Attachment Avoidance and the Curvilinear Effects of Partner Support
Corresponding Authors:
Yuthika Girme ()
Nickola Overall ()
Supplementary Materials
“All or Nothing”: Attachment Avoidance and the Curvilinear Effects of Partner Support
Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., Simpson, J. A., & Fletcher, G. J. O.
Contents / Page1. Correlations across Measures / 2
Study 1
Study 2
Study 3 / 2
3
4
2. Scatterplots between Partners’ Support and Recipients’ Outcomes for Low versus High Attachment Groups / 5
Study 1
Study 2
Study 3
Study 4 / 6
7-9
10-11
12-17
3. Histograms of Partners’ Support / 18
Study 1
Study 2
Study 3
Study 4 / 19-20
21-22
23-24
25-26
4. Figures for Significant Interactions between Partners’ Support and Attachment Anxiety / 27
Study 1
Study 2
Study 3
Study 4 / 28-29
30-31
32-33
5. How to Calculate Inflection Points for Moderated Curvilinear Effects / 34-35
6. Coding Schedule for Partners’ Practical and Emotional Support (Studies 1-2) / 36-37
22
Attachment Avoidance and the Curvilinear Effects of Partner Support
Corresponding Authors:
Yuthika Girme ()
Nickola Overall ()
1. Correlations across Measures for Each Study
This section provides the full correlation tables across measures for cross-sectional dyadic interaction studies (Studies 1-3).
Table SM1.1. Correlations across Measures (Study 1)
1. / 2. / 3. / 4. / 5. / 6.1. Recipients’ Attachment Avoidance / -
2. Recipients’ Attachment Anxiety / .18* / -
3. Partners’ Practical Support / .01 / .05 / -
4. Partners’ Emotional Support / .05 / .19* / .15 / -
5. Recipients’ Distress / .27** / .32* / .04 / -.10 / -
Alternative Explanations
6. Recipients’ Desired Change / .01 / -.09 / -.03 / .01 / .01 / -
7. Recipients’ Support-Seeking / -.05 / -.16 / -.05 / .10 / -.22* / .08
Note: df = 120. *p < .05. **p < .01.
22
Attachment Avoidance and the Curvilinear Effects of Partner Support
Corresponding Authors:
Yuthika Girme ()
Nickola Overall ()
Table SM1.2. Correlations across Measures (Study 2)
1. / 2. / 3. / 4. / 5. / 6. / 7. / 8. / 9. / 10. / 11.1. Recipients’ Attachment Avoidance / -
2. Recipients’ Attachment Anxiety / .13 / -
3. Partners’ Practical Support / -.11 / -.06 / -
4. Partners’ Emotional Support / -.04 / .01 / .22** / -
5. Recipients’ Distress / .18* / .25** / .03 / -.03 / -
6. Recipients’ Goal-Related Efficacy / -.10 / -.23** / -.08 / -.00 / -.40** / -
7. Perceived Partner Control/Criticism / .04 / .04 / .03 / -.21** / .25** / -.11 / -
Alternative Explanations
8. Recipients’ Desired Change / .10 / .05 / -.16* / -.07 / .12 / -.07 / .06 / -
9. Recipients’ Support-Seeking / -.04 / -.09 / -.07 / -.08 / -.12 / .07 / -.18** / .10 / -
10. Recipients’ Desired Practical Support / -.07 / .11 / .15* / .03 / -.10 / .23* / -.04 / .01 / .12 / -
11. Recipient’s Desired Emotional Support / -.17* / .06 / .07 / .04 / -.07 / .04 / -.09 / .02 / .14 / .54** / -
12. Recipients’ Emotional Suppression / .20** / .18* / .03 / -.03 / .49** / -.37** / .29** / .15* / -.18* / -.21** / -.05
Note: df = 198. *p < .05. **p < .01.
22
Attachment Avoidance and the Curvilinear Effects of Partner Support
Corresponding Authors:
Yuthika Girme ()
Nickola Overall ()
Table SM.3. Correlations across Measures (Study 3)
1. / 2. / 3. / 4. / 5. / 6. / 7.1. Recipients’ Attachment Avoidance / -
2. Recipients’ Attachment Anxiety / .26* / -
3. Partners’ Practical Support / -.25* / -.00 / -
4. Partners’ Emotional Support / -.04 / -.23 / .52* / -
5. Recipients’ Distress / .14 / .40** / .08 / -.22 / -
6. Recipients’ Stressor-Related Efficacy / -.03 / -.30* / .12 / .35* / -.29* / -
Alternative Explanations
7. Recipients’ Support Need / -.20 / .08 / -.06 / -.16 / .41** / -.14 / -
8. Recipients’ Emotional Suppression / .09 / .14 / -.04 / -.27* / .35** / -.15 / .24
Note: df = 62. *p < .05. **p < .01
22
Attachment Avoidance and the Curvilinear Effects of Partner Support
Corresponding Authors:
Yuthika Girme ()
Nickola Overall ()
2. Scatterplots between Partners’ Support and Recipients’ Outcomes for Low versus High Attachment Groups
We examined the scatterplots between partners’ support and recipients’ outcomes for groups low versus high on attachment avoidance (and anxiety) to rule out any concerns that the moderated curvilinear associations reported were driven by outliers. The scatterplots, shown in the following pages, demonstrate that there is no evidence of outliers across the four studies and relevant outcomes.
Study 1:
1. Partners’ practical support and post-discussion distress (top figures) for groups low and high in attachment avoidance (top left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (top right)
2. Partners’ emotional support and post-discussion distress (bottom figures) for groups low and high in attachment avoidance (bottom left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (bottom right)
Blue = attachment avoidance and anxiety below the mean (group 0)
Green = attachment avoidance and anxiety above the mean (group 1)
Study 2:
1. Partners’ practical support and post-discussion distress (top figures) for groups low and high in attachment avoidance (top left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (top right)
2. Partners’ emotional support and post-discussion distress (bottom figures) for groups low and high in attachment avoidance (bottom left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (bottom right)
Blue = attachment avoidance and anxiety below the mean (group 0)
Green = attachment avoidance and anxiety above the mean (group 1)
Study 2:
1. Partners’ practical support and goal-related efficacy (top figures) for groups low and high in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
2. Partners’ emotional support and goal-related efficacy (bottom figures) for groups low and high and in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
Blue = attachment avoidance and anxiety below the mean (group 0)
Green = attachment avoidance and anxiety above the mean (group 1)
Study 2:
1. Partners’ practical support and perceived partner control and criticism (top figures) for groups low and high in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
2. Partners’ emotional support and perceived partner control and criticism (bottom figures) for groups low and high in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
Blue = attachment avoidance and anxiety below the mean (group 0)
Green = attachment avoidance and anxiety above the mean (group 1)
Study 3:
1. Partners’ practical support and post-discussion distress (top figures) for groups low and high in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
2. Partners’ emotional support and post-discussion distress (bottom figures) for groups low and high in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
Blue = attachment avoidance and anxiety below the mean (group 0)
Green = attachment avoidance and anxiety above the mean (group 1)
Study 3:
1. Partners’ practical support and stressor-related efficacy (top figures) for groups low and high in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
2. Partners’ emotional support and stressor-related efficacy (bottom figures) for groups low and high in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
Blue = attachment avoidance and anxiety below the mean (group 0)
Green = attachment avoidance and anxiety above the mean (group 1)
Study 4:
1. Partners’ practical support and depressed mood (top figures) for groups low (group = 0) and high (group = 1) in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
2. Partners’ emotional support and depressed mood (bottom figures) for groups low (group = 0) and high (group = 1) in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
Group 0 = attachment anxiety and avoidance below the mean
Group 1 = attachment anxiety and avoidance above the mean
Study 4:
1. Partners’ practical support and perceived partner control and criticism (top figures) for groups low (group = 0) and high (group = 1) in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
2. Partners’ emotional support and perceived partner control and criticism (bottom figures) for groups low (group = 0) and high (group = 1) in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
Group 0 = attachment anxiety and avoidance below the mean
Group 1 = attachment anxiety and avoidance above the mean
Study4:
1. Partners’ practical support and distancing (top figures) for groups low (group = 0) and high (group = 1) in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
2. Partners’ emotional support and distancing (bottom figures) for groups low (group = 0) and high (group = 1) in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
Group 0 = attachment anxiety and avoidance below the mean
Group 1 = attachment anxiety and avoidance above the mean
3. Histograms of Partners’ Practical and Emotional Support
This section examines the frequency of partners’ practical and emotional support across all studies. The table below presents indices of skew. In the following pages, the histograms for groups high and low in attachment insecurity are provided for visual inspection.
Table SM.3.1 Skew Statistics and Standard Errors for Partners’ Support Across Studies
Study 1 / Study 2 / Study 3 / Study 4Skew / SE / Skew / SE / Skew / SE / Skew / SE
Partners’ Practical Support / .09 / .22 / .31 / .17 / -.71 / .30 / .45 / .46
Partners’ Emotional Support / 2.11 / .22 / .76 / .17 / -1.01 / .30 / -.14 / .46
Partners’ Practical Support: There was very little skew in the distribution of partners’ practical support across the studies, and practical support was similarly distributed for recipients high and low in attachment avoidance. Thus, there was no evidence that high levels of practical support occurs relatively infrequently or that the down-turn in negative responses for highly avoidant recipients might be a rare occurrence.
Partners’ Emotional Support: In contrast, in Study 1 and Study 3 emotional support demonstrated substantial skew (in opposite directions). In Study 1, when couples discussed personal goals, partners frequently provided low levels of emotional support. In Study 3, when couples discussed significant stressors, partners tended to provide very high levels of emotional support. These distribution differences map the different contextual needs of recipients. Nonetheless, although levels of emotional support were influenced by contextual factors, the distribution of partners’ emotional support was similar regardless of recipients’ attachment insecurity. Moreover, the curvilinear interaction that emerged for emotional support was in Study 3, when the stressful nature of the context made emotional support more relevant and high levels of emotional support were delivered frequently. We discuss the contextual nature of this effect in the paper (see general discussion).
Study 1:
1. Partners’ practical support (top figures, M = 3.75, SD = 1.13) for groups low (group = 0) and high (group = 1) and in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
2. Partners’ emotional support (bottom figures, M = 1.80, SD = 1.03) for groups low (group = 0) and high (group = 1) and in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
Group 0 = attachment avoidance and anxiety below the mean
Group 1 = attachment anxiety and avoidance above the mean
Study 2:
1. Partners’ practical support (top figures, M = 4.31, SD = 1.13) for groups low (group = 0) and high (group = 1) and in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
2. Partners’ emotional support (bottom figures, M = 3.05, SD = 1.14) for groups low (group = 0) and high (group = 1) and in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
Group 0 = attachment avoidance and anxiety below the mean
Group 1 = attachment anxiety and avoidance above the mean
Study 3:
1. Perceived partners’ practical support (top figures, M = 5.23, SD = 1.47) for groups low (group = 0) and high (group = 1) and in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
2. Perceived partners’ emotional support (bottom figures, M = 5.41, SD = 1.41) for groups low (group = 0) and high (group = 1) and in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
Group 0 = attachment avoidance and anxiety below the mean
Group 1 = attachment anxiety and avoidance above the mean
Study 4:
1. Perceived partners’ practical support (top figures, M = 3.05, SD = 2.02) for groups low (group = 0) and high (group = 1) and in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)
2. Perceived partners’ emotional support (bottom figures, M = 3.96, SD = 2.08) for groups low (group = 0) and high (group = 1) and in attachment avoidance (left) and low and high in attachment anxiety (right)