Adult Attachment and Patterns of Extradyadic
Involvement
ELIZABETH S. ALLENw
DONALD H. BAUCOMw

Relationships between patterns of extradyadic involvement (EDI) and adult attachment were examined separately with undergraduates and community adults reporting
prior EDI. Those with fearful or preoccupied styles reported more intimacy motivations
for EDI, and undergraduates with these styles also reported more self-esteem motivations. Conversely, those with a dismissive style reported more autonomy motivations
for EDI. Those with a fearful attachment style reported ambivalence about intimacy in
the EDI. Fearful and preoccupied undergraduates and community males reported amore obsessive extradyadic relationship. However, dismissive individuals did not report more casual EDI. Gender effects also emerged, with females reporting more intimacy motivations than males, and undergraduate males reporting more casual EDI
than undergraduate females. In the undergraduate sample, dismissive males had themost extradyadic partners over the prior 2 years relative to all other groups, and preoccupied females reported more partners than secure females. Clinical implications ofthese findings are discussed.
Fam Proc 43:467–488, 2004

E

xtradyadic involvement (EDI) outside a marital or primary dating relationship,such as intercourse with a person other than the spouse or primary dating
partner, often precipitates relationship distress and dissolution (Betzig, 1989; Gordon& Baucom, 1999; Whisman, Dixon, & Johnson, 1997). Despite generally held standards for monogamy and the frequently negative consequences of EDI, Wiederman(1997) found that up to 34% of men and 19% of women in older cohorts reported atleast one lifetime incident of extramarital sex. Among undergraduates, Wiederman and
Hurd (1999) found that 49% of men and 31% of women reported engaging in extradyadic intercourse while in a serious dating relationship. Researchers who have assessed
wDepartment of Psychology, University of North CarolinaFChapel Hill.
Elizabeth S. Allen is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Denver.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elizabeth S. Allen, Department of
Psychology, University of Denver, 2155 South Race Street, Denver, CO 80208. E-mail: ballen@nova.psy.du.edu
This research was supported in part by an American Psychological Association Dissertation ResearchAward. We are indebted to Caryl Rusbult, Martha Cox, Patrick Curran, Joseph Lowman, Howard Markman,
and Galena Kline for their helpful feedback on earlier versions of this work.

467

Family Process, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2004 r FPI, Inc.

468

/

FAMILY PROCESS

a broader continuum of extradyadic behaviors (e.g., sexual behaviors other than intercourse) find even higher rates of EDI (Glass & Wright, 1985; Wiederman & Hurd).
Most literature on EDI has evaluated the relationship between predictor variables
and the likelihood of a history of sexual intercourse outside a primary relationship. In
addition, some literature has compiled lengthy and diverse lists of reported motivations for EDI (Atwood & Seifer, 1997; Glass & Wright, 1992; Greene, Lee, & Lustig,1974), and other authors have noted wide variation in types of EDI, ranging fromcasual sexual involvement to serious love affairs (e.g., Glass & Wright, 1985). Taking
the variability in motivations for and types of EDI into account, several clinical authors have posited intimacy regulating functions of EDI; that is, in some cases, EDI
may be a way to meet autonomy needs, whereas in other cases, EDI may be a way tomeet intimacy needs (Brown, 1991; Moultrup, 1990; Scarf, 1987). Specifically, evidence that EDI may meet autonomy needs is based on clinical reports from involved
persons that their EDI was a way to obtain private space or assert a sense of freedom
or independence from the constraints of a primary relationship (Brown; Elbaum,
1981; Pittman, 1989; Welter-Enderlin, 1993); further, autonomy can be maintained in
the extradyadic relationship by having clear boundaries with the extradyadic partner,
or by having a brief, casual involvement (Scarf). Conversely, other individuals reported that their EDI was characterized by intimacy motivations, such as needs foremotional closeness (Glass & Wright, 1985). Self-esteem boosting justifications arealso prevalent and are highly related to emotional intimacy justifications (Glass &Wright, 1992). Consistent with intimacy needs, some individuals describe close emotional involvement with the extradyadic partner. In both autonomy and intimacy
motivations for EDI, individuals often frame this as a response to the marital system.
That is, intimacy needs are frequently depicted as compensatory for emotional neglect
within the primary relationship (Elbaum; Scarf), and autonomy needs are frequently
tied to experiencing primary relationships as overly constraining (Pittman).
Despite numerous clinical observations, there has been little empirical research
investigating different motivations for EDI and types of EDI. That is, what predicts
who uses EDI to meet autonomy needs and who uses EDI to meet intimacy needs?
Heretofore, these differences have been primarily associated with gender. For example, Glass and Wright (1992) concluded that women’s EDI more often involves
relational needs (e.g., emotional intimacy) and close extradyadic relationships,
whereas men’s EDI is associated more with individualistic needs (e.g., desire fornovelty) and less emotionally involved extradyadic relationships. In addition to gender, adult attachment theory is one framework for understanding autonomy and intimacy motivations for EDI and different types of extradyadic relationships.
Originally explored in the context of infant-caretaker relationships (Ainsworth,Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980), attachment theory has been
profitably extended to adult romantic relationships in both dating and marital samples (e.g., Feeney, 2002; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Simpson & Rholes, 1998). Insecurity
in one’s attachment to adult romantic partners can be conceptualized along two dimensions: anxiety about abandonment and avoidance of closeness (Brennan, Clark, &Shaver, 1998). Anxiety reflects worry about abandonment, desires for extreme
closeness, and a reliance on others to maintain a sense of self-worth, whereas avoidance generally reflects discomfort with closeness and interdependency. Thus, anxiety
can be considered indicative of concerns regarding sufficient intimacy, whereas
avoidance is a sign of concerns regarding sufficient autonomy in relationships. Many
www.FamilyProcess.org

/

ALLEN & BAUCOM

469

researchers and clinical authors agree that ‘‘individuals have needs for both belonging
and autonomy, and the challenge of balancing these two needs is the basic challenge in
intimate relationships’’ (Carlson & Sperry, 1999, p. xx). Attachment theory can beused to understand how different individuals have problems with this balance. As
clinical authors have noted, some individuals may deal with this challenge by engaging
in EDI, and the current paper seeks to understand this phenomenon through the lensof attachment theory.
Hypotheses regarding the relationship between attachment and EDI are further
informed by understanding specific attachment styles. That is, the dimensions ofanxiety and avoidance can be combined to form four attachment styles: secure, preoccupied, dismissing, and fearful (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991; Brennan et al., 1998). Those classified as secure have low levels of both anxiety
and avoidance; thus, these individuals are comfortable being close to their romantic
partners and do not feel excessive worry about abandonment. The remaining threestyles are collectively considered ‘‘insecure.’’ Preoccupied individuals have high levelsof anxiety and low levels of avoidance. These individuals want to be close with theirpartners, yet worry a great deal about their relationships and their partner’s feelings
for them. Dismissing individuals are high on avoidance and low on anxiety, preferring
not to get close to their partners and not particularly worried about the strength andstability of their relationships. Fearful individuals have high levels of both anxiety andavoidance. They worry about their relationships and avoid opening up to their partners, theoretically to protect against rejection.

ATTACHMENTAND THE FREQUENCY OF EDI
The only way that attachment theory has been applied to EDI is to examine thelikelihood of EDI. Attachment, and several constructs related to attachment, has beena useful predictor of engaging in EDI. Anxious women in particular may be more likely
to engage in EDI and report more extradyadic partners (Bogaert & Sadava, 2002;
Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997; Stephan & Bachman, 1999), which has generally beeninterpreted as consistent with the high need for intimate contact with others andstrong sexual attraction seen in anxious individuals (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). In
contrast, using a construct similar to attachment, Stephan and Bachman found thatavoidant men in particular were more likely to report destructive relationship behaviors, which included EDI. Interestingly, Gangestad and Thornhill found thatavoidant attachment was actually negatively related to the number of extradyadic
partners for females. Without examining this separately for males and females, Hazan, Zeifman, and Middleton (1994) found that avoidant individuals (relative to secureindividuals) reported more engagement in what was conceptualized as sexual behavior
reflecting low intimacy, including one-night stands and EDI. Dismissive persons inparticular report high levels of promiscuity (Brennan et al., 1998). For avoidant or
dismissive individuals, EDI may be a way to get ‘‘physically close to partners without
incurring the psychological vulnerability of prolonged intimacy and dependency’’(Brennan & Shaver, 1995, p. 268). Altogether, these prior findings suggest thatavoidant men (perhaps particularly the dismissive style) and anxious women mayreport the highest rates of EDI, but a clear explanation of why there may be genderdifferences in the expression of attachment-related dynamics as they relate to EDI islacking. Importantly, the underlying assumptions of why persons of various styles
Fam. Proc., Vol. 43, December, 2004

470

/

FAMILY PROCESS

might engage in EDI (e.g., obtaining intimacy, maintaining autonomy) have not beenassessed empirically.

ATTACHMENTAND MOTIVATIONS FOR EDI
Persons endorsing attachment anxiety or the preoccupied style more often reportintense and obsessive romantic experiences, but with lower relationship adjustment
relative to secure individuals (Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Hazan &Shaver, 1987; Simpson, 1990). Moreover, attachment anxiety is theoretically related
to a negative model of self (with greater reliance on the approval of others), andpersons with an anxious or preoccupied style do manifest lower self-esteem or selfconfidence relative to secure individuals (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Collins &Read). Based on these prior findings, styles higher in anxiety (fearful and preoccupied)are hypothesized to endorse greater intimacy and self-esteem motivations for EDI.
Given prior findings with the preoccupied style and the fact that the preoccupied style
is low in avoidance, we may see that the preoccupied style is particularly strong inthese motivations relative to other styles.
In contrast to the intense orientation to romantic relationships characterizing
those high in anxiety, higher levels of avoidance or the avoidant styles relate to lower
commitment to primary relationships, an avoidance of deep involvement with others,
a willingness to engage in sex without emotional investment, and an emphasis on the
fun or sexual aspects of relationships rather than emotional intimacy (Brennan &Shaver, 1995; Feeney, 1990; Feeney & Noller, 1991; Feeney, Noller, & Patty, 1993;
Levy & Davis, 1988). Thus, styles higher in avoidance (fearful and dismissive) arehypothesized to endorse greater autonomy reasons for EDI; specifically, reasons for
the EDI focused on a need for greater independence and freedom. We may see thisrelationship emerge as particularly strong for the dismissive style, given that they arealso low in anxiety.

ATTACHMENTAND THE TYPE OF EXTRADYADIC RELATIONSHIP
Consistent with the autonomy and intimacy motivations posited above, it may bethat the anxious styles have more emotionally close and intense extradyadic relationships, whereas the avoidant styles may have more casual extradyadic relationships. However, the relationship between attachment and type of EDI may be more
complex. Kirkpatrick and Shaver (1990), in their investigations of attachment andreligion, noted a ‘‘compensation hypothesis’’ in which insecure individuals find a secure relationship with God (e.g., a person who feels that others are rejecting may see
God as loving, available, and accepting). This is in contrast to a mental model hypothesis in which persons bring their basic style of attachment with others into theirrelationship with God (e.g., a person who reports anxiety in relationships with others
also worries about the availability and responsiveness of God). In the case of EDI, it isimportant to test whether individuals also extend their mental models of adult attachment into the extradyadic relationship (essentially suggesting that extradyadic
relationships are simply one more romantic relationship), or if individuals use extradyadic relationships as a compensatory relationship for feelings of insecurity intheir primary relationships (suggesting that there is something unique about the
www.FamilyProcess.org

ALLEN & BAUCOM/

471

extradyadic relationship). For example, several clinical authors have noted that theparticular nature of an extradyadic relationshipFwith frequent limitations on timespent together, a sense of a shared future, or interdependencyFcan permit individuals who often have difficulty allowing themselves to become close and open with theirprimary partner to feel more free and open in doing so with their extradyadic partner(Brown, 1991; Scarf, 1987). The compensation-versus-mental-models hypothesis does
not address variations in the attachment style of the extradyadic partner; rather, it isfocused on the variability of the type of extradyadic relationship as a function of one’s
own attachment style.
Given these competing hypotheses, we assessed various types of extradyadic relationships. From a mental models perspective, we may find that secure individuals
report a comfortably close and loving extradyadic relationship; preoccupied individuals may report an obsessive extradyadic relationship; fearful individuals may reportambivalence regarding intimacy with the extradyadic partner; and dismissive individuals may report a casual extradyadic relationship. Conversely, from a compensation perspective, we may find that insecure individuals report a comfortably close andloving extradyadic relationship, or that avoidant (fearful and dismissive) individuals
report that they are able to be more close and open with the extradyadic partner
because of the boundaries that often exist around the extradyadic relationship, such as
limited contact or no expectations of permanence.
Thus, it is hypothesized that attachment theory will be a meaningful way to understand motivations for and types of EDI, and will continue to predict rates of EDI.
This study will examine underlying assumptions about why there is variability inrates of EDI for various attachment styles, will help address the dearth of literatureexplaining variability in motivations for and types of EDI, and will provide information regarding the issue of whether extradyadic relationships have a compensation
function for relationship insecurity. Because gender has typically been used to explain
differences in motivations for and types of EDI (Glass & Wright, 1992), gender is
included in all analyses as an independent variable and as part of an interaction termwith attachment. Specific hypotheses are briefly summarized below.
1. Frequency of EDI. The number of extradyadic partners will be used as the index
of frequency. We hypothesize a replication of prior findings in which avoidantmen (perhaps particularly the dismissive style) and anxious women report thehighest rates of EDI.
2. Motivations for EDI. Individuals with anxious attachment (fearful and preoccupied) will endorse greater intimacy motivations for EDI. Individuals withavoidant attachment (fearful and dismissive) will endorse greater autonomy
reasons for EDI. Women will be higher on intimacy motivations, whereas men
will be higher on autonomy motivations.
3. Types of EDI. If the type of extradyadic relationship corresponds to the individual’s reported attachment style, this will be taken as evidence for the mental
models hypothesis. In contrast, if insecure individuals report a comfortably close
and loving extradyadic relationship, or if avoidant individuals report being more
open with the extradyadic partner because of limitations on the extradyadic relationship, this will be taken as evidence for the compensation hypothesis.
Women may report closer extradyadic relationships, whereas men may report
more casual extradyadic relationships.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 43, December, 2004

472

/

FAMILY PROCESS

Hypotheses were tested separately in two samples, an undergraduate sample and asample of currently or previously married community adults. These hypotheses were
tested separately because there were some differences in the measurement of salient
constructs (see below) in the two samples. It is also important to acknowledge that thenature of EDI may differ in the two samples. For example, given the flux inherent in
dating relationships, it may be much more developmentally normative for undergraduates to engage in EDI as a way to continue ongoing exploration of alternatives orto transition relationships. However, hypotheses were the same for the two samples
because of the robustness of attachment findings across both dating and marital
samples. Thus, the focus of this article is not on a comparison between groups (e.g.,based on developmental differences); rather, the two groups are included in order totest for replication of findings across disparate samples as a way to increase confidence
in the results.

METHOD

Undergraduate Participants
A total of 504 undergraduates at a large southeastern university participated in
exchange for introductory psychology course credit. All participants were required tohave been involved in a primary dating relationship of at least 1 month in duration
within the last 2 years. Of this overall sample, 345 (69%) reported some degree of EDI(defined as romantic or sexual behavior with someone other than the primary partner
while in a primary relationship) within the last 2 years. The behaviors encompassed inthis definition of EDI were quite broad, ranging from falling in love to sexual intercourse. A 69% rate of EDI is consistent with prevalence rates for an undergraduate
population found in other research that also included a broad range of extradyadic
activity (Wiederman & Hurd, 1999). These 345 individuals who reported EDI in theprior 2 years included 204 females and 141 males. Ages in this sample ranged from 17
to 23 (M ¼ 19), with 81% being White, 13% African American, 3% Asian American, 1%
Hispanic, 1% Native American, and 1% other.

Community Participants
One thousand questionnaire packets were distributed to adult volunteers from thecommunity who reported a current or previous marriage. Packets were distributed toapproximately 527 males and 473 females, of whom approximately 824 were Whiteand 176 were non-White (primarily African American). A total of 251 packets werereturned. This is considered a good response rate given that participants were notcompensated for their time, were recruited in public areas, and were asked to answer alengthy questionnaire involving highly personal questions. Of this sample, 132 werefemale, 118 were male, and 1 individual did not specify a gender. Most (86%) of theparticipants were White, with 11% African American, 1% Asian American, 1% Hispanic, and 1% other. The sample was well educated; 77% reported a bachelor’s degree
or higher. Participants ranged in age from 21 to 84 (M ¼ 39.95, SD ¼ 9.57). Because
recruitment was based on a marital history and not explicitly on whether the individual had a history of EDI, only a subset of these participants reported EDI during amarriage or engagement. Of the overall sample who returned the questionnaires, 115
respondents (46%) reported at least one EDI. These rates should not be considered a
www.FamilyProcess.org

ALLEN & BAUCOM/

473

valid estimate of the prevalence rates for EDI in the general population because of
selection biases (e.g., persons who had engaged in EDI may have been more interested
in and motivated to complete the questionnaire). The 115 individuals who reported
EDI included 52 females and 63 males. Ages in this sample ranged from 24 to 74(M ¼ 42.49, SD ¼ 8.60). Most (85%) of the sample was White, with 13% African
American, 1% Asian American, and 1% other. Seventy two percent reported a bachelor’s degree or higher level of education. Two males did not complete the primaryattachment measure; thus, 113 is the total sample size used in the analyses for thecommunity population with EDI.

Procedure: Undergraduate Sample
Participants were invited to join a study labeled ‘‘Experiences in Relationships.’’
All participants completed the entire battery of questionnaires. Persons who reported
at least one EDI in the past 2 years were asked to answer questions based on the mostrecent EDI. Participants who did not report a history of EDI within the last 2 years
were asked to complete the questionnaires based on a hypothetical involvement. Although the prediction of the number of extradyadic partners is based on the entire
undergraduate sample, the results for motivations for and types of EDI are based on
the sample of individuals who reported actualFnot hypotheticalFEDI in the past 2
years. After completion of the questionnaires, all participants were debriefed with awritten explanation of the basic research questions, the development of the materials,
and the research procedure; verbal explanations and elaborations were provided tointerested participants.

Procedure: Community Sample
Packets were distributed in three sites in a midsized southeastern city: the airport,a shopping area, and a downtown pedestrian area. Packets were not individually
identified, were enclosed in a business reply envelope addressed to the primary investigator, and included the set of questionnaires and an informed consent form forthe participant to keep. Using this procedure, participants retained anonymity. Adults
who were alone or in same-sex groups were approached with the standard prompt,‘‘Excuse me, I’m handing out surveys on experiences in marriage. Are you married orhave you been married?’’ Individuals who responded affirmatively were then asked
whether they were interested in participating in the study. If an individual expressedinterest, the investigator explained that it was about a highly personal experience thathe or she may have had in marriage, and that he or she should feel free to discard thesurvey if it was considered too personal. All questions were answered openly (excluding any information about hypotheses of the study), and individuals were frequently given more information about the topic of the study, affiliation of theinvestigator, and protections of anonymity. Volunteers then took the packets tocomplete and mail back at their convenience. In the questionnaire packet, respondents were asked if they had ever experienced a sexual or romantic relationship withanother person while married or engaged. As in the undergraduate sample, respondents who reported at least one EDI were asked to answer questions based on themost recent EDI. Participants who had not engaged in EDI could simply stop at thatpoint in the questionnaire. Although the prediction of the number of extradyadic
partners is based on the entire community sample, the results for motivations for andFam. Proc., Vol. 43, December, 2004

474

/

FAMILY PROCESS

types of EDI are based on the sample of individuals who reported EDI during amarriage or engagement.

Measures
Extradyadic Experiences Questionnaire (EEQ). The EEQ was developed for the current investigation to assess patterns of EDI. The EEQ consists of several generalquestions about experiences of EDI, followed by 22 scales assessing various aspects ofthe most recent EDI. A pilot version of the EEQ consisting of 249 items across the 22
scales was tested in the undergraduate sample using several steps. The final version of
the EEQ consisted of 93 items across the 22 scales (three to six items per scale), which
demonstrated good reliability. All results are based on the revised final version of the
EEQ. Scales covered a wide range of aspects of the extradyadic relationship, including
patterns of onset, reactions to the EDI, attitudes toward the EDI, characterization of
the primary relationship prior to the EDI, motivations for the EDI, and characterization of the extradyadic relationship. Most of these scales will not be described in
depth here because of their irrelevance to the core hypotheses and space limitations.
Scales that will be discussed in this article are autonomy and intimacy motivations for
the EDI, and characterizations of the extradyadic relationship. These scales are described below. Sample items and internal reliabilities for these scales are presented inTable 1.
Three scales assessed autonomy and intimacy motivations for the EDI: autonomy(wanting freedom and space), intimacy (wanting to feel cared about), and self-esteem(wanting an increase in self-esteem, thought to be part of intimacy motivations).
Five scales assessed the type of relationship that the participant had with the extradyadic partner: casual (a fun, ‘‘no strings attached’’ relationship without emotional investment), close (a comfortably loving, close, and open relationship), obsessive(a needy, obsessive relationship with high desires for attention and reassurance),
ambivalent (a desire for closeness accompanied by fears of rejection if close and open),and contained (a comfort with closeness because the relationship was impermanent orotherwise limited).
Within various classes of scales (e.g., motivations for EDI), items were interwoven in
their order of presentation. Questions consisted of declarative statements with response options on a 7-point Likert scale, usually from not at all true to very true. Scalescores are the average of all items on the scale.
Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory (ECRI; Brennan et al., 1998). The ECRI
is a self-report attachment measure containing two 18-item scales assessing anxiety
about abandonment and avoidance in adult romantic relationships. In the undergraduate sample, participants were asked to report on their general romantic attachment style. In contrast, in the community sample, participants were asked toreport on their attachment to their spouse prior to the onset of the EDI. Although
there is evidence for some stability of attachment, attachment can vary from relationship to relationship. The undergraduate participants were considered more likely
to have a range of recent dating relationships, and an aggregate assessment of attachment across these relationships was thought to be most appropriate. Conversely,
for the community sample, it was considered more appropriate to focus the attachment assessment on the relationship context for the most recent EDI (i.e., the marital
www.FamilyProcess.org

I wanted a little freedom.
I wanted some space from my primary partner.
I was lonely and I needed to feel cared about.
I was feeling neglected in my primary relationship.
The fact that the other person wanted me gave me a much-needed boost of self-esteem.
My contact with the other person helped me feel like a desirable person.
I would primarily describe our sexual involvement as fun rather thanemotionally intimate.
I wanted a ‘‘no strings attached’’ relationship with the other person.
I loved the other person.
I felt emotionally connected to the other person.
I was obsessed with the other person.
I felt very needy in the relationship with the other person.
I wanted closeness in the relationship with the other person, but was worried
that he or she would reject me once he or she knew the real me.
I worried that if I really opened up to the other person, he or she wouldn’t like me anymore.
It was easier opening up to the other person because I knew that the relationshipwas not permanent.
It was easier to be emotionally intimate because I didn’t see the other person too often.

Autonomy

Fam. Proc., Vol. 43, December, 2004
.75

.88

.85

.91

.83

.88

.90

.91

Undergraduate

a

.79

.89

.83

.92

.81

.87

.81

.85

Community

Note. Autonomy, intimacy, and self-esteem all asked in terms of how much the respondent thought it was a reason that he or she became
involved with the other person; response choices ranged from not at all a reason to very much a reason. Casual, close, obsessive, ambivalent, andcontained all asked in terms of how true the respondent thought the statement was about his or her involvement with the other person; response
choices ranged from not at all true to very true. In the community sample, ‘‘primary partner’’ was rewritten as ‘‘spouse/fiancé(e)’’.

Contained

Ambivalent

Obsessive

Close

Casual

Self-esteem

Intimacy

Sample Items

Scale

TABLE 1
Sample EEQ Items and Reliabilities

ALLEN & BAUCOM

/
475

476

/

FAMILY PROCESS

relationship prior to engaging in the most recent experience of EDI) to capture themost salient adult romantic attachment context for that particular incident of extradyadic behavior. Therefore, attachment in the community sample may be considered more contextually based, rather than the more dispositional approach taken in
the undergraduate sample.
In the original investigation of the ECRI, Brennan et al. (1998) found excellent
internal consistency for both scales (alpha ¼ .94 for avoidance and alpha ¼ .91 foranxiety). In the current samples with EDI, alphas for anxiety and avoidance ranged
from .91 to .93. In the undergraduate sample, anxiety and avoidance were negatively
related to one another (r ¼  .18, p ¼ .001); these dimensions were uncorrelated in thecommunity sample. Whereas in the undergraduate sample males and females did not
differ on their levels of anxiety or avoidance, females in the community sample reported significantly higher levels of anxiety, F(1, 111) ¼ 4.82, po.05). Following
Brennan et al.’s (1998) recommended procedures, participants were placed into thefour attachment categoriesFsecure, fearful, preoccupied, and dismissiveFbased
upon their scores on the two scales of anxiety and avoidance. In the undergraduate
sample reporting EDI, 26% were categorized as secure, 21% as fearful, 36% as preoccupied, and 17% as dismissive. These proportions are similar to those found by
Brennan et al. (1998) in undergraduate populations. In the community sample reporting EDI, 37% were categorized as secure, 18% as fearful, 19% as preoccupied, and
26% as dismissive. In both samples, logistic regressions indicated that attachmentclassifications did not vary by gender (p4.05).
The Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991)Fcommunity
sample only. In addition to obtaining the more contextual assessment of attachment
in the community sample with the ECRI as noted above, it was also considered important to assess general patterns of adult attachment across romantic relationships
for the community sample because this was a more appropriate index of attachment
for predicting the frequency of EDI across the marital career. The RQ was used forthis assessment. Community participants were asked to indicate which of four brief
descriptions corresponding with the four attachment styles best described their general romantic relationship style. The RQ has demonstrated validity with regard to
predicted personality variables, interpersonal problems, and sexual behavior (Bartholomew & Horowitz; Brennan et al., 1998; Brennan & Shaver, 1998). Moreover,ratings of RQ styles relate as hypothesized to the underlying dimensions of avoidance
and anxiety (Brennan et al., 1998). In the community sample, 192 individuals provided
an endorsement of one of the four styles: 52% endorsed secure, 6% fearful, 12% preoccupied, and 30% dismissive. Thus, the RQ did not distribute individuals as evenly
across attachment styles compared with the ECRI, as found in prior research (Brennan et al., 1998), and very few individuals endorsed the fearful style. Logistic regressions indicated that attachment classification did not vary by gender (p4.05).
Impression Management Scale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding(BIDR; Paulhus, 1984)Fundergraduate sample only. Because of the sensitive natureof reporting EDI, a measure of social desirability was included in the undergraduate
sample as a covariate to control for effects such as protectiveness of the self-image.
Although inclusion of this would have been ideal in the community sample as well,such a measure was not used in this sample to keep the respondent burden as light as
www.FamilyProcess.org

/

ALLEN & BAUCOM

477

possible; moreover, with the voluntary and anonymous nature of participation, it was
believed that social desirability factors might not be as salient in the community
sample. In the undergraduate sample, the impression management scale, which assesses a deliberately distorted positive presentation of self, was used. This scale contains 20 items that ask participants to endorse each item on a scale from 1 (not true) to
7 (very true). Example items on the impression management scale include ‘‘When I
hear people talking privately, I avoid listening,’’ and ‘‘I never take things that don’t
belong to me.’’ Paulhus (1991) reported that this scale has adequate internal consistency (alphas ranging from .75 to .86 in various studies). In the undergraduate
sample reporting EDI, alpha equaled .77. Women earned significantly higher meanson
thisscale,
F(1, 337) ¼ 20.58, po.001, but there was not a significant effect for attachment,
F(3, 337) ¼ 2.22, p4.05.

RESULTS
Two-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were used in the undergraduate
sample, and two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used in the community
sample to examine the relationship of gender, attachment style, and their interaction
with patterns of extradyadic involvement. Pairwise comparisons were examined whena main effect for attachment style emerged in the overall model, and protected t tests
were used to probe significant gender by attachment interactions. Social desirability,
the covariate, was included in all analyses in the undergraduate sampleFeven though
it did not correlate with all dependent variablesFto retain a uniform analysis strategy
and because the sample size permitted a loss of degree of freedom. Power was adequate in most analyses, although lessened in the community sample because of lower
overall sample size. It was particularly low in the analyses using the RQ because thesample size for some groups (e.g., fearful) was quite small.

Rates of EDI
The most basic hypothesis regarding the relationship between attachment style andextradyadic involvement was that males with an avoidant style (particularly the dismissive style) and women with an anxious style would report the highest rates of EDI.
Total number of extradyadic partners within the last two 2 years was used as the index
of frequency for the undergraduate sample, and total number of extradyadic partners
while married or engaged was used as the index of frequency for the community
sample. Because this dependent variable is so highly skewed,1 with a few individuals
in both samples reporting a high number of extradyadic partners, reports of 10 ormore extradyadic partners were all recoded as 10 extradyadic partners to constrain
the range. Table 2 presents means for each attachment style separately for males andfemales. In the undergraduate sample, the ECRI was used, and in the community
sample, the RQ was used because these were the indexes of attachment that werephrased to capture general attachment across romantic relationships for the two
samples. An index of general attachment across romantic relationships is most1
Because of the skew of this variable, inverse transformations were also performed (Tabachnick& Fidell, 2001) and analyses were conducted with the transformed variable. Findings were thesame, so the results are presented in an untransformed format for clarity.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 43, December, 2004

F ¼ 5.00 n
F ¼ 3.44 n
F ¼ 6.75 n n n

1.75
(.27)
1.81
(.30)
1.28
(.24)
3.22
(.34)
2.02
(.15)

1.31
(.22)
1.66
(.27)
1.91
(.20)
1.48
(.27)
1.59
(.12)

1.53
(.17)
1.73
(.20)
1.60
(.16)
2.35
(.22)

Total

Gender (df ¼ 1, 184)
Attach (df ¼ 3, 184)
Gender X Attach (df ¼ 3, 184)

Secure(n ¼ 99)
Fearful(n ¼ 12)
Preoccupied(n ¼ 24)
Dismissive(n ¼ 57)
Total

.65
(.30)
.83
(.87)
1.00
(.71)
.90
(.38)
.85
(.31)

Females(n ¼ 97)

F ¼ 5.75 n
F ¼ 2.25w
F ¼ 1.48

1.67
(.31)
.83
(.87)
1.80
(.55)
3.12
(.42)
1.85
(.29)

Males
(n ¼ 95)

Community Sample

1.16
(.21)
.83
(.62)
1.40
(.45)
2.01
(.28)

Total

Note. Outliers (more than 10 partners) have been constrained. Numbers are estimated marginal means, and scores in parentheses are standard
errors. In the undergraduate sample, attachment styles are based on the ECRI, and social desirability is included as a covariate. In the community
sample, attachment styles are based on the RQ. Because of missing data, total N in the undergraduate sample is slightly reduced.
w
po.10. npo.05 (two-tailed). n npo.01 (two-tailed). n n np.001 (two-tailed).

Gender (df ¼ 1, 489)
Attach (df ¼ 3, 489)
Gender X Attach (df ¼ 3, 489)

Secure(n ¼ 138)
Fearful(n ¼ 98)
Preoccupied(n ¼ 173)
Dismissive(n ¼ 89)
Total

Males
(n ¼ 201)

Females(n ¼ 297)

Undergraduate Sample

TABLE 2
Mean Number of Extradyadic Partners

478/
FAMILY PROCESS

www.FamilyProcess.org

ALLEN & BAUCOM/

479

appropriate for the broad outcome of total number of extradyadic partners. In theundergraduate sample, gender, attachment style, and their interaction all demonstrated significant effects. Males reported more partners than females, and pairwise
comparisons indicated that the dismissive style reported significantly more extradyadic partners than all of the other styles. The significant interaction prompted an
examination of the means for each attachment style separately for men and women. A
protected t test was run comparing the group with the highest number of extradyadic
partners (dismissive males) with the group with the next highest number of extradyadic partners (preoccupied females). This comparison was significant (po.001) andindicates that dismissive males had more extradyadic partners in the past 2 years
relative to all other groups. Within females, preoccupied females had significantly
more extradyadic partners in the prior 2 years relative to secure females (po.05).
In the community sample reporting EDI, main effects in the ANOVA were foundonly for gender, with males reporting significantly more partners than women. There
was a trend for attachment; pairwise comparisons indicated that dismissive individuals reported more extradyadic partners relative to secure individuals (po.05). (Asignificant finding of a difference between dismissive and secure was facilitated by thegreater number of persons in the secure category, which enhanced the power of thatparticular comparison.) Because the interaction was not significant (likely due to low
power), protected t tests were not conducted. However, an informal visual examination of means again suggests that dismissive males reported the highest number ofextradyadic partners. It is also interesting to note that, of the 7 community individuals
who reported 10 or more extradyadic partners, 5 were dismissive males.

Motivations for EDI
In the remaining analyses, categorical attachment based on the ECRI was used forboth samples. This was an index of general romantic attachment in the undergraduate
sample, and an index of marital attachment prior to engaging in the most recent EDI
in the community sample. Results for the undergraduate sample are presented inTable 3, and results from the community sample are reported in Table 4.
In both the undergraduate and community samples, dismissive individuals weresignificantly more likely than the others to indicate that the reason for their EDI waswanting space and freedom from the primary relationship (autonomy). In both theundergraduate and community samples, gender and attachment effects emerged on
the subscale tapping need for intimacy as a reason for the EDI. Women were significantly more likely than men to indicate that a feeling of neglect or rejection in the
primary relationship and a desire for closeness were reasons for the EDI. In addition,
pairwise comparisons indicated that the preoccupied and the fearful styles were significantly more likely than the secure and the dismissive styles to endorse a need for
intimacy as causal for their EDI.
On the need for increased self-esteem subscale, a significant main effect for attachment style was found for the undergraduate sample only. In this sample, fearfuland preoccupied styles endorsed significantly higher levels of self-esteem-boostingreasons as compared with the secure or dismissive styles. A significant interaction
effect for attachment and gender also was found. Protected t tests revealed that, of theundergraduate females, preoccupied women were most likely to endorse self-esteemboosting reasons, significantly more than secure or dismissive females (po.001).
Fam. Proc., Vol. 43, December, 2004

3.30
(.13)
3.04
(.12)
3.77
(.13)
3.71
(.12)
4.03
(.13)
2.29
(.09)
2.14
(.09)
3.10
(.10)

3.28
(.16)
2.61
(.14)
3.43
(.15)
4.15
(.14)
3.84
(.15)
2.13
(.11)
2.06
(.10)
3.36
(.11)

Male
n ¼ 141
3.11a
(.19)
2.58a
(.18)
3.25a
(.18)
4.20
(.18)
3.81
(.19)
1.79a
(.13)
1.66a
(.13)
3.16
(.14)

Securen ¼ 88

Preoccupied
n ¼ 125
2.94a
(.17)
3.13b
(.15)
4.02b
(.16)
3.89
(.15)
4.05
(.16)
2.78b
(.11)
2.28b,c
(.11)
3.09
(.12)

Fearfuln ¼ 72
3.09a
(.21)
3.30b
(.19)
3.99b
(.20)
3.64
(.19)
4.14
(.20)
2.55b
(.14)
2.47b
(.14)
3.42
(.15)

4.01b
(.24)
2.29a
(.21)
3.14a
(.22)
3.98
(.21)
3.73
(.23)
1.71a
(.16)
1.98a,c
(.15)
3.24
(.17)

Dismissiven ¼ 60

Attachment Style Categories

6.20 n n n

3.15

7.66 n n n

.39

1.04

16.76 n n n

1.33

2.92

.89

.93

1.59

5.93 n n n

5.19 n5.66 n4.97 n n

Attachment(df ¼ 3, 336)

.01

Gender(df ¼ 1, 336)

F

.56

.50

.27

1.28

.75

3.20 n1.54.69

Gender X
Attachment(df ¼ 3, 336)/

Note. Numbers in the first six columns are estimated marginal means, with standard errors in parentheses. For ECRI attachment styles, means
within each row whose subscripts differ are different at po.05 (only reported if overall F significant). Covariate is social desirability.
npo.05 (two-tailed). n np.01 (two-tailed). n n np  .001 (two-tailed).

Contained

Ambivalent

Obsessive

Close

Casual

Self-esteem

Intimacy

Autonomy

Femalen ¼ 204

GenderTABLE 3
ANCOVA of Gender and Categorical ECRI Attachment Styles on EEQ Subscale ScoresFUndergraduate Sample

480
FAMILY PROCESS

www.FamilyProcess.org

Fam. Proc., Vol. 43, December, 2004

3.16
(.21)
4.04
(.19)
4.79
(.29)
3.47
(.23)
4.45
(.28)
2.17
(.17)
1.97
(.19)
3.23
(.21)

2.83
(.21)
3.47
(.19)
4.26
(.28)
3.92
(.23)
4.30
(.28)
2.34
(.17)
2.36
(.19)
2.89
(.21)

Male
n ¼ 61
2.81a
(.24)
2.76a
(.22)
4.10
(.33)
3.92
(.26)
4.34
(.32)
2.01
(.19)
1.72a
(.21)
3.13
(.24)

Securen ¼ 42

Preoccupiedn ¼ 22
2.38a
(.34)
4.60b
(.30)
4.74
(.45)
3.67
(.37)
4.22
(.45)
2.54
(.27)
2.25a,b
(.30)
2.79
(.34)

Fearfuln ¼ 20
2.89a
(.34)
4.62b
(.30)
5.12
(.45)
3.80
(.37)
4.26
(.45)
2.33
(.27)
2.78b
(.30)
3.49
(.34)

3.89b
(.27)
3.05a
(.25)
4.15
(.37)
3.40
(.30)
4.69
(.37)
2.13
(.22)
1.91a
(.24)
2.82
(.27)

Dismissiven ¼ 29ECRI-Based Attachment Style Categories

1.27

2.14

.47

.15

1.86

1.04

3.08 n

.94

.31

.57

1.46

13.98 n n n

4.50 n1.70

4.85 n n

Attach(df ¼ 3, 105)

1.15

Gender(df ¼ 1, 105)

F

.08

1.20

3.42 n

1.22

1.65

.51

1.71

1.68

Gender X
Attach(df ¼ 3, 105)

Note. Numbers in the first six columns are estimated marginal means, with standard errors in parentheses. For ECRI attachment styles, means
within each row whose subscripts differ are different at po.05.
npo.05 (two-tailed). n np .01 (two-tailed). n n np  .001 (two-tailed).

Contained

Ambivalent

Obsessive

Close

Casual

Self-esteem

Intimacy

Autonomy

Femalen ¼ 52

GenderTABLE 4ANOVA of Gender and Categorical ECRI Attachment Styles on EEQ Subscale ScoresFCommunity Sample

ALLEN & BAUCOM

/
481

482

/

FAMILY PROCESS

Fearful undergraduate females also scored higher than dismissive undergraduate
females (po.01). Of the undergraduate males, fearful males earned the highest scoreon this variable, significantly more than secure males (po.05). Although a main effectfor attachment was not found in the community sample for this variable, it should be
noted that the ECRI dimension of attachment anxiety, as characterizes the fearful andpreoccupied styles, was significantly correlated with self-esteem-boosting reasons(r ¼ .36, po.001). The ECRI dimension of avoidance was unrelated to self-esteem
motivations (r ¼ .07, p ¼ .50) in the community sample.

Type of Extradyadic Relationship
There was a significant effect for attachment on the scale assessing an obsessive
extradyadic relationship (obsessive) in the undergraduate sample. In the undergraduate sample, both the fearful and preoccupied styles were significantly more likely
than the secure or dismissive styles to endorse this obsessive and needy type of extradyadic relationship. In the community sample, there was a significant gender byattachment interaction effect. Protected t tests indicated that, among males, fearfuland preoccupied males both earned significantly higher scores on this variable ascompared with secure males (po.05). The female attachment styles did not scoresignificantly different from each other on the level of desire for intense closeness withthe extradyadic partner. Thus, only community males replicate the undergraduate
finding of fearful and preoccupied individuals earning higher scores on this variable
relative to secure individuals.
In both samples, a significant main effect was found for attachment on the degree ofambivalence regarding intimacy in the extradyadic relationship (ambivalent), indicating that the fearful style was most likely to endorse this type of extradyadic relationship, significantly more so than the secure or the dismissive styles. In theundergraduate sample, the preoccupied style also scored relatively high on this type of
relationship, significantly more so than the secure style.
In both samples, there were no significant effects of gender, attachment, or theirinteraction on the comfortably close extradyadic relationship scale (close). Similarly,
no significant effects for gender, attachment, or their interaction emerged for comfort
with closeness in the extradyadic relationship because of some containment or limitations on the relationship (contained). In the undergraduate sample, males weresignificantly more likely to report a casual, emotionally distant extradyadic relationship (casual); however, this was not replicated in the community sample. There wereno significant effects for attachment, or the interaction of attachment and gender, on
the casual extradyadic relationship scale in either sample.

DISCUSSION
Overall, results from both the undergraduate and community samples replicatedwell and support the hypothesis that attachment style is related to intimacy-regulating functions of EDI. When evaluating motivations for EDI, dismissive individuals
from both samples were more likely to report that a reason for their involvement was
to obtain space and freedom relative to all other groups. Conversely, preoccupied
and fearful individuals in both samples were more likely than other groups to reportthat their EDI was motivated by a sense of neglect from the primary partner, loneliness, and a desire to feel cared about. It is interesting to note that the fearful style,
www.FamilyProcess.org

ALLEN & BAUCOM/

483

characterized by high levels of both anxiety and avoidance, generally endorsed more
intimacy motivations than autonomy motivations, indicating that in the case of EDI,
the anxiety dimension may be the more salient in motivating this type of behavior.
In prior research, self-esteem motivations have been viewed as a part of emotional
intimacy motivations (Glass & Wright, 1992). In the current study, there is evidence
that attachment anxiety, as manifested by the anxious styles in the undergraduate
sample and the anxiety dimension in the community sample, is related to reportingthat a motivation for the EDI was to experience increases in self-esteem and sense ofdesirability.
In the undergraduate sample, findings regarding the number of extradyadic partners largely mirrored prior findings. In this sample, preoccupied females reported
more extradyadic partners in the prior 2 years relative to secure females. Higher ratesof EDI for preoccupied undergraduate females is likely consistent with both priorfindings regarding gender-based motivations for EDI (i.e., greater intimacy motivations for females) and the high need for intimacy seen in anxious individuals. In addition, dismissive undergraduate males reported the highest number of extradyadic
partners in the prior 2 years relative to any other group, while in the community
sample, there was a trend for the dismissive style to report more extramarital partners
relative to secure individuals, and males reported significantly more extramarital
partners than females. For dismissive males, it may be that engaging in repeated EDI
is a way to assert a personal sense of freedom and independence, which fits with bothgender-based motivations (i.e., ‘‘individualistic’’ motivations for males) and the autonomy motivations of the dismissive style. Repeated EDI suggests that these individuals may, in general, be less tolerant of restraints on sexual behavior with others
outside a primary relationship. Although EDI, when it occurs, appears to function in asimilar manner for both dismissive males and females (i.e., to exercise autonomy),
dismissive males may be the most likely to use EDI to meet these needs. Thus, attachment may interact with stereotypical gender differences in sexual behavior. Males
reported higher numbers of extradyadic partners in both samples, and research typically finds that males are more likely to engage in EDI (e.g., Atkins, Baucom, &Jacobson, 2001). Suggested reasons for such gender differences include societal
messages that EDI is more acceptable for males (Lusterman, 1997; Vaughn, 1998) andevolutionary pressures for men to have multiple sexual partners (e.g., Wright, 1994).
The current results suggest that this may not be a general propensity for all males, but
for dismissive males in particular. Dismissive females may generally choose to assert
interpersonal independence in other ways than extradyadic sexual behavior, which
also fits gender stereotypes of sexual behavior.
In addition to testing the relationship between attachment and motivations for
EDI, another major question of this article is the extent to which individuals extend
their mental models of relationships into the extradyadic relationship, versus using
the extradyadic relationship to compensate for insecure attachment in primary relationships. The current results suggest that anxiety dynamics generally follow a mental
models pattern. Fearful individuals in both samples were more likely than secureindividuals to endorse ambivalence regarding intimacy with the extradyadic partner(as were preoccupied undergraduates). In general, fearful individuals typically reported wanting intimacy but avoiding it, and fearful individuals in this study similarly
reported wanting intimacy and openness with the extradyadic partner but felt concerned that they would be rejected if they did become intimate.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 43, December, 2004

484

/

FAMILY PROCESS

Also consistent with the notion that anxiety dynamics follow a mental models pathin EDI, fearful and preoccupied undergraduates and community males were more
likely to report an obsessive and needy extradyadic relationship, thus extending theiranxiety into the extradyadic relationship. It is unclear why anxious community malesFand not anxious community femalesFwould be more likely to be obsessed withand crave high levels of closeness with the extramarital partner. In the community
sample, attachment was targeted on the marital relationship prior to engaging in the
EDI. It may be that women who were feeling anxious about their marriage were able
to use the extradyadic relationship as compensatory. That is, their anxiety may be
more statelike as opposed to traitlike, with feelings of distress focused on and isolated
to their husbands at that time, and they use the extradyadic partner to gain a sense of
closeness lacking in their marriage. In contrast, attachment anxiety was less common
for community males (community females were significantly higher on feeling anxiety
in the marriage prior to the EDI than males), and it may be that when males areexperiencing anxiety in their marriage, it is more reflective of anxious traits, which
they extend into the extradyadic relationship.
In contrast to the general finding that those styles characterized by high anxiety
extended their anxious presentation into the extradyadic relationship (the mental
models hypothesis), those who were categorized as dismissive did not report a morecasual extradyadic involvement, nor were they particularly low on the scale assessing
a close, loving extradyadic involvement. This is contrary to previous findings about
the relatively low relationship investment and focus on fun in relationships ofthe avoidant style in general (Feeney & Noller, 1990, 1991), and findings regarding the
low affection reported by the dismissive style in particular (Brennan et al., 1998).
Thus, there may be something unique about an extradyadic relationship that helps toaddress avoidant dynamics manifest in primary relationships; that is, avoidance dynamics may follow a compensation pattern in EDI. One idea raised in the clinicalliterature is that the frequent limitations or boundaries around extradyadic relationships may soothe concerns about getting ‘‘too close’’ to a partner (e.g., Scarf,
1987). In fact, these same structural parameters (i.e., limits on time spent with an
extradyadic partner) may aggravate anxiety dynamics, as supported by the extensionof anxiety into the extradyadic relationship seen in the current study. One scale, thecontained scale, attempted to capture the relationship between limits on the extradyadic relationship and increased comfort with closeness. However, there were nodifferences among attachment groups on this scale, suggesting that dismissive individuals were not more likely to report that they were comfortable being open andintimate with the extradyadic partner because of limitations on the relationship, suchas limited time together or no expectation of permanence. It may be that these factors
actually do facilitate closeness for the dismissive style, but that avoidant/dismissive
individuals are not consciously aware of this and thus do not endorse these items.
Alternatively, it may be that there are some structural features of an extradyadic
relationship that address avoidance issues that were not assessed on this scale; forexample, the contrast of the novel extradyadic partner with a devalued primarypartner may facilitate more intense emotional involvement for the dismissive stylethan they usually express in a primary relationship. In the community sample inparticular, with attachment focused on the marriage prior to the EDI, dismissive attachment may reflect increased disengagement with the marital partner that facilitates increased intimacy with the extradyadic partner.
www.FamilyProcess.org

ALLEN & BAUCOM/

485

Some gender differences also emerged that were consistent with earlier suppositions about differences between male and female EDI (Glass & Wright, 1992). As
noted earlier, males reported more extradyadic partners than females in both samples; moreover, women reported more intimacy motivations for the EDI in both
samples, and undergraduate males described their extradyadic relationship as morecasual. Attachment does appear to add information above and beyond gender effects,
as evidenced by main effects of attachment and the interaction effects of gender andattachment. Notably, no gender effects were found for autonomy motivations, indicating that males were no more likely to endorse these motivations than females,
which is contrary to some inferences in the clinical literature.
This current study has important clinical implications for therapists working withindividuals or couples struggling with the aftermath of EDI because it provides increased psychological insight into why people engage in EDI. This is not just a question of academic interest; persons affected by this issue typically have a great need tounderstand the reasons for a particular instance of EDI. A recent evaluation of anintervention for infidelity (Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, 2004) demonstrated that
helping couples and individuals develop a comprehensive narrative about the manyreasons for a particular instance of EDI can be central to individual and relationshiphealing. When a primary partner first learns of an EDI, he or she typically makes
extreme interpretations about the event, his or her partner, and himself or herself.
For example, a spouse may label his or her partner an ‘‘uncaring and selfish liar,’’ anextreme depiction that leaves little room for healing or resolution. The results of thecurrent study might help couples and therapists develop alternative narrativesFto
include difficulties balancing autonomy and relatedness in primary relationships(here operationalized as attachment dynamics)Fas a potential basis for EDI. Further,attachment theory is theoretically grounded in a developmental context, and several
studies have found that self-reported adult attachment style is meaningfully related
to retrospective reports of relationships and events within one’s family of origin(Brennan & Shaver, 1998; Brennan, Shaver, & Tobey, 1991; Feeney & Noller, 1990;
Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Levy, Blatt, & Shaver, 1998; Rothbard & Shaver, 1994).
Therefore, insight into the attachment dynamics of an individual who has engaged in
EDI may also provide the clinician with leads to investigate salient distal variables
such as boundaries, loss, neglect, and affect regulation and expression in the family oforigin. Again, Gordon et al. (2004) reported that exploring such distal variables is
helpful in developing an understanding of the event that facilitates insight and recovery. Once a richer level of narrative is developed regarding the EDI, risk factors for
EDI become more apparent, and interventions can be developed to help the individual
or couple move beyond the eventFand, if they wish, decrease the likelihood of future
EDI. Even if the couple does not wish to reconcile, this style of balanced understanding is helpful for each individual to move on from the event (Gordon et al.).
Interventions such as Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy (EFT; Johnson &Greenberg, 1995) are focused on dealing with attachment issues, and thus establish
several guidelines for specific relevant interventions if the couple wishes to addressthese issues in their relationship.
There are several limitations of the current study, including the lack of a random
sample of participants and reliance on self report. Although the two samples differedin some ways, both samples were well educated and primarily White, and in thecommunity sample, selection factors were likely particularly strong. Thus, there are
Fam. Proc., Vol. 43, December, 2004

486

/

FAMILY PROCESS

significant limitations on the generalizability of these results. Future research withmore diverse and representative samples is needed to establish the robustness andreliability of the findings across groups. Moreover, although the premise of the study isthat attachment style influences patterns of the EDI, data from both the undergraduate and the community sample were collected at one point in time. Attachment
has been shown to be moderately stable, but retrospective accounts of attachment andrelationship variables are frequently inaccurate and strongly influenced by intervening events (e.g., Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994). One variable that may have been
particularly influenced by the retrospective method was asking the community sample
to recall their attachment to the spouse prior to the EDI. This method of asking
participants to recall relationship variables retrospectively is in some ways an improvement on the common strategy in the EDI literature of assessing the current stateof the primary relationship and using this data as ‘‘predictors’’ of prior EDI; nevertheless, it is clear that longitudinal investigations to explore the current questions areneeded to rule out alternative explanations for the findings.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychologicalstudy of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Atkins, D.C., Baucom, D.H., & Jacobson, N.S. (2001). Understanding infidelity: Correlates in anational random sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 735–749.
Atwood, J.D., & Seifer, M. (1997). Extramarital affairs and constructed meanings: A social
constructionist therapeutic approach. American Journal of Family Therapy, 25, 55–74.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Socialand Personal Relationships, 7, 147–178.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of afour-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.
Betzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study. Current Anthropology,
30, 654–676.
Bogaert, A.F., & Sadava, S. (2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Personal Relationships, 9, 191–204.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depressive symptoms. New
York: Basic Books.
Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory andclose relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press.
Brennan, K.A., & Shaver, P.R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, andromantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267–283.
Brennan, K.A., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Attachment styles and personality disorders: Theirconnections to each other and to parental divorce, parental death, and perceptions of parental caregiving. Journal of Personality, 66, 835–878.
Brennan, K.A., Shaver, P.R., & Tobey, A.E. (1991). Attachment styles, gender and parental
problem drinking. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 451–466.
Brown, E.M. (1991). Patterns of infidelity and their treatment. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Carlson, J., & Sperry, L. (Eds.) (1999). The intimate couple. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.
Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality
in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644–663.

www.FamilyProcess.org

ALLEN & BAUCOM/

487

Elbaum, P.L. (1981). The dynamics, implications, and treatment of extramarital sexual relationships for the family therapist. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7, 489–495.
Feeney, J.A. (1990). The attachment perspective on adult romantic relationships. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Feeney, J.A. (2002). Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction: A diarystudy. Personal Relationships, 9, 39–55.
Feeney, J.A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281–291.
Feeney, J.A., & Noller, P. (1991). Attachment style and verbal descriptions of romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 187–215.
Feeney, J.A., Noller, P., & Patty, J. (1993). Adolescents’ interactions with the opposite sex:
Influence of attachment style and gender. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 169–186.
Gangestad, S.W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The roleof fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 69–88.
Glass, S.P., & Wright, T.L. (1985). Sex differences in type of extramarital involvement andmarital dissatisfaction. Sex Roles, 12, 1101–1120.
Glass, S.P., & Wright, T.L. (1992). Justifications for extramarital relationships: The association
between attitudes, behaviors, and gender. Journal of Sex Research, 29, 362–387.
Gordon, K.C., & Baucom, D.H. (1999). A multitheoretical intervention for promoting recovery
from extramarital affairs. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 382–399.
Gordon, K.C., Baucom, D.H., & Snyder, D.K. (2004). An integrative intervention for promoting
recovery from extramarital affairs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30, 1–12.
Greene, B.L., Lee, R.R., & Lustig, N. (1974). Conscious and unconscious factors in marital infidelity. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 8, 97–105.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
Hazan, C., Zeifman, D., & Middleton, K. (1994). Adult romantic attachment, affection, and sex.
Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Personal Relationships, Groningen,
Netherlands.
Johnson, S.M., & Greenberg, L.S. (1995). The emotionally focused approach to problems inadult attachment. In N.S. Jacobson & A.S. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple
therapy (pp. 121–141). New York: Guilford Press.
Kirkpatrick, L.A., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A four-year
prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1, 123–142.
Kirkpatrick, L.A., & Shaver, P.R. (1990). Attachment theory and religion: Childhood attachments, religious beliefs, and conversion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 315–
334.
Levy, K.N., Blatt, S.J., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Attachment styles and parental representations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 407–419.
Levy, M.B., & Davis, K.E. (1988). Lovestyles and attachment styles compared: Their relations
to each other and to various relationship characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 5, 439–471.
Lusterman, D. (1997). Repetitive infidelity, womanizing and Don Juanism. In R.F. Levant &G.R. Brooks (Eds.), Men and sex: New psychological perspectives (pp. 84–99). New York:
Wiley.
Moultrup, D.J. (1990). Husbands, wives, and lovers. New York: Guilford Press.
Paulhus, D.L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.
Paulhus, D.L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver,& L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes: Vol. 1(pp. 17–51). San Diego: Academic Press.
Pittman, F. (1989). Private lies: Infidelity and the betrayal of intimacy. New York: Norton.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 43, December, 2004

488

/

FAMILY PROCESS

Rothbard, J.C., & Shaver, P.R. (1994). Continuity of attachment across the lifespan. In W.H.
Berman & M.B. Sperling (Eds.), Attachment in adults (pp. 31–71). New York: Guilford Press.
Scarf, M. (1987). Intimate partners: Patterns in love and marriage. New York: Random House.
Simpson, J.A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971–980.
Simpson, J.A., & Rholes, W.S. (Eds.) (1998). Attachment theory and close relationships. New
York: Guilford Press.
Stephan, C.W., & Bachman, G.F. (1999). What’s sex got to do with it? Attachment, love schemas,
and sexuality. Personal Relationships, 6, 111–123.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Vaughn, P. (1998). The monogamy myth. New York: Newmarket Press.
Welter-Enderlin, R. (1993). Secrets of couples and couples’ therapy. In E. Imber-Black (Ed.),
Secrets in families and family therapy (pp. 47–65). New York: Norton.
Whisman, M.A., Dixon, A.E., & Johnson, B. (1997). Therapists’ perspectives of couple problems
and treatment issues in couple therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 361–366.
Wiederman, M.W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. The
Journal of Sex Research, 34, 167–174.
Wiederman, M.W., & Hurd, C. (1999). Extradyadic involvement during dating. Journal of Socialand Personal Relationships, 16, 265–274.
Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal. New York: Pantheon Books.

www.FamilyProcess.org