Attachment orientations and daily condom use in dating relationships

Journal of Sex Research, July-August, 2009 by Amy Strachman, Emily A. Impett

Nearly one half of all sexually active adolescents and young adults are currently engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse (Centers for Disease Control, 2006). In the United States, young adults are at heightened risk for contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV, chlamydia, and gonorrhea (Weinstock, Berman, & Cates, 2004). Recent estimates suggest that, although 15- to 24-year-olds represent only 25% of individuals who have ever been sexually active, they acquire nearly one half of all new STIs (Weinstock et al., 2004). In response, the public health community has set increasing condom use among young adults as one of its top priorities for the decade (Department of Health and Human Services, 2000).

Young adults are more likely to have unprotected sex in ongoing, dating relationships than in newly developing relationships or with casual sexual partners (e.g., Fortenberry, Wanzhu, Harezlak, Katz, & Orr, 2002; see also a review by Misovich, Fisher, & Fisher, 1997). Recent research has, therefore, begun to explore the role of specific relational factors, such as interpersonal trust and commitment, in shaping condom use behavior (see a review by Noar, Zimmerman, & Atwood, 2004). Factors that have been given surprisingly little research attention concern peoples' patterns of attachment-related security and insecurity in romantic relationships (i.e., attachment orientations) and relationship satisfaction the day of the sexual interaction. In this study, we examine the influence of people's attachment orientations, as well as their daily feelings of relationship satisfaction, on daily condom use in dating relationships. We begin by presenting a brief overview of attachment theory and romantic relationships. Next, we review existing research on attachment orientations, sexuality, and condom use, as well as how aspects of the daily relationship climate may influence the association between attachment and condom use. Then, we describe the results of a 14-day daily experience study that we conducted to test our hypotheses. Finally, we discuss implications for sexual risk-taking behaviors, as well as future research using daily diary methods.

Attachment Theory

Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1980, 1969/1982, 1973) was first proposed as a way to explain the motivation of infants to rely on their caregivers. Hazan and Shaver (1987) extended the research on attachment to caregivers to the realm of romantic relationships, proposing that romantic partners can also serve as attachment figures. Similar to Bowlby's (1969/1982) original formulation of attachment theory in which caregivers shape an infant's emotions and behaviors, an important component of adult attachment theory is the idea that, in adulthood, a romantic partner's responsiveness can also shape an individual's interaction goals, relational cognitions, and interpersonal behaviors (see a review by Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Individuals who have responsive and available attachment figures during times of need experience attachment security and optimal functioning. These individuals are able to develop positive internal working models of relationships (i.e., mental representations of how attachment-related interactions should be handled by the individual and attachment figures). In contrast, individuals with attachment figures who are unresponsive, unavailable, and unreliable fail to develop attachment security and, instead, develop less than optimal strategies for dealing with stressful situations. These individuals have negative internal working models of relationships.

Individual differences in attachment orientations are currently viewed as a continuous, two-dimensional model (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Fraley & Waller, 1998). One dimension, attachment anxiety, refers to an individual's fears that attachment figures will be unavailable and unsupportive during times of need. Individuals who are high in attachment anxiety engage in behaviors to secure the proximity and supportiveness of others, and use hyperactivating strategies when they experience distress. The second dimension, attachment avoidance, refers to an individual's general distrust that close others will be available and responsive during times of need. Individuals who are high in attachment avoidance attempt to create independence and emotional distance from attachment figures and employ deactivating strategies when their attachment system is activated. Individuals who report low levels of both anxiety and avoidance are considered securely attached.

Numerous studies have investigated the association between attachment orientations and the quality and stability of romantic relationships. Research has consistently shown that individuals with a secure attachment orientation report having more satisfying and stable relationships characterized by more commitment, intimacy, and trust than those higher in attachment avoidance, attachment anxiety, or both (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994; Simpson, 1990; for a review, see Shaver & Mikulincer, 2006a). Individuals high in attachment avoidance generally experience less satisfying relationships than those low in attachment avoidance (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Feeney, 1994; Simpson, 1990). Furthermore, avoidant individuals are also more likely than their securely or anxiously attached counterparts to initiate breakups due to fears that they are becoming too dependent on their romantic partners (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994). In contrast, individuals high in attachment anxiety report being involved in less satisfying but relatively stable relationships (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005; Feeney, 1994; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994). The stability of these relationships arises from these individuals' high emotional needs that make breaking up unthinkable (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994).