1

Chapter I

Introduction

A marriage is lived by a spouse who lives together and cooperates with each other to

shape the family. Married couple stay together in living a married life but many couples undergo

marriage but not live together in daily life. The couples decide not to stay together or undergo

long-distance marriage due to a variety of things and one of the reasons is the work. The husband

and wife will be living separately, different countries and even different cities in order to meet

the demands of their jobs. This study explores whether and how attachment styles may influence

marital satisfaction and role of trust in mediating attachment styles and marital satisfaction in

long distance and proximal relationship of married men and women.

1.1 Attachment

Bowlby and Ainsworth described a bond that they believed existed between primary

caregivers (usually mothers) and children which was later labeled as attachment. It was

conceptualized as the affective connection between two individuals that provides them with a

firm emotional foundation from which they can interact with the world (Bowlby, 1969).

Bowlby observed that during a separation from its mother, number of emotional

responses could be observed in an infant towards it such as either protesting, being resistant to

others, soothing efforts, despair through expression of obvious sadness and detachment by

avoiding the mother when she returns. According to Bowlby, individuals develop two ways of

perceiving themselves as well as the others around them which he referred to as internal mental

models; a) a model of self and b) a model of others. The model of self refers to how an

individual feels about him or herself as a worthy person to be loved and cared due to the
 2

attachment related responses from the caregivers. The model of others is developed based on

how responsive and available the attachment figure had been. As children, if they believe that

they are worthy of love and if their expectations of the relationship with the caregiver is

congruent with that belief, it leads to develop a positive model of self and a positive model of

others in the child which later results in positive adult relationships (Bowlby,1973).

1.1.1 Attachment Styles

Mother’s sensitivity and responsiveness to the childs needs creates a significant impact in

the child’s behavioral and emotional responses. Ainsworth and her colleagues identified three

different styles of child behavior; secure attachment, anxious ambivalent attachment, and

avoidant attachment. When a care giver attends to the child’s attachment needs appropriately, the

child develops a trust towards the caregiver, establishing a secure attachment in the child. The

inconsistent or limited response from the caregiver may result in aroused activation of the

attachment system in the child resulting in developing either anxious attachment or avoidant

attachment (Ainsworth, 1978).

Secure attachment in early life establishes a set of attachment behaviors that provide for

more satisfying relationships in the future. These behaviors change as relational contexts change,

but their function remains consistent like to maintain relationship closeness in accordance with

internalized beliefs. Thus, although attachment behaviors themselves change, reflecting the

changing needs of the environment, individual attachment style is believed to be more reluctant

to change. Changes to attachment style occur only over long periods, allowing the individual to

alter internalized beliefs about self and others that were created over time (Mikulincer & Shaver,

1998).
 3

1.1.2 Adult Attachment Styles

The conceptualization and assessment of adult attachment is organized around two basic

dimensions. On the avoidance dimension, the extent to which individuals being distrustful of

other’s friendliness and how they are trying to be independent in an interpersonal relationship is

reflected. The anxiety dimension refers to the extent to which people worry about their partner’s

availability during the times needed. Low scores on both anxiety and avoidan dimensions would

be referred to as individuals having secure attachment with a positive history in their early

attachments (Brennan, Clark & Shaver 1998).

Hazen and Shaver used attachment to describe adult romantic relationships. Applying

attachment to adult relationships included an adaptation of the three styles. They theorized that

securely attached couples had higher marital satisfaction. In fact, research showed that securely

attached couples had a lower divorce rate (Brennan & Shaver, 1990), and they reported that

securely attached couples described feeling comfortable with emotional intimacy and found joy

and satisfaction in close relationships. They described avoidant couples as exhibiting a fear of

intimacy, and they found that avoidant individuals frequently reported feeling uncomfortable

getting close to others, thinking that love partners wanted them to be closer than they felt

comfortable. Ambivalent couples experienced love as obsession, desire for reciprocation and

union, emotional highs and lows, and extreme sexual attraction and jealousy (Hazen & Shaver).

Ambivalent couples described reluctance to get close to another because of fear that the

relationship would end. Attachment behaviors associated with the ambivalent style were

characterized by relationally aggressive behaviors that often pushed others away (Hazen and

Shaver, 1987).
 4

In a long-distance relationship insecure attachment among partners will lead their relation

in such a way that the person reveals less emotional material to the partner, will have a decrease

in the idealization of the partner and a low satisfaction in relationship (Lee, J. 2012).

1.1.3 Four-Category Model

Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) proposed a four-category model that included the

different combinations of positive and negative beliefs about self and others. Thus, positive

beliefs about self and positive beliefs about others was labeled secure attachment, and their

description of secure attachment was consistent with secure attachment described in the three

category model. Preoccupied consisted of negative beliefs about self and positive beliefs about

the other. Preoccupied individuals were described as having a sense of unworthiness to receive

love, and a belief that others are so good that they will not love them. Positive beliefs about self

and negative beliefs about the other represent the dismissing style of attachment; these

individuals feel that they are worthy of love but believe that others will reject them. Negative

beliefs about self and negative beliefs about the other were labeled “fearful” attachment. Th is

style of attachment was believed to have similar characteristics to the avoidant attachment style

described by the three category model that is, their behavior is marked by avoidance of social

settings because of the anxiety associated with connecting to others (Bartholomew, 1991).

In this context, attachment security becomes an influential factor in directing a person

towards his or her psychological wellbeing, forming and regulating emotions effectively,

developing positive models of self and others and being explorative and friendly (Bowlby 1973).

Those who maintain a sense of attachment security would display lower levels of distress in

stressful events, have more coping strategies based on relying on seeking support from others,
 5

hold more positive self – views, be more likely to be explorative and be more sensitive and

responsive to the partner‟s needs than individuals who score high on the other two dimensions.

The meaningful interactions with the significant attachment figures throughout an individual‟s

life may result in different perceptions of others‟ support and availability in times of need and

these general beliefs may develop into relationship – specific beliefs at a later point around the

person‟s actual experiences with a specific partner (Collins & Read 1994).

1.2 Trust

Trust has been described as a belief, an expectancy, and a feeling. Lewicki defined trust

as an individual's belief in and willingness to act on the basis of the words, actions, and

decisions of another. Tedeschi defined Interpersonal trust as a reliance upon information

received from another person about uncertain environmental states and their accompanying

outcomes in a risky situation (Webb & Worchel, 1986).

Vulnerability can be particularly great in close, intimate relationships where there is

significant investment of self and dependence upon the other. The more important the

relationship is, and the greater the degree of dependency that exists in it, the more critical trust is

to the health, satisfaction, and longevity of that relationship. Within our culture and society,

marital relationships are generally considered to be among the most important of close

relationships. Marital partners' investments in the relationship are many and they are often

intense, adding to the degree of risk and underscoring the necessity for trust (Johnson, Makinen,

&. Millikin, 2001).

 6

1.2.1 Conceptualization of Trust

An important issue regarding the conceptualization of trust is whether it is an intra-

individual phenomenon or an interpersonal one. Personality theorists (e.g., Erikson, 1968) tend

to think of trust as a personality trait that an individual possesses and then manifests in

interpersonal contexts. Many proponents of attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988) also seem to think

that trust resides first and foremost within the individual. Other theorists prefer to conceptualize

trust as something that is created and determined by the interpersonal interactions of two or more

people who are in the process of developing a relationship with one another. Holmes and Rempel

argued that in close relationships, tmst originates in the dialectic between the hopes and fears

people have as those relationships develop. If the relationship is to develop and endure, partners

must succeed in reducing uncertainty (Holmes and Rempel, 1989).

Lewicki and Wiethoff argued that the level of trust one person has in another may vary

depending upon the context. They gave as an example the person who might trust a friend to

babysit his child, but would refrain from loaning the friend money due to a distrust of his

willingness to pay it back. They further stated that most people are able to be quite specific in

describing both the trust and distrust elements in their relationship (Lewicki and Wiethoff, 2000).

Our understanding of how trust develops, grows, and sometimes declines may be

expanded in important ways if consideration is given to trust across the various domains of a

close, committed relationship. Clinicians working with couples have found that conflict is often

organized around issues such as money, sex, parenting, and in-laws. Sager (1981) identified

those areas, as well as other areas, where couples typically have implicit contracts they expect

one another to flilfill, with conflict being the result if they are not fulfilled. Trust in one's partner
 7

may be greater (or weaker) in some of those areas than it is in others, as previously suggested

(Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000).

1.2.2 Erikson’s Theory

1.2.2.1 Trust Versus. Misrust. Trust versus mistrust is the first psychosocial stage in

Erikson's theory. It occurs in the first year of life when the child leaves the regularity, warmth

and protection of the mother's womb and faces a world that is less secure. According to Erikson,

infants who receive quality caregiving and whose needs are adequately and consistentiy met are

much more likely to develop a sense of basic trust. On the other hand, children who receive

inadequate or inconsistent caregiving are at risk to develop a sense of basic mistrust (Erikson,

1968).

1.2.2.2 Isolation Versus Intimacy. Isolation versus Intimacy is the sixth stage in

Erikson's theory of psychosocial development. After the adolescent years in which the person has

encountered and hopefully resolved, a psychosocial crisis revolving around the issue of identity,

he or she enters into young adulthood to face a new set of psychosocial requirements that include

forming a relationship with another person as a step toward forming a new family unit. This

precipitates yet another emotional crisis (Erikson, 1963).

Erikson (1963) contended that to enter into and successfully maintain such a relationship,

a person must be able to give him or herself completely, not only in the sexual realm, but in

every facet of her or his being (e.g., feelings, ideas, goals, attitudes, and values). The individual

must also be able to fully receive the same from the partner. To the extent that one can do so, he

or she experiences a sense of intimacy. Conversely, if one caimot (for whatever reason) share or

be shared, she or he will feel a sense of isolation (Erikson, 1963).

 8

Logan proposed a reconceptualization of Erikson's theory whereby the theory described

for the discussion of trust in adult close relationships, the issue of basic trust versus mistrust, first

confronted in infancy is revisited during the intimacy versus isolation psychosocial stage of

young adulthood. In Logan's reconceptualization, isolation involves a recapitulation of mistrust,

combined with shame and doubt. Isolation may stem from a mistrust of the partner or a mistrust

of oneself In either case, there is either an inability or an unwillingness to share oneself totally or

to receive the same from the other (Logan, 1986).

1.2.2.3 Autonomy Versus Shame And Doubt. Logan also made the case for including in

intimacy versus isolation a revisiting of Erikson's (1959) second psychosocial stage, autonomy

versus shame and doubt, since a healthy intimate relationship with another requires that one be

able to maintain one's individual identity within the relationship a replay of autonomy. Erikson

(1968) pointed out that trust intimacy occurs between two stiong identities who are able to share

themselves with one another, but also preserve, rather than lose, their autonomy within the

relationship. In Logan's (1986) reconceptualization, isolation involves a recapitulation of

mistrust, combined with shame and doubt. Isolation may stem from a mistrust of the partner or a

mistrust of oneself In either case, there is either an inability or an unwiUingness to share oneself

totally or to receive the same from the other.

On the basis of Erikson's (1959) theory, Lerner (1997) suggested that the high rate of

divorce in today's society might be due to the fact that two people who lack identities and expect

to define themselves through marriage, instead experience disillusionment and disappointment

with the other. Disappointment with the partner, stemming from disillusionment with the

marriage, can result in loss of tmst in the partner's ability to satisfy basic feh needs. Guerin et al.

(1987) presented a model of "expectation-to-alienation progression" in which unmet expectations

 9

in a marital relationship lead to disappointment, hurt, anger, resentment, and eventually,

alienation. In the end, the person crosses over to an island of invulnerability, characterized by

emotional isolation from the partner (Guerin et al., 1987). Guerin et al. note that when that

happens, the restoration of tmst in the relationship and/or in the partner is extremely difficult.

1.2.3 Factors determining trust in marital relationship:

 Faithfulness

 Interaction with each other

 Openness in relationship

1.2.4 Factors harming trust in marital relationship:

 Lack of sharing and lack of love

 Lack of forgiveness and lack of support.

 Having doubt and Breaking promise

Trust is an element which increase over the course of time in the case of marital relationship.

After having children, the inclusion of children strengthens the element of trust. Most of the

partners would like to solve the marital problems within themselves. It was reported that it is not

because what friends will think or not, but because of the fact that they are not feeling a need for

the same. Thus, it was seen that personal reputation is not hindering them in a marital

relationship which contributes to trust in marital relationship (Guerin, Fay, Burden, & Kautto,

1987).

Trust serves as the bases for any relationship. There is no greater virtue in a relationship

than trusting each other. If two individuals, in a relationship, trust each other, the relationship
 10

gives peace to both of the partners; otherwise no positivity can be drawn from the relationship

(Fatima & Ajmal, 2012).

1.3 Marital satisfaction

Marital satisfaction is one of the most important aspects of family life, and the quality of

one’s marriage is a critical component of life satisfaction (Waite, 1995). Marital satisfaction can

affect not only the physical and mental health of both spouses but also their children’s

development, well-being, biological function, academic performance, social skills, and

relationships. Marital satisfaction is a subjective and multidimensional concept defined as an

attitude of greater or lesser favourability toward one’s own marital relationship (Roach, Frazier,

& Bowden, 1981).

1.3.1 Conceptualization of Marital Satisfaction

Marital satisfaction is defined as the level of contentment an individual feels for his or

her marriage, and is one of the most important components in predicting the stability of a

marriage (Anderson, 2006). According to Fitzpatrick (1988), marital satisfaction involves the

extent to which spouses evaluate their marriage of high quality. Higher marital satisfaction refers

to higher marital success. According to Bengtson, marital satisfaction is partner’s evaluation of

their relationship on two general extents: positive interaction and negative feeling. Alternatively,

Burgess define marital satisfaction as satisfaction appears to be a correspondence between the

actual and the expected or a comparison of the actual relationship with the alternative, if the

present relationship were terminated (Bengtson, 1979).

Because of its importance for family life, social researchers have identified numerous

factors which contribute to marital satisfaction. Trustworthiness, agreeableness, cooperativeness,

 11

attractiveness, extraversion, wealth, intelligence, and humor have been identified as key

determinants of marital satisfaction (Hendrick, 1988).

1.3.2 Social exchange theory

Social exchange theory explains the development, maintenance (e.g., solidarity, power),

and decay of exchange relationships in terms of the balance between the rewards that marital

partners obtain and the costs that they incur by selecting themselves into marital relationships.

Costs are the factors that inhibit or deter a performance of a sequence of behaviors within a

marriage, whereas rewards are the pleasures, satisfactions, and gratifications that a person enjoys

within a marriage (Thibaut & Kelley, 1999).

1.3.3 Relative deprivation theory

Theory proposes that there is preference for equity in relationships, and the perception

that they have been unjustly treated will cause distress and will be encouraged to actinorder to

restore equity (Crosby, 1976)

1.3.4 Determinants of Marital Satisfaction

 Age at marriage, duration of marriage and personal characteristics

 Perception of one’s own self and others

 Communication and problem-solving skills

 Attachment to each other, intimacy, trust, commitment and loyalty

 Marital violence,

 Spending time together,

 Disputes arising from property matters,

 12

 Sexual dissatisfaction,

 Meeting the expectations of gender roles and

 Role expectations in the marriage,

 The elements couples bring their current relationship under the influence of their original

upbringing,

 Social support, marital conflict, stress and many other factors at the individual and social

level (Kabacoff, & Van Hasselt, 1999).

Couples marital satisfaction can be influenced by age. As age increases, marital satisfaction

decreases. Loving each other, Trusting each other, Mutual understanding, Adjustment, respecting

each other, Being open in relationship and Giving personal space for each other defined marital

satisfaction for most of the partners. Being far more than one month will influence marital

relationship. If the marital relationship is long distant there will the external influence injecting

negativity in most cases. Also, as there is personal gap, it will altogether destroy the relationship.

Some researchers suggested that having a long-distance relationship is sometimes good. It is

because of the fact that if staying away for some time and meeting again, there is some of

amount of special love that both are feeling towards each other (Nastiti & Wismanto, 2017).

1.3.4.1 Presence of children.The presence of children in different ways can have both

positive and negative effects on the family system. Parent’s sense of happiness and pride can be

positive effects, whereas sense of tiredness, lack of personal time, and disagreement over

childcare and homework can be negative effects. These issues can affect the quality of the

relationship between couples.

 13

1.3.4.2 Marital Attributions. The difference in marital attributions cause the difference in

relationship between life stressors and marital satisfaction. The ones having distress maintaining

marital attributions tend to have high levels of marital distress. On the other hand, if marital

attributions are positive tend to have low levels of stress in turn causing low levels of marital

distress11.Not only the small stressors but also the increase in daily life hassles can cause

decrease in marital quality. This is especially true in the case of wives (Graham & Conoley,

2006).

1.3.4.3 Emotional Intelligence. Emotional intelligence refers to a set of cognitive

capabilities, abilities, and skills that affect a person’s ability to successfully cope with the

demand and environmental pressures. Goleman believes that emotional intelligence contributes

to people’s joy and happiness. Goleman defines four basic skills of emotional intelligence, which

are as follows: (1) knowing one’s own emotions; (2) having control of emotions; (3) being self-

motivating and encouraging; and (4) recognizing the feelings of others and regulating

relationships with others. In fact, a person with high emotional intelligence knows how to deal

with personality types and to adjust himself/herself with others and their emotions. Studies have

shown that the components of emotional intelligence can be useful in marital satisfaction

(Stafford & Merolla, 2007).

1.3.4.4 Religious Practices. Being actively involved in religious practices is contributing to

better marital satisfaction. Reading religious books, active participation in associations related to

religions, following rituals will help in maintenance of marital relationship.Technology is found

to be helpful in communication especially when having a long distance relationship even if it is

useful, communication through phone calls or video calls does not give enough satisfaction

(Suitor, 1991).
 14

1.3.4.5. Gender roles. It is often have been used to explain differences in marital satisfaction

and perceptions of well-being (Mickelson et al., 2006). Marital satisfaction in women is lower

than in men because women tend to have higher expectations of intimacy and emotional support

in a marriage, whereas men are usually not socialized to provide this kind of support in a

relationship (Bernard, 1976).

Shek (1995) suggested two possible explanations for gender differences in marital

relationships. The first explanation is based on the different roles of women and men in a

marriage. The female roles in marital relationships are usually more demanding and less

rewarding compared with the husbands roles, and women feel that they benefit less from a

marriage and hence have a less positive perception of it. Also, married women who have full-

time jobs encounter more responsibilities, duties, and role conflicts within their families. The

second suggested explanation refers to differences in expectations between women and men.

Marital satisfaction in women is lower than in men because women tend to have higher

expectations of intimacy and emotional support in a marriage, whereas men are usually not

socialized to provide this kind of support in a relationship (Bernard, 1976). Men and women are

usually differently socialized (e.g., instrumental vs. emotional), and some researches have

indicated that affective and emotional spousal support predicts higher marital satisfaction (Waite,

1995).).

1.3.4.6. Mode of Communication. It is used has an influence on the quality of the

relationship. Phone calls is found to be positively associated with both relationship satisfaction

and commitment. Even if having frequent phone contact longer duration between visits, makes

separation more difficult causing strain on the marriage. Discussing personal issues frequently
 15

and the amount of time they work on their relationship discussing their situation and future is

contributing success in long distance marital relationship. The limited amount of time available

for couples make them missing the small talk about day to day events of life and they spend their

time sharing only the important things. As compared to geographically close relationship in

which each day builds on the previous one, in a long-distance relationship the time and space

dimension make them unable to share various life experiences, thus, creating a distance between

the partners (Singh & Samara, 1996).

Marital satisfaction was believed to follow a U-shaped trajectory over time, such that

couples began their marriages satisfied, this satisfaction somewhat waned over the years, but

resurfaced to newlywed levels after many years together. It seems that, on average, marital

satisfaction drops markedly over the first 10 years, and continues to gradually decrease over the

subsequent decades. There are individual differences in the path that marital satisfaction follows

over time, however, as not all marital satisfaction decreases in a linear way (a slow, steady

decrease), but may include more dramatic decreases at times, or may even increase (Pistole &

Roberts, 2011).

1.3.4.7 Commitment. plays an important role in maintenance of the long-distance

relationship. Reminiscing and dreaming about the partner and partner idealization are the

methods used to maintain satisfaction in long distance relationship. At the time when couples

reunite there are often awkward silences which make each other think that their spouse is

someone they do not know will create a conflict in the case of long-distance relations. The extent

of computer mediated communication in the course of separation is a negative predictor of

stability in reunion. The factors that contribute in making the reunion difficult are the less

interaction that they have during separation and the lack of access to the full range of partner’s
 16

behavior concealing partner’s true self. For couples with less idealization during separation make

them less difficult to manage the relational turbulence during reunion. Even though idealization

is good to some extend it is the extreme levels of idealization which is problematic in long

distance dating partners (Dargie &Pukall, 2015).

Being in a long-distance relationship after marriage is different than being in a proximal

relationships . Long distance relationship makes a physical separation by which the partner will

not be available immediately when proximity is desired. In a prototype based approach which

looked at the experience of missing participants they judged central features as part of the

category of missing a romantic partner more quickly than non central features. It was evident that

one of the most frequent feature is the experience of loneliness and the feeling of sadness in the

case of long-distance relationship. This experience of missing the partner will lead to

interdependence between partners which make the missing even more strong (Harper, 2000).

1.4 Theoretical Background

1.4.1 Attachment Theory Attachment theory proposes that children with secure

attachment styles, whose attempts to achieve physical proximity and/or felt security have been

consistently met by caregivers, will develop internal models of attachment figures as dependable

and psychologically available. In contrast, children with insecure attachment styles, whose bids

for security have been either ignored or rebuffed (leading to avoidant attachments) or responded

to inconsistently (leading to ambivalent attachments), will acquire models of others as rejecting

or inconsistent. Once formed, these models then guide the individual’s expectations concerning

partner availability in future relationships (Bowlby, 1973).

 17

Secure attachment style and marital satisfaction relate positively and significantly while

there is a negative relation between ambivalent avoidant attachment style and marital satisfaction

(Roach & Bowden, 1981).

1.4.2 Dyadic Model of Trust (Holmes & Rempel, 1989) Holmes and Rempel (1989)

developed a dyadic model of trust, acknowledging that individuals bring a dispositional tendency

to (dis)trust into a relationship, but it is activities within the relationship that calibrate levels of

trust. Specifically, they suggested that the behavior and perceptions of partners in diagnostic

situations (i.e. where partners’ choices can prove helpful or detrimental to the relationship)

throughout the relationship contributes to the development of one partner’s trust for the other

partner. Higher levels of dyadic trust indicate certainty that a partner will behave in a pro-

relationship manner in the future, whereas medium levels of trust reflect greater uncertainty

regarding their partner’s future behaviors, and lower levels of trust indicate certainty that a

partner will not behave in a pro-relationship manner in the future.

Trust is a core component of the attachment system. The development of more anxious or

avoidant attachment orientations arise from interactions with caregivers that make individuals

unconfident in the availability, acceptance, and responsiveness of attachment figures,

undermining felt trust. Furthermore, individuals reporting higher levels of insecure (anxious and

avoidant attachment) relative to secure attachment also demonstrated greater accessibility of

negative trust-related memories, less positive trust episodes over a 3-week period, and less

constructive coping strategies when faced with trust violations (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003).

1.4.3 Uncertainty Reduction Theory According to URT, individuals in initial

interactions experience a need for information about one another in order to be able to predict the

other’s attitudes and behaviors. The high degree of uncertainty about another person is
 18

uncomfortable and thus, individuals are motivated to reduce this uncertainty in some manner

(Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Dainton and Aylor (2001) examined how relational uncertainty

operated in long-distance relationships with both no face-to-face and with some face-to-face

interaction. They concluded, as URT would predict, that the more uncertainty that existed in the

relationships, the more jealousy and lack of trust existed. They also found that face-to-face

contact is critical to reducing relational uncertainty. Attachment styles have a very important

role. Edelstein and Shaver (2001) found that uncertain individuals’ information seeking attempts

are less likely to be successful if their partner is avoidant. It can be suggested that securely

attached individuals are more likely to be successful in reducing uncertainty.  In fact, research

has revealed that partners who disclose more to each other report greater emotional involvement

in their relationships (Rubin, Hill, Peplau, & Dunkel-Schetter, 1980) as well as greater relational

satisfaction (Hendrick, 1981).

 19

Chapter II

Literature Review

This study will be conducted to find out the relationship between adult attachment, trust

and marital satisfaction in men and women. This research will help to understand the factors

associated with marital satisfaction in long-distance relationships and proximal relationships.

2.1 International Researches

Siegel et al. (2019) conducted a latent profile analysis on quantitative data gathered from

156 married couples, so to learn more about the role of attachment and gender in marital

adjustment. This study examined Finzi-Dottan et al.’s (2004) theoretical model, which focuses

on how the mutual effect of attachment of each partner contributes to the relationship’s

dynamics. The marital adjustment was assessed by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, which consists

of 32 items divided into four subscales: consensus, cohesion, adjustment, and affection.

Attachment anxiety and avoidance were assessed with the 10-item Adult Attachment Styles scale

developed by Mikulincer, Florian, and Tolmacz (1990), based on Hazan and Shaver (1987)

descriptions of avoidant and anxious attachment types and constructed five items for each

dimension. Findings were that two partners with secure attachment reported the highest levels of

marital adjustment. Both partners with high levels of avoidance or anxiety reported the lowest

levels of adjustment. Couples with a mixture of attachment experienced differing levels of

adjustment. Differently than predicted, avoidant wives with secure husbands did not experience

lower levels of adjustment than secure wives with avoidant husbands. Rather, the husbands

endorsed lower levels of adjustment, while these differences were not implicated in the wives’

adjustment. The attachment profile combination was related to the spouse’s gender.
 20

Koruk (2017) conducted research to find out the impact of gender and attachment styles

on marital adjustments and psychological symptoms in Turkish individuals. The quality of

marital relationships and experiences in marriage affect couples' psychological health

(Jabamelian, 2011). Attachment styles of married couples are one of these psychological

agencies and affect dyadic adjustment in terms of how couples perceive marital experiences, how

they evaluate their partners and what kind of strategies they use when they have problems

(Wayment & Campell, 2000). 178 married individuals were included in the sample. To measure

the psychological symptoms Brief Symptom Inventory was used. Dyadic adjustment scale was

used to measure marital satisfaction of couples and attachment styles were assessed through the

Relationship Scales Questionnaire. The hypothetical model was formed and tested through the

path analysis technique of structural equational modeling. Results showed that secure, dismissing

and fearful attachment styles and gender moderated the predictive strength of marital adjustment

on psychological symptoms. It was found that the relationship between marital adjustment and

psychological symptom is stronger among individuals who have a secure attachment style.

Results also indicated that there was a negative relationship between marital adjustment and

psychological symptoms. Also, there was a negative relationship between marital adjustment and

the number of children, years of marriage, age, and gender. Gender had a positive correlation

with psychological symptoms. It shows that females had lower marital satisfaction as compared

to males. Also, women exhibit more psychological symptoms. There was a negative correlation

between income and psychological symptoms.

Mohammadi et al. (2016) conducted research to find out the relationship between

attachment styles and marital satisfaction. Childhood attachment styles are not limited to

childhood only, they can influence future relationships also. For the purpose of research data was
 21

collected from the employees of Bandar Abbas oil refining and distribution company (Iran).

Simple random sampling was used. Employees were divided into five categories based on their

residency and working experience. Total of 292 subjects was selected (146 couples). The

research tools included the revised adult attachment scale (RAAS), lifestyle questionnaire (LSQ),

and the marital satisfaction scale. Based on the results, participants were divided into three

categories i.e secure, anxious and avoidant. In this study, descriptive statistics (mean, standard

deviation, frequency, percentage) and inferential statistics (Pearson’s correlation coefficient and

multiple regressions) were used to analyze the data. It can be observed that marital satisfaction is

inversely related to anxiety and negatively related to attachment and closeness. In addition,

multiple regression analysis was used to control confounders. Based on regression analysis, it

was determined that only had a negative significant relationship with marital satisfaction in the

presence of other variables. The effect of anxiety was greater than that of closeness. An anxious

attachment style negatively and significantly predicted marital satisfaction, while a dependent

attachment style positively and significantly predicted marital satisfaction. Other components

were not significant. In this study, a significant and negative relationship was predicted between

insecure attachment styles (avoidant and ambivalent) and marital satisfaction among subjects. In

explaining these findings, it could be stated that individuals with insecure attachment styles

(avoidant and ambivalent) are usually afraid of rejection and loneliness in their relationships.

Fanny et al. (2010) investigated attachment orientations and relationship quality in long-

distance relationships (LDRs) as compared to proximal relationships (PRs) in a population-based

sample and considered the role of age and relationship length for relationship processes.

Participants were recruited through a nationwide press release in Germany to ensure a great

variety in age and relationship experience. Both individuals in LDRs and PRs were directed at
 22

separate but paralleled online questionnaires that could be entered through the online portal of

the Department of Psychology of Humboldt University Berlin, Germany. Individuals in LDRs

were encouraged to participate if they (1) had two separate households and (2) would have

difficulty visiting the partner and returning back to their own residence in one day. For both

samples, participants were included who met the following requirements: (a) they had no missing

on the dependent variables, (b) they were at least 18 years old, and (c) they indicated to have a

partner of the other sex. A total of 971 LDR participants and 278 PR participants met these

inclusion criteria. Participants completed the German version (Ehrenthal, Dinger, Lamla,

Funken, & Schauenburg, 2009) of the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire-Revised

(ECR-R, Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000). Relationship satisfaction was measured with the

German translation (Sander & Bocker, 1993) of Hendrick’s (1988) Relationship Assessment

Scale. The results showed that relationship satisfaction did not differ between LDRs and PRs,

LDR partners indicated more attachment anxiety and less avoidance than proximal partners.

Attachment anxiety could be predicted from contextual factors in LDRs and slightly increased

for individuals still in LDRs one year later. While anxiety tended to be somewhat less

detrimental to relationship quality in PRs, avoidance was less detrimental in LDRs.it was also

revealed for both LDRs and PRs, attachment anxiety depended on age and relationship length

whereas for avoidance only age mattered.

Pistole et al. (2010) conducted research to examine relationship satisfaction in long-

distance and proximal relationships, and how different attachment styles and closeness effects

relationship satisfaction in couples. This research was conducted on college students because it

was observed that in USA almost fifty percent of the partners had a long-distance relationship

because they have to travel for the purpose of the study. Those participants were included who
 23

were in a serious dating relationship. A sample of 238 participants was included (113 men and

125 women). Out of 238 participants, 136 had proximal relationships whereas 102 reported long-

distance relationships. Participants between the ages of 18 to 50 years were considered for this

research. The relationship questionnaire was used to measure attachment styles, experiences in

close relationship scale were used to measure attachment dimension i.e. avoidance and anxiety.

The Relationship closeness inventory was used to measure relationship closeness. Dyadic

adjustment scale was used to measure relationship satisfaction. T-test was conducted to examine

the differences in satisfaction between long-distance relationships and proximal relationships and

it was seen that there were no differences in relationship satisfaction between long-distance

relationships and proximal relationship individuals. To examine the hypothesis that different

patterns of attachment and closeness would predict LDRR and PRR satisfaction, regression

analysis was conducted. Results indicated that in LDRRs, avoidance was negatively related to

relationship satisfaction, indicating that individuals with lower levels of attachment avoidance

had higher levels of relationship satisfaction. In PRRs, living together, avoidance, and anxiety

was negatively related to satisfaction, signifying that individuals who lived apart and had lower

levels of attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety had higher levels of relationship

satisfaction.

MacLean (2001) conducted research this study examined the relationship between marital

satisfaction and partner matching using a three-group typology of adult attachment style. One

hundred twenty-four couples completed questionnaires assessing marital satisfaction and

attachment style. As predicted, wives and husbands with the highest marital satisfaction were in

secure-secure attachment combinations whereas the most dissatisfied wives were in avoidant-

avoidant combinations. The most dissatisfied husbands were in anxious-avoidant marriages.

 24

These findings were interpreted in terms of attachment theory. Marriages in which both spouses

had secure attachment styles were likely to be happy because each individual was meeting

his/her partner’s attachment needs for comfort and security. In contrast, the highest levels of

dissatisfaction for wives were reported in avoidant-avoidant marriages, presumably

because both spouses’ attachment needs were not being met due to their tendency to

avoid proximity and not to develop a safe haven with their partners. Husbands were

particularly influenced in a negative way by anxious-avoidant relationships, which

typically led to increased withdrawal from the emotional demands of their wives and

eventually from the marriage. The presence of children also harmed the marital

satisfaction of husbands. It is likely that children took time away from the interactions

between husbands and wives, and therefore men were not experiencing enough

intimacy and emotional closeness in their marriages. Almost one-third of couples

were found to have the rarely identified “ambivalent” and “indifferent” types of

marriage. This finding supports the call for increased use of global, two-dimensional

measures of marital quality, research that will help both to create sound measures of

marital satisfaction as well as to advance theory development in the field.

Rholes et al. (2001) examined how a major life stressor—the transition to parenthood—

affects marital satisfaction and functioning among persons with different attachment orientations.

For this purpose, One hundred six married couples residing in a Southwestern US city completed

both the pre-birth (Time 1) and the postbirth (Time 2) testing sessions. Couples were recruited

from childbirth preparation classes offered by a local hospital and were paid $50 to participate.

The mean age of women and men was 28.0 (SD = 4.3) and 29.0 (SD = 5.5) years, respectively.

The mean length of marriage was 3.8 years (SD = 2.5). The scales assessed participants' adult
 25

attachment orientations (toward romantic partners in general), their marital satisfaction, and the

general quality of their marriage. It was found that highly ambivalent women who perceived

lower prenatal support from their husbands experienced larger declines in perceived spousal

support across the transition, which in turn was associated with larger declines in their marital

satisfaction. Highly ambivalent wives who perceived higher levels of support from their

husbands before childbirth reported comparatively good marital functioning at Time 2.

Correlations between ambivalence and all but one of the marital measures were stronger in the

postbirth period (Time 2) than in the pre-birth period (Time 1). More avoidant women sought

less support from their husbands at Times 1 and 2. In addition, more ambivalent women and their

husbands experienced lower levels of marital satisfaction and functioning at both time periods.

Wice (2009) studied the influence of adult attachment styles on marital satisfaction.

Previous studies indicate a strong relationship between adult attachment styles and marital

satisfaction. This study identified the dynamics among Sri Lankan married couples. It was

hypothesized that there will be a positive correlation between secure attachment style and marital

satisfaction while ambivalent attachment style would result in less marital satisfaction. Two

separate questionnaires were administered to identify the attachment style and level of marital

satisfaction of 68 married couples who have been married at least for one year. The participants

were recruited through contacts and via an advertisement on social media sites and through flyers

sent via emails. The age of the participants ranged from 20 years to 62 years. Adult attachment

style was identified through Experience in Close Relationships Scale and marital satisfaction was

measured by Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The correlation between adult attachment style

and one’s level of marital satisfaction was analyzed for its statistical significance. Results

indicated a positive correlation between secure attachment style and marital satisfaction. As
 26

hypothesized, ambivalently attached individuals reported the least marital satisfaction with an

insignificant difference to the results of the previous studies. The findings will be useful to

family therapists and marital counselors to understand the expectations of partners in a marriage.

Nastiti and Wismanto (2017) conducted research to observe perceived marital satisfaction

in commuter marriages. Nowadays many couples do not live together, they had to live apart

because of work or some other reasons. This study examined long-distance relationships and the

factors associated with high and low marital satisfaction in commuter marriages. This research

was a qualitative study in which interviews were conducted with three couples (3 husbands and 3

wives). For the purpose of inclusion, couples should be married for at least five years and had at

least one child. Almost all husbands were quite satisfied with their marriages while wives were

less satisfied as compared to males.

Johnson and Moosath (2019) explored the role of distance in trust and marital quality in

women. For the purpose of the study, by using snowball sampling method a total sample of 90

was chosen. Among them, 65 individuals were having a geographically close marital relationship

with the spouse whereas the other 30 having a long-distance marital relationship with their

spouse. In the qualitative phase, the questionnaire was provided. From them, a total of 8 sample

was selected to do the semi-structured interview. The selection was based on the scores on the

questionnaire (high = 4 and low = 4). The first phase of the research was quantitative in nature

providing a questionnaire (Marital Quality Scale). The second phase of the research was a

qualitative method using a semi-structured interview to explore the variables of trust and marital

quality. The results indicated that there was no significant difference in marital quality except in

marital satisfaction. Also, the qualitative phase identified two global themes - marital trust and

marital quality. The technology was found to be helpful in communication especially when
 27

having a long-distance relationship. Most of them reported that even if it is useful,

communication through phone calls or video calls does not give enough satisfaction.

Fitzpatrick and Lafontaine (2017) conducted research to explore the relationship between

attachment, trust, and satisfaction in relationships. In this study trust was a mediator between

romantic attachment and satisfaction. Several studies revealed that romantic attachment styles

help us in understanding relationship satisfaction. This research was a cross-sectional study. The

sample consisted of 199 Canadian couples. Couples from the community were recruited through

various means, such as through advertisements in local newspapers, which targeted the general

population, and by strategically placed posters around a university campus, which targeted

university students, and public facilities (e.g., book stores, child-care centers, community

centers). Adult romantic attachment was measured with the Experiences in Close Relationships–

12, dyadic trust was measured with the Dyadic Trust Scale, and relationship satisfaction was

measured with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale–4 items. For the purpose of inclusion, the

participant should be 18 years old. Couples were also required to be involved in a romantic

relationship with the same partner for a minimum of 12 months and cohabiting with their partner

for at least 6 months. Fifty-three percent of the participants reported having children. Significant

correlations were found between male and female romantic partners’ insecure attachment, dyadic

trust, and relationship satisfaction. Specifically, male attachment avoidance was negatively

related to male and female dyadic trust as well as male and female relationship satisfaction. Male

attachment avoidance was positively related to female attachment avoidance. Male attachment

anxiety was negatively correlated with male dyadic trust and male and female relationship

satisfaction. Female attachment avoidance was negatively linked with female dyadic trust and

male and female relationship satisfaction, as well as positively linked with female attachment
 28

anxiety. Female attachment anxiety was negatively correlated with female dyadic trust and

female relationship satisfaction. Male dyadic trust was positively linked to female dyadic trust,

and both were positively linked to male and female relationship satisfaction. Male relationship

satisfaction was positively correlated with female relationship satisfaction. A one-way between-

subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of gender on attachment avoidance in

males and females; however, no significant effect was found. A second one-way between-

subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of gender on attachment anxiety in males

and females. There was a significant effect of gender on attachment anxiety for males and

females. Specifically, females scored higher on attachment anxiety than males did. Two other

one-way between-subjects ANOVAs were conducted to compare the effect of gender on dyadic

trust and relationship satisfaction in males and females; however, no significant effects were

found. SEM indicated that age was not significantly associated with relationship satisfaction.

Results also indicated that a lower level of trust in males and females was negatively linked with

relationship satisfaction. In general, it was found that low dyadic trust did serve as a mediator

between insecure romantic attachment and low relationship satisfaction for both actor and

partner effects.

2.2 Indigenous Researches

Makhdoom (2019) conducted research to observe the relationship between rewards

(including intimacy, passion, love, and spousal support) and marital satisfaction, with trust being

used as a mediator. Source-Specific Social Provisions Scale (Cutrona, 1989) was used to assess

spousal support and Perceived Relationship Quality Scale (Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000)

were used in order to measure marital satisfaction, love, intimacy, passion, and trust among the

participants. The sample was approached through purposive convenient sampling from rural and
 29

urban areas of Pakistan. Data was collected from 250 married individuals, 129 of them were

husbands and 121 were wives. Data were collected from the three cities of Pakistan i.e

Faisalabad, Chiniot and Sargodha. Only those individuals were considered who have at least one

child. Those individuals with less than one year of marriage and more than thirty years of

marriage were not included in the sample. Consent was taken from the participants and then they

were given the questionnaires to fill the required data. Results indicate that trust partially

mediates the relationship between rewards and marital satisfaction. It was observed that

intimacy, passion, love, and spousal support were significant positive predictors of marital

satisfaction.
 30

2.3 Rationale

Recently much attention has focused on the rising tide of migration for the sake of better

job or business. Some of this migration is internationally, and some is merely a shift to the

nearest big town or city. Relating at a distance can be problematic in any type of relationship

(e.g., marriage, friendship, family, or work). Partners face uncertainties because of the flow of

their physical presence in each other's lives, but communication strategies can help to bridge the

physical discontinuities of everyday relating (Sigman,1991).

According to several studies, people living in long distance and people living in proximal

relationship tend to opt different attachment styles with their partner. Their level of trust and

faith on their partner also has been affected by frequency of communication, which ultimately

affects their marital satisfaction. Sometimes marriages work on the ‘out of sight is out of mind’

principle which means a trustworthy relationship has a lot to do with one’s attachment style and

behaviors between partners. For the pairs of long distance marriage, roles and responsibilities

will be much heavier because they do not face and bear themtogether. Couples who live

together undoubtedly have to adjust each other all the time and need to share roles well.

This can certainly influence satisfaction and harmony in the pairs of proximal marriage. This

study is aimed to investigate the differences of attachment styles, trust and marital satisfaction

between long distance and proximal relationships of married men and women.

2.4 Objectives

The objectives of present study are following

 To assess the relationship among attachment styles, trust and marital satisfaction.

 To determine long distance and proximal relationship differences in marital satisfaction

of married men and women.

 31

 To find out the differences in long distance and proximal relationship in married men and

women.

2.5 Hypotheses

H1: Demographic variables are likely to correlate with attachment styles, trust and marital

satisfaction of married men and women.

H2: Secure attachment and trust are likely to positively correlate with marital satisfaction.

H3: Anxious and avoidant attachment styles are likely to negatively correlate with marital

satisfaction.

H4: Trust is likely to mediate the relationship between attachment styles and marital

satisfaction.

H5: Secure Attachment style is likely to positively predict marital satisfaction.

H6: Anxious and Avoident attachment styles are likely to negatively predict marital

satisfaction.

H7: There is a difference in trust and marital satisfaction of long ditance and proximal

relationships of married men and women.

H8: There is a gender difference in attachment styles, trust and marital satisfaction of

married and women.

 32

Figure 2.1

Mediation Model
 33

Chapter III

Method

3.1 Research Design

Cross-sectional correlational research design was used to compare long distance and

proximal relationships in the context of attachment styles, trust and marital satisfaction.

3.2 Sample

The sample was consisted of 101 married individuals as suggessted by G-Power

software. The sample was categorized in two groups; in long distance relationship (n=43) and

proximal relationship (n=58). Non-Probability snowball sampling strategy was used for

participants in long distance relationship and convinient sampling strategy was used to reach out

participants in proximal relationship.

3.2.1 Inclusion criteria

 Married men and women in proximal relationship and long distance relationship

were included.

 Either husband or wife was included from each family.

 Married individuals with one child and married for less than 30 years were

included.

3.2.2 Exclusion criteria

 Separated or divorced partners were not included.

 Individuals who are in nikkah but not living together were not included.

 Men and women with more than one marriage were not included.
 34

The descriptive statistics of demographic variables are given in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1

Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Variables (N = 101).

Variables M SD f %
Type of Relationship
Proximal Relationship 58 57.4
Long Distance Relationship 43 42.6
Gender
Men 40 39.6
Women 61 60.4
Age (in years) 34.87 7.71
(23-56)
Partner’s Age (in years) 35.3 8.75
(20-60)
Years of Marriage 9.57 6.09
Family Structure
Nuclear 57 56.4
Joint 44 43.6
Monthly Income (in Rupees) 112871.28 93430.04
Education
Matric 4 4
Intermediate 10 9.9
Graduation 48 47.5
Masters 39 38.6
Partner’s Education
Matric 0 0
Intermediate 13 12.9
Graduation 52 51.5
Masters 36 35.6

Table 3.1 (continued)

Variables M SD F %

No. of Children
1 18 17.8
2 30 29.7
3 28 27.7
 35

4 17 16.8
5 638 7.9

3.3 Operational Definitions

Following are the operational definitions of study variables:

3.3.1 Attachment Styles. Attachment refers to the strong emotional bonding and felt

security in romantic relationships (Bowlby, 1988). Hazen and Shaver identified three adult

attachment styles; secure, anxious ambivalent and avoidant (Hazen & Shaver,1987).

3.3.2 Trust. A partner would be seen as trustworthy if she or he is the type of person who

can be counted on to be honest, reliable, cooperative and essentially benevolent (Larzelere &

Huston, 1980).

3.3.3 Marital Satisfaction. Marital satisfaction is a subjective and multidimensional

concept defined as an attitude of greater or lesser favorability toward one’s own marital

relationship (Roach, Frazier, & Bowden, 1981).

3.4 Assessment Measures

Following tools will be used for the purpose of assessment in the present study.

3.4.1 Personal Information Sheet. Personal information sheet will consist of personal

information including gender, age, partner’s age, level of education, level of partner education,

family system, family income, length of current marriage and number of children.
 36

3.4.2 Revised Adult Attachment Scale (Collins, 1996) Attachment styles was measured

using Revised Adult Attachment scale. Revised Adult attachment scale comprises of three

subscales: close/secur e, depend and anxiety. Three subscales comprise 6 items each. Items are

scored on a 5-point likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5 (very

characteristic of me).

3.4.3 Trust In Close Relationships (Rempel, Holmes & Zanna, 1985).) Trust in close

relationships measures the degree to which an individual trusts his or her partner in the

relationship. This questionnaire includes seventeen statements that describe one’s overall feeling

of trust in the relationship (e.g., “I can rely on my partner to keep the promises he/she makes to

me”). The respondent uses a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 indicating “strongly disagree” to

7 indicating “strongly agree”. The scale can be divided up into the three subscales;

Predictability, Dependability and Faith. One can score the questionnaire based on the 3

subscales separately, or combine the subscales to create an overall trust in close relationships

score. The range of possible scores is 17 to 119, with 119 being the highest level of trust and 17

being the lowest level of trust. Rempel, Holmes & Zanna (1980) reported high face validity,

construct validity, and reliability for associations with love and relationship status.

3.4.4 Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Busby, Crane, Larson & Christensen, 2000)

Marital satisfaction was measured from Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The RDAS, which

consisted of 14 items was extracted from the 32-item Dyadic adjustment scale (DAS, Spanier,

1976) and was used to assess the dyadic relationship satisfaction. This scale (RDAS) shows the

total adjustment score and has three subscales: dyadic consensus, dyadic satisfaction and dyadic

cohesion. The items in the dyadic consensus scale consist of five-point Likert-scale ranging from

zero (always disagree) to five (always agree). As an example, one of the items in dyadic
 37

consensus asks about making major decisions. The tension or disagreement between partners is

measured by dyadic satisfaction. Likewise, the items in this part also use a five-point Likert-scale

ranging from zero (All the time) to five (Never). One example from this subscale asks about how

often do you and your partner quarrel?. Sharing and leisure activities are measured through

dyadic cohesion. Two different Likert-point scales are used for this subscale: for one item a five-

point Likert scale (0 = never, 4 = every day) is used (e.g. do you and your partner engage in

common leisure interests?) and for the other three items a six-point Likert scale (0 = never, 5 =

more often) is used (e.g. have a stimulating exchange of ideas). The psychometric properties of

the RDAS (reasonable construct validity and Cronbach’s α from 0.80 to 0.90) were confirmed by

previous research.

3.5 Procedure

The research started in an orderly manner by acquiring the permission from the authors of

the scale which were used for the purpose of data collection. No authority letter was used to

collect data. Participants in long distance relationship were reached by using snowball sampling

method via google docs. A sample of 43 participants were choosen. Whereas paticipants in

proximal relationship (n=58) were reacehed using convinient sampling strategy. All participants

were informed about the nature of the study and they were given participant information sheet

which the researcher briefed them about the nature of the study and clarified any further details.

Then the participants were given consent forms to be signed and were well informed that their

identities will be kept confidential and they were able to withdraw from the study at any point

they wish at no cost.After that, questionnaire were distributed to participants that fulfil the

inclusion criteria. Participants were asked to read each statement carefully and give true response

and there were no right or wrong answers. Each set of questionnaires probably took around 25-
 38

30 minutes for administration. After completion of questionnaires, these questionnaires were

collected.

3.6 Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations for the study were as follows:

 Permission from the authors of the scale were sought.

 The date and time of questionnaire administration was decided as per participant’s

convenience.

 Informed consent was taken from the concerned married men and women.

 Anonymity of the participants and confidentiality of the data maintained.

 Participants of the study were given right to withdraw at any point of time in the research.

 Avoided using procedures that would harm them psychologically.

Chapter IV

Results

The data was analyzed in four key steps. In first step, reliability analysis of all measures

were computed by using Cronbach’s alpha and descriptive statistics were computed for

subscales. In the second step, independent sample t-tests were conducted to examine difference
 39

in marital satisfaction of long distance and proximal relationship and gender differences in

Attachment Styles, Trust and Marital Satisfaction. In the third step, Pearson product moment

correlation was computed to assess the relationship among study variables that included

Attachment Styles, Trust and Marital Satisfaction and demographic variables. In the last step,

mediation analysis was conducted in order to find mediating effect of trust on marital

satisfaction.

Table 4.1

Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients of Attachment Styles, Trust and Marital

Satisfaction (N=101)

Variables k M SD Range α

Potential Actual

Attachment Styles 18

Secure 6 6.73 1.79 1-10 3-9.67 .77

Dependent 6 6.26 1.55 1-10 3-9 .71
Anxiety 6 5.29 1.91 1-10 2.33- .85
9.33
Trust 17 6.38 1.23 1-10 3.70- .85
9.08
Marital Satisfaction 14 5.61 1.26 1-10 2.14- .90
7.50

Table 4.1 shows mean, standard deviation, actual and potential ranges and reliability

coefficients of variates of attachment styles, trust and marital satisfaction. Results revealed that

variates of attachment styles, trust and marital satisfaction yielded moderate to good reliabilities

range from .71 to .90.

 40

It was hypothesized that there is significant difference in trust and marital satisfaction of

long distance and proximal relationship of married men and women and there are significant

gender differences in marital satisfaction of married men and women. Independent sample t-test

was used to assess the differences as shown in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3.

Table 4.2
Independent Sample t-test for Differences in Marital Satisfaction in Types of Relationship
 41

(N=101)
Note: CI=Confidence Interval; LL= Lower Limit; UL= Upper Limit.
Proximal Long Distance
(n=58) (n=43) 95 % CI
Variables M SD M SD t (99) p LL UL Cohen’s d
Trust 6.87 1.11 5.72 1.08 5.17 .000 .70 1.58 1.05
Marital Satisfaction 6.03 1.09 5..06 1.28 4.08 .000 .49 1.44 .81

Table 4.2 suggests that trust is higher in proximal relationship (M=6.87, SD=1.11) than in

long distance (M=5.06, SD=1.28). There was also differences in marital satisfaction based on

type of relationship t (99) =4.08, p<.00. Married people who are in proximal relationship have

higher marital satisfaction (M=6.03, SD= 1.09) than people in long distance relationship

(M=5.06, SD=1.28).

Table 4.3

Independent Sample t-test for Gender Differences in Attachment Styles, Trust and Marital

Satisfaction (N=101)

Men Women
(n=40) (n=61) 95 % CI
Variables M SD M SD t (99) p LL UL Cohen’
sd
Attachment Styles
 42

Secure 7.35 1.61 6.32 1.80 2.92 .004 .33 1.72 .57

Dependent 6.52 1.45 6.08 1.59 1.39 .16 -.18 1.06 .28
Anxiety 4.78 1.88 5.62 1.86 -2.20 .03 -1.59 -.08 .44
Trust 6.49 1.19 6.32 1.26 .67 .50 -.33 .67 .13
Marital Satisfaction 5.79 1.28 5.49 1.25 1.15 .25 -.21 .80 23
Note: CI=Confidence Interval; LL= Lower Limit; UL= Upper Limit.

Further analyses revealed that men had more secure attachment styles (M=7.35,

SD=1.61) than women (M=6.32, SD=1.80), t (99) =2.92, p<.05. And women exhibit more

anxiety attachment style (M=5.62 SD=1.86) than men, t (99) =-2.20, p<.05. There were no

gender differences in dependent attachment style, trust and marital satisfaction.

 43

Table 4.4

Pearson Product Moment Correlation indicating association among the variables (N=101)

Var. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1.Type of relation - -.38*** -.46*** -.24* -.27** .42*** -.08 .23* .11 .13 .13 .11 .22*
2. Marital Satisfaction - - .65*** .62*** .39*** -.62*** -.12 -.18 -.11 -.12 -.12 -.18 -.20*
3. Trust - - - .45*** .40*** -.57*** -.07 -.25* -.12 -.16 -.16 -.16 -.04

4. Secure attachment style - - - - .34*** -.70*** -.28** -.04 -.18 -.13 -.14 .00 -.09

5. Dependent attachment style - - - - - -.41*** -.14 -.18 -.20* -.22 -.19 -.05 -.07

*
6. Anxious attachment style - - - - - - .22* .15 .22* .16 .26** .18 .03
7. Gender - - - - - - - -.28** .19* .18 -.04 -.19 .05

8. Age - - - - - - - - .78*** .13 .84*** .53*** -.11

9. Partner’s age - - - - - - - - - .19 .82*** .38*** -.14

10. Family system - - - - - - - - - - .14 .10 .04

11. Years of marriage - - - - - - - - - - - .54*** -.16

12. Children - - - - - - - - - - - - -.15

13. Monthly Income - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Note. *. p < .05; **.p< .01; ***.p< .001
 44

Results showed that marital satisfaction was higher in proximal marriages as

compared to long-distance marriages (r= -.38, p< .001). People in proximal marriages exhibit

higher levels of dyadic trust as compared to those who were in long-distance marriages (r=

-.43, p< .001).

Results also showed that trust had a positive correlation with marital satisfaction (r= .

65, p< .001). Marital satisfaction was higher in those individuals who showed secure

attachment style (r= .62, p< .001) and dependent attachment style (r= .39, p< .001). However,

individuals with anxious attachment styles showed lower levels of marital satisfaction (r=

-.62, p< .001). Monthly income was negatively associate with marital satisfaction (r= .22,

p= .05). Moreover, age, gender, partner’s age, family system, years of marriage and children

showed no significant correlation with marital satisfaction.

Trust was higher in individuals who showed secure (r= .45, p< .001) and dependent

attachment styles (r= .40, p<.001). However, trust was negatively correlated with an anxious

attachment style (r= -.57, p<.001), it showed that anxious individuals exhibit a lower level of

dyadic trust. Trust showed a negative significant correlation with age (r= -.25, p= .05) it

shows that dyadic trust decreases with the increase of age. However, gender, family system,

years of marriage, children and monthly income showed no significant correlation with trust.

Males exhibit more secure patterns of attachment as compared to females (r= -.28,

p= .01). However, anxious attachment style was more common in females (r=.22, p= .05).
 45

It was hypothesized that attachment styles are likely to predict marital satisfaction and

trust would mediate the relationship of attachment styles and marital satisfaction. For this

purpose, four assumption of mediation by Barron and Kenney were applied as follows:

The first assumption is IV should predict mediator. For this purpose, hierarchical

regression analysis was run while controlling type of relation i.e proximal and long distance

marriage.

Table 4.5

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting trust from secure, dependent and
anxious attachment styles (N=100)

Secure style Dependent style Anxious style

∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β

Step 1 .21*** .21*** .21***

Control variablesa

Step 2 .12*** .082*** .17***

Trust .36*** .29** -.45***

Total R2 .33*** .29*** .38***

Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001; β = Standardized Co efficient; R2= R Square; a
= Control
variables include type of relationship
The results showed that all three attachment styles significantly predict trust in close

relations. Secure style positively predict trust F (2, 98) = 26.77, p<.001. The overall variance

explained by the model is 33%. Dependent style also positively predict trust in close relations

F (2, 98) = 20.48, p<.001. The model explained 29 % of variance. While, the anxious style

negatively predicted trust in close relations F (2, 98) = 30.75, p<.001. The model explained

38% of variance. Hence the first assumption is fulfilled.

 46

The second assumption of mediation is independent variables should predict

dependent variables. For this purpose, hierarchical regression is as follows:

Table 4.6

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting marital satisfaction from secure, dependent and
anxious attachment style (N=100)

Secure style Dependent style Anxious style

∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β

Step 1 .14*** .14*** .14***

Control variablesa

Step 2 .29*** .08*** .25***

Marital satisfaction .56*** .30** -.55***

Total R2 .44*** .23*** .39***

Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001; β = Standardized Co efficient; R2= R Square; a
= Control variables
include type of relationship

The result has shown that all three attachment styles significantly predict marital

satisfaction. Secure style positively predict marital satisfaction F (2, 98) = 38.77, p<.001. The

model explained 44 % of variance. Dependent style also positively predict marital

satisfaction, F (2, 98) = 14.66, p<.001. This model explained 23% of variance. At last,

anxious style negatively predicts marital satisfaction, F (2, 98) = 32.07, p, .001. This model

explained 39% of variance in marital satisfaction. Hence the second assumption of mediation

is also fulfilled.
 47

The third assumption is that mediator should predict dependent variable. For this

purpose, a multiple regression analysis was run between trust and marital satisfaction.

Table 4.7

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Marital satisfaction from Trust (N=100)

Marital satisfaction
Predictor ∆R2 β

Step 1 .23***
Control variablesa
Step 2 .28***
Trust .60***

R2 .52***
a
* **
Note. p<.05; p<.01; p<.001; β= Standardized Coefficient; R2=R Square;
***
= Control variables include type
of relationship

Trust has positively predicted the marital satisfaction F (2, 98) = 28.76, p <.001. This

model explained 52% of variance in marital satisfaction. Hence the third assumption has also

been fulfilled.
 48

The fourth and last assumption of mediation is that independent variables should not

predict dependent variable while controlling the mediator. For this assumption, a multiple

regression analysis was run between attachment styles and marital satisfaction while

controlling the trust in close relations

Table 4.8

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting marital satisfaction from secure, dependent and
anxious attachment style while controlling for trust in close relations(N=100)

Secure style Dependent style Anxious style

∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β

Step 1 .14*** .14*** .14***

Control variablesa

Step 2 .29*** .08*** .25***

Marital satisfaction .40* .14 -.35*

Total R2 .25*** .19*** .28***

Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001; β = Standardized Co efficient; R2= R Square; a
= Control variables
include type of relationship

The result has shown that all three attachment styles significantly predict marital

satisfaction. Secure style still positively predict marital satisfaction F (2, 98) = 26.77, p<.05.

The model explained 25 % of variance. Dependent style does not predict marital satisfaction

after controlling the trust in close relations, F (2, 98) = 14.66, p>.05. This model explained

219% of variance. At last, anxious style still negatively predicts marital satisfaction, F (2, 98)

= 32.07, p,< .05. This model explained 28% of variance in marital satisfaction.
 49

Hence, the trust in close relations has played a role of mediator in the relation of

dependent attachment style and marital satisfaction. While for secure and anxious styles,

there was no full mediation, but their regression weights were considered in assumption 2 and

assumption 4. There is a decrease in standardized regression weight which shows a partial

mediation. For further confirmation, Sobel z-test was applied on these two attachment styles

and it showed significant results. Hence, the conclusion of this analysis explains that trust in

close relations significantly mediate the relation of dependent style on marital satisfaction,

and it partially mediate the relation of secure and anxious attachment style on marital

satisfaction.

4.1 Summary of the Findings

 50

Chapter V

Discussions

The previous chapter focused on results of the study. This chapter will discuss the

findings in light of existing literature.

The first and third hypotheses of current study assumed that attachment styles, trust

and marital satisfaction are likely to correlate with each other and demographic variables are

likely to correlate with study variables respectively.

The findings of correlational analyses showed that marital satisfaction was higher in

proximal marriages as compared to long-distance marriages as well as people in proximal

marriages exhibit higher levels of dyadic trust as compared to those who were in long-

distance marriages. Trust has been shown to differ in long distance relationships than

proximal relationships. Couples who live in long distance relationships experience lower

level of support and sharing from their partners which may make them less satisfied with

their relationships (Johnson & Moosath, 2019). Trust itself was positively correlated with

marital satisfaction. Trust is an essential part of any relationship to be successful. In case of

marital relationships which demand disclosure from both sides, trust can act as a building

block. Makhdoom (2019) found that satisfaction in marriage is achieved through trust.

Individuals who had secure and dependent attachment style were more satisfied with

their marriage and had more trust as compared to individuals who had anxious attachment

style. This finding is consistent with previous literature which states that marital functioning

depends more on one’s own attachment style than partner’s (Feeney, 1999). Marital

satisfaction may depend on how one is attached to his/her partner.

 51

It was also found that men had more secure attachment style as compared to women

who had more anxious attachment style. Hollist and Miller (2005) found that women’s

ambivalence-worry style was associated with their marital quality but not for men. It can be

relatable as in our culture, women are socialized more with this idea of maintaining

relationships.

According to the second hypothesis, attachment styles are likely to predict marital

satisfaction and trust would mediate the relationship of attachment styles and marital

satisfaction. To test this hypothesis, four assumptions of Barron and Kenny were applied. At

first assumption, it was found that secure and dependent attachment style positively predicted

trust in close relation whereas anxious attachment style negatively predicted trust in close

relations. The individuals who depend on their partners for their needs and are aware of this

fact that their partner will be there when they need them are more likely to exhibit

trustfulness. Rodriguez et al., (2015) had similar findings which indicates that trust in one’s

partner is associated with fewer thoughts and concerns that one’s partner may be romantically

interested in someone else, less monitoring of one’s partner’s behaviors and belongings, and

lower levels of psychological abuse. On the other hand, individuals who are constantly

preoccupied and fearful with their partners, their level of trust may be low. Findings suggest

that distrust is associated with more cognitive jealousy, particularly among those who felt less

secure in relationships (i.e., anxious individuals) (Rodriguez et al., 2015).

The second assumption had found that secure and dependent attachment style

positively predicted marital satisfaction while anxious attachment style negatively predicted

marital satisfaction. Banse (2004) found that secure attachment style positively and fearful,

preoccupied, and dismissing attachment style negatively predicted their own and partner’s

relationship satisfaction for both husbands and wives. Individuals are satisfied with their
 52

relationship when they are known to this fact that their partner would not leave them alone in

time of need.

The third assumption was to be fulfilled when mediator predicts dependent variable. It

was fulfilled when trust positively predicted marital satisfaction.

The last assumption followed that attachment styles would not predict marital

satisfaction when trust was controlled. It was found that dependent attachment style did not

predict marital satisfaction when trust was controlled which indicated full mediation. But in

case of secure and anxious attachment style, partial mediation was shown as their regression

weights significantly decreased in magnitude. It was found that low dyadic trust did serve as

a mediator between insecure romantic attachment and low relationship satisfaction. However,

literature has also suggested that attachment anxiety of male respondents predicted lower

dyadic trust, which in turn predicted lower relationship satisfaction (Fitzpatrick & Lafontaine,

2017).

The last hypothesis’ findings are that married couples who were living together had

secure and dependent attachment styles whereas married couples who were in long distance

relationships had anxious attachment style. Attachment schemas shape cognitive and

emotional responses to the partner by directing individuals to pay attention to certain aspects

of information. For anxiously attached, long distance may be a feature of their daily life

which becomes more intense due to partners’ unavailability as compared to people in

proximal relations when partner is available and responsive (Chaniago, 2007). With higher

insecure (i.e., anxious and avoidant) attachment, the person reveals less emotional material to

the partner, idealizes the partner less, and is less satisfied with the relationship For

individuals living in LDRs, their anxious attachment style may make them more attune to

their partner’s inability to be geographically close (Lee & Pistole, 2012). It can be justified as
 53

couples who are not living close may find it difficult to communicate their emotions and

therefore less satisfied with marriage.

Trust and marital satisfaction were also found to be higher in proximal relationships

than long distance relationships. Proximal marriages influence both trust and marital quality.

Marital satisfaction have found to be significantly different in proximal and long distance

relationships. Trust in marital relationships can be harmed by some factors such as lack of

sharing, lack of support, lack of forgiveness, lack of love, breaking promise and having

doubt. Technology have found to be effective but it was reported that video/phone calls did

not give much relationship satisfaction (Johnson & Moosath, 2019). Couples may find it

difficult to share or confide in through phone calls because of communication barriers.

Couples who do not live together may doubt about their partner’s activities especially when

one has anxious attachment style. There could be lack of support and love because of

geographical distance.

Gender differences were found in attachment styles between men and women as more

men were having secure attachment style whereas women had anxious attachment style.

Women seem to bear the brunt of an unhealthy marriage in our society and many other

countries of the developing world. Lack of understanding, male dominance, domestic

violence and financial issues play a pivotal role in disturbing a married life, leading to

damaging effects in the development of psychological bond which is essential for stability of

marriage (Ali et al., 2012). It may be consistent with the finding of Hollist and Miller (2005)

which showed that women’s ambivalent-worry style is more related to their marital quality.

In our culture, women are brought up and socialized in a manner that they have to constantly

worry about their relationships such as they are taught to please their husbands and in-laws.

They are more expected to compromise and sacrifice in their intimate relationships than men.
 54

5.1 Conclusion

 Marital satisfaction was higher in proximal marriages as compared to long-distance

marriages.

 Trust was higher in proximal marriages as compared to long-distance marriages

 Individuals who had secure and dependent attachment style were more satisfied with

their marriage and had more trust as compared to individuals who had anxious

attachment style.

 Men had more secure attachment style as compared to women who had more anxious

attachment style.

 Dependent attachment style did not predict marital satisfaction when trust was

controlled which indicated full mediation

 In case of secure and anxious attachment styles, partial mediation was shown as their

regression weights significantly decreased in magnitude.

5.2 Limitations

 The sample size was limited. There were more women in the sample as compared to

men.

 This research did not examine communication patterns between couples.

Communication plays a very important role in marriages and this factor was ignored

by the researcher. 

 This study solely relied on self-reported data, which might have led to

overestimations of effects due to social desirability. 

5.3 Suggestions

 Communication patterns should be included in the research as it plays an important

role in marital functioning. 

 55

 Longitudinal studies can be designed to better understand the factors behind marital

satisfaction and dissatisfaction. 

5.4 Implications

 The findings of this study would be useful for marriage and family therapists

involved in pre-marital, marital and family therapy.

 The present study also laid the base for future research in the area of adult

attachment styles determining marital satisfaction which includes more

information on the psychological and social factors affecting marital satisfaction

among individuals.
 56

References

Ali, T. S., Krantz, G., & Mogren, I. (2012). Violence permeating daily life: A qualitative

study investigating perspectives on violence among women in Karachi, Pakistan.

International Journal of Women’s Health, 4(1), 577–585.

https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S33325

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C, Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patteras of attachment:

psychological study of the strange situation. HiUsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Banse, R. (2004). Adult attachment and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic

configuration effects. Www.Sagepublications.Com), 21(2), 273–282.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504041388

Bartholomew, K. (1991). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Jouraal of

Personality and Social Psychology. 7, 147-178.

Bengston, N. (1979). Marriage and the family. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of

developmental psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond:

Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human

Communication Research, 1(2), 99-112.

Bernard, K. A., Shaver, P. R., & Tobey, A. E. (1976). Attachment styles, gender and

parentalproblem drinking. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 451–466.

Bowlby, S. (1969). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development.
 57

New York: Basic Books

Bowlby, S. (1973). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development.

New York: Basic Books

Bowlby, S. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development.

New York: Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of aduh

attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson «& W. S. Rholes (Eds.),

Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford.

Cassidy, J., and Shaver, P. (1999). (Eds.). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and

clinical applications. New York: Guilford.

Collins, N. L. and Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representation of attachment to attachment:

The structure and function of working models. Advances in personal relationships:

Attachment process in adulthood, 5, 53-90.

Chaniago, Y. S. (n.d.). Attachment in Adulthood - Structure, Dynamics, and Change-Mario

Mikulincer PhD Phillip R. Sha.pdf.

Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2001). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and

maintenance in long-distance versus geographically close relationships.

Communication Quarterly, 49, 172-188.

Dargie, E., Blair, K. L., Goldfinger, C., &Pukall, C. F. (2015). Go long! predictors of positive
 58

relationship outcomes in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Sex and

Marital Therapy, 41(2), 181–202.

Erikson, E. H., Erikson, J. M., & Kivnick, H. Q. (1986). Vhal involvement in old age. New

York: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: Norton.

Fatima, M., & Ajmal, M. A. (2012). Happy marriage: A qualitative study. Pakistan Journal of

Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 37-42.

Fanny, M. A., Jimenez, V., Markschies, C., & Frensch, P. (n.d.). The regulation of

psychological distance in long-distance relationships.

Feeney, J. A. (2008). Adult romantic attachment: Developments in the study of couple

relationships. In J. Cassidy and P. R. Shaver (Eds.). The handbook of attachment:

Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 456-481). New York:

Guilford Press.

Fitzpatrick.J., & Lafontaine. M. F., (2017). Attachment, trust, and satisfaction in

relationships: Investigating actor, partner, and mediating effects, Journal of the

International Association for Relationship Research.

Graham, J. M., & Conoley, C. W. (2006). The role of marital attributions in the relationship

between life stressors and marital quality. Personal Relationships, 13(2), 231-241
 59

Guerin, P. J., Fay, L. F., Burden, S. L., & Kautto, J. G. (1987). The evaluation and treatment

of marital conflict: A four-stage approach. San Francisco: Basic Books.

Hollist, C. S., & Miller, R. B. (2005). Perceptions of Attachment Style and Marital Quality in

Midlife Perceptions of Attachment Style and Marital Quality in Midlife Marriage

Marriage. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/famconfacpub/43

Harper, J. M. (2000). Daily hassles, intimacy, and marital quality in later life marriages.

American Journal of Family Therapy, 28(1), 1-18.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52, 511-524.

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage

and the Family, 50, 93-98.

Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships: in C. Hendrick (ed.)

Close Relationships (pp. 187–220).

Johnson, S. M., Makinen, J. A., & Millikin, J. W. (2001). Attachment injuries in couple

relationships: A new perspective on impasses in couples therapy. Jouraal of Marital

Family Therapy. 27. 145-155

Johnson, E., & Moosath, H. (2019). Exploring the Role of Distance in Trust and Marital-

Quality in Married Women. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-

JHSS, 24(2), 14. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2402071424

 60

Kabacoff, M., & Hasselt, V. (1999). The relationship between marital satisfaction and

communication patterns of couples in Isfahan University. Journal of Family Research.

2006; 1(2):109-20.

Koruk, S. (2017). The effect of gender and attachment styles on the relationship between

marital adjustment and psychological symptoms. European Journal of Educational

Research, 6(1), 69-77. doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.6.1.69

Lee, J. yeon, & Pistole, M. C. (2012). Predictors of satisfaction in geographically close and

long-distance relationships. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(2), 303–313.

Lerner, R. M. (1997). Concepts and theories of human development (2^ ed.). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (2000). Trust and distrust: New relationships

and realities. Academy of Management Review. 23, 438-458.

Logan, R. D. (1986). A reconceptuahzation of Erikson's theory: The repetition of existential

and instmmental themes. Human Development. 29, 125-136.

Loubser, J. (2007). Attachment theory and adult intimate relationships. Master thesis,

Stellenbosch University.

Makhdoom, I. (2019). Role of Trust in Relating Rewards and Marital Satisfaction among

Married Individuals in Pakistan. Foundation University Journal of Psychology, 3(1),

80–107.
 61

MacLean, A. P. (2001). Attachment in marriage: Predicting marital satisfaction from partner

matching using a three -group typology of adult attachment style. Theses and

Dissertations Available from ProQuest.

Mohammadi, K., Samavi, A., & Ghazavi, Z. (2016). The relationship between attachment

styles and lifestyle with marital satisfaction. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal,

18(4).

Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P.R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood:

Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. Advances in experimental

social psychology, 35, 56-152.

Nastiti. B. S., & Wismanto. Y. B., (2017). A Study on The Marriage Phenomenology of

Commuter Marriage Spouse, GUIDENA Journal.

Pistole, M. C., Roberts, A., & Chapman, M. L. (2010). Attachment, relationship maintenance,

and stress in long distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 27(4), 535–552.

Pistole, M. C., & Roberts, A. (2011). Measuring long-distance romantic relationships: A

validity study. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 44(2),

63–76.

Rodriguez, L. M., DiBello, A. M., Øverup, C. S., & Neighbors, C. (2015). The Price of

Distrust: Trust, Anxious Attachment, Jealousy, and Partner Abuse. Partner Abuse, 6(3),
 62

298–319. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.6.3.298

Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Grich, J. (2001). Adult attachment and the

transition to parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 421–435.

Roach, A. J., Frazier, L. P., & Bowden, S. R. (1981). The Marital Satisfaction Scale:

Development of a measure for intervention research. Journal of Marriage & Family,

43 (3), 537, 546.

Roberts, A., & Pistole, M. C. (2009). Maintaining intimacy at a distance: An exploration of

human-computer interaction’s approach to mediating intimacy. Behaviour and

Information Technology, 33(9), 882–891.

Sager, C. J. (1981). Couples therapy and marriage contracts. In A. S. Gurman 8c D. P.

Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy: Volume 1 (pp. 85-130). New York:

Bmnner/Mazel.

Singh, S., & Samara, R. (1996). Early Marriage Among Women in Developing Countries.

International Family Planning Perspectives, 22(4), 148–175.

Stafford, L., &Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance

dating relationships. Journal of Social and Persona.

Siegel, A., Levin, Y., & Solomon, Z. (2019). The Role of Attachment of Each Partner on

Marital Adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 40(4), 415–434.

Suitor, J. J. (1991). Marital quality and satisfaction with the division of household labor
 63

across the family life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 221-230.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1999). The social psychology of groups. New York: John

Wiley

Waite, L. J. (1995). Marriage and Psychological well being: the role of Social Support.

Journal of Psychology. 32, 483-507.

.
Wice, S. (2009). The Influence of Adult Attachment Styles on Coping with Bereavement.

Journal of Social Sciences, August, 46–65.

Webb, W. M., & Worchel, W. (1986). Trust and distrust. Psychology of intergroup
relations .

Journal of Marriage & Family, 67 (6), 754, 767.

 64

Appendices