An Attachment Perspective on Coping with Existential Concerns

Phillip R. Shaver

University of California, Davis

Mario Mikulincer

Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya

.

.

2

In recent years, attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1982, 1988), which was

originally formulated to describe and explain infant-parent emotional bonding, has been applied,

first, to the study of adolescent and adult romantic relationships and, then, to the study of group

dynamics and intergroup relationships. To distinguish this elaborated version of the theory,

which now has hundreds of empirical studies supporting it, from the original child-oriented

theory, we use the term “adult attachment theory” (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a). In the present

chapter we extend the theory further to apply it to the ways people think, experience, and cope

with the four existential concerns addressed in this volume: mortality, meaninglessness,

isolation, and lack of freedom. Our main idea is that attachment security – a sense, rooted in

one’s history of close relationships, that the world is a generally safe place, other people are

helpful when called upon, and I, as a unique individual, am valuable and lovable, thanks to being

valued and loved by others – provides a strong psychological foundation for easing existential

anxieties and constructing an authentic sense of continuity, coherence, meaning, connectedness,

and autonomy.

We begin by presenting an overview of attachment theory and our theoretical model of

the activation and psychodynamics of the attachment behavioral system in adulthood

(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a). We then apply this model to ways of coping with existential

concerns. We show, based on empirical studies, that heightened awareness of existential

concerns (worries about finitude, isolation, meaninglessness, or lack of freedom) automatically

activates what Bowlby (e.g., 1973) called the attachment system, which motivates what he called

“proximity seeking” – moving toward actual others or mental representations of them to bolster

feelings of safety and security that reduce existential anxiety. And we review studies showing

that the availability of a loving and supportive external or internalized attachment figure and the

3

resulting sense of security are effective antidotes to the four major existential threats. Along the

way we explain how individual differences in attachment-system functioning shape the ways

people experience, think about, and cope with existential concerns.

Overview of Adult Attachment Theory

The main construct in Bowlby’s (1982) attachment theory is the attachment behavioral

system, an innate psychobiological system that motivates people to seek proximity to supportive

others (attachment figures) in times of need. In light of mammalian and especially primate

psychobiology, we can see that this system emerged over the course of evolution to increase the

likelihood of survival and thriving through the ages of reproduction and parenting, if not beyond.

Although the attachment system is most crucial in the early years of life, because of human

infants’ extreme immaturity and dependence on others, Bowlby (1988) claimed that it is active

throughout the life span and is manifested in thoughts and behaviors related to proximity- and

support-seeking and the resulting sense of safety and security.

According to Bowlby (1973), whose ideas were operationalized in landmark studies by

Ainsworth and her colleagues (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), although all human

beings are born with a capacity to seek proximity, safety, and help with the regulation of

negative emotions in times of need, important individual differences arise in close relationships

that affect psychological and social functioning. When attachment figures are reliably available

in times of need, are sensitive to one’s attachment needs, and respond cooperatively to one’s bids

for proximity and support, the attachment system develops in optimally, a person feels generally

secure and efficacious, and he or she can explore the physical and social environment curiously,

learn diverse skills, develop cognitively and emotionally, and enjoy life’s challenges with other

people. A history of security-enhancing interactions with close others results in the formation of

4

positive expectations about others’ availability and generosity, and in the construction of positive

views of the self as competent and valued. (Bowlby, 1973, called these mental residues of

rewarding relationships internal working models of self, others, and relationships). Because a

well-treated individual gradually learns to deal effectively with challenges and stresses, he or she

can marshal effective affect-regulation strategies (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a). However, when

attachment figures are not reliably available and supportive – perhaps even abusive or neglectful

– a desirable sense of security is not attained, self-doubts about one’s lovability and worries

about others’ motives and intentions are formed, and strategies of affect regulation other than

appropriate proximity seeking and effective self-regulation are formed. Research, beginning with

that of Ainsworth et al. (1978), has shown that these secondary attachment strategies can be

conceptualized in terms of two dimensions, attachment anxiety and avoidance.

In studies of adolescents and adults (reviewed by Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a), tests of

these theoretical ideas have focused on a person’s attachment orientation – the systematic

pattern of relational expectations, emotions, and behavior that results from a particular history of

attachment experiences (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). Initially, such

research was based on Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) typology of attachment patterns in infancy –

secure, anxious, and avoidant – and Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) conceptualization of parallel

adult styles in romantic relationships. However, subsequent studies (e.g., Brennan, Clark, &

Shaver, 1998; Fraley & Waller, 1998) revealed that attachment orientations are best

conceptualized as regions in a two-dimensional space. The first dimension, attachment anxiety,

reflects the degree to which a person worries that relationship partners will not be available in

times of need and is afraid of being rejected or abandoned. The second dimension, attachment-

related avoidance, reflects the extent to which a person distrusts relationship partners’ goodwill

5

and strives to maintain behavioral independence and emotional distance from partners. People

who score low on both dimensions are said to be secure, or to have a secure attachment style.

The two dimensions can be measured with reliable and valid self-report scales and are associated

in theoretically predictable ways with mental health, psychosocial functioning, and relationship

quality (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a).

Attachment orientations are initially formed in interactions with primary caregivers

during childhood, as a large body of research has shown (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008), but Bowlby

(1988) claimed that memorable interactions with others throughout life can alter a person’s

working models and move him or her from one region of the two-dimensional attachment-style

‘space’ to another. Moreover, although a person’s attachment orientation is often measured as a

single global approach to close relationships, it is actually rooted in a complex network of

cognitive and affective processes and mental representations, including many episodic, context-

related, and relationship-specific as well as general attachment representations (Mikulincer &

Shaver, 2003). In fact, a variety of studies indicate that a person’s sense of attachment security

can be heightened by experimental manipulations (which we – e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b

– call security priming) or experiences with a supportive and loving other, which can even cause

dispositionally insecure people to think and behave, at least in the short run, like secure people

(see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b, for a review).

A Model of Attachment-System Functioning in Adulthood

In summarizing the hundreds of empirical studies of adult attachment processes, we

(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003, 2007a) created a flowchart model of the activation and dynamics of

the attachment system. In this model, the monitoring of unfolding events (in both the outside

world and within one’s body and mind) results in activation of the attachment system when a

6

potential or actual threat is sensed (unconsciously or preconsciously) or perceived (consciously).

That is, encounters with physical or psychological threats, either in the environment or in the

one’s internal stream of consciousness, can automatically activate the attachment system and

lead a person, of any age, to turn to internalized representations of attachment figures or to actual

supportive others, and to maintain symbolic or actual proximity to these figures. We (e.g.,

Mikulincer, Birnbaum, Woddis, & Nachmias, 2000; Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002) have

found that thoughts related to proximity seeking as well as mental representations of internalized

attachment figures tend to be activated even in minimally threatening situations However,

although age and development result in an increased ability to gain comfort from symbolic

representations of attachment figures, no one of any age is completely free of reliance on other

people (Bowlby, 1982, 1988); hence, during severely threatening conditions or traumatic

experiences, most people seek proximity, care, and support from actual others.

According to our model, activation of the attachment system forces a decision about the

availability of attachment figures. An affirmative answer to the implicit or explicit question “Is

an attachment figure available and likely to be responsive to my needs?” heightens the sense of

attachment security and facilitates the use of constructive emotion-regulation strategies. These

strategies are aimed at alleviating distress, maintaining supportive relationships, and bolstering a

person’s sense of love-worthiness and self-efficacy. Moreover, they sustain what we (Shaver &

Mikulincer, 2002), following Fredrickson (2001), call a “broaden and build” cycle of attachment

security, which expands a person’s resources for maintaining coping flexibility and emotional

stability in times of stress, broadens the person’s perspectives and capacities, and facilitates the

incorporation of mental representations of security-enhancing attachment figures into the self.

This broaden-and-build process allows relatively secure individuals to maintain an authentic

7

sense of personal efficacy, resilience, and optimism even when social support is temporarily

unavailable (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2004).

Perceived unavailability of an attachment figure results in attachment insecurity, which

compounds the distress aroused by the appraisal of a situation as threatening. This state of

insecurity forces a decision about the viability of further (more active) proximity seeking as a

protective strategy. The appraisal of proximity as feasible or essential – because of attachment

history, temperamental factors, or contextual cues – results in energetic, insistent attempts to

attain proximity, support, and love – sometimes efforts that are viewed by others as excessive or

extreme. Theoretically, these attempts are called hyperactivating strategies (Cassidy & Kobak,

1988) because they involve up-regulation of the attachment system, including constant vigilance

and intense concern until an attachment figure is perceived to be available and supportive.

Hyperactivating strategies include attempts to elicit a partner’s involvement, care, and support

through clinging and controlling responses (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002); overdependence on

relationship partners as a source of protection (Shaver & Hazan, 1993); and perception of oneself

as relatively helpless with respect to emotion regulation (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003).

Hyperactivating strategies are characteristic of people who score relatively high on measures of

the attachment anxiety dimension (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a).

The appraisal of proximity seeking as undesirable or not useful can result in inhibition of

the natural seeking of support and instead actively attempting to handle distress alone (a strategry

that Bowlby, 1988, called compulsive self-reliance). Theoretically, these secondary strategies of

affect regulation are called deactivating strategies (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988), because their

primary goal is to keep the attachment system deactivated in order to avoid frustration and

further distress caused by attachment-figure unavailability. This goal leads to the denial of

8

attachment needs; avoidance of closeness, intimacy, and dependence in close relationships;

maximization of cognitive, emotional, and physical distance from others; and strivings for self-

reliance. With practice and experience, these deactivating strategies often broaden to include

literal and symbolic distancing of oneself from distress whether it is directly attachment-related

or not. Deactivating strategies are characteristic of people scoring relatively high on measures of

avoidant attachment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a).

In short, each attachment strategy has a major regulatory goal (insisting on proximity to

an attachment figure or on self-reliance), which goes along with particular cognitive and

affective processes that facilitate goal attainment. These strategies affect the formation and

maintenance of close relationships as well as the experience, regulation, and expression of

negative emotions, such anxiety, anger, or sadness (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a). Moreover, the

strategies affect the ways in which a person experiences and copes with threatening events,

including existential threats, the focus of the following sections of this chapter.

Attachment System Functioning and Coping with Existential Concerns

When considering possible links between the attachment system and ways in which a

person experiences and copes with existential concerns, it is important to remember that the

attachment system was “designed” by evolution as a regulatory device for dealing with all kinds

of stress and distress, including existential concerns, beginning with annihilation or death, which

Bowlby discussed in terms of predation in early humans’ environment of adaptation. Because of

the way the attachment system is constructed, external or internal (symbolic) threats to one’s

sense of existence, continuity, life’s predictability and meaning, relatedness to other people, or

freedom and autonomy can automatically activate the goal of gaining proximity to and support

from an attachment figure. Experiences with proximity seeking encourage people to learn,

9

organize, and implement behavioral plans for attaining safety and security. If these plans yield

the desired responses from sensitive attachment figures, a person learns how to reduce or cope

with existential threats and restore feelings of safety, continuity, meaning, relatedness, and

autonomy. Unfortunately, a lack of responsive and supportive attachment figures and the

resulting attachment insecurities can leave people vulnerable to anxieties about mortality,

meaninglessness, isolation, and lack of freedom, which causes them to adopt alternative, less

constructive and adaptive ways of coping with these existential concerns. In subsequent sections

we review studies of attachment-system activation and attachment-related individual differences

in responding to each of the four major existential concerns: mortality, meaninglessness,

isolation, and lack of freedom.

Mortality Concerns

As reviewed in several chapters of this volume (those by Arndt, Greenberg, Goldenberg,

Hischberger, Landau et al., and Pyzczcinski), heightened awareness of mortality is a major

source of existential anxiety, one that automatically activates symbolic defenses against the

paralyzing terror of death. According to attachment theory, making mortality salient also

activates the attachment system and energizes a person’s attempts to attain care, protection, and

safety. This means that a sense of attachment security should serve as an effective terror

management mechanism that restores a person’s sense of value and continuity, rendering other

symbolic defenses less necessary. In contrast, lack of available, responsive, and sensitive

attachment figures may cause insecure individuals to rely on other forms of defense against death

concerns.

Death awareness and attachment-system activation. In a study of the mental accessibility

of attachment-related representations, Mikulincer et al. (2000) found that even preconscious

10

reminders of death automatically activated the attachment system. They (Mikulincer et al., 2000,

Study 3) subliminally exposed participants to the word “death” or a neutral word for 22

milliseconds in each of several trials and then indirectly assessed (by measuring reaction times in

a word-identification task) whether words related to attachment security (e.g., love, hug,

closeness) became more available for processing (as indicated by faster reaction times) following

the death primes. The study showed that security-related words did become more available

following unconscious exposure to the word “death,” and that the word “death” had no effect on

the mental availability of attachment-unrelated positive or neutral words. That is, mental

representations of attachment security, or love and care, tended to be automatically activated

when people were reminded, even unconsciously, of their mortality.

There is also evidence that conscious death reminders cause people to think of seeking

proximity to a close other, love, and care (see Mikulincer, Florian, & Hirschberger, 2003, for a

review). For example, experimentally heightened mortality salience has been associated with

greater psychological commitment to a romantic partner (Florian, Mikulincer, & Hirschberger,

2002), a heightened desire for emotional intimacy with a romantic partner even if he or she has

recently complained or been critical (Hirschberger, Florian, & Mikulincer, 2003), and a

heightened preference for sitting close to other people in a group discussion context, rather than

sitting alone, even if this seating preference required exposing one’s worldviews to potential

attack (Wisman & Koole, 2003), something people often avoid when mortality has been made

salient (see Chapters X and Y, this volume).

Attachment-related differences in managing the terror of death awareness. Attachment-

related individual differences are moderators of the effects of mortality salience. For example,

Florian and Mikulincer (1998), Mikulincer and Florian (2000), and Mikulincer, Florian, and

11

Tolmacz (1990) found that attachment security is associated with lower levels of death-related

thoughts and fear of death measured by self-report scales, projective tests (narrative reponses to

TAT cards), and cognitive tasks (completion of death-related words). In contrast, attachment

anxiety is associated with heightened fear of death as measured by both self-reports and TAT

responses, and with greater accessibility of death-related thoughts even when no death reminder

is present. Attachment-related avoidance is related to lower self-reported fear of death, but with a

higher level of death-related thoughts and anxiety in TAT responses. That is, avoidant

individuals tend to suppress death concerns and exhibit dissociation between their conscious and

unconscious thoughts about death. In addition, whereas attachment-anxious individuals tend to

associate death with a loss of social identity (e.g., “People will forget me”), avoidant individuals

tend to associate death with confusion and ambiguity (e.g., “uncertainty about what to expect”).

Secure and insecure people differ in the way they manage concerns related to death.

Although seeking support for one’s cultural worldview has been assumed to be the normative

defense against existential threats (see Greenberg, this volume), there is evidence that this

response is more characteristic of insecure than of secure individuals. For example,

experimentally induced death reminders produced more severe judgments and punishments of

moral transgressors and greater willingness to die for a cause only among insecurely attached

people, whether they were anxious or avoidant (Caspi-Berkowitz, 2003; Mikulincer & Florian,

2000). People higher on secure attachment did not recommend harsher punishments for

transgressors following a mortality salience manipulation and were generally averse to

endangering their lives to protect cultural values. In contrast, they reacted to mortality salience

with an increased sense of symbolic immortality – a constructive, transformational strategy that,

while not solving the unsolvable problem of death, leads people to invest in their children’s care

12

and engage in creative, growth-oriented activities whose products live on after death (Florian &

Mikulincer, 1998). Secure individuals also react to mortality salience with heightened proximity-

seeking, a more intense desire for intimacy in close relationships (Mikulincer & Florian, 2000),

greater willingness to engage in social interactions (Taubman Ben-Ari, Findler, & Mikulincer,

2002), and greater desire to care for others (Caspi-Berkowitz, 2003).

These studies imply that, even when mortality is made salient, secure individuals

maintain their sense of security and engage in generally prosocial activities, even if these are

partially defensive in nature. They seek proximity to others, increase their sense of social

connectedness, and symbolically transform the threat of death into an opportunity to contribute

to others and grow personally. Defensive, distorting reactions to mortality seem to result from

recurrent failures of attachment figures to accomplish their protective, supportive, anxiety-

buffering functions. As a result, insecure people lack a sense of continuity with and connection

to the world, and are unable to rely on a solid psychological foundation that sustains vitality even

in the face of mortality. They defensively cling to particular cultural worldviews and derogate

alternative views in an attempt to enhance their impoverished self-concepts and achieve a

stronger sense of value and meaning.

Concerns about Life’s Meaning

The perception of coherence and meaning in life is crucial for maintaining emotional

balance (see King, this volume), and people often react defensively when their sense of meaning

is threatened or shattered by life circumstances (see Kruglanski, Landau et al., Park &

Edmonson, and Taubman – Ben-Ari, this volume). From the standpoint of attachment theory, we

would expect threats to one’s sense of life’s meaning, like any other serious threat to one’s

welfare, to cause a person to search for comfort, love, and reassurance from attachment figures.

13

As a result, the availability of supportive attachment figures, in actuality or in one’s mind, and

the resulting sense of attachment security, should contribute to maintaining a solid sense of life’s

coherence, value, and meaning. In contrast, attachment insecurity should leave a person

vulnerable to threats of meaninglessness and in need of alternative, less constructive ways of

creating meaning.

Meaninglessness and attachment-system activation. Adult attachment researchers have

not focused specifically on meaninglessness and its effects on attachment-system activation. We

therefore conducted a study especially for this chapter to examine in a preliminary way the

influence of meaninglessness on proximity-seeking. Sixty Israeli undergraduates (66% women)

completed a battery of self-report questionnaires during a lecture course. Then, after completing

three filler/distraction scales, they were asked to write a brief essay and were randomly assigned

to one of three conditions (a procedure based on King, Hicks, & Abdelkhalik, 2009, Study 3).

Participants in high-meaning (n = 20) and low-meaning (n = 20) conditions wrote a brief essay

about how the statement ‘‘Human life is purposeful and meaningful’’ could be viewed as either

true or untrue, respectively. Participants in the control condition (n = 20) wrote an essay on a

neutral topic (shopping at a drugstore).

Immediately after writing the essay, participants completed Sharabany’s 32-item (1994)

Intimacy Scale, assessing their desire for honesty, spontaneity, and closeness in relationships.

We asked participants to focus on romantic relationships and to rate, on a 7-point scale ranging

from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much), the extent to which each item expressed their wishes in this

kind of relationship. For each participant, we computed a total score by averaging the 32 items

(Cronbach’s alpha = .94).

14

A one-way analysis of variance on the reported desire for intimacy was significant, F(2,

57) = 6.54, p < .01. Scheffé post hoc tests revealed that participants in the low-meaning

condition reported a higher desire for romantic intimacy (M = 5.68, SD = 1.31) than those in the

high-meaning (M = 4.86, SD = 0.83) and control (M = 4.50, SD = 0.96) conditions. No

significant difference was found between the latter two conditions. Supporting our hypothesis,

heightening awareness of life’s possible meaninglessness led to an increased wish for closeness

and intimacy – the motivational signature of attachment-system activation. However, there was

no neutral meaning condition in this study, and attachment-system activation was assessed only

with a self-report measure rather than an indicator of automatic, preconscious activation of the

attachment system or observations of actual proximity-seeking behavior. More probing studies

are obviously still needed.

Attachment-related differences in the perception of life’s meaning. Unfortunately, adult

attachment researchers have not systematically examined whether people differing in attachment

security differ in their perceptions of life’s meaning and in ways of coping with threats of

meaninglessness. However, there is indirect evidence that feelings of closeness and social

support (which are aspects of felt security) are associated with a heightened sense of life’s

meaning (e.g., Hicks & King, 2009; Krause, 2007; Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, & Lorentz, 2008).

Similarly, Lambert et al. (2010) reported that perceived closeness to family members and support

from them was associated with greater meaning in life among young adults even when self-

esteem, feelings of autonomy and competence, and social desirability were statistically

controlled. Moreover, implicit priming of relational closeness increased the perception of life’s

meaning when participants were in a bad mood (Hicks & King, 2009). In contrast, experimental

manipulations of rejection, social exclusion, and loneliness (which are related to attachment

15

insecurity) reduce people’s sense that life is meaningful (e.g., Hicks, Schlegel, & King, 2010;

Stillman et al., 2009; Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003; Williams, 2007; Zadro, Williams,

& Richardson, 2004).

Mikulincer and Shaver (2005) reported a very preliminary study that examined the

association between attachment insecurities and perception of life’s meaning and the effects of

security priming on this perception. Participants who had previously completed a self-report

attachment measure were primed with representations of either a security-enhancing attachment

figure (thinking about a supportive other) or a relationship partner who did not accomplish

attachment functions. They then completed a self-report measure of coherence and meaning in

life, defined as the tendency to perceive the world as understandable and life as “making sense”

(Antonovsky, 1987). Lower scores on attachment anxiety and avoidance (i.e., greater attachment

security) were associated with higher levels of meaning and coherence in life. Moreover, as

compared to neutral priming, security priming increased the sense of meaning and coherence

even among dispositionally insecure participants.

New research is needed on the extent to which attachment security helps people find

meaning in religious faith (Park & Edmonson, this volume), engage in generative activities such

as caring for offspring or teaching a new generation (Taubman Ben-Ari, this volume), or enjoy

moments of happiness (King, in press). Future research should examine whether attachment

insecurity leaves people vulnerable to threats of meaninglessness, leads them to take less

constructive routes to meaning, such as political terrorism (Kruglanski, this volume) or

disruptive religious fundamentalism (Park & Edmonson, this volume) , or to act on self-

destructive tendencies that can end in suicide (Joiner, this volume).

Isolation Concerns

16

Experiences of disapproval, criticism, rejection, betrayal, social exclusion, separation,

loss of significant others, and loneliness can lead to aggression, social withdrawal, and even

suicide (see chapters by Joiner and Williams, this volume). According to attachment theory,

these kinds of experiences erode felt security and automatically activate the attachment system

and attachment-related defenses. When sensitive and responsive attachment figures are available,

felt security can be bolstered, people can feel stably connected to others, and the threat of

isolation can be removed. In contrast, lack of security-enhancing attachment figures likely

exacerbates isolation-related concerns, erodes the sense of relatedness, and leads insecurely

attached people to search for other ways of coping with loneliness and isolation.

The threat of isolation and attachment-system activation. The idea that isolation-related

threats (a relationship partner’s unavailability, disapproval, criticism, rejection, or betrayal;

separation from or the death of loved ones) are distressing and can activate the attachment

system is one of the central tenets of attachment theory. Observations of infants who were

separated from mother (e.g., Heinicke & Westheimer, 1966) convinced Bowlby (1982) that this

threat arouses anxiety, anger, protest, and yearning for proximity, love, and security. An infant,

finding itself without an attentive caregiver, cries, thrashes, attempts to reestablish contact with

the absent figure by calling and searching, and resists other people’s well-intentioned soothing

efforts. If the separation is prolonged (e.g., by the mother’s extended stay in a hospital or, at

worst, by her death), the infant grieves disconsolately, and anxiety and anger gradually give way

to despair (Bowlby (1980). Similar reactions are often observed among adolescents and adults

following episodes of rejection, disapproval, or criticism by close relationship partners (e.g.,

Finch Okun, Pool, & Ruehlman, 1999; J. Feeney, 2005), following the breakup of a romantic

17

relationship (e.g., Sbarra & Emery, 2005), and following the death of a spouse (see Stroebe,

Hansson, Stroebe, & Schut’s, 2001, for reviews).

This activation of the attachment system can be detected even at an unconscious level.

Mikulincer, Gillath, and Shaver (2002) found that, as compared with subliminal priming of

neutral words, subliminal priming with the word “separation” produced (a) faster identification

of names of people that participants nominated as security-enhancing attachment figures in a

previous session (using the WHOTO measure; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994) in a lexical decision

task and (b) slower color-naming reaction times for the names of these attachment figures in a

Stroop task. In both cases, fast lexical decisions and slow color-naming responses indicated

heightened activation of mental representations of attachment figures in response to an implicit

isolation-related threat. Importantly, priming with the word separation had no effect on mental

representations of close others or known persons who were not mentioned as attachment figures

in the WHOTO measure. Thus, heightened accessibility of a person’s name following an

isolation-related threat depended on the extent to which the person was viewed as an attachment

figure.

Conceptually similar findings were reported by Fraley and Shaver (1998) in a naturalistic

study of behavioral reactions to separation from a romantic partner in the departure lounges of an

airport. Couples who were separating were more likely than couples who were not separating to

seek and maintain physical contact (e.g., by mutually gazing at each other’s faces, talking

intently, and touching). It seems that the threat of separation activated romantic partners’

attachment systems and caused them to engage in proximity-seeking behavior.

Attachment-related differences in managing isolation-related threats. Although

isolation-related threats automatically activate the attachment system and motivate people to

18

restore their sense of security, attachment insecurities seem to distort this process and elicit

alternative ways of coping rather than proximity seeking. For example, whereas attachment-

anxious individuals react to temporary separations from a romantic partner or divorce with

overwhelming distress, mental rumination, and catastrophic thoughts, avoidant individuals

emotionally, cognitively, and behaviorally distance themselves from the relationship partner and

suppress experiences or tendencies to express distress (e.g., Birnbaum, Orr, Mikulincer, &

Florian, 1997; Davis, Shaver, & Vernon, 2003; J. Feeney, 1998). Similar findings were obtained

in by studies that induced thoughts about hypothetical or actual separations (e.g., Mayseless,

Danieli, & Sharabany, 1996; Meyer, Olivier, & Roth, 2005).

The distortion of attachment-system activation produced by anxious attachment was

reported by Mikulincer, Florian, Birnbaum, and Malishkevich (2002), who found that anxiously

attached people mentally equated separation with death. Participants were asked to imagine

being separated from a loved partner and then to perform a word completion task that measured

accessibility of death-related thoughts. Participants who scored higher on attachment anxiety

reacted to separation reminders with more death-related thoughts. This may help to explain why

anxious individuals tend to experience intense distress and have catastrophic thoughts following

separation.

A conceptually similar pattern of results was reported by Hart, Shaver, and Goldenberg

(2005), who examined defensive reactions to separation and reminders of death. Undergraduates

were asked to think about their own death, separation from a close relationship partner, or a

control theme, and then to report their attitudes toward the writer of a pro-American essay.

People who scored relatively high on attachment anxiety rated the pro-American writer more

favorably not only in the death condition – the typical defensive reaction to mortality salience

19

(see Greenberg, this volume) – but also in the separation condition. In other words, anxious

individuals exhibited the same defensive reaction to reminders of death and separation.

In a pair of experimental studies, Fraley and Shaver (1997) asked participants to write

about whatever thoughts and feelings they experienced while also trying not to think about their

romantic partner leaving them for someone else. Anxious individuals were less able to suppress

separation-related thoughts, as indicated by more frequent thoughts of loss following the

suppression task and higher skin conductance during the task. In contrast, avoidant people were

able to suppress separation-related thoughts, as indicated by less frequent thoughts of loss

following the suppression task and lower skin conductance during the task. Gillath, Bunge,

Shaver, Wendelken, and Mikulincer (2005) documented related differences in patterns of brain

activation (using fMRI) when people were thinking about breakups and losses or attempting to

suppress such thoughts.

These attachment-related differences in responses to isolation-related threats have also

been observed in widows and widowers. For example, Field and Sundin (2001) found that people

who scored higher on avoidance reported more negative thoughts about their lost spouse 14

months after the loss, perhaps reflecting a distancing, derogating attitude toward the deceased. In

contrast, attachment anxiety was associated with more positive thoughts about the lost spouse,

probably reflecting a continuing emotional investment in an idealized figure. This kind of

idealization was also evident in Nager and De Vries’s (2004) content analysis of memorial Web

sites created by adult daughters for their deceased mothers. Using the Continuing Bonds Scale,

Waskowic and Chartier (2003) found that whereas more anxiously attached people scored higher

on rumination about and preoccupation with a lost spouse, more avoidant people had less

positive reminiscences about and symbolic exchanges with the lost spouse.

20

There is also evidence about anxious individuals’ intensification of distress and despair

following the death of a spouse (Field & Sundin, 2001; Fraley & Bonanno, 2004; Wayment &

Vierthaler, 2002). For example, Field and Sundin (2001) found that anxious attachment, assessed

10 months after the death of a spouse, predicted higher levels of psychological distress 14, 25,

and 60 months after the loss. With regard to avoidance, studies have generally found no

significant association between this attachment dimension and depression, grief, or distress

(Field & Sundin, 2001; Fraley & Bonanno, 2004; Wayment & Vierthaler, 2002). However,

Wayment and Vierthaler (2002) found that avoidance was associated with higher levels of

somatic symptoms, and Parkes (2003) found that avoidant attachment was associated with more

severe problems in expressing affection and grief during bereavement. Both Fraley and Bonanno

(2004) and Parkes (2003) found that combinations of avoidance and attachment anxiety

produced the most severe mourning complications (the highest levels of anxiety, depression,

grief, trauma-related symptoms, and alcohol consumption).

In a recent laboratory experiment, Cassidy, Shaver, Mikulincer, and Lavy (2009)

examined the ways in which attachment insecurities shape cognitive and emotional reactions to

episodes of rejection, criticism, or betrayal in close relationships and explored whether security

priming could reduce these reactions to relational threats. Participants wrote a description of an

incident in which a close relationship partner criticized, disapproved, rejected, or ostracized

them. They then completed a short computerized task in which they were repeatedly exposed

subliminally (for 22 milliseconds) to either a security-enhancing prime word (love, secure,

affection) or a neutral prime (lamp, staple, building). Immediately after the priming trials,

participants were asked to think again about the hurtful event they had described and to rate how

21

they would react to such an event if it happened in the future: how rejected they would feel, how

they would feel about themselves, and how they would react to these events.

In the neutral priming condition, the findings fit well with previous correlational studies

of attachment-related differences in response to isolation-related threats. Avoidance was

associated with less negative appraisals of the relational threat, less intense feelings of rejection,

less crying, and more defensive/hostile reactions; attachment anxiety was associated with more

intense feelings of rejection, more crying, and more negative emotions. These typical findings

were dramatically reduced in size (most approached zero) in the security-priming condition. In

other words, security priming reduced the tendency of avoidant people to dismiss relational

threats and distance from a hurtful partner and the tendency of anxious people to intensify

distress and ruminate.

Concerns about Freedom and Autonomy

As with the other existential threats discussed so far, threats to freedom and autonomy

should activate the attachment system, along with characteristic affect-regulation strategies

related to different attachment orientations. According to attachment theory, the sense of

attachment security allows people to tolerate separations from attachment figures and by using

them, when present, as secure bases from which to explore, acquire new skills, and eventually to

operate autonomously, with confidence that support is available if needed. In contrast, insecurity

leads to doubts about one’s ability to handle challenges and causes people to adopt either an

overly wary and dependent stance (in the case of anxiously attached people) or to compulsively

pursue rigid self-reliance (in the case of avoidant people).

Unfortunately, there is little research on attachment-system activation following actual or

imagined threats to one’s sense of personal freedom and autonomy. However, research has

22

shown that more secure people tend to engage in more relaxed and confident exploration and

learning of new activities and ideas, and that security priming supports exploration (e.g.,

Mikulincer, 1997; Green & Campbell, 2000). In the domain of career choice, it has been found

that adolescents with more supportive parents or friends have more positive attitudes toward

career-related exploration and a stronger sense of autonomy and mastery in choosing a career

(e.g., Blustein et al., 2001; Schultheiss, Kress, Manzi, & Glasscock, 2001).

Studies of the extent to which a person’s goals and plans are internally, autonomously

regulated also point to the importance of other people’s supportiveness (see Ryan & Deci, 2000,

for a review). For example, Ryan, Stiller, and Lynch (1994) found that children who felt securely

attached to parents and teachers displayed greater internal, autonomous regulation of school-

related behaviors. Also, some studies have established a link between attachment security and

intrinsic motivation, the tendency to extend and exercise one’s capacities, and to enjoy

exploration and learning (Elliot & Reis, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, Hazan and

Shaver (1990) reported that securely attached people were more likely than insecure ones to

perceive work as an opportunity for learning, and Elliot and Reis (2003) found that self-reports

of attachment security were associated with stronger endorsement of mastery goals in academic

settings (goals focused on learning and expansion of one’s capacities). Interestingly, Roth et al.

(2009) found that adolescents who perceived their parents as providing a more secure base for

exploration and autonomy had a higher sense of personal freedom and reported more interest-

focused academic engagement.

This association between the availability of supportive attachment figures and the sense

of autonomy has also been examined in romantic relationships. In a behavioral observation

study, B. C. Feeney (2007) examined the extent to which one’s partner’s availability and

23

supportiveness affects the other partner’s independent pursuit of personal goals. Feeney found

that reports of a partner’s availability and supportiveness were associated with a couple

member’s perceived independence and self-efficacy, engagement in independent exploration,

and ability to achieve independent goals. In addition, one partner’s availability and

supportiveness during a videotaped discussion of personal goals for the future was associated

with the other partner’s autonomous functioning (e.g., confident exploration of independent

goals). Finally, participants whose partners were available and supportive (as observed and

reported at one point in time) experienced increases in independent functioning over 6 months,

and were more likely to have accomplished an important independent goal by the end of the 6-

month period.

Future studies should examine the potential adverse effects of attachment insecurities on

people’s sense of personal freedom, autonomy, and choice. Studies should also address the

possible value of security enhancement in encouraging a sense of confident freedom and

autonomy.

Concluding Remarks

Although existential threats are obviously real and important, it would be a mistake to

conclude that human beings are insufficiently equipped to deal with them, and to do so without

erecting distorting, psychologically distorting and socially damaging defenses. A host of studies

show that people who have developed dispositional attachment security deal with the fact of

mortality, the need for meaning, the threat of isolation, and the challenges of freedom. Moreover,

they deal with these threats while remaining relatively open, optimistic, internally coherent, and

well connected socially. We had space here to focus on only a few examples; there are other

relevant and important studies of attachment security and honesty, authenticity, and group and

24

organizational functioning (e.g., Davidovitz, Mikulincer, Shaver, Ijzak, & Popper, 2007; Gillath,

Sesko, Shaver, & Chun, 2010). Because the attachment-research field has grown up under the

strong influence of early research on infant-parent attachment, existential concerns that emerge

later in development have not been systematically tackled by attachment researchers.

Considering attachment research in the context of other investigators working on adult existential

concerns has revealed areas in which more research is needed. For both scientists and secure

individuals, the discovery that there is more to explore, more to learn, is a positive challenge that

energizes life and, at least within the community of fellow scientists, gives it meaning.

25

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1991). Attachment and other affectional bonds across the life cycle.

In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp.

33-51). New York: Routledge.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of

attachment: Assessed in the Strange Situation and at home. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Antonovsky, A. (1987). The salutogenic perspective: Toward a new view of health and

illness. Advances, 4, 47-55.

Birnbaum, G. E., Orr, I., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1997). When marriage breaks

up: Does attachment style contribute to coping and mental health? Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 14, 643-654.

Blustein, D. L., Fama, L. D., White, S. F., Ketterson, T. U., Schaefer, B. M., Schwam, M.

F., Sirin, S. R., & Skau, M. (2001). A qualitative analysis of counseling case material: Listening

to our clients. Counseling Psychologist, 29, 240-258.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New

York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Sadness and depression. New York:

Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd

ed.). New York: Basic

Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London:

Routledge.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult

26

attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory

and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.

Caspi-Berkowitz, N. (2003). Mortality salience effects on the willingness to sacrifice

one’s life: The moderating role of attachment orientations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.

Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its relationship with other defensive

processes. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 300-

323). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.) (2008), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research,

and clinical applications (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Cassidy, J., Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., & Lavy, S. (2009). Experimentally induced

security influences responses to psychological pain. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,

28, 463-478.

Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Ijzak, R., & Popper, M. (2007). Leaders as

attachment figures: Their attachment orientations predict leadership-related mental

representations and followers’ performance and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 93, 632-650.

Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical, emotional, and behavioral

reactions to breaking up: The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and attachment style.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 871-884.

Elliot, A. J., & Reis, H. T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 317-331.

Feeney, B. C. (2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting

27

dependence promotes independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 268-285.

Feeney, J. A. (1998). Adult attachment and relationship-centered anxiety: Responses to

physical and emotional distancing. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory

and close relationships (pp. 189-219). New York: Guilford Press.

Feeney, J. A. (2005). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Exploring the role of

attachment and perceptions of personal injury. Personal Relationships, 12, 253-271.

Field, N. P., & Sundin, E. C. (2001). Attachment style in adjustment to conjugal

bereavement. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 347-361.

Finch, J. F., Okun, M. A., Pool, G. J., & Ruehlman, L. S. (1999). A comparison of the

influence of conflictual and supportive social interactions on psychological distress. Journal of

Personality, 67, 581-622.

Florian, V., & Mikulincer, M. (1998). Symbolic immortality and the management of the

terror of death: The moderating role of attachment style. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 725-734.

Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Hirschberger, G. (2002). The anxiety buffering function of

close relationships: Evidence that relationship commitment acts as a terror management

mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 527-542.

Fraley, R. C., & Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Attachment and loss: A test of three competing

models on the association between attachment-related avoidance and adaptation to bereavement.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 878-890.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of unwanted

thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1080-1091.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Airport separations: A naturalistic study of adult

28

attachment dynamics in separating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,

1198-1212.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical

developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General

Psychology, 4, 132-154.

Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the

typological model. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close

relationships (pp. 77-114). New York: Guilford Press.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The

broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.

Gillath, O., Bunge, S. A., Shaver, P. R., Wendelken, C., & Mikulincer, M.

(2005). Attachment-style differences in the ability to suppress negative thoughts: Exploring the

neural correlates. NeuroImage, 28, 835-847.

Gillath, O., Sesko, A. K., Shaver, P. R., & Chun, D. S. (2010). Attachment, authenticity,

and honesty: Dispositional and experimentally induced security can reduce self- and other-

deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 841-855.

Green, J. D., & Campbell, W. (2000). Attachment and exploration in adults: Chronic and

contextual accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 452-461.

Hart, J. J., Shaver, P. R., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2005). Attachment, self-esteem,

worldviews, and terror management: Evidence for a tripartite security system. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 999-1013.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment

process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

29

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical

perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270-280.

Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bartholomew

& D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Attachment processes in adulthood

(Vol. 5, pp. 151-177). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Heinicke, C., & Westheimer, I. (1966). Brief separations. New York: International

Universities Press.

Hicks, J. A., & King, L. A. (2009). Positive mood and social relatedness as information

about meaning in life. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 471-482.

Hicks, J. A., Schlegel, R. J., & King, L. A. (2010). Social threats, happiness, and the

dynamics of meaning in life judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1305-

1317.

Hirschberger, G., Florian, V., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). Strivings for romantic intimacy

following partner complaint or partner criticism: A terror management perspective. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 675-687.

King, L. A., Hicks, J. A., & Abdelkhalik, J. (2009). Death, life, scarcity, and value: An

alternative perspective on the meaning of death. Psychological Science, 20, 1459-1462.

Krause, N. (2007). Longitudinal study of social support and meaning in life. Psychology

and Aging, 22, 456-469.

Lambert, N. M., Stillman, T. F., Baumeister, R. F., Fincham, F. D., Hicks, J. A., &

Graham, S. M. (2010). Family as a salient source of meaning in young adulthood. Journal of

Positive Psychology, 5, 367-375.

Mayseless, O., Danieli, R., & Sharabany, R. (1996). Adults’ attachment patterns: Coping

30

with separations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 667-690.

Meyer, B., Olivier, L., & Roth, D. A. (2005). Please don’t leave me! BIS/BAS,

attachment styles, and responses to a relationship threat. Personality and Individual Differences,

38, 151-162.

Mikulincer, M. (1997). Adult attachment style and information processing: Individual

differences in curiosity and cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,

1217-1230.

Mikulincer, M., Birnbaum, G., Woddis, D., & Nachmias, O. (2000). Stress and

accessibility of proximity-related thoughts: Exploring the normative and intraindividual

components of attachment theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 509-523.

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., Florian, V., Birnbaum, G., & Malishkevich, S. (2002). The death-anxiety

buffering function of close relationships: Exploring the effects of separation reminders on death-

thought accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 287-299.

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Hirschberger, G. (2003). The existential function of close

relationships: Introducing death into the science of love. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 7, 20-40.

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Tolmacz, R. (1990). Attachment styles and fear of

personal death: A case study of affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

58, 273-280.

Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of the attachment system

31

in adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of

attachment figures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 881-895.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood:

Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53-152). New York: Academic Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Security-based self-representations in adulthood:

Contents and processes. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory,

research, and clinical implications (pp. 159-195). New York: Guilford Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Mental representations of attachment security:

Theoretical foundation for a positive social psychology. In M. W. Baldwin (Ed.), Interpersonal

cognition (pp. 233-266). New York: Guilford Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007a). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics,

and change. New York: Guilford Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007b). Boosting attachment security to promote

mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 139-156.

Nager, E. A., & de-Vries, B. (2004). Memorializing on the World Wide Web: Patterns of

grief and attachment in adult daughters of deceased mothers. Omega, 49, 43-56.

Parkes, C. M. (2003). Attachment patterns in childhood: Relationships, coping, and

psychological state in adults seeking psychiatric help after bereavement. Unpublished

manuscript, London.

Roth, G., Assor, A., Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). The emotional

and academic consequences of parental conditional regard: Comparing conditional positive

regard, conditional negative regard, and autonomy support as parenting practices. Developmental

32

Psychology, 45, 1119-1142.

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.

Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships with

teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of

Early Adolescence, 14, 226-249.

Sbarra, D. A., & Emery, R. E. (2005). The emotional sequelae of nonmarital relationship

dissolution: Analysis of change and intraindividual variability over time. Personal Relationships,

12, 213-232.

Schultheiss, D. E. P., Kress, H. M., Manzi, A. J., & Glasscock, J. M. J. (2001). Relational

influences in career development: A qualitative inquiry. Counseling Psychologist, 29, 214-239.

Sharabany, R. (1994). Intimacy friendship scale: Conceptual underpinnings,

psychometric properties, and construct validity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,

11, 449-469.

Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic attachment: Theory and evidence. In

D. Perlman & W. Jones (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 4, pp. 29-70). London:

Jessica Kingsley.

Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment

and Human Development, 4, 133-161.

Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., Sullivan, B. A., & Lorentz, D. (2008). Understanding the

search for meaning in life: Personality, cognitive style, and the dynamic between seeking and

experiencing meaning. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 660-678.

33

Stillman, T. S., Baumeister, R. F., Lambert, N. M., Crescioni, A. W., DeWall, C. N., &

Fincham, F. D. (2009). Alone and without purpose: Life loses meaning following social

exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 686-694.

Stroebe, M., Hansson, R. O., Stroebe, W., & Schut, H. A. W. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of

bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Taubman - Ben-Ari, O., Findler, L., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). The effects of mortality

salience on relationship strivings and beliefs: The moderating role of attachment style. British

Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 419-441.

Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social exclusion and the

deconstructed state: Time perception, meaninglessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-

awareness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 409-423.

Waskowic, T. D., & Chartier, B. M. (2003). Attachment and the experience of grief

following the loss of a spouse. Omega, 47, 77-91.

Wayment, H. A., & Vierthaler, J. (2002). Attachment style and bereavement reactions.

Journal of Loss and Trauma, 7, 129-149.

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425-452.

Wisman, A., & Koole, S. L. (2003). Hiding in the crowd: Can mortality salience promote

affiliation with others who oppose one’s worldview. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 84, 511-527.

Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by

a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and

meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560-567.