Autonomy–proximity imbalance: An attachment theory perspective on intrusiveness in romantic relationships Shiri Lavy a, * , Mario Mikulincer b , Phillip R. Shaver c a Department of Behavioral Sciences and Psychology, Ariel University Center, Ariel 44837, Israel b The New School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), P.O. Box 167, Herzliya 46150, Israel c Department of Psychology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8686, U.S.A. article info Article history: Received 2 September 2009 Received in revised form 29 November 2009 Accepted 2 December 2009 Available online 6 January 2010 Keywords: Attachment Anxiety Avoidance Intrusiveness Couple relationships Transgressions abstract We examined associations between two kinds of attachment insecurity (anxiety and avoidance) and intrusiveness in couple relationships. One hundred fifty-six adults completed measures of attachment insecurities and variables related to intrusiveness (engaging in intrusive behavior, perceiving a partner as intrusive, subjective experiences of being intrusive, and reacting to intrusive behavior). Attachment anxiety was associated with more intrusive behavior, more ambivalent reactions to partner intrusiveness, and greater emotionality when being intrusive. Avoidance was associated with perceiving a partner as intrusive, reacting critically and establishing distance in response to partner intrusiveness, and feeling concerned and caring when being intrusive. Results and their implications are discussed from an attach- ment theory perspective. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Autonomy and relatedness, or interdependence, are important issues in most close relationships (Prager & Roberts, 2004). Achiev- ing balance between them is often challenging yet necessary for partners’ mutual satisfaction (e.g., Bowlby, 1982; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Here, we focus on one kind of imbalance between autonomy and relatedness – intrusiveness – viewed from the perspective of attachment theory. This theory is a broad and extensively researched framework for understanding normative interpersonal processes as well as individual differences in couple relationships (see Cassidy & Shaver, 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for reviews). In the study reported here we explored individual differences in the behavioral and experiential processes involved in regulating closeness and autonomy in couple relationships. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982) conceptualizes human moti- vation in terms of several biologically evolved ‘‘behavioral sys- tems,” including attachment, exploration, caregiving, and sex. According to the theory, the attachment system evolved to respond to threats and stresses by causing a person to seek protection and comfort from familiar caregivers. If proximity-seeking reduces the threat and distress, the threatened person’s mind turns to activities governed by other behavioral systems such as exploration. Engag- ing in what Bowlby called exploration leads to increased cognitive, behavioral, and social skills, which contribute over time to the development of secure autonomy. When a person has regulated emotions effectively by relying on security-providing ‘‘attachment figures” (relationship partners who provide a ‘‘safe haven” and a ‘‘secure base for exploration”; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), then the person can alternate, at will, between comfortable closeness and self-confident autonomy. Problems develop when a primary caregiver is either self-preoc- cupied and intrusive or intimacy-avoidant and unsupportive. Volu- minous research, both correlational and longitudinal, indicates that a child raised under these conditions develops what Bowlby (1982) called attachment insecurity (see Cassidy & Shaver, 2008, for reviews). Early in the history of attachment research, Ainsworth et al. (1978) conceptualized the major forms of insecurity in terms of two categories, anxious and avoidant attachment, and discov- ered that the anxious, clingy pattern was associated with interac- tions with a self-preoccupied and intrusive attachment figure, whereas the avoidant, compulsively self-reliant pattern was asso- ciated with interactions with a caregiver who was distant and unsupportive. A third insecure pattern, described and labeled ‘‘dis- organized” by Main and Solomon (1990), is characterized by con- flicting components of the other two insecure patterns. Personality and social psychologists who study attachment-re- lated mental processes and behavior in adolescents and adults 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.12.004 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 52 8814582; fax: +972 57 7961039. E-mail address: shirilavy@gmail.com (S. Lavy). Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 552–556 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid