The study was carried out on 20 couples who had been having problems and had entered themselves into couple therapy and 20 university student couples. All participants were Iranian Muslims of similar socioeconomic background.
The study was carried out using The Adult Attachment Inventory (Besharat in prep.) and the Golombok-Rust Inventory of Marital State Questionnaire (Rust, Bennun, Crowe &Golombok, 1988). All participants filled in this questionnaire, which consisted of a 15 item self-report scale. On the basis of these rating participants were categorized into one of the three attachment types. Besharat claims that this scale has been very reliable with previous Iranian Samples. The second questionnaire that was used was the 28 point Golombok- Rust Inventory of Marital State self-report scale. Again this questionnaire was anchored ‘reflecting complete confirmation and complete rejection’. The questionnaire also contained issues, which concern couples regarding consensus, satisfaction, affectional expression and others. Both scales indicated adequate internal consistency from both partners.
After thorough analysis the final scores showed that couples with secure attachment style reported fewer marital problems than the ‘insecure’ couples. From these findings Besharat concluded that both personal and couple attachment styles tend to have an association with the quality of marital relationships. Researchers like Rubin (1973), Dion & Dion (1985), have claimed that individuals that are securely attached posses certain qualities which in turn help them to constructively cope with problems especially in regards to marital conflict. In contrast to this those individuals that report insecure attachment style seem to be ‘associated with fear of intimacy’. Shaver and Hazan (1993) claim that their distress may be due to them believing that they are unable to deal with problems. Both these findings also seem to be reflected in the attachment style of couples. These suggestions also seem to be consistent with the work of McCarthy G (1999) who found that adult attachment was significantly related to self-esteem and to ratings of functioning in the domain of adult friendships. In particular, participants with an anxious-ambivalent attachment style had more negative self-esteem than secure participants.
It therefore seems that Besharat has been successful in replicating and supporting previous research, which claims a relationship between attachment style and the quality of relationships. This has also been the case with other researchers who have aimed to find the effects of attachment style on later relationships. (Grau I, Doll J,(2003) Scott R.L, Cordova J.V.(2002) Paley BJ, Cox M.J, Harter K.S, Margand N.A.(2002).
All these finding’s appear to be in harmony with the Bowlby’s theory that our early attachment patterns have an effect on our future relationships. At first glance, Bowlby's (1973) attachment theory seems to make perfect sense. It seems only right that our earliest relationships become an important part of our lives, and that the internal working models guide us throughout future relationships. However, even though attachment theory makes good sense, we have to evaluate the empirical evidence used to support it. One of the studies used to support it was by Lorenz (1952), but the question needs to be asked. What can animal studies really tell us about our human bonding behaviors? Also are the tools used by attachment theorists valid? In order to validate the findings of Besharat and others that support it is important that these questions are answered, as the assumptions of Bowlby’s theory is really the ‘basic premise of attachment theory’.
The method used by Besharat is one that has been adopted by many who have carried out research in this field. However the self-report technique has not been accepted so positively by all. In an article by David A. Northrup (1996); the problem of the self-report in survey research, he looks at the problems of using self-report as a method of research. He claims that the issue of ‘Whether or not people tell the truth when answering questions as part of a survey is a thread that is woven through past methodological work on survey research.’ And has been recognized by many as a problem. David suggests that one way to determine whether respondents are giving honest answers to survey questions is to use a validation measures external to the interviewing situation. For example, responses to questions about voting can be compared to voting records. However he also rightly points out that this is not always possible especially when trying to measure attitudes and beliefs. This article has also taken into consideration past work that has used self-report analysis and found that; “A general conclusion that can be drawn from reviewing validation studies completed over the last four decades is that misreporting is associated with the extent of perceived question threat”. Therefore it is quite reasonable to conclude that misreporting for non-sensitive questions is very limited. As the issue of marital conflict and attachment can both be seen as ‘sensitive’ issues using a self-report scale may not be the most reliable of techniques.
Also Besharat in his sample uses 40 couples, which when being compared to other work in this field is rather small. For example Mikulincer and Florian (1999) who investigated the association between ‘spouses self-reports of attachment styles and representations of family dynamics’ carried out one study on a sample of 93 Israeli married couples. Another researcher, Calamari (2003) used 162 Italian couples showing how compared to these samples Besharat’s sample is relatively small. Of the 40 couples 20 of them claim to already have marital problems and so the fact that they were going through problems at that time may have biased the way they rated as compared to couples who were not going through any problems at that particular time. The author also claims that the two scales he uses have previously proved to be successful, but this success it seems is limited to Iranian samples and so may not have the same effect when used on couples outside this category. Despite these limitations it seems that Besharat’s findings seem to be consistent with the ‘idea’ that attachment styles have a link with marital relationships.
Previous research in this area not only finds this trend but also has been successful in studying this relationship at a deeper level and has found other relations between attachment and later relationships. In a study conducted by Grau I, Doll J, (2003), which looked at the influence of attachment styles on a person's experience of equal treatment in intimate relationships found that partners with a secure attachment style tend to describe their relationship as equitable (i.e., they give and take extensively). Whereas partners who feel anxious about their relationship generally see themselves as being in an inequitable, disadvantaged position (i.e., they receive little from their partner). Which may be one explanation as to why securely attached couples report less marital conflicts as compared to those that are insecurely attached. Also in a study conducted by Mickelson, Kessler, Shaver (1997), which looked at Adult attachment in a nationally representative sample found that Adult attachment was associated with several socio-demographic variables (e.g., income, age, race), which have not really been previously studied in this context. The study also showed how childhood misfortunes were also strongly related to insecure adult attachment. These findings in some cases may be able to explain increased marital problems, and also aid in helping to provide implications for behavioral approaches in dealing with marital conflict as well as emotionally focused marital therapy. In view of other studies an elaboration of Calamari’s (2003) anger proness study may help to clarify the role of insecure attachment in anger management and may help to explain dissociation in late adolescence as a protective response to trauma and emotional distress (Calamari 2003).
In relation to Besharat’s study even though he is able to accept his hypothesis and has replicated previous findings, nothing new about the relationship has really been mentioned. However his use of attachment theory, which he uses to try and explain the attachment personalities, may benefit therapeutic approaches to depression within the context of marriage and other long-term romantic relationships (Difilippo & Overholser 2002).
