![Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Heterosexual Attachment Bonds: A Comparison Across Sexual Orientations University of Texas at San Antonio & University of Texas at Arlington Psychology Department .Jarryd T. Willis, M.S. Department of Psychology Department of Psychology ABSTRACT A meta-analytic (N = 757) investigation compared heterosexual, lesbian/gay, and bisexual attachment styles across four relationship types: principal caregiver, romantic partner, cross-sex friend, and same-sex friend. This study extended the applicability and generalizability of friendship and romantic partner models of adult attachment by replicating apparent lover-contingent attachment anxiety effects using gay and lesbian participants. METHODS Participants recruited on campus, through San Antonio businesses, on Facebook, & Twitter - 185 LGB (80 lesbians; 20 bisexual women)- 552 Heterosexual (361 women) IV = romantic status- 304 Single – 433 Committed DV = ECR-R Anxiety Scale per Attachment FigureCross-sex friend, Same-sex friend (SSF), Romantic Partner (RP), Caregiver DISCUSSION While there was unequivocal support for hypotheses 1, 3, 4, and 5, hypothesis 2 was only partially supported as LGB individuals’ caregiver attachment anxiety was no different from that of their romantic partners. In fact, it was greater than that for heterosexuals. - LGB individuals can’t be as sure about the availability and responsiveness of their caregivers as heterosexuals can in the face of threatening events. - In fact, the caregiver relationship itself is a source of threat for many LGB people, especially if they haven’t come out to their parents yet. - 26% of gay teens who come out to their parents are kicked out of home (Remafedi, 1987). - As subject #163 said of his experience when coming out, “They beat me and told me they would rather have me dead than be their son.”- Subject #15 said they told her she was “going to die of AIDS and go to Hell.”- Thus, LGB individuals’ legitimate fear of loss for that parental relationship, and potential negative consequences incurred upon them, makes it fundamentally different from that of heterosexuals. Taken together, the attachment system mechanics of partner-specific attachment anxiety appear to function similarly for both LG & Heterosexual individuals, the lone caveat being that the obverse is observed regarding the gender of that specific partner ,[object Object]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/patternsofinsecureattachmentspsp2010-110328233737-phpapp02/85/Patterns-of-insecure-attachment-spsp-2010-1-320.jpg)
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (19)
Destaque
Destaque (20)
Semelhante a Patterns of insecure attachment spsp 2010
Semelhante a Patterns of insecure attachment spsp 2010 (19)
Último
Último (20)
Patterns of insecure attachment spsp 2010
- 3. H2: Attachment anxiety will be greater for same-sex friends than cross-sex friends for single LG, and greater for cross-sex friends than same-sex friends for single heterosexuals.
- 4. H3: Romantically involved LG subjects will score higher in attachment anxiety for romantic partners than for same-sex friends or caregivers, and involved heterosexual subjects will score higher in attachment anxiety for romantic partners than for cross-sex friends or caregivers.
- 5. H4: A main effect of romantic status will find higher cross-sex friend attachment anxiety scores for single heterosexual subjects than for those in a relationship.
- 6. H5: A main effect of romantic status will find higher same-sex friend attachment anxiety scores for single LG subjects than for those in a relationship.
- 7. H6: A main effect of romantic status will find that single bisexual subjects have higher attachment anxiety scores for both same-sex friends AND cross-sex friends than do those in a relationship.REFERENCES Cozzarelli, C., Hoekstra, S.J., & Bylsma, W.H. (2000). General versus specific mental models of attachment: Are they associated with different outcomes? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(5), 605-618. Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). The attachment system in fledgling relationships: An activation role for attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 628-647. Feeney, J. A. (2004). Transfer of Attachment from Parents to Romantic Partners: Effects of Individual and Relationship Variables. Journal of Family Studies, 10(2), 220-238. Fraley, C., & Davis, K. (1997) Attachment formation and transfer in young adults’ close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131-144. La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367-384. Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The Close Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405-24. Remafedi, G. (1987). Male homosexuality: The Adolescent Perspective. Pediatrics, 79 (3), 326-330. Sibley, C.G., & Overall, N.C. (2008). Modeling the hierarchical structure of attachment representations: A test of domain differentiation. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 238-249. Presented at 2011 APA Conference, Washington D.C.