Magazine 2015
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 5 JULY 2015
MARITAL SATISFACTION IN RELATION TO THE PERCEPTIONS
OF ATTACHMENT STYLE
Steephen Chellan, S. John Michael Raj
ABSTRACT
Marriage continues to be a desirable lifestyle for most people and the institution of marriage has historically
been seen as a life-long commitment between two partners. The available results reveal that people
tend to be both healthier and happier when they are married. As a consequence, marital satisfaction has
been frequently studied. Very many attempts have been made to identify different factors influencing
marital satisfaction. Important one among is the attachment styles of the individuals. Although previous
researches find a significant relationship between attachment styles and marital satisfaction, no research
has been carried out on Indian population to examine the relationship between attachment styles and
marital satisfaction. This article intends to study the prevalence of marital satisfaction and attachment
styles of married individuals among Indian population and the relationship between attachment styles
and marital satisfaction. A survey research conducted among 390 married male and females using
Attachment Style Questionnaire (Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2004) and Bharathiar University Marital
Satisfaction Scale (Chellan & Raj, 2013) revealed significant relationship between attachment styles
and marital satisfaction of the married individuals.
Key Words : Marital Satisfaction, Secure Attachment Style, Preoccupied Attachment Style, Dismissing
Attachment Style, Fearful Attachment Style, internal working model
Introduction
Marriage continues to be a desirable lifestyle for most people (Haseley, 2006). Research in this field is
recently gaining momentum. The available results reveal that people tend to be both healthier and
happier when they are married (Myers, Madathil, & Tingle, (2004), Hence, the most frequently studied
aspect in research on marriage and family relationships is that of satisfaction, or what helps people
maintain happiness in their marriages (Myers et al., 2004). In this study, the term “marital satisfaction”
refers to an individual’s subjective evaluation of the marital relationship (Taylor, Peplau & Sears, 1997).
Marital satisfaction may be used interchangeably with marital happiness, and marital quality.
Marital satisfaction seems to revolve around ten specific psychological characteristics. They are the
following: communication, couple closeness, couple flexibility, personality issues, conflict resolution,
sexual relationship, leisure activities, family and friends, financial management and spiritual beliefs.
All these ten emanate from the couples’ relationship areas such as personality, leisure activities, conflict,
communication, and parenting (Olson, Olson-Sigg, & Larson, 2008). Besides these, there seems to
be an important psychological factor that is the attachment styles of the individuals.
Attachment
Early attachment theories beginning in the late 1950s and early 1960s, described a bond that existed
between primary caregivers (usually mothers) and children. Later labeled “attachment” (Ainsworth,
1
964; Bowlby, 1958, 1969), it was conceptualized as the affective connection between two individuals
that provided them with a firm emotional foundation from which they could interact with the world.
Characteristics of this type of relationship included supportiveness, trustworthiness, caring, and
acceptance (Bowlby, 1969). This bond was believed to be the foundation for future relationships and
the individuals’ paradigmatic views of themselves and others. Bowlby (1980) further theorized that
these styles were oriented by the children’s beliefs about themselves and their world. If children believed
that they were worthy of love, they carried that expectation to selected relationships that were congruent
with that belief. If the children believed that the world was not to be trusted, they were hesitant in
emotionally connecting to others because of the perceived pending doom of the relationship. Bowlby
(
1980) believed that combinations of these beliefs (positive or negative beliefs about self and positive
or negative beliefs about others) created the different attachment styles described by Ainsworth. Through
a study of children’s reactions to being left by mother in a “strange situation” (Ainsworth, Blehar,
(220)
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 5 JULY 2015
Waters, & Wall, 1978), Ainsworth and her colleagues identified three different styles of child behavior:
secure attachment, anxious attachment, and avoidant attachment. As the first typology of attachment
styles, it remained primary for childhood attachment. Although the three-category model of attachment
style was adopted by some researchers (e.g., Brennan& Shaver, 1990; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994;
Thompson, 1999), Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) proposed a four-category model that included
the different combinations of positive and negative beliefs about self and others. Thus, positive beliefs
about self and positive beliefs about others was labeled “secure” attachment. “Preoccupied” consisted
of negative beliefs about self and positive beliefs about the other. Positive beliefs about self and negative
beliefs about the other represent the “dismissing” style of attachment. Negative beliefs about self and
negative beliefs about the other were labeled “fearful” attachment. Researches validated the four-
category model (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Carver, 1997; Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994),
and growing empirical support prompted adoption of this model of adult attachment.
Secure attachment in early life establishes a set of attachment behaviors that will provide for more
satisfying relationships in the future (Thompson, 1999). These behaviors change as relational contexts
change, but their function remaines consistent to maintain relationship closeness in accordance with
internalized beliefs. Thus, although attachment behaviours themselves change, reflecting the changing
needs of the environment, individual attachment style is believed to be more reluctant to change.
Changes in the attachment style occur only over long periods, allowing the individual to alter internalized
beliefs about self and others that are created over time (Klohnen & Bera, 1998).
Initially focused on the mother-child dyad, attachment theory then spread to the one established by
the father and his child, then a set of figures closed to the child namely brothers, sisters, grandparents,
peers, and so on (Pinel-Jacquemin & Zaouche-Gaudron, 2009). Hazan & Shaver (1987) argued that
romantic love was an adult form of attachment similar to infant attachment to parents. One of the
attachment styles was established during infancy and childhood as part of an enduring set of social
and self mental models. Thus the style of attachment developed by an individual during childhood
with parents would likely be similar to the attachment style exhibited during adult romantic relationships.
Attachment and Marital Satisfaction
Research linking Attachment and Marriage generally supported the proposition from attachment theory
that securely attached individuals had better marital relationships (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;
Gallo & Smith, 2001; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994; Simpson, 1990). For example, Kobak and Hazen
(
1991) studied marital quality among 40 couples and found higher levels of marital satisfaction in
securely attached couples. Secure attachment was also predictive of successful conflict resolution
Kobak & Hazen), relationship independence, commitment, trust (Simpson, 1990), and positive emotions
(
in marriage (Collins, 1996). Added to that Cieœlak and Wajnbergier (2006) found that secure husbands
perceived more social support from wives and provided wives with more support than insecure
husbands. Research also suggested that neither attachment style of either gender was dominant in
predicting marital satisfaction (Gallo & Smith, 2001; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994) - that was, men’s and
women’s attachment styles had equal impact on a couple’s perception of marital quality. Using
attachment to describe adult romantic relationships, Hazen and Shaver (1987) theorized that securely
attached couples had higher marital satisfaction. Researches further showed that securely attached
couples had a lower divorce rate (Brennan & Shaver, 1990; Hazen & Shaver, 1987), and securely
attached couples described feeling comfortable with emotional intimacy and found joy and satisfaction
in close relationships.
Although previous researches found a significant relationship between attachment styles and marital
satisfaction (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Gallo & Smith, 2001; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994), no research
had examined the relationship between attachment styles and marital satisfaction among the Indian
married people. The main purpose of this research was to empirically test the relationship between
attachment and marital satisfaction of married individuals in India.
(221)
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
Methods
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 5 JULY 2015
Sample: A purposive sample (N=390) from the civil Kanyakumari District in Southern India having
average age 40.98 years (SD = 8.003) was selected. The participants had been married for an average
of 15.06 years (SD = 7.387), with a range of 1 to 39 years. They had, on average, 1.77 children (SD =
0
2
.695), with a range of 0 to 4. Seventy-four point six percent of the sample was female (n=291), and
5.4% was male (n=99). Thirty two percent of the sample were having qualification up to higher
secondary or less (n=124), 35% Undergraduate level (n=138), 33% were post graduate or more
n=128). Most (67.7%) were employed full time as teachers or other white color job (n=264), 19.7%
(
reported skilled laborers (n=77), and 12.6% were coolies or having no permanent job. Regarding the
monthly family income 45.1% (n= 15) had less than Rs.5,000, 26.9% (n= 105) had Rs.5,001 to
1
1
7
0,000, 11.8% (n= 46) had Rs.10,001 - 15,000, 12.3% (n= 48) had Rs.15,001 - 20,000, and 45.1% (n=
76) had Rs.20,001 and above. With regard to the religion 91.3% of the sample were Catholics (n=356),
.7% were Hindus (n=30) and 1% were Muslims (n=4).
Measurement: Along with the demographic information the following questionnaires were used to
collect the data for the purpose of this study.
Bharathiar University Marital Satisfaction Scale (BU-MSS: Chellan & Raj 2014)
Bharathiar University Marital Satisfaction Scale (BU-MSS) was a self structured questionnaire constructed
to measure married individuals’ subjective experience of their married life as part of PhD level research.
It had 38 items with eight factors such as Closeness, Absence of Despondency, Presence of Children,
Extent of Freedom, Decision Making, Sexual Relationship, Quality Time together and Spirituality. The
total score was summation of scores obtained on individual items. The scale provided two types of
scores 1) total scale score and 2) scores on the eight factors of the scale. The range for the total score
was 38-190. Higher the score indicated higher marital satisfaction. The scale had high internal
consistency (r = 0.94). The present research used the total scale score as the measure of marital
satisfaction.
Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ: Oudenhoven and Hofstra, 2004)
The Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ) was developed by Van Oudenhoven and Schrier (2001)
and modified in 2003 by Van Oudenhoven, Hofstra and Bakker. This scale was based on the theoretical
model of Griffin and Bartholomew’s Relationship Style Questionnaire (RSQ, 1994). ASQ thus consisted
of 4 sub-scales or 4 different attachment patterns, viz. Secure, Preoccupied, Dismissive and Fearful.
ASQ had high reliability which ranged from 0.59 to 0.81 for different sub-scales and its loading was
also high (> 0.45) for the corresponding factors. The construct validity of the ASQ was also satisfactory.
Procedure: Handing over the survey booklets with appropriate instructions to the married individuals
both male and female, the required data were collected. The responses were put to statistical analysis
using the SPSS program.
Results
Table. 1.
The prevalence of attachment styles among married individuals (N=390).
(222)
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
Table 2.
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 5 JULY 2015
The prevalence of marital satisfaction among married individuals (n=390).
Table 3.
Correlations for Attachment Style and Marital Satisfaction (N=390)
*
*
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Marital satisfaction positively correlated with secure attachment style at a significant level (r = .26, p <
001) and negatively with Preoccupied insecure attachment style, r = -.27, Dismissive insecure
.
attachment style, r = - 18, (all ps < .01). However, the relationship between Marital Satisfaction and
Fearful insecure attachment style was negative and not found to be significant.
Conducting a nested group comparison allowed for the examination of the association between
attachment styles and marital quality for females and males separately.
Table 4.
Correlations for Attachment Style and Marital Satisfaction in Women and Men
*
*
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
(223)
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 5 JULY 2015
A gender comparison of the result of correlation coefficient analysis showed that the marital satisfaction
of women and men was positively correlated with secure attachment style at a significant level (women
r = .24, p < .01; men r = .31, p < .01). However the marital satisfaction of women negatively correlated
at a significant level with Preoccupied Style (r = - .29, p < .001) and Dismissive Style (r = -.15, p <
.
=
05); the marital satisfaction of men also negatively related at a significant level with Dismissive Style (r
- .30, p < .01) and the negative relationship with Preoccupied Style was not significant though. With
regards to the marital satisfaction of both women and men the relationship was not significant with
Fearful Style.
Discussion
Paying a closer look at the prevalence of attachment styles among married individuals revealed that
there were 66.1% subjects having secure attachment style, 13.9% having fearful attachment style being
the second largest proportion, 11.2% having dismissive attachment styles being the third largest
proportion, and 8.8% subjects made the least proportion of preoccupied attachment style. This large
proportion of people having secure attachment style was in line with the previous studies. Interestingly
the large proportion of subjects having secure attachment style surpassed the studies from overseas
(
Bartholomew, & Horowitz, 1991; Bylsma, Cozzarelli, & Sümer, 1997; Sümer & Güngör,1999a). This
outshine of the proportion of married people with secure attachment style might be attributed to the
richness of Indian marriages where married people see themselves collectivistically than
individualistically.
Regarding the level of marital satisfaction the majority of the population (68.7%) was having moderate
satisfaction. Whereas 15.9% of population fell under low satisfaction and the least proportion of
population (13.4%) had high level of marital satisfaction. Of those who scored high in the level of
marital satisfaction had secure attachment style. This finding was in line with the previous studies.
Particularly one study (Duncan, 2007) stated that individuals who were securely attached had higher
marital quality than insecure individuals. In the present study, the level of marital satisfaction of the
subjects gave a reassuring indication that a vast majority of the married people had moderate or high
level of marital satisfaction (68.7% + 13.9% = 82.6%). Consistent with the previous studies (Ehrenberg,
Robertson, & Pringle, 2012) the findings of the present study could be registered as a sign of healthy
society with healthy married life. However the 15.9% of population falling under low marital satisfaction
could be a matter of concern. The noteworthy information was that the majority of those who were
found to have low level of marital satisfaction also had secure attachment style and fearful being the
second large in number. This might be due to the combination of dyads. For instance, couples defined
as securely attached reported higher levels of marital satisfaction as compared to couples defined as
insecurely attached (Rivera, 1999) or at least one spouse was identified as insecure (Forness, 2003).
Another study (Kilmann, Finch, Parnell, & Downer, 2013) revealed that matched secure couples reported
lower marital dissatisfaction than matched insecure or mismatched couples. Leung (2002) also found
that secure couples perceived higher levels of marital intimacy than insecure dyads. However more
research needs to be done in this line.
The present study consistent with the previous studies (King, 1997; Timm, 2000; Raga-ei, Nay-yeri, &
Sedaghati, 2007) found that marital satisfaction positively correlated with secure attachment style at a
significant level and negatively with preoccupied and dismissive insecure attachment styles. The
relationship between Marital Satisfaction and Fearful insecure attachment style was negative and not
found to be significant. This findings reiterated the previous studies (Duncan, 2007).
A gender comparison of the present study showed that the marital satisfaction of women and men
positively correlated with secure attachment style at a significant level. However the marital satisfaction
of women negatively correlated at a significant level with Preoccupied Style and Dismissive Style; the
marital satisfaction of men also negatively related at a significant level with Dismissive Style and the
negative relationship with Preoccupied Style was not significant though. With regards to the marital
satisfaction of both women and men the relationship with Fearful Style was not significant. These
results were consistent with the previous findings (Rivera, 1999). Studies (Gallo & Smith, 2001; Kirkpatrick
&
Davis, 1994) repeatedly asserted that men’s and women’s attachment styles had equal impact on a
couple’s perception of marital quality. Meanwhile a study by Malone (1995) involving 200 adults indicated
(224)
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 5 JULY 2015
that the quality of relationship was significantly different among the various styles of attachment. Results
further revealed that individuals who were securely attached reported better dyadic consensus, dyadic
satisfaction, affectional expression, and dyadic cohesion than individuals with various insecure styles
of attachment, which lent support to past research that suggested that insecure styles of attachment
were associated with poorer relationship functioning and quality of relationship. This again put forth
the importance of individuals having secure attachment style so as to make the marriage more satisfying.
A study (Onishi, 1997) confirmed that secure husbands seemed to enhance their primary secure strategy
by using their “motherly” wives as a secure base, thereby leading to higher marital attachment security.
In contrast, dismissing husbands’ adherence to this theme appeared to motivate them to further employ
deactivating strategies by downplaying the emotional significance of their “motherly” wives, thereby
lowering their marital attachment security. (Onishi, 1997). Secure couples, who have positive perspective
of self and important others, show richer relationships, higher self-efficacy and more intimacy with their
spouses (Sadeghi, Mazaheri, & Moutabi, 2011).
Implications
Preventive interventions or marriage enrichment programmes do have a significant role in raising
awareness among married people and helping them improve their secure attachment style. For, studies
have proved that those who are classified as secure in their attachment representations are less likely
to divorce in the early years of marriage than insecure participants (Crowell, Treboux, & Brockmeyer,
(
2009). People’s early attachment experiences may have an impact in determining their later capacity
to make affectional bonds such as their subsequent marital interactions. (Wat, 1995). So availing
intervention programmes to the newly wed couples will be more beneficial. In improving the secure
attachment style of the married people and enhance marital satisfaction, Emotional Focused Therapy
(
EFT) has been proven to be powerful (Johnson & Williams-Keeler, 1998; Johnson & Greenberg, 1985).
Experimenting the same among Indian population or inventing a new cultural specific intervention to
improve secure attachment style and enhance marital satisfaction seems to be the need of the time.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1964). “Patterns Of Attachment Behavior Shown By The Infant In Interaction With His
Mother.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 10, 51–58.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. S., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). “Patterns Of Attachment: A Psychological
Study Of The Strange Situation”. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L., M. (1991).“Attachment Styles Among Young Adults: A Test Of A Four
Category Model.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M., (1991). “Attachment Styles Among Young Adults: A Test Of A Four-
Category Model”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.
Bernier, A., Matte-Gagné, C., (2011). “More Bridges: Investigating The Relevance Of Self-Report And
Interview Measures Of Adult Attachment For Marital And Caregiving Relationships”. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 35(4), 307-316.
Bowlby, J. (1958). “The Nature Of The Child’s Tie To His Mother. International Journal Of Psycho-Analysis,
3
9, 350–373.
Bowlby, J. (1969). “Attachment And Loss Vol. 1.”: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). “Attachment And Loss Vol. 3.”: Loss: Sadness And Depression. New York: Basic
Books.
Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1990) “Dimensions Of Adult Attachment, Affect Regulation, And Romantic
Relationship Functioning”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267–283.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). “Self-Report Measurement Of Adult Attachment: An
Integrative Overview”. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment Theory And Close Relationships
(
pp.46– 76). New York: Guilford Press.
(225)
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 5 JULY 2015
Bylsma, W., H., Cozzarelli, C., & Sümer, N. (1997). “Relation Between Adult Attachment Styles And
Global Self-Esteem. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19(1), 16.
Carver, C. S. (1997). “Adult Attachment And Personality: Converging Evidence And A New Measure.”
Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 865–883.
Chellan, S., & Raj, J.M., (2014). “Effect Of Attachment Styles On Marital Satisfaction And Efficacy Of
Marital Attachment Enhancement Program” (MAEP). Unpublished Dissertation from Bharathiar University.
Cieœlak, R., & Wajnbergier, S., (2006). Styl przywi¹zania a wsparcie spo³eczne w zwi¹zkuma³¿eñskim.
=
Attachment styles and social support in married couples. Studia Psychologiczne, 44(4), 5-16.
Collins, N. L. (1996). “Working Models Of Attachment: Implications For Explanation, Emotion, And
Behavior.” Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 71, 810–832.
Crowell, J.A., Treboux, D., & Brockmeyer, S., (2009). “Parental Divorce And Adult Children’s Attachment
Representations And Marital Status.” Attachment & Human Development, 11(1), 87-101.
Duncan, Tera B. (2007). “Adult Attachment And Value Orientation In Marriage”. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 68(5-B), 3447.
Ehrenberg, M.F., Robertson, M., & Pringle, J., (2012). “Attachment Style And Marital Commitment In The
Context Of Remarriage”. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53(3), 204-219.
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). “Assessing Adult Attachment: Developments In The
Conceptualization Of Security And Insecurity”. In B. B. Sperling & W. H. Bernam (Eds.), Attachment in
Adults: Clinical And Developmental Perspectives (pp. 128–152). New York: Guilford Press.
Forness, S.R., (2003). “The Relationship Between Couples’ Attachment Styles, Self-Disclosure And Marital
Satisfaction.” Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63(7-B), 3471.
Gallo, L. G., & Smith, T. W. (2001). “Attachment Style In Marriage: Adjustment And Responses To Interaction.
Journal Of Social And Personal Relationships, 18, 263–289.
Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). “Models Of The Self And Other: Fundamental Dimensions Underlying
Measures Of Adult Attachment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 76, NO. 3, 430-445
Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). “Romantic Love Conceptualized As An Attachment Process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.
Johnson, S.M., & Greenberg, L.S., (1985).“Differential Effects Of Experiential And Problem-Solving
Interventions In Resolving Marital Conflict.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(2),175-184.
Johnson, S.M., & Williams-Keeler, L., (1998). “Creating Healing Relationships For Couples Dealing With
Trauma: The Use Of Emotionally Focused Marital Therapy.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24(1),
25-40.
Kilmann, P.R., Finch, H., Parnell, M.M., & Downer, J.T., (2013). “Partner Attachment And Interpersonal
Characteristics.” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 39(2), 144-159.
King, A.B., (1997). “Attachment Styles And Marital Quality In Professional Doctoral Training Programs.”;
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 57(9-B), 5946.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). “Attachment Style, Gender, And Relationship Stability: A
Longitudinal Analysis”. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 66, 502–512.
Klohnen, E., & Bera, S. (1998). “Behavioral And Experiential Patterns Of Avoidantly And Securely Attached
Women Across Adulthood: A 31 Year Longitudinal Perspective”. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66, 502–512.
Kobak, R. R., & Hazen, C. (1991). “Attachment In Marriage: Effects Of Security And Accuracy Of Working
Models. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 60, 861–869.
(226)
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 5 JULY 2015
Leung, C.M., (2002). “Attachment Styles And Marital Intimacy Among Chinese Immigrants”. Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 62(9-B), 4224.
Malone, C.M., (1995). “The Relationship Between Divorce And The Attachment Style Of Adult Children
Of Divorce. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 55(11-B), 5051.
Myers, J.E., Madathil, J., & Tingle, L.R., (2004), “Marriage Satisfaction And Wellness In India And The
United States: A Preliminary Comparison Of Arranged Marriages And Marriages Of Choice”. Retrieved on
February 20, 2006, from http://www.questia.com
Olson, D.H., Olson-Sigg, A., & Larson, P.J. (2008) “The Couple Checkup.” Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Onishi, Miyoko (1997). “Working Models Of Childhood Attachment In Japanese Couples: A Cultural
Theme Analysis Of Asymmetry In Marriage.” Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences
and Engineering, 58(6-B), 3341.
Pinel-Jacquemin, S., & Zaouche-Gaudron, C., (2009). “Système Familial Et Attachement: Revue De La
Question. = Family System And Attachment: Question Review.” Neuropsychiatrie de l’Enfance et de
l’Adolescence, 57(3), 167-172.
Rivera, D.L., (1999). “Adult Attachment Patterns And Their Relationship To Marital Satisfaction. Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59(11-B), 6120.
Sadeghi, M.A., Mazaheri, M.A., & Moutabi, F., (2011). “Adult Attachment And Quality Of Couples’
Communication Based On Observed Couple Interactions.” Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 3-22.
Simpson, J. A. (1990). “Infl Uence Of Attachment Styles On Romantic Relationships”. Journal Of Personality
And Social Psychology, 59, 971–980.
Sümer, N., Güngör, D. (1999a). Yetiþkin baðlanma stilleri ölçeklerinin Türk örneklemi üzerinde psikometrik
deðerlendirmesi ve kültürlerarasý bir karþýlaþtýrma.Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 14(43), 71-106.
Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (1997). “Social Psychology, 9th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Thompson, R. A. (1999). “Early Attachment And Later Development.” In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, And Clinical Applications (pp. 265–286). New York: Guilford
Press.
Timm, T.M., (2000). “The Effects Of Differentiation Of Self, Adult Attachment, And Sexual Communication
On Sexual And Marital Satisfaction: A Path Analysis.” Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:
Humanities and Social Sciences, 60(11-A), 4199.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Hofstra, J., & Bakker, W. (2003).“Ontwikkeling En Evaluatie Van
deHechtingstijlvragenlijst (HSL)” [Development and evaluation of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire].
Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 58, 95-102.
Wat, B.W., (1995). “Early Attachment Experiences And Subsequent Marital Interaction Among Overseas
Born Chinese Couples.” Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences,
5
5(8-A), 2592.
Steephen Chellan, Ph.D., Research Scholar, Dept. of Psychology, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore.
Prof. S. John Michael Raj, Prof. Dept. of Psychology, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore.
(227)