از پرهیز تا روش: اثر برجستگی مرگ و میر و دلبستگی بر روی انگیزش برای ترمیم روابط آشفته

Previous research has shown that mortality salience (MS) increases relational strivings and that attachment style moderates these effects. The present study investigated the effects of MS and attachment on relational strivings toward troubled close relationship partners (family members, friends, and romantic partners). MS increased participants’ expectations for improvement in their troubled family relationships. In particular, MS increased fearful-avoidant individuals’ relational strivings toward troubled family members. The same pattern emerged for friendships, controlling for relationship importance. However, MS decreased individuals’ expectations for improvement in their troubled romantic relationships. The present research extends both the terror management and attachment literature, suggesting that MS can motivate fearful-avoidant individuals to overcome their avoidant tendency and repair their troubled relationships.

1. Introduction Humans are the only known species who are aware of their inevitable death. According to terror management theory (TMT), humans have developed psychological defenses to protect them from this terrifying reality (Becker, 1973 and Greenberg et al., 1986). Terror management theorists argue that close relationships provide one defense against death anxiety because relationships give meaning to life, offer security and protection, and provide symbolic immortality (Mikulincer, Florian, & Hirschberger, 2003). Several studies have shown that mortality salience (MS) increases the desire to form and maintain close relationships (see Mikulincer et al., 2003, for a review). Under MS, participants show increased commitment to romantic partners (Florian, Mikulincer, & Hirschberger, 2002), exaggerated perceptions of how positively romantic partners see them (Cox & Arndt, 2012), greater desire for intimacy in romantic relationships (Mikulincer & Florian, 2000), increased desire for proximity to parents (Cox et al., 2008), greater ease of recalling positive interactions with parents (Cox et al., 2008), and greater perceptions of temporal proximity of positive experiences with friends (Wakimoto, 2011). Whereas MS increases relational strivings, thinking about the dissolution of close relationships increases death-thought accessibility. For example, participants were more likely to provide death-related words on a word completion task after thinking about problems in their relationships (Florian et al., 2002) or imagining being separated from a relationship partner (Mikulincer, Florian, Birnbaum, & Malishkovitz, 2002). Although thinking about relationship problems increases death-thought accessibility, no study has examined whether MS motivates efforts to repair relationship problems. Research has shown that MS increases relational strivings following a partner’s criticism (Hirschberger, Florian, Mikulincer, 2003) and forgiveness in response to a partner’s hurtful offense (Van Tongeren, Green, Davis, Worthington, & Reid, 2013). However, in these studies, participants only imagined a single negative interaction. Furthermore, although Wakimoto (2011) found no effect of MS on the subjective temporal distance of a negative interaction with a friend, Wakimoto suggests that participants may not have perceived a single negative experience as a threat to the continuity of the friendship. Therefore, the present study specifically tested whether MS motivates relational strivings toward troubled close relationship partners. 1.1. Moderating role of attachment style Although several studies suggest that close relationships serve a terror management defense, research has shown that attachment style plays an important role in determining whether close relationships can effectively buffer existential concerns. Current attachment models conceptualize attachment along two dimensions: avoidance and anxiety (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Securely attached individuals exhibit low levels of avoidance and anxiety, whereas insecurely attached individuals may exhibit high anxiety (the anxious-ambivalent or preoccupied type), high avoidance (the dismissive-avoidant type), or high anxiety and avoidance (the fearful-avoidant type). Mikulincer and Florian (2000) found that securely attached individuals showed greater desire for intimacy in romantic relationships following MS, whereas insecurely attached participants did not. Similarly, Taubman-Ben-Ari, Findler, and Mikulincer (2002) found that securely but not insecurely attached participants showed lower levels of rejection sensitivity, enhanced feelings of interpersonal competence, and greater willingness to initiate social interactions with strangers following MS. Other research suggests that the terror management function of close relationships may not be limited to securely attached individuals. Following MS, Cox et al. (2008) found that securely attached individuals showed increased relational strivings toward a romantic partner, whereas anxious-ambivalent individuals showed increased relational strivings toward a parent. Moreover, Hart, Shaver, and Goldenberg (2005) demonstrated that even fearful-avoidants, whose baseline desire for closeness in their relationships was significantly lower than securely attached and anxious-ambivalent individuals, desired more closeness in their relationships following MS. 1.2. Current study This study investigated the effects of MS and attachment style on relational strivings toward troubled relationship partners. Because previous research has shown that MS increases relational strivings, MS was expected to motivate participants to repair their relationship problems and increase their expectations for improvement and future relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, because attachment style and relationship type appear to be key factors in determining which attachment group responds to MS with increased relational strivings (Cox et al., 2008), the present study investigated the moderating effects of attachment style in different types of troubled relationships. This study examined troubled friendships, family relationships, and romantic relationships because (1) it is easier for people to identify a troubled relationship if they are not constrained by the type of relationship from which they must choose, and (2) these are the attachment figures individuals seek in threatening situations (Hart et al., 2005).

3. Results 3.1. Descriptive statistics The majority of participants identified a troubled family relationship (N = 81) or friendship (N = 109), whereas fewer identified a troubled romantic relationship (N = 32). On average, participants rated the problems they were experiencing in their relationships as moderately severe and expected them to take several months to improve. 3.2. Analysis strategy For each type of relationship, a series of GLM analyses was performed with condition (dummy coded), attachment avoidance (henceforth avoidance), and attachment anxiety (henceforth anxiety) as predictors. Continuous predictors were standardized. 3.2.1. Family relationships 3.2.1.1. Composite improvement index There was a main effect of condition on participants’ expectations for improvement in their troubled family relationships, F(1,72) = 3.97, p ⩽ .05. Controlling for attachment avoidance and anxiety, participants in the MS condition expected more improvement in their troubled family relationships than did participants in the control condition (see Table 1). There was also a main effect for anxiety, F(1,72) = 7.10, p = .01, such that more anxious participants expected less improvement in their troubled family relationships, r = −0.26. Table 1. Overall means in the mortality salience and control conditions, controlling for attachment avoidance and anxiety. MS Control Family relationships Composite improvement 4.94 4.40 Self effort 4.83 4.23 Partner effort 4.33 3.79 Mutual effort 4.61 3.98 Future improvement 5.45 5.00 Time until resolution 3.84 4.70 Future relationship satisfaction 4.80 4.08 Romantic relationships Composite improvement 4.29 5.97 Self effort 4.05 5.34 Partner effort 4.42 6.09 Mutual effort 3.96 6.07 Future improvement 4.51 6.17 Time until resolution 4.61 1.38 Future relationship satisfaction 3.81 5.26 Note: All measures were rated on 7-point scales. Table options Moreover, there was a 3-way interaction among condition, avoidance, and anxiety, F(1,72) = 3.86, p ⩽ .05. To elucidate the interaction, a set of simple slopes analyses was performed, and estimated means were calculated at high (M + 1 SD) and low (M – 1 SD) levels of avoidance and anxiety (see Table 2). These analyses revealed a significant effect of condition at high levels of avoidance and anxiety, b = 1.53, SE = 0.57, t = 2.67, p < .01. Participants high in avoidance and anxiety expected more improvement in their troubled family relationships under MS than in the control condition (see Fig. 1). No such relationship was present for those low in anxiety or high in anxiety and low in avoidance. Table 2. Estimated means in the mortality salience and control conditions at high (M + 1 SD) and low (M – 1 SD) levels of attachment avoidance and anxiety. Anxiety low, avoidance low Anxiety low, avoidance high Anxiety high, avoidance low Anxiety high, avoidance high MS Control MS Control MS Control MS Control Family relationships Composite improvement 5.53 4.88 4.93 4.87 4.47 4.56 4.81 3.28 Self effort 5.52 4.67 4.86 4.93 4.22 4.31 4.72 3.02 Partner effort 5.04 4.30 4.28 4.27 3.76 3.84 4.23 2.76 Mutual effort 5.65 4.37 4.57 4.45 3.90 4.43 4.34 2.66 Future improvement 5.72 5.53 5.48 5.35 5.24 5.11 5.39 4.00 Future relationship satisfaction 5.05 4.78 4.89 4.79 4.52 4.38 4.74 2.37 Relationship importance 5.58 6.17 6.22 6.05 5.87 6.20 6.26 4.21 Friendships Composite improvement 4.73 4.34 4.34 4.72 4.52 4.42 4.53 3.66 Note: All measures were rated on 7-point scales. For friendships, estimated means were calculated when controlling for relationship importance. Simple slopes tests indicated that the means between conditions statistically differed at high levels of attachment avoidance and anxiety. No other means were statistically different. Table options Full-size image (14 K) Fig. 1. Participants’ expectations for improvement in their troubled family relationships as a function of condition (mortality salience vs. control), attachment avoidance, and attachment anxiety. Simple slopes were calculated at high (M + 1 SD) and low (M − 1 SD) levels of attachment avoidance and anxiety. Figure options Improvement subscales. Each subscale of the composite improvement index (Self effort, Partner effort, Mutual effort, and Improvement) showed the same pattern as the overall improvement index. Under MS, participants reported that they, their partners, and both of them together would put more effort into repairing their troubled family relationships, and that their relationships would show greater improvement (see Table 1). In particular, MS increased the amount of effort participants high in avoidance and anxiety expected themselves, their partners, and both of them together to put into repairing their family relationships and improved their perceptions about the likelihood that their relationships would improve (see Table 2). 3.2.1.2. Time until resolution There was a marginally significant main effect of condition on the time participants anticipated it taking for their troubled family relationships to improve, F(1,72) = 3.28, p < .08. Controlling for attachment avoidance and anxiety, participants expected their troubled family relationships to improve more quickly under MS than in the control condition (see Table 1). There was also a main effect for anxiety, F(1,72) = 7.79, p < .01, such that participants with greater anxiety expected their family relationships to take longer to improve, r = 0.30. No other main effects or interactions were significant. 3.2.1.3. Future relationship satisfaction There was a main effect of condition on participants’ expected future relationship satisfaction in their troubled family relationships, F(1,72) = 4.34, p < .05. Controlling for attachment avoidance and anxiety, participants expected greater future satisfaction in their family relationships under MS than in the control condition (see Table 1). There was also a main effect for anxiety, F(1,72) = 5.56, p < .05, such that more anxious participants expected less future relationship satisfaction, r = −0.24. Moreover, there was a marginally significant 3-way interaction among condition, avoidance, and anxiety, F(1,72) = 2.78, p < .10. To explicate the interaction, simple slopes analyses were conducted as before (see Table 2). These analyses indicated a significant effect of condition at high levels of avoidance and anxiety, b = 2.37, SE = 0.74, t = 3.23, p < .01. MS increased the future satisfaction participants high in avoidance and anxiety expected to experience in their family relationships (see Fig. 2). No such relationship was observed among those low in anxiety or high in anxiety and low in avoidance. Full-size image (14 K) Fig. 2. Participants’ anticipated future relationship satisfaction in their troubled family relationships as a function of condition (mortality salience vs. control), attachment avoidance, and attachment anxiety. Simple slops were calculated at high (M + 1 SD) and low (M − 1 SD) levels of attachment avoidance and anxiety. Figure options 3.2.2. Friendships 3.2.2.1. Expectations for improvement There were no main effects or interactions of condition, avoidance, and anxiety on participants’ expectations for improvement in their troubled friendships. 3.2.2.2. Time until resolution There was a main effect of avoidance on the time participants anticipated it taking for their troubled friendships to improve, F(1,99) = 4.21, p < .05. Participants higher in avoidance expected their troubled friendships to take longer to improve, r = 0.17. There was also an avoidance × anxiety interaction, F(1,99) = 4.42, p < .05. Simple slopes tests revealed a positive relationship between avoidance and expected time until resolution among those low in anxiety, b = 0.77, SE = 0.29, t = 2.67, p < .01, but no relationship between avoidance and expected time until resolution among those high in anxiety. 3.2.2.3. Future relationship satisfaction There were no significant effects of condition, avoidance, and anxiety on participants’ expected future satisfaction in their troubled friendships. 3.2.2.4. Exploratory analyses Participants rated their troubled family relationships as more important to them than their troubled friendships (see Table 3). Did MS increase participants’ relational strivings toward troubled family members but not friends because participants’ troubled family relationships were more important to them than their troubled friendships? To test this question, a GLM analysis was performed, examining the effects of MS, avoidance, and anxiety on participants’ expectations for improvement in their friendships, controlling for relationship importance. This analysis yielded a significant effect of relationship importance on expectations for improvement, F(1,97) = 109.42, p < .001, such that relationship importance was positively associated with expectations for improvement. Moreover, when controlling for relationship importance, a 3-way condition × avoidance × anxiety interaction emerged, F(1,97) = 5.27, p < .03. Table 3. Mean relationship importance and problem severity ratings by relationship type and condition. Overall Family Friend Romantic Family Friend Romantic MS Control MS Control MS Control Relationship importance 5.88a (1.60) 4.35b (1.83) 5.59a (1.48) 5.97a (1.40) 5.79a (1.77) 4.49a (1.69) 4.21a (1.97) 5.75a (1.45) 5.33a (1.56) Problem severity 4.14a (1.71) 3.44b (1.60) 4.94a (1.69) 3.82a (1.57) 4.42a (1.79) 3.31a (1.62) 3.57a (1.59) 5.30a (1.46) 4.25a (1.91) Note: Superscripts indicate which means statistically differed. Standard deviations are provided in parentheses. Table options To explicate the interaction, a set of simple slopes analyses was performed (see Table 2). These analyses revealed a significant effect of condition at high levels of avoidance and anxiety, b = 0.87, SE = 0.32, t = 2.68, p < .01. Participants high in avoidance and anxiety expected more improvement in their troubled friendships under MS than in the control condition (see Fig. 3). No such relationship was present for those low in anxiety or high in anxiety and low in avoidance. Full-size image (13 K) Fig. 3. Participants’ expectations for improvement in their troubled friendships as a function of condition (mortality salience vs. control), attachment avoidance, and attachment anxiety, controlling for relationship importance. Simple slopes were calculated at high (M − 1 SD) and low (M + 1 SD) levels of attachment avoidance and anxiety. Figure options 3.2.3. Romantic relationships 3.2.3.1. Expectations for improvement A main effect of condition emerged for participants’ expectations for improvement in their troubled romantic relationships, F(1,24) = 9.71, p < .01. Controlling for avoidance and anxiety, participants expected less improvement in their troubled romantic relationships in the MS condition than in the control condition (see Table 1). There was a main effect for anxiety and 2-way condition × anxiety interaction, but these effects were qualified by a 3-way condition × anxiety × avoidance interaction. Unfortunately, there were too few participants who identified troubled romantic relationships to analyze this interaction. Improvement subscales. Each subscale of the composite improvement index (Self effort, Partner effort, Mutual effort, and Improvement) showed the same pattern as the overall improvement index. Under MS, participants reported that they, their partners, and both of them together would put less effort into repairing their troubled romantic relationships, and that their relationships would show less improvement (see Table 1). 3.2.3.2. Time until resolution A main effect emerged for condition on the time participants anticipated it to take for their troubled romantic relationships to improve, F(1,24) = 15.22, p ⩽ .01. Participants in the MS condition expected their troubled romantic relationships to take longer to improve than did those in the control condition (see Table 1). Condition × attachment interactions were not analyzed due to the small N. 3.2.3.3. Future relationship satisfaction There was a marginally significant effect of condition on the future satisfaction participants expected in their troubled romantic relationships, F(1,24) = 3.33, p ⩽ .08. Participants in the MS condition expected less future satisfaction in their troubled romantic relationships than did those in the control condition (see Table 1). As before, interactions were not analyzed due to insufficient power. 3.3. Potential confounds 3.3.1. Positive and negative affect Possible differences in positive and negative affect were examined by condition, relationship type, avoidance, and anxiety to rule out alternative explanations for the findings. Anxiety was negatively associated with positive affect, r = −0.20 and positively associated with negative affect, r = 0.31. Avoidance was negatively associated with positive affect for those with troubled friendships, r = −0.21. There was also an avoidance × anxiety interaction for negative affect among those with troubled family relationships, F(1,72) = 5.23, p < .03. Avoidance was positively associated with negative affect among those high in anxiety, b = 0.16, SE = 0.04, t = 3.76, p < .001, and negatively associated with negative affect among those low in anxiety, b = −0.66, SE = 0.25, t = −2.68, p < .01. However, for each type of relationship, there were no significant differences in positive and negative affect by condition or interactions of condition with avoidance and anxiety. 3.3.2. Problem severity I also tested for differences in problem severity among the IVs. For family relationships and friendships, there were no significant differences in problem severity by condition, avoidance, and anxiety (though there was a trend for participants to view the problems in their troubled family relationships as less severe under MS; see Table 3). However, participants tended to view the problems in their troubled romantic relationships as more severe under MS than in the control condition (see Table 3), t(30) = −1.76, p < .09, and this marginal difference in problem severity ratings between conditions became significant when controlling for avoidance and anxiety, F(1,24) = 16.75, p < .001 (MMS = 5.31, Mcontrol = 2.81). 3.3.3. Relationship importance As previously mentioned, participants rated their troubled family and romantic relationships as more important than their troubled friendships (see Table 3). However, there were no differences in relationship importance by condition, avoidance, and anxiety for friendships and romantic relationships. For troubled family relationships, there was a condition × avoidance interaction, F(1,72) = 4.71, p < .05, but neither simple slopes analysis at high (M + 1 SD) or low (M – 1 SD) levels of avoidance was significant. These analyses may have been nonsignificant because only participants high in avoidance and anxiety rated their family relationships as more important under MS (see Table 2).