Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 552–556

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Autonomy–proximity imbalance: An attachment theory perspective on

intrusiveness in romantic relationships
Shiri Lavy a,*, Mario Mikulincer b, Phillip R. Shaver c
a
Department of Behavioral Sciences and Psychology, Ariel University Center, Ariel 44837, Israel
b
The New School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), P.O. Box 167, Herzliya 46150, Israel
c
Department of Psychology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8686, U.S.A.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We examined associations between two kinds of attachment insecurity (anxiety and avoidance) and
Received 2 September 2009 intrusiveness in couple relationships. One hundred fifty-six adults completed measures of attachment
Received in revised form 29 November 2009 insecurities and variables related to intrusiveness (engaging in intrusive behavior, perceiving a partner
Accepted 2 December 2009
as intrusive, subjective experiences of being intrusive, and reacting to intrusive behavior). Attachment
Available online 6 January 2010
anxiety was associated with more intrusive behavior, more ambivalent reactions to partner intrusiveness,
and greater emotionality when being intrusive. Avoidance was associated with perceiving a partner as
Keywords:
intrusive, reacting critically and establishing distance in response to partner intrusiveness, and feeling
Attachment
Anxiety
concerned and caring when being intrusive. Results and their implications are discussed from an attach-
Avoidance ment theory perspective.
Intrusiveness Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Couple relationships
Transgressions

1. Introduction governed by other behavioral systems such as exploration. Engag-

Autonomy and relatedness, or interdependence, are important
issues in most close relationships (Prager & Roberts, 2004). Achiev-
ing balance between them is often challenging yet necessary for
partners’ mutual satisfaction (e.g., Bowlby, 1982; Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Here, we focus on one kind of
imbalance between autonomy and relatedness – intrusiveness –
viewed from the perspective of attachment theory. This theory is
a broad and extensively researched framework for understanding
normative interpersonal processes as well as individual differences
in couple relationships (see Cassidy & Shaver, 2008; Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007, for reviews). In the study reported here we explored
individual differences in the behavioral and experiential processes
involved in regulating closeness and autonomy in couple
relationships.
Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982) conceptualizes human moti-
vation in terms of several biologically evolved ‘‘behavioral sys-
tems,” including attachment, exploration, caregiving, and sex.
According to the theory, the attachment system evolved to respond
to threats and stresses by causing a person to seek protection and
comfort from familiar caregivers. If proximity-seeking reduces the
threat and distress, the threatened person’s mind turns to activities
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 52 8814582; fax: +972 57 7961039.
E-mail address: shirilavy@gmail.com (S. Lavy).
ing in what Bowlby called exploration leads to increased cognitive,
behavioral, and social skills, which contribute over time to the
development of secure autonomy. When a person has regulated
emotions effectively by relying on security-providing ‘‘attachment
figures” (relationship partners who provide a ‘‘safe haven” and a
‘‘secure base for exploration”; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall,
1978), then the person can alternate, at will, between comfortable
closeness and self-confident autonomy.
Problems develop when a primary caregiver is either self-preoc-
cupied and intrusive or intimacy-avoidant and unsupportive. Volu-
minous research, both correlational and longitudinal, indicates
that a child raised under these conditions develops what Bowlby
(1982) called attachment insecurity (see Cassidy & Shaver, 2008,
for reviews). Early in the history of attachment research, Ainsworth
et al. (1978) conceptualized the major forms of insecurity in terms
of two categories, anxious and avoidant attachment, and discov-
ered that the anxious, clingy pattern was associated with interac-
tions with a self-preoccupied and intrusive attachment figure,
whereas the avoidant, compulsively self-reliant pattern was asso-
ciated with interactions with a caregiver who was distant and
unsupportive. A third insecure pattern, described and labeled ‘‘dis-
organized” by Main and Solomon (1990), is characterized by con-
flicting components of the other two insecure patterns.
Personality and social psychologists who study attachment-re-
lated mental processes and behavior in adolescents and adults

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.12.004
 S. Lavy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 552–556
(e.g., Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver,
1998) have designed self-report measures of the two major dimen-
sions identified by Ainsworth et al. (1978), attachment anxiety and
avoidance, which reflect two learned ways to regulate the attach-
ment behavioral system: hyperactivation (vigilance regarding a
partner’s interest or disinterest and clingy, intrusive behavior)
and deactivation (avoidance of intimacy and strong efforts to re-
main self-reliant). These patterns have been empirically associated
with theoretically predicted defensive strategies, relational behav-
iors, and indicators of poor personal and social adjustment (Mikul-
incer & Shaver, 2007).
According to Pistole (1994), the anxiously attached person’s de-
sire for extreme closeness and the avoidant person’s extreme self-
reliance often disrupt or damage couple relationships because they
interfere with the negotiation of mutually satisfying closeness and
autonomy. Pistole suggested that avoidant individuals’ distancing
behavior interferes with their own (assumed) needs for closeness
and with their responsiveness to their partners’ needs for close-
ness. In contrast, anxious individuals’ extreme need for closeness
and fear of abandonment can lead to intrusive behavior and to mis-
interpretations of partners’ moves toward autonomy as signs of
rejection. Pistole’s analysis was empirically supported (Feeney,
1999; Feeney & Noller, 1991).
In the study reported here, we sought to deepen our under-
standing of insecure people’s difficulties in regulating closeness
and autonomy in romantic relationships by examining the issue
of intrusiveness. Intrusiveness has been mentioned in descriptions
of pathological relationships, mainly pursuer–distancer relation-
ships (in which one person seeks more closeness and the other
backs away) and pursuer–pursuer relationships (in which the
two partners both desire closeness but seek it in ways that do
not result in the desired outcome). These two patterns are common
in cases of marital breakdown and divorce as well as cases of
domestic violence, because one partner intensively seeks closeness
and reassurance and the other responds with either intensified ef-
forts to maintain autonomy and independence or awkward efforts
to achieve extreme closeness and dependence (e.g., Bartholomew
& Allison, 2006; Betchen & Ross, 2000; Fogarty, 1979).
Intrusiveness in these kinds of relationships is thought to be
manifested in various ways, such as attempts to monitor and influ-
ence a partner’s attitudes and behaviors, invade the partner’s self-
boundaries, make unsuitable relational demands (Lavy, Mikulincer,
Shaver, & Gillath, 2009), and be clingy, controlling, and critical (e.g.,
Savage, 2000). Intrusiveness in couple relationships is reportedly
common in couples seeking counseling (Betchen, 2005), and in ex-
treme cases it may provoke domestic violence (e.g., Bartholomew
& Allison, 2006; Dutton, 2007). However, intrusiveness is also quite
common in nonpathological relationships (Lavy et al., 2009).
Aside from preliminary, mainly clinical studies (e.g., Green &
Werner, 1996; Werner, Green, Greenberg, Browne, & McKenna,
2001), little is known about how intrusiveness operates in more
typical romantic relationships. In the study reported here, we
sought to examine how attachment insecurities are related to (1)
intrusive behavior in romantic relationships, (2) perceptions of a
partner’s intrusive behavior, (3) reactions to a partner’s intrusive
behavior, and (4) the subjective experience of being intrusive.
Regarding the first and second issues, adult attachment re-
search suggests that anxiously attached individuals are especially
clingy, controlling, and preoccupied by an intense desire for close-
ness. In contrast, avoidant individuals are especially vigilant and
self-protective with regard to a partner’s attempts to increase
closeness (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for a review). Thus, we
hypothesized that anxious individuals would be more intrusive,
and avoidant individuals would be more sensitive to threats to
their autonomy and would therefore tend to view their partners
as intrusive.
553
With regard to the third research issue, we hypothesized that
reactions to a partner’s intrusive behavior would differ among
individuals with different forms of attachment insecurity. For anx-
ious individuals, there were two possibilities: (1) They might react
positively to a partner’s intrusiveness, being grateful for signs of
interest and involvement. But if the intrusive behavior was per-
ceived as critical or unpleasant, (2) they might behave as they often
do in response to relationship conflict, displaying and expressing
strong negative emotions. From avoidant individuals we expected
distancing responses to partner intrusiveness, responses that re-
stored personal boundaries and a sense of autonomy.
Regarding the fourth research issue, we hypothesized that peo-
ple with different attachment orientations would have different
subjective experiences of being intrusive. Specifically, we expected
more anxiously attached people to experience more negative
thoughts and feelings when being intrusive, because their intrusive
behavior would be motivated by fear of rejection and a perceived
shortage of partner affection. We were unsure what to predict
about avoidant individuals’ experiences, because intrusiveness
should be an unusual form of behavior for them.
In this study, participants’ attachment anxiety and avoidance
were assessed with the Experiences in Close Relationships Inven-
tory (ECR; Brennan et al., 1998). Their intrusiveness, perceptions
of their partners’ intrusiveness, reactions to partner intrusiveness
and subjective experiences of being intrusive were assessed with
new questionnaires designed especially for that purpose. We ex-
pected attachment anxiety to be associated with more intrusive
behavior, more ambivalent reactions to a partner’s intrusiveness
(a combination of negative emotions and willingness to accept
the partner’s behavior rather than risk jeopardizing the relation-
ship), and more negative experiences of being intrusive. We ex-
pected avoidant attachment to be associated with more
perceived intrusive behavior by the partner and distancing reac-
tions to a partner’s intrusiveness.
We also considered possible gender differences, because gender
roles assign greater proximity-seeking motivation to women and
greater autonomy-seeking motivation to men (e.g., Schmitt,
2008; Werner et al., 2001). We hypothesized that men would per-
ceive their female partners as more intrusive, and that men’s neg-
ative reactions to intrusiveness would be stronger.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
One hundred fifty-six adult Israeli volunteers (76 men, 80 wo-
men, aged 18–42, mean = 25.8, SD = 3.66) with 12–20 years of edu-
cation (mean = 14.61, SD = 2.35) participated in the study. Most
were university students who completed the survey during or after
various classes (e.g., psychology, math). Some were acquaintances
of students who voluntarily completed the survey and returned it
to the researchers. Participants did not receive monetary compen-
sation. Over 90% of the participants were involved in a romantic
relationship that had lasted at least three months at the time of
the study; the other 10% were asked to describe a previous rela-
tionship that had lasted at least three months.
2.2. Materials and procedure
Questionnaires were completed in a random order by individu-
als tested either separately or in small groups. Attachment insecu-
rities were assessed with the ECR, which includes two groups of 18
items, one measuring attachment anxiety (e.g., ‘‘I worry about
being abandoned”) and the other measuring avoidance (e.g., ‘‘I pre-
fer not to show a partner how I feel deep down”). Each item was
554 S. Lavy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 552–556
Table 1
Means and SDs of attachment scores for men and women.
Men Women
Mean SD Mean
Anxiety 3.09 1.06 3.62
Avoidance 3.31 .91 2.80
rated on a scale ranging from 1 (agree strongly) to 7 (disagree
strongly). The scales were translated into Hebrew and validated
by Mikulincer and Florian (2000). In the present study, coefficient
alphas were high for both anxiety (.91) and avoidance (.92). The
two scores were only modestly correlated, as intended (r
(154) = .20, p < .05), and were treated as separate independent
variables in regression analyses (see Table 1 for means and SDs).
Intrusive behavior was assessed with a questionnaire developed
for this study. In the first stage of scale development, participants
from four cultures (108 Jewish Israelis, 59 Arab Israelis, 60 Ameri-
cans, and 62 Indians) described behaviors that they thought were
intrusive in romantic relationships. The answers were categorized
according to content similarity by three independent judges (see
Lavy, 2006; Lavy et al., 2009, for details). A 97-item questionnaire
based on these categories of intrusive behavior was distributed to
151 new participants who were asked to rate how much each of
the items described intrusiveness in a romantic relationship (fol-
lowing Fehr and Russell’s (1984) studies of category prototypes).
The 25 descriptions that received the highest ratings were consid-
ered to be the most prototypical examples of intrusiveness in
romantic relationships (e.g., ‘‘I look through my partner’s personal
things without having his/her permission”).
In the present study, participants rated on a scale ranging from
1 (never) to 7 (all the time) how often they displayed each of the 25
prototypical intrusive behaviors (found by Lavy, 2006) in their own
romantic relationship.1 The alpha for the 25-item questionnaire was
.91. Perceptions of a partner’s intrusiveness were assessed with a
parallel 25-item questionnaire, following appropriate reworking of
the items (e.g., ‘‘My partner looks through my personal things with-
out my permission”). Alpha for this scale was also .91.
Reactions to a partner’s intrusiveness and the subjective experi-
ences of being intrusive were assessed with two additional ques-
tionnaires developed for this study. In the first stage of scale
development, participants from four cultures (65 Jewish Israelis,
59 Arab Israelis, 60 Americans, and 62 Indians) described their
reactions when their partner was intrusive, and their feelings and
thoughts when they were intrusive. The answers were categorized
according to content similarity by three independent judges (see
Lavy, 2006, for details). Based on these classifications, one ques-
tionnaire was constructed for reactions to intrusive behavior and
the other was constructed to assess the subjective experiences of
being intrusive, with 36 and 33 items, respectively. At the begin-
ning of each questionnaire, participants were asked to describe a
real example of their own or their partner’s intrusive behavior
and then to rate (on a 1–7 scale) how much each item reflected
the way they felt or behaved during the remembered situation.
The questionnaires were distributed to 460 Israeli participants
(198 men, 262 women). An exploratory factor analysis of reactions
to partner intrusiveness yielded 7 factors (with eigenvalues >1)
explaining 55.1% of the variance. The factors were named as fol-
lows: anger and hurt (9 items), confusion and helplessness (5
items), regret (6 items), negative thoughts about the partner (7
items), acceptance and giving in (4 items), verbal confrontation
(3 items), and ignoring the situation (3 items). The percentage of
1
The questionnaires can be obtained from the first author, and can also be found in
Lavy (2006).
the variance explained by each factor ranged from 2.9 to 23.3,
and Cronbach alphas ranged from .71 to .87 (see Lavy, 2006 for
details).
SD A second exploratory factor analysis of experiences of being
intrusive yielded 6 factors (eigenvalues > 1) explaining 57.2% of
1.17
.91
the variance. The factors were named: regret (7 items), anger (6
items), relational insecurity (7 items), care and concern for the
partner (5 items), distancing and helplessness (5 items), and feel-
ing appreciated (3 items). The percentage of the variance explained
by each factor ranged from 3.6 to 23.1, and the Cronbach alphas
ranged from .72 to .88 (see Lavy, 2006 for details).
In the current sample, the alphas for the seven reactions to part-
ner intrusiveness scales ranged from .65 to .84. The alphas for the
six experiences of being intrusive scales ranged from .68 to .89.
Scale scores were computed by averaging item ratings.
3. Results
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to assess un-
ique and interactive effects of gender, attachment anxiety, and
avoidant attachment on each of the intrusiveness-related scale
scores. In the first step of the analysis, gender (dummy coded 1
for men and +1 for women) and z scores for anxious and avoidant
attachment were introduced as predictors. In the second step, the
interactions between gender and each of the two attachment inse-
curity variables were introduced. To avoid inflation of Type I error
due to the large number of regressions computed, we set a more
conservative significance level and here report regression coeffi-
cients as significant only if their significance level was less than
a = .01.
3.1. Self-reports of intrusive behavior
As expected, the regression analysis for participants’ reports of
intrusive behaviors indicated that more anxiously attached partic-
ipants reported significantly higher levels of intrusiveness (see Ta-
ble 2). No other main effects or interactions were significant.
3.2. Perceptions of partner’s intrusiveness
The regression analysis for participants’ perceptions of their
partners’ intrusiveness yielded a significant main effect of avoidant
attachment (see Table 2). As expected, more avoidant participants
perceived their partners to be more intrusive. Unexpectedly, how-
ever, attachment anxiety was also positively associated with per-
ceived partner intrusiveness. Gender had no significant main or
interactive effects.
Another result, not shown in Table 2, was that self-reported
intrusiveness and perceived partner intrusiveness were substan-
tially correlated: r(154) = .63, p < .01. Further analyses revealed
that the correlation was not moderated by gender or attachment
scores. When the analysis for perceived partner intrusiveness
was recomputed, controlling statistically for the participants’
own self-reported intrusiveness, the beta coefficient for attach-
ment anxiety was reduced from .21 (p < .01) to .03 (ns). This con-
trol did not eliminate the significant effect for avoidance,
however (the beta changed from .27 to .22, both ps < .01).
3.3. Reactions to partner intrusiveness
Hierarchical regression analyses revealed significant associa-
tions between attachment anxiety and higher scores on anger and
hurt feelings, confusion and helplessness, negative thoughts about
the intrusive partner, and acceptance and giving in (see Table 2).
In contrast, avoidant attachment was significantly associated with
 S. Lavy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 552–556 555

Table 2
Standardized regression coefficients predicting intrusiveness-related variables from gender and attachment scores.

Gender Anxiety Avoidance Gen  Anx Gen  Avo F (7,148) R2 (%)

** **
Intrusive behavior .07 .44 .02 .05 .18 6.87 24.5
Perceived partner intrusiveness .15 .21** .27** .04 .05 4.34** 17.1
Reactions to partner’s intrusiveness
Anger and hurt .12 .35** .01 .07 .08 4.32** 16.9
Confusion and helplessness .09 .41** .04 .01 .03 5.52** 20.7
Regret .07 .14 .29** .12 .06 2.71** 11.4
Negative thoughts about the partner .03 .29** .21** .10 .18 4.60** 17.9
Accepting and giving in .16 .31** .08 .10 .05 3.36** 13.7
Verbal confrontation .03 .04 .33** .10 .09 2.84** 11.8
Ignoring .14 .09 .26** .02 .08 3.60** 14.6
Subjective experiences of being intrusive
Regret .12 .36** .01 .01 .02 4.16** 16.5
Anger .01 .31** .28** .06 .02 4.17** 16.6
Relationship insecurity .09 .47** .07 .02 .07 7.53** 26.4
Care and concern for partner .19 .16 .16 .08 .07 7.56** 25.8
Distancing and helplessness .10 .33** .13 .01 .02 4.64** 18.1
Feeling appreciated .14 .24** .05 .13 .13 2.78 7.8

Notes: Gen = Gender; Anx = Anxiety; Avo = Avoidance.

**
p < .01.

higher scores on negative thoughts about the intrusive partner and
disregarding/ignoring the intrusion, and with lower scores on
regretting the incident and verbally confronting the partner. No
main or interactive effects of gender were found. These results fully
supported our predictions.
3.4. The subjective experience of being intrusive
Hierarchical regression analyses revealed significant main ef-
fects of attachment anxiety on five of the six dimensions (see
Table 2). The higher a participant’s attachment anxiety, the stron-
ger were his or her cognitive and emotional responses while being
intrusive toward a partner. Avoidant attachment was significantly
associated only with experiencing less anger. No main or interac-
tive effects of gender were found.
4. Discussion
We explored four research questions concerning associations
between attachment insecurity dimensions and intrusiveness in
romantic relationships. Our first question concerned associations
between attachment scores and intrusive behaviors. As expected,
anxiously attached participants reported being more intrusive,
probably because of chronic worries about their relationships
and their value in their partners’ eyes. It is possible that when anx-
ious people feel threatened with rejection or abandonment, they
intrude into a relationship partner’s personal ‘‘space,” often making
matters worse rather than better.
Our second question concerned associations between attach-
ment scores and perceptions of partner intrusiveness. Our hypoth-
esis that avoidant participants would perceive their partners as
more intrusive was supported by the data, suggesting that avoid-
ant individuals’ need for independence results in heightened sensi-
tivity to their partners’ intrusiveness. However, we also found an
unexpected association between attachment anxiety and per-
ceived partner intrusiveness. This association became marginal
and nonsignificant when we controlled for participants’ own self-
reported intrusiveness. These findings may have something to do
with dyadic cycles of intrusiveness in pursuer–pursuer relation-
ships (as mentioned by Bartholomew & Allison, 2006), when one
anxious partner’s intrusive behavior increases the other’s intru-
siveness, generating a vicious cycle. This possibility should be
examined in future studies of couples.
Regarding the second research question, we also hypothesized
that men would perceive their partners as more intrusive than wo-
men. However, the association between gender and perceived
partner intrusiveness was not significant. It is possible that the fail-
ure to find the expected gender differences resulted from the use of
an explicit, self-report measure for assessing perceptions of partner
responsiveness. Future studies should examine these gender differ-
ences using implicit measures that eliminate self-report biases,
such as social desirability or effects of gender-related norms and
expectations.
Our third research question concerned associations between
attachment insecurities and reactions to partner intrusiveness.
We hypothesized that anxious individuals would report strong po-
sitive and negative emotional reactions, whereas avoidant individ-
uals would report more distancing reactions. These hypotheses
were fully supported: As expected, attachment anxiety was associ-
ated with stronger anger, hurt, confusion, helplessness, and nega-
tive thoughts about one’s partner as well as greater acceptance
and willingness to give in. People who score high on attachment
anxiety are strongly affected by their desires for security and close-
ness, which cause them to focus on the potential rewards of inti-
macy (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987). They are also affected,
however, by fears of rejection and abandonment and by memories
of frustrating attachment relationships, which lead them to over-
emphasize their partners’ potentially negative traits and intentions
(see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for a review). Both of these views
are conducive to strong relational ambivalence (Mikulincer, Sha-
ver, Bar-On, & Ein-Dor, in press) and mental confusion about one’s
reactions to a partner’s intrusiveness – anger and hurt feelings or
acceptance and giving in.
In line with our hypothesis, we found that more avoidant indi-
viduals reacted to intrusiveness with distancing strategies, both
psychological (having negative thoughts about their partner and
not feeling regret) and behavioral (ignoring and not verbally con-
fronting the partner). These responses seem to help avoidant peo-
ple restore their sense of autonomy by emphasizing psychological
boundaries between themselves and their partners.
Our fourth question concerned associations between attach-
ment insecurities and subjective experiences of being intrusive.
We predicted that anxiously attached people would experience
more negative thoughts and feelings when being intrusive, because
their intrusive behavior would be motivated by fear of rejection
and lack of partner affection. The findings fully supported this pre-
556 S. Lavy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 552–556
diction; attachment anxiety was associated with all of the negative
experiential reactions we assessed: anger, regret, insecurity, and
helplessness. However, attachment anxiety was also associated
with a sense of being appreciated by a partner, probably reflecting
attachment-anxious people’s gratitude when intrusive responses
result in a partner’s attention and concern. Avoidant attachment
was negatively associated with anger, probably reflecting the sup-
pression of negative emotions that can activate attachment needs
despite one’s wish to remain self-reliant (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007). In addition, anger implies emotional involvement in a rela-
tionship, and such involvement may undermine an avoidant per-
son’s pursuit of autonomy and emotional distance (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007). Another possibility is that for avoidant individuals,
infrequent intrusive behaviors are not caused or associated with
anger but are motivated by a genuine concern for the safety or
well-being of the partner in cases where there is a good external
reason to behave intrusively.
In general, the findings indicate that both anxious and avoidant
attachment are associated with imbalances of closeness and dis-
tance. Anxious individuals tend to overemphasize the importance
of closeness, causing them sometimes to become intrusive,
demanding, and coercive. When they are intrusive, they are very
emotional, and when their partner is intrusive they fail to under-
stand, and they experience strong negative emotions despite their
own tendency to be intrusive. Avoidant individuals emphasize the
importance of emotional distance and self-reliance, leading them
to perceive their partners’ proximity-seeking behavior as intrusive.
However, avoidant individuals’ tendency to ignore their partner
may cause the partner to become intrusive, which in turn may
cause avoidant individuals to distance themselves further from
their partners, which then may cause the partners to become even
more intrusive. This self-perpetuating cycle may be the key to pur-
suer–distancer relationships (e.g., Betchen, 2005), which can de-
stroy a couple’s relationship.
The present study is the first to examine the issue of intrusive-
ness in light of adult attachment theory (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007), using newly developed measures of intrusive behavior, per-
ceptions of partner intrusive behavior, reactions to a partner’s
intrusive behavior, and subjective experiences of being intrusive.
Future studies should evaluate and refine these new measures
and explore their connections with other theoretically relevant
constructs, such as relationship satisfaction, commitment, inti-
macy, and partner responsiveness. In addition, studies should
examine the external validity of the new measures using data from
both members of a couple and from external observers, such as
friends or family members. This is crucial for determining, for
example, if the association between avoidant attachment and per-
ceived partner intrusiveness reflects avoidant individuals’ sensitiv-
ity to proximity-seeking behaviors or their partners’ actual
intrusiveness.
Couple studies will also be important for uncovering the rela-
tional dynamics underlying intrusiveness. Since relational dynam-
ics are influenced by interactions between both partners’
attachment insecurities, intrusiveness and the ways it is experi-
enced are also probably effected by these kinds of interactions.
Our findings indicate that anxious and avoidant individuals differ
in their reactions to a partner’s intrusiveness and their subjective
experience of being intrusive. Discussing these reactions and expe-
riences openly within couple therapy may be useful for treating
couples with a pursuer–distancer pattern of relationship.
Intrusiveness experienced in pursuer–distancer relationships is
probably different from that experienced in pursuer–pursuer rela-
tionships (usually composed of anxiously attached partners). In the
latter case, intrusiveness is probably an unfortunate outcome of a
vicious cycle of disrespect for a partner’s autonomy.
Future studies should also examine associations between the
various facets of intrusiveness and relationship quality. Previous
studies have reported links between intrusiveness and relationship
distress (e.g., Betchen, 2005) and between attachment insecurities
and relationship dissatisfaction (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for
a review). Therefore, future studies should examine the possible
role of intrusiveness as a mediator of the link between attachment
insecurities and relationship quality. With further research to
guide them, couple therapists can create effective interventions
to deal with aspects of intrusiveness that interfere with relation-
ship satisfaction.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bartholomew, K., & Allison, C. J. (2006). An attachment perspective on abusive
dynamics in intimate relationships. In M. Mikulincer & G. S. Goodman (Eds.),
Dynamics of romantic love (pp. 102–127). New York: Guilford Press.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults:
A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
226–244.
Betchen, S. J. (2005). Intrusive partners – Elusive mates: The pursuer-distancer dynamic
in couples. New York: Routledge.
Betchen, S., & Ross, J. (2000). Male pursuers and female distancers in couple therapy.
Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 15, 15–31.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic
Books.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press.
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and
clinical applications (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Dutton, D. G. (2007). The abusive personality (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Feeney, J. A. (1999). Issues of closeness and distance in dating relationships: Effects
of sex and attachment style. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16,
571–590.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1991). Attachment style and verbal descriptions of
romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 187–215.
Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1984). Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype
perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 464–486.
Fogarty, T. (1979). The distancer and the pursuer. The Family, 7, 11–16.
Green, R. J., & Werner, P. D. (1996). Intrusiveness and closeness-caregiving:
Rethinking the concept of family ‘‘enmeshment”. Family Process, 35, 115–136.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
Lavy, S. (2006). Expressions and consequences of intrusiveness in adult romantic
relationships: An attachment theory perspective. Doctoral dissertation. Bar Ilan
University, Israel.
Lavy, S., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Gillath, O. (2009). Intrusiveness in romantic
relationships: A cross-cultural perspective on imbalances between proximity
and autonomy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 989–1008.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/
disoriented during the Ainsworth strange situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D.
Cicchetti, & M. E. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory,
research, and intervention (pp. 121–160). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2000). Exploring individual differences in reactions to
mortality salience: Does attachment style regulate terror management
mechanisms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 260–273.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics,
and change. New York: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Bar-On, N., & Ein-Dor, T. (in press). The pushes and
pulls of close relationships: Attachment insecurities and relational
ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Pistole, M. (1994). Adult attachment styles: Some thoughts on closeness–distance
struggles. Family Process, 33, 147–159.
Prager, K. J., & Roberts, L. J. (2004). Deep intimate connection: Self and intimacy in
couple relationships. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and
intimacy (pp. 43–60). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55, 68–78.
Savage, E. (2000). Breathing room. New Harbinger Publications.
Schmitt, D. P. (2008). How ecological stressors influence dismissing orientations
across genders and geographies. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 220–247.
Werner, P. D., Green, R. J., Greenberg, J., Browne, T. L., & McKenna, T. E. (2001).
Beyond enmeshment: Evidence for the independence of intrusiveness and
closeness-caregiving in married couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
27, 459–471.