Attachment and memory for negative emotional events

Abstract

This research study examined the relationship between romantic attachment orientation and memory (explicit and implicit) for a negative, emotional film clip depicting attachment-relevant interactions. Two defensive information-processing strategies previously studied with respect to memory performance, expressive-suppression and cognitive reappraisal (Gross, 2001; Gross, & Levenson, 1993; Richards & Gross, 2000), were examined with respect to attachment avoidance as measured by the Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ: Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996). One hundred thirty-eight undergraduate students at Texas A&M University participated in the study. In contrast to previous findings showing a negative relationship between avoidance and explicit memory (e.g., Fraley, Garner, & Shaver, 2000), highly avoidant participants in the current study displayed significantly better recall of film details than did less avoidant participants. A main effect for sex indicated that females displayed better recall for film details relative to males. Consistent with hypotheses, highly avoidant participants reported engaging in defensive information-processing strategies, specifically expressive-suppression, to a greater extent in general than did low avoidant individuals. However, highly avoidant individuals did not engage in defensive strategies in the current study to a greater extent than did less avoidant individuals. Also contrary to expectations, no evidence was found for the hypothesized avoidance by expressive-suppression interaction. Finally, it was predicted that no significant differences would emerge for the impact of attachment on implicit memory, measured by performance on a word-stem completion task. However, an interaction between avoidance and sex emerged. Highly avoidant males displayed better implicit recall for the film clip than did low avoidant males, while highly avoidant females displayed worse implicit memory relative to low avoidant females. Findings are discussed with respect to attachment theory and to differences between the present study and Fraley et al.'s research design.