Insecure attachment and depressive symptoms: The mediating role of rumination, empathy, and forgiveness Jeni L. Burnette a, * , Don E. Davis b , Jeffrey D. Green b , Everett L. Worthington Jr. b , Erin Bradfield c a University of Richmond, Department of Psychology, 28 Westhampton Way, Richmond, VA, 23173, United States b Virginia Commonwealth University, Department of Psychology, 806 West Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23284 USA c Duke University, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Box 90086, 9 Flowers Drive, Durham, NC 27708 USA article info Article history: Received 29 July 2008 Received in revised form 3 October 2008 Accepted 13 October 2008 Available online 28 November 2008 Keywords: Attachment Forgiveness Empathy Rumination Depression abstract The authors investigated the associations between attachment, empathy, rumination, forgiveness, and depressive symptoms via the framework of attachment theory. Participants (N = 221; 141 F and 80 M) completed a battery of questionnaires. We hypothesized that (a) anxious and avoidant attachment would be negatively linked to dispositional forgiveness; (b) the anxious attachment–forgiveness link would be mediated through excessive rumination; (c) the avoidance attachment–forgiveness link would be med- iated through lack of empathy; and (d) the insecure attachment–depression relation would, in turn, be partially mediated by the forgiveness process. SEM modeling confirmed these propositions, revealing the potential deleterious outcomes associated with insecure attachment and unforgiving responses to offenses. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Research generally points to the benefits of replacing anger with forgiveness for individuals, relationships, and societies. For example, forgiveness promotes harmony, trust, and reconciliation and improved mental well-being and physical health (e.g., Tous- saint & Webb, 2005; Worthington & Scherer, 2004). Despite bene- fits, evolutionary perspectives suggest that people are predisposed to respond with vengeance. However, after initial unforgiving motivations are evoked, forgiveness can be reached if the victim values the relationship, cares about the offender, and feels secure in the relationship (McCullough, 2008). When is this transforma- tion of motivation more attainable? This study maintains that dif- ferences in motivation to forgive are representative of differences in relationship orientation. More specifically, we integrate attach- ment theory with an evolutionary theory of forgiveness to explore if excessive rumination and an inability to empathize help explain the links between insecure attachment and reduced forgiveness found in previous research (Burnette, Taylor, Worthington, & For- syth, 2007). Specifically, we focus on forgivingness, or the disposi- tional tendency to be more or less forgiving across time, people and situations (Roberts, 1995). We also extend past work by exam- ining the mental health ramifications (i.e., depressive symptoms) of insecurely attached individuals’ responses to offenses. 1.1. Attachment theory Attachment research initially focused on how children experi- ence a sense of security in relationships with their primary caregiv- ers. Bowlby (1969/1982) contended that human beings are born with an innate but adaptable motivational system selectively de- signed to promote safety by inducing a need to seek proximity to attachment figures, especially in response to threat. The theory has been extended to relationships throughout the lifespan (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Across this work, most researchers agree that the attachment system varies along two distinct dimensions of anxiety and avoidance (e.g., Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996). Relational conflicts, such as interpersonal offenses, activate the attachment system. In times of relationship threat, according to Fraley and Shaver (2000), the avoidance dimension should influ- ence the strategies individuals use to regulate their attachment needs, whereas the anxiety dimension should predict affective pro- cesses. Consequently, these two components of the attachment sys- tem manifest themselves differently in social interactions. Individuals high in avoidance expect others to act in an uncaring and rejecting manner, and often respond to conflict with blame, aloofness, and withdrawal (e.g., Pietromonaco, Greenwood, & Bar- rett, 2004). In contrast, individuals low in avoidance anticipate that others will be responsive to their needs, and therefore are more likely to respond with communication, compassion, and sup- port-seeking. Highly anxious individuals exaggerate potential neg- ative consequences of conflict, and tend to respond with anger, 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.016 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 804 289 8113; fax: +1 804 2871905. E-mail address: jburnet2@richmond.edu (J.L. Burnette). Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 276–280 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid