Matching of attachment “generalized” and “specific” in married couples

Introduction: Assuming Bowlby’s attachment as an active system "from cradle to grave" many researchers have focalized on the study of attachment construct in romantic couples, emphasizing the importance of the matching of attachment patterns between partners, defined by Fisher and Crandell (2001) as “complex attachment”. Crowell and Waters (2005) have also argued that the representation that partners develop about their current relationship (“specific”), in addition to the one linked to childhood (“generalized”), may be related to the functioning of the couple. Methodology. Aim: This study aims to identify the matching of “generalized” and “specific” attachment patterns in married couples and highlight the possible overlap and discrepancies. Participants: The sample consisted of 39 married couples (N = 78). Measures: Participants were evaluated by: 1) the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI, Main, Goldwyn, Hesse, 2002); 2) the Current Relationship Interview (CRI, Crowell and Owens, 1996). Results: The study showed the following distribution of matching of AAI classifications: 26% of couples secure-secure, 23% insecure-insecure and 51% secure-insecure. The distribution of matching of CRI categories was: 51% of couples secure-secure, 13% insecure-insecure and 36% secure-insecure. Conclusion. The prevalence of couples with a “unstable” matching with AAI, in which one partner does not confirm the representation of the other, makes us reflect on how and when a secure partner can create a corrective emotional experience in an insecure partner. The majority of matching secure-secure in CRI, seems to indicate that the “specific” representation is influenced mainly by the relationship co-constructed and negotiated daily with the partner.