Search for: All records

Attachment and sleep are linked across the lifespan, but attachment regulation of sleep among couples is understudied. This study aimed to replicate and extend prior research by testing whether romantic partners’ attachment orientations interacted to predict sleep, assessed via self-report and actigraphy over 14 days. Participants ( N = 208 couples) completed measures of attachment anxiety and avoidance and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. They also wore actigraphy monitors to assess nightly sleep quality and duration. Anxious people self-reported worse sleep quality, replicating two prior studies. In contrast to previous studies, anxious and low-avoidant people slept significantly worse with avoidant partners, while avoidant people slept somewhat better with avoidant partners. Results indicted dyadic regulation of several sleep outcomes and provided new insights regarding how partner avoidance can exacerbate or buffer sleep quality. 

Emerging theories suggest that interpersonal power may moderate partner regulation of attachment-related defenses. This study tested whether partner negative engagement (attack, blame, and criticism) and process power (direction and control of conflict resolution) interacted to predict avoidant and anxious targets’ behavioral and physiological responses to conflict. We expected the greatest dysregulation when avoidant targets’ autonomy concerns were maximally threatened (i.e., when partners directed conflict using highly negative tactics) and when anxious targets’ abandonment concerns were maximally threatened (i.e., when highly negative partners disengaged from conflict). Results indicated that highly anxious people recovered poorly from conflict regardless of partner negative engagement and process power but showed greatest heart rate reactivity (HRR) to conflict when partners used strong negative engagement but did not direct conflict. Highly avoidant individuals’ HRR did not differ based on partner negative engagement or process power. As expected, however, they recovered the worst from conflict when highly negative partners directed conflict discussions and recovered best when partners directed conflict without using blame or criticism. Findings suggest that the meaning and consequences of process power may differ for avoidant versus anxious targets and underscore the need to integrate multiple conceptualizations of interpersonal power into future research on partner regulation.