measures. A different set of five coders (blind toall variables) then read the thoughts and feelings listed by each partner (butremained blind to his or her dating partner's thoughts and feelings) whenthe dating partner had been rating the opposite-sex stimulus persons.Guided by attachment theory, ratings of the thought and feeling content

760 SIMPSON. ICKES. AND GRICH

were made on eight dimensions: (a) evidence of distress or discomfort, (b)lack of self-confidence, (c) derogation of the stimulus persons, (d) percep-tions of being "better than" the stimulus persons, (e) comparisons of theself to the stimulus persons, (f) focus on the partner and relationship, (g)the experience of threat or jealousy, and (h) the experience of distrust of thepartner. Each dimension was rated on 9-point Likert-type scales rangingfrom 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely, a great deal).

Interrater reliabilities for each item were good (individual item reliabili-ties ranged from .71 to .89). Principal-axis factor analyses conductedseparately on the thought and feeling content ratings of men and womenrevealed that Items a, b. e, g. and h loaded highly on one factor within eachsex. These items were aggregated to create an index of distressing lowself-confidence thoughts and feelings (Cronbach's as = 87 for each sex).Higher scores on this index indicated greater distress and less self-confidence. The interpartner correlation for this measure was .3 I. p <.01. The three items that did not load on this factor were retained assingle-item measures.

Finally, coders counted the number of times each partner failed to list aninference for a specific thought or feeling reported by their partner (i.e.. whenparticipants did not report a requested inference on the thought or feelingprotocol or reported "I don't know"). Because the experimenter confirmed thateach participant fully understood and could do the inference task before he orshe completed it. failed inferences should indicate that participants either (a)had no idea what their partner was thinking or feeling at that point in theinteraction or (b) did not want to make an inference about what their partnerwas thinking or feeling. For each participant, the number of failed inferenceswas divided by the total number of thoughts and feelings reported by his or herpartner, resulting in an index of the proportion of failed inferences. Theinterpartner correlation for this measure was .34,/; < .01.

Results

We first calculated correlations for the two attachment dimen-sions to determine whether statistical dependency existed withinthe dyads. In line with previous research (e.g.. Griffin & Bar-tholomew, 1994a. 1994b; Simpson. Rholes, & Nelligan. 1992;Simpson et al., 1996). the avoidance and anxiety attachment di-mensions were not correlated within either men (r = — .03, ns) orwomen (r = .00, ns). Moreover, the partners' scores on bothattachment dimensions were not correlated (average interpartnerr = —.04. ns). and the men and women did not differ in theirmean scores on either attachment dimension, both ts < 1, ns. Inaddition, participants' attachment scores never interacted signifi-cantly with their partners' attachment scores in any of the analysesreported below. Following the recommendations of Kenny (1988)and Kenny and La Voie (1985), and given that our predictionswere derived for individuals rather than for couples, the individualwas treated as the unit of analysis. All variables were centeredbefore the analyses were conducted (Aiken & West, 1991). Allsignificant and all marginally significant effects that emerged forboth sexes are reported below.

Correlations between the two attachment dimensions and theTrust Scale (Rempel et al., 1985) confirmed relations found inprevious research (e.g., Brennan & Shaver, 1995). Within eachsex. higher scores on the anxiety attachment dimension (i.e.,greater anxious-ambivalent attachment) were associated with lesstrust (rs = —.26 for men and —.31 for women, both /?s < .05),whereas lower scores on the avoidance dimension (i.e., greatersecurity) were associated with more trust (rs = .26 for men and .27for women, both ps, < .05).

When we conducted the tests of our predictions (reported below),we partialed the participants' scores on the Trust Scale from their

scores on both attachment dimensions. We performed these analysesto determine whether the attachment dimensions explained variancein the dependent measures above and beyond that accounted for byrelational trust. If, as we suspect, the anxiety attachment dimension isprimarily responsible for the hypothesized effects, these effects shouldgenerally remain significant even when participants' scores on rela-tional trust are statistically controlled. In additional analyses, we alsopartialed out scores on the global relationship quality index to dis-count the possibility that the quality of the partners" dating relation-ships accounted for any attachment effects.

Manipulation Checks

The first set of analyses checked on the effectiveness of the threatmanipulation. As expected, men from couples who evaluated attrac-tive alternative dating partners reported more threat on the perceivedthreat index (M = 8.09) than did men from couples who evaluatedless attractive alternatives (M = 5.43). /(80) = 2.28. p < .03. Simi-larly, women from couples who evaluated attractive alternative datingpartners reported more threat (M = 7.31) than did women fromcouples who evaluated less attractive alternatives (M = 4.75), f(80)= 2.44./; < .02. As expected, across both conditions, highly anxious-ambivalent men experienced more perceived threat than did lessanxious-ambivalent men, j3 = .28. ?(80) = 2.63. p < .02, andanxious-ambivalence did not interact with the experimental conditionto which men were assigned. Highly anxious-ambivalent women alsotended to report more perceived threat across both experimentalconditions, j3 = .20. /(80) = 1.82,/? < .08. Anxious-ambivalence didnot interact with the experimental condition for women.

We -then examined participants' aggregated ratings of the phys-ical attractiveness and sexual appeal of the six stimulus personswhom they evaluated in the slide rating task. Male partners whoviewed more attractive women rated them higher (M = 6.47) thandid men who viewed less attractive women (M = 3.01), f(79)= 15.10, p < .0001. Similarly, female partners who evaluatedmore attractive men rated them higher (M = 6.28) than didwomen who evaluated less attractive men (M = 3.07), r(79)= 12.65. p < .0001. Thus, the threat manipulation was success-ful for both sexes.4

4 Because lower empathic accuracy could result from distortions in themean ratings of stimulus persons provided by certain people (such ashighly anxious-ambivalent people, who might be motivated to rate attrac-tive stimulus persons as less physically and sexually appealing), we con-ducted another series of analyses on the global attractiveness index. Spe-cifically, we tested whether the attractiveness ratings made by people withdifferent attachment dimension scores varied within either the higher threator the milder threat experimental conditions. Treating men's and women'sratings on the global attractiveness index as the dependent variable, weconducted two regression analyses (one for each sex) in which experimen-tal condition (coded 2 if participants were assigned to the higher threatcondition and 1 if they were assigned to the milder threat condition) wasentered in Step 1. both attachment dimensions were entered as a block inStep 2, and the two Threat X Attachment interactions were entered inStep 3. No significant main effects or interactions were found for eithersex. Any differential empathic accuracy exhibited by people with differentattachment orientations, therefore, does not stem from systematic distor-tions in the ratings of the stimulus persons.

ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHIC ACCURACY 761

Gender Differences in the Manipulation Check andDependent Measures

Before testing our primary predictions, we conducted matched-pairs t tests to test for sex differences in both the manipulationcheck measures and the dependent measures. The results revealedthat men and women differed significantly on four indexes: be-havioral distress, distressing thoughts and feelings, empathic ac-curacy, and differential dependence.

On the behavioral distress index, women were rated as beingmore visibly distressed during the rating task than were their malepartners, matched-pairs r(80) = — 2.19, p < .04. However, onthe distressing thoughts and feelings index, men reported thoughtsand feelings that expressed greater distress and less self-confidence than did women, matched-pairs r(80) = 3.92. p <.001. Although men and women did not differ in their mean levelof empathic accuracy, the men were significantly more accuratethan the women in the higher threat condition, matched-pairs f(80)= 2.19, /; < .04. Conversely, women were significantly moreaccurate than men in the milder threat condition, matched-pairsr(80) = -2 .17 , p < .04. On the differential dependence index,men indicated that they were the less dependent partner in theirrelationship; agreeing with them, women indicated that they werethe more dependent partner, matched-pairs f(80) = 2.89, /; <.005.

Tests of Predictions for the AnxietvAttachment Dimension

To test our major predictions, we conducted two types of hier-archical regression analysis on each dependent measure. In the firstset of analyses, predictions were tested within each sex usingstandard regression procedures, and the variance associated withthe individuals' grouping into particular dyads (dating couples)was not considered. In the second set of analyses, the samepredictions were tested for all participants (men and women)combined, after first partialing out the effect of dyad membership."1

This procedure requires specifying that the covariate—the arbi-trarily assigned identification codes for the various dyads—betreated as a class (i.e., categorical) variable. The resulting dyad-adjusted regression analysis enabled us to determine if the effect ofour predictor (e.g.. anxious-ambivalent attachment) generalizedacross both the male and the female participants, after controllingfor the fact that they were grouped into particular dyads. If themain effect of a predictor variable is significant, but the predictorby gender interaction is not, there is evidence for the cross-gendergenerality of an effect.

Unless otherwise noted, the first set of analyses (i.e., the within-sex regressions) had the same format. Specifically, the threatcondition to which couples were randomly assigned (coded dichot-omously) was entered in Step 1, the two attachment dimensionswere entered as a block in Step 2, and the two Threat X Attach-ment interaction terms were entered in Step 3. The second set ofanalyses (i.e., the cross-sex, dyad-adjusted regressions) were iden-tical to the first set except that (a) couple identification code(treated as a class variable) was partialed out prior to Step 1 and (b)all interaction terms involving gender also were tested. Becauseboth the threat condition to which the couples were assigned andtheir dating status at the 4-month follow-up are between-dyad (as

opposed to within-dyad) variables, we could not use the dyad-adjusted regression analyses to test for effects involving either ofthese variables. The reason is that the dyad-adjusted analysespartial out all of the variance at the between-dyad level beforetesting the remaining individual-difference-level effects.

Empathic accuracy. The first prediction (HI) was that indi-viduals who are more anxious-ambivalent should display greaterempathic accuracy than less anxious-ambivalent individuals dur-ing the relationship-threatening rating-and-discussion task. To testthis prediction, we treated the empathic accuracy index as thedependent variable. Although no significant effects emerged formen, two main effects were found for women. Women in thehigher threat condition were significantly less accurate(M = 7.78) than women in the milder threat condition(M = 16.66). /3 = - . 4 1 . r(76) = -3 .92 . p < .001. However,countering this trend, women who scored higher on the anxietyattachment dimension (i.e., more anxious-ambivalent women) dis-played significantly greater empathic accuracy across both themilder threat and the higher threat conditions, J3 = .26. /(76)= 2.51, p < .02. In addition, when the dyad-adjusted regressionanalysis was conducted on the data for all participants (men andwomen) combined, a significant main effect emerged for theanxiety attachment dimension, F{ 1, 73) = 5.44. p < .03, whichwas not qualified by gender, F < 1. n.v.

To determine whether this effect might be attributable to con-founding factors (see Schroder, Driver. & Streufert. 1967), weconducted additional regression analyses in which the followingthree measures were partialed out prior to performing the standardhierarchical regressions: (a) coders* ratings of the amount of stressand tension evident in the female partners' thoughts and feelings,(b) coders" ratings of the ease with which the male partners"thoughts and feelings could be inferred from their behavior duringthe interaction, and (c) the female partners' self-reported level oftrust. When each of these variables were partialed out, highlyanxious-ambivalent women still exhibited greater empathic accu-racy than did less anxious-ambivalent women, all /3s > .18, allis > 1.81. all ps < .08.

In summary, consistent with our first prediction, the greaterempathic accuracy of highly anxious—ambivalent individuals ap-pears to be driven by their strong, dispositionally based need toaccurately infer their partners' thoughts and feelings in thisrelationship-threatening situation. The fact that this effect wassomewhat weaker for highly anxious-ambivalent men than forhighly anxious-ambivalent women must be interpreted in thecontext of significant interaction effects (reported below). As weshall see, these interaction effects reveal that greater empathic

5 Across all couples, these dyad-adjusted analyses test the degree towhich the partner within each dyad who scores higher on one variable alsoscores higher on the other variables. One limitation of this approach is thatcouples are treated as fixed effects, and it is not possible to test whether theinteraction between couple classification and each independent variable isnonsignificant. Nonetheless, the dyad-adjusted approach remains one ofthe best ways to control for dyad-level effects. For articles providingstatistical precedents, computational approaches, and conceptual rationalesfor this type of analysis, see Cohen and Cohen's (1983) discussion of the"adjusted analysis." Kenny and La Voie's (1985) discussion of the "ad-justed individual-level correlation," and Gonzalez and Griffin's (1997)discussion of the "individual-level correlation."

762 SIMPSON, ICKES. AND GRICH

accuracy is associated with greater relational instability for bothhighly anxious-ambivalent men and highly anxious-ambivalentwomen.

Perceived threat-distressing thoughts and feelings. The sec-ond prediction (H2) was that during the relationship-threateningtask, highly anxious-ambivalent individuals should (a) feel morethreatened and (b) experience more distressing thoughts and feel-ings than their less anxious-ambivalent counterparts. When theperceived threat index was the dependent variable, two maineffects emerged for men. As reported earlier, men in the higherthreat condition felt more threatened than did men in the milderthreat condition, |3 = .25. /(76) = 2.28, p < .03. Furthermore,men who scored higher on the anxiety dimension (i.e., moreanxious-ambivalent men) felt more threatened than did lessanxious-ambivalent men. /3 = .28, /(76) = 2.61, p < .02.When men's scores on the Trust Scale were partialed out, bothmain effects remained significant, /3s = .27 and .24, ta = 2.51and 2.17, pa < .05, respectively.

As reported earlier, women in the higher threat condition alsoperceived more threat than did women in the milder threat condi-tion, j3 = .26, t(76) = 2.44, p < .02. Moreover, highlyanxious-ambivalent women felt more threatened than lessanxious-ambivalent women, although this effect was only margin-ally significant, (3 = .20, 1(76) = 1.8 1, /; < .08. In addition, onesignificant interaction emerged, indicating that women who scoredlower on the avoidance dimension (i.e., more securely attachedwomen) reported greater perceived threat, but only if they were inthe higher threat condition, t(76) = 3.35. /; < .002. Similar tothe men's results, when the women's scores on the Trust Scalewere partialed out, all effects remained either significant or mar-ginally significant: for the threat main effect, /3 = .26, ;(76)= 2.40, p < .05; for the attachment anxiety main effect, (3 =.21. /(76) = 1.8 I, /; < .08; for the interaction, /(76) = 3.32.p < .002 Moreover, the dyad-adjusted regression analysis againrevealed a significant main effect for the anxiety attachment di-mension in the data for all participants (men and women) com-bined. F(\, 76) = 8.35. p < .005. which was not furtherqualified by gender, t' < 1, ns.

The distressing thoughts and feelings index served as the de-pendent variable in the next set of analyses. For men, one signif-icant and one marginally significant main effect emerged. Men inthe higher threat condition reported thoughts and feelings that wererated as expressing greater distress and less self-confidence (M =106.16) than those reported by the men in the milder threatcondition (M = 83.64), j3 = 33, f(76) = 3.01, p < .005.Moreover, men who scored higher on the anxiety attachmentdimension (i.e., more anxious—ambivalent men) reported moredistressing and less self-confident thoughts and feelings than didless anxious-ambivalent men, )3 = .19, t(76) = 1.71, p < .10,although this finding was only marginally significant.

For women, two main effects emerged. As with the men, womenin the higher threat condition reported thoughts and feelings thatwere rated as expressing greater distress and less self-confidence(M = 106.51) relative to women in the milder threat condition(M = 74.93), P = .48, / = 4.76, p < .0001. Moreover, womenwho scored higher on the anxiety attachment dimension (i.e., moreanxious-ambivalent women) reported more distressing and lessself-confident thoughts and feelings than did less anxious-ambivalent women, fi = .23, £(76) = 2.25, p < .03. This effect

remained marginally significant when the women's scores on theTrust Scale were partialed out, j3 = . 19, f(76) = 1.77, p < .09.When the dyad-adjusted regression analysis was performed on allparticipants (men and women) combined, a marginally significantmain effect emerged for the anxiety attachment dimension,F(\, 68) = 3.65, p < .07, which was not qualified by gender,F < 1, ns.

In summary, consistent with our second prediction, highlyanxious-ambivalent men and women experienced greater threatand distress than their less anxious-ambivalent counterparts inresponse to the relationship-threatening task, and these effectswere not attributable to individual differences in relational trust.

Changes in perceived closeness. The third prediction (H3) wasthat individuals who were more anxious-ambivalent should reporttemporary declines in the perceived closeness of their relationshipsafter the relationship-threatening interaction. To test this predic-tion, we partialed out each partner's preexperiment scores on Aronet al.'s (1992) perceived closeness measure (the IOS Scale) beforeconducting our standard three-step regression analyses. Partners'postexperiment scores on the IOS Scale served as the dependentvariable. This partialing procedure is preferable to using rawdifference scores to estimate change because difference scoresoften have low reliabilities, and they can confound actual changewith the mean level of initial pretest scores (see Cohen & Cohen,1983). For men, no main effects were found; however, a signifi-cant Attachment Anxiety X Threat interaction emerged, t(76)= 2.20, p < .04. Specifically, men who scored higher on theanxiety dimension (i.e., more anxious-ambivalent men) and whowere assigned to the higher threat condition reported small yetsignificant declines in perceived closeness. This interaction re-mained significant when the men's scores on the Trust Scale werepartialed out, t(7b) = 2.06, p < .05.

For women, a single main effect emerged. Women who scoredhigher on the anxiety dimension (i.e., more anxious-ambivalentwomen) reported larger decrements in perceived closeness thandid their less anxious-ambivalent counterparts, /3 = —.10, /(76)= —3.19, /; < .004. This effect also remained significant whenthe women's scores on the Trust Scale were partialed out, f(76)= 3.10, /; < .005. However, when the dyad-adjusted regressionanalysis was conducted on all participants (men and women)combined, a nonsignificant trend for attachment anxiety wasfound, F( 1, 70) = 2.15, ns. This pattern of data indicates that thesignificant decrease in perceived closeness occurred for highlyanxious-ambivalent women in both the milder threat and thehigher threat conditions, but it emerged for highly anxious-ambivalent men in the higher threat condition only.

It is important to emphasize that, although statistically signifi-cant, these drops in perceived closeness were small in magnitudeand occurred for only some of the participants. In the full sample,the men's average score on perceived closeness was 5.40 prior tothe interaction task and 5.39 following the interaction; in the fullsample of women, the corresponding mean scores were 5.22and 5.26. Regarding the main effect for attachment anxiety,women who scored above the median on the anxiety dimension(i.e., more anxious-ambivalent women) experienced a declinefrom 5.16 (preinteraction) to 5.08 (postinteraction), reflecting aneffect size (Cohen's d) of approximately 0.15. Conversely, womenwho scored below the median on the anxiety dimension experi-enced a slight increase in perceived closeness from 5.27 (preinter-

ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHIC ACCURACY 763

action) to 5.40 (postinteraction), reflecting an effect size of ap-proximately 0.33. The attachment anxiety main effect, therefore,was attributable to the fact that women who scored higher inanxiety experienced slight decrements in perceived closeness,whereas women who scored lower in anxiety experienced slightincrements in perceived closeness.

In summary, consistent with our third prediction, highlyanxious-ambivalent men and women reported declines in theperceived closeness of their relationships following therelationship-threatening interaction. Although this effect was con-fined to the higher threat condition for men, it was not attributableto individual differences in relational trust.

Relationship stability. The fourth prediction (H4) was thatindividuals who were more anxious-ambivalent should have rela-tionships that are more likely to terminate in 4 months. Of the 79couples contacted at the 4-month follow-up, partners in 78 rela-tionships agreed about whether they were still dating. Sixty cou-ples were still dating, and 18 had broken up. To test the relation-ship stability prediction, we conducted logistic regression analyses(separately for each sex), treating relationship status at follow-up(coded 1 if still dating and 0 if not) as the dependent variable. Thethreat condition to which partners were randomly assigned (i.e.,rating more attractive vs. less attractive stimulus persons), whichwas entered in Step 1, was not associated with different rates ofdissolution, t < 1, ns. Thus, rating and discussing more attractivestimulus persons did not result in a higher breakup rate. For bothsexes, a single main effect was found. Men and women who scoredhigher on the anxiety dimension (i.e., more anxious-ambivalentindividuals) were less likely to be dating their partners at follow-up. /s(76) = 2.87 and 2.10, respectively, both ;;s < .05. For men.the effect remained significant when their scores on the Trust Scalewere partialed out, r = 2.37, p < .03; for women, it did not,t < 1, ns. The dyad-adjusted regression analysis could not beperformed because there was no within-dyad variance in the de-pendent variable (dating status); all of it was between-dyadvariance.

In summary, consistent with our fourth prediction, highlyanxious-ambivalent individuals were significantly more likelyto break up during the 4-month follow-up period. This effectwas evident for both sexes. For men, the greater breakup ratewas not attributable to individual differences in relational trust.However, for women, trust in the partner was a stronger pre-dictor of relationship dissolution than was anxious-ambivalentattachment.

Anxious—Ambivalent Attachment by EmpathicAccuracy Interactions

The major goal of the present study was to test the hypothesizedlinks between anxious-ambivalent attachment, empathic accuracyin a relationship-threatening situation, and subsequent relationshipinstability. Ickes and Simpson's (1997) model posits that lowempathic accuracy can serve as a buffer against negative relation-ship outcomes when relationships are threatened. If highlyanxious-ambivalent individuals tend to accentuate the negativeimplications of a single, isolated relationship-threatening event,whereas less anxious-ambivalent individuals tend to overlook ordownplay such events (Holmes & Rempel, 1989), the conse-quences of accurately inferring their partners' thoughts and feel-

ings should be more negative for highly anxious-ambivalent in-dividuals. Specifically, if individuals are highly anxious-ambivalent and they display heightened empathic accuracy inrelationship-threatening contexts, they should be particularly sus-ceptible to either decreases in perceived closeness (in the short-term) or relationship dissolution (in the long-term). This reasoningsuggests that the association between empathic accuracy and eitherchanges in closeness or relationship dissolution should be moder-ated by individuals' level of attachment anxiety in relationship-threatening situations.

To examine this possibility, we conducted four analysestesting for moderation effects (see Baron & Kenny, 1986). Thefirst set of regression analyses (conducted separately on womenand men) treated each participant's postinteraction perceivedcloseness score on the IOS Scale as the dependent variable.Within each sex, each participant's experimental condition,preinteraction score on perceived closeness, anxiety dimensionscore, avoidance dimension score, and empathic accuracy scorewere entered as a block in Step 1. The interaction term involv-ing anxiety and empathic accuracy was entered in Step 2. Asignificant interaction did not emerge for the men, but one wasfound for the women, r(75) = 3.42, p < .01. It indicated thaiwomen who scored higher on the anxiety attachment dimensionand who displayed greater empathic accuracy reported feelingless close to their partner immediately after the rating-and-discussion task, whereas women who scored lower on anxietyand were more empathically accurate reported feeling slightlycloser to their partner. Thus, for women, the effect of empathicaccuracy on changes in perceived closeness was moderated bytheir standing on the anxiety attachment dimension. When thedyad-adjusted analysis was conducted for all participants (menand women) combined, the Anxiety X Empathic Accuracyinteraction was significant, f ( l . 70) = 4.68, p < .04, and itwas not qualified by gender, F < \. ns (see Figure I).

The second set of regression analyses (also conducted sepa-rately on women and men) treated the dichotomously codedrelationship stability measure as the dependent variable. Withineach sex, each participant's experimental condition, anxietydimension score, avoidance dimension score, and empathicaccuracy score were entered as a block in Step 1. The interac-tion term involving each participant's anxiety and empathicaccuracy score was then entered in Step 2. A significant inter-action did not emerge for women; relationship instability waspredicted almost exclusively by women's scores on the anxietyattachment dimension. For men, however, a significant inter-action was found, f(75) = 2.19, /; < .04. Men who scoredhigher on the anxiety dimension and who displayed greaterempathic accuracy were more likely to have had relationshipsthat ended during the 4-month period, whereas men who scoredlower on anxiety and who displayed greater empathic accuracywere less likely to have experienced relationship dissolution(see Figure 2). Thus, the effect of empathic accuracy on rela-tionship stability for men was moderated by their standing onthe anxiety attachment dimension. A dyad-adjusted regressionanalysis could not be applied to the stability data because therewas no within-dyad variance in the dependent variable (datingstatus); all variance was between-dyads.

764 SIMPSON. ICKES, AND GRICH

Effects for the Avoidance Attachment Dimension

Although our predictions focused on the anxiety attachmentdimension, we also analyzed and report the results for the avoid-ance attachment dimension. We do so because the findings supportand extend what Bowlby (1973) claimed and others have foundregarding the defensive, withdrawn orientation of highly avoidantindividuals in distressing situations (see Fraley, Davis. & Shaver,1998, for a review). Individuals who score higher on the avoidancedimension typically classify themselves as avoidant on the Hazanand Shaver (1987) attachment paragraphs, whereas those whoscore lower usually classify themselves as secure. The pattern ofeffects reported below reveals the different behavioral, cognitive,and emotional strategies that highly avoidant individuals used todistance themselves from this relationship-threatening situation.However, highly avoidant men and women responded differentlyon the various measures involving withdrawal tendencies. Becausethe dyad-adjusted analyses did not yield significant avoidant at-tachment effects for these measures that generalized across themale and female dating partners, the results of the dyad-adjustedregressions are not reported in this section.

Partner checking. According to attachment theory, more se-cure individuals should offer situationally appropriate signs ofconcern, support, or reassurance to their partners during stressfultasks (see Simpson et al.. 1992), perhaps by checking to see howtheir partners are coping. When the behavioral checking measurewas treated as the dependent variable, a main effect for the avoid-ance dimension was found for the women but not for the men.Specifically, women who scored lower on the avoidance dimen-sion (i.e., more securely attached women) checked more frequentlyto see if their partner was feeling distressed during the rating-and-

10a>c(D

aO

>o0

COc

m

O

+.40 -

+.30 -

+ .20 -

Low Anxiety

High Anxiety

-.10

-.20

-1SD + 1 SD

Empathic Accuracy

Figure I. Interaction between attachment anxiety and empathic accuracypredicting changes in perceived closeness for women and men (combined).Regression lines are plotted for individuals scoring one SD above and oneSD below the mean on the anxiety attachment dimension. Scores on the>--axis reflect pre- to posttask changes in perceived closeness. Positivescores indicate increased closeness, 0 indicates no change, and negativescores indicate decreased closeness.

Low AnxietyHigh Anxiety

g13Q

CO

"6

.aCO.ao

-1SD + 1 SD

Empathic Accuracy

Figure 2. Interaction between attachment anxiety and empathic accuracypredicting the probability of relationship stability (at the 4-month follow-up) for men. Regression lines are plotted for men scoring one SO above andone SI) below the mean on the anxiety attachment dimension. Scores on they-axis reflect the probability of relationship stability, which can rangefrom I.O (still dating) to 0 (no longer dating).

discussion task, whereas women who scored higher (i.e., moreavoidant women) checked less frequently, /3 = .28, /(75)= 2.58, /; < .02. This effect remained significant when thewomen's scores on the Trust Scale were partialed out, j3 = .27,?(75) = 2.47, p < .02.'"

Detachment from the partner-interaction. Attachment theoryfurther suggests that more avoidant individuals should displaymore evidence of being detached from their partners during stress-ful interactions (see Bowlby, 1973; Crittenden & Ainsworth, 1989;Fraley et al., 1998). According to Cassidy and Kobak (1987),detachment could be manifested either behaviorally (e.g., by ap-pearing less distressed, by checking on the partner less often) orcognittvely (e.g., by failing to make inferences about the content ofthe partner's thoughts and feelings). A number of these detachmenteffects were found.

When the coder-rated behavioral distress index was the depen-dent measure, two main effects emerged for men. Men in thehigher threat condition appeared more distressed (M = 231.91)than did men in the milder threat condition (M = 188.14), |3 =.46, /(75) = 4.60. p < . 0001 . Furthermore, men who scoredhigher on the avoidance dimension (i.e., more avoidantly attachedmen) were rated as appearing less distressed than men who scoredlower on it (i.e., more secure men), j3 = .22, r(75) = 2.29, p <.03. When the men's scores on the Trust Scale were partialed out,the main effect for avoidance remained significant, j3 = .28, t(75)

6 A main effect for the threat condition also was found for men, fi =.26, f(76) = 2.35. p < .03. Specifically, men checked their partners'reactions more often in the higher threat condition (M = 3.05 checksduring the slide rating task) than in the milder threat condition (M = 2.16checks).

ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHIC ACCURACY 765

= 2.88, p < .01. For women, one main effect was found. Womenin the higher threat condition appeared more distressed (M =244.76) than did women in the milder threat condition (M =191.61), (3 = .54, r(75) = 5.78, p < .0001.

When the partner checking index served as the dependent mea-sure, no main effect was found for men on the avoidance dimen-sion. However, as reported above, more avoidant women checkedless frequently than did more secure women to see if their partnerwas feeling distressed during the rating task, (3 = .28, f(76)= 2.58, p < .02.

In the next set of analyses, the single-item coder-rated measureof the degree to which participants' thoughts and feelings focusedon their partner or relationship during the rating task was thedependent measure. Men who scored higher on the avoidancedimension (i.e., more avoidant men) had thoughts and feelings thatfocused less on their partners and relationships when their partnerswere rating other men as compared with less avoidant (i.e., moresecure) men, /3 = .22, r(76) = 1.99, p = .05. When the men'sscores on the Trust Scale were partialed out, this effect did notchange, J3 = .22, ;(75) = 1.99, p = .05.

Finally, when the proportion of failed inferences was the de-pendent measure, no effects were found for men. However, onesignificant and one marginally significant main effect emerged forwomen. Specifically, women who scored higher on the avoidancedimension (i.e., more avoidant women) had more failed (i.e., blankor "I don't know") inferences than did less avoidant (i.e., moresecure) women, /3 = .26, ?(76) = 2.41, p < .02. In addition,women who scored higher on the anxiety dimension (i.e., moreanxious-ambivalent women) had a smaller proportion of failedinferences than did less anxious-ambivalent women. jS = .19,f(76) = 1.75, p < .09, although this finding was only marginallysignificant. The main effect for the avoidance dimension remainedsignificant when women's scores on the Trust Scale were partialedout, /3 = .25, /(75) = 2.18, p < .04.

In summary, the data for the avoidance attachment dimensionwere consistent with tenets of attachment theory. More avoidantmen expressed their detachment during the rating-and-discussiontask by appearing less distressed and by reporting fewer partner-focused thoughts and feelings. More avoidant women, in contrast,expressed their detachment by checking their partners' reactionsless often and by failing to make inferences about what theirpartners were thinking or feeling. Once again, none of these effectswas attributable to variance associated with the participants' trustscores.7

Discussion

Conventional wisdom suggests that greater understanding is asovereign remedy for the various ills that plague close relation-ships. This belief is naive. As the present findings demonstrate,there are circumstances in which greater understanding (i.e., in-creased empathic accuracy) is associated with reduced feelings ofcloseness and with greater relationship instability. In relationship-threatening situations, anxious-ambivalent individuals appear tobe particularly vulnerable to the negative implications of theirpartners' thoughts and feelings. When highly anxious-ambivalentindividuals try to read their partners in such situations, heightenedempathic accuracy may be more of a curse than a blessing, becauseit increases their feelings of threat and distress, reduces their

feelings of closeness, and may increase the likelihood that theirrelationships will eventually dissolve.

Summary of the Major Findings

Integrating ideas from attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973;Cassidy & Berlin, 1994), the theory of relational trust (Holmes &Rempel, 1989), and our own model of empathic accuracy (Ickes &Simpson, 1997), we tested five predictions about how people withmore anxious-ambivalent attachment orientations react when theirrelationships are threatened by alternative dating partners. Consis-tent with the first prediction (HI), men and women who were moreanxious-ambivalent were especially accurate (i.e., more hypervigi-lant) when they inferred their partners' thoughts and feelingsduring the relationship-threatening task. In addition, interactioneffects (discussed below) revealed that highly anxious-ambivalentmen and women experienced greater relational instability whenthey more accurately read their partners' thoughts and feelings.Consistent with the second prediction (H2), more anxious-ambivalent men and women reported feeling greater threat anddistress during the rating-and-discussion task. Specifically, theyfelt more threatened during the task, and their thoughts and feel-ings were rated by coders as revealing greater discomfort and lessconfidence in themselves, their partners, and their relationships.

Consistent with our third and fourth predictions (H3 and H4),when more anxious-ambivalent individuals accurately inferredtheir partners' thoughts and feelings in the relationship-threateningsituation, they were more likely to experience relational instability,and their relationships were more likely to have ended by the4-month follow-up. Finally, consistent with our fifth prediction(H5), significant Attachment Anxiety X Empathic Accuracy in-teractions indicated that more anxious-ambivalent individuals whodisplayed greater empathic accuracy reported slight, but signifi-cant, declines in perceived closeness to their partners after theirinteractions. In addition, more anxious-ambivalent men who dis-played greater empathic accuracy reported higher breakup rates atthe 4-month follow-up. The accumulation of inferences that theirpartners find opposite-sex persons attractive may, over time, erodemen's relational commitment sooner than women's commitment.Although this interpretation is speculative, it is consistent withresearch showing that men are highly sensitive to early signs ofpotential infidelity (Bryson, 1991; Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst,1982).

The interactions reported in Figures 1 and 2 indicate that accu-rately inferring partners' thoughts and feelings during therelationship-threatening task had negative relational consequencesfor anxious-ambivalent individuals but positive consequences forthose who were less anxious-ambivalent. People who score loweron the anxiety attachment dimension tend to have positive views of

7 For each of the analyses reported above, we also partjaled out partic-ipants' scores on the global relationship quality index. We performed theseanalyses to determine whether the attachment dimensions explained vari-ance in the dependent measures above and beyond that accounted for byrelationship quality per se. When relationship quality was statisticallycontrolled, all of the significant effects for the attachment dimensionsremained either significant or marginally significant. Thus, the effectsreported above are not due to differences in the quality of the relationshipsof men and women with different scores on the two attachment dimensions.

766 SIMPSON, ICKES, AND GRICH

themselves as relationship partners, and they are usually classifiedas either secure or dismissive-avoidant on categorical attachmentmeasures (see Bartholomew & Horowitz. 1991). The interactionresults suggest that less anxious-ambivalent individuals eitheravoid thinking about the negative implications of their partners'thoughts and feelings in relationship-threatening situations (per-haps in the case of dismissive-avoidant people) or simply discountany potential negative implications (perhaps in the case of securepeople). Simpson and Rholes (1994) have proposed that individ-uals who score low on the anxiety dimension—especially moresecure individuals, who also have positive views of romanticpartners—may use negative events as opportunities to strengthencommitment to their relationships. Recently, Simpson et al. (1996)have found that less anxious-ambivalent individuals report feelingcloser to their partners after trying to resolve a major, relationship-based conflict with them. This constructive behavior contrastssharply with that of highly anxious—ambivalent individuals in thepresent study, whose accuracy regarding their partners" potentiallyharmful thoughts and feelings led them immediately to drawnegative inferences about the state of their relationship.

Additional findings for the avoidance dimension revealed thatless avoidant (i.e., more securely attached) women checked to seehow their partners were coping more often during the rating taskthan did highly avoidant women. Men and women who were moreavoidant expressed their detachment behaviorally, but in some-what different ways. Avoidant men displayed fewer overt signs ofdistress than did less avoidant (i.e., more secure) men, and theyreported fewer partner-focused thoughts and feelings during therelationship-threatening task. More avoidant women were lesslikely to check on their partners" reactions during the task, and theymore often refrained from inferring the content of their partners"thoughts and feelings. All of these behaviors appear to serve thesame functional goal—to minimize involvement in stressful situ-ations that, if not managed, could activate the attachment system(Bartholomew, 1990: Crittenden & Ainsworth, 1989).

Qualifications Based on Sex or Levelof Situational Threat?

In general, the findings were highly consistent with the predic-tions derived from all three theoretical perspectives. One mightask, however, whether any sex-based qualifications are warranted.The simple answer is no. Not a single significant AttachmentDimension X Sex interaction was found for any of the dependentmeasures in either type of regression analysis (either the within-sex regressions or the cross-sex, dyad-adjusted regressions).

As with sex, the level of situational (manipulated) threat also didnot qualify the effects of the anxious-ambivalent attachment di-mension. For nearly all of the dependent measures, the effects ofsituational threat and anxious-ambivalence were additive, with thehighest scores seen in highly anxious—ambivalent individuals inthe higher threat condition and the lowest scores seen in lessanxious-ambivalent individuals in the milder threat condition.Only one significant interaction emerged, revealing that highlyanxious-ambivalent men in the higher threat condition reportedparticularly large declines in perceived closeness following theexperimental task.

As a rule, interactions should not have been found given thatboth of our experimental conditions involved a threat to couples'

relationships. In particular, we contrasted a highly relationship-threatening condition (rating very attractive opposite-sex people aspotential dating partners) with an at least mildly relationship-threatening one (rating less attractive opposite-sex people as po-tential dating partners). According to attachment theory (seeBowlby, 1969, 1973; Cassidy & Berlin, 1994), interaction effectsshould have emerged clearly only if a highly threatening conditionwas contrasted with a totally nonthreatening one (or, better yet, arelationship-reassuring condition). Even our milder threat condi-tion should have evoked a substantial level of perceived threat inhighly anxious-ambivalent people, who are preoccupied with is-sues of relationship loss and abandonment. And, indeed, partici-pants in the milder threat condition who scored above the medianon anxious-ambivalence reported almost as much perceived threat(M = 5.87) as did those in the higher threat condition who scoredbelow the median on anxious-ambivalence (M = 6.47). Thesedata suggest that in order to document instances in which theeffects of anxious-ambivalent attachment are moderated by situ-ational threat, researchers must contrast completely nonthreateningsituations (or relationship-reassuring situations) with relationship-threatening ones.

Ethical Considerations

It also is important to address the ethical implications of thisresearch. By subjecting dating partners to a laboratory task thatpresented some degree of situational threat to their relationships, didwe do any lasting harm to these relationships that would not haveoccurred otherwise? At least three lines of evidence suggest that theexperimental task did not augment the expected rate of relationshipdissolution. First, couples who rated more attractive persons (those inthe higher threat condition) were not more likely to break up com-pared with couples who rated less attractive persons (those in themilder threat condition, t < I). Second, although women who weremore anxious-ambivalent reported a statistically significant decline inperceived closeness immediately after the rating-and-discussion task,it was objectively small (approximately .10 units on the 7-point IOSScale) and probably transient. Third, and most important, the breakuprate in this study (23%) was actually lower than those of previousdating studies involving no experimental manipulations. For example,the breakup rate was 42% over 3 months in a study reported bySimpson (1987), and it was 33% over 6 months in a study by Attridge,Berscheid, and Simpson (1995). The breakup rate for the most sus-ceptible individuals in the present study—women who scored abovethe median on both attachment anxiety and empathic accuracy—was32%, slightly lower than what is normally found in dating couplesover comparable periods of time in studies with no experimentalinterventions.

We believe that our relatively low breakup rate was attributable tothe very careful and thorough debriefings we conducted. These de-briefings, which typically lasted 30 min per couple, were carefullydeveloped and pilot tested to ensure that both partners would feelgood about themselves, their partner, and their relationship beforeleaving the laboratory. In each debriefing session, we emphasized thateach partner's response to the experimental task was "normal,'" thatfeeling some degree of distress was the typical response in thissituation, and that exposure to the experimental procedures was nec-essary to help researchers better understand how relationships aremaintained when they are confronted with external threats.

ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHIC ACCURACY 767

Although the breakup-rate data offer tangible evidence thatharmful, long-term effects did not occur in this study, researchersmust still decide whether the short-term distress caused by exper-imental interventions is justified given the importance of theproblems being investigated. Different researchers may arrive atdifferent conclusions. Our own assessment is that we optimized thetrade-off between two important goals: (a) studying the effects ofa temporary relationship threat in a manner that was as naturalisticand externally valid as possible and (b) minimizing the stress anddiscomfort experienced by the participants in our study. Havingspent considerable time discussing the study with each coupleduring the debriefing sessions, we are confident that our debriefingprocedures alleviated most if not all of the short-term distress thatour experimental task may have induced.

Implications for Theory and Application

Why do highly anxious-ambivalent individuals have such tur-bulent and unstable relationships? The results of our study providesome tentative answers to this question, answers that may haveimportant theoretical and real-world implications.

Implications for attachment theory. The present findings haveimportant implications for attachment theory. The empathic accu-racy findings confirm that highly anxious—ambivalent individualsare. in fact, more hypervigilant when they deal with relationship-threatening situations (for indirect evidence relevant to this pre-diction, see Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Kobak & Sceery, 1988:Mikulincer et al., 1993). Related findings also reveal how attach-ment anxiety interacts with empathic accuracy to destabilize therelationships of highly anxious-ambivalent individuals. Height-ened empathic accuracy in relationship-threatening situations leadshighly anxious-ambivalent men and women to feel less close totheir romantic partners, and it forecasts relationship dissolution inhighly anxious-ambivalent men. Although attachment theorists(e.g., Bowlby, 1973; Cassidy & Berlin. 1994) have speculatedabout the proximate psychological processes that should destabi-lize the relationships of anxious-ambivalent individuals, this is thefirst study to demonstrate the operation of one significant process:the destabilizing impact of accurately reading a partner's thoughtsand feelings in a relationship-threatening context.

An important question for future attachment research is, Why dohighly anxious-ambivalent people tend to base their current per-ceptions of their partners and relationships on a single, negativerelationship event rather than viewing such events within thebroader, long-term context of their relationships? Bowlby (1973)and Main (1991) have conjectured that highly anxious-ambivalentindividuals have two sets of internal working models. The primaryset, developed during childhood, contains a constellation of neg-ative thoughts, feelings, memories, and expectations about howone will be treated by others. The secondary set, which developsduring adolescence and adulthood, contains more positive compo-nents that reflect how one ideally hopes to be treated by others; thissecondary set allows highly anxious-ambivalent people to expe-rience at least moderate levels of relationship trust.

According to Bowlby, both sets of working models remain largelydisconnected and isolated from each other. In nonstressful situations,the secondary set should guide how highly anxious-ambivalent peo-ple think, feel, and behave. When distressing situations are encoun-tered (such as our rating-and-discussion task), the primary set should

be activated, producing temporarily negative and disenfranchisedviews of the current partner and relationship. A contrasting view,proposed by Mikulincer (1995), posits that highly anxious-ambivalent people have only one set of interrelated, highly conflictedthoughts, feelings, memories, and expectations. According to thisview, rapid, situationally induced changes in perceptions of the part-ner and relationship should be governed by which component of anindividual's working model is salient at a given point in time. Futureresearch must determine which structure—the dual structure of work-ing models or the unitary structure—best accounts for the relativelyrapid, situation-specific perceptual changes often experienced byhighly anxious-ambivalent people.

Implications for the theory of relational trust. Regarding thelink between attachment theory and relational trust, the presentfindings reveal that the anxiety attachment dimension usuallyremained a significant predictor of the dependent measures whenrelational trust was statistically controlled. These findings suggestthat the relationships of highly anxious-ambivalent individuals arevolatile because of the inherent emotional volatility of these indi-viduals (Tidwell et al., 1996), not just because they view theirpartners as untrustworthy. In the present study, only one of themany attachment effects was appreciably attenuated when trustwas controlled: For women, trust may be more important thananxious attachment in affecting eventual relationship dissolution.

Implications for Ickes and Simpson's (1997) empathic accuracymodel. The present findings also suggest an important qualifica-tion to Ickes and Simpson's (1997) empathic accuracy model.Specifically, the predicted negative association between empathicaccuracy and relational stability in relationship-threatening situa-tions appears to hold true only for highly anxious-ambivalentindividuals. This qualification suggests that Ickes and Simpson'smodel would benefit from greater conceptual integration withattachment theory. In particular, the model should be revised toacknowledge that different attachment orientations may disposeindividuals to react differently when inferring their partner'sthoughts and feelings in relationship-threatening contexts.Whereas highly anxious-ambivalent partners may suffer from ahypervigilant need to closely monitor their partner's thoughts andfeelings, less anxious-ambivaient partners may not. Moreover,highly avoidant partners may simply avoid making relationship-threatening inferences about their partner's thoughts and feelings.

Applied implications. Finally, the present findings may haveimportant implications for how therapy should be conducted withcouples in which at least one partner is highly anxious-ambivalent.Although enhancing empathic accuracy with respect to relationship-threatening issues might be good for most couples in therapy, traininghighly anxious-ambivalent people to become more accurate aboutsuch issues may do more harm than good in the early stages oftherapy. Because highly anxious-ambivalent individuals tend to haveimmediate, negative reactions about the relationship-threateningthoughts and feelings that might be harbored by their romantic part-ners, forcing them to confront such thoughts and feelings before theylearn how to deal with them effectively could be a major therapeuticmistake. Instead of strengthening the couple's relationship, such in-terventions could backfire and cause the relationship to become evenmore volatile and unstable. A better strategy might be to first trainthese couples to develop greater empathic accuracy with respect tobenign, nonthreatening issues, and then gradually encourage them to

768 SIMPSON, ICKES, AND GRICH

develop greater accuracy with regard to more divisive and threatening

ones.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing andinterpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the SelfScale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.

Attridge, M, Berscheid, E., & Simpson, J. A. (1995). Predicting relation-ship stability from both partners versus one. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 69, 254-268.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variabledistinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, andstatistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 51, 1173-1182.

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspec-tive. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147-178.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles amongyoung adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.

Bentler, P. M, & Newcomb, M. D. (1978). Longitudinal study of maritalsuccess and failure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46,1053-1070.

Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The RelationshipCloseness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relation-ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792-807.

Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems ofeveryday life: The role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to dailystressors. Journal of Personality, 59, 355-386.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York:Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety andanger. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). NewYork: Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measure-ment 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 Press.

Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment,affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267-283.

Bryson, J. B. (1991). Modes of response to jealousy-evoking situations. InP. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 178-207).New York: Guilford Press.

Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern ofattachment: Theory and research. Child Development, 65, 971-991.

Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1987). Avoidance and its relation to otherdefensive processes. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinicalimplications of attachment (pp. 300-323). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlationanalysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models,and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 58, 644-663.

Colvin, C. R., Vogt, D., & Ickes, W. (1997). Why do friends understandeach other better than strangers? In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy(pp. 169-193). New York: Guilford Press.

Crittenden, P. M., & Ainsworth, M. (1989). Child maltreatment andattachment theory. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreat-ment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of childabuse and neglect (pp. 432-463). Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy.Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 11-27.

Feeney, J. A. (1998). Adult attachment and relationship-centered anxiety:Responses to physical and emotional distancing. In J. A. Simpson &W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp.189-218). New York: Guilford Press.

Fraley, R. C, Davis, K. E., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Dismissing-avoidanceand the defensive organization of emotion, cognition, and behavior. InJ. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and closerelationships (pp. 249-279). New York: Guilford Press.

Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realisticapproach. Psychological Review, 102, 652-670.

Gesn, P. R. (1997). The development of meaning contexts for empathicaccuracy: Channel and sequence effects. Unpublished doctoral disser-tation, University of Texas at Arlington.

Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (1997). On the statistics of interdependence:Treating dyadic data with respect. In S. Duck, K. Dindia, W. Ickes, R.Milardo, R. Mills, & B. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of personal relation-ships: Theory, research, and interventions (2nd ed., pp. 271-302).Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994a). The metaphysics of measurement:

The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.),Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 17-52). London: Kingsley.

Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994b). Models of the self and other:Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430-445.

Hazan, C , & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as anattachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,511-524.

Hazan, C, & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment theory as an organizationalframework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5,1-22.

Holmes, J. G. (1991). Trust and the appraisal process in close relationships.In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships(Vol. 2, pp. 57-104). London: Kingsley.

Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C.Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships: Review of personality and socialpsychology (Vol. 10, pp. 187-220). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ickes, W., & Simpson, J. A. (1997). Managing empathic accuracy in closerelationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 218-250). NewYork: Guilford Press.

Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., & Garcia, S. (1990). Naturalisticsocial cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 59, 730-742.

Jones, W. H., Couch, L., & Scott, S. (1997). Trust and betrayal: Thepsychology of getting along and getting ahead. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson,& S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 465-488).New York: Academic Press.

Kahn, M. (1970). Nonverbal communication and marital satisfaction. Fam-ily Process, 9, 449-456.

Karniol, R. (1990). Reading people's minds: A transformation rule modelfor predicting others' thoughts and feelings. Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 23, 211-247.

Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. L. (1987). Personality and compatibility: Aprospective analysis of marital stability and marital conflict. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52, 27-40.

Kenny, D. A. (1988). The analysis of data from two-person relationships.In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 57-78).London: Wiley.

Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis.New York: Guilford Press.

Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1985). Separating individual and groupeffects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 339-348.

ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHIC ACCURACY 769

Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and closerelationships: A four-year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1,123-142.

Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence:Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self andothers. Child Development, 59, 135-146.

Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recentstudies, changing methodologies, and the concept of conditional strate-gies. Human Development, 33, 48-61.

Mam, M. (1991). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring,and singular (coherent) vs. multiple (incoherent) models of attachment.In C. M. Parkes. J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.). Attachmentacross the life cycle (pp. 127-159). London: Tavistock/Routledge.

Mikulincer, M. (1995). Attachment style and the mental representation ofthe self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1203-1215.

Mikulincer, M., Florian. V., & Tolmacz. R. (1990). Attachment styles andfear of personal death: A case study of affect regulation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 58, 273-280.

Mikulincer. M.. Florian. V., & Weller. A. (1993). Attachment styles,coping strategics, and posttraumatic psychological distress: The impactof the Gulf War in Israel. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 64, 817-826.

Noller. P. (1980). Misunderstandings in marital communication: A study ofcouples' nonverbal communication. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 39, 1135-1148.

Noller. P.. & Ru/./.ene. M. (1991). Communication in marriage: Theinfluence of affect and cognition. In G. .1. O. Fletcher & F. D. Fincham(Eds.). Cognition in close relationships (pp. 203-233). Hillsdale. NJ:Erlbaum.

Pistole. M. C. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic relationships: Style ofconflict resolution and relationship sutsstaction. Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships, 6. 505-510.

Rempel. J. K.. Holmes. J. G.. & Zanna. M. P. (1985). Trust in close

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.Rubin. Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology. 16, 265-273.Rusbult. C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associa-

tions: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology. 16. 172-186.

Schroder. H. M.. Driver. M. J.. & Streufert. S. (1967). Human informationprocessing. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment styles and the "BigFive" personality traits: Their connections with each other and withromantic relationship outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-letin, 18, 536-545.

Shaver. P. R., Collins, N., & Clark, C. L. (1996). Attachment styles andinternal working models of self and relationship partners. In G. J. O.Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relation-ships: A social psychological approach (pp. 25-61). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Sillars, A. L.. Pike, G. R.. Jones, T. S.. & Murphy. M. A. (1984).Communication and understanding in marriage. Human CommunicationResearch. 10, 317-350.

Simpson, J. A. (1987). The dissolution of romantic relationships: Factorsinvolved in relationship stability and emotional distress. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 53, 683-692.

Simpson. J. A.. Ickes, W.. & Blackstone. T. (1995). When the head protectsthe heart: Empathic accuracy in dating relationships. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 69. 629-641.

Simpson. J. A., & Rholes. W. S. (1994). Stress and secure base relation-ships in adulthood. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.). Attachmentprocesses in adulthood (pp. 181-204). London: Kingsley.

Simpson. J. A., Rholes. W. S.. & Nelligan. J. S. (1992). Support seekingand support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: Therole of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 62. 434-446.

Simpson. J. A.. Rholes. W. S.. & Phillips. D. (1996). Conflict in closerelationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology. 71. 899-914.

Smither. S. (1977). A reconsideration of the developmental study ofempathy. Human Development, 20, 253-276.

Stinson. L.. & Ickes, W. (1992). Empathic accuracy in the interactions ofmale friends versus male strangers. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology. 62. 787-797.

Tidwell, M. O.. Reis. H. T.. & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Attachment, attrac-tiveness, and social interaction: A diary study. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology. 71. 729-745.

Received November 25, 1996Revision received June 10, 1998

Accepted September 28. 1998 •

ORDER FORMStart my 1999 subscription to Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology! ISSN: 0022-3514

$170.00, APA Member/Affiliate$340.00, Individual Non-Member$743.00, InstitutionTOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $

Subscription orders must be prepaid. (Subscriptions are ona calendar basis only.) Allow 4-6 weeks for delivery of thefirst issue. Call for international subscription rates.

SEND THIS ORDER FORM TO:American Psychological AssociationSubscriptions750 First Street, NEWashington, DC 20002-4242

AMERICANPSYCHOLOGICALASSOCIATION

Or call (800) 374-2721, fax (202) 336-5568.TDD/TTY (202)336-6123. Email: subscriptions@apa.org

Send me a Free Sample Issue •

Q Check Enclosed (make payable to APA)

Charge ray: Q VISA Q MasterCard • American ExpressCardholder NameCard No. Exp. date

Signature (Required for Charge)

Credit CardBilling AddressCity State ZipDaytime PhoneSHIP TO:NameAddressCity . State. .Zip .APA Customer #

GAD99

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE - A PHOTOCOPY MAY BE USED