ATTACHMENT INSECURITY AS A FILTER IN THE DECODING AND ENCODING OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS Patricia Noller
ABSTRACT: In this article, I have focused my comments on the possible associations between the cognitions related to different attachment styles, and the impact that those cognitions are likely to have on nonverbal encoding and decoding. I see attachment insecurity as acting as a filter, distorting both encoding and decoding processes. In terms of decoding, an insecure individual may appraise the situation as more threatening than it actually is, may see the attachment figure as more or less available than he or she actually is, and may make an inappropriate decision about the viability or desirability of seeking proximity to the attachment figure. Attachment insecurity is also likely to inhibit the distressed individual from expressing their distress in a way that is understood by the attachment figure and that increases the likelihood that the attachment figure will engage in supportive behavior. KEY WORDS: attachment; encoding; nonverbal behavior; nonverbal decoding.
As Schachner, Shaver, and Mikulincer (2005) point out, nonverbal encoding and decoding should be a primary focus of attachment researchers, particularly given that the nonverbal expression of availability and responsiveness is likely to be critical to the attachment security of the partner. Thus, nonverbal behaviors, and particularly expressions of support and caring, are as relevant to the development of a secure attachment bond between partners as they are to the development of a secure attachment bond between caregiver and child. Nonverbal behavior is also relevant to the outworking of secure or insecure attachment, and particularly to the deactivating strategies adopted by those high in avoidance, and the hyperactivating strategies adopted by those high in anxiety. Yet, researchers, especially those working in adult attachment, have tended to focus more on the cognitive aspects of attachment (that is, working models) and less on the outworking of those cognitions in nonverbal behavior. I will focus my comments on the possible associations between the cognitions related to different attachment styles, Address correspondence to Patrica Noller, Emeritus, Professor in the Department of Psychology, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia, 4072; e-mail:
[email protected]. edu.au. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29(3), Fall 2005 ª 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. DOI: 10.1007/s10919-005-4848-9
171
172 JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR
and the impact that those cognitions are likely to have on nonverbal encoding and decoding. I see attachment security/insecurity as acting as a filter in the communication process: Blocking sensitivity to certain nonverbal messages, and also discouraging the expression of certain nonverbal signals. According to Mikulincer and Shaver’s (2003) three-component process model of the operation of the attachment system in adulthood, the stages involved in this process are (a) monitoring and appraising threatening events, (b) appraisal of the availability of the attachment figure, and (c) appraisal of the desirability of seeking proximity to the attachment figure to obtain comfort and support. At each of these stages, attachment insecurity is likely to be acting as a filter, distorting the appraisal of the situation and of the nonverbal behavior of the attachment figure in line with an individualÕs working models of attachment. For example, the individual may see the situation as more threatening than it actually is, may see the attachment figure as more or less available than he or she actually is, and may make an inappropriate decision about the viability or desirability of seeking proximity to the attachment figure. Although these situations primarily involve decoding, it is also likely that attachment insecurity will inhibit the distressed individual from expressing that distress in a way that is clear to the attachment figure. I will spell out these ideas in a more specific way later in this paper.
Attachment and Decoding Sensitivity In terms of sensitivity or decoding ability, attachment theory would suggest that those who are secure in attachment should be relatively accurate in their decoding and sensitive to expressions of both positive and negative affect. In addition, whereas insecures are likely to decode ambiguous messages (e.g., neutral messages) in line with their particular biases, secures would be expected to interpret these messages more accurately. The way in which attachment insecurity acts as a filter when a person is decoding the communications of a close other will depend on that individualÕs particular working models. Those high in anxiety, for example, are likely to have problems decoding positive messages from a close other because of their negative views of themselves (Bartholomew, 1990). They would have difficulty believing that a compliment was intended and may go as far as interpreting a positive message as sarcasm (that is, as involving positive words but a negative intent expressed through ’negative‘ nonverbals). These anxious individuals are also likely to have diffi-
173 PATRICIA NOLLER
culty decoding negative messages, since acknowledging such messages would serve to increase their already potent fears about being rejected, and may be best ignored (at least from the perspective of the insecure person). Hence, Mikulincer and Nachshon’s (1991) finding that highly anxious individuals rarely responded to their partner’s disclosures. Of course, it is also possible that their insecurity actually inhibits their responding because they are unsure about what to do or say. Mikulincer and Shaver (2003) suggest that the anxious individualÕs continual focus on their own needs and vulnerabilities and their excessive concern about rejection and abandonment may make it difficult for them to be sensitive to their partner’s nonverbal signals and to respond appropriately to those signals. Because of their focus on deactivating strategies and their tendency to distrust the goodwill of relational partners and to strive to maintain independence and emotional distance from partners, those high in avoidance may also be expected to be impaired in terms of their nonverbal sensitivity. As Schachner et al. note, they are likely to have problems with the decoding of negative messages because of the potential of these messages to arouse unwanted attachment needs. They are also more likely to have problems with the decoding of positive messages because these can be seen as promoting intimacy and closeness which is also perceived as threatening. Individuals low in avoidance (or high in comfort with closeness), on the other hand, are likely to be relatively accurate in their decoding because they are able to deal with messages at face value and do not need to distort or deny them because of their insecurity-promoting working models. In our own study of the association between attachment security and the decoding of nonverbal messages by young married couples (Noller & Feeney, 1994), these theoretical predictions were at least partially supported. Husbands’ attachment anxiety was related to low levels of accuracy in decoding wives’ messages for all three message-types (positive, neutral, and negative). Wives’ avoidance was related to low levels of accuracy in decoding neutral and negative messages only. Thus, both gender and attachment security affected decoding sensitivity, and the attachment dimensions were generally associated with decoding accuracy in theoretically predictable ways, although differently for males and females. This study was based on the standard content paradigm (Noller, 2001, 2005) and involved spouses decoding one anotherÕs ambiguous messages. It is important to acknowledge that the clarity of encoding was not assessed and that accuracy could be a function of the clarity of the encoding or the sensitivity of the decoding. On the other hand, in each of
174 JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR
the analyses reported above, it was the attachment of the decoder that was related to accuracy, suggesting that attachment is acting as a filter in the decoding process.
Attachment and Nonverbal Expressivity Attachment security/insecurity and the related working models are also likely to affect an individualÕs willingness to express their emotions. The behaviors most likely to be affected are those related to the expression of discomfort and distress, and those related to seeking support and comfort from others. As I have noted earlier, it is important to keep in mind that an individualÕs perception of whether an attachment figure is available and responsive is, in part at least, a function of their own decoding. It is possible for a person to be mistaken in their decision that the partner is not interested in their distress, particularly if that person has a history of unsatisfactory relationships. This decoding problem is part of the reason why insecures so often struggle in their close relationships, not because a partner is not sensitive to their distress but because the filter of their attachment insecurity does not allow them to believe that the partner is sensitive to their distress. This same filter can make it difficult for individuals to express their real feelings. Avoidant individuals have been shown in a number of studies and a number of contexts (airport farewells and greetings, discussing personal problems, discussing positive aspects of their relationships, seeking support) to be less expressive in interactions with their partners (Fraley & Shaver, 1998; Guerrero, 1996; Le Poire, Shepard & Duggan, 1999; Tucker & Anders, 1998). Avoidant individuals may inhibit their expression of emotion because of their lack of trust of others, and/or because expressivity is seen by them as involving the kind of intimacy that they wish to avoid because of their strong concerns for autonomy and independence. In a self-report study of emotional expressivity, Searle and Meara (1999) found that secures and preoccupieds (the latter being high on anxiety) were significantly more expressive than fearfuls and dismissives (both of which are high on avoidance). As well as supporting other findings about the lack of expressiveness of those high in avoidance, these findings suggest that those high in avoidance are aware of their lack of expressivity, given that they were able to report it on a questionnaire. Searle and Meara (1999) also found differences between attachment groups on a measure of attention to feelings and affect intensity, which
175 PATRICIA NOLLER
they labeled intentness. They found that the two attachment groups that are high on anxiety could be discriminated on this dimension. Preoccupieds scored higher on intentness than secures, and fearfuls scored higher than dismissings. These findings are in line with the tendency of highly anxious individuals to use hyperactivating strategies involving an intense focus on their own emotional state and a willingness to express their concerns often in ways that are inappropriate and that may even overwhelm relationship partners and bring about the consequences that they fear most, such as rejection and abandonment (Feeney & Noller, 1996).
Conclusion Thus, there is both theoretical and empirical support for the proposition that attachment insecurity affects nonverbal encoding and decoding in adult relationships. Theory and research also support my suggestion that attachment insecurity acts as a filter distorting both the encoding and decoding processes of those high in attachment avoidance or attachment anxiety. There is still much to be learned, however, and more work is clearly needed before we will really understand such processes fully. I hope that Schachner et alÕs paper will encourage more researchers in nonverbal communication to include attachment in their studies, and more attachment researchers to focus on nonverbal behavior in close relationships.
References Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147–178. Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Airport separations: A naturalistic study of adult attachment dynamics in separating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1198–1212. Guerrero, L. K. (1996). Attachment style differences in intimacy and involvement: A test of the four-category model. Communication Monographs, 63, 269–292. Le Poire, B. A., Sheppard, C., & Duggan, A. (1999). Nonverbal involvement, expressiveness and pleasantness as predicted by parental and partner attachment style. Communication Monographs, 66, 293–311. Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 321–331. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioural 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.
176 JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR
Noller, P. (2001). Using standard content methodology to assess nonverbal sensitivity in dyads. In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 243–264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Noller, P. (2005). Standard content methodology: Controlling the verbal channel. In V. Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words (pp. 417–430). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Noller, P., & Feeney, J. A. (1994). Relationship satisfaction, attachment and nonverbal accuracy in early marriage. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 199–221. Searle, B., & Meara, N. M. (1999). Affective dimensions of attachment styles: exploring selfreported attachment style, gender and emotional experience among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 147–158. Schachner, D. A., Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Patterns of nonverbal behavior and sensitivity in the context of attachment relationships. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29. Tucker, J. S., & Anders, S. L. (1998). Adult attachment style and nonverbal closeness in dating couples. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22, 109–124.
