Attachment Insecurity and Infidelity in Marriage: Do Studies of Dating Relationships Really Inform Us About Marriage?

Abstract

Attachment theory provides a useful framework for predicting marital infidelity. However, most research has examined the association between attachment and infidelity in unmarried individuals, and we are aware of no research that has examined the role of partner attachment in predicting infidelity. In contrast to research showing that attachment anxiety is unrelated to infidelity among dating couples, 2 longitudinal studies of 207 newlywed marriages demonstrated that own and partner attachment anxiety interacted to predict marital infidelity, such that spouses were more likely to perpetrate infidelity when either they or their partner was high (vs. low) in attachment anxiety. Further, and also in contrast to research on dating couples, own attachment avoidance was unrelated to infidelity, whereas partner attachment avoidance was negatively associated with infidelity, indicating that spouses were less likely to perpetrate infidelity when their partner was high (vs. low) in attachment avoidance. These effects emerged controlling for marital satisfaction, sexual frequency, and personality; did not differ across husbands and wives; and did not differ across the two studies, with the exception that the negative association between partner attachment avoidance and own infidelity only emerged in 1 of the 2 studies. These findings offer a more complete understanding of the implications of attachment insecurity for marital infidelity and suggest that studies of unmarried individuals may not provide complete insights into the implications of various psychological traits and processes for marriage. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).

Full text

Attachment Insecurity and Infidelity in Marriage: Do Studies of Dating
Relationships Really Inform Us About Marriage?
V. Michelle Russell, Levi R. Baker, and James K. McNulty
Florida State University
Attachment theory provides a useful framework for predicting marital infidelity. However, most research
has examined the association between attachment and infidelity in unmarried individuals, and we are
aware of no research that has examined the role of partner attachment in predicting infidelity. In contrast
to research showing that attachment anxiety is unrelated to infidelity among dating couples, 2 longitu-
dinal studies of 207 newlywed marriages demonstrated that own and partner attachment anxiety
interacted to predict marital infidelity, such that spouses were more likely to perpetrate infidelity when
either they or their partner was high (vs. low) in attachment anxiety. Further, and also in contrast to
research on dating couples, own attachment avoidance was unrelated to infidelity, whereas partner
attachment avoidance was negatively associated with infidelity, indicating that spouses were less likely
to perpetrate infidelity when their partner was high (vs. low) in attachment avoidance. These effects
emerged controlling for marital satisfaction, sexual frequency, and personality; did not differ across
husbands and wives; and did not differ across the two studies, with the exception that the negative
association between partner attachment avoidance and own infidelity only emerged in 1 of the 2 studies.
These findings offer a more complete understanding of the implications of attachment insecurity for
marital infidelity and suggest that studies of unmarried individuals may not provide complete insights
into the implications of various psychological traits and processes for marriage.
Keywords: adult attachment, infidelity, marriage, romantic relationships, dating relationships
Although marital relationships can be the source of some of
life’s most enjoyable experiences, they are also the source of one
of life’s most painful experiences—infidelity. Estimates suggest
that over 25% of married men and 20% of married women engage
in extramarital sex over the course of their relationships (Atkins,
Baucom, & Jacobson, 2001;Greeley, 1994;Laumann, Gagnon,
Michael, & Michaels, 1994;Wiederman, 1997). Such infidelities
can have serious negative consequences for those involved. Not
only may infidelity lead to relationship distress, and thus decreased
relationship satisfaction in both partners (Sa
˘nchez Sosa, Hernán-
dez Guzmán, & Romero, 1997;Spanier & Margolis, 1983), it is
also a strong predictor of divorce (Amato & Rogers, 1997;Betzig,
1989). Further, the victims and perpetrators of infidelity also
frequently experience negative intrapersonal outcomes, such as
decreased self-esteem (Shackelford, 2001), increased risk of men-
tal health problems (e.g., Allen et al., 2005;Cano & O’Leary,
2000), guilt (Spanier & Margolis, 1983), and depression (Beach,
Jouriles, & O’Leary, 1985). Identifying psychological character-
istics that may be associated with a risk of perpetrating infidelity
may help interventions to better target such individuals.
Attachment theory (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003) provides
one useful framework for addressing this goal. According to this
theory, intimates develop mental representations of the availability
of close others that lead to strong cognitive and behavioral patterns
of responding to those others. Whereas those who develop a secure
attachment style tend to believe close others are available to them
and behave accordingly, those who develop an insecure attachment
style, that is, attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance, tend to
believe close others are less available to them and behave accord-
ingly. Intimates who develop high levels of attachment anxiety are
uncertain of the availability of close others and cope by seeking
reassurance from and clinging to the partner (Brennan & Shaver,
1995;Feeney & Noller, 1990). Intimates who develop high levels
of attachment avoidance, in contrast, doubt the availability of close
others and cope by avoiding behaviors that promote intimacy
(Brennan & Shaver, 1995;Campbell, Simpson, Kashy, & Rholes,
2001;Gentzler & Kerns, 2004;Pistole, 1993;Simpson, Rholes, &
Nelligan, 1992).
Both types of insecurity may be associated with marital infidel-
ity. Individuals high in attachment anxiety tend to feel that their
needs for intimacy are not being met in their current relationships
(for review, see Shaver & Mikulincer, in press) and use sex to meet
their unmet needs (Birnbaum, Reis, Mikulincer, Gillath, & Orpaz,
2006). Accordingly, they may be more likely than individuals low
in attachment anxiety to seek intimacy with another partner
through infidelity. Individuals high in attachment avoidance tend
to be chronically less committed to their relationships (DeWall et
al., 2011) and have more permissive sexual attitudes (Brennan &
V. Michelle Russell, Levi R. Baker, and James K. McNulty, Department
of Psychology, Florida State University.
Preparation for this article was supported by the National Science
Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant DGE-I246794
awarded to V. Michelle Russell, and the National Institute of Child Health
and Development Grant RHD058314 awarded to James K. McNulty.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to V. Mi-
chelle Russell, Department of Psychology, Florida State University, 1107
W. Call St., Tallahassee, FL 32306-4301. E-mail: vmrussell1@gmail.com
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Family Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association
2013, Vol. 27, No. 2, 242–251 0893-3200/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0032118
242

Shaver, 1995;Gentzler & Kerns, 2004;Hazan, Zeifman, &
Middleton, 1994). Given that both tendencies are associated with
infidelity (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999;Smith, 1994),
avoidantly attached individuals may be more likely to engage in
infidelity as well.
We are aware of three published reports, describing a total of 10
studies, that have addressed the role of attachment in predicting
infidelity. DeWall and colleagues (2011) described eight studies
indicating that attachment avoidance, but not attachment anxiety,
was associated with (a) a greater interest in alternatives, and/or (b)
infidelity; Bogaert and Sadava (2002) demonstrated that attach-
ment anxiety was positively associated with infidelity, particularly
in women; and Allen and Baucom (2004) reported that (a) attach-
ment avoidance was positively associated with the number of
extradyadic partners reported by male undergraduates, (b) attach-
ment anxiety was positively associated with the number of extra-
dyadic partners reported by female undergraduates, and (c) attach-
ment avoidance trended toward being associated with the number
of extradyadic partners reported by married individuals.
Nevertheless, several qualities of these studies limit conclusions
regarding the role of attachment insecurity in predicting infidelity
in marriage. Most notably, although attachment processes may
operate differently in marriage than in dating relationships, only
three of the 10 studies involved a substantial number of married
spouses. One way in which married partners differ from partners in
dating relationships is that married partners tend to be more
committed to their relationships (e.g., Stanley & Markman, 1992).
Such differences may emerge because married partners are more
likely to engage in behaviors that lead to greater commitment (e.g.,
make a public declaration of faithfulness, have children together,
share financial obligations; see Rusbult, 1980) and/or because
greater levels of commitment lead to the decision to marry in the
first place. Given that commitment to the relationship involves a
transformation of motivation, whereby intimates focus less on their
own self-interests, such as extradyadic sex, to benefit their rela-
tionships (Rusbult, Olsen, Davis, & Hannon, 2001), married indi-
viduals may be more motivated to abstain from infidelity in order
to protect the relationship than are unmarried individuals. Indeed,
more committed individuals are more likely to derogate attractive
alternatives than are less committed individuals (e.g., Johnson &
Rusbult, 1989;Lydon, Meana, Sepinwall, Richards, & Mayman,
1999;Miller & Maner, 2010). Accordingly, the psychological
characteristics of those who commit infidelity in marriage may be
different than the psychological characteristics of those who com-
mit infidelity in dating relationships. Unfortunately, the three
studies that examined the implications of attachment insecurity
and infidelity among married people were inconclusive. DeWall
and colleagues (2011) described one study (Study 6), comprised of
both married community spouses and dating undergraduates, that
revealed a significant positive association between attachment
avoidance and interest in alternative partners, and no association
between attachment anxiety and interest in alternative partners.
However, (a) DeWall et al. did not report whether either associa-
tion differed across married and dating couples, and (b) interest in
alternatives is not the same as infidelity, particularly in highly
committed relationships like marriage. In contrast, Bogaert and
Sadava (2002) reported a significant positive association between
attachment anxiety and infidelity, but no association between
attachment avoidance and infidelity, using a community sample of
people who were in a committed relationship, engaged, or married.
However, (a) Bogaert and Sadava did not report how many people
were married versus unmarried or whether their results varied
across married and unmarried people, and (b) their infidelity
variable did not distinguish between perpetrators of infidelity and
the partners of such perpetrators. Finally, the positive association
that Allen and Baucom (2004) reported between attachment avoid-
ance and the number of extradyadic involvements in their sample
of married participants did not reach statistical significance.
A second limitation of the existing research is that none of these
studies controlled for numerous third variables that may explain
the link between attachment and infidelity. For example, marital
satisfaction is negatively associated with attachment insecurity
(Feeney, Noller, & Callan, 1994;Hazan & Shaver, 1987;Klohnen
& Bera, 1998) and infidelity (Glass & Wright, 1985;Wiggins &
Lederer, 1984); yet satisfaction was not controlled in the studies
reported by either Allen and Baucom (2004) or Bogaert and
Sadava (2002). Further, attachment anxiety and avoidance are
associated with variations in sexual frequency (Bogaert & Sadava,
2002), which, in turn, may be related to infidelity through its
effects on marital and sexual satisfaction (Liu, 2000;Thompson,
1983). Yet none of the studies controlled for sexual frequency.
Finally, attachment insecurity is associated with various other
individual differences in personality that are also associated with
attachment and infidelity. For example, agreeableness is nega-
tively associated with attachment insecurity (Shaver & Brennan,
1992), and low levels of agreeableness are associated with an
increased likelihood of infidelity (Schmitt, 2004). Likewise, neu-
roticism is positively associated with attachment insecurity
(Shaver & Brennan, 1992), and individuals who engage in infidel-
ity are more likely to perceive higher levels of neuroticism in their
partners (Orzeck & Lung, 2005). Additionally, attachment insecu-
rity is negatively associated with conscientiousness, extraversion,
and openness to experience (Mickelson, Kessler, & Shaver, 1997;
Shaver & Brennan, 1992), traits that may be associated with
infidelity as well. Nevertheless, none of the studies controlled for
these other individual differences.
A third limitation of the existing research is that none of the
studies examined the role of the partner’s attachment insecurity in
predicting marital infidelity. The fact that anxiously attached inti-
mates tend to seek constant reassurance and cling to their partners
may lead such partners to seek out alternative relationships. In-
deed, individuals with anxiously attached partners tend to report
less commitment to their relationships (Simpson, 1990), which, as
noted earlier, is positively associated with the likelihood of infi-
delity (Drigotas et al., 1999). Likewise, the fact that avoidantly
attached intimates tend to avoid behaviors that promote intimacy
may lead their partners to seek intimacy in other relationships.
Indeed, individuals with avoidantly attached partners tend to view
those partners as less caring and supportive (Kane et al., 2007), a
response that is positively associated with the likelihood of infi-
delity (Barta & Kiene, 2005).
Finally, no studies have reported the interactive effects of own
and partner attachment insecurity in predicting marital infidelity.
Shoda and colleagues (Shoda, Tiernan, & Mischel, 2002;Zayas,
Shoda, & Ayduk, 2002) proposed a cognitive–affective processing
system, whereby individual differences in one’s partner determine
the effects of one’s own individual differences on interpersonal
behavior. Accordingly, the extent to which one’s own attachment
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
243
ATTACHMENT INSECURITY AND INFIDELITY

insecurity predicts infidelity may depend on one’s partner’s attach-
ment insecurity. Several effects are possible. It may be that inse-
curity in either partner is enough to increase the likelihood of
infidelity, such that spouses will demonstrate an increased likeli-
hood of infidelity if either they or their partner are high in either
form of attachment insecurity. Alternatively, it is possible that
security in either partner is sufficient to decrease the likelihood of
infidelity, such that spouses will only demonstrate an increased
likelihood of infidelity if they and their partner are both high in
attachment insecurity. Finally, the particular combinations of in-
security might matter, such that people high in attachment anxiety
may be particularly likely to perpetrate infidelity if their partner is
high in attachment avoidance, or may be particularly unlikely to
perpetrate infidelity if their partner is also high in attachment
anxiety.
Overview of the Current Study
We used data from two extant longitudinal data sets to examine
the role of attachment insecurity in predicting infidelity. These
studies addressed the aforementioned limitations of previous stud-
ies in several ways. First, whereas previous research has examined
infidelity in dating relationships, the current studies used two
samples of newlywed couples to identify how attachment insecu-
rity affects infidelity in marriage. Although newlyweds may tend
to perpetrate infidelity less frequently, on average, leading to a
rather conservative test of our hypotheses, they may be more
similar to people in dating relationships than are couples in more-
established marriages on variables other than commitment (e.g.,
age, income), allowing us to more directly compare the effects of
attachment on infidelity in marriage versus dating relationships.
Second, given that third variables, such as personality, sexual
frequency, and marital satisfaction, may account for the associa-
tion between attachment and infidelity, the current studies con-
trolled for these variables. Finally, given that both data sets
contained reports from both members of the couple, they allowed
us to examine the unaddressed role of partners’ attachment inse-
curity, both as a main effect and as a moderator of own attachment
insecurity, in predicting own infidelity. Both studies used virtually
identical methods and thus are described simultaneously.
We made the following predictions. Given that people high in
anxious attachment may be more likely to have unmet needs for
intimacy that they try to fulfill with extramarital sex, we predicted
that attachment anxiety would be positively associated with en-
gaging in infidelity. Additionally, given that avoidantly attached
individuals tend to be less committed to their relationships, on
average, which has been shown to predict infidelity in unmarried
individuals, we also predicted that attachment avoidance would
also be positively associated with engaging in infidelity. Finally,
given that anxiously and avoidantly attached individuals tend to
behave in ways that may lead their partners to seek out alternative
relationships, we also predicted that partner attachment anxiety
and partner attachment avoidance would also be positively asso-
ciated with engaging in infidelity. We also conducted exploratory
analyses to test the interactive effects of own and partner attach-
ment on infidelity, but made no strong predictions regarding which
of the numerous potential patterns would emerge.
Method
Participants
Participants in Study 1 were 72 newlywed couples recruited
from northern Ohio; participants in Study 2 were 135 newlywed
couples recruited from eastern Tennessee. All participants were
recruited through advertisements placed in community newspapers
and bridal shops, and through invitations sent to eligible couples
who had applied for marriage licenses in counties near the studies’
locations. Couples who responded were screened in a telephone
interview to ensure they met the following eligibility criteria: (a)
they had been married for less than 6 months, (b) neither partner
had been previously married, (c) they were at least 18 years of age,
and (d) they spoke English and had completed at least 10 years of
education (to ensure comprehension of the questionnaires). Addi-
tionally, Study 2 added the criteria that couples did not already
have children and that wives were not older than 35 years (because
a larger aim of Study 2 was to examine the transition to parent-
hood).
Husbands in Study 1 were an average of 24.9 (SD ⫽4.4) years
old and had completed 14.2 (SD ⫽2.5) years of education;
husbands in Study 2 were an average of 25.9 (SD ⫽4.6) years old
and had completed 15.7 (SD ⫽2.4) years of education. Wives in
Study 1 were an average of 23.5 (SD ⫽3.8) years old and had
completed 14.7 (SD ⫽2.2) years of education; wives in Study 2
were an average of 24.2 (SD ⫽1.88) years old and had completed
15.9 (SD ⫽2.2) years of education. The median income, combined
across spouses, was between $30,000 and $40,000 in each study.
The majority of participants were Caucasian (⬎90%; in Study 1,
4% were African American and 3% identified as “other”; in Study
2, 4% were African American, 2% were Asian, and 2% identified
as “other”).
Procedure
In both studies, participants were mailed a packet of question-
naires to complete at home and bring with them to a laboratory
session in which they completed a consent form approved by the
local human subjects review board and a variety of tasks beyond
the scope of the current analyses. The packet contained self-report
measures of attachment insecurity, marital satisfaction, frequency
of sexual intercourse, and the Big Five personality traits. To ensure
that participants felt comfortable disclosing sensitive information,
we (a) instructed them to complete their questionnaires indepen-
dently of one another and not to discuss the questionnaires with
one another, (b) included separate sealable envelopes in which
they were to place their completed questionnaires so their partners
were not able to easily view their responses, and (c) informed them
that we would not share their responses with their partners. Every
6 to 8 months subsequent to the initial assessment, participants
were again mailed a packet of questionnaires that contained the
same measures of sexual frequency and marital satisfaction, as
well as a measure of infidelity. We again employed the same
tactics to ensure that participants felt comfortable reporting sensi-
tive information. These follow-up procedures were used 6 times
and spanned the first 3.5 years of marriage in Study 1 and the first
4.5 years of marriage in Study 2. Participants in Study 1 were paid
$60 and participants in Study 2 were paid $80 for participating in
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
244 RUSSELL, BAKER, AND MCNULTY

the first phase of data collection; participants in both studies were
paid $50 for participating in each of the six subsequent phases,
except for the sixth phase in Study 2, for which participants were
paid $80 because it resembled the first phase. Fifty-two percent of
participants completed six or more waves and 36% of participants
completed all waves. Given that people who were less likely to
complete all waves of data collection had fewer opportunities to
report an infidelity, and given that such people may also be higher
or lower in attachment insecurity, we controlled for whether or not
people completed all waves of measurement and examined
whether or not that variable moderated any key effects. As we
report, this variable did not moderate any of the effects.
Measures
Infidelity. Two items assessed whether or not each individual
perpetrated infidelity during the course of each study. The first
asked participants to indicate whether or not they “had a romantic
affair/infidelity” in the past 6 months. The second asked partici-
pants to indicate whether or not they “found out [their] partner had
been unfaithful” in the past 6 months. Participants answered each
question approximately every 6 months for the duration of each
study. A total of 22 spouses and/or their partners reported an
infidelity. Although this estimate is low compared with other
estimates (Atkins et al., 2001;Greeley, 1994;Laumann et al.,
1994;Wiederman, 1997), such other estimates tend to span longer
than 5 years and were based on samples that include more-
established marriages. Four of these infidelities were reported by
both members of the couple, seven were reported by the spouse
who perpetrated the infidelity, and 11 were reported by the partner
of the spouse who perpetrated the infidelity. The correlation be-
tween partners’ reports of infidelity was r⫽.35 (p⬍.01). This
relatively low agreement may have emerged because (a) partners
were not aware of an individual’s infidelity, (b) one member of the
couple was more reluctant than the other to admit an infidelity, or
(c) the items were worded differently for each partner (i.e., “infi-
delity” vs. “unfaithful.”). Nevertheless, given that our hypotheses
addressed the probability of an individual’s own infidelity perpe-
tration, not whether an infidelity occurred in the couple, and not
the frequency of, change in, or the timing of infidelity, we created
a variable from all of the assessments in an attempt to best indicate
whether or not each individual perpetrated an infidelity. Specifi-
cally, each individual member of the couple was coded witha1if
(a) that individual reported engaging in infidelity or (b) that
individual’s partner reported that the individual was unfaithful, and
a 0 otherwise.
Attachment insecurity. Attachment insecurity was assessed
at baseline in both studies using the Experiences in Close Rela-
tionships scale (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). The ECR
is a continuous measure of attachment insecurity that identifies the
extent to which a person is characterized by two dimensions:
attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. The Attachment
Anxiety subscale is comprised of 18 statements that describe the
degree of concern intimates have about losing or being unable to
become sufficiently close to a partner, and the Attachment Avoid-
ance subscale is comprised of 18 statements that describe the
extent to which partners attempt to maintain distance from a
partner. Participants were asked to rate how much they agreed or
disagreed with these statements on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 ⫽
disagree strongly,7⫽agree strongly). Appropriate items were
reversed and all items were averaged, with higher scores indicating
greater attachment insecurity. Internal consistency was adequate in
both studies (Study 1: ␣⫽.91 for husbands’ attachment anxiety,
.92 for wives’ attachment anxiety, .92 for husbands’ attachment
avoidance, and .94 for wives’ attachment avoidance; Study 2: ␣⫽
.91 for husbands’ attachment anxiety, .90 for wives’ attachment
anxiety, .91 for husbands’ attachment avoidance, and .88 for
wives’ attachment avoidance).
Marital satisfaction. Global marital satisfaction was mea-
sured at each assessment in both studies using the Quality Mar-
riage Index (QMI; Norton, 1983). The QMI contains six items that
ask spouses to report the extent of their agreement with general
statements about their marriage. Sample items include “we have a
good marriage” and “my relationship with my partner makes me
happy.” Five items ask participants to respond according to a
7-point scale, whereas one item asks participants to respond ac-
cording to a 10-point scale. Thus, scores could range from 6 to 45,
with higher scores reflecting greater marital satisfaction. Internal
consistency was high for both studies (␣was at least .85 for both
husbands and wives at all assessments in both studies). The aver-
age of each spouse’s reports across all phases was controlled in the
primary analyses.
Sexual frequency. Sexual frequency was assessed at each
wave of data collection by asking both members of the couple to
provide a numerical estimate of the number of times they had
engaged in sexual intercourse with their marital partner over the
past 6 months— the length of time since the previous assessment.
Given that this item asked about the sexual frequency with one’s
partner, a couple-level variable, and given that the average of both
partners’ reports of the same behavior are likely to be a more valid
estimate of that behavior than either partner’s self-reports alone,
we used the average of both partners’ reports as a covariate in all
analyses (correlations between husbands’ and wives’ reports
ranged from .30 to .69 in Study 1 and from .57 to .95 in Study 2).
Results were not different if individual-level sexual frequency was
used instead.
Big Five personality traits. Given our desire to control for
other individual differences that may be associated with attach-
ment insecurity and infidelity, and given that the five-factor model
of personality theoretically captures all dispositional qualities of
personality (Goldberg, 1993), we assessed these five dimensions
(openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and
neuroticism) at baseline using the Big Five Personality Inventory-
Short (Goldberg et al., 2006). This measure requires individuals to
report their agreement with 50 items (10 items per subscale) that
assess each of the Big Five personality traits using a 5-point
Likert-type response scale (1 ⫽strongly disagree,5⫽strongly
agree). Internal consistency was adequate in both studies (Study 1:
husbands’ ␣⫽.76 for openness, .77 for conscientiousness, .81 for
extraversion, .61 for agreeableness, and .81 for neuroticism;
wives’ ␣⫽.79 for openness, .71 for conscientiousness, .90 for
extraversion, .72 for agreeableness, and .87 for neuroticism. Study
2: husbands’ ␣⫽.66 for openness, .74 for conscientiousness, .91
for extraversion, .74 for agreeableness, and .86 for neuroticism;
wives’ ␣⫽.81 for openness, .73 for conscientiousness, .90 for
extraversion, .67 for agreeableness, and .86 for neuroticism). In-
dividuals’ own scores on each of these five subscales were con-
trolled in all primary analyses.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
245
ATTACHMENT INSECURITY AND INFIDELITY

Results
Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses
Descriptive statistics for the independent variables for both
studies are presented in Table 1. Spouses reported relatively high
levels of satisfaction and sexual frequency across each study, on
average. In addition, husbands and wives reported being relatively
securely attached, on average. Husbands and wives did not differ
in their mean levels of attachment anxiety in either Study 1,
t(71) ⫽0.87, p⫽.39, or Study 2, t(134) ⫽.44, p⫽.66, but
husbands reported significantly more attachment avoidance than
did wives in both Study 1, t(71) ⫽2.14, p⬍.05, and Study 2,
t(134) ⫽2.87, p⬍.01. The couples in Study 1 were less educated
(for husbands, t[205] ⫽4.38, p⬍.01; for wives, t[204] ⫽3.63, p
⬍.01) and earned less money annually, t(196) ⫽4.45, p⬍.01,
than couples in Study 2. To control these and any other differences
between participants and aspects of the two studies, we controlled
for study in all primary analyses.
Correlations between the variables are presented in Table 2.As
can be seen, husbands’ and wives’ reports of attachment anxiety
were positively associated with their reports of attachment avoid-
ance and neuroticism and negatively associated with marital sat-
isfaction, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agree-
ableness. Husbands’ reports of attachment avoidance were
positively associated with neuroticism and negatively associated
with marital satisfaction, openness, conscientiousness, extraver-
sion, and agreeableness. Wives’ reports of attachment avoidance
were positively associated with neuroticism and negatively asso-
ciated with marital satisfaction, sexual frequency, extraversion,
and agreeableness.
Does Own or Partner Attachment Insecurity Predict
Infidelity?
Given that we were examining the implications of both own and
partner attachment insecurity for own perpetration of infidelity,
and given that husbands and wives’ reports are not independent,
we addressed our hypotheses using a two-level actor–partner in-
terdependence model (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) using the
Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) 6.08 computer program to
account for the nonindependence of husbands and wives’ data. In
the first level of the model, we regressed our code of own infidelity
(0 ⫽no, 1 ⫽yes) onto own baseline reports of attachment anxiety,
own baseline reports of attachment avoidance, partner baseline
reports of attachment anxiety, partner baseline reports of attach-
ment avoidance, own baseline reports of the Big Five personality
traits, the average of own reports of marital satisfaction across all
waves, participant sex, and a dummy code for attrition (0 ⫽
completed all waves, 1 ⫽did not complete all waves). Given that
the average of each couple’s sexual frequency across all waves and
a dummy code for study were couple-level variables, we entered
both as controls on the Level 2 intercept. Because our hypotheses
addressed the implications of absolute levels of attachment inse-
curity, rather than variations of attachment insecurity within each
couple, all variables were grand-centered around the sample mean.
The Level 2 intercept was allowed to vary randomly across cou-
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variables
Measure
Husbands Wives
NMSDNMSD
Own attachment anxiety
Study 1 72 2.14 0.97 72 2.02 0.85
Study 2 135 2.04 0.95 135 2.00 0.98
Own attachment avoidance
Study 1 72 2.06 0.88 72 1.82 0.68
Study 2 135 2.04 0.89 135 1.78 0.83
Marital satisfaction
Study 1 72 40.49 4.66 72 40.34 4.30
Study 2 135 40.55 4.00 135 40.53 4.71
Sexual frequency
Study 1 70 36.94 27.65 70 42.16 30.74
Study 2 133 53.96 48.31 134 52.90 39.24
Neuroticism
Study 1 72 23.71 8.28 72 30.24 7.65
Study 2 135 24.66 7.16 135 29.57 7.33
Openness
Study 1 72 37.53 5.31 72 36.68 5.73
Study 2 135 38.84 5.56 135 38.14 5.65
Extraversion
Study 1 72 32.94 7.10 72 34.03 8.16
Study 2 135 34.27 8.16 135 33.66 7.95
Agreeableness
Study 1 72 37.68 5.10 72 43.40 4.78
Study 2 135 37.81 5.98 135 42.50 4.96
Conscientiousness
Study 1 72 34.76 5.58 72 36.78 6.55
Study 2 135 35.35 6.48 135 36.38 6.68
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
246 RUSSELL, BAKER, AND MCNULTY

ples. Because the dependent variable was binary, we specified a
Bernoulli outcome distribution.
Results of this analysis are presented in Table 3. As can be seen,
consistent with expectations, but in contrast with previous research
on dating couples (DeWall et al., 2011), own attachment anxiety
was positively associated with own infidelity, indicating that part-
ners with higher levels of attachment anxiety were more likely to
engage in an infidelity. Specifically, people who scored 1 point
higher than the mean on the Attachment Anxiety subscale were more
than twice as likely to perpetrate infidelity as people who scored at the
mean on the scale. A test of the Attachment Anxiety ⫻Participant
Sex interaction indicated this effect did not differ across husbands
and wives, B⫽⫺0.08, SE ⫽0.47, t(393) ⫽⫺0.18, p⫽.86; a test
of the Attachment Anxiety ⫻Study interaction indicated it did not
differ across the two studies, B⫽⫺0.06, SE ⫽0.37, t(393) ⫽
⫺0.12, p⫽.87; and a test of the Attachment Anxiety ⫻Attrition
interaction indicated it did not differ across the attrition dummy
code, B⫽0.34, SE ⫽0.42, t(393) ⫽0.82, p⫽.41. Also, this
effect remained significant when partner attachment anxiety and
avoidance were not controlled, B⫽0.54, SE ⫽0.20, t(399) ⫽
2.74, p⬍.01.
In contrast to expectations, however, and also in contrast to what
has been found in research on dating relationships (DeWall et al.,
2011), own attachment avoidance was unrelated to own infidelity.
This null effect did not differ across husbands and wives, B⫽
⫺0.46, SE ⫽0.40, t(393) ⫽⫺1.14, p⫽.25; the two studies, B⫽
0.62, SE ⫽0.44, t(393) ⫽1.40, p⫽.16; or the attrition dummy
code, B⫽0.47, SE ⫽0.53, t(393) ⫽0.89, p⫽.37; and remained
nonsignificant when partner attachment anxiety and avoidance
were not controlled, B⫽0.03, SE ⫽0.24, t(399) ⫽0.11, p⫽.91.
Notably, low power cannot explain why attachment avoidance was
not positively associated with own infidelity because the direction
of the nonsignificant effect was negative.
Consistent with expectations, partner’s attachment anxiety was
positively associated with own infidelity, indicating that individ-
uals with partners who were high in attachment anxiety were more
likely to engage in infidelity. Specifically, people who had partners
who scored 1 point higher than the mean on the attachment anxiety
subscale were more than 1.5 times as likely to perpetrate infidelity
as people who had partners that scored at the mean on the scale.
This effect did not differ across husbands and wives, B⫽0.19,
SE ⫽0.58, t(393) ⫽0.33, p⫽.75; the two studies, B⫽⫺0.02,
Table 2
Correlations Among Independent Variables
123456789
1. Attachment anxiety .35
ⴱⴱ
.50
ⴱⴱ
⫺.25
ⴱⴱ
⫺.08 ⫺.17
ⴱ
⫺.21
ⴱⴱ
⫺.16
ⴱ
⫺.16
ⴱ
.42
ⴱⴱ
2. Attachment avoidance .51
ⴱⴱ
.26
ⴱⴱ
⫺.29
ⴱⴱ
⫺.24
ⴱⴱ
⫺.09 ⫺.02 ⫺.22
ⴱⴱ
⫺.22
ⴱⴱ
.15
ⴱ
3. Marital satisfaction ⫺.17
ⴱ
⫺.16
ⴱ
.39
ⴱⴱ
.12 .14 .14
ⴱ
.19
ⴱⴱ
.08 ⫺.15
ⴱ
4. Sexual frequency ⫺.06 .03 .19
ⴱⴱ
.76
ⴱⴱ
⫺.13 ⫺.13 ⫺.06 ⫺.09 ⫺.07
5. Openness ⫺.17
ⴱ
⫺.13
ⴱ
.14
ⴱ
⫺.05 .14
ⴱ
.17
ⴱ
.24
ⴱⴱ
.24
ⴱⴱ
⫺.18
ⴱ
6. Conscientiousness ⫺.32
ⴱⴱ
⫺.23
ⴱⴱ
.32
ⴱⴱ
.08 .24
ⴱⴱ
.03 .12 .10 ⫺.22
ⴱⴱ
7. Extraversion ⫺.15
ⴱ
⫺.18
ⴱ
⫺.00 .03 .21
ⴱⴱ
.09 ⴚ.21
ⴱⴱ
.32
ⴱⴱ
⫺.11
8. Agreeableness ⫺.20
ⴱⴱ
⫺.26
ⴱⴱ
.04 .03 .35
ⴱⴱ
.16
ⴱ
.42
ⴱⴱ
.06 ⫺.12
9. Neuroticism .44
ⴱⴱ
.31
ⴱⴱ
⫺.21
ⴱⴱ
.04 ⫺.21
ⴱⴱ
⫺.25
ⴱⴱ
⫺.29
ⴱⴱ
⫺.34
ⴱⴱ
.02
Note. Correlations are presented above the diagonal for wives and below the diagonal for husbands; correlations between husbands and wives appear on
the diagonal in bold.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
Table 3
Effects of Own Attachment Anxiety, Own Attachment Avoidance, Partner Attachment Anxiety, and Partner Attachment Avoidance on
Likelihood of Infidelity
BSEtpOdds ratio
Study (0 ⫽Study 1, 1 ⫽Study 2) ⫺0.89
ⴱ
0.38 ⫺2.33 .02 0.41
Attrition (0 ⫽completed all waves,
1⫽did not complete all waves) 0.72 0.40 1.78 .08 2.06
Gender (0 ⫽husband, 1 ⫽wife) 0.15 0.36 0.41 .68 1.16
Frequency of sex 0.00 0.00 0.56 .58 1.00
Marital satisfaction 0.02 0.03 0.78 .44 1.02
Neuroticism ⫺0.01 0.03 ⫺0.37 .71 0.99
Openness ⫺0.07
ⴱ
0.03 ⫺2.34 .02 0.93
Extraversion ⫺0.04 0.03 ⫺1.71 .09 0.96
Agreeableness 0.02 0.03 0.62 .54 1.02
Conscientiousness ⫺0.02 0.02 ⫺0.70 .48 0.98
Own attachment anxiety 0.74
ⴱⴱ
0.22 3.34 .00 2.10
Own attachment avoidance ⫺0.15 0.25 ⫺0.57 .57 0.86
Partner attachment anxiety 0.44
ⴱ
0.21 2.14 .03 1.56
Partner attachment avoidance ⫺0.80
ⴱ
0.32 ⫺2.51 .01 0.45
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
247
ATTACHMENT INSECURITY AND INFIDELITY

SE ⫽0.40, t(393) ⫽⫺0.05, p⫽.96; or the attrition dummy code,
B⫽⫺0.48, SE ⫽0.60, t(393) ⫽⫺0.80, p⫽.42.
In contrast to expectations, partner’s attachment avoidance was
negatively associated with own infidelity, indicating that spouses
with partners who were high in attachment avoidance were less
likely to engage in infidelity. Specifically, people who had partners
who scored 1 point higher than the mean on the attachment
avoidance subscale were .45 times less likely to perpetrate infi-
delity as people who had partners that scored at the mean on the
scale. This effect did not differ across husbands and wives, B⫽
.57, SE ⫽0.76, t(393) ⫽0.75, p⫽.46, or the attrition dummy
code, B⫽⫺0.98, SE ⫽0.82, t(393) ⫽⫺1.19, p⫽.24, but did
differ across the two studies, B⫽⫺2.00, SE ⫽0.57, t(393) ⫽
⫺3.50, p⬍.01. Specifically, partner attachment avoidance was
negatively associated with infidelity in Study 1, B⫽⫺2.26, SE ⫽
0.44, t(393) ⫽⫺5.09, p⬍.01, but not in Study 2, B⫽⫺.26,
SE ⫽0.39, t(393) ⫽⫺0.67, p⫽.50.
Do Partners’ Levels of Attachment Insecurity Interact
to Predict Infidelity?
To test whether partner attachment insecurity moderated either
association between own insecurity and own infidelity, we esti-
mated a new two-level model that regressed reports of own infi-
delity onto all covariates, mean-centered versions of all four at-
tachment insecurity scores, and all four possible interactions
(formed by multiplying together the mean-centered values of the
variables involved in the interaction)—that is, the Own Attach-
ment Anxiety ⫻Partner Attachment Anxiety interaction, the Own
Attachment Anxiety ⫻Partner Attachment Avoidance interaction,
the Own Attachment Avoidance ⫻Partner Attachment Anxiety
interaction, and the Own Attachment Avoidance ⫻Partner At-
tachment Avoidance interaction.
Results appear in Table 4, in which the main effects and cova-
riates are omitted to avoid redundancy with Table 3. As can be
seen, only the Own Attachment Anxiety ⫻Partner Attachment Anx-
iety interaction was significant. This interaction did not differ across
husbands and wives, B⫽⫺0.20, SE ⫽0.31, t(385) ⫽⫺0.66, p⫽
.51; the two studies, B⫽⫺0.45, SE ⫽0.68, t(385) ⫽⫺0.67, p⫽.51;
or the attrition dummy code, B⫽⫺0.66, SE ⫽0.57, t(385) ⫽⫺1.15,
p⫽.25.
To view the nature of the interaction, we plotted the likelihood
of own infidelity for spouses and partners 1 standard deviation
above and below the mean on attachment anxiety. As can be seen
in Figure 1, the only combination of partners that did not appear to
have an increased probability of infidelity was the one in which
relatively less anxious spouses were married to relatively less
anxious partners. Indeed, simple slopes analyses confirmed that
own attachment anxiety was positively associated with infidelity
even when partners were relatively low in attachment anxiety, B⫽
1.83, SE ⫽0.36, t(393) ⫽5.05, p⬍.01, and partner attachment
anxiety was positively associated with infidelity even when
spouses were relatively low in attachment anxiety, B⫽1.69, SE ⫽
0.34, t(393) ⫽4.93, p⬍.01. This interaction qualifies the main
effect of own attachment anxiety described earlier by indicating
that low levels of own anxiety are only associated with a lower
probability of infidelity for people whose partners are also lower in
attachment anxiety.
Discussion
Rationale and Summary of Results
Prior research addressing the association between attachment
insecurity and infidelity has (a) tended to examine people in dating
relationships, and (b) ignored the role of partner attachment inse-
curity. The two studies described here examined the implications
of own and partner attachment insecurity for infidelity in two
samples of married couples, and the results differed from the
results obtained in prior research on dating individuals in two
important ways. First, whereas prior research suggests avoidantly
attached individuals in dating relationships are more likely to
engage in infidelity (DeWall et al., 2011), avoidant attachment was
unrelated to infidelity in these studies of marriage. The fact that
this effect was not significantly positive cannot be explained by
lack of power because the direction of the nonsignificant effect
was negative. Second, whereas prior research suggests that anx-
ious attachment is unrelated to infidelity in dating relationships
(e.g., DeWall et al., 2011), anxiously attached individuals were
more likely to engage in infidelity in these marriages. Further, a
significant Own Attachment Anxiety ⫻Partner Attachment Anx-
iety interaction qualified this main effect, indicating that either
partner being high in attachment anxiety appears to be sufficient to
increase the odds of infidelity. Finally, intimates with avoidantly
attached partners were less likely to engage in infidelity in Study
1, regardless of own insecurity. None of these effects differed
across men and women, and only the effect of partner avoidance
differed across the two studies.
Table 4
Interactive Effects of Own Attachment Anxiety, Own Attachment Avoidance, Partner Attachment Anxiety, and Partner Attachment
Avoidance on Likelihood of Infidelity
BSE t pOdds ratio
Own Attachment Anxiety ⫻Partner
Attachment Anxiety ⫺.95
ⴱ
0.25 ⫺3.77 .00 0.38
Own Attachment Anxiety ⫻Partner
Attachment Avoidance .16 0.19 0.88 .38 1.18
Own Attachment Avoidance ⫻Partner
Attachment Anxiety ⫺.13 0.13 ⫺0.96 .34 0.88
Own Attachment Avoidance ⫻Partner
Attachment Avoidance .10 0.31 0.33 .74 1.11
ⴱ
p⬍.01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
248 RUSSELL, BAKER, AND MCNULTY

Theoretical and Practical Implications
These findings have important theoretical and practical impli-
cations. Regarding theory, they provide a more complete picture of
the role of attachment anxiety in predicting marital infidelity. For
example, consistent with dyadic models of personality (Shoda et
al., 2002;Zayas et al., 2002), these findings demonstrate that the
implications of one’s own attachment anxiety for infidelity appear
to depend on the partner’s level of attachment anxiety, such that
attachment anxiety in either member of the couple increases the
likelihood that either spouse will perpetrate an infidelity. It may be
that both own and partner attachment anxiety predict infidelity for
the same reason; for example, perhaps anxiety in either partner
simply provides enough of a threat to intimacy to motivate spouses
to seek out alternative partners. Alternatively, own and partner
attachment anxiety may lead to infidelity for different reasons.
Future research may benefit by identifying the mechanisms re-
sponsible for this interactive association.
Additionally, these findings raise important questions regarding
the role of attachment avoidance in predicting marital infidelity. In
contrast to research on dating couples, in which own attachment
avoidance was positively associated with infidelity, own attach-
ment avoidance was unassociated with infidelity in these two
studies of marriage. Further, partner attachment avoidance was
negatively associated with infidelity in Study 1. Given that both
findings were unexpected, and given that the negative association
between partner attachment and infidelity did not replicate in
Study 2, future research may benefit by attempting to replicate and
explain both associations. In line with recent research by Lemay
and Dudley (2011), partner avoidant attachment may be negatively
associated with infidelity because spouses with an avoidantly
attached partner may be particularly careful not to disrupt their
relationships.
Finally, these findings suggest that it may be important to study
married spouses, rather than dating partners, to best understand the
implications of various psychological traits and processes for
marital relationships. As noted previously, one important differ-
ence between dating and marital relationships is that married
individuals demonstrate higher levels of commitment, and existing
research demonstrates that commitment moderates the associations
between interpersonal processes (Amodio & Showers, 2005;Frye,
McNulty, & Karney, 2008;Miller & Maner, 2010). For example,
Miller and Maner (2010) reported that whereas cues to a woman’s
fertility were positively associated with ratings of her attractive-
ness among relatively uncommitted men, those same cues were
negatively associated with attractiveness among relatively com-
mitted men. Commitment may similarly moderate the effects of
attachment insecurity on infidelity. Indeed, whereas DeWall and
colleagues (2011) demonstrated that people in dating relationships,
who tend to be less committed, on average, perpetrate infidelities
to avoid intimacy, Allen and Baucom (2004) demonstrated that
married individuals, who tend to be more committed, on average,
perpetrate infidelities to increase intimacy. Accordingly, it makes
sense that infidelity in a dating relationship is more likely among
those high in attachment avoidance, whereas infidelity in marital
relationships is more likely among those high in attachment anx-
iety. In other words, commitment may not only mediate the effects
of attachment insecurity on infidelity, as demonstrated by DeWall
and colleagues (2011), but also moderate the effects of attachment
on infidelity.
Regarding practice, the current findings suggest several avenues for
improving the effectiveness of interventions to reduce infidelity. First,
these results highlight the potential benefits of assuaging intimates’
attachment-related concerns. Indeed, interventions such as attachment-
based family therapy (Shpigel, Diamond, & Diamond, 2012) and
attachment-focused group intervention (Kilmann et al., 1999) have
been effective at reducing attachment anxiety and thus may help
prevent infidelity among anxiously attached intimates. Second,
given that partners’ attachment insecurity was associated with
engagement in infidelity, practitioners may benefit from teaching
their clients to be responsive to their partner’s attachment-related
concerns. Indeed, intimates report reduced attachment insecurity
when they are with responsive partners than when they are with
unresponsive partners (e.g., Whiffen, 2005; see also Little, Mc-
Nulty, & Russell, 2010); thus, being responsive may help prevent
infidelity in these relationships.
Strengths, Limitations, and Directions for Future
Research
Our confidence in these results is enhanced by several strengths of
the research. First, with the exception of the negative association
between partner attachment avoidance and infidelity, the effects re-
ported here did not differ across two independent studies, providing
confidence that they were not spurious because of the low number of
infidelities in each study. Second, whereas other studies have col-
lapsed across married and dating individuals (e.g., Allen & Baucom,
2004;DeWall et al., 2011), potentially obscuring the different impli-
cations of attachment infidelity in each type of relationship, our
samples consisted of only married couples. Third, helping to mini-
mize the problems associated with retrospective reports, both studies
used a prospective design in which spouses first reported on attach-
ment and then reported on the perpetration of infidelity. Finally, both
studies controlled for several potential confounds— the frequency of
sexual intercourse in the marriage, marital satisfaction, and personal-
ity.
Nevertheless, several factors limit the interpretations and general-
izations of these results until they can be replicated and extended in
future research. First, although these studies were longitudinal and
controlled several individual difference variables, the results are nev-
ertheless correlational, and thus causal conclusions should be drawn
Figure 1. Interactive effect of own attachment anxiety and partner at-
tachment anxiety on likelihood of infidelity.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
249
ATTACHMENT INSECURITY AND INFIDELITY

with caution. Second, given that our samples consisted of newlywed
couples married less than five years, caution should be used when
generalizing these findings to lengthier marriages. Given the effects of
attachment insecurity on infidelity appear to differ across married and
unmarried people, future research may benefit from examining
whether they also differ across couples in marriages of different
lengths as well. Third, the definition of infidelity was open to partic-
ipants’ interpretation and the items assessing infidelity were worded
differently for own compared with partner reports of infidelity. As
such, our measure of infidelity may have added error variance that
limited our ability to detect some effects, such as any effects of own
avoidant attachment. Fourth, although the samples were diverse in
some important ways (e.g., education obtained, income), they were
homogenous in other regards (e.g., age, ethnicity, religion). Ethnicity,
in particular, may play an important role, given that previous findings
indicate that African Americans and Hispanic Americans report
greater marital infidelity (e.g., Allen et al., 2005;Amato & Rogers,
1997;Greeley, 1994). Future research may benefit by examining
whether ethnicity, or any differences associated with it, moderates the
results that emerged here.
Conclusions
Prior research on unmarried couples demonstrates that own attach-
ment anxiety is unassociated with infidelity, whereas own attachment
avoidance is positively associated with infidelity. Consistent with the
idea that certain processes may differ across more versus less com-
mitted relationships, these two studies of married couples, in contrast,
indicate that own and partner attachment anxiety interact to positively
predict marital infidelity, whereas own attachment avoidance is un-
related to marital infidelity. Researchers should be cautious in assum-
ing that samples of dating couples inform our theoretical understand-
ing of marriage and vice versa.
References
Allen, E. S., Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., Snyder, D. K., Gordon, K. C.,
& Glass, S. P. (2005). Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual fac-
tors in engaging in and responding to extramarital involvement. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 12, 101–130. doi:10.1093/clipsy
.bpi014
Allen, E. S., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Adult attachment and patterns of
extradyadic involvement. Family Process, 43, 467– 488. doi:10.1111/j
.1545-5300.2004.00035.x
Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital
problems and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
59, 612– 624. doi:10.2307/353949
Amodio, D. M., & Showers, C. J. (2005). “Similarity breeds liking”
revisited: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 22, 817– 836. doi:10.1177/0265407505058701
Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Understanding
infidelity: Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family
Psychology, 15, 735–749. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.4.735
Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in hetero-
sexual dating couples: The role of gender, personality differences, and
sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
22, 339 –360. doi:10.1177/0265407505052440
Beach, S. R. H., Jouriles, E. N., & O’Leary, D. K. (1985). Extramarital sex:
Impact on depression and commitment in couples seeking marital ther-
apy. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 11, 99 –108. doi:10.1080/
00926238508406075
Betzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study.
Current Anthropology, 30, 654 – 676. doi:10.1086/203798
Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A.
(2006). When sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientations, sexual
experience, and relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 929 –943. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.929
Bogaert, A. F., & Sadava, S. (2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior.
Personal Relationships, 9, 191–204. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00012
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, NY: Guilford.
Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment,
affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267–283. doi:10.1177/
0146167295213008
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2001).
Attachment orientations, dependence, and behavior in a stressful situa-
tion: An application of the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 821– 843. doi:10.1177/
0265407501186005
Cano, A., & O’Leary, K. D. (2000). Infidelity and separations precipitate
major depressive episodes and symptoms of nonspecific depression and
anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 774 –781.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.68.5.774
DeWall, C. N., Lambert, N. M., Slotter, E. B., Pond, R. S., Deckman, T.,
Finkel, E. J.,...Fincham, F. D. (2011). So far away from one’s partner,
yet so close to romantic alternatives: Avoidant attachment, interest in
alternatives, and infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 101, 1302–1316. doi:10.1037/a0025497
Drigotas, S., Safstrom, C., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model
prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 77, 509 –524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.509
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment styles as a predictor of adult
romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
58, 281–291. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.281
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Callan, V. J. (1994). Attachment style,
communication and satisfaction in the early years of marriage. In K.
Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships:
Vol. 5. Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 269 –308). London, UK:
Jessica Kingsley.
Frye, N. E., McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2008). How do constraints
on leaving a marriage affect behavior within the marriage? Journal of
Family Psychology, 22, 153–161. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.153
Gentzler, A. L., & Kerns, K. A. (2004). Associations between insecure
attachment and sexual experiences. Personal Relationships, 11, 249 –
265. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00081.x
Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1985). Sex differences in type of extramarital
involvement and marital dissatisfaction. Sex Roles, 12, 1101–1120.
doi:10.1007/BF00288108
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits.
American Psychologist, 48, 26 –34. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C.,
Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality
Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal
of Research in Personality, 40, 84 –96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
Greeley, A. (1994). Marital infidelity. Society, 31, 9 –13. doi:10.1007/
BF02693241
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
511–524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
Hazan, C., Zeifman, D., & Middleton, K. (1994). Adult romantic attach-
ment, affection, and sex. Paper presented at the 7th International Con-
ference on Personal Relationships, Groningen, The Netherlands.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
250 RUSSELL, BAKER, AND MCNULTY

Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation
of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 967–
980. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.967
Kane, H. S., Jaremka, L. M., Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., Collins, N. L.,
& Feeney, B. C. (2007). Feeling supported and feeling satisfied: How
one partner’s attachment style predicts the other partner’s relationship
experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 535–555.
doi:10.1177/0265407507079245
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kilmann, P. R., Laughlin, J. E., Carranza, L. V., Downer, J. T., Major, S.,
& Parnell, M. M. (1999). Effects of an attachment-focused group pre-
ventive intervention on insecure women. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 3, 138 –147. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.3.2.138
Klohnen, E. C., & 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,
74, 211–223. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.211
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The
social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lemay, E. P., & Dudley, K. L. (2011). Caution: Fragile! Regulating the
interpersonal security of chronically insecure partners. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 100, 681–702. doi:10.1037/a0021655
Little, K. C., McNulty, J. K., & Russell, V. M. (2010). Sex buffers
intimates against the negative implications of attachment insecurity.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 484 – 498. doi:10.1177/
0146167209352494
Liu, C. (2000). A theory of marital sexual life. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 62, 363–374. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00363.x
Lydon, J. E., Meana, M., Sepinwall, D., Richards, N., & Mayman, S.
(1999). The commitment calibration hypothesis: When do people de-
value attractive alternatives? Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
tin, 25, 152–161. doi:10.1177/0146167299025002002
Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment
in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 1092–1106. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.1092
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system
in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes.
In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp.
53–152). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-
2601(03)01002-5
Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2010). Evolution and relationship mainte-
nance: Fertility cues lead committed men to devalue relationship alter-
native. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1081–1084.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.004
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the depen-
dent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141–151. doi:
10.2307/351302
Orzeck, T., & Lung, E. (2005). Big-five personality differences of cheaters
and non-cheaters. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Per-
sonality, Social, 24, 274 –286. doi:10.1007/s12144-005-1028-3
Pistole, C. M. (1993). Attachment relationships: Self-disclosure and trust.
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 15, 94 –106.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associa-
tions: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 16, 172–186. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4
Rusbult, C. E., Olsen, N., Davis, J. L., & Hannon, P. (2001). Commitment
and relationship maintenance mechanisms. In J. H. Harvey & A. Wenzel
(Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement
(pp. 87–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sa
˘nchez Sosa, J. J., Hernández Guzmán, L., & Romero, M. L. (1997).
Psychosocial predictors of marital breakup: An exploratory study in
Mexican couples and former couples. Archivos Hispanoamericanos de
Sexología, 3, 125–136.
Schmitt, D. (2004). The Big Five related to risky sexual behavior across 10
world regions: Differential personality associations of sexual promiscu-
ity and relationship infidelity. European Journal of Personality, 18,
301–319. doi:10.1002/per.520
Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Self-esteem in marriage. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 30, 371–390. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00023-4
Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment styles and the “Big
Five” personality traits: Their connections with each other and with
romantic relationship outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 18, 536 –545. doi:10.1177/0146167292185003
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (in press). The role of attachment security
in adolescent and adult close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L.
Campbell (Eds.), Oxford handbook of close relationships. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Shoda, Y., Tiernan, S. L., & Mischel, W. (2002). Personality as a dynam-
ical system: Emergence of stability and distinctiveness from intra- and
interpersonal interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6,
316 –325. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0604_06
Shpigel, M. S., Diamond, G. M., & Diamond, G. S. (2012). Changes in
parenting behaviors, attachment, depressive symptoms, and suicidal
ideation in attachment– based family therapy for depressive and suicidal
adolescents. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 271–283.
doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00295.x
Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic rela-
tionships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971–980.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.971
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking
and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The
role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
62, 434 – 446. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.434
Smith, T. W. (1994). Attitudes toward sexual permissiveness: Trends,
correlates, and behavioral connections. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Sexuality
across the life course (pp. 63–97). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Spanier, G. B., & Margolis, R. L. (1983). Marital separation and extra-
marital sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 19, 23– 48. doi:
10.1080/00224498309551167
Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in
personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 595–
608. doi:10.2307/353245
Thompson, A. P. (1983). Extramarital sex: A review of the research
literature. Journal of Sex Research, 19, 1–22. doi:10.1080/
00224498309551166
Whiffen, V. E. (2005). The role of partner characteristics in attachment
insecurity and depressive symptoms. Personal Relationships, 12, 407–
423. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00123.x
Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in
a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 167–174. doi:10.1080/
00224499709551881
Wiggins, J. D., & Lederer, D. A. (1984). Differential antecedents of
infidelity in marriage. American Mental Health Counselors Association
Journal, 6, 152–161.
Zayas, V., Shoda, Y., & Ayduk, O. N. (2002). Personality in context: An
interpersonal systems perspective. Journal of Personality, 70, 851–900.
doi:10.1111/1467-6494.05026
Received July 4, 2012
Revision received December 21, 2012
Accepted January 4, 2013 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
251
ATTACHMENT INSECURITY AND INFIDELITY